Thank you.
As always, let everyone be convinced in his or her own mind.
I urge our readers to both respond and react.
To the only God our Savior
- Thread starter Matthias
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Thank you.
As always, let everyone be convinced in his or her own mind.
I urge our readers to both respond and react.
“… what we think, how we think, and what we do in response to what we think matters to God.”
(George Barna, Think Like Jesus, p. 13)
We should all be able to agree about that general statement.
Jesus is a Jewish monotheist. That’s an historical fact. He hasn’t changed. He is the same yesterday, today, and tommorrow.
I am a Jewish monotheist. My conversation partner is not.
I think like Jesus thinks. I don’t think like my post-biblical trinitarian conversation partner thinks.
It matters to “our only God and Savior” (Jude 1:25) - Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus - what we think, how we think, and what we do.
(George Barna, Think Like Jesus, p. 13)
We should all be able to agree about that general statement.
Jesus is a Jewish monotheist. That’s an historical fact. He hasn’t changed. He is the same yesterday, today, and tommorrow.
I am a Jewish monotheist. My conversation partner is not.
I think like Jesus thinks. I don’t think like my post-biblical trinitarian conversation partner thinks.
It matters to “our only God and Savior” (Jude 1:25) - Yahweh, the God and Father of Jesus - what we think, how we think, and what we do.
I must be getting under your skin-I can go through the Hebrew Scriptures if you like.
J.
You misread me and consequently draw wrong conclusions about me. The Hebrew scriptures all, without exception, point to, attest to, confirm the Messiah’s Jewish monotheism.
***
The Invitation
”Hey, Jewish monotheist. Stop thinking like a Jewish monotheist. Start thinking like a trinitarian.”
All Jewish monotheists should carefully consider the trinitarian invitation. Some few will decide to accept it; the majority will decide to decline it.
The Counter Invitation
”Greetings and salutations, trinitarian. My lord Messiah is a Jewish monotheist. Please consider the ramifications of thinking or not thinking like a Jewish monotheist thinks..”
All non-Jewish monotheists, not just trinitarians, should carefully consider the invitation of Jewish monotheism. Some will decide to accept the invitation; the majority will decide to decline it.
A word of caution. Be careful when considering the invitation extended by Jewish monotheists. Some few Jewish monotheists believe that a fellow Jewish monotheist is the Messiah promised, prophesied, raised up from among the people and sent into the world by ”our only God and Savior” (Jude 1:25). The majority of Jewish monotheists don’t believe that he is.
The Counter Invitation is, therefore, hereby extended by a believing Jewish monotheist - acting on behalf of, and in the spirit of, my lord Jesus Messiah - to unbelieving Jewish monotheists.
P.S.
The “nagging” my conversation trinitarian partner complains about is the hound of Jewish monotheism. It “hounds” everyone, including unbelieving Jewish monotheists.
Last edited:
A Jewish monotheist is someone who adheres to the religious belief that there is only one God, consistent with the central tenet of Judaism. This monotheistic belief is foundational to the Jewish faith and is rooted in the Torah and broader Hebrew Scriptures.
Core Aspects of Jewish Monotheism:
Belief in One God:
Jewish monotheists affirm the existence of a singular, all-powerful, eternal God who is the Creator and Sustainer of the universe.
This belief is encapsulated in the Shema:
"Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one" (Deuteronomy 6:4).
God's Unity:
The concept of God's unity (in Hebrew, echad) signifies that God is indivisible, without parts or plural manifestations.
This contrasts with polytheistic religions that recognize multiple gods and with Trinitarian theology, which understands God as one in essence but existing in three persons.
Transcendence and Immanence:
God is both transcendent (beyond creation, infinite) and immanent (present and active within creation).
Jewish theology emphasizes God's holiness, justice, mercy, and covenant relationship with Israel.
Opposition to Idolatry:
Jewish monotheism explicitly rejects idolatry and the worship of created beings or objects.
This is central to the Ten Commandments, particularly the first two commandments (Exodus 20:2-4).
Historical Development:
Biblical Monotheism:
The earliest Jewish texts (e.g., the Torah) describe the worship of one God, Yahweh, as the unique covenant God of Israel.
While some argue that early Israelites practiced "monolatry" (worship of one God without denying the existence of others), later texts like Isaiah (e.g., Isaiah 44:6-8) affirm strict monotheism:
"I am the first, and I am the last; besides me there is no god."
