The God-Man by by Bob Morris http:www.hadavar.org

The Hebrew Scriptures also teach the concept of a God-Man. Not man making himself God, but God appearing on earth as a man. The concept starts in Genesis 4:1-2 and continues through Messianic prophecy. Consistently evaluating the construction et-xxx in Genesis 4:1-2 as the accusative particle (it is used five times that way in Genesis 4:1-2) shows that Eve believed the promised child was God Himself. Targum Jonathan goes in this direction as well by translating the verse "I have obtained the man, The Angel of Jehovah." Targum Jonathan substitutes the term "Angel of Jehovah" in place of the Tetragrammaton. Jonathan should have rendered Eve's thought as "I have obtained the man, YHVH." It appears that Jonathan understood the plain meaning of the text but couldn't bring himself to translate it plainly. The impact of "et" in Genesis 4:1-2 as the accusative particle also is noticed in the Midrash, where it creates a bit of a discussion. In that discussion, it appears that Rabbi Ishmael is concerned about the implications of the "et" because it implies that Eve thought that she had given birth to YHVH. Rabbi Akiba then interprets the statement differently. My point is that Rabbi Ishmael noticed that something unusual was going on there and its implications. Could God choose to appear on earth as a man? He's quite capable of doing that.

Another example would be Jeremiah 23:5-6. I would like to quote Dr. Arnold Fruchtenbaum regarding these verses.

Verse five speaks of a descendent of David sitting upon the throne of David and so His humanity is being stressed. But then, in verse six, his name is Jehovah our righteousness. The human being of verse five who sits on David's throne has God's personal name in verse six and that again show His deity. So, verse five emphasizes His humanity and verse six His deity and again the God-Man concept.

One more example: Zechariah 13:7a (I will confine myself to the first part of the verse).

O sword! Rouse yourself against My shepherd, The man in charge of My flock

The translation above is from Tanakh, Jewish Publication Society, 1997. I am quite amazed at their rendering of the phrase "in charge of My flock." In my electronic version that phrase is bracketed by two superscripted -i's. The explanation given, "meaning of Hebrew uncertain." No one else seems to have a problem with the word-including the Jewish Publication Society. In the JPS produced "The Holy Scriptures" (1917, 1945, 1955) the word is rendered "the man that is near to me."

Likewise:

Soncino Books of the Bible (text rendering): the man that is near unto me

Soncino Books of the Bible (commentary rendering): the man that is my fellow

Septuagint: citizen, freeman, fellow citizen

American Standard Version: my fellow

Revised Standard Version: the man who stands next to me

New Living Translation: my partner

The Contemporary English Version: friend

King James: my fellow

New American Standard: my associate

New International Version: The man who is close to me

The New King James Version: my companion

Brown Driver and Brigs Lexicon: associate, fellow, relation

Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament: associate, fellow, relation

New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries: associate, fellow, relation

Enhanced Strong's Lexicon: relation, neighbor, associate, fellow

Dr. Fruchtenbaum evaluates the word as "my equal" and comments,

This man is God's equal and God's equal must be God Himself. On one hand His humanity is stressed … the man; and then His deity is stressed: that is my equal.

I think The Bible Knowledge Commentary said is well in their comments:

The Lord added that this Shepherd is the Man who is close to Me. The Hebrew word translated "who is close to me" is found elsewhere only in Leviticus (6:2; 18:20; etc.) where it refers to a "near relative" (though it is Trans. "neighbor" in the NIV). In Zechariah 13:7, the Lord is claiming identity of nature or unity of essence with His Shepherd, thus strongly affirming the Messiah's deity. [1]

The 1997 Tanakh does not seem to be able to face the impact and meaning of the text. They almost seem to want to obscure it. However, the God-Man concept is there and supports the idea of complex, indivisible unity in the Godhead

Let me close this particular subject by interjecting a thought that is helpful from Rabbi Albo. In J. David Bleich's book With Perfect Faith, he quotes Rabbi Albo explaining his understanding of how the prophets receive their revelation. Albo uses Bereshit Rabbah:

A Cuthean asked Rabbi Meir, Is it possible that God, of whom it is written, 'Do not I fill heaven and earth?' should have spoken to Moses from between the staves of the ark? Said Rabbi Meir, bring me large mirrors. When he brought them, R. Meir said to him, look at your reflection. He looked, and he saw they were large. Then he said, bring me small mirrors. He looked and he saw they were small. Then R. Meir said, If you, a man of flesh and blood can change yourself into many shapes at your pleasure, surely God who created the world can do so.

As in the mirrors a thing appears different in form, large or small, straight or crooked, bright or obscure, according to the nature of the mirrors through which the thing is seen, i.e. according as the mirrors are large or small, straight or crooked, clear of obscure, though the thing itself does not change, so God appears to the prophets under many and various forms according to the brightness and purity of the media, though God Himself does multiply or change. The change and multiplicity come from the media, as in the illustration of the mirrors. [2]

The connection I want to make here is the fact that Albo has nicely stated God has revealed Himself to man through a variety of media, a cloud, a fire, etc. The media He chose to use in the case of the Messiah is a human body. God did not multiply Himself or change. He simply used a particular medium of expression. The God-man concept is not contrary to Scripture and it maintains the evidence for complex, indivisible unity.

Footnotes