We have seen that the Hebrew Bible declares a belief in one God who existed as more than one divine person at the same time. This conception, which we have called Complex Monotheism, remained constant within ancient Judaism even after the period of Biblical Judaism (2000-400 BC.) In fact, as Sommer explains, followers of ancient Judaism continued to believe that the one, true God YHWH was manifest as more than one, simultaneously-existing divine person even into the early rabbinic period. The continuation of Complex Monotheism in Judaism during the early rabbinic period was derived from the long-standing heritage of Complex Monotheism as it is displayed in texts throughout the Hebrew Bible.

…I simply wish to point out the impressive and startling endurance of ancient beliefs in religions that lay claim to the Hebrew Bible as their scripture, and I intend to recognize the rich debate that the fluidity and antifluidity traditions continue to inspire. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 135

My first goal is to describe a hitherto unnoticed debate within the Hebrew Bible about God’s nature. In doing so, I hope to uncover a lost biblical perception of God, according to which God’s body and self have a mysterious fluidity and multiplicity (Chapter 2). – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 10

We see later that the theological intuition uncovered in Chapter 2 does not disappear completely in later forms of Judaism or, for that matter, in Christianity. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 11

Before doing so, however, it is useful to note that the fluidity model did not simply disappear from Israel with the final editing of the biblical books or the crystallization of the biblical canon. The theological intuition that stands behind them returned again and again in the literatures that flow out of the Hebrew Bible. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 124-126

The Persistence of the Fluidity Model – …these notions did not simply vanish. On the contrary, they recur in rabbinic literature, in various forms of Jewish mysticism, and in Christianity….What I intend to do here is merely to give a sense of how postbiblical literatures give witness to the notion of a single God whose manifestations take action on their own without becoming sufficiently independent to impugn the oneness of that God. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 126

The ancient religious intuitions we found in JE texts and Israelite inscriptions…never quite died within Jewish monotheism, but manifested themselves with great power long after their precursors in the ancient Near East had been forgotten. In spite of the attempts of priestly and deuteronomic texts to suppress these intuitions, they recur in rabbinic literature, in Jewish mysticism of both the kabbalistic and prekabbalistic varieties, and in the offshoot of Judaism that came to be known as Christianity. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 134

Earlier, we spent some time discussing the Hebrew terms “shem” and “kabod.” Like these biblical terms, we also saw that the term “shekhinah” is also used in rabbinic literature in ways that convey the multiplicity of God’s personhood. We mentioned the quote below earlier in our section discussing medieval Jewish denial of Complex Monotheism. We return to this quote in order to give attention to Sommer’s insight on how the rabbis used “shekhinah” to refer to the multiplicity of personhood exhibited by the one, true God of the bible.

Rabbinic Literature: Multiple Conceptions of Shekhinah – Classical rabbinic texts – that is, texts dating from the first eight or nine centuries of the first millennium C.E. – pick up and synthesize the legacies of the priestly and deuteronomic traditions from the Bible. Thus it is not surprising that they often echo, usually with their own particular terminology, the theological pictures we find in P and in D…..The rabbinic shekhinah in many respects closely resembles the priestly kabod described in Chapter 3. In a few rabbinic texts, shekhinah simply serves as the rabbinic equivalent of kabod. 8 Thus, in Tanhuma Naso 12 the two terms appear as synonyms in a single sentence. Similarly, they replace each other in two versions of Rabbi Yosi’s teaching regarding God’s descent: In b. Sukkah 5a he speaks of the shekhinah’s descent, whereas in Mekhilta Behodesh 4 he speaks of the kabod’s....Many rabbinic texts simply equate the shekhinah with God, just as priestly texts identify God and the kabod….Other rabbinic texts that discuss the shekhinah, however, suggest something resembling the multiplicity of divine embodiment. Some seem to regard the shekhinah as present in a specific earthly location and in heaven at one and the same time. Tanhuma Naso 12 tells us that the angels were dismayed when Moses completed the tabernacle, fearing that the shekhinah would abandon them, but God reassured them that the shekhinah would remain in heaven even after it entered the earthly sanctuary. The midrash goes on to inform us that the two manifestations or embodiments of the shekhinah are not equal. Citing Psalm 148.13 (“His splendor is above heaven and earth”), the midrash asserts that the shekhinah is first and foremost on earth; in some less important way, it is also with the angels in heaven. 16 Here God is in two locations, one heavenly and one earthly, which suggests distinct localizations of divinity – that is, in the terminology I laid out in the introduction, two bodies of God. Elsewhere the idea of the shekhinah reflects that ancient notion of the fragmentation of divine selfhood. Several scholars note the importance of a passage in a late rabbinic text, Midrash Mishle to Proverbs 22.29, in which the shekhinah stands before God and pleads, successfully, on behalf of King Solomon (who would otherwise have been denied a share in the world-to-come). As Peter Schafer notes in his discussion of this text, “In depicting the Shekhinah as standing up before God and speaking to Him, the Midrash goes very far in its dramatic and bold personification. As a matter of fact, it draws a clear distinction between God and His Shekhinah: the Shekhinah has become a “persona” different and distinct from God.” This case is not unique; there are other late midrashic texts in which the shekhinah achieves a measure of distinction from God. 19 Yet this distinction is extremely loose or fleeting. For example, Schafer and Gershom Scholem point to targumim (ancient Jewish translations of scripture into Aramaic) on Deuteronomy 31.3-8, in which some entity such as the shekhinah acts as God or on God’s behalf. In Targum Onkelos, God walks before Israel in verses 3 and 8a, whereas God’s Word [Memra] walks before them in verse 6 and supports them in verse 8b. The situation in Targum Pseudo-Jonathan to these verses is more complex: God’s shekhinah leads Israel in verse 6, and the shekhinah of God’s Word leads them in verse 8. But both the shekhinah and God pass before Israel in verse 3; there the two nouns are independent and parallel to each other, whereas in the other verses the shekhinah is an aspect of God or of God’s Word. 21 Immediately thereafter, however, Pseudo-Jonathan tells us that God (alone, and not in concert with the shekhinah) will smite the nations. In these passages, the shekhinah and/or the Word seems to be distinct from God one moment and a part of God a moment later. The theological picture drawn here seems baffling and self-contradictory – until we look at it as a late example of the fluidity models so well attested in ancient Near Eastern literature. 22 In short, rabbinic literature that discusses the shekhinah attests to both fluidity and antifluidity models. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 126-128