Second Temple Judaism:
During the Second Temple period (516 BCE–70 CE), Jewish monotheism became highly developed, emphasizing God's uniqueness in contrast to surrounding polytheistic cultures.
Jewish thinkers, such as those influenced by Hellenistic philosophy, articulated this monotheism in ways that engaged broader philosophical questions about God's nature.
Rabbinic Judaism:
Following the destruction of the Temple, Rabbinic Judaism continued to emphasize monotheism as central to Jewish identity, particularly in opposition to Christian claims about Jesus and the Trinity.
The traditional Jewish perspective on Jesus is complex and has evolved over time, particularly as Christianity developed and became distinct from Judaism. Below is a summary of key points regarding what Jewish people typically think of Jesus, based on historical, theological, and cultural contexts.
1. Jesus as a Historical Figure
Most Jewish scholars and traditions acknowledge Jesus as a historical figure, a Jewish teacher or preacher who lived in 1st-century Palestine.
Jesus is often recognized as someone who operated within the Jewish tradition of his time, teaching and addressing Jewish audiences.
2. Jesus and Jewish Identity
Jesus was born, lived, and died as a Jew. He followed Jewish customs, observed the Torah, and participated in Jewish religious life.
Jewish monotheists reject the idea that Jesus claimed divinity or that he was divine, as this would conflict with their understanding of God's indivisibility (Deuteronomy 6:4, the Shema).
3. Jesus as the Messiah
Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah because he did not fulfill the expectations of the Messiah outlined in Jewish tradition. These expectations often include:
Rebuilding the Temple in Jerusalem (Ezekiel 37:26-28).
Gathering all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).
Ushering in an era of universal peace and the end of all war (Isaiah 2:4; Micah 4:3).
Establishing global knowledge of and worship of the one God (Zechariah 14:9).
Since Jesus did not accomplish these tasks during his lifetime, traditional Jewish theology views him as a failed or false messianic claimant.
4. Jesus in Relation to God
Jewish monotheists reject the Christian doctrine of the Trinity, which teaches that Jesus is God the Son, coequal and coeternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
The idea of God becoming incarnate (as Christians believe about Jesus) is incompatible with Jewish theology, which maintains a strict separation between Creator and creation.
5. Jewish Texts on Jesus
The Talmud, a central text of Rabbinic Judaism, includes a few scattered and ambiguous references that some scholars interpret as being about Jesus. These references are often critical and reflect the tensions between early Christians and the Jewish community.
Later medieval Jewish writings, such as those by Maimonides, also rejected Jesus as the Messiah and opposed Christian claims about his divinity.
6. Jesus and Jewish-Christian Relations
Historically, Jewish views of Jesus were influenced by persecution and forced conversions under Christian regimes, which led to a strongly negative view of Jesus in Jewish communities.
In modern times, some Jewish thinkers, particularly in the context of interfaith dialogue, have expressed respect for Jesus as a Jewish teacher whose message has had a significant impact on the world, even if they reject his divinity and messianic claims.
7. Modern Jewish Views
Orthodox Judaism: Adheres strictly to the rejection of Jesus as the Messiah or God. Jesus is viewed as a historical figure, but his followers are seen as having misunderstood his teachings.
Conservative and Reform Judaism: While also rejecting Jesus' divinity and messianic role, these groups may view Jesus more positively as a moral teacher or a reformer within Judaism.
Secular Jews: Views vary widely, ranging from indifference to acknowledging Jesus' influence on Western culture and morality.
A lot of rejection.
J.
You reject Jewish monotheism. I don’t.
I want our readers to see how you reject it (it’s instructive), and you‘re showing them how you do.
Not much difference between Jewish, Orthodox and Ultra-orthodox monotheists.
Looking at Modern day Jewish monotheists being spearheaded by Tovia that's why I reject the dogma-and you, by the way.
J.
There is a massive and serious difference between Jewish monotheists and the others.
Gregory of Nyssa. Remember Gregory of Nyssa. Never forget his words. Share them with as many people as you possibly can - “Jewish monotheism is heresy” and trinitarianism “destroys the Jewish dogma.”
Outreach Judaism is a ministry of unbelieving Jewish monotheists. I reject them, not Jewish monotheism. They are anti-Jesus; I am pro-Jesus. It is important that my readers understand the distinction.
