The
Divine Unity and the Diety of Messiah
by Noam
Hendren
(This article originally appeared in the Messianic
Journal “MISHKAN”, issue 39/2003 www.caspari.com/mishkan
)
The unity of God is axiomatic to the faith of the
Jewish people. Not only is the “Shema” (“Hear,
O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.”) the
essential statement of faith in Judaism, it is the personal declaration of
faith for every Jew. Throughout the centuries, Jews have lived and have been
willing to die for “kiddush haShem,” the “sanctification of the Name” as
expressed in this simple, yet deeply profound, creed.
With the expansion of the major
monotheistic religions, which today dominate more than half of the world’s
population, the faith in one God may appear to be a universal “given,” a
commonplace which has always been obvious to thinking people everywhere. Yet
clearly that is not the case. The revelation of this truth – or, from a
biblical perspective, its restoration – came in the context of worldwide
idolatry, at a time when the most advanced civilizations of the ancient world
were hopelessly polytheistic.
Israel’s roots and the context
of her early existence – from the beginning and until well after the coming of
Yeshua the Messiah – are in pagan polytheism. From the time of the Patriarchs
until the return from Babylonian captivity, Israel’s key challenge – and most
consistent failure – was in the struggle against idolatrous worship. More than
500 years after the call of Abram, Joshua still needed to lay the challenge
before the nation:
But if serving the Lord seems undesirable to you, then
choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods your
forefathers served beyond the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you are
living. But as for me and my household, we will serve the Lord (Josh. 24:15).
It is little wonder that the
biblical revelation is so emphatically monotheistic, not only in underlying
theology but also in the nuances of expression. The biblical prophets, from
Moses on, were fighting an uphill battle to wean Israel from her pagan roots
and to immunize her from the contagion of polytheism which surrounded her on
every side, and with which she shared the Land of Canaan. Every phrase spoken
and written would be weighed to exalt the one true God and to exclude utterly
the “gods of the nations” from the faith and worship of Israel.
This, Israel’s cultural and
religious context, must inform our interpretation of the biblical evidence
concerning the nature of God and the person of Messiah if we are to understand
that revelation aright.
The Unity of the Godhead
The expression of the divine unity in the Shema
includes at least two senses: singularity and uniqueness. The Lord God of Israel is one God, not many. Israel has no pantheon; neither is the
divine name (YHWH) a collective term designating abstract divinity which comes
to expression in a multitude of individual deities.[1] The golden calf incident flies
in the face of this truth not only by representing the infinite God by a
created object, but also by associating the Lord with the
plethora of pagan gods worshipped in Egypt and Canaan.
[Aaron] took what they handed him and
made it into an idol cast in the shape of a calf, fashioning it with a tool.
Then they said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of
Egypt’. When Aaron saw this, he built an altar in front of the calf and
announced, ‘Tomorrow there will be a festival to the Lord [YHWH]’ (Exod.
32:4-5; cf. I Kgs. 12:28).
The fact of God’s singularity,
however, does not deny the existence of other spirit beings. In the wilderness
Israel “sacrificed to demons, which are not God – gods they had not known, gods
that recently appeared, gods your fathers did not fear”[2] (Deut 32:17). But the Shema declares that the Lord is
unique as the infinite and self-existent One.[3] Moses also declares: “the Lord is God; besides him there is no
other” (Deut. 4:35). And Isaiah reaffirms: “Was it not I, the Lord? And there is no God apart from
me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none but me” (Isa. 45:21). The God of Israel is the only God worthy
of the name.
Significantly, the Rambam
(Maimonides), in his Thirteen Principles, speaks of God not as “echad”
(“one”) in the words of the Shema, but as “yachid”: “[God] is one (or
“unique,” Hebrew yachid), and there is no oneness (yechidut) like
unto His.”[4] Why should the Rambam abandon
the language of the universally accepted credo of Israel in his declaration of
Israel’s essential faith? The answer lies in the Rambam’s Aristotelian
conception of God as an absolute philosophical unity[5] (as in Islam) – one which
contrasts starkly with the biblical description of God as a compound personal
unity.
For the Rambam, the term “echad”
allowed for elements of personal complexity within the Godhead which he had
excluded a priori for philosophical reasons. As used in the Tanach, “echad”
is the word of choice to express the unification of two or more elements to
form one entity. Whether it is “the evening and the morning” combining to form
“one day” (Gen. 1:5), male and female becoming “one flesh” (2:24), or Ezekiel’s
two sticks becoming “one stick” in his hand (37:17), a compound unity is the
result.
