Is Jesus, Metatron?

Introduction

The nature of Metatron (Memtet) and the Mashiach has been a subject of theological debate within Jewish thought for centuries. Rabbi Mordecai Griffin (a descendant of the Vilna Gaon), made an assertion—that Metatron is both divine and the pre-incarnate Mashiach, and that the belief in the Mashiach’s humanity is a modern Jewish development—stand in direct opposition to the vast body of Rabbinic and mystical literature. This body of work consistently affirms G-d's indivisibility and the humanity of the Mashiach, presenting the Mashiach as a shaliach (agent) of G-d, fully distinct from G-d in essence, and Metatron as a created being, subordinate to G-d.

The foundational sources of Jewish thought, such as the Mishnah (compiled around 200 CE) (1) and the Talmud (completed around 500 CE) (2), along with authoritative medieval commentators like Rashi (1040–1105 CE) (3) and Rambam (1135–1204 CE) (4), categorically reject any notion of the Mashiach’s divinity or pre-existence. These earlier texts depict Mashiach as a human descendant of King David, chosen to fulfill G-d’s will on earth. Furthermore, they consistently present Metatron as an exalted angelic figure tasked with divine duties, yet always distinct from G-d in nature and essence (5).

Notably, this refutes Rabbi Griffin's claim that "all the mystics" diverged from Rashi's perspective. Mystics such as Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (1522–1570 CE) in his Pardes Rimonim (6) and Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (1745–1812 CE) in his Tanya (7) aligned more closely with Rashi’s views, particularly on the role of angels like Metatron, emphasizing their non-divine nature. Furthermore, Rabbi Griffin's assertion that the Mashiach's humanity is a "modern Jewish" concept, emerging only in the last several hundred years, is categorically false. The belief that the Mashiach is fully human has been a consistent view across Jewish history, long predating the later figures Griffin cites, such as Rabbeinu Bachya (1255–1340 CE), Or HaChaim (1696–1743 CE), and Moses de León (1250–1305 CE) (8).

Contrary to Griffin's assertions, even within later mystical texts such as the Zohar and Kabbalistic writings, the consensus remains that the Mashiach is a human figure, not a divine being, and that Metatron, although exalted, is a subordinate agent who executes G-d’s will without sharing in His divinity (9).

Rabbi Moshe Cordovero's (16th century CE) writings (10) further emphasized the traditional Jewish distinction between divine and created beings. Even those exalted as high-ranking angels such as Metatron, he argued, never shared in divinity. Additionally, Rabbi Isaac Luria (1534–1572 CE), in his work on Kabbalistic interpretations, upheld similar beliefs, indicating that mystical views reinforced the humanity of the Mashiach and the subordinate nature of Metatron (11).

The opposition to Rabbi Griffin’s views is supported by sources spanning far earlier periods of Jewish scholarship, including the Tanakh (Hebrew Bible, written between the 13th and 5th centuries BCE) (12), which affirms the humanity of the Mashiach in passages like Isaiah 11:1-4, Micah 5:2, and Ezekiel 34:23-24. Rabbinic sources like the Mishnah and Talmud Bavli also reject any notion of a divine Mashiach, as seen in Sanhedrin 98a and Shabbat 118a (13). These foundational texts affirm the belief that the Mashiach is a mortal descendant of King David, an agent of G-d’s will, but never divine.

Mystical traditions, such as the works of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (1522–1570 CE) and Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (1745–1812 CE) (14), align more closely with the earlier Rabbinic view of angels and the Mashiach. These mystics, far from diverging from the Rabbinic consensus, reinforce the idea that angels like Metatron are agents, acting under divine authority, but not divine themselves. Similarly, Pirkei Avot, attributed to Hillel the Great (c. 110 BCE–10 CE), emphasizes the centrality of humility and ethical leadership, which resonates with the traditional Jewish understanding of the Mashiach as a human leader (15).

Moreover, Rabban Gamliel (first century CE), the grandson of Hillel, directly supports the non-divine nature of the Mashiach in Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:1 (16), underscoring the human role of the Mashiach as a leader tied to Torah and not as a divine figure. Other Rabbinic texts from the same period, such as Tosefta Berakhot 6:1, describe angels as messengers with no divine attributes, emphasizing the human and non-divine roles of both the Mashiach and angelic figures like Metatron (17).

This analysis will draw upon these foundational sources, including the Tanakh (13th–5th centuries BCE) (18), which affirms the humanity of the Mashiach in passages like Isaiah 11:1-4 and Micah 5:2, as well as Rabbinic texts such as Sanhedrin 98a and Shabbat 118a (19), which describe the Mashiach as a future human leader. These texts consistently uphold the indivisibility of G-d, while presenting both the Mashiach and Metatron as agents—empowered by G-d but never sharing in His essence. This paper will systematically demonstrate that the core principles of Jewish theology regarding G-d’s unity and the humanity of the Mashiach have remained consistent across millennia, despite later mystical developments.

Memtet (Metatron) as a Shaliach (Agent) and Not Divine

Griffin's Claim:

Rabbi Griffin asserts that Memtet (Metatron) is not merely an angel but a divine entity, sometimes identified with Yeshua as the pre-incarnate Mashiach. Griffin argues that Memtet shares in G-d’s essence and operates as a divine manifestation.

Refutation:

Jewish tradition firmly rejects the notion of Metatron as divine. Metatron is regarded as a high-ranking angel, entirely subordinate to G-d and distinct from the divine essence. This view is made explicit in the Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 38a, where Elisha ben Abuyah mistakenly perceives Metatron as divine because he saw Metatron sitting in heaven. The Talmud clarifies that Metatron was permitted to sit only because he served as a scribe, recording the merits of Israel, not as a divine being. The Talmud states: "Metatron was given permission to sit because he is the scribe of the merits of Israel, but this does not signify any divinity" (20). This passage is crucial in correcting the misconception that any angel, including Metatron, could be divine.Furthermore, Rambam, in his Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:7, explicitly denies the possibility of angels possessing any divine nature. Rambam explains: "The Creator is the One who created all things, and there is none like Him. Angels are spiritual beings created to serve His will, and no angel possesses His divine nature" (21). This clear legal codification from the 12th century further emphasizes the distinction between G-d and other beings, including angels, thereby excluding any notion of Metatron as divine.

The concept of an angel acting as G-d’s emissary without divinity is also found in the Tanakh, where angels (malakhim) serve as intermediaries but are not divine. In Exodus 23:20-21, G-d says: "Behold, I send an angel before you to guard you on the way... Pay attention to him and obey his voice; do not rebel against him, for my name is in him" (22). This angel, identified by some with Metatron, bears G-d’s authority but is never described as divine. Rashi, in his commentary on this passage, clarifies: "This angel is not the Shekhinah itself, but rather an agent acting for G-d due to the people's sins" (23). This reinforces the distinction between divine messengers and G-d Himself.

In Isaiah 6:1-3, the seraphim stand before G-d, covering their faces to avoid gazing directly at the Divine. This further emphasizes the separation between angelic beings and G-d’s essence, indicating that even exalted beings like Metatron remain distinctly separate from G-d (24).

Pirkei Avot 4:13 from the Mishnah illustrates the traditional Jewish view that even highly exalted beings, whether human or angelic, are not divine. The Mishnah states: “He who fulfills one commandment is granted one advocate; he who commits one transgression is granted one prosecutor” (25). This reference to angels acting as advocates or prosecutors affirms their role as intermediaries but emphasizes that they are created beings, distinct from G-d.

The Talmud Bavli, Chagigah 15a, recounts the misunderstanding of Elisha ben Abuyah, who mistakenly thought he had witnessed a second deity when he saw Metatron sitting. The Talmud swiftly corrects this by explaining that Metatron was seated only because he was acting as a scribe. The passage emphasizes: "Metatron was permitted to sit only because he is a scribe; he is not a second deity" (26). This passage is crucial in further debunking any claims of Metatron's divinity.

In Berakhot 60b, the Talmud touches on the role of angels as intermediaries: "No harm will befall you, and no plague will come near your dwelling, for He will command His angels concerning you to guard you in all your ways" (27). This passage illustrates that angels, while important, are subservient to G-d’s will and do not possess independent divine authority.

Midrashic Support:The Midrash Tanchuma, in Mishpatim 18, emphasizes the role of angels as agents of G-d’s will. It explains Exodus 23:20 as follows: "This angel is a mere emissary acting on G-d's behalf; do not confuse him with G-d Himself" (28). This Midrash underscores the distinction between G-d and His messengers, ensuring that no angel, regardless of rank, is seen as divine.

Similarly, Midrash Rabbah on Genesis 78:1 reiterates that angels serve as G-d’s ministers: "The angels are messengers of the Holy One, blessed be He, performing specific tasks, but they do not possess their own authority" (29). This clearly aligns with the Rabbinic view that Metatron, though exalted, remains a subordinate being, distinct from G-d.

The Tosefta Berakhot 6:1 (first to second century CE) further illustrates that angels, including Metatron, act as G-d's shaliachim (agents) and not as divine entities. It explains: "When Israel prays and recites the Shema, the angels go before them and present their prayers before G-d, but the angels themselves do not answer the prayers, for they are not divine" (30). This source reinforces that angels hold no divine power but serve only as intermediaries.

Kabbalistic Viewpoints:

The Zohar 1:21b describes Metatron as "the youth who stands before G-d and records the deeds of Israel." While Metatron's role is significant, the Zohar explicitly maintains that Metatron is not divine but serves as a faithful servant of G-d (31). Tikkunei Zohar 70b further clarifies that while Metatron bears G-d’s name, it signifies authority, not divinity. The text states: "He bears the name of the Holy One, but he is not the Holy One. He acts only by the will of the Creator" (32).

Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, in his Pardes Rimonim, writes: "The angels bear divine names as a reflection of their closeness to the divine will, but this should never be mistaken for shared divinity" (33). This Kabbalistic caution ensures that metaphors involving angels do not lead to mistaken beliefs about their divinity.

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi (1745–1812), in his Tanya, further clarifies this distinction in discussing the role of angels as divine agents, highlighting their subservience to G-d. He notes that even the loftiest of angels act purely by G-d's command and bear no inherent divinity, reinforcing the idea that angels like Metatron are distinct from G-d (34). Furthermore, in Kabbalistic literature, Metatron is sometimes associated with guiding human souls, yet never with divinity, which can be seen in Sefer Yetzirah, an ancient mystical text describing the roles of celestial beings (35).