“Jesus’ beliefs, therefore, remained those of a first-century Jew, committed to the coming kingdom of Israel’s god. He did not waver in his loyalty to Jewish doctrine. But his beliefs were those of a first-century Jew who believed that the kingdom was coming in and through his own work. His loyalty ti Israel’s cherished beliefs therefore took the form of critique and renovation within; of challenge to traditions and institutions whose purpose, he believed (like prophets long before, and radicals in his own day), had been grievously corrupted and distorted; and of new proposals which, though without precedent, were never mere innovation. They always claimed the high ground: fulfillment, completion, consummation.
We can summarize Jesus’ beliefs in terms of three most fundamental Jewish beliefs: monotheism, election, and eschatology.
Jesus believed that there was one God who made the world, and who had called Israel to be his people; that this one God had promised to be with his people, and guide them to their destiny, their new exodus; that his presence, guidance and ultimately salvation were symbolized, brought into reality, in and through Temple, Torah, Wisdom, Word and Spirit. He was a first-century Jewish monotheist.”
(N.T. Wright, Jesus And The Victory of God, p. 652)
The primitive Christians - the apostles and the other earliest followers of Jesus were Jewish monotheists, just as Jesus himself was and is.
The God of Jewish monotheism, “our only God and Savior” (Jude 1:25) is Yahweh, the God and Father.
Jesus wasn’t, isn’t, and never will be someone who rejects Jewish monotheism. At the moment my trinitarian conversation partner is such a person. Will he always be? That remains to be seen.
We can summarize Jesus’ beliefs in terms of three most fundamental Jewish beliefs: monotheism, election, and eschatology.
Jesus believed that there was one God who made the world, and who had called Israel to be his people; that this one God had promised to be with his people, and guide them to their destiny, their new exodus; that his presence, guidance and ultimately salvation were symbolized, brought into reality, in and through Temple, Torah, Wisdom, Word and Spirit. He was a first-century Jewish monotheist.”
(N.T. Wright, Jesus And The Victory of God, p. 652)
The primitive Christians - the apostles and the other earliest followers of Jesus were Jewish monotheists, just as Jesus himself was and is.
The God of Jewish monotheism, “our only God and Savior” (Jude 1:25) is Yahweh, the God and Father.
Jesus wasn’t, isn’t, and never will be someone who rejects Jewish monotheism. At the moment my trinitarian conversation partner is such a person. Will he always be? That remains to be seen.
Last edited:
4th century trinitarianism isn’t 1st century Jewish monotheism. Anyone who would sincerely tell us that it is, is someone who doesn’t know anything about theology, nor about Church history.
I encourage all of my readers to read theology, including post-biblical theology, and to read Church history. Above all, I encourage my readers to read the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) and the New Testament.
I encourage all of my readers to read theology, including post-biblical theology, and to read Church history. Above all, I encourage my readers to read the Hebrew Bible (the Old Testament) and the New Testament.
“Remember your leaders, who spoke God’s word to you. Look carefully at how their lives reached the goal, and imitate their faith. Jesus the Messiah is the same yesterday, today and forever.”
(Hebrews 13:7-8, NTFE)
The leaders whom the author of Hebrews is speaking about were 1st century Jewish monotheists, not 4th century trinitarians.
They weren’t just Jewish monotheists. The author of Hebrews isn’t alluding to unbelieving Jewish monotheists. No, he is alluding to Jewish monotheists who believe that Jesus of Nazareth - himself a 1st century Jewish monotheist - is the Messiah, Son of God.
Jesus hasn’t changed. His theology remains today exactly what it was in the 1st century. 1st century Jewish monotheism isn’t, and can never be, 4th century trinitarianism. The two theologies are incompatible and irreconcilable. That‘s why trinitarians and Jewish monotheists don’t see eye to eye.
Debating the subject will never resolve the difference.
Setting them side by side helps everyone to see the difference. I thank every trinitarian who is willing to do that.
***
Between the Jewish monotheist and “our only God and Savior” (Jude 1:25) stands a Jewish monotheist, Jesus the Messiah. He is a savior sent by his God and ours to save us. I plead with unbelieving Jewish monotheists (and others) to believe and obey him.
P.S.
I’m hit for carrying out my commission - given to me (and all of his disciples) by the Messiah - with (verbal) rocks hurled from unbelieving Jewish monotheists, from trinitarians, from binitarians, and even from unitarians.*
The music continues playing while the beating goes on. I have no stones in my hands.
* I publicly acknowledge that there are some exceptions among all of them. The Messiah himself has said in scripture how he will handle the exceptions; it will be different from how he will handle the others when he returns.