Nevertheless, in contrast to the
above examples, because the God of Israel is infinite spirit, His unity is not
the linking of pieces into an artificial “jigsaw puzzle” oneness, nor is it the
combination of elements to form a new compound. His one eternal divine
“substance” is omnipresent (Ps. 139:7-10), and thus the distinctions within the
Godhead are not material, but rather personal – as we shall see. Truly God’s
unity is unique.
Thus, by describing the Lord as
“echad,” the Shema does not exclude complexity within the essential
divine unity. As the Rambam understood, the term falls far short of asserting
an absolute philosophical unity.
Divine Dialogues: Personal Plurality in the One God
Despite the dangers of miscommunication to a people
besieged by idolatry, the Tanach repeatedly alludes to – or emphatically
asserts – a personal plurality in the Godhead.
The first hints of plurality are
found in the terms used to designate God – “Elohim” and “Adonai”
– both of which are plural forms of existing singular nouns.[6] Had the biblical authors
intended to assert the absolute (rather than compound) unity of the Godhead,
they had readily available singular terms (Eloah, Adoni, as well
as El) which would have avoided any confusion on this crucial point.[7] And while it is usual for Elohim,
for example, to appear with singular verbs and adjectives (Gen. 1:1; Exod.
34:6); on a number of occasions a plural is used: “God caused (hit‘u) me
to wander” (Gen. 20:13); “He is a holy God (elohim
kedoshim)” (Josh. 24:19); “Remember your Creator” (lit., “Creators,” Eccl.
12:1); “Let Israel rejoice his Maker” (lit., “Makers,” Ps. 149:2).
Such occurrences can be dismissed
as mere grammatical agreement, but given Israel’s cultural and religious
setting and the dangerous implications of the plural forms in that context, it
is hard to explain a sudden attack of grammatical precision on the part of
monotheism’s guardian angels. However one chooses to relate to the preceding
anomalies, they leave the door ajar for an understanding of plurality within
the Godhead.
God Himself pushes the door wide
open in the Genesis 1 account of mankind’s creation:
Then God said, ‘Let us make man in our
image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the
birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the
creatures that move along the ground.’
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male
and female he created them (Gen.
1:26-27).
Verse 26 describes the interpersonal communication
which took place within the Godhead on the occasion of man’s creation, the
climax of the entire account. This divine consultation is revealed in order
that the readers might understand God’s purposes in the creation, centered on
mankind made in God’s image. Man has been created as a personal-social being,
even as his Creator is personal and social. But while God would later declare
“it is not good for the man to be alone” (2:18), God himself lacked nothing,
being eternally satisfied with personal relationship and communication within
the Godhead itself (cf. John 17:27, “for You loved Me before the foundation of
the world”).
Certain Rabbinic interpreters
have posited that God’s interaction in this passage was with the angels, with
whom he consulted prior to man’s creation. This proposal is in sharp contrast
to the declaration of Isaiah that God consults with no other being in planning
and carrying out his purposes (Isa. 40:13-14). It is further contradicted by
verse 27, which reasserts the essential unity of God, making it clear that he
alone created man and that man was created in His image, not in that of God
plus the angels.[8] It is significant that, in
Breshit Rabba, the sages portray Moses as challenging God’s wisdom in allowing
this passage to be written as it was: “Why do you give an excuse to the Minim
[Jewish followers of Yeshua]?”[9] Apparently the implications of
the passage were clear enough to them!
Similar consultations are recorded on the occasion of
two other especially significant divine interventions in early biblical
history: following the fall of man (Gen. 3:22-23), and in response to the
building of the tower of Babel (Gen. 11:7). In the first, man, having eaten
from the tree of knowledge, is described as having become “like one of us,
knowing good and evil” – a clear parallel to the serpent’s promise that they
would become “like God, knowing good and evil” (3:5). As before, the
deliberation is followed by God himself acting (singular verb): here, driving
Adam and Eve out of the garden (cf. 1:26-27 and 11:6-8). In each case the
plural pronoun (“Us”, “Our”) is identified with God alone, and all others are
thereby excluded.
Divine Teamwork: Personal Plurality II
Not only is there interpersonal communication within the Godhead, the
Scriptures also refer to two or more distinct personalities as “God” or “Lord” (YHWH) in the same context (for example, Gen. 19:24; Ps.
