The uniqueness of New Testament Christianity in regard to other sects of Judaism is not to be found in the concepts behind the Trinity. As we have seen these types of Complex Monotheistic beliefs were common to Judaism from the Biblical Period (2000-400 BC) through the second century AD. Rather, as Segal explains in the quotes below, the uniqueness of the Jewish-Christian sect is found in its linking various Complex Monotheistic beliefs and figures into a single, systematic framework centering on the Word of YHWH’s incarnation as Jesus.

The relationship of the principal angel to the messiah is more problematic. The messiah is essentially an earthly figure. In the Gospel of John, the heavenly logos and the earthly messiah are clearly identified for the first time. Furthermore, the earliest correlation of Adam with the messiah may come from Paul, who presented the Christ as the remedy for Adam’s fall. This leads one to suspect that Christianity was the first to synthesize the various divine agents at creation by identifying all of them with the Christian messiah. This summary has necessarily cut across many periods. From it we learned that certain functions of the archangel were common to many groups. To see that the commonality arose by means of exegesis of Old Testament texts, and to judge whether any exegesis could be taken as heretical, the traditions must be investigated in more detail. First we will look at the motifs connecting the manlike angelic figure with the name of God. Then we will look at the “son of man” tradition. Finally, we will look at the Christian movement within this context. In the Hebrew Bible, both descriptions of the angel of YHWH and of God himself sitting on His throne show up in revelation and ascension texts. Characteristically, the inter-testamental writers interpret any human form in a theophany as the appearance of an angel. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 190

While the scriptural traditions with which Jesus was associated were not “Gnostic,” the motif can certainly be said to be mythical in the current, anthropological use of that term. Before Christianity there is evidence of many different exegetical traditions, but no central single redemption myth. It looks as if the unity was reached by applying all the traditions to Jesus. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 208

Rev. 19…Many different images are jumbled together in this description. Divine warrior imagery is prominent but the divine warrior has been identified with the messiah (Ps. 2) and Jesus, based on the “son of man” tradition in Daniel. Furthermore, many divine titles are applied to the figure: “true and faithful,” “King of Kings,” “Lord of Lords” are all divine attributions in Judaism. Lastly and more importantly, he has appropriated the ineffable name, which is identical with “Word of God” (v. 13). On this basis, it seems safe to consider that many Christians identified Christ with God’s principal angel, who carried the divine name, because of his resurrection. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 213

It is beginning to look like it was Christianity, in its zeal to apply all Hebrew designations of divinity to Christ, which first put together the complete myth of the redeemed redeemer who descended to earth to save his followers. The New Testament never overtly identifies Jesus with an angel. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 218-219

While it is clear that Justin is using “two powers” traditions to discuss Jesus, the traditions could have hardly originated with the identification of Jesus as the angel in Exodus. The attempt to see Jesus as the angel’s name is secondary. Rather, Justin is taking over a previous exegetical, possibly mystical tradition, applying the name of his particular savior, and defending his belief against the other candidates for the office of angelic mediator. The tradition itself, without the Christian coloring, can be seen as early as Philo….As it was just concluded, Justin did not invent the arguments he used, nor was he the first to use them. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 224-225

But since there is no uniquely anti-Christian theme in the rabbinic attack, we cannot conclude that Christians were the only offending group. One may disagree as to whether or when these groups began to compromise monotheism, which was the force of the rabbinic criticism, since many different positions within Judaism defended themselves with “two powers” arguments. But the terminology itself is apt, because it tells us the categories in which the development of Christianity was seen. It tells us that Christianity was probably one of a number of similar sects. It may have been unique in that it identified a messianic candidate with the manlike figure in heaven who was going to judge the world. It may also have been unique to identify a contemporary rather than a hero of the past with an angelic being. But the theme was not, insofar as anyone can prove, the Christian application of a redeemer myth of a single, Gnostic pre-existent, divine savior who was going to descend to the earth, save those who received him, and reascend to heaven. Rather Christianity was one among a plethora of different sects with similar scriptural traditions. The single Gnostic pattern, if there is one, seems to be a rather sophisticated re-understanding of the Christian model. To summarize, the one sectarian movement within Judaism about which we have considerable evidence is Christianity. There is warrant to believe that “two powers” heresy was manifested in some kinds of Christianity in the first century. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 218

For instance, the Sinai theophany, together with Dan. 7:9 f. has often been suggested as the background for the synoptic account of the transfiguration, especially prominent in the Lukan version. Of course these exegeses were not invented by Christianity. The early Christians referred to several other intertestamental texts which picture the appearance of angels and describe their functions on earth. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 209

Perhaps some might suggest that the New Testament’s uniqueness comes in its identification of a human figure as one of the hypostatic persons of YHWH. However, here too, Christianity is not unique or distinct from ancient Judaism’s beliefs about hypostatic manifestations of YHWH. To the contrary, identifying a human figure as one of the hypostatic persons of YHWH was quite common in ancient Judaism even into the early rabbinic period.

The first example of this is one we have already looked at repeatedly. In a discussion that took place in the decades immediately preceding 135 AD, Rabbi Akiba himself identified Daniel 7’s “son of man” hypostasis as both God and as the royal, Davidic Messiah. In the Talmudic account, Akiba does not identify the Messiah with a particular historic individual. But it is widely known that Akiba believed Simeon Bar Kokhba, who is believed to have necessarily been Davidic descent, to be the Messiah who would free the Jewish people from the tyranny of Roman control.