The passage above includes an endnote (16) in reference to Sommer’s comment that two manifestations or embodiments of the “shekhinah” existed, one on earth and one in heaven. Apparently, this conception of more than one divine person expressed through the use of the term “shekhinah” is also exhibited by Rabbi Akiba.

Endnote 16: A similar view is attributed to Rabbi Akiva in Shir Hashirim Rabbah 8:15 ad Song 8.11, concerning which see Schafer, Mirror, 89-91. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 253

We have already seen both Segal and Sommer attributing a form of Complex Monotheism to the leading second century figure Rabbi Akiba in the Talmud. The quote below was examined earlier in our study as we became familiar with the terminology Segal uses when discussing what Sommer refers to as fluidity of divine selfhood (what we have called Complex Monotheism). In the quote below Segal reports on a Talmudic account in which Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Yosi both agreed that Daniel 7:9 spoke of one God in two hypostatic persons. 

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

We need to draw attention to the fact that, according to the Talmud, both Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Yosi conclude that the prophet Daniel saw God as two distinct figures in heaven who were both divine. More particularly, these important second century rabbis provide some identification of the two hypostatic manifestations of YHWH with the terms Justice and Grace. This identification of God’s hypostases with Justice and Grace demonstrates the continuation of ancient Complex Monotheistic concepts in early rabbinic Judaism. Here in the early rabbinic period we see Jewish authorities identifying more than one divine figure as God in a manner that parallels the more ancient understanding of Northwestern Semitic peoples in the biblical periods. Segal showed that Rabbi Yosi and Rabbi Akiba used the terms Justice and Grace to identify two, simultaneously-existing, figures as YHWH. Below Sommer reports that the ancient Semitic peoples similarly thought of Justice and Fairness as two hypostatic divine figures.

Endnote 22: Even…Justice and Fairness…may have been hypostatized in Northwest Semitic literature, where they are actual gods… – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 215

In the quote below, Segal describes Jewish traditions of the first century that conceptualized God similarly as two figures identified as Justice and Mercy.

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

We will discuss Rabbi Akiba again in later sections of our study as we continue to investigate developments within Judaism related to Complex and Simple Monotheism. At this point we can see that even in the first and second century AD, Judaism continued to understand passages in the Hebrew Bible as teaching Complex Monotheism.

Endnote 19 (below) is also referenced in the larger quote above (from pages 126-128 of The Bodies of God…) where Sommer explains the use of “shekhinah” in rabbinic literature to refer to multiple personhood of God. In the endnote, Sommer provides further thoughts on the presence of Complex Monotheism (fluidity of divine selfhood) within rabbinic writing.

Endnote 19: Many scholars attempt to dismiss the evidence of these cases…. Nevertheless, the cumulative effect of the many examples noted by Goldberg in his notes on 462 and by Urbach, 43, suffices to show that they attest to real, if somewhat atypical, rabbinic theology. Regardless of their dates, most of them are unambiguously prekabbalistic and, to use Scholem’s term, mythical; or to use my terminology, they attest to the ancient Near Eastern notion of fluidity of divine selfhood. That parallel texts sometimes provide alternate readings demonstrates that not all rabbinic authors or editors accepted this theology – which simply shows that the ancient debate I describe in this book continued in rabbinic literature. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 253

It is apparent that at some point some rabbinic authors did not accept Complex Monotheism. However, as Sommer shows, it is also the case that some rabbinic writers (especially early ones) found Complex Monotheism to be acceptable in some forms. Just when and how the rabbinic schools began to move away from Complex Monotheism deserves further attention as we continue our study.