(Hebrews 13:7-8, NTFE)
The leaders whom the author of Hebrews is speaking about were 1st century Jewish monotheists, not 4th century trinitarians.
They weren’t just Jewish monotheists. The author of Hebrews isn’t alluding to unbelieving Jewish monotheists. No, he is alluding to Jewish monotheists who believe that Jesus of Nazareth - himself a 1st century Jewish monotheist - is the Messiah, Son of God.
Jesus hasn’t changed. His theology remains today exactly what it was in the 1st century. 1st century Jewish monotheism isn’t, and can never be, 4th century trinitarianism. The two theologies are incompatible and irreconcilable. That‘s why trinitarians and Jewish monotheists don’t see eye to eye.
Debating the subject will never resolve the difference.
Setting them side by side helps everyone to see the difference. I thank every trinitarian who is willing to do that.
***
Between the Jewish monotheist and “our only God and Savior” (Jude 1:25) stands a Jewish monotheist, Jesus the Messiah. He is a savior sent by his God and ours to save us. I plead with unbelieving Jewish monotheists (and others) to believe and obey him.
P.S.
I’m hit for carrying out my commission - given to me (and all of his disciples) by the Messiah - with (verbal) rocks hurled from unbelieving Jewish monotheists, from trinitarians, from binitarians, and even from unitarians.*
The music continues playing while the beating goes on. I have no stones in my hands.
* I publicly acknowledge that there are some exceptions among all of them. The Messiah himself has said in scripture how he will handle the exceptions; it will be different from how he will handle the others when he returns.
Last edited:
“The voice of the early Christians has not been disbelieved but simply not heard at all.”
(N.T. Wright, Surprised By Joy, p. xii)
The context of his comment is concerning the early Christian belief about death and beyond. I’m taking it out of context here and I have a duty, a responsibility, to inform my readers of that fact.
Why do I want my readers to think about his comment in a more general way?
The voice of the earliest Christians - primitive 1st century Christianity - is the voice of Jewish monotheism. That voice “has not been disbelieved but simply not heard at all” by many.
All of the parables given by the Messiah are outstanding and essential, but this comment by Professor Wright brings one parable in particular to my mind. I would like to bring it to the mind of my readers, and frequently do -> the parable of the sower (Matthew 13, Mark 4, Luke 8.)
[134869 is a spiritual combination code, a nemonic device, I came up with when I was a student in college. I used it then and now to help me quickly recall the location of this parable in the Gospels and where Jesus is drawing his commentary from the prophet Isaiah (Chapter 6, beginning in verse 9). There’s nothing magical or mystical about it. It was born out of my personal experience as a backup quarterback on a Junior high school football team and the necessity of remembering it in a college classroom decades later. It’s rather silly sounding in my head, where it sounds like this - a quarterback calling his play behind center: “13. 48. 69. Hike!” Now the reader knows a little something about me which almost no one does, not even my wife.]
The 1st century voice of Jewish monotheism is often heard but not heard, seen but not seen; drowned out by the voice of 4th century orthodoxy.
“To the only God our Savior” (Jude 1:25) means something unique to the eyes and ears of Jewish monotheists. Others will make something else, something different, out of it. And that is a segue back to Fortman.
(N.T. Wright, Surprised By Joy, p. xii)
The context of his comment is concerning the early Christian belief about death and beyond. I’m taking it out of context here and I have a duty, a responsibility, to inform my readers of that fact.
Why do I want my readers to think about his comment in a more general way?
The voice of the earliest Christians - primitive 1st century Christianity - is the voice of Jewish monotheism. That voice “has not been disbelieved but simply not heard at all” by many.
All of the parables given by the Messiah are outstanding and essential, but this comment by Professor Wright brings one parable in particular to my mind. I would like to bring it to the mind of my readers, and frequently do -> the parable of the sower (Matthew 13, Mark 4, Luke 8.)
[134869 is a spiritual combination code, a nemonic device, I came up with when I was a student in college. I used it then and now to help me quickly recall the location of this parable in the Gospels and where Jesus is drawing his commentary from the prophet Isaiah (Chapter 6, beginning in verse 9). There’s nothing magical or mystical about it. It was born out of my personal experience as a backup quarterback on a Junior high school football team and the necessity of remembering it in a college classroom decades later. It’s rather silly sounding in my head, where it sounds like this - a quarterback calling his play behind center: “13. 48. 69. Hike!” Now the reader knows a little something about me which almost no one does, not even my wife.]