Akiba ben Joseph – Scholarly opinion is divided on the extent of Akiba's participation in an ill-fated rebellion against Rome (132–135) led by Bar Kokhba (originally Simeon ben Koziba). Some consider Akiba to have been the spiritual force behind the uprising. Others take note of the Talmudic report that Akiba considered Bar Kokhba to be the promised messianic king but see no evidence of further action on his part. – Encyclopedia Britannica

Bar Kokhba – Enraged by these measures, the Jews rebelled in 132, the dominant and irascible figure of Simeon bar Kosba at their head. Reputedly of Davidic descent, he was hailed as the Messiah by the greatest rabbi of the time, Akiva ben Yosef, who also gave him the title Bar Kokhba (“Son of the Star”), a messianic allusion. – Britannica.com

Akiba ben Joseph – Akiba ben Joseph , c.AD 50-c.AD 135, Jewish Palestinian religious leader, one of the founders of rabbinic Judaism…He is believed to have been executed by the Romans in the aftermath of the messianic revolt of Bar Kokba (AD 132-135), though the extent of his participation is a matter of controversy. – Columbia Encyclopedia

Bar Kokba and Bar Kokba War – The earlier Niẓẓaḥon (ed. Hackspan) on Dan. ix. 24 adds that Bar Kokba was of the house of David, an assertion which appears genuine, inasmuch as such relationship would have been essential to the Messianic mission. – Jewish Encyclopedia

In the quote below, which we have seen on several occasions, Segal points out that Rabbi Akiba accepted that both figures of Daniel 7 were YHWH (“one God in two hypostases”) and that one of these hypostatic figures was the Davidic Messiah. Furthermore, as Segal explains, Rabbi Akiba was not alone among Jews of this period (and earlier) who identified the “man-like” divine hypostasis of Daniel 7 as the Davidic Messiah.

One passage says: His throne was fiery flames (Dan. 7:9) and another passage says: Until thrones were placed; and One that was ancient of days did sit – there is no contradiction; One (throne) for Him, and one for David: this is the view of R. Akiba. Said R. Yosi the Galilean to him: Akiba, how long will you treat the divine presence as profane! Rather, one for justice and one for grace. Did he accept (this explanation) from him, or did he not accept it? – come and hear: One for justice and one for grace; this is the view of R. Akiba. 21 (Footnote 21: b Hag. 14a Tr Epstein. Cf. also b. Sanhedrin 38a.) These two rabbis were perplexed by the seeming contradiction in the verses. In one place, more than one throne is indicated by the plural form of the noun. In another place “His (God’s) throne was fiery flames” implies only one throne. Does this mean that the “son of man” in the next verse was enthroned next to God? Rabbi Akiba (110-135 C.E.) affirms the possibility, stating that the other throne was for David. Akiba must be identifying the “son of man” with the Davidic messiah. Nor was R. Akiba alone in the rabbinic movement in identifying the figure in heaven as the messiah. There is some evidence that Judaism contained other traditions linking these verses in Daniel with the messiah. However plausible R. Akiba’s interpretation, it is opposed by his colleague, R. Yosi, who explicitly states that the throne is for a divine rather than a messianic figure. It is not clear that Akiba would have seen the two categories as contradictory. Yet, the outcome of that controversy was that R. Akiba agreed that the two thrones in heaven should symbolize the two aspects of God’s providence – His mercy and His justice. God is viewed as sitting on one throne when judging mercifully and on the other when judging by strict justice. It is significant that a central figure in the rabbinic movement like R. Akiba was alleged to have proposed messianic interpretations of Daniel 7:9. Ironically he subsequently reconsidered those opinions by substituting an opinion in which both figures in heaven were seen to be divine, one God in two hypostases….Since R. Akiba died as a martyr as a result of the failure of the Bar Kokhba rebellion and since he was known to have supported Bar Kokhba’s messianic claim, it is not surprising that a tradition reports that he recanted his views. But since the tradition comes to us only in a later text, we must be prepared to accept the probability the alternate interpretation of Daniel 7:9f. – namely, that the two thrones were for mercy and justice – was a later addition, ascribing the “orthodox” interpretation to a great rabbinic leader, whom time had proven wrong. Thus, the messianic controversy over Dan. 7:13 is probably from R. Akiba’s time; the mercy-justice revision is probably from his students. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 47-49

In addition to identifying a hypostatic, personal manifestation of YHWH with the Davidic Messiah, Jewish literature (prior to the second century AD) also expresses the belief that a hypostasis of YHWH had become a man (although by disctinctly different means than the Christian incarnation). Other traditions taught that a particular human figure was exalted to become a divine hypostasis of YHWH. Elsewhere, Segal discusses these realities of ancient, pre-rabbinic Judaism.

But Philo’s arguments will give us a good inkling of the kinds of traditions which must have been current in the Hellenistic Jewish communities of the first century. These traditions set the stage for the rabbinic opposition which we can date with surety only to the early second century but have suspected to have been earlier still. The rabbis too must have known of two different types of traditions about divine providence. In the first, a principal angel was seen as God’s primary or sole helper and allowed to share in God’s divinity. That a human being, as the hero or exemplar of a particular group, could ascend to become one with this figure – as Enoch, Moses or Elijah had – seem also to have been part of the tradition. In a second tradition, the qualities of divine mercy and justice were hypostasized attributes of the names of God and described the states on the journey to God. The rabbis opposed the first tradition, with its divine helper and divinization of some earthly heroes. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 180

A few additional points should be given attention regarding the quote above.

First, it may be accurate to stipulate that these types of Complex Monothestic views were present among Jewish groups from the Hellenistic Period (4th century BC–2nd century AD.) However, we cannot imply that the presence of these kinds of views was derived from Greek cultural or religious influence. Rather, we have seen the thorough documentation that the belief in multiple, hypostatic persons of YHWH is displayed in Judaism from the beginning of the Biblical, Patriarchal Periods (2000 BC and later.) And we have also seen that the earliest portions of the Hebrew bible discuss YHWH’s appearance at times as a man who interacted with the Patriarchs (for example, Genesis 18 and 32). So, both the plurality of hypostases and the human form of at least one such hypostasis predate the Hellenistic Period and originate with the Biblical, Patriarchal Period.

Second, while it may be accurate to broadly assert that the rabbis opposed these types of beliefs, the Talmudic account of Rabbi Akiba shows that not all rabbinic authorities, early rabbinic authorities, or influential rabbinic authorities opposed these types of beliefs.

Third, we should notice that Segal has documented pre-rabbinic and early-rabbinic traditions associating a “man-like” (“son of man”) or angelic (“angel of YHWH”) hypostasis of YHWH with actual, historical human figures. Traditions existed in which figures like Enoch, Moses, and Elijah were divinized to become a hypostasis of YHWH.

As we have seen these traditions concerning the “angel of YHWH” and “son of man” hypostasis of YHWH were closely linked with Jewish traditions about the Logos, Memra, or Word of YHWH who was understood to be an angelic as well as “man-like” figure.