The next quote (endnote 21) is also part of the larger discussion of the rabbinic use of “shekhinah” above. In this endnote, Sommer explains that some form of Complex Monotheism continued to be exhibited in rabbinic literature as late as the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan.

Endnote 21: Somewhat surprisingly, neither Schafer nor Scholem attends to the complex grammar of the crucial clause in Pseudo-Jonathan Deuteronomy 31.3…In light of the prevalence of this sort of disjunct between the number of a subject and that of its verb in the biblical Aramaic that Pseudo-Jonathan may imitate, however, it is not necessary to view [this Hebrew word] as a gloss. Furthermore, even if we were to view [this Hebrew word] in verse 3 as a gloss, the presence of the copulative still renders it parallel to [this Hebrew word] rather than owned by it. In that case, it is the glossator rather than the older text that suggests the fluidity reading, but this distinction is immaterial for our purposes; either way, we find an ancient Jewish sage inscribing the notion of divine fluidity into the motif of shekhinah. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 253-254

As the quotes below denote, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan contains material from an early version of the Targum Onkelos (roughly the second century AD) to the Islamic period, which is the seventh century AD onward. In any case, this places Pseudo-Jonathan’s expressions and acceptance of Complex Monotheistic ideas within rabbinic Judaism significantly after the rise of Christianity.

Biblical Literature, Old Testament Canon, Texts, and Versions – The most famous of the Palestinian Targums is that popularly known as “Jonathan,” a name derived from a 14th-century scribal mistake that solved a manuscript abbreviation “TJ” as “Targum Jonathan” instead of “Targum Jerusalem.” In contrast with two other Targums, which are highly fragmentary (Jerusalem II and III), Pseudo-Jonathan (or Jerusalem I) is virtually complete. It is a composite of the Old Palestinian Targum and an early version of Onkelos with an admixture of material from diverse periods. It contains much rabbinic material as well as homiletic and didactic amplifications. There is evidence of great antiquity, but also much late material, indicating that Pseudo-Jonathan could not have received its present form before the Islāmic period. – Encyclopedia Britannica

Onkelos – Onkelos , 2d cent. AD, translator of the Hebrew Bible into Aramaic, his work later being given the title Targum Onkelos (see Targum). A proselyte, he gained the respect of the leading Hebrew scholars of his day. His translation became almost as authoritative a text as the Pentateuch itself. – Columbia Encyclopedia

Targum – The best known, most literal, and possibly the earliest Targum is the Targum of Onkelos on the Pentateuch, which appeared in its final revision in the 3rd century ad. Other Targums include the Targum of Pseudo-Jonathan, the Samaritan Targum, and the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel. – Encyclopedia Britannica

The following quotes provide a summary of the relationship of Hebrew terms that are used in the bible to speak of God’s multiplicity of personhood. As Sommer again explains, the commitment to Complex Monotheism among ancient Jews did not end after the close of Biblical Judaism. Rather, Jews continued to believe in some form of Complex Monotheism (one God who exists as more than one person) into the first part of the first millennium AD (CE.) Some of these traditions connected the figure identified as “Metatron” with biblical passages like Exodus 23 which discuss the angel of YHWH who has the name YHWH, is YHWH, and yet is somehow distinct from YHWH.

The Persistence of the Fluidity Model – …the notions of divine fluidity and multiple embodiment, these notions did not simply vanish. On the contrary, they recur in rabbinic literature, in various forms of Jewish mysticism, and in Christianity….What I intend to do here is merely to give a sense of how postbiblical literatures give witness to the notion of a single God whose manifestations take action on their own without becoming sufficiently independent to impugn the oneness of that God. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 126

The recurrence of the fluidity model in Judaism of the first millennium C.E. is even more pronounced in the mysticism of that period. We saw in Chapter 2 that some biblical passages display a notion of an “angel” or mal’akh who is a part of God but does not encompass all of God. These angels have acted separately from Yhwh, but they also overlapped with God and could even be referred to as Yhwh. The idea of an angel whose self to some degree overlaps with Yhwh but did not exhaust Yhwh’s self is picked up in mystical texts of the rabbinic era – that is in merkavah (chariot) mysticism, in heikhalot (palace) mysticism, and in the texts known as Shi’ur Qomah (measuring the height or the body [of God]). This biblical idea of the angel becomes evident in the figure variously called the “angel of the Presence” (mal’akh hapanim), the “prince of the Presence” (sar hapanim), Yahoel, and Metatron. Some texts identified this figure as a “little Yhwh,” a designation that attests at once to the figure’s overlap with God and the fact that this figure does not incorporate important aspects of God. In some of these texts, we are even told that the divine figure called Metatron had once been the human being Enoch. In these texts, then, God’s self overlaps with another being in a manner reminiscent of the ancient Near Eastern theology we examined in Chapter 1. Significantly, the idea of Metatron as a “little Yhwh,” one whose “Name is like his Master’s” (as b. Sanhedrin 38b puts it), is especially associated with Exodus 23.21, a crucial E text that refers to this conception of the angel; this is the case in b. Sanhedrin 38b, which nevertheless insists on some distinction between God and Metatron as well, because this text states that one is not allowed to pray to Metatron. In this case, a late example of the fluidity model has correctly found one of its sources in biblical literature itself. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 128-129

