Peculiarities in Biblical Wording and Grammar That Align with Trinitarianism

 

There are a number of Biblical passages where the wording or grammar in some way align with, and so to some degree support, Trinitarianism. I've documented some of them already in many of the blogposts in this Blog. But, as I have time, I want to start gathering some of them in this blogposts. 

I've documented one of them in my blogpost here:

The Holy Spirit Contradicts the Accidence of Personality   

1 Thess. 3:11

2 Thess. 2:16-17

Rev. 22:1-4

Regarding 1 Thess. 3:11:

Alford's Commentary states:

...κατευθύναι] not infinitive, but third person singular optative aorist. It certainly cannot be passed without remark, that the two nominatives should thus be followed, here and in 2Thessalonians 2:16, 2Thessalonians 2:17, by a singular verb. It would be hardly possible that this should be so, unless some reason existed in the subjects of the verb. Mere unity of will between the Father and the Son (Lünem.) would not be enough, unless absolute unity were also in the writer’s mind. Athanasius therefore seems to be right in drawing from this construction an argument for the unity of the Father and the Son...

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

...It is a remarkable proof of the unity of the Father and Son, that in the Greek here, and in 2Th 2:16, 17, the verb is singular, implying that the subject, the Father and Son, are but one in essential Being, not in mere unity of will. Almost all the chapters in both Epistles to the Thessalonians are sealed, each with its own prayer (1Th 5:23; 2Th 1:11; 2:16; 3:5, 16) [Bengel]. Paul does not think the prosperous issue of a journey an unfit subject for prayer (Ro 1:10; 15:32) [Edmunds]. His prayer, though the answer was deferred, in about five years afterwards was fulfilled in his return to Macedonia.

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

...And our Lord . . .—An important theological passage. From the use of the singular in the verb “direct” (which of course the English cannot express), some divines argue in favour of the Catholic doctrine of “homoüsion,” or substantial unity of the Son with the Father: it must not, however, be too strongly pressed, or it might otherwise lead to the false notion of a personal unity between Them. Nevertheless, we may admit that the prayer (or, rather, wish) implies the equality of the two Persons, and that it would have been inconceivable for a Catholic Christian to have used the verb in the plural. (See 2Thessalonians 2:17.)

Meyer's NT Commentary

...καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς] This addition (comp. 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17), particularly with the following κατευθύναι, which is to be understood as the third person singular optative aorist, not as the infinitive (see Winer, ed. 5, p. 383), might appear strange. But, according to the Pauline view (comp. Usteri, Lehrbegr. p. 301), Christ, exalted to the right hand of the Father, takes part in the government of the world, and orders everything for the promotion of His kingdom. And, inasmuch as His will is not different from the will of God, but identical with it, the verb in the singular is suitable...

Expositor's Greek Testament

1 Thessalonians 3:11. κατευθύναι (optative), as already (Acts 16:8-10; Acts 17:1). The singular (cf. II., 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17) implies that God and Jesus count as one in this connection. The verb is common (e.g., Ep. Arist., 18, etc.) in this sense of providence directing human actions.

Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges

...direct our way unto you] Lit., make straight. This verb is rendered “guide our feet into the way of peace” in Luke 1:79; 2 Thessalonians 3:5 gives the only remaining example of it in the N.T. It is frequent in the Septuagint; see, e.g., Psalm 37:23, “The steps of a good man are ordered (Greek, directed) by the Lord; and He delighteth in his way.” Perhaps this verse of the Psalm was running in the Apostle’s mind.

It is notable that the Greek verb of the prayer is singular, though following a double subject; similarly in 2 Thessalonians 2:16-17 (comp. the Salutation, ch. 1 Thessalonians 1:1). For Christ is one with the Father in the prerogative of hearing and answering prayer. This belief was derived from our Lord’s own teaching: see John 5:17; John 5:19; John 10:30; John 10:38; John 14:13-14; Matthew 28:18—“I and the Father are one … If ye shall ask Me (R. V.) anything in My name, I will do it,” &c.

The prayer of 1 Thessalonians 3:11 has its goal in 1 Thessalonians 3:13. “Our Lord Jesus” is He whose “coming” Paul and his readers are looking for. And He, together with the Father, is desired to “direct” the Apostle’s steps to Thessalonica, with the aim, ultimately, of furthering their preparation for His coming (comp. ch. 1 Thessalonians 5:23; also 1 Thessalonians 1:10).