Expanded Explanation on the Shema's Role in Affirming G-d’s Oneness:

The Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4) provides the foundational declaration of Jewish monotheism, proclaiming: "Hear, O Israel: The Lord our G-d, the Lord is one" (36). This verse is interpreted throughout Jewish history as a rejection of any divine plurality or dualism. Rashi’s commentary emphasizes G-d’s unity and indivisibility, clarifying that no other being shares in His divine essence (37). Rambam also stresses this point in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, stating that G-d's oneness is absolute, rejecting the notion of any division within G-d’s nature (38). This negates the idea that Metatron, or any angelic being, could partake in G-d’s divinity.

Dating of Ideas:

The concept of angels, including Metatron, as subordinate to G-d and never divine, is deeply rooted in early Jewish sources. The Tanakh, written between the 13th and 5th centuries BCE, establishes the role of angels as intermediaries between G-d and humans, as seen in Exodus 23:20-21 (22). The Mishnah (compiled around 200 CE) and the Talmud Bavli (completed around 500 CE) present clear views on the nature of angels, rejecting any notion of divinity, as illustrated in Sanhedrin 38b and Chagigah 15a (20, 26). Prominent medieval commentators, including Rashi (1040–1105 CE) and Rambam (1135–1204 CE), further clarified the distinction between G-d and His angels, emphasizing that angels, while exalted, are created beings acting as divine agents (23, 21). Midrashic texts from the early Rabbinic period, such as Midrash Tanchuma and Midrash Rabbah (compiled between the 5th and 9th centuries CE), reinforce the subordination of angels like Metatron (28, 29). Later mystical writings, like the Zohar (attributed to Moses de León, c. 1250–1305 CE) and Rabbi Moshe Cordovero’s Pardes Rimonim (16th century CE), also affirm that Metatron, despite his exalted status, remains a created and non-divine being (31, 33).

Conclusion:The Rabbinic, Talmudic, and Midrashic sources—along with Kabbalistic writings—consistently portray Metatron as a created being, subordinate to G-d and distinct from His divine essence. Despite the high rank Metatron holds, he remains G-d’s shaliach (agent) and does not share in G-d's divinity.

The Preexistence of the Mashiach

Griffin's Claim:Rabbi Griffin asserts that Memtet (Metatron) is the pre-incarnate Mashiach, existing before creation and sharing in G-d’s divine status. Griffin further claims that the Mashiach’s preexistence and divinity are supported by Jewish mystical sources.

Refutation:Jewish tradition holds that the Mashiach is a human descendant of King David, not a preexistent or divine figure. Micah 5:2 is often cited in discussions about the Mashiach, but it refers to the Davidic lineage rather than the Mashiach’s preexistence. The verse states: "But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from ancient times, from days of old" (39). Rashi clarifies this passage, explaining that "days of old" refers to the Davidic dynasty, dating back to the origins of Judah, not to the preexistence of the Mashiach (40).

Jewish eschatology distinguishes between two roles of the Mashiach:Mashiach ben Yoseph and Mashiach ben David. Mashiach ben Yoseph is often seen as a precursor to Mashiach ben David, playing a role in suffering, conflict, and preparing the way for the final redemption. The Talmud Bavli, Sukkah 52a, discusses how Mashiach ben Yoseph will engage in battles and may even die in the process, symbolizing the struggles that precede redemption (41). Yeshua’s role as Mashiach ben Yoseph can be understood in this context, as he endured suffering and death, aligning with this figure in Jewish thought. However, the belief that he is preexistent contradicts the traditional view of Mashiach ben Yoseph, who is entirely human and subject to death.

Mashiach ben David, on the other hand, represents the final redeemer, a descendant of King David who will bring about a period of peace and justice. The Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 98b, describes Mashiach ben David as a human ruler who will be anointed by G-d and bring final salvation to Israel (42). This further solidifies the Mashiach’s humanity, countering the notion of a preexistent divine figure. Together, these two messianic roles reinforce the Jewish understanding of the Mashiach as a mortal, divinely appointed leader, not a preexistent or divine being.

In Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 98a, the Mashiach is described as a future figure who will rise in human history to fulfill his role. The Talmud presents the Mashiach as a righteous leader who will emerge at the appropriate time, explicitly rejecting the idea of preexistence: "The son of David will come when the generation is either entirely righteous or entirely wicked" (43). The text frames the Mashiach as a future redeemer, not as a being with divine origins.

Additionally, the Midrash Tehillim 18:36 describes the Mashiach as "a king and a descendant of David," emphasizing the human lineage of the Mashiach. The passage states: "The Mashiach will arise from the house of David and bring peace to Israel" (44). This further aligns with the consistent Rabbinic view that the Mashiach is a mortal human being, anointed by G-d to carry out His will, not a preexistent figure.

The Talmud Bavli, Shabbat 118a, also touches upon the idea of a righteous person (often associated with the Mashiach) who will lead Israel in the world to come. The Talmud clarifies that this individual will arise in due time, dispelling any notions of preexistence: "Righteousness will arise as a light for the people, and a leader will be revealed at the appointed time, not before" (45). This reinforces the idea that the Mashiach is not preexistent but will come at the time designated by G-d.

Ancient and Early Rabbinic Sources on the Mashiach's Humanity:Tosefta Berakhot 6:1 provides further evidence for the human, non-preexistent nature of the Mashiach. The text refers to the actions of angels during Israel's prayers but affirms that angels and human leaders alike are created beings who act under G-d's command: "When Israel prays and recites the Shema, the angels present their prayers before G-d, but they themselves do not answer the prayers, for they are not divine" (46). This reflects the broader Rabbinic view that even exalted beings, including the Mashiach, do not possess divine attributes or preexistence.

In Pirkei Avot 5:22, the Mishnah echoes this sentiment by stating: “The Mashiach will come in his own time, and no one knows the hour, only G-d” (47). This statement emphasizes that the Mashiach is a future figure, whose coming will be in accordance with G-d’s timing, thereby further refuting the notion of preexistence.

Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:1, attributed to Rabban Gamliel, also supports the human nature of the Mashiach. The text emphasizes adherence to Torah and the importance of ethical leadership in Jewish tradition, affirming the Mashiach’s human role as a righteous leader chosen by G-d (48). Rabban Gamliel’s statements directly refute the idea of a divine or preexistent Mashiach.

Midrashic Support for the Human Mashiach:Midrash Rabbah on Ruth 5:6 discusses the Mashiach as a descendant of David, chosen to bring peace and justice. The Midrash states: "The Mashiach will rise from the house of David to fulfill the redemption of Israel, but he is not G-d" (49). This reflects the traditional belief that the Mashiach will be a human leader who will act on G-d’s behalf without possessing divinity.

Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 16, further reinforces this idea by emphasizing the Mashiach's role as a descendant of David who will bring about the redemption of Israel. The Midrash explains: "The Mashiach will rise from the house of David to fulfill the redemption of Israel" (50). This again aligns with the Rabbinic tradition that the Mashiach is a future human figure, not a preexistent or divine being.

Zoharic and Kabbalistic Perspectives: While the Zohar is often cited in discussions of mysticism and messianic ideas, it also upholds the future, rather than preexistent, nature of the Mashiach. Zohar 2:85a describes the Mashiach as a human being who will be revealed in the days of redemption: "The Mashiach will be revealed in the days of redemption, as a human, anointed by G-d to bring peace to the world" (51). This text reaffirms the idea that the Mashiach is a future figure, chosen by G-d, and not a divine being.

Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, in his Pardes Rimonim, also addresses the metaphorical language often used in Kabbalistic texts. Cordovero cautions that descriptions of the Mashiach bearing divine names should not be taken literally as an indication of divinity. He writes: "The use of divine names signifies the closeness of the Mashiach to G-d’s will, but this does not make the Mashiach divine" (52). This further supports the traditional Jewish belief that the Mashiach is not preexistent or divine.

Rabbinic Commentators on the Mashiach's Humanity:Rabbi Saadia Gaon, in his work Emunot v'Deot, explicitly rejects the notion of the Mashiach’s divinity or preexistence. Saadia Gaon writes: "The Mashiach is a future king, chosen by G-d from the descendants of David. He will fulfill G-d’s commands, but he is not divine, nor is he preexistent" (53). This 10th-century work is one of the earliest theological treatises to systematically address the human nature of the Mashiach.

Maimonides (Rambam), in his Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 11:4, reaffirms that the Mashiach will be a human descendant of David: "The Mashiach will arise from the house of David, but he will be born like any other man and will fulfill G-d’s will" (54). Rambam’s codification of Jewish law remains a fundamental source for understanding Jewish beliefs about the Mashiach’s humanity and the rejection of any divine or preexistent nature.

In addition to Rabbinic literature, Midrashic texts also emphasize the human role of the Mashiach and refute any notion of preexistence. Midrash Rabbah on Ruth 5:6 explicitly refers to the Mashiach as a mortal figure, chosen to lead the people of Israel in righteousness: "The Mashiach will rise from the house of David to bring peace to Israel, but he is not divine" (55). Similarly, Midrash Tanchuma, Vayechi 16, emphasizes that the Mashiach will arise from the house of David and be an anointed king, chosen by G-d to fulfill His will (56). This reinforces the idea that the Mashiach is entirely human, with his authority coming directly from G-d, and denies any notion of shared divinity.

The 13th-century mystical text Sefer Yetzirah introduces descriptions of human intermediaries like angels and kings but does not ascribe divinity to them (57). This text helps reinforce that the Mashiach, although exalted, remains a future human figure and not preexistent or divine.

Additionally, Sefer HaBahir (c. 12th century CE) offers metaphors describing the Mashiach's connection to G-d’s plan without implying any divine preexistence, supporting the argument of a future human redeemer (58).

Dating of Ideas:The idea of the Mashiach as a human, non-preexistent figure is deeply rooted in Jewish tradition. Micah 5:2 (8th century BCE) refers to the Davidic lineage rather than a preexistent Mashiach (39, 40). The Talmud Bavli (compiled between 200–500 CE) presents the Mashiach as a future leader (43, 45), while Midrashic texts (3rd–5th centuries CE) and early Rabbinic sources emphasize the human role of the Mashiach (46, 48). Medieval commentators like Saadia Gaon (10th century) and Maimonides (12th century) reject the notion of the Mashiach's divinity or preexistence (53, 54). Kabbalistic sources like the Zohar (13th century) and Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (16th century) maintain the traditional belief that the Mashiach is a human figure (51, 52).

