Deity of Messiah

Comment by James Trimm on September 30, 2008 at 5:57pm

The Deity of Messiah

And

The Three Pillars of the Godhead

By
James Scott Trimm


Part 2
The Deity of Messiah is Jewish


Preface

The reader should know that the Zohar, Bahir and Sefer Yetzirah are the three most authoritative works of Kabbalah which is Jewish mysticism. The purpose of this part is to demonstrate that the deity of Messiah and three pillars of the Godhead is indeed a Jewish concept.


The Sh’ma

In Part 1 we discussed the meaning of the word ECHAD in the Sh’ma which reads:

SH’MA YISRAEL YHWH ELOHEYNU YHWH ECHAD
“Hear O Israel, YHWH, our Elohim, YHWH is one (ECHAD)”
(Deut. 6:4)

Now let us to explore how this passage is understood by the Zohar:

The [profession of] unity that every day is [a profession of] unity
is to be understood and to be perceived. We have said in many places
that this prayer is a profession of Unity that is proclaimed:

”Hear O Yisrael, YHWH“ first, [then] “Eloheynu” [and] “YHWH” they are all One and thus He is called “One”.


Behold, these are three names, how can they be one? Is it because we call them one? (literally: And also concerning the proclamation that we call them one?). How these are one can only through the vision of the Holy Sprit be known. And these are through the vision of the closed eye (or the hidden eye) To make known that these three are one (i.e. a Tri-Unity).

And this is the mystery of the voice that is heard. The voice is one. And is three GAUNIN: fire and air and water. And all these are one in the mystery of the voice.

And also here “YHWH, Eloheynu, YHWH” these are One. Three GAUNIN that are One. And this is the voice of the act of a son of man in [proclaiming] the Unity.
And to which he sees by the Unity of the “All” from Eyn Sof (the Inifinite One) to the end of the “All”. Because of the voice in which it is done, in these are three that are one (i.e. a Tri-Unity).

And this is the [profession] of the daily profession of Unity that is revealed in the mystery of the Holy Spirit.

And there are many GAUNIN that are a Unity, and all of them are true, what the one does, that the other does, and what that one does, the other does.
(Zohar 2:43)

(The Aramaic word GA’UN (sing.)/GAUNIN (plural) has the same meaning in the Zohar as the Aramaic word K’NUMA did in the Aramaic New Testament. GAUN comes from the word for “color” and refer to an “aspect, element, substance, essence”. )

Thus the Zohar understands the Sh’ma to mean that YHWH, Elohim and YHWH are three GA’UNIN. This section of the Zohar also recalls a reading from the Sefer Yetzirah:

Three “mothers”: Alef; Mem and Shin
Their foundation is a pan of merit
a pan of liability
and the tongue of decree deciding between them.
(Sefer Yetzirah 3:1)

Three “mothers”, Alef, Mem, Shin
in the universe are air, water, fire…
(Sefer Yetzirah 3:4a)

(Note: The letter SHIN has a gematria (numerical value) of 300 which is the same as the gematria of the phrase ”Ruach Elohim” (the Spirit of God).)

As it we will demonstrate the “tongue of decree deciding between them” is the Middle Pillar of the Godhead which reconciles the two outer pillars of the Godhead.


The Three Pillars of the Godhead

The Zohar also calls these three GAUNIN the three pillars of the Godhead. The Zohar teaches that the two outer pillars are reconciled by the middle pillar just as the “tongue of decree” decides between the two pans of the scale in the Sefer Yetzirah. The Zohar reads as follows:

Why, it may be asked, was it necessary to repeat the word “light”
in this verse? The answer is that the first “light” refers to the
primordial light which is of the Right Hand, and is destined for
the “end of days”; while the second “light” refers to the Left Hand,
which issues from the Right.

The next words, “And God saw the light that it was good” (Gen. 1:4),
refer to the pillar which standing midway between them,
writes both sides, and therefore when the unity of the three,
right, left, and middle, was complete, “it was good”, since there
could be no completion until the third had appeared to remove
the strife between Right and Left, as it is written, “And God separated
between the light and between the darkness.” …

This is the Middle Pillar: Ki Tov (that it was good) threw light
above and below and on all other sides, in virtue of YHWH,
the name which embraces all sides.
(Zohar 1:16b)



The Middle Pillar of the Godhead is the Son of Yah

According to the Zohar the Middle Pillar of the Godhead is the Son of Yah:

Better is a neighbor that is near, than a brother far off.
This neighbor is the Middle Pillar in the Godhead,
which is the Son of Yah.
(Zohar 2:115)

The Zohar also says of the Son of YHWH:

The Holy One, blessed be He, has a son, whose glory (tifret)
shines from one end of the world to another. He is a great
and mighty tree, whose head reaches heaven, and whose roots
are set in the holy ground, and his name is “Mispar” and his
place is in the uppermost heaven… as it is written, “The heavens
declare (me-SaPRim) the glory (tifret) of God” (Ps. 19:1).
Were it not for this “Mispar” there would be neither hosts
nor offspring in any of the worlds.
(Zohar 2:105a)

This Zohar passage is intended to recall a passage from the Bahir:

Why are they called Sephirot?
Because it is written (Ps. 19:2),
“The heavens declare (me-SaPRim) the glory (tifret) of God.”
(Bahir 125)

The Zohar also says concering the Son of Yah:

"We may also translate "he who withholds blessings
from the Son" (Prov. 11:26), whom the Father and Mother
have CROWNED and blessed with many blessings,
and concerning whom they commanded, "Kiss the SON
lest he be angry" (Ps. 2:12), since he is invested
with judgment (GEVURAH) and with mercy (CHESED)"
(Zohar 3:191b)