Philo understood the descriptions of the “angel of YHWH” in scripture, together with other passages which the rabbis found dangerous, as references to the logos or one of the two principal powers of God. Based on Philonic evidence, we should expect traditions about mediator and principal angels to appear in other writings contemporary to Philo. However, the variety of conceptions about mediators and principal angels in intertestamental documents can only be summarized with difficulty, for the characteristics and names of the mediator differ widely in each document, suggesting that no single consistent myth underlies the whole…Certainly not all the figures related to the scriptures under consideration can be automatically included in the heresy. For instance, we have already seen that many angels and mediators appear in rabbinic literature where they add color to midrashic stories but where they could not be considered heretical….To start with, these general considerations help us remove some obvious phenomena from consideration as heresy. Memra, yekara and shekhinah are used in the targumim and midrash in reference to the dangerous passages to denote the presence of God. But they are never clearly defined as independent creatures. It rather appears that rabbinic concepts of memra, shekhina, yekara avoid the implications of independent divinity and possibly are meant to combat them. We also know that Philo even saw “the Word” or logos as an angel. But there is nothing inherently heretical about such descriptions. It may be anachronistic to apply second century rabbinic categories of heresy to earlier phenomena. The best we can say is that ideas like this might have been seen as heretical in some contexts. More importantly they certainly formed the background out of which heresy arose. Of course from the survey of rabbinic documents and Philo, we know that the judgment that a particular conception of mediation violated the canons of monotheism was also partly a matter of individual opinion. Philo could even use the phrase “second God” to describe the logos without thinking that he had violated the monotheistic basis of his religion….Clearly some of the same issues which Philo discussed were important in first century Palestine as well…even Philo, who was not adverse to the designation “second God” and who describes the logos as God’s agent manifestation in creation, denies that God had help from assistants in creating. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 182-183

Philo can use the same argument and the same term “second God” (Greek: deuteros theos, Latin: secundus dues) whenever the biblical text might imply the existence of a second deity, not just when the term “place” is present: (Gen. IX:6) Why does (Scripture) say, as if (speaking) of another God, “In the image of God He made man” and not “in His own image”? Most excellently and veraciously this oracle was given by God. For nothing mortal can be made in the likeness of the Most High One and father of the universe but (only) in that of the second God, who is His logos…Moreover, Scripture wishes to show that God most justly avenges the virtuous and decent men because they have a certain kinship with His logos, of which the human mind is a likeness and image. 14 Here Philo make no disclaimer about the metaphoric quality of the terms he is using. He unabashedly calls the logos a “second God.” Thus, in calling attention to various similar scriptural passages, the rabbis were not just stylizing theoretical arguments. Real traditions of a “second God” were present in Judaism as early as the time of Philo. (Footnote 14: Italics added, Quest. In Gen. ii¸ 62 Philo Suppliment I, p. 150, tr. R. Marcus. Eusebius (P.E. VII, 13, 1) credits Philo with the term “second God,” denoting the logos. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 163-164

In the quote below, Segal provides additional information on pre-rabbinic and early-rabbinic traditions which associated a divine hypostasis of YHWH with human figures like Moses, Enoch, and Elijah who ascended to heaven, were exalted, and became immortal. Enoch was specifically identified with the “angel of YHWH” hypostasis that is alternatively called Metatron (and sometimes the Logos) who possessed and was identified with the divine name YHWH. 

Obviously then, it is not the tradition itself which defines the heresy but the treatment of the angelic figure or hypostasis as an independent deity. We have no evidence that the early heresy involved a feminine manifestation of God. We know from the rabbinic texts that some of the beliefs which the rabbis opposed explicitly involved an angel whose function was to guide the believer and who carries, contains, or possesses the divine name (Ex. 23:21 f.). Again, not every belief of this sort will be heretical. But as a preliminary field for inquiry in the intertestamental period, it is reasonable to look among the variety of angelic mediators for some evidence of the kind of beliefs which the rabbis called “two powers” heresy. The idea of a separate hypostasis of the divinity must be functionally equivalent to being an angelic presence. Because of the complexity of the phenomenon, only the broadest outlines can be suggested. Nor will it always be possible to define a sectarian belief as heresy….But it is possible to show that both inside and outside of the rabbinic community, the existence of a principal angelic creature did not seem to be at issue; rather, it was the identity, title and function of the second figure that occupied apocalyptic and mystical Jews’ imagination. Among that figure’s characteristics we should be especially interested in any that would have impressed the rabbis as compromising monotheism. A staggering variety of angelic mediators developed during this period….A number of common functions of angelic mediators may be summarized from various appearances in literature. Israel’s heavenly protagonist and guardian can be spoken of as a principal or archangel. A principal angel often presides over judgment. As an archangel, he may be described as a choirmaster or heavenly scribe or the recorder of the merits of Israel or even the leader of souls on visionary ascent, parallel to the ascent at the end of life. Several functions of the angels may be served by men, if they are privileged to assume an exalted, triumphant or immortal form (like Enoch). In apocalyptic writings Enoch, Elijah and Moses are frequently described as men of God, who are transported to heaven. Enoch traditions were especially elaborate (cf., already Sir. 44:16, 49:14; Wis. 4:10-15; Jub. 4:16-25). In the Enochian cycle Enoch himself is transformed into an angelic being. In III Enoch he is identified with the angel Metatron. But apocalyptic traditions about the translation and enthronement of Levi and Moses also exist and often involved the principal angel as guide. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 186-188

In the next quote, Segal discusses these same types of Jewish traditions which identified a human figure with an angelic hypostasis of YHWH. Here he mentions Melchizedek, Jacob, and Enoch.

Many scholars have pointed out that Philo’s conception of logos is intimately related to other Hellenistic Jewish traditions about the figure of Wisdom, the name of God, and the great archangel that mediated at the Sinai theophany. It is possible that underlying Philo’s philosophical language are exegetical traditions which he shares with many other Jews. Any angel who assumed a primary role in heterdox Jewish tradition might have been the subject of the rabbinic injunction. This would include traditions about the angel Melchizedek, a heavenly Jacob, Michael, Gabriel, or the hero Enoch. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 23-24

Below Segal provides further information about Jewish traditions involving the association of the human Melchizedek with the “angel of YHWH” hypostasis. Notice that the human figure Melchizedek was considered by some Jews of the pre-rabbinic period to be both an angelic being and eschatological savior. The identification of a hypostatic person of YHWH with a human figure parallels both Daniel 7’s eschatological vision (which describes the “son of man” hypostasis of YHWH featured in an eschatological setting) as well as Rabbi Akiba’s identification of Daniel 7’s hypostatic figure with the Davidic Messiah.