Pulpit Commentary

...It is to be observed that the verb "direct" is in the Greek in the singular, thus denoting a unity between God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. At all events, we have an express prayer directed to Christ, thus necessarily implying his Divine nature. Our way unto you. 1 Thessalonians 3:11

For more commentaries see:

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_thessalonians/3-11.htm

MORE TO COME. WORK IN PROGRESS.

Micah 5:2 And Excerpts from Various Sources

The following is adapted from a Trinitarian response I gave to a Unitarian on Facebook regarding Micah 5:2.

The Hebrew of Micah 5:2 isn't so clear that we can certainly say whether it's everlasting or whether it had an origination in time. Isaiah 9:6 refers to the messiah as "father of eternity" ["Everlasting Father" in the KJV]. It has the meaning of "possessor of (the attribute of) eternity." That's more in keeping with an eternal origination, rather than an origination that began at a finite time ago in the distant past. 

Robert Morey states in his book "The Trinity: Evidences and Issues" on page 312:

//Micah 5:2 is an example of Hebrew parallelism in which the second phrase expands upon and goes beyond the first phrase to deepen its meaning. In this sense, you go from the lesser to the greater as you proceed from the first phrase to the second phrase. It is a classic example of climactic parallelism. 

The first word [HEBREW] "long ago" is found many times in the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and has several different meanings depending on the context. When used geographically, it refers to east as opposed to west (i.e., Isa. 9:12; Ezek. 25:10). When used chronologically, it means "before" (i.e., Prov. 8:22). It is also used to describe the eternity of God in (Deut. 33:27; Ps. 74:12; Hab. 1:12).

Since Micah is using climactic parallelism, he begins by saying that the "goings forth" of the Messiah took place "a very long time ago." How far back "his goings forth" goes is determined by the words of the second phrase. 

The Hebrew word [HEBREW] "eternity" used in the second phrase, is found in the Old Testament 420 times. Langenscheidt defines it as:

time immemorial, time past, eternity, distant future, duration, everlasting time, pl. ages, endless time.

All the standard Hebrew Lexicons and grammars agree with Langenscheidt. It is a word which was used to contrast one thing to another. The mountains are seemingly "everlasting" when contrasted with the brief life span of man (Hab. 3:6). But when used of God in such places as Psalms 90:2, it means that He is eternal in contrast to the universe which had a beginning and will have an end.

In Micah 5:2, the prophet emphasizes that the Messiah not only pre-existed "a long time ago," but He has in fact existed "from eternity!" In Lange's Commentary, Kleinnert pointed out that Micah's use of the word [HEBREW] "gives a strict proof of the antemundane life of the Messiah." Laetsch's Commentary states that [HEBREW] here means "the timeless eons of eternity."

A Liberal Objection Answered

Some liberal commentators have attempted to reduce "the days of eternity"  to just "a long time ago." But this is grammatically faulty because they are going backwards. In this kind of parallelism, you go from the lesser to the greater and not the other way around.  Thus, the parallelism in Micah 5:2 reveals that the Messiah was "from a long time ago," i.e., "from days of eternity." //

-Morey, The Trinity: Evidence and Issues

---

 [I've heard that] If the author wanted to refer to an everlasting origination, then he used the only Hebrew words and phrasing available to him to mean that. Also, there are some Hebrew authorities who do think it more likely refers to an everlasting origination, even though there is technically no specific Hebrew term for it.

See also the following commentaries here:

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/micah/5-2.htm

Benson Commentary states:

//Whose goings forth have been of old from everlasting — Hebrew, מימי עולם מקדם, rendered by the LXX., απ αχης, εξ ημεων αιωνος; and exactly in the same sense by the Vulgate, ab initio, a diebus æternitatis, from the beginning, from the days of eternity. So these Hebrew expressions must of necessity signify in divers places of Scripture, being used to signify the eternity of God: see Psalm 55:19; Psalm 90:2; Proverbs 8:23; Habakkuk 1:12. The words naturally import an original, distinct from the birth of Christ mentioned in the foregoing sentence, which original is here declared to be from all eternity.//

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary states:

//goings forth … from everlasting—The plain antithesis of this clause, to "come forth out of thee" (from Beth-lehem), shows that the eternal generation of the Son is meant. The terms convey the strongest assertion of infinite duration of which the Hebrew language is capable (compare Ps 90:2; Pr 8:22, 23; Joh 1:1). Messiah's generation as man coming forth unto God to do His will on earth is from Beth-lehem; but as Son of God, His goings forth are from everlasting. //

The famous OT commentary Keil and Delitzsch Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament states:

//The future Ruler of Israel, whose goings forth reach back into eternity, is to spring from the insignificant Bethlehem, like His ancestor, king David.//

---

see also:

Christ’s Origin? Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Study of Micah 5:2 

http://www.doorwaychristianoutreach.info/439585463

---

Michael L. Brown holds a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures from New York University and has served as a visiting or adjunct professor at Southern Evangelical Seminary, Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary (Charlotte), Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Fuller Theological Seminary, Denver Theological Seminary, the King’s Seminary, and Regent University School of Divinity. 

Michael Brown has almost 3 page addressing Micah 5:2 in volume 3 of his "Answering Jewish Objections to Jesus." Here's an excerpt of pages 38-40:

//... Which translation is right? It comes down to the rendering of the Hebrew phrase describing the nature of the Messiah's origins, miqedem mi-yemey ‘olam. The first word simply means "from of old" and is used elsewhere in Micah to refer back to God's promises to the patriarchs, which he made "from days of qedem" (Micah 7:20, rendered in the King James with "from the days of old"). The next two words, however, would most naturally be translated "from eternity" (literally from "days of eternity"), unless context indicated a translation of "from ancient days" (in other words, way back in the very distant past). In most cases in the Scriptures, ‘olam clearly means eternity, as in Psalm 90:2, where God's existence is described as me‘olam we‘ad‘olam, "from eternity to eternity" (cf. NJPSV). There are, however, some cases where ‘olam cannot mean "eternal" but rather "for a long time" (either past or present). How then does Micah use the word?

In Micah 2:9; 4:5, 7, ‘olam clearly means "forever," as commonly rendered in both Jewish and Christian versions. This would point clearly to a similar rendering just a few verses later in 5:2[1]. In Micah 7:14, however, the expression "as in the days of ‘olam" is used in a non-eternal sense, the whole verse being translated in the King James with, "Feed thy people with thy rod, the flock of thine heritage, which dwell solitarily in the wood, in the midst of Carmel: let them feed in Bashan and Gilead, as in the days of old." This indicates we cannot be dogmatic about the translation of Micah 5:2[1], since the context allows for an "eternal" or merely "ancient" meaning...... [Then after about four paragraphs that I'll skip over because it's too long for me to type up, Michael Brown states].......So then, Micah 5:2[1] can also be understood as pointing to the Messiah's eternal nature, undergirding our reading of Isaiah 9:6[5] as pointing to the Messiah's divinity."

[[I typed up the quotations from Morey and Brown myself. I apologize if there are any typos in the quotations. Also, some Hebrew words were used and instead of reproducing them, I just typed [HEBREW] because I don't know the Hebrew language and so couldn't reproduce them.]] 

The article I linked to above make some interesting points, including the fact that "goings forth" in the Hebrew is plural, not singular. Why plural? The article has its own explanation. Maybe it's right. But I wonder and speculate that maybe the first phrase that Morey talks about in the quote I gave might refer to Jesus' origin as to His human nature which has a finite past in His human ancestry, while the second phrase might refer to Jesus' origin as to His divine nature which is from everlasting/eternity. Similar to how Rom. 9:5 refers to both Jesus' human and divine natures.

 

Are the Angels Included in the "Us" of Genesis 1:26 & Similar Passages?

I'm open to the possibility that the "us" and "our" in passages like Gen. 1:26; 3:22; 11:7 [cf. Isa. 6:8] include God's angels and/or the "sons of God" and/or the Divine Council. That's within the pale of Evangelical orthodoxy. As Michael Heiser's increasingly popular views on the Divine Council demonstrates [see his YouTube videos and his website on the topic].

However, the majority of Evangelicals believe that the "us" and "our" passages in the Old Testament are allusions to the person of the Trinity. This blogpost will be an ever growing and added to resource on the arguments and evidences for the Trinitarian interpretation.