Metatron

The Zohar also identifies the Middle Pillar as “Metatron”:

The Middle Pillar [of the Godhead] is Metatron,
Who has accomplished peace above,
according to the glorious state there.
(Zohar 3:227)

the Zohar teaches that Metatron is not just the Son of Yah, but that he is "first begotten of all the creatures of God":

"And Abraham said to his oldest servant of his house…" (Gen. 24:2)
Who is this of whom it said "his servant?"
In what sense must this be understood? Who is this servant?
R. Nehori answered: "It is in no other sense to be understood
than expressed in the word "His servant," His servant,
the servant of God, the chief to His service.
And who is he? Metatron, as said. He is appointed to glorify
the bodies which are in the grave. This is the meaning of the words
"Abraham said to His servant" that is to the servant of God.
The servant is Metatron, the eldest of His [YHWH's] House,
who is the first-begotten of all creatures of God,
who is the ruler of all He has; because God has committed to Him
the government over all His hosts.
(Zohar 1:129b)


The Memra (The Word)

Another term for the Middle Pillar of the Godhead in Judaism is the Memra (the “Word”). The eminent Kabbalah Scholar Gershom Scholem writes of the Memra:

...the memra-- the paraphrase used in the Targumim,
the Aramaic Bible translations, to refer to God's word.
The memra is not merely a linguistic device for overcoming
the problem of biblical anthropomorphisms; it has theological
significance in its own right. The memra....is.... a world-permeating
force, a reality in the world of matter or mind, the immanent aspect
of Elohim, holding all things under its omnipresent sway.
(On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead:
Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah, by Gershom Scholem pg 181-182)

The Targums were authoritative Aramaic paraphrases of the books of the Tanak which were read in the synagogues along with the Hebrew of the Torah and Haftorah readings. Whenever the Targums come to passages where YHWH is anthropomorphisised or seen, or where two or more YHWHs are indicated by the text, the Targums will often substitute "The Word [Memra] of YHWH" for YHWH. For example in Gen. 19:4 the Tanak has:

And YHVH rained brimstone and fire
upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah,
from YHVH, from the heavens.
(Original Bible Project preliminary edition)

The Hebrew grammar here indicates that one YHWH rains fire from another YHWH) But Targum Jonathan substitutes "The Word of YHWH/the LORD" for the first of the two YHWHs as follows:

And the Word of the YHWH caused to descend
upon the peoples of Sodom and Gommorah,
brimstone and fire from the YHWH in heaven.

In another example the Torah has:

Ex. 24:1a (YHWH is the speaker, see Ex. 20:1-2)

Now He [YHWH] said to Moses, "come up to YHWH..."

But Targum Jonathan paraphrases the speaker in Ex. 20:1 with the substitution "the Word [Memra] of YHWH" in place of "YHWH."

And the Word of the Lord spoke all these glorious words...

So it would seem that one of these entities called "YHWH" in these Torah passages was actually understood by the Targumists as being the "Word of YHWH." It was, according to Targum Onkelos, this Word of YHWH that Abraham trusted in:

And Abraham trusted in the Word [Memra] of YHWH,
and He counted it to him for righteousness.
(Targum Onkelos Gen. 15:6)

Moreover Abraham prayed in the name of the Word of YHWH:

And Abraham worshipped and prayed
in the name of the Word [Memra] of YHWH,
and said, "You are YHWH who does see, but You cannot be seen."
(Jerusalem Targum Gen. 22:14)

Note that here Abraham prays "in the name of the Word of YHWH" to the YHWH who "cannot be seen." Here two YHWHs are very apparent. Abraham is praying in the name of the Word of YHWH but is praying to the YHWH who cannot be seen. This idea is reinforced elsewhere as follows:

And Hagar praised and prayed

in the name of the Word [Memra] Of YHWH
who had revealed Himself to her…

(Jerusalem Targum Gen. 16:3)

It was this Word of YHWH that Jacob also trusted in:

And Jacob vowed a vow, saying,
"If the Word [Memra] of YHWH will be my support,
and will keep me in the way that I go,
and will give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on,
so that I come again to my father's house in peace;
then shall the Word [Memra]of YHWH be my God.
(Targum Onkelos on Gen. 28:20-21)

King David also urged Israel to trust in the Word of Yah as the Targum of Psalm 62 reads:

Trust in the Word of Yah at all times,
O people of the house of Israel!
Pour out before Him the sighings of your heart;
Say, God is our trust forever.
(Targum on Psalm 62:9)

This "Word of YHWH" was, according to Targum Jonathan, the Creator:

And the Word [Memra] of YHWH
created man in his likeness,
in the likeness of YHWH, YHWH created,
male and female created He them.
(Targ. Jonathan Gen. 1:27)

This idea is also put forward in the Jerusalem Targum:

And the Word [Memra] of YHWH said to Moses:
"I am He who said unto the world 'Be!' and it was:
and who in the future shall say to it 'Be!' and it shall be."
And He said: "Thus you shall say to the children of Israel:
'I Am' has sent me to you."
(Jerusalem Targum Ex. 3:14)

The Fragmentary Targum of the Torah also expresses that the Word of YHWH was the Creator:

The first night, when the "Word of YHWH"
was revealed to the world in order to create it,
the world was desolate and void,
and darkness spread over the face of the abyss
and the "Word of the Lord" was bright and illuminating
and He called it the first night.
(Fragmentary Targum Ex. 12:42)

That the Word of YHWH was the Creator can also be seen in the Tanak itself:

By the Word of YHWH were the heavens made,
And all the hosts of them by the Spirit of His mouth.
(Ps. 33:6)

The Word was also the covenant maker. For example the Noachdic covenant was between the Word and all mankind:

And YHWH said to Noah,
"This is the token of the covenant
which I have established between My Word [Memra]
and between all flesh that is upon the earth.
(Targum Onkelos Gen. 9:17)

The Word also made the Abrahamic covenant as Targum Onkelos also paraphrases:

And I will establish my covenant
between My Word [Memra] and between you…
(Targum Onkelos Gen. 17:7)

The Word of YHWH was also the giver of the Mosaic Covenant and the Torah as the Jerusalem Targum (as quoted above) makes the Torah giver "the Word of YHWH" in Ex. 20:1. It was to th e Word that Jacob turned to for salvation:

Our father Jacob said: "My soul does not wait for salvation
such as that wrought by Gideon, the son of Joash,
for that was but temporal; neither for a salvation
like that of Samson, which was only transitory;
but for that salvation which You have promised to come,
through Your Word unto Your people, the children of Israel;
for your salvation my soul hopes."
(Targum Jonathan Gen. 49:18)

That the Word of YHWH is the savior is expressed elsewhere:

But Israel shall be saved by the Word of YHWH
with an everlasting salvation…
By the Word of YHWH shall all the seed of Israel be justified…
(Targum Jonathan Is. 45:17, 25)

But I will have mercy upon the house of Judah,
and I will save them by the Word of YHWH, their God.
(Targum Jonathan Hosea 1:7)


Conclusion

Thus the Zohar teaches that the Sh’ma (Deut. 6:4) refers to the three pillars of the Godhead as being ECHAD. Moreover the Zohar also teaches that the Middle Pillar of the Godhead reconciles the two outer Pillars (Father and Mother). The Zohar further teaches that this Middle Pillar of the Godhead is the Son of Yah, the firstborn of all creation who will glorify all the bodies which are in the grave. This is the Word of YHWH in whom Abraham placed his faith and who made the covenant with Israel.

James Trimm

Comment by James Trimm on September 30, 2008 at 5:58pm

The Deity of Messiah

And

The Three Pillars of the Godhead

By
James Scott Trimm


Part 3
The Trinities of Christendom




Three Persons?

Now as shown in part one, the Aramaic “New Testament” refers to the components of the Godhead as K’NUMA (sing.)/K’NUMEH (plural). As we have learned both the Biblical and Jewish model of the Godhead contains two contrasting K’NUMEH/GAUNIN and a third K’NUMA/GAUN which was a combination or harmonization of the other two. This third K’NUMA/GAUN is the Son of Yah.

The original Aramaic followers of Yeshua maintained that there were three K’NUMEH and one PARSOPA or one KYANA. This Aramaic terminology continued to be used by the Aramaic speaking Assyrian Christians of the Church of the East (and still is).

The early Greek speaking believers used the Greek words HYPOSTASIS for K’NUMA and PROSOPON for PARSOPA. They maintained a belief in a Godhead with three HYPOSASIS (aspects, substances) and one PROSAPON (person). The earliest Greek “Church Fathers” also used these terms. However the later Greek “Church Fathers” inverted this formulation creating a Godhead of three PROSAPONS (persons) who are one in HYPOSTASIS (essence). Finally the Latin “Church Fathers” formulates a Trinity with three PERSONAS (persons) and only one SUBSTANTIA (essence. Substance).

Now by the year 362 C.E. the Roman Church had become embroiled in a crisis. The conflict in terminology was becoming a problem for Rome. Rome was promoting a Trinity with three persons (PERSONA) in one substance (SUBSTANTIA) but this formula was in conflict with the early Greek “Church Fathers”, a formulation which many Greek speaking Christians still held to. This left the Greek speaking Christians in a dispute. Some held to a Godhead with three aspects (HYPOSTASIS) and one person (PROSPOPON) while others held to a Trinity with three persons (PROSOPONS) who are one in substance/essence (HYPOSTASIS). The Ecclesiastical Council of Alexandria was held in 362 to resolve this dispute. The whole matter was wept under the rug at this council when Rome ruled that both Greek schools were using different words to say the same thing. Rome ruled that the “Old School” Greeks MEANT “PERSONA” when they used HYPOSTASIS and that they had MEANT “SUBSTANTIA” when they used the term PROSOPON. Thus Rome had succeeded in transforming the triune Godhead of three aspects in one person into three persons who are one in substance/essence.

The Mormons have taken this process a stage further. They teach a “Godhead” of three persons who are not one in essence but are one only in “purpose”. This variation brings Rome’s Trinity of three persons firmly into the territory of Tri-Theism.

So is it valid to say that there are three “persons” in the Godhead in English? It depends on what one means by “person”. There are several definitions of the word “person” in English. If you look in a Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary you will find that the first and most common definition of “person” in English is “a human being”. Certainly Elohim is not three “human beings”… in fact He is not even ONE “human being”. The last definition in the Unabridged Dictionary is “any of the three modes of the Trinity”. So one might argue that the aspects of the three pillars of the Godhead may be called “persons” by virtue of a special definition of the word in English apart from any other meaning of the word. However use of the word “person” in English creates confusion because it strongly implies agreement with the Roman Trinity of three persons who are one in essence. More accurate terms are "three pillars"; "three aspects"; "three GAUNIN"; "three K'NUMEH" or "three Tzachtzachot (splendors)".

Now the Orthodox Christian Trinity with three “persons” who are one in essence has certain problems.

In Isaiah 9:6-7 the Son (the Messiah) is called “everlasting Father” while 1Cor. 15:45; 2Cor. 3:17 and Rom. 8:9-11 taken together seem to identify the Son with the Spirit.