Further evidence about the archangel Melchizedek at Qumran is exciting but only ambiguously supportive of name of God traditions. At Qumran, the principal angel may be called “The Prince of Light” (1 QS 3:20; CD 5:18), “the Angel of His Truth” (CD 3:24), which is probably the same as the “The Spirit of His Truth,” and may be identifiable with Melchizedek (11 Q Melch). Melchizedek appears in an incomplete text of Cave XI of Qumran, published by A. S. van der Woude. In this ostensibly first century Hebrew document, Melchizedek appears as an eschatological savior whose mission is to bring back the exiles at the end of days and to announce the expiation of their sins and liberation. He is identified with Michael who also appears in the scrolls as a celestial being. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 193

In the following quote, Segal continues to explain that these Jewish conceptions of the divinized Melchizedek included a belief in his return heralding the end of the age (eschaton.)

The Melchizedek documents from Qumran are too fragmentary for definite conclusions, but it does not appear that the scriptural texts central to the Melchizedek traditions are those against which the rabbis explicitly warn. Instead, the Qumranites were primarily concerned with the Jubilee year, and have associated it with the eschaton. In 11 Q Melch., the return and investiture of Melchizedek initiates the judgment of God. Thus Melchizedek is seen as the duly enthroned agent of God who will inaugurate the Jubilee year and the salvation for Zion. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 195

Segal details Jewish traditions teaching that Melchizedek was miraculously conceived, ascended to heaven in the company of angels, and called the great high priest. (All of these same ideas are applied to Jesus in the New Testament.) Segal concludes that these particular concepts of Melchizedek ascending to the status of an angelic hypostasis are authentically Jewish and free of Christian innovation. Furthermore, in the beginning and the end of this quote, Segal iterates that what we know about these and other ancient Jewish traditions prevents us from eliminating the possibility that sects of pre-rabbinic Judaism identified Melchizedek with YHWH.

Footnote 33: The identification of Melchizedek with Elohim would certainly be anomalous, but it s not totally out of the question, when one looks at the subsequent history of the tradition about this priest-king. In Leg. All, iii, 81 Philo warns against imputing plurality to God, while discussing Melchizedek. According to Sokolov’s Slavonic manuscript of II Enoch, Melchizedek was conceived and born miraculously (iii, 2, 7-21*) and was taken up by Michael to the paradise of Eden for forty days during the flood (iii, 28-29). There he is called “the great high priest, the Word of God, and the power to work great and glorious marvels above all that have been” (iii, 34). The seal of the priesthood on his breast was “glorious in countenance” (iii, 19). After him another Melchizedek was to arise (iv, 6; iii, 37)….Later still, a group of Melchizedekian heretics denied “that Melchizedek was a man and not Christ himself” (Migne, P.G. 65, 112a). They argued the absurdity of the idea that Melchizedek was likened (aphomoiominos) to Christ. Instead they asserted that Melchizedek is God by nature (phusei theos) (Gunther, p. 241; 1128d; cf. 1136 A, B). Unless he were God, how could he be without father or mother? Melchizedek would no longer be Son but Father. But he is not identical with God, rather he is the divine logos (theos logos). Of course, these traditions ascribing divinity to Melchizedek have not only been affected by Christian thought, they have grown out of it. The logos category and the attention to divine perquisites is a result of the modalist and monarchian controversy within the church (see p. 229 f.). But the original angelic category is authentic to the first century and ostensibly free from Christian influence. That Melchizedek was actually called God by anyone in the first century remains a possibility. See the recent book by Fred Horton, Jr. The Melchizedek Tradition…– Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 194-195

We have already examined the quote below in a previous section. We return to it here in order to highlight Segal’s commentary on the Jewish traditions we are presently discussing. It is of particular interest that Judaism in the pre-rabbinic and early-rabbinic period includes teaching that a human figure (in this case the patriarch Jacob) had existed as an angelic figure with the divine name YHWH prior to his human birth. As Segal explains, these traditions are present in a fragmented Jewish text known as the Prayer of Joseph. The teachings contained in this pre-rabbinic or early rabbinic document correspond to traditions we’ve been examining that relate to a divine hypostasis of YHWH associated with the “angel of YHWH,” Metatron, Logos/Word. At the end of the quote, Segal summarizes the key elements that are related to Jewish traditions we’ve been discussing. Critical to our study is the belief in a human figure who was identified with the “angel of YHWH” and the “Name of YHWH” hypostasis because this hypostasis becomes flesh (human.)

A most interesting example of heterodox Judaism has been preserved in the “Prayer of Joseph,” which is contained in Origen’s commentary on John 2:31. 51 [Footnote 51: Jonathan Z. Smith, “The Prayer of Joseph,” in Religions in Antiquity.] Though only a short fragment of the total work is recorded, almost all of the themes which we have been tracing since Philo are present in it. It is based on the theophany texts of Genesis which deal with Jacob’s exploitations and possibly is part of the testimony genre of literature which as been preserved in the name of other patriarchs. It is short enough to quote in full. [“]If one accepts from the apocrypha presently in use among the Hebrews the one entitled “The Prayer of Joseph,” he will derive from it exactly this teaching…(namely) that those who have something distinctive from the beginning when compared to men, being much better than other beings, have descended from angelic to human nature. Jacob, at any rate, says: “I, Jacob, who am speaking to you, am also Israel, an angel of God and a ruling spirit. Abraham and Isaac were created before any work. But I, Jacob, whom men call Jacob but whose name is Israel, am he who God called Israel, i.e. a man seeing God, because I am the firstborn of every living thing to whom God gives life.” And he continues: “And when I was coming up from Syrian Mesopotamia, Uriel, the angel of God came out and said that I had descended to earth and I had tabernacled among men and that I had been called by the name of Jacob. He envied me and fought with me and wrestled with me saying that his name and the name of Him that is before every angel was to be above mine. I told him his name and what rank he held among the sons of God: ‘Are you not Uriel, the eight after me and I, Israel, the archangel of power of the Lord and the chief captain among the sons of God? Am I not Israel, the first minister before the face of God?’ And I called upon my God by the inextinguishable name…But we have made a lengthy digression in considering the matter of Jacob and using as evidence a writing not lightly to be despised to render more credible the belief concerning John the Baptist which maintains that he…being an angel, took a body in order to bear witness to the light.[”] 52 [Footnote 52: J. Z. Smith, “The Prayer of Joseph,” ibid., p. 256 f. See also Martin Hengel, The Son of God, p. 48.] Here it is an archangel of the power of the people of God who is called Israel and is also identified with the patriarch Jacob. He was created before all the works of creation and claims ascendency over Uriel on the basis of his victory in personal combat by which he ostensibly possesses the divine name. To sum up the issues, as reported by J. Z. Smith, the fragment is dominated by three themes: (1) the lofty role of Israel (called Jacob, an angel of God, a ruling spirit, a man who sees God, the first-born of all life, the archangel of the power of the Lord, the heavenly chief captain, the high-priest before the face of God); (2) the conflict between Jacob and Uriel, each claiming ascendency over each other; and (3) the myth relating to the descent of the angel to a flesh-like existence. Although this material is contained in a Christian source, no doubt its origin was Jewish sectarianism. Nor is it the only evidence that traditions about angelic keepers of the divine name were common in Jewish-Christianity. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 199-200