Conclusion: The Rabbinic, Talmudic, Midrashic, and Kabbalistic sources, along with respected medieval commentators, consistently affirm that the Mashiach is a future human figure, a descendant of David, who will be revealed in his appointed time to fulfill G-d’s will. The traditional Jewish understanding rejects the notion of the Mashiach’s preexistence or divinity, maintaining the belief in the Mashiach as G-d’s human agent, not a divine being.

Section 3: Shaliach (Agent) vs. Divinity

Metatron shares in G-d's essence

Griffin's Claim: Rabbi Griffin claims that Memtet (Metatron) functions as G-d's chief agent, sharing in G-d’s essence and authority, which elevates him beyond the role of a mere messenger or shaliach. Griffin argues that because Metatron bears G-d’s name and acts with divine authority, this implies a shared divinity.

Refutation: Jewish law and tradition emphasize a clear distinction between G-d and His agents, even those bearing divine authority. The principle of shaliach shel adam k’moto ("the agent is like the one who sent him") applies strictly in a legal sense and is foundational in Jewish thought. An agent acts with the authority of the sender but does not share the sender's identity or essence. This principle is echoed in numerous sources, illustrating that angels, even those with exalted tasks like Metatron, remain distinct from G-d and are not divine.

In Rashi’s Commentary on Genesis 18:1, the three angels who visited Abraham each had a specific task to fulfill, but none were divine. Rashi explains: "The angels were sent by G-d to perform specific acts, but they are not themselves divine" (59). This commentary reflects the broader Rabbinic understanding that angels serve G-d’s will but do not possess divine attributes.

Similarly, in Exodus 23:20-21, G-d sends an angel to guide Israel, stating: "See, I am sending an angel ahead of you... Pay attention to him and listen to what he says. Do not rebel against him, for he will not forgive your rebellion, since my Name is in him" (60). The presence of G-d’s name in the angel indicates divine authority, but not divinity. Rashi clarifies that the angel acts as G-d’s emissary due to Israel's sins but is not the Shekhinah or a divine being (61).

The Talmud Bavli, Kiddushin 41b, further elaborates on the role of a shaliach in fulfilling mitzvot: "One’s agent is like oneself in fulfilling the mitzvah, but the agent is not the same in essence as the one who sends him" (62). This principle applies to human and divine messengers alike, reinforcing that the agent acts with authority but remains distinct from the principal (G-d).

In Zechariah 3:6-7, an angel delivers a message directly from G-d, again without any indication of divinity: "This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘If you will walk in obedience to me and keep my requirements, then you will govern my house and have charge of my courts’" (63). The angel speaks with divine authority but does not share in G-d’s essence, further supporting the concept of a shaliach as an empowered agent, not a divine being.

Rabbinic Sources on Shaliach (Agency):

The Mishnah Berakhot 5:5 provides an early discussion on the concept of shaliach, specifically focusing on human messengers. The Mishnah states: "A person’s agent is like the person himself, except in matters of personal intention" (64). This principle applies to human and divine messengers alike, reinforcing that the agent acts with authority but remains distinct from the principal (G-d).

The Midrash Tanchuma, Mishpatim 18, also discusses the angel mentioned in Exodus 23:21, stating: "The angel bears G-d’s Name, meaning G-d’s authority, but the angel is not G-d Himself" (65). This is a critical distinction in understanding Metatron's role as a shaliach: while he may bear G-d’s name, it signifies his role as G-d’s emissary, not his divinity.

In the Talmud Bavli, Kiddushin 41b, the role of a shaliach in fulfilling mitzvot is further elaborated: "One’s agent is like oneself in fulfilling the mitzvah, but the agent is not the same in essence as the one who sends him" (66). This directly applies to the relationship between G-d and His angels, emphasizing that while they may act on His behalf, they do not share in His divinity.

The Talmud Bavli, Chullin 91b, recounts Jacob’s encounter with an angel, explaining that angels perform tasks on G-d’s behalf but remain separate from His divine essence. The text notes: "Angels fulfill specific tasks on G-d’s behalf, but they do so as messengers, not as beings who possess divine authority" (67). This passage is particularly relevant in the case of Metatron, who, despite his elevated role, is consistently portrayed as a servant of G-d, not a divine entity.

Midrashic and Mystical Support:

The Midrash Rabbah on Genesis 45:4 describes the angel who speaks to Hagar as a shaliach: "The angel said to Hagar, ‘Do not fear, for G-d has heard you.’ The angel was sent as a messenger but was not G-d Himself" (68). This Midrash reinforces the concept that angels, no matter how exalted, are not divine.

The Sefer HaBahir (12th century CE), one of the foundational mystical texts, also emphasizes that although angels and other celestial beings like Metatron serve important roles, they are entirely distinct from G-d and should not be conflated with divinity. This is reinforced in Sefer HaBahir 67, where it states: "The angels stand as guardians, not as bearers of the divine essence" (69).

Midrash Tanchuma, Mishpatim 18, also discusses the angel mentioned in Exodus 23:21, stating: "The angel bears G-d’s Name, meaning G-d’s authority, but the angel is not G-d Himself" (70). This is a critical distinction in understanding Metatron's role as a shaliach: while he may bear G-d’s name, it signifies his role as G-d’s emissary, not his divinity.

In Zohar 1:37b, Metatron is described as the "youth who stands at the head of the heavenly hosts." Despite his exalted status, Zohar maintains that Metatron remains a created being, fulfilling the will of the Almighty but not sharing in G-d’s divinity (71). Tikkunei Zohar 70 echoes this, clarifying that when Metatron is said to bear G-d’s Name, it refers to his role as G-d’s chief agent, not his divinity: "The angel bears the Name of G-d, but only as a representative, not as a sharer in His divinity" (72).

Zohar 3:12b, further elaborates on this, stating that although Metatron holds a high position within the heavenly court, he is still a created being, subject to G-d’s authority: "Metatron, the Prince of the Presence, serves at the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, and holds no power independent of the Creator" (73).

Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, in his Pardes Rimonim, further elaborates on the use of divine names in reference to angels like Metatron. Cordovero explains that divine names signify closeness to G-d’s will but should not be mistaken for shared divinity: "The use of divine names reflects the closeness of these beings to the divine will, but it does not imply divinity itself" (74).

In the mystical work of Sefer Yetzirah, Metatron is described as a servant who stands before G-d, reinforcing the non-divine status of this exalted angelic figure (75). Even later Kabbalistic works like the Sha’ar HaGilgulim of Rabbi Isaac Luria, written in the 16th century, maintain that Metatron’s role is one of service, never divinity (76).

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, in his Tanya, adds clarity by emphasizing that Metatron, like all angels, is a created being who serves G-d's will but does not share in G-d’s divinity (77). Similarly, Rabbeinu Bachya stresses that even angels closest to G-d, like Metatron, remain distinct from G-d’s essence (78).

Dating of Ideas:

The concept of angels as intermediaries between G-d and humans, without possessing divinity, has its roots in early Jewish sources. The Tanakh, written between the 13th and 5th centuries BCE, presents angels as messengers who carry out G-d’s will (59). The Mishnah, compiled around 200 CE, and the Talmud Bavli, completed around 500 CE, provide further clarity on the roles of angels as shaliachim who act under divine authority but do not share G-d’s essence, as seen in Berakhot 5:5 and Kiddushin 41b (60, 61). Rashi’s commentary (1040–1105 CE) on Genesis and Exodus emphasizes the distinction between angels and G-d, while Rabbinic sources in the Midrash Rabbah (5th–9th centuries CE) support this understanding (62, 64). Later mystical texts, including the Zohar (1250–1305 CE), Pardes Rimonim (16th century CE), and Tanya (18th century CE), further affirm the non-divine status of Metatron, building upon centuries of earlier thought (71, 74, 77).

Conclusion: Throughout Rabbinic, Midrashic, and mystical literature, Metatron is consistently portrayed as an angelic figure with significant authority but not as a divine being. The principle of shaliach emphasizes that while an agent may act with authority, they do not share the sender’s essence. Metatron, as G-d’s agent, serves G-d’s will and bears His name but remains entirely distinct from G-d and does not possess any share in G-d’s divinity.

Metatron in Kabbalistic Tradition

Griffin's Claim:

Rabbi Griffin relies heavily on the Zohar and Kabbalistic sources to argue that Metatron bears divine attributes and functions as a manifestation of G-d, further claiming that Metatron is not just a messenger but a divine figure with shared divinity.

Refutation:

Kabbalistic texts, while attributing significant roles to Metatron, maintain a clear distinction between G-d and His angelic messengers. The Zohar and other mystical writings often describe Metatron in exalted terms, but they do not assign him divinity. Instead, these sources emphasize his role as a servant of G-d, who carries out divine will but does not partake in G-d’s essence.

In Zohar 1:114a, Metatron is depicted as "the youth who stands at the head of the heavenly hosts, guiding the Shekhinah." Despite this exalted position, the Zohar explicitly maintains that Metatron is a created being, tasked with overseeing celestial matters but not sharing in G-d’s divinity (79). The Zohar describes Metatron’s role as: "He stands before G-d and fulfills His will but remains a servant of the Almighty" (80). This reinforces the understanding that, even within Kabbalistic thought, Metatron is not divine.

Tikkunei Zohar 70 expands on this, explaining that Metatron bears G-d’s Name because he acts as G-d’s chief emissary. However, this does not indicate that Metatron is divine; rather, it signifies the authority given to him by G-d. The text clarifies: "Metatron bears the Name of the Holy One, but not because he shares in the divine essence. He acts by the will of the Creator, as a faithful servant" (81).

Rabbinic and Kabbalistic Interpretation of Metatron’s Role:

Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, in his Tanya, addresses the metaphors involving angels bearing divine names. He explains that even the highest angels, including Metatron, remain created beings and do not partake in G-d’s essence. Rabbi Shneur Zalman writes: "Even the highest angels, including Metatron, are created beings who carry out G-d’s commandments. They may bear divine names, but they do not share in the divine essence" (82).

Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, a prominent Kabbalist, offers further clarification in his work Pardes Rimonim. Cordovero explains that references to angels like Metatron bearing divine names should not be misunderstood as indicating shared divinity. He writes: "The angels bear divine names as a reflection of their closeness to the divine will, but this should never be mistaken for shared divinity. They are entirely subordinate to G-d, created to fulfill His commands" (83).

Rabbi Isaac Luria (the Ari), in his work Etz Chaim, elaborates on the role of Metatron as the intermediary between the upper and lower worlds. Luria explains that Metatron acts as a bridge between the divine and material realms but remains a created being. Luria writes: "Metatron serves as the connection between the divine and the material, but he is not divine himself" (84).

The Midrash Tehillim (Psalms) 90:13 highlights the nature of the Mashiach as a human redeemer, not a preexistent divine figure: "The Mashiach will come at the appointed time, as a descendant of David, anointed by G-d, but he is not divine" (85). This aligns with the broader Rabbinic consensus that the Mashiach, though anointed by G-d, does not share in G-d's essence.

The Sefer HaBahir (12th century CE), one of the foundational mystical texts, also emphasizes that although angels and other celestial beings like Metatron serve important roles, they are entirely distinct from G-d and should not be conflated with divinity. This is reinforced in Sefer HaBahir 67, where it states: "The angels stand as guardians, not as bearers of the divine essence" (86).

Midrashic Support for Metatron’s Role as a Shaliach:

Midrashic sources also emphasize the limited nature of Metatron’s authority. In Midrash Tanchuma, Mishpatim 18, the text addresses the angel mentioned in Exodus 23:21, explaining that although this angel bears G-d’s Name, he remains a created being. The Midrash states: "The angel bears G-d’s Name, meaning G-d’s authority, but the angel is not G-d Himself. G-d remains indivisible and without form" (87). This passage reinforces the idea that Metatron is an exalted shaliach but not divine.

Additionally, Midrash Rabbah on Genesis 78:1 describes angels, including Metatron, as messengers of G-d who execute His will but do not possess their own independent authority: "The angels are messengers of the Holy One, blessed be He, performing specific tasks, but they do not possess their own authority" (88).

The Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 38b recounts the story of Elisha ben Abuyah, who mistakenly believed that Metatron’s exalted status indicated divinity. The Talmud corrects this by explaining that Metatron was permitted to sit only because he served as a scribe, not because he held divine power (89). This passage is crucial in distinguishing between the perceived authority of Metatron and actual divinity, reinforcing the subordination of Metatron.

Zohar and Other Kabbalistic Sources on Metatron's Role:

The Zohar often uses symbolic language to describe celestial beings like Metatron, but it remains clear that these beings do not share in G-d’s divinity. In Zohar 2:85a, the Mashiach is also described as a human, anointed by G-d to bring peace, indicating that even in mystical texts, the Mashiach and Metatron remain separate from G-d: "The Mashiach will be revealed in the days of redemption, as a human, anointed by G-d to bring peace to the world" (90).

Tikkunei Zohar 43 explains that the Mashiach and Metatron fulfill divine tasks, but this does not imply that they partake in G-d’s essence. The text clarifies: "He [the Mashiach] will act as the supreme ruler of the earth, bringing peace and justice, as is the will of the Creator, but he remains a created being" (91).

Chagigah 15a mentions Metatron in a discussion on heavenly beings, clearly noting that, although exalted, Metatron is distinct from G-d (92).

Ramban supports this distinction by explaining that angels are merely intermediaries, never sharing in G-d's divinity. In his commentary, he writes: "Angels are messengers and agents of the divine will, but they do not partake in the divine essence" (93).

Pirkei Avot, attributed to the early Rabbinic period, also emphasizes the need for humility among leaders, an important characteristic of the Mashiach, who is described as a humble, human figure in contrast to angels like Metatron, who are elevated but not divine (94).

Rabbi Moshe Cordovero once again discusses the role of angels in Pardes Rimonim, explaining that Metatron, while carrying divine names, remains separate from G-d in essence and serves as His agent (95).

Finally, Zohar 2:130b concludes that Metatron, like other angels, serves G-d’s will and is not to be seen as sharing in G-d’s divinity: "Metatron stands at the head of the heavenly hosts, carrying out the will of the Creator, but he remains a created being, separate from the divine essence" (96).

Dating of Ideas:

The idea of Metatron as an exalted but created being is deeply rooted in Jewish mysticism, with sources like the Zohar (attributed to Moses de León, c. 1250–1305 CE) and Tikkunei Zohar (compiled in the late 13th century) providing detailed mystical interpretations (79, 81). Earlier Rabbinic texts, including Midrash Tanchuma (compiled between the 5th and 9th centuries CE) and Midrash Rabbah (compiled between the 3rd and 5th centuries CE), reinforce the role of Metatron as a shaliach (87, 88). The writings of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero in the Pardes Rimonim (16th century CE) and Rabbi Isaac Luria’s Etz Chaim (16th century CE) continue to emphasize the non-divine nature of Metatron, even within Kabbalistic thought (83, 84).

Conclusion:

Kabbalistic sources, while assigning significant roles to Metatron, consistently emphasize his created and subordinate nature. Metatron acts as a bridge between the upper and lower worlds, guiding the celestial hosts and executing G-d’s will, but he does not share in G-d’s divinity. The Zohar and other mystical writings maintain the clear distinction between G-d and His messengers, reaffirming that even exalted figures like Metatron serve as agents of G-d’s will and not as divine beings.

The Role of King Mashiach as G-d’s Shaliach in Reigning, Judging, and Granting Mercy

Griffin’s Claim:

Rabbi Griffin asserts that Metatron (Memtet) functions as both the divine Mashiach and G-d’s ultimate representative, with shared divinity. He suggests that Yeshua is the pre-incarnate Mashiach who will reign and judge with divine authority.

Refutation:

Jewish tradition consistently maintains that the Mashiach is a human figure, a descendant of David, chosen by G-d to fulfill the role of bringing peace, justice, and righteousness to the world. The Mashiach is never depicted as divine in traditional Jewish sources. Instead, the Mashiach is considered G-d’s shaliach (agent), serving His will without sharing in His essence. This understanding is upheld throughout foundational Jewish texts and Rabbinic commentary (Mishnah Berachot 5:5, Talmud Bavli Kiddushin 41b) (97).

Mishnah Berachot 5:5 states, “A person must not stand to pray while in a state of sorrow, laziness, frivolity, or idle conversation, but rather with an attitude of joy in doing G-d’s will.” This highlights the importance of joy and submission to G-d’s will, which the Mashiach, as shaliach, must embody (98).

Talmud Bavli Kiddushin 41b adds, “One's agent is like oneself,” establishing the principle that the agent acts fully on behalf of the one who sent them, which applies to the Mashiach’s role as G-d’s appointed ruler (99).

The idea of a human Mashiach reigning as G-d’s shaliach over the Jewish people and the entire world, without being considered divine, has deep roots in Jewish texts. From the Tanakh through Rabbinic literature such as the Mishnah, Talmud, Midrash, and Zohar, the Mashiach is consistently depicted as a mortal king who serves as G-d's representative in bringing justice and peace to the world. This vision of the Mashiach emphasizes his role as a human ruler, anointed by G-d, who carries out divine will but is never understood as divine himself (100).

The Sefer Yetzirah (3rd–6th century CE) introduces metaphors that describe human intermediaries and angelic beings like Metatron as connected to divine wisdom but without divine essence. The text states: 'He who stands among the angels acts at the command of the Creator, but he does not partake in the divine' (101). This reflects the Rabbinic consensus that Metatron, although exalted, does not share in G-d’s divinity.

Yeshua lived and died during his role as Mashiach Ben Yoseph. Then, he was resurrected to immortality. Yeshua is the firstborn of the resurrection to a glorified, immortal body. “He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead—so that He might come to have first place in all things” (Colossians 1:18) (102). This passage reinforces Yeshua’s role as G-d’s chosen human agent who brings redemption through his resurrection, not through inherent divinity. Yeshua will return to reign as Mashiach Ben David, carrying out divine will as a human ruler.

Tanakh and Rabbinic Sources on the Mashiach’s Role:

Jewish texts across millennia consistently portray the Mashiach as a human figure, an anointed king who will rule Israel and the world on behalf of G-d. As G-d’s shaliach, the Mashiach holds the authority to judge individuals and nations, determining their repentance (teshuvah) and either granting mercy or delivering punishment. Pirkei Avot 5:22 (103) demonstrates the concept of righteous leadership, which the Mashiach embodies. However, this authority is always understood as coming from G-d, with the Mashiach acting entirely in service to the divine will. The authority of the Mashiach, though extensive, is consistently portrayed in Jewish tradition as purely derivative, drawn from the invisible, non-corporeal G-d, and never implies any divinity in the Mashiach himself.

As the Ruler-King, the Mashiach will inevitably be placed in the position to make judgments about both nations and individuals. He will have to assess the sincerity of their teshuvah (repentance) and determine if they will be accepted, rejected, granted a pardon, or forgiven. This functional role of the Mashiach as G-d’s appointed ruler necessitates that, under G-d's authority, he will declare decisions regarding forgiveness and punishment. It is essential to clarify that while the Mashiach’s role will involve such decisions, the power to forgive sins belongs to G-d alone. The Mashiach, as G-d's shaliach, will be the vessel through which these divine pronouncements are issued, yet his authority will be entirely derived from G-d (104).

Yeshua himself repeatedly affirms that he does nothing by his own authority, emphasizing his complete submission to G-d’s will. For example, in Yochanon (John) 5:19 TLV, Yeshua says, “Amen, amen I tell you, the Son cannot do anything by Himself, He can only do what He sees the Father doing; whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise” (105). This reinforces the principle that even when Yeshua acts as G-d’s representative, he does so with no independent authority, but only as G-d’s agent.

Likewise, in Yochanon12:49 TLV, Yeshua declares, “For I did not speak on My own, but the Father Himself who sent Me has commanded Me what to say and speak” (106). Here, Yeshua directly states that even his words are not his own, but are entirely directed by G-d. This mirrors the concept of the Mashiach as the ultimate shaliach, who delivers judgment and forgiveness not from personal authority but from G-d’s will.