It is important to note some of the additional terms that were used by Jews to identify at least one of the hypostatic persons of YHWH. In the quote above Sommer lists the terms “Yahoel,” “little YHWH,” and “Metatron” as titles that Jews used in the rabbinic period (2nd century AD through 18th century AD) when discussing a person of YHWH who was YHWH and yet was also somehow distinct from YHWH. As Sommer states, these titles were connected to the “angel of YHWH” figure featured in Exodus and later passages. Jewish belief in this divine hypostatic person who was God and yet distinct from God was apparently widespread in pre-rabbinic periods of Judaism. As Segal explains, such beliefs were probably not opposed by the rabbis. 

No one can convincingly date the traditions in the Merkabah documents to the first-century rabbinic community. But there is some independent evidence that the ideas in which we are interested were well developed within apocalypticism as early as the first century. This is amply illustrated by the Apocalypse of Abraham which is usually dated to the late first century after the destruction of the temple, or early second century. In this work, Yahoel is given a major role. Yahoel himself says in his revelation to Abraham: “I am called Yahoel by Him who moveth that which existed in me on the seventh expanse upon the firmament, a power in virtue of the ineffable Name that is dwelling in me.” Obviously this, like the YHWH the lesser traditions we have seen, is a reference to the angel of Ex. 23:21. It is evident that the figure is a personification of the name itself. From the text it is quite clear that Yahoel is God’s vice-regent, second only to God himself, and is the supreme figure in Jewish angelology. The Apocalypse of Abraham is contemporary or earlier than the first mention of “two powers” in rabbinic literature, but was probably not the target, since it is not clearly heretical and the rabbis’ earliest reports mention gentiles as the targets. This kind of evidence indicates that the ideas about an angel carrying God’s name enjoyed a fairly wide distribution, only some of which was in heretical circles. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 196

In the “Parables of Enoch” there is a long excursion on the value of the hidden, divine name, by which the world was created and which the “son of man” learns. The work is dated variously to pre-Christian times, to the first, second and later centuries. What is most important is that there is an explicit reference to the use of God’s hidden name as a weapon in an imprecation against demons or fallen angels, as well as in the creation of the world. Because of this name, all aspects of creation do homage to God, yet it becomes the possession of the “son of man.” These traditions seem to refer to the tetragrammaton, whose pronunciation was probably already guarded. Similar traditions are based on the magical papyri and in esoteric circles in Judaism. Of course, these traditions are datable with any surety only to the third century…In the Sefer Yetzira, written between the third and sixth centuries, the whole creation is described as proceeding from the name of God. In the Sefer ha-Qoma the ineffable name is expressly identified with Metatron Yahoel. In III Enoch, Yahoel is also named YHWH the lessor (7, 12:5, 48). YHWH the lessor is also found in the Gnostic Pistis Sophia (ch. 7). Thus, it seems very likely that, by the beginning of the second century and back into the first century as well, there existed apocalyptic speculations about the name of God as a mediator of creation which probably was very early connected with the idea that this mediation could also be portrayed by a principal angel. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 196-197

In Jewish literature before and after the onset of the rabbinic period, Metatron was the name given to a principal angel who had the same divine name as God (YHWH.)

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

In Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Brown recounts a passage from the Talmud involving Exodus 24:1, Metatron, and the Jewish belief that the one God existed as more than one divine person.

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

The story that Brown recounts is also discussed by Segal in Two Powers in Heaven

Sanhedrin 38b: R. Nahman said: “He who is as skilled in refuting the Minim as is R. Idith [MS. M: R Idi] let him do so; but not otherwise. Once a Min said to R. Idi: ‘ It is written, And unto Moses He said: Come up to the Lord (Ex. 24:1). But surely it should have stated, Come up to me!’ – ‘It was Metatron,’ he replied, whose name is similar to that of his Master, for it is written, For My name is in Him. (Ex. 23:21). ‘But if so, we should worship him!’ ‘The same passages, however,’ replied R. Idi, ‘says: Be not rebellious against Him [i.e., exchange Me not for him.’] ‘But if so, why is it stated: He will not pardon your transgression?’ (Ex. 23:21). He answered: ‘By our truth [lit: we hold the belief] we would not accept him even as a messenger, for it is written. And he said unto him, If Thy presence go not etc.’ (Ex. 33:15).”…The demonstration of R. Idi’s competence is exceedingly interesting. Without naming the heresy, he describes a passage conducive to the “two powers” heresy (Ex. 24:1). In that scripture, God orders Moses and the elders to ascend up to the Lord. Since the text says, “Come up to YHWH” and not “Come up to me,” the heretic states that two deities are present. The tetragrammaton would then be the name of a second deity, a conclusion further supported by the lack of an explicit subject for the verb “said” in the Masoretic Text. The high god can refer to his helper as YHWH because the helper is the same figure of whom it is said, “My name is in him” (Ex. 23:20 f.). Obviously this is another case of heretics believing in a principal angel with divine perquisites because the Lord’s name is in him. Now we see how the name of YHWH was associated with the mediator. The language is Babylonian Aramaic so the text itself can only be dated to the third century with any surety. But the tradition must be based on older traditions in apocalyptic or proto-Merkabah or proto-gnostic texts where the principal angel has a theophoric name. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 68-69