In the quote below, Segal discusses similar conceptions applied to Enoch in a document known as Parables of Enoch. Though this document may have been influenced in some respects by Christian views, the points of interest that Segal draws our attention to are those it has in common with other Jewish traditions concerning Daniel 7’s the “son of man” (“man-like”) hypostasis of YHWH who is a messianic figure bringing salvation at the end of the age. At the end of the quote, Segal points out that the treatment of Enoch in association with these heavenly figures in Daniel demonstrates that the figure has been human and become divine. This divine and human messiah is reminiscent of Akiba’s interpretation of Daniel 7. Additionally, Segal reports that the text presents no concept of a distinction between two different messianic figures, one human and one heavenly (cosmic.) Instead, only one messianic figure is presented who is viewed as both human and divine.

In the Parables of Enoch, which may bear Christian influence, the emphasis turned to the manlike figure, or the “son of man.” Most of the portrayals of judgment in the Parables of Enoch (I Enoch 37-71) – as in all the Enoch literature – involve a detailed exegesis of the Daniel 7:13 passage. However, the “son of man” in the Parables is a salvific figure of some prominence, having many divine perquisites. But whether “son of man” is actually the title of this savior or merely a Semitic idiom describing “a manlike figure” has remained a scholarly puzzle. Adapted from the Daniel periscope, the story of the “son of man” seems to involve the following scenario: (1) the wicked oppress the righteous (which is given as the reason for punishment); (2) the “son of man” enters God’s throne room and is enthroned (alternatively he is already enthroned before the scene opens); (3) whereupon the “son of man” passes judgment on God’s behalf; (4) the wicked are justly punished by one of the two figures, usually the “son of man,” and (5) scenes of triumph follow. Of course, this is only the general scenario; the events are not always narrated in that order, nor are all the parts always expressed. Whereas in other apocalyptic judgment scenes outside of the Parables, God is perfectly capable of carrying out the whole plan himself, in the Parables the “son of man” is usually the instrument of God’s justice. This fact only points out the importance of the character of the “son of man” in the Parables. But nowhere is it certain that the “son of man” is a title. We may only have a series of traditions concerning Dan. 7:13. In I En. 48:2 f. there is further description of this divine figure. He is casually named messiah and he (or only his name and office) are described as premundane, having been foreordained before the Lord of Spirits created the stars. Never before in this material has the figure been identified as the messiah, which leads many scholars to assume Christian influence (whether friendly or polemic), or authorship. In I En. 70 and 71 Enoch and his name are elevated to become the “son of man.” He tours heaven, which contains the new paradis (I En. 70:4) (the pardes?) and is guided before the throne of the Ancient of Days by Michael; whereupon Enoch himself is proclaimed the “son of man.” At the last judgment the “son of man” will be brought before God and His name before the Ancient of Days. Because of this parallelism between the name and function of the figure of the “son of man,” we are probably warranted in saying that from one perspective the “son of man” is a pre-existent being – but not in every respect, because the point of the story is to tell the mystical events by which Enoch learns of his future role. It seems clear that the figure has been human and become both divine and messianic, although his heavenly enthronement aspects are far better described than his earthly tasks. There is no evidence that a separate human messiah is to bring national redemption while this cosmic figure will bring cosmic justice. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 202-203

Common Jewish views about the descent into flesh of a hypostasis (angelic figure) of YHWH and the subsequent exaltation and divinization of a human figure into the position of a principle angel or hypostasis of YHWH provide strong attestation to Judaism’s commitment to incarnational theology. These biblically-derived and common Jewish traditions are conceptually parallel to New Testament teaching about the incarnation of the Word of God as Jesus. As Sommer explains below, these Jewish beliefs (about a human incarnation of a hypostasis of YHWH) are part of Jewish Complex Monotheism’s emphasis on God’s desire to become immanent in the world and present among his people Israel.

Yochanan Muffs points to a tension that pervades and nourishes the entire Hebrew Bible. He argues that “the tension between the concept of transcendence, which insists the Deity is not to be identified with the physis of the world, and radical personalism, which insists the Deity is anthropomorphically involved in the world, is the very source of the creative dynamism of biblical anthropomorphism.” I would like to suggest that the fluidity traditions provide an especially deft resolution to this tension, a resolution that comes into focus when we contrast the fluidity model with some other theological models with which it might initially be confused. The notion of multiple embodiment, it must be stressed, is not identical with the idea that God’s presence pervades the world or, less pantheistically, the idea that the effects of God’s presence (which might also be termed God’s concern) pervade the whole cosmos...In these pantheistic or panentheistic conceptions, God can be equally present in all things and all places. The notion of multiple embodiment is something else altogether. Although they acknowledge that God’s power and concern can reach any place, the fluidity traditions maintain that God is literally located in some objects and not others...In this regard, the fluid God retains a degree of transcendence that is lacking in the antifluidity traditions on the one hand and in pantheistic and panentheistic understandings of God on the other. The conception of God as multiply embodied allows for the possibility that God can be anthropomorphically involved in the world even as God is not identified with the world, because this God is bound to no one place. For a monotheistic religion that insists on God’s personhood and on God’s intimate concern with the world, the concept of multiple embodiment cuts the Gordian knot: God is not the same as the world’s physis, but God can choose to inhabit parts of the physis in order to be present to His worshippers. This concept, then, seems almost inevitable as a consequence of the biblical stress on both transcendence and immanence. It is precisely when there is only one divine body, on the other hand, that the tension between these two forces in biblical religion becomes so severe: If the divine person has one body, that body must be in a particular place. If that place is on the planet Earth, then God is clearly immanent but not transcendent. If that place is exclusively in heaven, then God is transcendent but not immanent. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 140-141