---

In the 2nd half of the following video, Anthony Rogers makes a strong Biblical and theological case for why the "us" and "our" passages should be interpreted in a way that affirms some kind of plurality in a monotheistic conception of God [e.g. in Trinitarianism] as opposed to strict monotheism as found in rabbinic Judaism, Islam and New Testament based Unitarians.

The Trinity in Genesis? Two Objections
(The Trinity in Jewish and Christian Scriptures, Part 2)

https://youtu.be/nCMHAdZBJcM

 

or HERE

Pluralis Majestatis/Majestaticus [the "Royal We"] and God in the Hebrew Bible

Anti-Trinitarians commonly appeal to pluralis majestatis [or pluralis majestaticus] to explain passages like Gen. 1:26; Gen. 3:22 and Gen. 11:7 [etc.]. I'll be gathering links, resources and quotes that undermine that explanation in this blogpost. So, the blogpost will continue to grow as I find such materials.


In the following video Anthony Rogers shows why that proposed explanation doesn't work.

The Trinity in Genesis? Two Objections

(The Trinity in Jewish and Christian Scriptures, Part 2)

URL HERE

Among other things, Anthony Rogers points out that while the Plural of Majesty is wildly popular among anti-Trinitarians, it's altogether rejected by Hebrew scholars as a viable explanation.

Rogers states:

While one could loosely use the phrase "plural of majesty" as a way of referring to the Bible's use of nouns like "elohim" for God, which is technically plural in form but ordinarily functions as a singular, this ISN'T TRUE when it comes to verbs and pronouns or certain participles in Hebrew. Such as one finds in the underlying Hebrew text of Genesis 1:26 or companion texts like [Genesis] 3:22 and [Genesis] 11:7 where God likewise speaks in the plural. As the Encyclopedia of Hebrew Language and Lingustics states:

//The pluralis majestatis appears most frequently in nouns...but may also be used with some nominalized adjectives...[and] some participles. There are no undisputed examples of a pronoun or a verb displaying the pluralis majestatis...'Let us make man in our image' (Gen. 1:26) has occasionally been explained as a pluralis majestatis, but comparative Semitic and contextual factors favor other explanations."//

Rogers goes on to cite professor of Old Testament at Andrews University Gerhard Hasel as saying [or writing]:

"...there are no certain examples of plurals of majesty with either verbs or pronouns...the verb used in Genesis 1:26 ('asah) is never used with a plural of majesty. There is no linguistic or grammatical basis upon which the 'us' can be considered a plural of majesty."

Rogers goes on to quote Claus Westermann who was a professor at the University of Heidelberg:

"The plural of majesty does not occur in Hebrew..., so this older explanation has been completely abandoned today."

Rogers goes on to point out that if the plural of majesty were correct, then Gen. 3:22 would not say [as translated in English] "Behold, the man has become like ONE of Us." Rather it would say, "Behold, the man has become like Us" (without the phrase "one of").

Rogers goes on to quote Classical and Biblical scholar Tayler Lewis:

"Of all these views the pluralis majestaticus has the least support. It is foreign to the usus loquendi of the earliest language; [and] it is degrading instead of honoring to Deity..."

Here's a link to the Bible.ca website which doesn't appear to be fully Evangelical in its theology, but it does affirm the Doctrine of the Trinity. The following article deals with the pluralis majestatis issue.

http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-plural-of-majesty-pluralis-majestaticus-royal-we.htm

Here's an excerpt:

E. What scholars say about "Plural of Majesty":

1. "Every one who is acquainted with the rudiments of the Hebrew and Chaldee languages, must know that God, in the holy Writings, very often spoke of Himself in the plural. The passages are numerous, in which, instead of a grammatical agreement between the subject and predicate, we meet with a construction, which some modern grammarians, who possess more of the so-called philosophical than of the real knowledge of the Oriental languages, call a pluralis excellentiae. This helps them out of every apparent difficulty. Such a pluralis excellentiae was, however, a thing unknown to Moses and the prophets. Pharaoh, Nebuchadnezzar, David, and all the other kings, throughout TeNaKh (the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa) speak in the singular, and not as modern kings in the plural. They do not say we, but I, command; as in Gen. xli. 41; Dan. iii. 29; Ezra i. 2, etc." (Rabbi Tzvi Nassi, Oxford University professor, The Great Mystery, 1970, p6, )