As these Jewish scholars note, the Talmudic account records that it was the rabbi himself who asserted the existence of an angelic figure (Metatron) that engaged Moses throughout the Exodus period and who was distinct from God and yet is identified with the divine name YHWH. As we have seen, the Exodus account itself identifies this figure interchangeably as YHWH God. Likewise, this association and identification has been commonly recognized by Jews in the biblical and post-biblical periods including both the rabbi and his opponent in this Talmudic passage.

Thus, at the very least, the entire angelic theophany in Exodus (and maybe those in Genesis as well) was seen as a close unit as early as LXX translations in the second century B.C.E. Philo shared and developed this perspective in striking ways. Philo wants the logos, the goal of the mystical vision of God, to serve as a simple explanation for all the angelic and human manifestations of the divine in the Old Testament. Thus Philo hints that, at the burning bush, Moses saw the image of Being, but elsewhere he calls it an angel as the scripture requires. Whatever is implied about the status of the tradition at the time of the LXX translation, this angelic manifestation of God is so consistent a character in the biblical drama for Philo that he blithely applies the description of the angel Moses saw to the angel that appears to Abraham. Again the link is made on the basis of place. (Gen. 28:11): For as long as he falls short of perfection, he has the Divine Word as his leader, since there is an oracle which says, “Lo I send my messenger before thy face to guard thee in thy way, that he may bring you into the land which I have prepared for thee; give heed to him and hearken to him, disobey him not; for he will by no means withdraw from you. For My name is in him.” (Ex. 23:30 f.) – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 169-170

It is clear that even into rabbinic times, there is an ongoing discussion of an important biblical figure who is identified alternatively as Metatron or the “angel of YHWH” and who was considered by Jews to be one of the divine, hypostatic, personal manifestations of the one, true God, YHWH and admittedly identified by the name YHWH in their scripture.

According to Segal, these Jewish conceptions of divine multiplicity of personhood that are conveyed by “angel of YHWH” (and Metatron) traditions are earlier than the time of Rabbi Akiba in the second century AD.

Whenever they developed, the basic traditions concerning the angelic figure are older than the time of R. Akiba and R. Ishmael because the rabbinic defense against the heresy contradicts the rabbinic doctrine of divine mercy and justice which was known to both of them. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 150

By the first century AD, various Jewish sects displayed Complex Monotheistic beliefs derived from biblical texts. Below Segal provides a summary of some of the relevant biblical passages which Jews understood as teaching that God existed as more than one, simultaneously-present, hypostatic, divine person. We have documented many of these same passages making this same point earlier from Sommer’s book as well as in our Trinity Study.

The crucial issues which can be dated early are: (1) a dangerous understanding of Daniel 7:9 f.; (2) dangerous contradictions between the portrayal of God as a heavenly warrior (especially in Ex. 15:3) and the figure of an old man on a heavenly throne assumed to be described in various theophanies (especially Ex. 24:10 f.); (3) a tradition about a principal angel, based on Ex. 20 f., said to be Metatron in the amoraic traditions but whose real significance is that he is YHWH or the bearer of the divine name (using Ex. 23:21 f.). These passages may have little in common in their origins. But they all picture God Himself as a man or posit a principal angel, with the shape of a man, who aids God in the governance of the world. Since the passages share a revelatory vision of the angelic figure or picture God sitting on His throne, other major biblical texts, describing God’s angel or His enthronement could also be relevant. The angelophany and theophany passages of Genesis and Exodus might be included, as well as Is. 6 and Ex. 1. Besides Ex. 23:21 f. which the rabbis discuss at length, it might include Gen. 16:7 f., 21:17 f., 22:11, 313:11 f., Ex. 3:2 f., Ju. 2:1 f. where reference to the angel of YHWH and Elohim are confused in the text. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 149

Below, Sommer focuses on the doctrinal corollary to divine multiplicity, the corporeality of God. Alongside the ongoing consideration that the one God was manifest as more than one divine person at the same time, Judaism also continued to exhibit a belief that God is embodied rather than incorporeal. Like divine multiplicity of self, divine corporeality is not only presented in the Hebrew Bible, but continued in rabbinic writing as well.