Below Sommer provides added insight into how pre-rabbinic and early rabbinic views differ from that of post-rabbinic Judaism in regard to God’s embodiment and immanence in the world. As he explains, post-rabbinic Judaism teaches that God has no body at the expense of a personal God. On the other hand, in Complex Monotheism, God is embodied, but he is not limited to one body in the way that humans are.

Postrabbinic teachings according to which God has no body also stress the difference between God and humanity, but those teachings achieve this differentiation at the cost of the personal God....A normal body – that is, a single body, constrained in space – is limited. But in the fluidity traditions, God differs from humans not in that God has no body, but in that God’s bodies are unlimited… – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 141-142

As Sommer continues, he explains that a God who has a body and is imminent can interact with creation and, more specifically, mankind.

Now, any physical God, whether a God with one body or with many, is a God who can change. Such a God, furthermore, is a deity in whom we can find pathos; a God who can change is a God who can experience joy and pain, loneliness and love. And that physical God of pathos, with one body or many, can seek out humanity. 78 But only the God with many bodies can rise above God’s own physicality. The God with many bodies remains woundable and alterable, but this deity can nevertheless be omnipotent. In short, the fluidity model manages, to a greater extent than the traditions that posit a single divine body, to preserve God’s freedom and transcendence even as it maintains the divine personhood and vulnerability so central to biblical and rabbinic literature. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 141-142

Endnote 78 (below) accompanies the quote immediately above. In it, Sommer elaborates on the immanent nature of the Jewish, biblical God who desires to interact with his people. Furthermore, Sommer relates these biblical, Jewish ideas to foundational elements of New Testament teaching. As Sommer explains, New Testament teaching about the incarnation, suffering, and death of the divine Word (Jesus) allows God the opportunity to be present among his people and to share in their difficulties in this life. These fundamental New Testament doctrines are authentic to the Hebrew Bible itself and captured in the ways ancient Jews thought about and wrote about YHWH prior to the third century AD.

Endnote 78: It follows that Heschel’s God of pathos (on which see especially Heschel, God in Search and Heschel, Prophets, 2:1-58) must be an embodied God. Further, it is no coincidence that in order to allow for the most intense sort of suffering God, Christianity emphasizes the notion of embodiment as well; the passion occurs specifically to the manifestation of God in a human body. See Janowski, “Ich will,” 193. On the connection between the pathos and incarnation in the New Testament, see the very significant remarks of Brueggemann, Theology, 302, who recognizes that this connection has roots in the Hebrew Bible itself; in light of the present work, Brueggeman’s tentative suggestion should be phrased even more strongly. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 258

Next, Sommer explains that throughout the Hebrew Bible the belief that God desires to become immanent on earth is featured as a central theme.

This whole set of intimately connected narratives found in P and Ezekiel, then concerns the decision by the God who lives in heaven to dwell instead on earth, God’s decision to abandon an earthly abode because of the nation’s sin, and God’s decision some day to return. Indeed, a central theme of the priestly tradition – perhaps the central theme of priestly tradition – is the desire of the transcendent God to become immanent on the earth this God had created. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 74

Below Sommer again relates New Testament teaching about the incarnation of the Word as Jesus from John’s Gospel and connects this teaching to important themes presented in the Hebrew Bible itself related to God’s intention to come into contact with creation.

Here again, the dedication of the tabernacle sends us back to Genesis 1, for insofar as the deity comes into contact with creation (indeed, insofar as the deity creates, which is to say, begins), the divinity expels itself from the divine realm. The trope we have examined here, then represents a prologue, for the themes at hand will unfold more fully in two postbiblical traditions. One, summarized most pithily in John 1.1,14, relates God’s expatriation from heaven to become Jesus: “In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word dwelt with God, and the Word was God…But the Word became flesh and encamped among us, and we saw his glory, the glory of the only-begotten son of the father, full of grace and truth.”…For the New Testament authors, the expatriation or self-exile these verses describe voids the need for Pentateuchal law even as it reverses the original disaster of Adam’s exile: By becoming a human, God (in the body of a dying Messiah) atoned for all human sin and thus made law unnecessary…These two conceptions represent appropriations of a single motif from their shared document of origin (to wit, the Hebrew Bible), because they apprehend beginnings as moments of displacement for both God and human: In the former case, the displacement of God when He becomes flesh in the form of Jesus annuls Adam’s sin and ultimately will authorize a return to Eden….I finish this chapter, then, with an unresolved beginning. Do these postbiblical traditions preserve the constructive tension (or rather, deconstructive aporia) that the Torah insists on maintaining, or do they resolve it? – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 122-123

The following quote summarizes the effects these biblical and historical realities have upon the conventional, modern Jewish views of New Testament teaching about Jesus. According to Sommer, attempts to contrast Judaism with the New Testament’s teaching about the incarnation of God are misleading. Only a Judaism that has been heavily influenced by both medieval, philosophical reformulations of Biblical religion as well as the rabbinic sect of Judaism can reject incarnational theology. However, Biblical and rabbinic texts demonstrate the centrality of Jewish belief that YHWH appeared in the image of a man at particular points in biblical history. As we have seen, these Jewish beliefs in YHWH’s appearance as a man involved a “man-like” hypostasis of God identified as YHWH who could “descend into flesh” and be “exalted” back to his divine, hypostatic or angelic form.