According to the NT we as believers are immersed in the Messiah (Rom. 6:3-4; Gal. 3:27); we have the “Spirit of Messiah” which raised Messiah (Rom. 8:9-11) in our hearts (Gal. 4:6; Eph. 3:17), which is the “Spirit of God” (1Jn. 4:12-13) or the “Holy Spirit” (1Cor. 6:19; 1Thes. 4:8). This also would seem to identify the Messiah with the Holy Spirit.

Finally Col. 2:9 states of Messiah “in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead”.

These passages pose problems for the Orthodox Christian trinity of three “persons”.
How can the Messiah be called “everlasting Father” if they are different persons? How can the Messiah be identified with the Holy Spirit if they are different persons? And finally how can the Messiah have “all the fullness of the Godhead” dwelling within him if he is only one of three persons in the Godhead?


Absolute Oneness?

Many of these difficulties with the Orthodox Christian trinity have led to the advent of a doctrine known as “Oneness Theology” in certain Christian circles. Oneness theology teaches that the Father, the Holy Spirit and the Son are all one and the same thing.

However “Oneness Theology” has other problems. For example Messiah stated that the Father is greater than he (Jn. 14:28). But this cannot be the case if they are one and the same.

The distinction between the three K’NOMEH of the Godhead is clear in a number of other passages as well:

The Father sends the Spirit (Jn. 14:26); Messiah sends the Spirit (Jn. 15:26); the Father sends Messiah (Jn. 17:8; 20:21) and in Jn. 14-16 we read that Messiah would have to leave so that the Holy Spirit cold come.

Moreover as shown earlier, in Hebrews 9:14 Messiah presents himself through the Spirit to “Elohim”. This would not be possible if they were all one and the same.

In other examples:

Yeshua could not have been praying to himself in the garden when he said “let this cup pass from me; nevertheless not as I will but as you will.” (Mt. 26:39)

Is. 11:1-2 says that Messiah would have the “fear of YHWH”… did he fear himself?

In. Mt. 13:32 the Son does not know the day nor hour of his return but the Father does. They cannot be one and the same.

In Rev. 5 the Lamb takes the sealed book from the right hand of the figure on the throne… but how could this be if they are one and the same?

Finally the Messiah is frequently described as sitting or standing at the right hand of the Father (a clear allusion to Ps. 110:1, 4) how could this be if they are one and the same?

Clearly Christian “Oneness Theology” cannot stand… the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are not one and the same thing, they are different aspects of the one Elohim.


Conclusion: The True Understanding of the Godhead

The true understanding of the Godhead resolves all of the difficulties found in both the Orthodox Christian and Oneness Christian models.

The true understanding of the Godhead understands the Son as the combination of the Father and the Spirit and thus the Son can be identified with either. However as a combination of these two he is a third, unique and distinct aspect within the one person of the Godhead. Thus the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three K’NUMEH or three GAUNIN (aspects), which are but one PARSOPA (person).

James Trimm

Comment by James Trimm on September 30, 2008 at 5:58pm

The Deity of Messiah

And

The Three Pillars of the Godhead

By
James Scott Trimm


Part 4
The Kabbalistic Godhead Model
in the First Century


The purpose of Part 4 in this series is to establish the fact that the Gohead model set forth in Part 2 was not simply a late innovation of the middle ages, but in fact can be traced back to Judaism at least back to the first century.


The Essene Roots of Kabbalah

The two most authoritative earliest works of Rabbinic Kabbalah are the Sefer Yetzirah and the Bahir.

The earliest known reference to the Sefer Yetzirah is found in the Jerusalem Talmud which mentions the book as having been used by Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya (j.San. 7:13 (41a)) who lived in the late first century. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Chananya (47 BCE - 73 CE) was one of the five talmidim (students) of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai (m.Avot 2:8) who is said to have received his tradition from his colleague Rabbi Nehunia ben HaKana the traditional author of the Bahir. According to the Sefer HaTagin Rabbi Nehunia ben HaKana learned his teaching from a certain Menachem. Most scholars identify this Menechem as Menechem the prominent early first century Essene by that name mentioned by Josephus (Ant. 15:10:5). Thus the Kabbalistic tradition in Rabbinic Judaism can within its own tradition be traced back to early first century Essene Judaism, the sect of Judaism which most scholars believe were authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls.


The Dead Sea Scrolls and Kabbalah

Now it is well known that researchers believe that Chritendom has roots at Qumran. What is less well known is that many researchers also see the roots of Kabbalah at Qumran.

Kabbalah had its beginning as "torat-ha-sod" as Adin Steinsaltz writes:

The sources state that torat ha-sod (mysticism)
was divided into two parts: Ma'aseh Bereshit (Act of Creation)
and Ma'aseh Merkavah (Divine Chariot). The former was more
theoretical and dealt with the creation of the world and the first
divine revelations. Ma'aseh Merkavah, based on the prophet
Ezekiel's description of the Divine Chariot, is a study of the
prevailing relations between God and the world and apparently
contained the seeds of what later came to be known as
Kabbalah ma'asit (practical kabbalah).
(The Essential Talmud; Adin Steinsaltz p. 213)

And as G. Vermes writes:

The Throne-Chariot was a central subject of meditation
in ancient as well as in medieval Jewish esotericism
and mysticism, but the guardians of the Rabbinic orthodoxy
tended to discourage such speculation. The liturgical use
of Ezekiel's chapter on the Chariot is expressly forbidden
in the Mishnah; it even lays down that no wise man is
to share his understanding of the Merkavah with a person
less enlightened than himself. As a result, there is very little
ancient literary material extant on the subject, and the Qumran
text is therefore of great importance to the study of the Origins
of Jewish mysticism.
(The Dead Sea Scroll in English; Second Edition; G.Vermes; p. 211)

Among the parallels between Kabbalah and Qumran esotericism is the strong parallel between the Metatron figure of Kabbalah and the Melchizadek figure at Qumran as P. Alexander writes:

The Merkabah literature has links also with Qumran.
Perhaps the closest Parallels are in the following texts:
The angelic liturgy (4QsirSabb) … The heavenly
Melchizedek (11QMelch) [also known as 11Q13]…
Physiognomies (4QCryptic)…
(OTP Vol. 1 pp. 250-251)

Regarding the Melchizedek/Metatron connection Alexander states:

In this text Melchizedek appears as being exalted
over all angels. It is stated that he will preside over
a heavenly assize and exact Punishment, with the help
of other angels, from Belial and his Minions. In view of
the priestly functions of Melchizedek in the Bible (Gen. 14:8;
Ps. 110:4), van der Woude has conjectured that at Qumran
Melchizedek may have been regarded as the high priest of
the heavenly Temple and identified with the archangel Michael,
who fulfills the role of the heavenly high priest in rabbinic tradition …
However all of this is very uncertain. A number of clear parallels
between the heavenly Melchizedek of Qumran and Metatron
of 3 Enoch at once suggest themselves: both figures hold exalted,
if not pre-eminent, positions among the angels, both are heavenly
judges… and both, apparently had earthly lives prior to their exalted,
heavenly states.
(ibid)


The Deity of Messiah in the Dead Sea Scrolls

The fact that the Qumran community believed in the deity of the Messiah can best be shown by examining the Qumran community's understanding of Is. 61:1-2. Now we know from 4Q521 that the Qumran community saw the one "anointed" by YHWH in Is. 61:1-2 as the Messiah as this fragment reads:

For the heavens and the earth shall listen to His Messiah …

And then goes on to allude to Is. 61:1-2. Another reference to the figure of Is. 61:1-2 is made in another Qumran document known as 11Q13. 11Q13 speaks of this Messiah as a figure called "Melchizedek." In this document Is. 61:2 is quoted with "Melchizedek" substituted for YHWH. Furthermore the terms EL and ELOHIM are in 11Q13 applied to the Melchizedek/Messiah figure.

11Q13 Col. 4-9 quotes Is. 61:1-2 but substitutes "the year of Melchizedek's favor" for "the year of YHWH's favor" thus identifying the Melchizedek figure with YHWH in this passage. 11Q13 goes on to say:

…as it is written about him [Melchizedek] in
the Songs of David, "ELOHIM has taken his place
in the council of EL; in the midst of the ELOHIM
he holds judgment" (Ps. 82:1)
Scripture also says about him [Melchizedek],
"Over it take your seat in the highest heaven;
EL will judge the peoples" (Ps. 7:7-8)
(11Q13 Col. 10-11)

The text of 11Q13 goes on to apply the passage "Your ELOHIM reigns" (Is. 52:7) to Melchizedek finally concluding:

"Your ELOHIM" (Is. 52:7) is Melchizedek,
who will deliver them from the power of Belial.
(11Q13 Col. 24-25)

It is therefore apparent that the Qumran community saw the Messiah as a Melchizedek figure who was identified as EL, ELOHIM and even YHWH.

Further evidence for belief in the deity of Messiah at Qumran is found in a reference in the Book of Enoch, (seven fragmentary copies of this book were found in cave four at Qumran). In Enoch 14 Enoch is having a vision of the divine throne in which the figure on the throne calls to Enoch "come near to Me and to My Holy Word." (1En. 14: 24). Thus it would seem that the concept of the entity known as the "Word" of YHWH which we discussed in terms of Rabbinic Judaism earlier, was also held to by the Qumran community. It seems hard to escape the fact that in 1En. 14:24 the "Word" of YHWH seems to be positioned next to the throne of YHWH, just as Melchizedek is in Ps. 110.


Philo and Kabbalah

In addition to the Dead Sea Scrolls the first century Jewish writer Philo also wrote many things which demonstrate that this same Godhead model found in the Kabbalah existed in the first century. Philo believed that the essence of God was unknowable to man, but that man could know God thru his emanations. Philo writes:

...Every man in regard of his intellect is connected with Logos (Word),
being an impression of, or a fragment or emanation of that blessed
nature...
(Philo; On Creation LI (146))

Philo gave a very detailed description to the Word (Logos). To Philo the Word was the creator:

As therefore the city, when previously shadowed out in
the mind of architectural skill had no external place, but
was stamped solely in the mind of the workman, so in
the same manner neither can the world which existed in
ideas have had any other local position except the
Logos which made them...
(Philo; On Creation V (20))

Philo taught that the Word (Logos) was the shadow of God and that man was made in the image of the Word (Logos):

...But the shadow of God is his Word,
which he used like an instrument when he was
making the world.
(Philo; Allegorical Interpretation III XXXI (96))

...For God does not seem to have availed himself
of any other animal existing in creation as his model
in the formation of man; but to have been guided,
as I have said before, by his own Word alone...
(Philo; On Creation XLVIII (139))

Most astonishingly, Philo identifies the Word of God as God's "first-born son!":

...For God, like a shepherd and king, governs
(as if they were a flock of sheep) the earth, and the water,
and the fire, and the air and all the plants, and living
creatures that are in them, whether mortal or divine;
and he regulates the nature of the heaven, and the periodical
revolutions of the sun and moon, and the variations
and harmonious movements of the other stars, ruling them
according to law and justice; appointing as their immediate
superintendent, his own right Word [Logos], his first-born son,
who is to receive the charge of this sacred company,
as the lieutenant of the great king;...
(Philo; On Husbandry XII (45))

Philo also taught that "Wisdom" is the "Mother of the Word [Logos]" Philo also identified the three angels which appeared to Abraham in Gen. 18 as "God, the creative power"; "Lord, the ruling power"; and "the Word [Logos]." Not only did Philo teach that God' first-born son is the "Word" and that "Wisdom" is his mother, Philo also clearly taught the concept of a Trinity. He refers to God as “...the Lord of three natures...”(Philo; On the Change of Names II, 11)