Yet references to an embodied God seem to appear again and again in the authoritative texts on which these philosophers based their thinking – not only in the Hebrew Bible but also in the classical rabbinic literature of the Talmuds and the midrashic collections. 34 – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 8

Endnote 34: On the anthropomorphic conception of God in rabbinic literature, see especially Goshen…Goshen’s fundamental insights, however, remain valid: The rabbis never articulated a concept of a spiritual or noncorporeal God, and God’s body seems to have consisted of or emanated an extraordinary light. To be sure, some passages in rabbinic literature have been read as objecting to anthropomorphic depictions of God, but a closer examination shows that these passages are concerned not with the metaphysical problem of attributing a form to God, but with the practical or ethical appropriateness of the humble forms sometimes attributed to Him. Further, rather than objecting to such attributions, the rabbis set out to justify them….Various rabbis debate whether exceptional human beings can see God. The view that humans can do so is associated with Rabbi Akiva and his school, whereas the opposite view is associated with Rabbi Ishmael and his school…Even the view that humans never see God , one should note, does not deny that God has a body; rather, those who hold this view insists that its extraordinary luminousity render it impossible for humans to see it….On anthropomorphic conceptions of God in rabbinic and related literature, see further Scholem, Mystical Shape 34-5, who notes that the speculations about God’s body in the shi’ur qomah literature “were at the very center of rabbinic Judaism in tannaittic and talmudic times” and their gnosis “is a strictly orthodox Jewish one.” On early Christian claims that Jews of late antiquity regarded God as embodied, see Stroumsa, “Form(s),” 270-2, who regards these claims as accurate. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 175-176

We can see then that the divine fluidity and divine corporeality that are articulated in the Hebrew Bible were maintained even in the rabbinic sect of Judaism through the early second century AD. In the section below we will spend more time exploring the presence of Complex Monotheism within first century Judaism and earlier.

We have already seen that even in the early second century, Rabbi Akiba himself still articulated some form of Complex Monotheism when he exegeted Daniel 7. According to the Talmud, Rabbi Akiba identified Daniel 7:9’s man-like figure as the Davidic Messiah and as a hypostatic personal manifestation of YHWH. Here again is the relevant quote.

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…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…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. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 47-49

Again, we should draw attention to two points Segal makes in the quote above. First, the Talmudic account has Rabbi Akiba asserting that the man-like figure is both the Davidic Messiah and a divine hypostasis that is simultaneously present alongside another divine figure (the “ancient of days”) who is also identified as YHWH. As Segal states, it is not clear that Rabbi Akiba would have seen these two identifications (Davidic Messiah and divine hypostasis) of the man-like figure as contradictory. In other words, as far as we can tell from what is provided in the Talmudic account Rabbi Akiba seems to have subscribed to the belief in a man-like hypostasis of God who was also the Davidic Messiah. (We will return to this point later as we discuss the issue of incarnation.)

Second, we should note Segal’s statement that Rabbi Akiba is not alone in his identification of Daniel 7:9’s man-like figure to the Davidic Messiah. The derivation of Complex Monotheism from these kinds of biblical passages was common within Judaism before the close of the second century AD.

Both apocalyptic Jews and Christians can be shown to combine the angelic or divine interpretations of the passage with their messianic candidate. Jews similar to Philo, who did not often talk about the Daniel vision, but did give special authority to a second, angelic or metaphysical manifestation of God in heaven could be said to have affirmed a second power. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 49-50

Whenever they developed, the basic traditions concerning the angelic figure are older than the time of R. Akiba and R. Ishmael because the rabbinic defense against the heresy contradicts the rabbinic doctrine of divine mercy and justice which was known to both of them. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 150

The commonness of Complex Monotheistic beliefs among Jews who derived them from passages like Daniel 7 should not be surprising to us at this point. After all, as Segal explains, Daniel 7 does, in fact, actually describe two divine figures that are both identified as God.

The Dan. passages does, in fact, supply two figures in heaven, one old and one young. It seems likely, then, that the rabbis were opposed to any tradition of a man-like figure in heaven, acting independently of God. The biblical passages are important in themselves. Daniel 7:9 f. can certainly be seen to allow for a “two powers” interpretation. Traditions about the human figure (YHWH’s angel, but still God of Israel) seen at Ex. 24:10 f. allow for “two powers” interpretations without reference to other scripture. The same can be said for Ex. 15:3. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 52

Apparently, in the period between the fourth century BC and the second century AD it had become common for Jews to identify the man-like figure described in passages like Daniel 7 and Exodus 15 as the Logos or Word of YHWH. (The association of the Logos with the man-like figure portrayed in these passages makes sense because Philo and the New Testament authors regard the Logos as the one in whose image man was created. Thus, the figure is, at least at times described as “man-like.” Earlier, Sommer related that Ezekiel’s vision of God is an example of this “man-like” hypostasis of YHWH.