The 1st century voice of Jewish monotheism is often heard but not heard, seen but not seen; drowned out by the voice of 4th century orthodoxy.
“To the only God our Savior” (Jude 1:25) means something unique to the eyes and ears of Jewish monotheists. Others will make something else, something different, out of it. And that is a segue back to Fortman.
Keep on with the truth, in peace and love. Truth is never the popular seat to be seated in...... as popularity is not the goal
Before I return to Fortman I want to bring something else to the attention of my readers. I spoke in post #195 about the voice of 1st century Jewish monotheism, the voice of primitive Christianity.
There is a ministry called Jewish Voice. Here is a link to it, for those who are (or might be) interested:
www.jewishvoice.org
This a trinitarian ministry, focused on evangelizing unbelieving Jewish monotheists. I am in no way connected with that ministry, do not support it, and disagree with its theology.
Messianic Judaism has two branches. The largest branch is trinitarian: the smaller branch is unitarian.
The two branches don’t get along well with one another. I’ve spoken with leaders in both. I‘ve spoken briefly elsewhere on the forum of my experience(s) with one of the leaders of the unitarian branch, Uri Marcus.
There is a ministry called Jewish Voice. Here is a link to it, for those who are (or might be) interested:
Messianic Jewish Ministry Spreading the Good News of Yeshua | Jewish Voice
Sharing the Gospel of Yeshua (Jesus) to the Jew first and also to Gentiles. Learn about Messianic Judaism, Rabbi Jonathan Bernis, medical missions and more.
www.jewishvoice.org
This a trinitarian ministry, focused on evangelizing unbelieving Jewish monotheists. I am in no way connected with that ministry, do not support it, and disagree with its theology.
Messianic Judaism has two branches. The largest branch is trinitarian: the smaller branch is unitarian.
The two branches don’t get along well with one another. I’ve spoken with leaders in both. I‘ve spoken briefly elsewhere on the forum of my experience(s) with one of the leaders of the unitarian branch, Uri Marcus.
It should be obvious to readers but may not be. It can be confusing, as unbelieving Jewish monotheists point out.
The Jewish Voice ministry is not the voice of Jewish monotheism. (The voice of Jewish monotheism is unitarian.) It is the voice of a Jew who converted from Jewish monotheism (unitarian) to trinitarianism. His voice is that of a Jew who is fully committed to 4th century trinitarianism.
To put it bluntly, the rabbi abandoned “the heresy of Jewish monotheism“ and became trinitarian (“the Jewish dogma destroyed”.) Now he works tirelessly, and in conjunction with trinitarian ministries outside of Messianic Judaism, trying to persuade other Jews to do as he has done.
The rabbi isn’t championioning Jewish monotheism. The rabbi is championing trinitarianism.
The Jewish Voice ministry is not the voice of Jewish monotheism. (The voice of Jewish monotheism is unitarian.) It is the voice of a Jew who converted from Jewish monotheism (unitarian) to trinitarianism. His voice is that of a Jew who is fully committed to 4th century trinitarianism.
To put it bluntly, the rabbi abandoned “the heresy of Jewish monotheism“ and became trinitarian (“the Jewish dogma destroyed”.) Now he works tirelessly, and in conjunction with trinitarian ministries outside of Messianic Judaism, trying to persuade other Jews to do as he has done.
The rabbi isn’t championioning Jewish monotheism. The rabbi is championing trinitarianism.
As with the ambiguity of the Jewish Voice, Messianic Judaism, is a modern day phenomena. Paul would have some harsh words for both branches of it.
Beware. In the words of an old 1960’s song lyric: “It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world”.
Satan appears as an angel of light. He’s not. He brings confusion.
Listen carefully to the voice, the spirit, of the lord Jesus Messiah.
Beware. In the words of an old 1960’s song lyric: “It’s a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world”.
Satan appears as an angel of light. He’s not. He brings confusion.
Listen carefully to the voice, the spirit, of the lord Jesus Messiah.
First, ancient Judaism recognizes that the figure known as the angel of YHWH was no ordinary angel but was instead himself identified at times as being YHWH. This can be seen prominently in the ancient Jewish concept of the Metatron. Britannica Encyclopedia explains.