Endnote 60: See also Wolfson, Speculum, 395: “The commonplace view (greatly enhanced by the medieval philosophical reinterpretations of Israelite religion and rabbinic Judaism) that sharply contrasts Judaism and Christianity should not mislead us into thinking that within Judaism there has not been a tendency toward an incarnational theology. On the contrary, fragmentary theological pronouncements in classical rabbinic literature, building on the morphological evidence in the biblical canon, stand as testimony that a central component in the religious phenomenology of the rabbis was the belief that God did appear in the image of an anthropos at specific moments in Israel’s sacred history.” – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 257

Below Sommer references another Jewish scholar in order to highlight his point that portrayals of the Trinity and the incarnation as contradictions of Judaism are both untenable and unnecessary. The concepts that underlie these Christian doctrines do not contradict Biblical Judaism, pre-rabbinic Judaism, or even early Rabbinic Judaism. They only contradict the medieval Jewish reinterpretation of Judaism through Platonic philosophy. In other words, the contradiction is not between the New Testament and Biblical Judaism (or even early Rabbinic Judaism.) The contradiction is between the Biblical Judaism and New Testament Christianity on the one hand and Platonic philosophy (as well as medieval and perhaps late Rabbinic Judaism) on the other. Biblical Judaism and Christianity, in fact, possess similar points of view regarding doctrines of Complex Monotheism and incarnation.

Endnote 61: See Muffs, Personhood, 58-9 and 169, for an analogous attempt to point out the deeply Jewish nature of certain aspects of Christianity, aspects that most Jews want to regard as foreign to them. Cf. the comment of Wyschogrod, Body¸xvii: “The temptation here is to make the contrast (between Judaism and Christianity) as sharp as possible, thereby, at times, distorting Judaism. I have attempted to avoid this temptation. The incarnational direction of my thinking became possible for me only after I succeeded from freeing myself from the need to be as different from Christianity as possible. I am now convinced that a renewed, non-Maimonidean Judaism constitutes a return to origins in the deepest Jewish sense.” See also his comment in Wyschogrod, “Incarnation,” 178. See further his carefully reasoned argument that Jews can disagree with the doctrines of incarnation and trinity without completely rejecting the understanding of divinity that underlies them, in Wyschogrod, “Jewish View,” 157-60, and Wyschogrod, “Why Was,” 215-16. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 257

Below, Sommer continues to assess the inherently exaggerated nature of conventional distinctions between Judaism and Christianity in regard to the key theological issues we’ve been discussing. These conventional explanations and understandings must be discarded. Both Judaism and Christianity understand God to be corporeal and both stress his desire to be present in the world and among his people through YHWH’s embodiment in human form. Some distinction may exist between particular forms of Judaism and Christianity in regard to the specific applications of these concepts. But the two religions (so much as the term is still applicable, perhaps sects would be more appropriate) agree where fundamental, doctrinal concepts are concerned. Contradictions occur only when we filter Judaism (or Christianity) through the Platonic thought inherent in medieval Jewish philosophy.

Indeed, in light of this study, certain clichéd assumptions common among both Jews and Christians who attempt to distinguish their theologies must be stood on their heads. Divine embodiment, paradoxically, emerges from this study as far more important to Judaism than to Christianity. For the Tanakh, for rabbinic literature, and for important strands in Jewish mysticism, God has always been a corporeal being…64 This difference between the Jewish model of divine embodiment and the Christian emphasis on incarnation nullifies, indeed overturns, an entire tradition of anti-Christian polemic within Judaism. The Maimonidean, of course, still has the right to reject Christianity’s theological model; but many a modern Jew recognizes the extraordinarily strained nature of the hermeneutic through which Maimonides attempts to deny the corporeality of the biblical and rabbinic God. For such a Jew, Maimonides’ rejection would also compel a rejection of most of the Written and Oral Torahs. It would entail, in other words, the creation of a new religion whose earliest sacred document would be found in the tenth-century C.E. philosophical writings of Maimonides’ predecessor, Saadia Gaon. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 136

As he summarizes the evidence presented by the available biblical and historical material, Sommer again suggests that it would be an understatement to say that Judaism merely has incarnational ideas.

Endnote 64: In light of this distinction, we should emend Wolfson’s description of Jewish notions of incarnation (quoted in n.60) to reflect the more radical Jewish notion of divine embodiment. Similarly, Wyschogrod, “Incarnation,” 168, understates the argument considerably when, discussing biblical and rabbinic ideas of God’s indwelling in the tabernacle, the temple, and the people of Israel, he writes, “I detect a certain diluted incarnation in these ideas.” – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 257-258

As the quote above mentions, biblical and Jewish teaching about God’s indwelling in the tabernacle, temple, and the nation of Israel invoke the idea of incarnation. In the following quote, Sommer shows how New Testament teaching that God became incarnate as a Jewish man (Jesus) is inherently connected to and rooted in these fundamental teachings from the Hebrew Bible about YHWH’s desires and efforts to become immanent in the world through the creation of a receptacle for his body on earth among his people.

Yet it has become clear in this exposition that the P document is in fact the most Christian section of Hebrew scripture. As one reads through P beginning with Genesis 1, one can see that for all its attention to specifics, this narrative has a larger, overarching concern: the decision of a transcendent God to become immanent in the world this God created….P subsequently narrates, at much greater length, God’s attempt to overcome this distance. Doing so requires the designation of the servants who will build the receptacle for God’s body on earth and hence their liberation from Egyptian bondage….it nonetheless describes an act of divine grace, for those rules provide the means for God to enter the world and thus for humanity to approach God. In broad terms, P’s basic story and the New Testament’s are of the same type. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 136-137

These authentically Jewish beliefs which date from the pre-rabbinic period and into the times of Rabbi Akiba are conceptually indistinguishable from New Testament teachings about the Word of God who was God, became incarnate as a man, took the name Jesus (John 1,) and is proclaimed the Davidic Messiah, the “son of man,” the high priest, and prefigured by Melchizedek (Hebrews 8-9.) According to the first-century Jewish authors of the New Testament, Jesus is God incarnate bodily on earth among his people Israel.