1. "This first person plural can hardly be a mere editorial or royal plural that refers to the speaker alone, for no such usage is demonstrable anywhere else in biblical Hebrew. Therefore, we must face the question of who are included in this "us" and "our." It could hardly include the angels in consultation with God, for nowhere is it ever stated that man was created in the image of angels, only of God. Verse 27 then affirms: "and God [Elohim] created man in His own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female He created them" (NASB). God--the same God who spoke of Himself in the plural--now states that He created man in His image. In other words, the plural equals the singular. This can only be understood in terms of the Trinitarian nature of God. The one true God subsists in three Persons, Persons who are able to confer with one another and carry their plans into action together--without ceasing to be one God." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason Archer, p.359, commenting on whether Gen 1:26 is a "plural of majesty")

1. "The best answer that they [Old Hebrew lexicographers and grammarians] could give was that the plural form used for the name (or title) of God was the 'pluralis majestatis,' that is the plural of majesty...to say nothing of the fact that it is not at all certain that the 'pluralis majestatis' is ever found in the Old Testament, there is an explanation much nearer at hand and much simpler, and that is, that a plural name was used for the one God, in spite of the intense monotheism of the Jews, because there is a plurality of person in the one Godhead." (The God of the Bible, R. A.Torrey, 1923, p 64)

1. "Another very popular view in modem times is that God uses the plural, just as kings do, as a mark of dignity (the so-called "plural of majesty"), but it is only late in Jewish history that such a form of speech occurs, and then it is used by Persian and Greek rulers (Esdr. iv. 18; 1 Mace. x. 19). Nor can the plural be regarded as merely indicating the way in which God summons Himself to energy, for the use of the language is against this (Gen. ii. 18; Is. xxxiii. 10)." (Trinity, A Catholic Dictionary, William E. Addis & Thomas Arnold, 1960, p 822-830)

"Memra" article from the 1906 Jewish Encyclopedia

The following article is copied from the link here:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/10618-memra

MEMRA (= "Ma'amar" or "Dibbur," "Logos"):

By: Kaufmann Kohler

Table of Contents

• —Biblical Data:
• Personification of the Word.
• —In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature:
• —In the Targum:
• Mediatorship.
• The Logos.

"The Word," in the sense of the creative or directive word or speech of God manifesting His power in the world of matter or mind; a term used especially in the Targum as a substitute for "the Lord" when an anthropomorphic expression is to be avoided.

—Biblical Data: 

In Scripture "the word of the Lord" commonly denotes the speech addressed to patriarch or prophet (Gen. xv. 1; Num. xii. 6, xxiii. 5; I Sam. iii. 21; Amos v. 1-8); but frequently it denotes also the creative word: "By the word of the Lord were the heavens made" (Ps. xxxiii. 6; comp. "For He spake, and it was done"; "He sendeth his word, and melteth them [the ice]"; "Fire and hail; snow, and vapors; stormy wind fulfilling his word"; Ps. xxxiii. 9, cxlvii. 18, cxlviii. 8). In this sense it is said, "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven" (Ps. cxix. 89). "The Word," heard and announced by the prophet, often became, in the conception of the seer, an efficacious power apart from God, as was the angel or messenger of God: "The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel" (Isa. ix. 7 [A. V. 8], lv. 11); "He sent his word, and healed them" (Ps. cvii. 20); and comp. "his word runneth very swiftly" (Ps. cxlvii. 15).

Personification of the Word. 