“Metatron – greatest of angels in Jewish myths and legends, variously identified as the Prince (or Angel) of the Presence, as Michael the archangel, or as Enoch after his ascent into heaven. He is likewise described as a celestial scribe recording the sins and merits of men, as a guardian of heavenly secrets, as God's mediator with men, as the “lesser Yahweh,” as the archetype of man, and as one “whose name is like that of his master.” The latter appellation is based on Hebrew numerology; i.e., when the consonants that comprise the names Metatron and Shaddai (Almighty) are analyzed according to preassigned numerical values, each name totals 314.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
As we can see from Britannica, due to the Old Testament facts that we’ve been examining, ancient non-Christian Jews derived the idea that there was a being (called “the Metatron”) who shared the name “YHWH,” could be described as the “lesser YHWH,” and who was the greatest of the angels. As the “archetype of man,” it was this “less YHWH” who was the “God” in whose image man was created.
In volume 2 of his book, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Dr. Michael L. Brown documents the rabbinical Jewish understanding of this figure identified as the Metatron. Once again, we note that Dr. Brown is not referencing Christian Jewish understanding but non-Christian, rabbinical Jewish understanding.
“According to a story in the Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 38b), a man identified as a schismatic – here a clear reference to a Jewish follower of Jesus – was talking to a rabbi about Exodus 24:1, the beginning of the passage we are looking at, in which God said to Moses, “come up to the LORD [Hebrew, YHWH].” …The Jewish believer was trying to argue that it seemed odd that God said to Moses, “Come up to YHWH,” rather than, “come up to me.” Didn’t this seem to indicate more than one divine Person? …Now, the rabbi could have simply replied, “Such usage is not that unusual in the Hebrew Bible.” Instead, because he too sensed that there were some theological issues to be addressed, the rabbi answered that God was not speaking here of himself but rather of Metatron, the most powerful angel in Rabbinic literature, “whose name is as his Master.” In other words, when God said, “Come upon to YHWH,” he did not mean, “Come up to me” but “come up to Metatron whose name is YHWH.” So according to this Talmudic interpretation, Metatron was called YHWH!” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 26
In this quote, Dr. Brown cites specific ancient Jewish sources, particularly the Talmud, which assert the concept of the Metatron and that the Metatron shares the name YHWH in the Old Testament. Consequently, both Britannica and the Talmud confirm our claim that even non-Christian Jews affirmed that title “YHWH” was applied in scripture to the figure alternately known as “the angel of YHWH,” and that non-Christian Jews likewise understood that this figure was no ordinary angel.
Second, modern Jewish scholars also confirm that while the angel of YHWH is identified as YHWH on some occasions, on other occasions he is distinguished from YHWH. On this point, Dr. Brown quotes Jewish biblical scholar Nahum Sarna.
“According to the Jewish biblical scholar Nahum Sarna, ‘From several texts it is clear that the demarcation between God and his angel is often blurred [citing examples from Gen. 16:7-9, 11; 22:11-12, 15-18; Exod. 3:2, 4; Judg. 6:11-23]. At the Exodus from Egypt it is now God (Exod. 13:21), now his angel (14:9) who goes ahead of the Israelite camp.’ 45” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 27 [Footnote 45: Nahum Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 383 (Excursus 10, Angelology).]
As we can see, Sarna cites examples of occasions when the text identifies the angel of YHWH as YHWH and then identifies him as distinct from YHWH. As Sarna writes with regard to Exodus “it is now God, now his angel who goes ahead of the Israelite camp.” Here Sarna is referring Exodus 13:21 and 14:9, which were two of the very passages that we looked at earlier to establish the Trinity in the Old Testament. And what is Sarna’s conclusion from these passages? His conclusion is that “the demarcation between God and his angel” is blurred. Consequently, this demonstrates that non-Christian Jews recognize the fact that the Old Testament describes the angel of YHWH as YHWH and also as distinct from YHWH, which is an essential fact that most logically and naturally leads to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Third, ancient Judaism recognized that on some occasions, Old Testament persons understood seeing the angel of YHWH as seeing YHWH God. This is yet another fact, which confirms that non-Christian Jews, particularly those who wrote the Old Testament, understood that the angel of YHWH was YHWH God, not an angel. In his book, Dr. Brown explains that ancient Jewish sources recognize the problem that arises if people were to have actually seen YHWH God, particularly how this conflicts with the understanding that no man could see God and live. But Dr. Brown also goes on to explain the insufficiency of the attempts made to avoid or solve the dilemma.
