Temple. In ver. 3 we hear the Trishagion in connection with the dwelling of His
Shekhintha, while the splendour (Ziv ) of His Yeqara fills the earth - as it were, falls down
to it. In ver. 5 the prophet dreads, because he had seen the Yeqara of the Shekhinah,
while in ver. 6 the coal is taken from before the Shekhintha (which is) upon the t hrone of
the Yeqara (a remarkable expression, which occurs often; so especially in ix. xvii. 16).
Finally, in ver. 8, the prophet hears the voice of the Memra of Jehovah speaking the
words of vv. 9, 10. It is intensely interesting to notice that in St. John xii. 40, these words
are prophetically applied in connection with Christ. Thus St. John applies to the Logos
what the Targum understands of the Memra of Jehovah.
4. Besides the designations of God to which reference is made in the text, Philo also
applies to Him that of τοπος, 'place,' in precisely the same manner as the later Rabbis
(and especially the Kabbalah) use the word Μωθµαφ. To Philo it implies that God is
extramundane. He sees this taught in Gen. xxii. 3, 4, where Abraham came 'unto the
place o f which God had told him;' but, when he 'lifted up his eyes,' 'saw the place after
off' Similarly, the Rabbis when commenting on Gen. xxviii. 11, assign this as the reason
why God is designated Μω&θµαφ that He is extramundane; the discussion being
whether God is the place of His Word or the reverse, and the decision in favour of the
former - Gen. xxviii. 11 being explained by Ex. xxxiii. 21, and Deut xxxiii. 27 by Ps. xc.
1 (Ber. R. 68, ed. Warsh. p 125 b).
5. I think it is Köster (Trinitätslehre vor Christo) who distinguishes the two as God's
Presence within and without the congregation. In general his brochure is of little real
value. Dr. S. Maybaum (Anthropmorphien u. Anthropopathien ber Onkelos) affords a
curious instance of modern Jewish criticism. With much learning and not a little
ingenuity he tries to prove by a detailed analysis, that the three terms Memra , Shekhinah ,
and Yeqara have not the meaning above explained! The force of 'tendency-
argumentation' could scarcely go farther than his essay.
6. Not as Grimm (Clavis N.T. p. 107 a) would have it, the Shekhinah, though he rightly
regards the N.T. δοξα in this signification of the word, as the equivalent of the Old
Testament ψψ δωβκ. Clear notions on the subject are so important that we give a list of
the chief passages in which the two terms are used in the Targum Onkelos, viz. Yeqara :
Gen. xvii. 22; xviii. 33; xxviii. 13; xxxv. 13; Ex. iii. 1, 6; xvi. 7, 10; xvii. 16; xviii. 5: xx.
17, 18, xxiv. 10, 11, 17; xxix. 43; xxxiii. 18, 22, 23,:xl. 34, 38; Lev. ix. 4, 6, 23; Numb. x.
36: xii. 8; xiv. 14, 22. Shekhinah: Gen. ix. 27; Ex. xvii. 7, 16; xx. 21: xxv. 8; xxix. 45, 46;
xxxiii. 3, 5, 14-16, 20; xxxiv. 6,9; Numb. v. 3; vi. 25 xi. 20; xiv. 14, 42; xxiii. 21; xxxv.
34;Deut. 1. 42; iii. 24; iv. 39; vi. 15; vil. 21 xii. 5, 11, 21; xiv. 23, 24; xvi. 2, 6, 11, xxiii.
15; xxvi. 2; xxxii. 10; xxxiii. 26.
But, theologically, by far the most interesting and important point, with reference not
only to the Logos of Philo, but to the term Logos as employed in the Fourth Gospel, is to
ascertain the precise import of the equivalent expression Memra in the Targumim. As
stated in the text of this book (vol. i. p. 47), the term Memra as applied to God, occurs
176 times in the Targum Onkelos, 99 times in the Jerusalem Targum, and 321 times in
the Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. We subjoin the list of these passages, arranged in three
classes. Those in Class I. mark where the term does not apply to this, or where it is at
least doubtful; those in Class II. where the fair interpretation of a passage shows; and
Class III. where it is undoubted and unquestionable, that the expression Memra refers to
God as revealing Himself, that is the Logos.