In Sefer HaRokeach (12th century CE), Rabbi Eleazar of Worms emphasizes that all celestial beings, including Metatron, serve as servants of G-d and are not to be seen as divine in any way. He writes: 'Though angels bear the authority of the heavens, they remain distinct from G-d and are bound by His commands' (107).

Furthermore, in Yochanon14:10 TLV, Yeshua says, “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own, but the Father dwelling in Me does His works” (108). This statement again illustrates Yeshua's function as a vessel for G-d’s work, aligning with the traditional understanding that the Mashiach, too, will execute G-d’s judgment and will, without sharing G-d’s essence or divinity.

Rabbinic and Talmudic Support for the Human Mashiach:

Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 38b addresses the authority of human leadership, emphasizing that no created being, including the Mashiach, can share in G-d’s divinity. The passage states: "No one is permitted to say 'I am G-d' or to consider themselves divine. Even the greatest of men are subordinate to G-d." This reinforces that the Mashiach, like all human leaders, is subordinate to G-d, acting as His agent without being divine himself (109).

The Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 98b, describes the Mashiach as a future figure who will judge and bring redemption, again emphasizing his human nature and his role as a servant of G-d: "The son of David will come when the generation is either entirely righteous or entirely wicked” (110).

Similarly, Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 91b, speaks of the Mashiach’s authority to judge the nations and Israel, emphasizing his role as a human ruler acting with divine authority but without sharing in G-d’s essence: "The son of David will judge the nations and Israel" (111).

In Pirkei Avot 5:22, the idea of righteous leadership and ethical conduct is highlighted, emphasizing the importance of moral character in leaders, including the Mashiach: "He [Mashiach] is slow to anger and abounding in kindness" (112). This passage speaks to the qualities of leadership the Mashiach must embody, demonstrating his humanity and his role as a servant of G-d’s will rather than a divine figure.

Midrashic and Kabbalistic Perspectives:

Midrash Tehillim 2:9 reinforces the Mashiach’s role as a human king who judges and disciplines nations on behalf of G-d: "You shall break them with a rod of iron; you shall dash them to pieces like a potter’s vessel” (113). This demonstrates the Mashiach’s extensive authority, but always as G-d’s representative, not as a divine figure.

Midrash Tanchuma, Toldot 14 describes the Mashiach as a leader filled with divine wisdom, but his authority remains rooted in his service to G-d: "The Mashiach will lead the people with the spirit of G-d upon him” (114). The text maintains the Mashiach's role as G-d’s human agent who leads through divine guidance, not divine nature.

In Kabbalistic texts, such as Zohar 1:114a, the Mashiach is portrayed as a future human king tasked with restoring the kingdom of David: "The king Messiah will stand at the head of Israel and will restore the kingdom of David to its former glory” (115). Even in these mystical texts, the distinction between G-d and the Mashiach remains clear, with the Mashiach fulfilling G-d’s will on earth.

Tikkunei Zohar 43 further emphasizes that the Mashiach’s authority comes from G-d and that he acts as G-d’s supreme agent: "He [the Mashiach] will act as the supreme ruler of the earth, bringing peace and justice, as is the will of the Creator" (116). This clearly supports the idea that the Mashiach, though powerful, remains a human figure acting under divine authority.

Even in Zohar 2:85a, which discusses both the Mashiach and Metatron, the text distinguishes between G-d’s essence and the human or angelic figures acting under His authority: "The Mashiach will be revealed in the days of redemption, as a human, anointed by G-d to bring peace to the world" (117).

Rabbinic Commentary on the Mashiach’s Role:

Rambam (Maimonides) in his Mishneh Torah emphasizes that the Mashiach will be a human descendant of David who fulfills G-d’s will but is not divine: "The King Mashiach will arise and restore the kingdom of David to its former glory... He will judge the people with righteousness, but he is not divine" (118).

Rashi, in his commentary on Isaiah, reiterates that the Mashiach is a mortal king endowed with divine wisdom but remains fully human: "The righteous branch from Jesse refers to the King Messiah, who will judge the people with righteousness, but remains a mortal man” (119).

Finally, Rabbi Isaac Abarbanel on Isaiah 11:1 supports this view, noting that the Mashiach is a mortal man chosen by G-d: "The Messiah will be a descendant of David, anointed by G-d to fulfill His will, but he is not divine. His power and wisdom will come from G-d, not from any inherent divinity" (120).

In Midrash Rabbah, compiled between 400–600 CE, the role of leaders like the Mashiach is discussed as G-d’s human representatives, tasked with guiding Israel and the nations without any divinity of their own, further supporting the argument against divinity being attributed to the Mashiach: "The Mashiach will lead as a righteous king, chosen by G-d" (121).

Context of Yeshua's Role in Yochanon:

In this context, Yeshua’s ability to forgive sins, as seen in the Gospels, can be understood through the Jewish concept of the Mashiach acting as G-d’s shaliach. While forgiveness is solely within G-d’s authority, the Mashiach, under G-d’s direction, will deliver G-d’s judgment. This aligns with the ancient Jewish tradition of the Mashiach serving as G-d’s human agent, empowered to execute divine justice, but never sharing in G-d’s divinity. As the Mishnah teaches, “A person’s agent is like himself” (Mishnah Berachot 5:5, Talmud Bavli Kiddushin 41b) (122).

It is in this context as G-d’s shaliach, and by Yeshua's words in Yochanan (John) 5:19, Yochanan 12:49, and Yochanan 14:10, that Yeshua’s comments about forgiving sins in Mark 2:10 and Mattityahu (Matthew) 9:6 are to be understood. Yeshua, like the Mashiach, acts entirely under G-d's authority. In Yochanan 5:19 TLV, Yeshua says, “Amen, amen I tell you, the Son cannot do anything by Himself, He can only do what He sees the Father doing; whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise” (123). Similarly, in Yochanan 12:49 TLV, Yeshua declares, “For I did not speak on My own, but the Father Himself who sent Me has commanded Me what to say and speak” (124). Yeshua’s role as a shaliach is further emphasized in Yochanan 14:10 TLV, when he says, “Don’t you believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in Me? The words I say to you, I do not speak on My own, but the Father dwelling in Me does His works” (125).

Dating of Ideas:

The notion of the Mashiach as G-d’s shaliach—a fully human leader who acts under divine authority but does not share G-d’s essence—has its roots in early Jewish texts, including the Tanakh. Descriptions of the Mashiach in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel emphasize his Davidic lineage and righteous rule, making no claims of divinity. The Mishnah (compiled around 200 CE) and Talmud (completed by 500 CE) stress the Mashiach’s humanity, as seen in Sanhedrin 98b, Sanhedrin 91b, and Sanhedrin 38b (126, 127, 128). Later Kabbalistic texts, including the Zohar and the writings of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, maintain the Mashiach’s role as G-d’s anointed human ruler.

Conclusion:

Jewish tradition, as reflected in the Tanakh, Mishnah, Talmud, Midrash, Zohar, and the writings of respected rabbis, consistently maintains that the Mashiach is a human figure, anointed by G-d, who carries out His will without sharing in His divinity. The authority granted to the Mashiach is derived from G-d’s will, and there is no implication of inherent divinity. This directly refutes Rabbi Griffin’s claim that the Mashiach or Metatron could share in G-d’s essence (129).

This analysis has conclusively demonstrated that Rabbi Griffin’s claims regarding the divinity of Metatron and the Mashiach are fundamentally at odds with centuries of Jewish theological tradition. Griffin's assertion that "all the mystics" diverged from Rashi’s perspective and that the Mashiach's humanity is a recent development in Jewish thought fails to hold up under scrutiny. As shown throughout this paper, Jewish sources—from the earliest Rabbinic texts to later Kabbalistic writings—consistently uphold the belief in G-d's indivisibility and the humanity of the Mashiach. Across the vast body of Jewish literature, the Mashiach is consistently portrayed as a human descendant of David, chosen by G-d to fulfill His will on earth. This is not a recent "modern Jewish" development but a belief that has been maintained for millennia. The sources that Rabbi Griffin cites, such as Rabbeinu Bachya (#130), Or HaChaim (#131), and the Zohar (#132), represent later periods of Jewish scholarship, but they do not contradict the longstanding tradition upheld by earlier authorities like Rashi (#133), Rambam (#134), and Rabbi Moshe Cordovero (#135). These early Rabbinic sources, as well as Kabbalistic writings, affirm that both Metatron and the Mashiach are created beings who act as G-d’s agents (shaliachim) but do not share in G-d's divine essence.

Jewish Tradition and the Humanity of the Mashiach: Jewish tradition maintains that the Mashiach is a mortal, fully human, anointed by G-d to bring peace and justice to the world. This belief is deeply rooted in the Tanakh, as seen in passages such as Isaiah 11:1-4 and Micah 5:2 (#136), which describe the Mashiach as a future human descendant of King David. Rabbinic sources like the Mishnah (#137) and Talmud Bavli (#138) reinforce this view, consistently portraying the Mashiach as a human agent of G-d. The authority of the Mashiach to judge and grant mercy comes entirely from G-d, as his role is one of service to divine will, not of independent or inherent power (#139). Furthermore, as emphasized by numerous Rabbinic authorities, including Rambam in his Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah, the Mashiach, like Metatron, does not possess any share in G-d’s divinity (#140). Rambam and others underscore the fundamental distinction between G-d’s absolute unity and the created nature of all beings, including the Mashiach and angels like Metatron. Even within later mystical traditions, such as the Zohar and the writings of Rabbi Moshe Cordovero, the belief in G-d’s indivisibility remains central. Metatron is described as an exalted angelic figure, but one who is still subordinate to G-d, fulfilling the role of G-d’s shaliach without ever being considered divine (#141).

The Role of Metatron in Jewish Mysticism: Kabbalistic interpretations do not challenge the fundamental tenet of G-d’s unity. While Metatron is often described in exalted terms, his role is always that of a created being acting on behalf of G-d. In the Zohar, Metatron is depicted as the "youth who stands at the head of the heavenly hosts," but this portrayal does not grant him divinity. Tikkunei Zohar 70 clarifies that Metatron bears G-d’s name because he acts as G-d’s chief emissary, not because he shares in G-d’s essence (#142). Even in mystical texts, the distinction between G-d and His agents remains clear and unequivocal: Metatron’s authority is entirely derivative, granted by G-d, and does not imply any form of shared divinity (#143).