Elsewhere Philo writes:

...it is reasonable for one to be three and for three to be one,
for they were one by a higher principle... ...he makes
the appearance of a trinity [triad]... He cannot be seen
in his oneness without something [else], the chief Powers
that that exist immediately with him... the Creative, which
is called "God" and the Kingly, which is called "Lord"...
[Abraham] begins to see the sovereign, holy, and divine vision
in such a way that single appearance appears as a trinity [triad],
and the trinity [triad] as a unity.
(Philo; Questions on Genesis, IV, 2)


Conclusion

In closing it is clear that the tradition of the Godhead model found in the Kabbalah tradition of Rabbinic Judaism can be traced back to a tradition held by the early first century Essenes who authored the Dead Sea Scrolls. This Godhead tradition also can be found in the writings of the first century Jewish writer Philo.

James Trimm

Comment by James Trimm on September 30, 2008 at 5:59pm

The Deity of Messiah

And

The Three Pillars of the Godhead

By
James Scott Trimm


Part 5
The Kabbalistic Godhead Model
Among the Ancient Nazarenes





The Minim

Now before beginning this section it is important to define an important Talmudic term MIN (singular) / MINIM (plural).

The fourth century “Church Father” Jerome writes of the Nazarenes and Ebionites:

What shall I say of the Ebionites who pretend to be Christians?
Today there still exists among the Jews in all the synagogues
of the East a heresy which is called that of the Minæans,
and which is still condemned by the Pharisees; [its followers]
are ordinarily called 'Nazarenes'; they believe that Christ,
the son of God, was born of the Virgin Mary, and they hold him
to be the one who suffered under Pontius Pilate and ascended
to heaven, and in whom we also believe."
(Jerome; Letter 75 Jerome to Augustine)

Now Ebionites and Nazarenes were two distinct groups with varying beliefs (the Ebionites split off from the Nazarenes round 70 C.E.) but both of these groups were known by Rabbinic Jews as “Minim” or as Jerome calls them in Latin “Mineans”.

According to the Dictionary of the Targumim, Talmud Babli, Yerushalami and Midrashic Literature Marcus Jastrow defines MIN “…sectarian, infidel… a Jewish infidel, mostly applied to Jew Christians”. Jastrow uses the term “Jew-Christians” to refer to Ebionites and Nazarenes although these groups did not call themselves “Christians”.

Many scholars believe that the term MIN began as an acronym for a Hebrew phrase meaning “Believers in Yeshua the Nazarene”.


Many Powers in Heaven

The Mishna states that the MINIM taught:

“There are many ‘powers’ in heaven”
Mym#b twyw#r hbrh
(m.San. 4:5)

Clearly the MINIM in this portion of the Mishna were Nazarenes and not Ebionites, since Ebionites clearly rejected the deity of Messiah.

The Mishna counters that man was created alone in order to disprove this teaching of the MINIM. In fact Man was created “male and female” in “our image”/”the image of Elohim” and after being separated into a male and female these two were ECHAD (all of this was discussed in part 1) just as the three K’NUMEH of the Godhead are ECHAD.

In the Gemara to this portion of Mishna (b.San. 38b) the Talmud discusses various proof texts that the MINIM used to support their teaching of “many powers in heaven” and attempts to rebut them:

R. Johanan sad: In all the passages which the Minim have taken
[as grounds] for their heresy, their refutation is found near at hand.
Thus: Let us make man in our image, (Gen. 1:26)
And God created [sing.] man in His own image; (Gen. 1:27)

Come, let us go down and there confound their language, (Gen. 11:7)
And the Lord came down [sing.] to see the city and the tower; (Gen. 11:5)

Because there were revealed [plur.] to him God, (Gen. 35:7)
Unto God who answereth [sing.] me in the day of my distress; (Gen. 35:3)

For what great nation is there that hath God so nigh [plur.] unto it,
as the Lord our God is [unto us] whensoever we call upon Him [sing.]; (Deut. 4:7)

And what one nation in the earth is like thy people, [like] Israel,
whom God went [plur.] to redeem for a people unto himself [sing.], (2Sam. 7:23)

Till thrones were placed and one that was ancient did sit. (Dan. 7:9)

Why were these [plurals] necessary? To teach R. Johanan's dictum;
viz.: The Holy One, blessed be He, does nothing without consulting
His Heavenly Court (literally “Family”) , for it is written, The matter
is by the decree of the watchers, and the sentence by the word of
the Holy Ones.(Dan. 4:14)

This section of Talmud tells us that the MINIM used Tanak passages in which Elohim was referenced in a plural form as proof texts for their teaching of “many powers in the heavens”. Among their proof texts were Gen. 1:26; 11:7; 35:7; Deut. 4:7; Sam. 7:23 & Dan. 7:9). The Rabbinic Jews dismissed these as examples of Elohim speaking to “His Heavenly Court” (literally “Heavenly Family”) i.e. the “watchers” of Dan. 4:14.

Now I want to examine the first of these (Gen. 1:26) in more detail. This passage appears as a synonymous parallelism as follows:

And Elohim said: “Let us make man in our image,
After our likeness;…
And Elohim created man in His own image,
in the image of Elohim created He him;
male and female created He them.
(Gen. 1:26-27)

In context “our image” = “our likeness” = “the image of Elohim” = “male and female”. As we discussed in part one, Paul refers back to this point in Romans 1 to establish that there are invisible attributes in the Godhead made manifest in the creation that when ignored may lead persons into the errors of Homosexuality and Lesbianism. It is not speaking of the “Watchers” but the “male and female” “image of Elohim”.