45:7-8; Isa. 48:12-16; 63:7-14; Zech. 2:12-13). In these passages, the distinct persons of the Godhead are seen
fulfilling different roles in the execution of the divine program.
In Zechariah Two, an angel of God is sent to bring a message from the
Lord to Zechariah:
“Jerusalem shall be inhabited as towns without walls, because of the
multitude of men and livestock in it. For I,” says the LORD, “will be a wall of fire all around her, and I will be
the glory in her midst.”… For thus says the LORD of hosts: “He sent Me after
glory, to the nations which plunder you; for he who touches you touches the
apple of His eye. For surely I will shake My hand against them, and they shall
become spoil for their servants. Then you will know that the LORD of hosts has
sent Me."[10]
The Lord declares himself to be the protective wall
and glorious presence in the midst of the future restored Jerusalem. He
continues making first person pronouncements, calling on Israel to leave the
lands of her dispersion, “‘whither I have
scattered you,’ declares the Lord”
(v. 6, Heb. v. 10). Then, surprisingly, “the Lord of hosts” says, “He sent Me after glory,” to bring
certain judgment to the nations which had plundered Israel, by shaking “My hand
against them.” The “Me” of verse 8 (Heb. v. 12) is the speaker,
“the Lord of hosts,” who by a mere wave
of his hand brings destruction on his enemies (similar to “the waving of the
hand of the Lord” in Isa.
19:16). Who then could be the “sender” of the Lord of hosts? The divine Speaker continues, explaining
that when the plundering nations become “spoil for their servants,” “you will
know that the Lord of hosts has
sent Me.”
“The Lord of hosts” sends “the Lord of hosts” to execute judgment on Israel’s enemies
and thereby glorify himself. A clear personal distinction is revealed to exist
within the Godhead, each equally “the Lord of hosts,” and yet “one” sending the “other” to
carry out the divine work. Because Israel is “the apple of His eye,”[11] the Lord will entrust this job to no one but the
Lord himself.
When we turn to Isaiah 48:12-16 we find a similar
situation, but with an added player. Once again we must carefully note that
throughout the passage the Lord God of Israel is identified as
the speaker. The speaker is the one who “called” Israel and is “the First” and
“the Last” (v. 12; cf. 44:6). He is the creator and sovereign Lord of the
heavens and the earth (v. 13). As he summoned all creation to attention (v.
13b), so he now calls Israel to attend to his comforting promise: To punish
Babylon, Israel’s oppressor, through his chosen instrument (Cyrus, Isa. 44:28;
45:1) and thereby bring about Israel’s restoration (vss. 14-15; cf. v. 20;
45:13; 46:11).
In verse 16, the divine Speaker
again calls for Israel’s focused attention in order to assure her that his
revelation of this promise has been publicly and confidently made, because he
himself has been involved from the beginning to insure its fulfillment. Without
the slightest indication of a change in the speaker, he concludes: “And now the
Lord God and His Spirit have sent Me.”[12] As in Zechariah 2, the divine
Revelator is also the divine Executor of God’s saving works, even when a human
instrument such as Cyrus is also used. He is the agent and representative of
the entire Godhead by Whom He is sent; and yet, though clearly distinct, He
declares Himself to be God, the Creator of the cosmos who also called Israel
into existence.[13]
Theophanies in the Tanach: the Angel of the Lord
The revelation of personal distinctions in the one
true God comes to remarkable expression in the repeated physical appearances
of God in order to reveal himself and his will to his chosen instruments. In
these appearances, God takes on true physical form, often human form, as a
distinct localization of the omnipresent, invisible God in heaven whom he
reveals. These physical manifestations of the deity caused considerable
consternation to later Rabbinic interpreters, who sometimes adjusted the text[14] or paraphrased its translation[15] in order to mitigate – what was
to their thinking – a theological inconsistency.
In the patriarchal period, God
is often described as “appearing” in clearly physical form.[16] One could argue that such
manifestations were merely visions representing themselves to the mind of the
individual (cf. Gen. 15:17; 28:12-15), but in certain cases the true physical
embodiment of God on earth is undeniable.[17] Genesis 18 is perhaps the
classic example.