The most spectacular exception was Ezekiel, who saw the kabod directly and clearly, much to his initial dismay (Ezekiel 1.1, 27-8). Although the substance of this body differs from that of a human, its shape is basically similar. Ezekiel describes it as “a form like the semblance of a human….I saw from what resembled its loins and up something that looked like amber, with something that resembled fire inside it all around. From what resembled its loins and down I saw what resembled fire and brightness all around….This was the semblance of the form of Yhwh’s kabod.” (Ezekiel 1.26-8) Ezekiel is careful not to equate this divine body with a typical human body (it had not “loins” but “what resembled loins”), but for all his careful verbal reservations, he makes clear that the kabod looks rather like a human body. – Benjamin D. Sommer, The Bodies of God and the World of Ancient Israel, p. 68-69

As Segal explains, there is no evidence that the rabbis objected to these types of traditions which believed in a man-like, hypostatic manifestation of YHWH (identified as the Logos) and which Segal points out are probably somewhat widespread at that time.

We know that the logos as well was assumed to be a human figure generally in Hellenistic Judaism. In the Wisdom of Solomon 18:15, for instance, the logos or Word is a stern warrior who leaps from the throne of God on command. Though the description certainly parallels the description of the human figure who is a “mighty man of war” in Ex. 15, there is no evidence that this is the specific tradition to which the rabbis objected….Occasional clues like this make it probable that traditions of God’s primary warrior manifestation are even more widespread than the rabbinic evidence would have us believe. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 185

Lastly, we should give attention to Segal’s conclusion that the identification of Daniel’s divine man-like figure as a Davidic Messiah is likely an authentic belief from Akiba’s time. Segal’s assessment is that Jewish traditions about a man-like hypostasis of YHWH identified with the Davidic Messiah were not replaced until after Akiba’s messianic hopes about Bar Kokhba had proven faulty, that is, after 135 AD.

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…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

By the end of the second century AD then the rabbis had begun to reconsider and object to the earlier Jewish beliefs which identified one of the multiple divine persons of God as a man-like, messianic figure. Below Segal summarizes the story told by the available historical evidence.

It is now possible to construct a coherent, synchronized history of the tradition. The early biblical theophanies which picture God as a man or confuse YHWH with an angel are the basis of the tradition….This speculation continued among a number of groups and was later canonized by the rabbinic community. In no way can every occurrence be considered heretical. Some traditions which became part of the “two powers” controversy were known by Philo, who used the term “second god” (deuteros theos) to describe the logos. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 260-261

In the first and early second century, Judaism included belief that the one God was manifest as more than one, simultaneously-present, divine person. Additionally, based on biblical passages in books like Daniel and Exodus, first and second-century Judaism identified these divine persons with a man-like, messianic figure and/or an principal angel (“the angel of YHWH” or the Logos of YHWH.) Of course, there is a conceptual link between the terms “angel of YHWH” and “Logos (Word) of YHWH.” The Hebrew word for angel is “malakh” and it means messenger. Both the terms “angel/messenger of YHWH” and “Word of YHWH” convey the idea of a person of YHWH who speak with and talks to man.

Let us begin by summarizing the previous findings about scriptural traditions. The dangerous passages include (1) Dan. 7:9 f. and the speculation about the identity of the “son of man,” (2) the Ex. 24 theophany, possibly together with other passages in the Bible where God is pictured in the form of a man 3 (3) the related descriptions of the angel of YHWH who carries the divine name (4) scriptural verse which describe God as plural (Gen. 1:26). [Footnote 3: This might include the passages in scripture where YHWH and an angel are confused, e.g., Gen. 16:7 f., 21:17 f., 22:11, 31:11 f., Ex. 3:2 f., Ju. 2:1 f., as well as Ex. 23:21., though the rabbis themselves do not discuss most of these particular pericopes. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 183-184

It was not until after Rabbi Akiba’s death at the failed Bar Kokhba revolt that these beliefs began to be labeled as heretical by rabbinic authorities. The sect that came to be known more commonly as Christians were among the Jewish groups that held to these beliefs, but they were not the only such group. These beliefs were widespread in pre-rabbinic and early rabbinic Judaism.

Therefore we should continue to assume that the Christians were but one of a number of apocalyptic or mystical groups who posited a primary angelic helper for God. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 262

In first and early second-century Judaism, various Jewish sects expressed the belief that the one, true God existed as more than one divine, simultaneously-existing person. However, by the late second century, rabbinic authorities begin to exhibit a clear objection to these beliefs. Among the beliefs that late-second century rabbis were concerned with are other, earlier Jewish beliefs and terminologies related to Complex Monotheistic traditions positing a divine man-like messiah and a divine principal angel. In the centuries after the close of the books of the Hebrew Bible, Jewish groups developed and used various terms to discuss these important facets of Complex Monotheism. Segal provides a list of some of the corresponding terms that appear in pre-rabbinic and rabbinic Jewish literature. They include the previously-mentioned “shekhinah” as well as the Memra. (Note, this figure, who was known by different names, was identified by Jews as one of the figures involved in the creation of man in Genesis 1:26-27.)