(NOTE: As noted in an earlier section, the term “Targum,” mentioned in the quote below, is a reference to “the translations, and paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures that were read in the synagogues before, during, and after the time of Jesus.” See, Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 19.)
“What were some of the Rabbinic answers to the question of how a human being could see the Lord and live? According to Exodus 33:20, God said to Moses, ‘You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.’ Yet in Exodus 24:9-11, less than ten chapters earlier, we read, ‘Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up [Mount Sinai] and saw the God of Israel…But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israrelites…How can this be explained? Abraham Ibn Ezra interpreted the text to mean that they saw God in a prophetic vision. Then why did God tell them in 24:1 to actually go up the mountain to the Lord, remaining at a distance from him while Moses alone drew near? And why does the text point out that God did not life his hand against them, as would have been expected? Obviously, this was more than a prophetic vision….The Targum also had a problem with these verses and could not translate them directly, rendering instead, ‘They saw the glory of the God of Israel…they saw the glory of the Lord.’ 42 Yet the text says, ‘They saw the God of Israel…they saw God.’” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 28-29
As Dr. Brown explains, in order to avoid the conflict created by scripture’s declaration that certain figures actually saw YHWH, some ancient Jewish sources simply denied and then altered the plain meaning of the texts. This demonstrates that these ancient sources recognized that the standard reading of the text did indeed describe individuals seeing God. After all, if they didn’t perceive that the text taught that men had seen God, they would not have seen the need to alter the texts to avoid that very prospect.
Commenting specifically on Exodus 3 as another example in which Moses is recorded as seeing God, Dr. Brown goes on to say the following.
“‘Well,’ you might say, ‘what about Exodus 3. Doesn’t that chapter equate seeing the angel of the Lord with seeing God?’ You’re getting very close!…How does the Targum Onkelos translated the end of verse 6? Moses ‘was afraid to look beside the glory of the LORD.’ Once again, the Targum found it impossible to say what the Scripture said. It was too direct, too clear. Another Targum, called Pseudo-Jonathan, took this even further, translating that Moses was afraid to look at ‘the glory of the Shekhina of the LORD.’” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 30
“Metatron – greatest of angels in Jewish myths and legends, variously identified as the Prince (or Angel) of the Presence, as Michael the archangel, or as Enoch after his ascent into heaven. He is likewise described as a celestial scribe recording the sins and merits of men, as a guardian of heavenly secrets, as God's mediator with men, as the “lesser Yahweh,” as the archetype of man, and as one “whose name is like that of his master.” The latter appellation is based on Hebrew numerology; i.e., when the consonants that comprise the names Metatron and Shaddai (Almighty) are analyzed according to preassigned numerical values, each name totals 314.” – Encyclopaedia Britannica 2004 Deluxe Edition
As we can see from Britannica, due to the Old Testament facts that we’ve been examining, ancient non-Christian Jews derived the idea that there was a being (called “the Metatron”) who shared the name “YHWH,” could be described as the “lesser YHWH,” and who was the greatest of the angels. As the “archetype of man,” it was this “less YHWH” who was the “God” in whose image man was created.
In volume 2 of his book, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Dr. Michael L. Brown documents the rabbinical Jewish understanding of this figure identified as the Metatron. Once again, we note that Dr. Brown is not referencing Christian Jewish understanding but non-Christian, rabbinical Jewish understanding.
“According to a story in the Talmud (b. Sanhedrin 38b), a man identified as a schismatic – here a clear reference to a Jewish follower of Jesus – was talking to a rabbi about Exodus 24:1, the beginning of the passage we are looking at, in which God said to Moses, “come up to the LORD [Hebrew, YHWH].” …The Jewish believer was trying to argue that it seemed odd that God said to Moses, “Come up to YHWH,” rather than, “come up to me.” Didn’t this seem to indicate more than one divine Person? …Now, the rabbi could have simply replied, “Such usage is not that unusual in the Hebrew Bible.” Instead, because he too sensed that there were some theological issues to be addressed, the rabbi answered that God was not speaking here of himself but rather of Metatron, the most powerful angel in Rabbinic literature, “whose name is as his Master.” In other words, when God said, “Come upon to YHWH,” he did not mean, “Come up to me” but “come up to Metatron whose name is YHWH.” So according to this Talmudic interpretation, Metatron was called YHWH!” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 26
In this quote, Dr. Brown cites specific ancient Jewish sources, particularly the Talmud, which assert the concept of the Metatron and that the Metatron shares the name YHWH in the Old Testament. Consequently, both Britannica and the Talmud confirm our claim that even non-Christian Jews affirmed that title “YHWH” was applied in scripture to the figure alternately known as “the angel of YHWH,” and that non-Christian Jews likewise understood that this figure was no ordinary angel.