This passage opens with the
simple statement that “the Lord
appeared to him [Abraham] at the Oaks of Mamre” (v. 1). What Abraham actually
sees is three “men,” two of whom the text later calls “angels” (cf. v. 22 and 19:1). All
three are shown Abraham’s best hospitality, including washing their feet (v. 4);
and he waits on them hand and foot while they eat (v. 8). There can be no
question that all three are real physical manifestations and not mere visions.
The third individual is the
focus of Abraham’s attention, and Abraham addresses him personally as “Adonai,”
calling him “the judge of the whole earth” (vv. 3, 25, 27, 30-32). When this
person speaks, it is as the “Lord”
(YHWH, vv. 13, 17, 20, 26, 33), Who
has chosen Abraham to fulfill a crucial role in his plan for world redemption
(vv. 17-19). He also reconfirms the promise that Sarah would bear a son, Isaac,
just as “God” [Elohim] had promised when he “appeared” to Abraham in the
previous chapter (vv. 10, 14; cf. 17:15-19). Having agreed to preserve Sodom if
ten righteous men can be found in her, the Lord
“walks” away (18:33) – apparently following the path of the two angels (cf. vv.
20-22).[18]
After the two angels
reconnoitered the situation in Sodom, and removed Lot and his family, “the Lord rained down on Sodom fire and brimstone from the Lord, from heaven” (19:24). God, who has
temporarily assumed human form, is distinct from God in heaven and exercises
the prerogative of God (judgment) in God’s name.
In a number of passages,
beginning with the revelation to Hagar in Genesis 16, the visible manifestation
of God is referred to as “the Angel of the Lord”
– the term “angel” (mal’akh) meaning literally, “messenger” or
“emissary.”[19] As used throughout the Torah
and the Former Prophets (the historical books), the context of each passage
makes it clear that God himself is the one intended, though in a physical form.
The phrase “the Angel of the Lord”
thus becomes a technical term for such a divine manifestation.[20]
God’s self-revelation to Moses in the burning bush
(Exod. 3:1-15) demonstrates the identity of the “Angel of the Lord” with the “Lord” himself who is
manifested, in this case, in a non-human form. The divine appearance at Horeb
is introduced in verse 2 with the phrase, “Then the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in
a burning flame from within the bush.” Already in verse 4 we are told that “the
Lord” saw that Moses had turned to see the phenomenon and as a result “God [Elohim] called to him from the midst of the bush.”
That the divine Person was literally present is
evident from the command which arrested the approaching Moses, “Remove your
shoes, for the place where you are standing is holy ground” (v. 5).[21] To leave no doubt as to who was present, God
immediately identified himself as “the God of Abraham…Isaac…and Jacob,” and
Moses appropriately covered his face, “for he was afraid to look upon God” (v.
6). Only then did the Lord reveal
the purpose of His personal “descent” into the world (v. 8): To save his people
Israel and bring them to the Land of promise.
God’s manifest personal involvement in Israel’s
redemption would extend beyond his call of Moses (v. 12). As the “Destroyer” he
would pass throughout the Land of Egypt and strike their firstborns (12:12-13,
23). As an “angel,” in the form of the
pillar of fire and cloud, He would appear in order to guide Israel and to
protect her from the Egyptian counterattack (13:21-22; 14:19). As the
“Commander of the Lord’s armies,” He would direct the attack on Jericho (Josh 5:14-6:5), even
as God had promised Moses that His Angel – “in whom is My Name” – would lead
Israel into her inheritance and expel her enemies (Exod. 23:20-23).[22]
God Incarnate: The Davidic Messiah
All the above physical manifestations of God were temporary theophanies
for the revelation of his will and the execution of his redemptive purposes.
Though temporary and limited in scope, such divine appearances provided the
archetype for the ultimate revelation of God’s unique unity and the
fulfillment of his plan of salvation in the person of the divine-human Messiah.
In contrast to the
various theophanies discussed previously, the temporary assumption of physical
form is not the focus of Messianic expectation, but rather a true “incarnation”
– God literally taking on humanity through conception and birth. In the revelation of the Messiah, based on the
Davidic Covenant and detailed in the prophets, the pattern of divine
intervention in our world reaches its logical, and yet stunning, consummation.
The Scriptures hinted at the coming of a Redeemer
from the moment that redemption became necessary and repeatedly during the
pre-monarchial period.[23] With the establishment of David’s kingdom, the
promise became firmly attached to his dynasty by divine covenant (II Sam.