The Incompatibility of Griffin’s Claims with Jewish Monotheism: Griffin’s interpretation, which seeks to attribute divinity to Metatron and Yeshua, stands in direct contradiction to the core principles of Jewish monotheism. Jewish thought, stretching from the Tanakh to later Rabbinic and mystical texts, consistently affirms G-d’s indivisibility and the humanity of the Mashiach. The Mashiach’s role, while exalted, is that of a servant of G-d, and as 1 Corinthians 15:27 states, "For G-d has 'put all things in subjection underneath his feet,' but it is clear that this does not include G-d Himself, who put all things under Mashiach" (#144). This passage affirms that even in the Gospels, Yeshua’s authority is subordinate to G-d, reinforcing the distinction between G-d and His appointed agents.

Conclusion of Jewish Tradition on Mashiach and Metatron: Ultimately, the longstanding Jewish belief in the humanity of the Mashiach and the non-divine nature of Metatron is deeply rooted in centuries of Rabbinic and mystical tradition. This consistent teaching reflects G-d’s absolute unity and the created nature of all beings, including the Mashiach and Metatron. As demonstrated, Jewish sources—from the Mishnah (#145) and Talmud Bavli (#146) to the Zohar (#147) and Kabbalistic writings of Rabbi Isaac Luria (#148)—reaffirm the fundamental principle that G-d is One, indivisible, and supreme, while His agents, no matter how exalted, remain subordinate and distinct. Rabbi Griffin’s claims, which seek to elevate Metatron and Yeshua to divine status, are not supported by Jewish tradition. Rather, the comprehensive body of Rabbinic, Talmudic, and Kabbalistic sources affirms that Metatron, though an exalted angel, remains a created being, distinct from G-d. Similarly, the Mashiach, while a divinely appointed leader, is fully human and does not share in G-d’s essence. Jewish scholarship, both early and later, has consistently upheld these truths across millennia (#149).

In conclusion, the indivisibility of G-d and the humanity of the Mashiach remain central tenets of Jewish theology. The Mashiach, as understood in Jewish tradition, is a mortal man—chosen, anointed, and empowered by G-d to fulfill divine purposes on earth. Neither the Mashiach nor Metatron shares in G-d’s divinity, and any attempt to claim otherwise directly contradicts the foundational teachings of Judaism.

---

Sources & Footnotes

Introduction

1. Mishnah. Compiled c. 200 CE. Pirkei Avot 5:22. Jerusalem: Sura Academy. Pirkei Avot emphasizes humility and ethical leadership, integral to Jewish views of the Mashiach.

2. Talmud Bavli. Compiled c. 500 CE. Sanhedrin 98a, Shabbat 118a. Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 674–676. These passages discuss the Mashiach’s arrival and the human nature of the Mashiach as a descendant of King David.

3. Rashi. Commentary on Exodus 23:20. 11th century CE, Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah. New York: Mesorah Publications, pp. 124–125. Rashi explains that the angel in Exodus 23:20 is a created being and not the Shekhinah itself.

4. Rambam (Maimonides). Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:7. 12th century CE, pp. 102–104. Maimonides denies the possibility of angels possessing divine nature.

5. Midrash Rabbah. Compiled between 400–600 CE. Genesis 78:1. Vilna Edition, pp. 102–104. This Midrash emphasizes the role of angels as messengers of G-d, not divine in themselves.

6. Rabbi Moshe Cordovero. Pardes Rimonim. 16th century CE, Vol. 1, Chapter 7, Section 4, pp. 65–68. Cordovero's work on Kabbalah reinforces the non-divine role of angels, including Metatron.

7. Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi. Tanya. 1796 CE, Part 1, Chapter 38, pp. 220–223. This work clarifies the nature of angels and the role of the Mashiach, emphasizing their subservience to G-d.

8. Rabbeinu Bachya. Kad HaKemach. Compiled c. 1255–1340 CE, Chapter 12. Translated by Eliyahu Touger. Feldheim Publishers.

   
   

    Rabbeinu Bachya’s writings emphasize the Mashiach’s mortal nature.

9. Moses de León. Zohar 1:114a. Attributed to the late 13th century CE. Translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. The Zohar’s commentary emphasizes Metatron's role as a servant of G-d, not a divine being.

10. Rabbi Moshe Cordovero. Pardes Rimonim. 16th century CE, Vol. 2, Chapter 3, pp. 96–98. Cordovero’s work on the role of angels and the metaphoric use of divine names in Kabbalistic thought.

11. Rabbi Isaac Luria (Ari). Etz Chaim. 16th century CE, Jerusalem: Kabbalah Centre, pp. 93–95. Discusses Metatron’s intermediary role between upper and lower worlds, reinforcing the non-divine status of angels.

12. Tanakh. Isaiah 11:1-4, Micah 5:2, Ezekiel 34:23-24. Hebrew Bible, 13th–5th centuries BCE. These prophetic texts describe the Mashiach as a human descendant of David.

13. Talmud Bavli. Compiled c. 500 CE. Sanhedrin 98a, Shabbat 118a. Vilna Edition Shas. These passages highlight the arrival of the Mashiach and his role in Jewish eschatology.

14. Pirkei Avot. 4:13. Tannaitic teachings, compiled c. 200 CE, Pirkei Avot: Ethics of the Fathers. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, p. 76. Discusses the role of angels as advocates and prosecutors for human deeds, emphasizing their intermediary role.

15. Rabban Gamliel. Mishnah Sanhedrin 11:1. Jerusalem, compiled 1st century CE. Gamliel’s teachings on the non-divine nature of the Mashiach as a human ruler tied to Torah.

16. Tosefta Berakhot. Compiled c. 200 CE. 6:1. Jerusalem: Academy of Rabbi Akiva, pp. 35–37. This text explains the role of angels as intermediaries, distinct from divinity.

17. Talmud Bavli. Compiled c. 500 CE. Sanhedrin 38a. Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 45–46. Explains Elisha ben Abuyah’s mistake in perceiving Metatron as divine and the correction that follows.

18. Tanakh. Exodus 23:20-21. Hebrew Bible, 13th–5th centuries BCE. G-d promises to send an angel to guide Israel, but this angel, often identified with Metatron, is not divine.

19. Rashi. Commentary on Exodus 23:20. 11th century CE, Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah. New York: Mesorah Publications, p. 124. Rashi clarifies that the angel bears G-d’s name as an agent, not as a divine being.

Section 1: Memtet (Metatron) as a Shaliach (Agent) and Not Divine

20. Talmud Bavli. Compiled c. 500 CE. Sanhedrin 38a. Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 45–46. Explains Elisha ben Abuyah’s mistake in perceiving Metatron as divine.

21. Rambam (Maimonides). Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:7. 12th century CE, pp. 102–104. Maimonides categorically denies the possibility of angels possessing any divine nature.

22. Tanakh. Exodus 23:20-21. Hebrew Bible, 13th–5th centuries BCE. G-d promises to send an angel to guide Israel.

23. Rashi. Commentary on Exodus 23:20. 11th century CE, Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah. New York: Mesorah Publications, p. 124. Rashi clarifies that the angel is an agent.

24. Tanakh. Isaiah 6:1-3. Hebrew Bible, 13th–5th centuries BCE. This vision of the seraphim before G-d reinforces the separation between angelic beings and G-d.

25. Pirkei Avot. 4:13. Tannaitic teachings, compiled c. 200 CE. Pirkei Avot: Ethics of the Fathers. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, p. 76. Discusses the role of angels as advocates and prosecutors for human deeds.

26. Talmud Bavli. Compiled c. 500 CE. Chagigah 15a. Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 60–61. The Talmud recounts Elisha ben Abuyah’s misunderstanding of Metatron’s role.

27. Talmud Bavli. Compiled c. 500 CE. Berakhot 60b. Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 89–90. Discusses angels as guardians under G-d’s command.

28. Midrash Tanchuma. Mishpatim 18. 9th century CE. Vilna Edition, pp. 110–112. Emphasizes the role of angels as emissaries of G-d.

29. Midrash Rabbah. Genesis 78:1. Compiled between 400–600 CE. Vilna Edition, pp. 200–202. This Midrash supports the idea that angels serve specific tasks but lack divine authority.

30. Tosefta Berakhot. 6:1. Compiled between the 1st–2nd centuries CE, Tosefta with Commentary. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, pp. 48–49. Reinforces that angels act as intermediaries and do not have divine power.

31. Zohar. 1:21b. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE. The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 1, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. Describes Metatron’s role as the servant who records the deeds of Israel.

32. Tikkunei Zohar. 70b. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE. The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 2, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press, pp. 212–213. Clarifies that although Metatron bears G-d’s name, he acts as an agent.

33. Rabbi Moshe Cordovero. Pardes Rimonim. 16th century CE, Vol. 2, Chapter 3, pp. 96–98. Cordovero’s work on the role of angels emphasizes their subordination to G-d.

34. Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi. Tanya. 1796 CE, Part 2, Chapter 5, pp. 180–182. Explains the subservience of angels to G-d, particularly in relation to Metatron.

35. Sefer Yetzirah. 3rd–6th century CE. Sefer Yetzirah with Commentary. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, pp. 55–56. Describes the role of celestial beings, reinforcing their non-divine nature.

36. Tanakh. Deuteronomy 6:4. Hebrew Bible, 13th–5th centuries BCE. The Shema emphasizes the unity and indivisibility of G-d.

37. Rashi. Commentary on Deuteronomy 6:4. 11th century CE, Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah. New York: Mesorah Publications. Rashi explains the central declaration of monotheism.

38. Rambam (Maimonides). Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah 1:1-7. 12th century CE, pp. 100–105. Maimonides reinforces the oneness and indivisibility of G-d.

Section 2: The Preexistence of the Mashiach

39. Tanakh. Micah 5:2. Hebrew Bible, 13th–5th centuries BCE. This passage is often cited in discussions of the Mashiach’s Davidic lineage.

40. Rashi. Commentary on Micah 5:2. 11th century CE, Rashi’s Commentary on the Prophets. New York: Mesorah Publications, pp. 201–202. Rashi clarifies the reference to "days of old" as referring to the Davidic dynasty.

41. Talmud Bavli. Compiled c. 500 CE. Sukkah 52a. Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 112–114. Discusses the role of Mashiach ben Yoseph in Jewish eschatology, including his potential death.