Second, modern Jewish scholars also confirm that while the angel of YHWH is identified as YHWH on some occasions, on other occasions he is distinguished from YHWH. On this point, Dr. Brown quotes Jewish biblical scholar Nahum Sarna.
“According to the Jewish biblical scholar Nahum Sarna, ‘From several texts it is clear that the demarcation between God and his angel is often blurred [citing examples from Gen. 16:7-9, 11; 22:11-12, 15-18; Exod. 3:2, 4; Judg. 6:11-23]. At the Exodus from Egypt it is now God (Exod. 13:21), now his angel (14:9) who goes ahead of the Israelite camp.’ 45” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 27 [Footnote 45: Nahum Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 383 (Excursus 10, Angelology).]
As we can see, Sarna cites examples of occasions when the text identifies the angel of YHWH as YHWH and then identifies him as distinct from YHWH. As Sarna writes with regard to Exodus “it is now God, now his angel who goes ahead of the Israelite camp.” Here Sarna is referring Exodus 13:21 and 14:9, which were two of the very passages that we looked at earlier to establish the Trinity in the Old Testament. And what is Sarna’s conclusion from these passages? His conclusion is that “the demarcation between God and his angel” is blurred. Consequently, this demonstrates that non-Christian Jews recognize the fact that the Old Testament describes the angel of YHWH as YHWH and also as distinct from YHWH, which is an essential fact that most logically and naturally leads to the doctrine of the Trinity.
Third, ancient Judaism recognized that on some occasions, Old Testament persons understood seeing the angel of YHWH as seeing YHWH God. This is yet another fact, which confirms that non-Christian Jews, particularly those who wrote the Old Testament, understood that the angel of YHWH was YHWH God, not an angel. In his book, Dr. Brown explains that ancient Jewish sources recognize the problem that arises if people were to have actually seen YHWH God, particularly how this conflicts with the understanding that no man could see God and live. But Dr. Brown also goes on to explain the insufficiency of the attempts made to avoid or solve the dilemma.
(NOTE: As noted in an earlier section, the term “Targum,” mentioned in the quote below, is a reference to “the translations, and paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures that were read in the synagogues before, during, and after the time of Jesus.” See, Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 19.)
“What were some of the Rabbinic answers to the question of how a human being could see the Lord and live? According to Exodus 33:20, God said to Moses, ‘You cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.’ Yet in Exodus 24:9-11, less than ten chapters earlier, we read, ‘Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up [Mount Sinai] and saw the God of Israel…But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israrelites…How can this be explained? Abraham Ibn Ezra interpreted the text to mean that they saw God in a prophetic vision. Then why did God tell them in 24:1 to actually go up the mountain to the Lord, remaining at a distance from him while Moses alone drew near? And why does the text point out that God did not life his hand against them, as would have been expected? Obviously, this was more than a prophetic vision….The Targum also had a problem with these verses and could not translate them directly, rendering instead, ‘They saw the glory of the God of Israel…they saw the glory of the Lord.’ 42 Yet the text says, ‘They saw the God of Israel…they saw God.’” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 28-29
As Dr. Brown explains, in order to avoid the conflict created by scripture’s declaration that certain figures actually saw YHWH, some ancient Jewish sources simply denied and then altered the plain meaning of the texts. This demonstrates that these ancient sources recognized that the standard reading of the text did indeed describe individuals seeing God. After all, if they didn’t perceive that the text taught that men had seen God, they would not have seen the need to alter the texts to avoid that very prospect.
Commenting specifically on Exodus 3 as another example in which Moses is recorded as seeing God, Dr. Brown goes on to say the following.
“‘Well,’ you might say, ‘what about Exodus 3. Doesn’t that chapter equate seeing the angel of the Lord with seeing God?’ You’re getting very close!…How does the Targum Onkelos translated the end of verse 6? Moses ‘was afraid to look beside the glory of the LORD.’ Once again, the Targum found it impossible to say what the Scripture said. It was too direct, too clear. Another Targum, called Pseudo-Jonathan, took this even further, translating that Moses was afraid to look at ‘the glory of the Shekhina of the LORD.’” – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 30
Similar threads