—In Apocryphal and Rabbinical Literature: While in the Book of Jubilees, xii. 22, the word of God is sent through the angel to Abraham, in other cases it becomes more and more a personified agency: "By the word of God exist His works" (Ecclus. [Sirach] xlii. 15); "The Holy One, blessed be He, created the world by the 'Ma'amar'" (Mek., Beshallaḥ, 10, with reference to Ps. xxxiii. 6). Quite frequent is the expression, especially in the liturgy, "Thou who hast made the universe with Thy word and ordained man through Thy wisdom to rule over the creatures made by Thee" (Wisdom ix. 1; comp. "Who by Thy words causest the evenings to bring darkness, who openest the gates of the sky by Thy wisdom"; . . . "who by His speech created the heavens, and by the breath of His mouth all their hosts"; through whose "words all things were created"; see Singer's "Daily Prayer-Book," pp. 96, 290, 292). So also in IV Esdras vi. 38 ("Lord, Thou spakest on the first day of Creation: 'Let there be heaven and earth,' and Thy word hath accomplished the work"). "Thy word, O Lord, healeth all things" (Wisdom xvi. 12); "Thy word preserveth them that put their trust in Thee" (l.c. xvi. 26). Especially strong is the personification of the word in Wisdom xviii. 15: "Thine Almighty Word leaped down from heaven out of Thy royal throne as a fierce man of war." The Mishnah, with reference to the ten passages in Genesis (ch. i.) beginning with "And God said," speaks of the ten "ma'amarot" (= "speeches") by which the world was created (Abot v. 1; comp. Gen. R. iv. 2: "The upper heavens are held in suspense by the creative Ma'amar"). Out of every speech ["dibbur"] which emanated from God an angel was created (Ḥag. 14a). "The Word ["dibbur"] called none but Moses" (Lev. R. i. 4, 5). "The Word ["dibbur"] went forth from the right hand of God and made a circuit around the camp of Israel" (Cant. R. i. 13).

—In the Targum: In the Targum the Memra figures constantly as the manifestation of the divinepower, or as God's messenger in place of God Himself, wherever the predicate is not in conformity with the dignity or the spirituality of the Deity.

Instead of the Scriptural "You have not believed in the Lord," Targ. Deut. i. 32 has "You have not believed in the word of the Lord"; instead of "I shall require it [vengeance] from him," Targ. Deut. xviii. 19 has "My word shall require it." "The Memra," instead of "the Lord," is "the consuming fire" (Targ. Deut. ix. 3; comp. Targ. Isa. xxx. 27). The Memra "plagued the people" (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xxxii. 35). "The Memra smote him" (II Sam. vi. 7; comp. Targ. I Kings xviii. 24; Hos. xiii. 14; et al.). Not "God," but "the Memra," is met with in Targ. Ex. xix. 17 (Targ. Yer. "the Shekinah"; comp. Targ. Ex. xxv. 22: "I will order My Memra to be there"). "I will cover thee with My Memra," instead of "My hand" (Targ. Ex. xxxiii. 22). Instead of "My soul," "My Memra shall reject you" (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 30; comp. Isa. i. 14, xlii. 1; Jer. vi. 8; Ezek. xxiii. 18). "The voice of the Memra," instead of "God," is heard (Gen. iii. 8; Deut. iv. 33, 36; v. 21; Isa. vi. 8; et al.). Where Moses says, "I stood between the Lord and you" (Deut. v. 5), the Targum has, "between the Memra of the Lord and you"; and the "sign between Me and you" becomes a "sign between My Memra and you" (Ex. xxxi. 13, 17; comp. Lev. xxvi. 46; Gen. ix. 12; xvii. 2, 7, 10; Ezek. xx. 12). Instead of God, the Memra comes to Abimelek (Gen. xx. 3), and to Balaam (Num. xxiii. 4). His Memra aids and accompanies Israel, performing wonders for them (Targ. Num. xxiii. 21; Deut. i. 30, xxxiii. 3; Targ. Isa. lxiii. 14; Jer. xxxi. 1; Hos. ix. 10 [comp. xi. 3, "the messenger-angel"]). The Memra goes before Cyrus (Isa. xlv. 12). The Lord swears by His Memra (Gen. xxi. 23, xxii. 16, xxiv. 3; Ex. xxxii. 13; Num. xiv. 30; Isa. xlv. 23; Ezek. xx. 5; et al.). It is His Memra that repents (Targ. Gen. vi. 6, viii. 21; I Sam. xv. 11, 35). Not His "hand," but His "Memra has laid the foundation of the earth" (Targ. Isa. xlviii. 13); for His Memra's or Name's sake does He act (l.c. xlviii. 11; II Kings xix. 34). Through the Memra God turns to His people (Targ. Lev. xxvi. 90; II Kings xiii. 23), becomes the shield of Abraham (Gen. xv. 1), and is with Moses (Ex. iii. 12; iv. 12, 15) and with Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. x. 35, 36; Isa. lxiii. 14). It is the Memra, not God Himself, against whom man offends (Ex. xvi. 8; Num. xiv. 5; I Kings viii. 50; II Kings xix. 28; Isa. i. 2, 16; xlv. 3, 20; Hos. v. 7, vi. 7; Targ. Yer. to Lev. v. 21, vi. 2; Deut. v. 11); through His Memra Israel shall be justified (Targ. Isa. xlv. 25); with the Memra Israel stands in communion (Targ. Josh. xxii. 24, 27); in the Memra man puts his trust (Targ. Gen. xv. 6; Targ. Yer. to Ex. xiv. 31; Jer. xxxix. 18, xlix. 11).