In fact, John 1:1-14 precisely describes the idea of God becoming present among his people Israel physically through the incarnation of the divine, hypostatic person identified as the Word of YHWH. Verse 14 specifically uses the Greek verb “skenoo” which means to “dwell in a tabernacle.” This verse is written in conjunction with the existing first-century Jewish understanding (based on the Hebrew Bible’s theme) that God desired to dwell bodily among his people. John simple states the Word of YHWH became flesh and “tabernacled” among us.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. 6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. 8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. 9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. 10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

As we read John 1 it is interesting to see the high degree of correspondence between fundamental New Testament teaching and the beliefs of Judaism prior to the close of the second century AD. John 1 parallels several important Jewish traditions that we have been discussing. First, correspondent to Jewish Complex Monotheism, John 1 repeatedly distinguishes between at least two hypostases or persons of God. Second, one of these hypostases is identified as the Logos or Word of YHWH. (In John 1, the Greek term translated as “Word” is “Logos.”) Third, John 1:1-3 parallels first-century Jewish traditions which identified the Word, or Logos, of God as God’s agent in the creation of the world and of mankind in Genesis 1. Fourth, we should remember that Jewish traditions identified the Word of YHWH as the “son of man” figure of Daniel. This title (“son of man”) is commonly used in the New Testament to refer to Jesus even in John 1. (See verse 51.) And fifth, note John 1:13’s connection to “kabod” traditions in identifying the Word as the glory of God.)

In the following quote, Sommer confirms this analysis of John 1 as he connects biblical concepts of the Temple to God’s intentions to become immanent on the earth and to New Testament teaching about God being immanent through the incarnation of the Word as Jesus. Once again, it is clear that the New Testament is simply applying existing biblical and Jewish traditions about God to Jesus.

This interpretive practice is especially clear in the work of the many modern scholars…maintain that P’s notion of divine presence involves what they call “tabernacling.” Scholars use this verb frequently, no doubt in order to call to mind John 1.14, which describes how God, in the form of the Word (that is, Jesus), came to dwell on earth: “And the Word became flesh and tabernacled [or “encamped; Greek, eskhnwsen] among us, and we looked at His glory [Greek, doxan, the same term that usually renders kabod in the Septuagint translation of Hebrew scripture], glory as of the only son begotten by the Father full of grace and truth.” This is an important verse, and not only because it appears on the seal of Northwestern University, whose generous sabbatical policies have led to the words you are now reading. In recalling this verse, scholars such as Wright, Cross, and Clements rightly emphasize themes that link the priestly tabernacle, the Jerusalem temple, and Jesus. All three of these are presented in scripture (whether Jewish and Christian scripture, in the case of tabernacle and temple, or Christian scripture in the case of Jesus) as attempts by the transcendent God to become immanent and accessible in the world God created. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 96

As we can see, these New Testament teachings are not foreign or contrary to pre-rabbinic (2000 BC – second century AD) or early rabbinic (second century AD) Judaism. To the contrary, as Sommer has said, the only novelty of the New Testament was in applying all of these existing Jewish, biblical traditions to a single, contemporary figure, Jesus.

While the scriptural traditions with which Jesus was associated were not “Gnostic,” the motif can certainly be said to be mythical in the current, anthropological use of that term. Before Christianity there is evidence of many different exegetical traditions, but no central single redemption myth. It looks as if the unity was reached by applying all the traditions to Jesus. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 208

It tells us that Christianity was probably one of a number of similar sects. It may have been unique in that it identified a messianic candidate with the manlike figure in heaven who was going to judge the world. It may also have been unique to identify a contemporary rather than a hero of the past with an angelic being. But the theme was not, insofar as anyone can prove, the Christian application of a redeemer myth of a single, Gnostic pre-existent, divine savior who was going to descend to the earth, save those who received him, and reascend to heaven. Rather Christianity was one among a plethora of different sects with similar scriptural traditions. The single Gnostic pattern, if there is one, seems to be a rather sophisticated re-understanding of the Christian model. To summarize, the one sectarian movement within Judaism about which we have considerable evidence is Christianity. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 218

Rev. 19…Many different images are jumbled together in this description. Divine warrior imagery is prominent but the divine warrior has been identified with the messiah (Ps. 2) and Jesus, based on the “son of man” tradition in Daniel. Furthermore, many divine titles are applied to the figure: “true and faithful,” “King of Kings,” “Lord of Lords” are all divine attributions in Judaism. Lastly and more importantly, he has appropriated the ineffable name, which is identical with “Word of God” (v. 13). On this basis, it seems safe to consider that many Christians identified Christ with God’s principal angel, who carried the divine name, because of his resurrection. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 213

It is beginning to look like it was Christianity, in its zeal to apply all Hebrew designations of divinity to Christ, which first put together the complete myth of the redeemed redeemer who descended to earth to save his followers. The New Testament never overtly identifies Jesus with an angel. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 218-219

While it is clear that Justin is using “two powers” traditions to discuss Jesus, the traditions could have hardly originated with the identification of Jesus as the angel in Exodus. The attempt to see Jesus as the angel’s name is secondary. Rather, Justin is taking over a previous exegetical, possibly mystical tradition, applying the name of his particular savior, and defending his belief against the other candidates for the office of angelic mediator. The tradition itself, without the Christian coloring, can be seen as early as Philo….As it was just concluded, Justin did not invent the arguments he used, nor was he the first to use them. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 224-225

The documentation provided above shows that during the pre-rabbinic and early-rabbinic period (2000 BC through the second century AD) the violation of monotheism required a belief that the hypostases of God were separate beings from one another with independent authority or contrary will. The New Testament and early Christian texts reject this heretical kind of independence among the hypostases of YHWH. While the Complex Monotheism of the New Testament contrasts with later Rabbinic Judaism, it is at home within pre-rabbinic and early-rabbinic Jewish concepts of monotheism, both of which were inclusive of Complex Monotheism. Therefore, we cannot identify New Testament teaching about God as heretical to Judaism or a violation of Biblical Judaism or even early Rabbinic Judaism.

Furthermore, as we have seen, there is nothing conceptually unique, novel, foreign, or contrary to Judaism in New Testament teachings about YHWH and the person of Jesus. While Christianity uniquely applied certain concepts to Jesus, the concepts themselves were not unique and in various ways had even been applied on occasions to other historic or angelic figures. The New Testament conception of God as more than one simultaneously-existing hypostasis, or person, was the common Jewish view. Likewise, Judaism itself demonstrates God’s desire to become immanent in the world and bodily present among his people using a “man-like” hypostasis along with incarnational language and traditions. Only after the early rabbinic period (after 200 AD) did the Judaism begin to object to ideas of YHWH as a corporeal being and reject traditions which had a tendency toward incarnational teaching. Our next section will focus on the question of when exactly rabbinic Judaism began to reject Complex Monotheism.