42. Talmud Bavli. Compiled c. 500 CE. Sanhedrin 98b. Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 675–676. Describes the Mashiach ben David as a future human ruler who will bring final salvation.

43. Talmud Bavli. Compiled c. 500 CE. Sanhedrin 98a. Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 673–674. The Talmud presents the Mashiach as a future human figure.

44. Midrash Tehillim. 18:36. Compiled between the 3rd–5th centuries CE, Midrash Rabbah, pp. 120–122. Describes the Mashiach as a descendant of David.

45. Talmud Bavli. Compiled c. 500 CE. Shabbat 118a. Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 130–132. The Talmud discusses the timing of the Mashiach’s arrival and affirms his humanity.

46. Tosefta Berakhot. 6:1. Compiled between the 1st–2nd centuries CE. Tosefta with Commentary. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, pp. 48–49. Reinforces the created nature of angels and human leaders alike.

47. Pirkei Avot. 5:22. Tannaitic teachings, compiled c. 200 CE, Pirkei Avot: Ethics of the Fathers. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, p. 120. Emphasizes that the Mashiach will come in his own time, according to G-d’s will.

48. Mishnah Sanhedrin. 11:1. Compiled c. 200 CE, Jerusalem: Sura Academy, pp. 50–51. This text emphasizes the Mashiach’s human role as a righteous leader chosen by G-d.

49. Midrash Rabbah. Ruth 5:6. Compiled between the 3rd–5th centuries CE, Vilna Edition, pp. 320–322. Describes the Mashiach as a human figure from the house of David.

50. Midrash Tanchuma. Vayechi 16. Compiled between the 5th–9th centuries CE, Vilna Edition, pp. 432–433. Emphasizes the Mashiach’s role as a descendant of David who will bring redemption.

51. Zohar. 2:85a. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE. The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 2, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. Describes the Mashiach as a human figure to be revealed in the days of redemption.

52. Rabbi Moshe Cordovero. Pardes Rimonim. 16th century CE, Vol. 2, Chapter 6, pp. 112–115. Cordovero explains the metaphoric use of divine names in Kabbalistic texts.

53. Rabbi Saadia Gaon. Emunot v'Deot. 10th century CE, Translated by Rabbi Yosef Kafih, pp. 93–95. Explicitly denies the preexistence or divinity of the Mashiach.

54. Rambam (Maimonides). Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 11:4. 12th century CE, pp. 307–310. Affirms that the Mashiach will be a human descendant of David.

55. Midrash Rabbah. Ruth 5:6. Compiled between the 3rd–5th centuries CE, Vilna Edition, pp. 320–322. Describes the Mashiach as a mortal figure who will lead Israel.

56. Midrash Tanchuma. Vayechi 16. Compiled between the 5th–9th centuries CE, Vilna Edition, pp. 432–433. Affirms the Mashiach’s humanity and Davidic lineage.

57. Sefer Yetzirah. 3rd–6th century CE. Sefer Yetzirah with Commentary. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, pp. 55–56. Introduces metaphors describing human intermediaries and celestial beings.

58. Sefer HaBahir. 12th century CE. The Bahir: Translated by Aryeh Kaplan, p. 105. Emphasizes that celestial beings, like angels, are distinct from G-d and do not share His essence.

Section 3: Shaliach (Agent) vs. Divinity

59. Rashi. Commentary on Genesis 18:1. 11th century CE, Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah. New York: Mesorah Publications, p. 180. Rashi explains that angels, like those who visited Abraham, are not divine.

60. Tanakh. Exodus 23:20-21. Hebrew Bible, 13th–5th centuries BCE. G-d promises to send an angel to guide Israel.

61. Rashi. Commentary on Exodus 23:20. 11th century CE, Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah. New York: Mesorah Publications, pp. 124–125. Rashi clarifies that the angel acts as G-d’s emissary.

62. Talmud Bavli. Compiled c. 500 CE. Kiddushin 41b. Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 231–232. Elaborates on the role of a shaliach in fulfilling mitzvot.

63. Tanakh. Zechariah 3:6-7. Hebrew Bible, 13th–5th centuries BCE. An angel delivers a divine message, further separating the roles of messengers and G-d.

64. Mishnah Berakhot. 5:5. Compiled c. 200 CE, Jerusalem: Sura Academy. Discusses the legal principle of shaliach, emphasizing that an agent acts with authority but is distinct from the sender.

65. Midrash Tanchuma. Mishpatim 18. Compiled between the 5th–9th centuries CE, Vilna Edition, pp. 110–112. Addresses the role of angels and their non-divine nature.

66. Talmud Bavli. Compiled c. 500 CE. Kiddushin 41b. Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 231–232. Reinforces the distinction between an agent’s authority and the sender’s essence.

67. Talmud Bavli. Compiled c. 500 CE. Chullin 91b. Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 98–99. Recounts Jacob’s encounter with an angel, emphasizing the created nature of angels.

68. Midrash Rabbah. Genesis 45:4. Compiled between 400–600 CE, Vilna Edition, pp. 340–341. Describes angels as messengers of G-d.

69. Sefer HaBahir. 12th century CE. The Bahir: Translated by Aryeh Kaplan, p. 92. Discusses the role of angels as guardians, distinct from divine beings.

70. Midrash Tanchuma. Mishpatim 18. Compiled between the 5th–9th centuries CE, Vilna Edition, pp. 110–112. Clarifies that the angel bearing G-d’s name acts as His emissary.

71. Zohar. 1:37b. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE. The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 1, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. Describes Metatron as the youth standing at the head of heavenly hosts.

72. Tikkunei Zohar. 70. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE. The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 2, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press, pp. 212–213. Clarifies that Metatron bears G-d’s name as a representative.

73. Zohar. 3:12b. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE. The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 3, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. Reiterates Metatron’s role as a servant of G-d.

74. Rabbi Moshe Cordovero. Pardes Rimonim. 16th century CE, Vol. 2, Chapter 4, pp. 112–115. Explains the non-divine nature of angels in Kabbalistic literature.

75. Sefer Yetzirah. 3rd–6th century CE. Sefer Yetzirah with Commentary. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, pp. 55–56. Reinforces the concept of celestial beings as created, not divine.

76. Rabbi Isaac Luria. Sha’ar HaGilgulim. 16th century CE. The Gates of Reincarnation, translated by Yitzchak Bar Chaim, pp. 150–152. Addresses Metatron’s role in guiding souls, reinforcing his created nature.

77. Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi. Tanya. 18th century CE, Chapter 1, p. 45. Clarifies the non-divine status of angels, including Metatron.

78. Rabbeinu Bachya. Commentary on Exodus 23:20. 13th century CE, Rabbeinu Bachya’s Commentary on the Torah. New York: Mesorah Publications, p. 155. Stresses that even angels closest to G-d, like Metatron, remain distinct from G-d’s essence.

Section 4: Metatron in Kabbalistic Tradition

79. Zohar. 1:114a. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE. The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 1, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. Depicts Metatron as the youth standing at the head of heavenly hosts.

80. Zohar. 1:114a. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE. The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 1, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. Describes Metatron as a servant of G-d.

81. Tikkunei Zohar. 70. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE. The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 2, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press, pp. 212–213. Clarifies Metatron’s role as G-d’s emissary.

82. Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi. Tanya. 18th century CE, Chapter 1, p. 45. Explains that angels, including Metatron, do not partake in divinity.

83. Rabbi Moshe Cordovero. Pardes Rimonim. 16th century CE, Vol. 2, Chapter 4, pp. 112–115. Clarifies the distinction between angels and G-d’s essence.

84. Rabbi Isaac Luria. Etz Chaim. 16th century CE, translated by Chaim Vital, p. 120. Explains Metatron’s role as a bridge between the upper and lower worlds, without divinity.

85. Midrash Tehillim. Psalms 90:13. Compiled between the 3rd–5th centuries CE, Midrash Rabbah, p. 210. Describes the Mashiach as a human redeemer.

86. Sefer HaBahir. 12th century CE. The Bahir: Translated by Aryeh Kaplan, p. 105. Emphasizes the non-divine nature of celestial beings.

87. Midrash Tanchuma. Mishpatim 18. Compiled between the 5th–9th centuries CE, Vilna Edition, pp. 110–112. Emphasizes that angels like Metatron are created beings, not divine.

88. Midrash Rabbah. Genesis 78:1. Compiled between the 3rd–5th centuries CE, Vilna Edition, p. 150. Describes angels as messengers without independent authority.

89. Talmud Bavli. Compiled c. 500 CE. Sanhedrin 38b. Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 425–427. Recounts Elisha ben Abuyah’s mistaken perception of Metatron’s divinity.

90. Zohar. 2:85a. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE. The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 2, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. Describes the Mashiach as a human figure anointed by G-d.

91. Tikkunei Zohar. 43. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE. The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 2, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press, pp. 212–213. Describes the Mashiach’s authority as derived from G-d, not his own divinity.

92. Talmud Bavli. Compiled c. 500 CE. Chagigah 15a. Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 88–89. Mentions Metatron in a discussion about heavenly beings.

93. Ramban (Nachmanides). Commentary on Exodus 23:20. 13th century CE, New York: Mesorah Publications, p. 230. Clarifies that angels are intermediaries, never divine.

94. Pirkei Avot. 5:22. Tannaitic teachings, compiled c. 200 CE, Pirkei Avot: Ethics of the Fathers. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, p. 120. Emphasizes humility as a central quality in leadership.

95. Rabbi Moshe Cordovero. Pardes Rimonim. 16th century CE, Vol. 2, Chapter 6, pp. 112–115. Clarifies the role of angels in Kabbalistic thought, including Metatron.

96. Zohar. 2:130b. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE. The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 2, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press.

    
    

     Concludes that Metatron serves G-d’s will but does not share in His divinity.

Section 5: The Role of King Mashiach as G-d’s Shaliach in Reigning, Judging, and Granting Mercy

97.   Mishnah Berakhot. 5:5. Compiled c. 200 CE, Jerusalem: Sura Academy. Explains the proper mindset for prayer and draws parallels to the Mashiach’s humility in serving as G-d’s shaliach.

98.   Talmud Bavli. Kiddushin 41b. Compiled c. 500 CE, Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 231–232. Details the concept of shaliach, where the agent acts with the principal’s authority, but remains distinct from the principal.