Even the Rabbinic Jews realized that their explanation of Elohim speaking to the Watchers did not work for many of the MINIM proof texts (including Dan. 7:9) and so the Talmud goes on to address these passages:

Now, that is satisfactory for all [the other verses], but how explain
Till thrones were placed? (Dan. 7:9) One [throne] was for Himself
and one for David [Messiah]. Even as it has been taught:
One was for Himself and one for David: this is R. Akiba's view.
R. Jose protested to him: Akiba, how long will thou profane the Sh’kinah?
Rather, one [throne] for justice, and the other for mercy.
Did he accept [this answer] from him or not? Come and hear!
For it has been taught: One is for justice and the other for charity;
this is R. Akiba's view. Said R. Eleazar b. Azariah to him: Akiba,
what hast thou to do with Aggada? Confine thyself to [the study of]
Nega'im and Ohaloth [civil issues]. But one was a throne, the other
a footstool: a throne for a seat and a footstool in support of His feet (Is. 66:1).

Here Rabbi Akiba gets in trouble with the other Rabbis because he ADMITTED that the additional throne was for Messiah! Rabbi Jose said that the “thrones” were for “justice” (GEVURA) and “charity” (CHESED). Of course these are titles of sefirot which are regarded in Kabbalah a typical of the two opposing pillars of the three pillars of the Godhead. Finally the consensus of the Rabbis found that Rabbi Akiba and Rabbi Jose were giving to much away in the debate. They argued that “thrones” were plural to refer to the “throne” and the “footstool” of Isaiah 66:1.

It bears mentioning here that Is. 66:1 is also cited in Mt. 5:34-35. Both the Hebrew (DuTillet) version and the Old Syriac (s) Aramaic version of Matthew word the phrase “for it is the throne of Elohim” in the Hebrew and Aramaic with a plural possessive pronoun (in the English translation this possessive pronoun does not appear because it is not used in English grammar).


R. Nahman said: He who is as skilled in refuting the Minim
as is R. Idith, let him do so; but not otherwise. Once a Min
said to R. Idith: It is written, And unto Moses He said,
Come up to the Lord (Ex. 24:1). But surely it should have
stated, Come up unto 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, [he retorted,]
we should worship him! The same passage, however,
— replied R. Idith 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? He answered:
By our troth we would not accept him even as a messenger,
for it is written, And he said unto him, If Thy [personal]
presence go not etc. (Ex. 33:15).

In the Targum resolves the issue of YHWH speaking of himself in the third person by naming the speaker in Ex. 20:1 as “the Word (MEMRA) of YHWH”. Here Rabbi Idith resolves the issue by making one of these “Metatron”. According to the Encyclopedia Judaica article on “Metatron” the Karite author Kirkisani had a different reading in his copy of this Talmud passage. His copy had Rabbi Idith saying “This is Metatron, who is the Lesser YHWH”. As we have shown in part 2, Metatron is identified in the Zohar as the Middle Pillar of the Godhead and as the Son of Yah.

A Min once said to R. Ishmael b. Jose: It is written,
Then the Lord caused to rain upon Sodom and Gomorrah
brimstone and fire from the Lord: (Gen. 19:24) but from him
should have been written! A certain fuller said,
Leave him to me, I will answer him. [He then proceeded,
’ It is written, And Lamech said to his wives, Ada and Zillah,
Hear my voice, ye wives of Lamech; (Gen. 4:23) but he should
have said, my wives! But such is the Scriptural idiom
so here too, it is the Scriptural idiom.

The Targum also resolves this issue by paraphrasing one of the occurrences of “YHWH” in Gen. 19:24 as “the Word (MEMRA) of YHWH”. A much lengthier paper could be written on Gen. 19:24 but it is beyond the scope of this article.

It is important to note that the Rabbis seem to stumble all over themselves in dealing with the proof texts presented by the Nazarenes (an this is even their account of the debate). They find themselves admitting that the Nazarene proof texts refer to the “Heavenly Family”; “Elohim and the Messiah”; “Gevura and Chesed”; “Metatron” and “The Lesser YHWH” while attempting to disagree with the Nazarene interpretations. It is also important to note that this debate can be easily dated. Rabbi Akiba who lived in the early second century is one of the debaters.


The Holy Spirit and the Nazarenes

It is also clear that the ancient Nazarenes saw the Holy Spirit as a sort of Heavenly Mother and the Messiah being her “Son” just as he is the Son of the Heavenly Father.
As the fourth century “Church Father” Jerome writes of the Nazarenes:

According to the Gospel written in the Hebrew speech,
which the Nazarenes read, the whole fount of the
Holy Spirit shall descend upon him… Further in the
Gospel which we have just mentioned we find
the following written:

When the Lord ascended from the water,
the whole fount of the Holy Spirit descended
and rested upon him, and said to him, “My Son,
in all the prophets I was waiting for you,
that you might come, and that I might rest in you.
For you are my rest; and you are my firstborn son,
who reigns forever.
(Jerome; Commentary on Is. 11:2)

Note that it is the Holy Spirit here and not the Father that refer to Messiah as “My Son”.

Moreover the third century “Church Father” Origin writes of the Nazarene Gospel according to the Hebrews:

And if any accept the Gospel according to the Hebrews,
where the Saviour himself saith, 'Even now did my mother
the Holy Spirit take me by one of mine hairs, and carried me
away unto the great mountain Thabor', he will be perplexed, &c. . . .
Origen on John, ii. 12.


“Kabbalistic” Terminology

Now are we to believe that the parallels between the Kabbalistic Godhead, Metatron and Memra; the Melchizadek figure of Qumran; Philo’s Triad and Logos and the terminology and concepts in the “New Testament” are just a coincidence?