7:12-15; cf. Ps. 89:1-4 [Heb. 2-5]). The chronicler provides an interpreted
version of this covenant promise some 500 years later (I Chr. 17:11-14), which
incorporates the prophetic revelation concerning the Davidic Messiah to his
time. While the chronicler recognizes the Redeemer’s physical descent from
David, he also affirms his divine nature and eternality. For in this version
God declares, “I will be his Father, and he shall be My son;… And I will establish him in
My house and in My kingdom forever; and his throne shall be established forever.”
In contrast to II Samuel, the
chronicler does not limit the Father-Son relationship to a disciplinary one,
but leaves it undefined and, by implication, inclusive.[24] This is parallel to Psalm 2
which refers to “His Messiah” (Meshicho) as “My Son” who will rule the
“ends of the earth” with “an iron scepter” (vv. 2, 7-9). The divine nature of
the “Son” is confirmed by the prediction of his everlasting rule in the
kingdom and in the very house of God. The latter parallels Ezekiel’s description
of the returning “glory of the Lord”
personified, establishing the throne of his kingdom in the restored temple
(Ezek. 43:4-7).
The Chronicler’s interpolations
reflect the prophetic revelation concerning the divine-Davidic Messiah, as
exemplified by Isaiah 9:6-7 [Heb. vv. 5-6].
For to us a child is born, to us a son
is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And his name will be
called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there
will be no end. He will reign on David’s throne and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on
and forever.
Here the future Redeemer of
Israel is clearly a human child, born of the lineage of David the king and
therefore able to sit on his throne. And yet, as the chronicler later saw, this
“son of God” would be no mere mortal, but would rule “from that time on and
forever.”[25] These statements are
accompanied by a startling list of personal names which leave no doubt as to
the essential deity of the child to be born.
When God declared his name to
Moses, “I am that I am” (Exod. 3:13-14), He revealed the essential significance
of His covenant name YHWH and thereby made a direct statement about His true
nature as the eternal, self-existent source of all being. Later God’s covenant
faithfulness is reinforced repeatedly by the statement, “I am the Lord” (cf. Exod. 6:2-8), the eternal –
and therefore unchanging – One (cf. Mal. 3:6).[26] In the same way, the divine
nature of the Messianic King is emphatically asserted through the names by
which God has declared he shall be called.
While each of the names given
contributes to the identification of the Davidic Messiah as truly God,[27] perhaps the most significant in
the context of Isaiah is “Mighty God” (El Gibor). This name, in its
precise form, appears only twice in all of Scripture, here and in Isaiah 10:21;
both part of the larger “Book of Emmanuel” section of Isaiah (chapters 7-12).
In Isaiah 10:20-21 Israel’s
future national repentance and reliance on God alone for deliverance is
promised: “The remnant of Israel … will rely on the Lord, the Holy One of Israel, in truth.” This is followed
immediately by a poetic restatement in the words, “A remnant will return, the
remnant of Jacob, to [the][28] Mighty God.” The identification
of “Mighty God” with “the Lord”
as the object of Israel’s trust and the agent of her redemption is directly
parallel to the declaration concerning the Davidic Messiah, “Mighty God,” in
9:6. The Messiah would be the literal embodiment of the Lord himself,[29] carrying out God’s redemptive
work for Israel.
The consummation of the
divine-human Messiah’s work, and the necessity of a true incarnation, is seen
in Zechariah 12. As a description of the last days, this chapter reveals in
specifics the circumstances leading to Israel’s national turning to the Mighty
God, as seen above. With “all the nations of the earth” gathered against Israel
(12:3), God will enable Israel’s national repentance by the outpouring of his
Spirit, so that, “they will look unto Me Whom they had pierced, and they will
mourn…” (12:10). As a result, “in that day a fountain shall be opened for the
house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for
uncleanness” (13:1).
Once again, God himself is
speaking: he is the one who intends to destroy the invading nations, and he
will pour out “the Spirit of grace and supplication” on Israel (12:9-10a). To
him, “whom they had pierced,”[30] will Israel look for
deliverance in her time of greatest need.[31] Without giving the details of
the “piercing” or its significance (see Isa. 53), the true physical embodiment
of God is evident. God had taken human form and had been assaulted physically,
apparently unto death as the subsequent mourning indicates (12:10b-14; cf. Dan.
9:26).