Since the Christian messiah may have been a target of the “two powers” polemic, other mediating or intermediary divine helpers in Jewish tradition may also have offended rabbinic sensibilities. The Aramaic terms Yeqara, Memra, and Shekhinah could be included in the heresy to the extent that they were not verbal subterfuges and point to a metaphysical or theological conception. However, it seems likely that these traditions represent rabbinic attempts to explain dangerous scripture rather than “heresy” itself. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 23-24

While God is sometimes viewed as using the yekara, spirit, word, memra or logos at creation, early evidence concerning an angel helping God at creation is quite complicated….Philo might provide some evidence for identification of the angel with a divine helper in creation because angels can be allegorized as the logos….We have seen that Philo identifies the heavenly man with the logos, which is identified with God’s archangel and principal helper in creation….Angelic mediation in the giving of the Law is easy to find. It can be seen in Jubilees (Jub. 1:27-3:7) as well as in the New Testament (Gal. 3:19, Acts 7:38, 53, Heb. 2:2.). – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 188-189

[In Poimandres, c. 2nd-3rd century AD] Creation is carried out by the primary manifestation of the highest being, the logos or Word. This logos is personified as the Son of God in ways similar to those we have seen in Philo and the Wisdom of Solomon (18:15-16). It is clear that, whatever else may be of interest in the document, it would be considered “two powers in heaven” by the rabbis. We can see that those powers are complementary. – Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, p. 245

The term Memra is the Aramaic equivalent of the Greek word Logos and the more common capitalized application of the English term “Word” when used in reference to one of the persons of God. 

In his books, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Brown explains the significance of the Jewish conception of the Memra in rabbinic literature and in the pre-rabbinic Jewish translations known as the Targums, which, as we have seen, were the common translations of the Hebrew Bible that Jews before and after the first century used in the synagogues.

10. The rabbis took this one step further. Since God was often perceived as somehow “untouchable,” it was necessary to provide some kind of link between the Lord and his earthly creation. One of the important links in Rabbinic thought was “the Word,” called memra’ in Aramaic (from the Hebrew and Aramaic root, “to say” [‘mr], the root used throughout the creation account in Genesis 1, when God said and the material world came into existence). We find this memra’ concept hundreds of times in the Aramaic Targums, the translations, and paraphrases of the Hebrew Scriptures that were read in the synagogues before, during, and after the time of Jesus. These Targums arose because, in some locations, many of the Jewish people no longer understood Hebrew. Instead, they grew up speaking and reading Aramaic, so they could follow the public reading of the Scriptures only with Aramaic translation. – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 19

For reference, here again is the information on the Targums.

Targum – Targum an ancient Aramaic paraphrase or interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, of a type made from about the 1st century ad when Hebrew was ceasing to be a spoken language. – The Oxford Dictionary of Phrase and Fable

Targum (Biblical Literature) – Targum, (Aramaic: “Translation,” or “Interpretation”), any of several translations of the Hebrew Bible or portions of it into the Aramaic language. The word originally indicated a translation of the Old Testament in any language but later came to refer specifically to an Aramaic translation. The earliest Targums date from the time after the Babylonian Exile when Aramaic had superseded Hebrew as the spoken language of the Jews in Palestine. It is impossible to give more than a rough estimate as to the period in which Hebrew was displaced by Aramaic as a spoken language. It is certain, however, that Aramaic was firmly established in Palestine by the 1st century ad, although Hebrew still remained the learned and sacred language. Thus the Targums were designed to meet the needs of unlearned Jews to whom the Hebrew of the Old Testament was unintelligible. The status and influence of the Targums became assured after the Second Temple was destroyed in ad 70, when synagogues replaced the Temple as houses of worship. – Encyclopedia Britannica

As Brown explains, the Memra (or Word) is used in Aramaic Targums and rabbinic texts as a divine figure identified in many biblical texts which discuss God’s interaction with the world and with mankind. In the quotes (and chart) below, Brown provides examples of how the Memra is treated in the Targums.

11. To use Genesis 3:8 as an example, most of the people who were listening to the public reading of the Scriptures would not have understood the Hebrew, which said, “And they heard the sound of the LORD God as he was walking in the garden.” Rather, they would have understood the Targum, which said, “And they heard the sound of the Word of the LORD God walking in the midst of the garden.” What a difference and extra “word” makes! To speak of the Lord walking in the garden seemed too familiar, too down to earth. So the Targum made an adjustment: It was not the Lord who was walking in the garden, it was the Memra’ (the Word) of the Lord! This Word was not just an “it”; this Word was a him. 30 – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 19

Now, I want you to look carefully at the following verses. The translation of the Hebrew text is followed immediately by the translation of the Aramaic Targum. Keeping in mind when reading that these Targums were the official translations used in the synagogues. Therefore, the Targums took on great significance in the religious life of the people, just as English versions of the Bible take on great significance for English speakers today. Here are several examples: – Brown, Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus, Volume 2, Theological Objections, p. 19-20