Mediatorship.
Like the Shekinah (comp. Targ. Num. xxiii. 21), the Memra is accordingly the manifestation of God. "The Memra brings Israel nigh unto God and sits on His throne receiving the prayers of Israel" (Targ. Yer. to Deut. iv. 7). It shielded Noah from the flood (Targ. Yer. to Gen. vii. 16) and brought about the dispersion of the seventy nations (l.c. xi. 8); it is the guardian of Jacob (Gen. xxviii. 20-21, xxxv. 3) and of Israel (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xii. 23, 29); it works all the wonders in Egypt (l.c. xiii. 8, xiv. 25); hardens the heart of Pharaoh (l.c. xiii. 15); goes before Israel in the wilderness (Targ. Yer. to Ex. xx. 1); blesses Israel (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxiii. 8); battles for the people (Targ. Josh. iii. 7, x. 14, xxiii. 3). As in ruling over the destiny of man the Memra is the agent of God (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxvii. 16), so also is it in the creation of the earth (Isa. xlv. 12) and in the execution of justice (Targ. Yer. to Num. xxxiii. 4). So, in the future, shall the Memra be the comforter (Targ. Isa. lxvi. 13): "My Shekinah I shall put among you, My Memra shall be unto you for a redeeming deity, and you shall be unto My Name a holy people" (Targ. Yer. to Lev. xxii. 12). "My Memra shall be unto you like a good plowman who takes off the yoke from the shoulder of the oxen"; "the Memra will roar to gather the exiled" (Targ. Hos. xi. 5, 10). The Memra is "the witness" (Targ. Yer. xxix. 23); it will be to Israel like a father (l.c. xxxi. 9) and "will rejoice over them to do them good" (l.c. xxxii. 41). "In the Memra the redemption will be found" (Targ. Zech. xii. 5). "The holy Word" was the subject of the hymns of Job (Test. of Job, xii. 3, ed. Kohler).

The Logos.
It is difficult to say how far the rabbinical concept of the Memra, which is used now as a parallel to the divine Wisdom and again as a parallel to the Shekinah, had come under the influence of the Greek term "Logos," which denotes both word and reason, and, perhaps owing to Egyptian mythological notions, assumed in the philosophical system of Heraclitos, of Plato, and of the Stoa the metaphysical meaning of world-constructive and world-permeating intelligence (see Reizenstein, "Zwei Religionsgeschichtliche Fragen," 1901, pp. 83-111; comp. Aall, "Der Logos," and the Logos literature given by Schürer, "Gesch." i. 3, 542-544). The Memra as a cosmic power furnished Philo the corner-stone upon which he built his peculiar semi-Jewish philosophy. Philo's "divine thought," "the image" and "first-born son" of God, "the archpriest," "intercessor," and "paraclete" of humanity, the "arch type of man" (see Philo), paved the way for the Christian conceptions of the Incarnation ("the Word become flesh") and the Trinity. The Word which "the unoriginated Father created in His own likeness as a manifestation of His own power" appears in the Gnostic system of Marcus (Irenæus, "Adversus Hæreses," i. 14). In the ancient Church liturgy, adopted from the Synagogue, it is especially interesting to notice how often the term "Logos," in the sense of "the Word by which God made the world, or made His Law or Himself known to man," was changed into "Christ" (see "Apostolic Constitutions," vii. 25-26, 34-38, et al.). Possibly on account of the Christian dogma, rabbinic theology, outside of the Targum literature, made little use of the term "Memra." See Logos.

Bibliography:

• Bousset, Die Religion des Judenthums im Neutestamentlichen Zeitalter, 1903, p. 341;
• Weber, Jüdische Theologie, 1897, pp. 180-184.