The universal national
repentance over this act – however it was carried out – is what will lead to
Israel’s national cleansing (12:10-13:1), making her “savable” as God himself
desires. Thus, the death of the God-man Messiah has become a crucial link in
the divine plan of salvation, leading to the ultimate redemption of Israel on
the day when “the Lord will go
forth to fight against those nations” and “His feet will stand…on the Mount of Olives”
(14:3-4).
The Divine Unity and the Deity of Messiah
The unity of the Godhead is without question the
central theological teaching of the Tanach. And Israel’s context – religious
and social – demanded the clearest possible communication of this truth by
Moses and the prophets. But the truth of God’s unique unity was not compromised
to achieve polemical ends. Personal distinctions were revealed as not only part
and parcel of the true nature of the Godhead, but also as essential elements in
the revelation and execution of the plans and purposes of God our Savior.
From the beginning, God purposed
that a perfect man in the image of God would rule the earth as God’s
representative (Gen. 1:26). Following man’s fall and the marring of the divine
image in him, such a purpose could only be fulfilled by the divine-human
Messiah, who “had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth” (Isa.
53:9). Moreover the redemption of mankind from sin and its effects, which God
alone – “apart from [Whom] there is no savior” (Isa. 43:11) – could accomplish,
required a sacrificial death that only a man could suffer. In his infinite
wisdom and his infinite love, the one true God took on true humanity in order
to offer up an infinite sacrifice to himself on behalf of all mankind. And he
will return in his glorified human body to complete the redemption, restoring
the physical world and taking his throne as God and King forever.
“And the Lord shall
be King over all the earth. In that day it shall be—‘The Lord is one,’ and His name one” (Zech. 14:9).
[1] Cf. use of “God” in ancient Greek writers, as well as Hinduism and its gods.
[2] Cf. I Cor. 8:4-6 with 10:19-20.
[3]
The name “YHWH” being most likely the 3rd
person singular, Hif‘il imperfect from the root HYH/HWH, meaning “the eternal
cause of being” and therefore “the self-existent One.”
[4]
Maimonides composed the Thirteen Principles
in Arabic, but they were translated into Hebrew in consultation with him and appear
in the traditional Ashkenazi prayerbook at the end of the daily Shacharit
service.
[5] For Rambam’s discussion of the nature of God and His “simplicity,” in interaction with Aristotelian philosophical principles, see his Guide of the Perplexed (passim).
[6] In contrast to the term shamayim [“heavens”] which does not appear in a singular form in Scripture. The final syllable of “Adonai” is always pointed with the kamatz when referring to the God of Israel. The plural here may be related to the plural of ownership, which is common in biblical Hebrew with the nouns “adon” and “ba‘al” (Cf. Gen. 24:9; 39:2 and Exod. 21:29; Isa. 1:3 for examples of each).
[7]
Eloah appears approximately 50 times
in Scripture with reference to God (usually in poetic sections, esp. Job; cf.
Hab. 3:3); whereas Elohim is used over 1500 times.
[8] It is, perhaps, significant that mankind’s common ground with the Son of God, in contrast to the angels, is asserted in Heb. 2:9, 14-16.
[9] Breshit Rabba, Parasha Chet, section 8.
[10] Zech. 2:4-5, 8-9; in Heb. vv. 8-9, 12-13
[11] Interestingly, the phrase “His eye” in verse 8 (12) is an example of the “scribal emendations,” wherein the ancient copyists changed the biblical text intentionally because they found its sense offensive. (Job 2:9, “Bless God and die!” instead of “Curse God and die!” is another well-known example). The original text of Zechariah read “My eye,” again confirming that the speaker throughout the text – and the One sent – is the Lord God himself.
[12] Or, “has sent Me and His Spirit.” The grammar of the passage allows for “His Spirit” to be either part of the subject or another object of “sent.” For the interpretation of this passage and its significance in this section of Isaiah, see Allan A. Macrae, “The Servant of the Lord in Isaiah—Part II”, Bibliotheca Sacra, Vol. 121, No. 483, p. 225-226 (July 1964).
[13] Cf. also Isa. 63:7-14, where “the Lord,” the “Angel of His presence,” and “His Holy Spirit” (vv. 10-11; also called the “Spirit of the Lord,” v. 14) are mentioned as jointly involved in the redemption of Israel. Compare also Exod. 23:20-21 and 33:14-23.
[14] E.g. Gen. 18:22, another “scribal emendation,” the original text saying, “And the Lord remained standing before Abraham.” Since “stand before” was the typical expression for the posture of a servant, it was considered inappropriate for God.