Philo spoke of a Godhead which was a “Triad” while the Zohar speaks of three Pillars of the Godhead which are “one”. The New Testament speaks of the Father, the Holy Spirt and the Son as all being one Elohim.

Philo identifies one of his Triad members as being the “Son of God”; The Zohar identifies one of its three pillars as the “Son of Yah” and the Messiah is called in the New Testament the “Son of Elohim”.

Philo identifies his “Son of God” as the Logos (Word). Kabbalah identifies the Son of Yah as the Memra (Word). The New Testament identifies the Son of Elohim as the “Word”.

Philo identified the components of his Triad as “powers” while the Mishna ascribes that the Nazarenes identified them as “powers”.

Philo identifies the Logos as the “firstborn son” the Zohar says that Metatron (the Son of Yah) is “the first begotten of all the creatures of Elohim” and the New Testament says that Messiah is “the firstborn of all creation” (Col. 1:15)

Philo says that one of the members of his Triad is “Wisdom” and that “Wisdom is the Mother of the Word”; In Kabbalah one of the three Pillars of the Godhead is called the Mother and is identified with wisdom. And the Nazarenes saw the Holy Spirit as the Mother of Messiah.

Philo says his Word “is to receive the charge of this sacred company, as the lieutenant of the Great King”. The Zohar says of Metaron that he is “ruler of all he has; because Elohim has committed to him the government over all his hosts.” Similar descriptions of Messiah appear in the New Testament.

The Talmud says that Metatron is “the Lesser YHWH” while in the book of John the Messiah says the Father is “greater” than he.

Philo says the Word was “the model for the formation of man”. The Kabbalah teaches that the Adam Kadamon (the Three Pillars harmonized) was the blueprint for the creation of man and the NT says that Messiah was the image of Elohim from which man was created.

Scholars identify the Melchizadek figure of Qumran with the Metatron of Kabbalah while the New Testament identifies Messiah with Melchizadek (Heb. 7). And the Qumran scrolls identify this Melchizadek with the terms El, Elohim and YHWH and identifies him with the Messiah.

Are all of these things the most amazing coincidence of all time? Or is the Godhead concept of the Kabbalah also found in the Qumran scrolls and the writings of Philo in the first century? Are these the same concepts that also appear in the New Testament and among the ancient Nazarene Jews?


Conclusion

There can be no doubt that the ancient Nazarene Jews maintained a belief in the Three Pillars of the Godhead and the deity of Messiah. It is clear that their belief was very similar to that of Rabbinic Kabbalists, the Qumran Scrolls and the writings of Philo. Thus the Rabbinic concepts of Kabbalah presented in part 2 of this series descend from the same Godhead model expressed by Philo, in the Qumran Scrolls and the New Testament.

James Trimm

Comment by Kennie Cagle on October 1, 2008 at 7:28am

Ditto Rabbi Yehuda!! I am so thankful that there are a FEW Messianic Believers out there willing to jump into the sod level. As a lifetime seeker, I get frustrated by the lack of desire to seek the things of YHWH that is displayed among so-called Messianic leaders.
Todah Rabah.

Comment by Vic on October 1, 2008 at 7:56am

Thank you Dr. Trimm!

This greatly helps me and clears up a lot of confusion about the "Person" of Messiah.
There seem to be a move among Messianic believers where a lot of them are "demoting" Messiah as just a man without sin.

If my understanding of your message here is correct then Messiah Y'shua' is worthy of worship? Is this a accurate understanding?

Do you treat this subject also in your work Nazarene Theology or is this a stand alone study?

Todah Rabah!
May YHWH Eloheynu bless you and yours!

Comment by James Trimm on October 4, 2008 at 1:15pm

Yes this is treated in my book Nazarene Theology. And thank you all for your kind words.

Comment by James Trimm on June 5, 2009 at 5:36am

I (James Trimm) have accepted an invitation to present at the 8th Annual – 2009 One God Seminar this June 13 & 14 (Saturday and Sunday) in the Dallas/Fort Worth area.

Details at:
http://www.godward.org/Biblical%20Monotheism/Dallas%2009%20seminar.htm

This is not a Sacred Name, Messianic, Nazarene or Two-House Seminar. The sponsoring organization is a Sabbath Keeping Feast Keeping Christian Group.

I do not yet know what my scheduled time to speak will be, though I have been told it will probably be Sunday afternoon. I will be giving a one hour presentation on:

Ancient Hebraic Roots and the Godhead

With a half hour question/answer session.

Comment by Shawn on June 7, 2009 at 12:14am

I find it interesting that some kabalisitic Jews are aware that Metatron and Yeshua are one in the same, and yet there is never any argueing about wether or not Metatron is a diety or not. Although some Jewish texts explain that there were a few occasions Metatron had been mistaken as a diety they quickly clarify that he is not. They just leave it at Metatron being the highest ranking being under Hashem. I sometimes wonder if we should do the same?

Comment by Shawn on August 7, 2009 at 5:38pm

It seems most are agreeing that the Concept of the kabbalistic Metatron matches that of the description of Yeshua in the NT. And then it seems the conclusion is "Well that means we can worship Yeshua as the infinite one." If we are all agreeing he matches the character of Metatron then why are we not listening to all the warnings in the kabbalistic texts about NOT worshiping Metatron?????!!!!!! Yes! He is a high level being. Yes he has a high level of authority. Yes he bares all the atributes and characteristics of the infinite YHVH. These are all things acurately describing Metatron (Yeshua), but even so this being (soul) is still infinitely lower then the infinite one above him. The Father. It is a tragic mistake to worship Metatron as infinity. Or so say the kabbalistic texts we all seem to be agreeing with.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page