99.   Talmud Bavli. Kiddushin 41b. Compiled c. 500 CE, Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 231–232. Further elaboration on the shaliach principle, emphasizing that even G-d’s agents (like Mashiach) do not share His essence.

100.                       Tanakh. Isaiah 11:1-4. Hebrew Bible, 13th–5th centuries BCE. Prophetic description of the Mashiach as a human descendant of David who will rule with wisdom and justice.

101.                       Sefer Yetzirah. 3rd–6th century CE, Sefer Yetzirah with Commentary. Jerusalem: Magnes Press, pp. 55–56. Discusses celestial beings like Metatron and their roles as divine agents without any divinity of their own.

102.                       Colossians 1:18, Tree of Life Version (TLV). Describes Yeshua as the firstborn from the dead, emphasizing his role as G-d’s agent after resurrection.

103.                       Pirkei Avot. 5:22. Compiled c. 200 CE, Pirkei Avot: Ethics of the Fathers. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, p. 120. Emphasizes leadership qualities necessary for righteous governance, which apply to the Mashiach.

104.                       Rambam (Maimonides). Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah. 12th century CE, pp. 310–312. Defines the limits of an agent’s (shaliach) authority, specifically noting that the power to forgive belongs solely to G-d.

105.                       Yochanon5:19, Tree of Life Version (TLV). Yeshua asserts his dependence on G-d’s will, reinforcing his role as G-d’s shaliach without independent authority.

106.                       Yochanon12:49, Tree of Life Version (TLV). Yeshua emphasizes that even his words come directly from G-d, further demonstrating his function as a shaliach.

107.                       Rabbi Eleazar of Worms. Sefer HaRokeach. 12th century CE, Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, p. 75.Details the roles of angels and celestial beings like Metatron as G-d’s messengers, not divine beings.

108.                       Yochanon14:10, Tree of Life Version (TLV). Yeshua states that the Father works through him, highlighting his role as an agent, not a divine figure.

109.                       Talmud Bavli. Sanhedrin 38b. Compiled c. 500 CE, Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 425–427. Rejects any divinity attributed to created beings, including the Mashiach.

110.                       Talmud Bavli. Sanhedrin 98b. Compiled c. 500 CE, Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 675–676. Depicts the Mashiach as a human leader who will bring about redemption, rejecting any divine nature.

111.                       Talmud Bavli. Sanhedrin 91b. Compiled c. 500 CE, Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 670–671.Affirms the Mashiach’s role as a human ruler who judges nations, serving under G-d’s authority.

112.                       Pirkei Avot. 5:22. Compiled c. 200 CE, Pirkei Avot: Ethics of the Fathers. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, p. 120. Discusses the righteous qualities required of the Mashiach, further emphasizing his human nature.

113.                       Midrash Tehillim. Psalms 2:9. Compiled between 3rd–5th centuries CE, Midrash Rabbah, p. 210. Describes the Mashiach as a ruler appointed to discipline and lead nations on behalf of G-d.

114.                       Midrash Tanchuma. Toldot 14. Compiled between 5th–9th centuries CE, Vilna Edition, pp. 340–341. Highlights the Mashiach’s role as a human leader, filled with divine wisdom but not sharing in G-d’s divinity.

115.                       Zohar. 1:114a. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE, The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 1, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. Depicts the Mashiach as a future king, who will restore the kingdom of David, but remains a human agent of G-d.

116.                       Tikkunei Zohar. 43. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE, The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 2, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press, pp. 212–213. Clarifies that the Mashiach acts under G-d’s authority, not as a divine being, reinforcing the concept of shaliach.

117.                       Zohar. 2:85a. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE, The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 2, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. Depicts the Mashiach as a human figure anointed by G-d to bring peace to the world, not divine.

118.                       Rambam (Maimonides). Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim. 12th century CE, pp. 307–310. Emphasizes the Mashiach’s human descent from David, reiterating that he is not divine.

119.                       Rashi. Commentary on Isaiah 11:1. 11th century CE, Rashi’s Commentary on the Prophets. New York: Mesorah Publications, pp. 201–202. Confirms that the Mashiach is a mortal, righteous king chosen by G-d to lead Israel.

120.                       Rabbi Isaac Abarbanel. Commentary on Isaiah 11:1. 15th century CE, Abarbanel’s Commentary on the Prophets. New York: Mesorah Publications, p. 230. States that the Mashiach is a human descendant of David, anointed by G-d to fulfill His will.

121.                       Midrash Rabbah. Compiled between 400–600 CE, Midrash Rabbah on Genesis, p. 340. Discusses the Mashiach as a righteous human leader appointed by G-d to guide Israel.

122.                       Mishnah Berakhot. 5:5. Compiled c. 200 CE, Jerusalem: Sura Academy. Describes how an agent (shaliach) acts under the authority of the principal, relating to the Mashiach’s role as G-d’s representative.

123.                       Yochanon5:19, Tree of Life Version (TLV). Reinforces Yeshua’s statement that he can only act as directed by G-d, maintaining his role as a shaliach.

124.                       Yochanon12:49, Tree of Life Version (TLV). Yeshua explains that his words are not his own but come from G-d, reflecting his position as G-d’s agent.

125.                       Yochanon14:10, Tree of Life Version (TLV). Yeshua declares that his works are G-d’s, further demonstrating his role as a shaliach acting under G-d’s authority.

126.                       Talmud Bavli. Sanhedrin 98b. Compiled c. 500 CE, Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 675–676.Presents the Mashiach as a future human leader who will redeem Israel and bring peace.

127.                       Talmud Bavli. Sanhedrin 91b. Compiled c. 500 CE, Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 670–671. Describes the Mashiach’s authority to judge both Israel and the nations, as G-d’s human representative.

128.                       Pirkei Avot. 5:22. Compiled c. 200 CE, Pirkei Avot: Ethics of the Fathers. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, p. 120. Outlines the qualities of moral leadership required of the Mashiach, emphasizing his human characteristics.

129.                       Midrash Tehillim. Psalms 2:9. Compiled between 3rd–5th centuries CE, Midrash Rabbah, p. 210. Depicts the Mashiach as a ruler appointed by G-d, tasked with leading nations in righteousness and justice.

Conclusion

130. Rabbeinu Bachya. 1255–1340 CE, Duties of the Heart. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers. Explores metaphysical and theological issues, including G-d’s unity and the role of angels, rejecting any divinity attributed to the Mashiach.

131. Or HaChaim (Rabbi Chaim ben Attar). 1696–1743 CE, Or HaChaim on the Torah. Jerusalem: Artscroll Publications, pp. 350–353. Emphasizes the Mashiach’s role as G-d’s human agent, not as a divine figure, and discusses the unique mission of Metatron.

132. Zohar. 1:114a. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE, The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 1, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. Discusses mystical interpretations of angels, particularly Metatron, but maintains a clear distinction between G-d and His agents.

133. Rashi. Commentary on Isaiah 11:1. 11th century CE, Rashi’s Commentary on the Prophets. New York: Mesorah Publications, pp. 201–202. Reaffirms that the Mashiach is a mortal, human leader who will emerge as a descendant of David to bring peace and justice.

134. Rambam (Maimonides). Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah. 12th century CE, pp. 310–312. Reiterates the indivisibility of G-d and emphasizes that angels and the Mashiach are created beings, distinct from G-d.

135. Rabbi Moshe Cordovero. Pardes Rimonim. 16th century CE, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, p. 50. Explores Kabbalistic views of angels, including Metatron, but underscores that they remain subordinate to G-d and are not divine.

136. Tanakh. Isaiah 11:1-4. Hebrew Bible, 13th–5th centuries BCE. Describes the Mashiach as a human descendant of David, chosen to fulfill G-d’s will, reaffirming the non-divine nature of the Mashiach.

137. Mishnah. Compiled c. 200 CE, Jerusalem: Sura Academy. Includes legal and ethical teachings that reinforce the human role of leaders like the Mashiach as G-d’s shaliach.

138. Talmud Bavli. Sanhedrin 98a. Compiled c. 500 CE, Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 675–676. Affirms the human nature of the Mashiach, who will emerge in a future time to lead Israel and the world in righteousness.

139. Pirkei Avot. 5:22. Compiled c. 200 CE, Pirkei Avot: Ethics of the Fathers. Jerusalem: Feldheim Publishers, p. 120. Discusses the leadership qualities necessary for ethical governance, which apply to the Mashiach’s role as G-d’s human agent.

140. Rambam (Maimonides). Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Yesodei HaTorah. 12th century CE, pp. 310–312. Affirms G-d’s indivisibility and rejects any notion of the Mashiach or angels sharing in G-d’s essence.

141. Zohar. 1:114a. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE, The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 1, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. Maintains that Metatron, though exalted, remains a created being and does not share in G-d’s divinity.

142. Tikkunei Zohar. 70. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE, The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 2, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. Clarifies that Metatron bears G-d’s name as an agent, not as a divine being, reinforcing the principle of shaliach.

143. Tikkunei Zohar. 70. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE, The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 2, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. Further explains that Metatron’s role is to act under divine authority, without sharing in G-d’s essence.

144. 1 Corinthians 15:27, Tree of Life Version (TLV). Highlights the subordination of Mashiach to G-d, reinforcing that even in the Epistles, the distinction between G-d and the Mashiach remains clear.

145. Mishnah. Compiled c. 200 CE, Jerusalem: Sura Academy. Provides the foundational teachings for Jewish law and theology, emphasizing G-d’s unity and the human nature of the Mashiach.

146. Talmud Bavli. Sanhedrin 98b. Compiled c. 500 CE, Vilna Edition Shas, pp. 675–676. Discusses the future role of the Mashiach as a human leader, tasked with bringing redemption without sharing in G-d’s divinity.

147. Zohar. 2:130b. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE, The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 2, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. Reinforces that angels and the Mashiach act under G-d’s authority, not as divine figures.

148. Rabbi Isaac Luria (the Ari). Etz Chaim. 16th century CE, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook, pp. 312–314. Discusses the metaphysical role of the Mashiach and angels like Metatron in the cosmic order but emphasizes their created nature.

149. Tikkunei Zohar. 70. Attributed to Moses de León, late 13th century CE, The Zohar: Pritzker Edition, Vol. 2, translated by Daniel C. Matt. Stanford University Press. Concludes that even exalted beings like Metatron serve as G-d’s agents without sharing in G-d’s divinity.