[15] E.g. Fragmentary Targum for Gen. 18:1 has the “Memra [“Word” in Aramaic] of the Lord "replacing the Lord Himself as the one appearing to Abraham (cf. John 1:1, 14). Similarly, the Pseudo-Jonathan Targum translates, “And the Glory [Yekara] of the Lord appeared to him…” (cf. Onkelos Targum on 18:33).
[16] Gen. 12:7; 15:17; 16:7, 11, 13; 17:1; 18:1-33; 22:11, 12; 26:2, 24; 32:24-32; Exod. 3:2-4, 6, 16; 24:9-11.
[17] Compare also the “Man” who wrestled with Jacob and whom Jacob recognized as God himself (Gen 32:25-31).
[18] It is conceivable that all three “men” together constituted the physical manifestation of the Godhead. The Lord had said that He would go down to evaluate Sodom’s sin, and the two angels departed for there immediately (18:21-22). The two angels claim that the Lord had sent them to destroy the city (19:13), and yet it is “the Lord” Himself who rains down fire and brimstone (19:24). As the angels are leading Lot away from the city, he addresses “them” in the singular, calling them “Adonai” (v. 18), just as Abraham had addressed the Lord in chapter 18. Lot, in turn, is answered by an individual, who promises to destroy the city only after Lot has gotten to safety (vv. 21-22).
[19] Compare “the Angel of His presence” (Mal’akh Panav) in Isa. 63:9, referring to God’s saving presence at the time of the Exodus (see below). For the use of the term with human envoys see Gen. 32:3 (Heb v. 4); Num. 20:14; Josh. 7:22; et al..
[20] Compare Gen. 16:7-13; 22:11-15; Exod. 3:2-4, 6; Num 22:22-35; Judg. 6:11-16, 22; 13:3-21. The only exceptions are found in post-exilic texts, Hag. 1:13 and Mal. 2:7, as the context of each makes clear.
[21] Compare the later revelation to Joshua by “the Commander of the Lord’s army,” who accepts Joshua’s worship and issues an identical command (Josh. 5:14-15). The subsequent narrative (6:1-5) confirms that this Person is, in fact, the Lord himself who issues Israel’s marching orders for the attack on Jericho.
[22]
Note the interchange in this passage between the “Angel” and God, who speak and
act as one; even to the point that the “angel” has the prerogative to forgive –
or not to forgive – disobedience. Cf.
Isa. 63:9.
[23] Gen. 3:15; 49:10-12; Num. 24:17; Deut.
18:15-19.
[24] The term “son(s) of God” in the Tanach clearly points to a superhuman (at least) figure. Besides the general usage of the plural for angels (Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), the “son of God” appearing in Daniel 3:25 was clearly utterly different from the three men in the furnace. The implication is that the “son” shares, at least to a certain extent, in the nature of the designated “father,” in this case, God himself.
[25] Note the parallels between this passage and Micah 5:2-5a [Heb., vv. 1-4a], where the King’s origins are said to be in “Bethlehem” (the Davidic connection), and yet “from eternity,” and his rule of peace “to the ends of the earth” (cf. Ps. 2:8-9; Zech. 9:9-10).
[26] Similarly, in the renaming of Abram and Jacob (Gen 17:5; 32:29), God was making a true declaration about their persons. Cf. also Isa. 7:14, “Emmanuel.”
[27] For “Wonderful Counselor,” cf. Isa. 40:16; Judg. 13:18. Father of Eternity—i.e. the Eternal One, cf. Micah 5:2; Isa. 41:4. Prince of Peace, cf. Micah 5:5a [Heb. 4a]; Isa. 45:7.
[28] The addition of “the” in the English translation is misleading, giving the impression that a descriptive term, rather than a name, is intended.
[29]
Cf. Jer. 23:5-6, where the Davidic Messiah is also called “The Lord
our Righteousness” (YHWH Tzidkeinu). Cf. also
Exod. 23:20f., “My name is in him.”
[30] “Whom” (’et asher) identifies the subject (or object) of one action as object of another action (cf. Jer. 38:9; also Prov. 3:12; Deut. 5:11). “Pierced” (dakaru) always appears (12x) in its literal, not a figurative, sense (cf. Zech. 13:3).
[31]
To “look unto Me” (hibitu ’elai; not ‘alai, “upon Me”) has the sense “to turn to for help.” See the parallels in Ps.
121:1 and Num. 21:9.