D'autres articles de cet numéro | En anglais | En français

"Where Two or Three...": The Rabbinic Concept of Shekhinah and Matthew 18:20
Joseph Sievers

This article was first published in Standing before God: Studies in Scriptures and in Tradition with Essays M Honor of John M. Oesterreicher, edited by Asher Finkel and Lawrence Frizzell of the Institute for Judeo-Christian Studies of Seton Hall University, South Orange, New jersey, and published by Ktav, New York 1981. For a review of this book, see SIDIC Review XV:1 (1982) p. 34.
Our author, Mr. Joseph Sievers, is Adjunct Lecturer at the abode Institute, lectures in Ancient History al Queensborough Community College of the City University o/ New York, and his article is reproduced here with his very kind permission as well as that of Ktav Publishing House, Inc.

I. The origins of the term Shekhinah
Rabbinic literature commonly expresses the idea of the presence of God by the term Shekhinah. It is an abstract feminine noun derived from the verb shakhan which means to dwell, rest, repose, abode. This verb and its derivatives are frequently used in the Old Testament with reference to God and to his sanctuary(1). Shekhinah, however, never occurs in the Hebrew Bible or, as far as I have been able to determine, in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Thus, when scholars have searched for the origin of the concept, they have relied almost exclusively on the rabbinic texts themselves. While this method is legitimate, it leads to meager results, for the term is not well attested before the generation of Rabbi Akiba in the early second century.
Some rabbinic references to Shekhinah may be earlier than that, but they are found in texts which have undergone changes until considerably later. Therefore, they cannot be used as reliable guides. One example is the "reference to the "abode (Shekhinah) of his might in the loftiest heights" in the Aleinu prayer which in its earliest form goes back to Temple times and is now part of the daily service(2). Another prayer, an addition to the Eighteen Benedictions attributed to the hasidim. ha-rishonim ("pious men of old"), is preserved in the ninth century (or later) Midrash on Psalms: "Merciful (Lord), in your great compassion return your Shekhinah to Zion and restore the Temple service to Jerusalem"(3). If we knew that the hasidim ha-rishonim were connected

with the Asidaioi of the early second century, this prayer could be considered a reference to the desecration of the Temple by Antiochus IV (167 BC). But unfortunately we know too little about this group of "pious men of old" to ascertain the historical setting reflected here. Much less can we be sure about the original wording of the prayer( 4).
The references to the Shekhinah in Targum Onkelos as well as in the various recensions of the Palestinian Targum are numerous. Although the Targumim contain much earlier material, they were not redacted in final form before the third century. Therefore, they are of little help in establishing the origin of the term Shekhinah(5 ).
A more fruitful search for the origin of the concept of Shekhinah may be carried on outside rabbinic literature. Second Maccabees, written in Greek and completed before 63 BC, may give us a due. While reporting events of 161 BC, it includes a prayer of Jerusalem priests for the purity of the "Temple of your indwelling" (naon tès sés skénoseos)(6). Skénósis, an abstract feminine noun, finds its closest Hebrew parallel in meaning as well as in form in Shekhinah( 7).
Although he was not referring to this specific passage, Goldberg suggested that the designation of the Temple as "House of God's dwelling" may have been at the origin of the term Shekhinah(8).
Second Maccabees appears to corroborate that conjecture by showing us an early stage of the development which led to the meaning "God's presence", or "God" (who is present in the Temple), instead of simply a "dwelling". It is no longer possible to determine when this development was completed, but a date some time before the destruction of the Second Temple (70 AD) is most plausible( 9). The meaning of Shekhinah, however, did not remain confined to the divine presence in the sanctuary, as we shall see.

Il. Shekhinah and Torah
In rabbinic literature Shekhinah carne to signify all modes of God's presence in past, present, and eschatological future. In other words, it became a synonym for God whenever and wherever his nearness was implied. This fact, however, did not eliminate the distinction and even tension between different forms of divine presence(10). Here we concentrate on those situations for which the rabbis thought the presence d the Shekhinah possible among three or even two people.
A passage in the Mekhilta, a relatively early midrash on Exodus,(11) shows us the connection between God's presence in the Temple and among people outside the Temple. It interprets Exod 20,24, "In every place where I cause any name to be mentioned I will come to you and bless you", as follows:
Where I reveal myself to you, that is, in the Temple. Hence they said: The Tetragrammaton is not to be pronounced outside of the Temple (12). — R. Eliezer b. Jacob says: If you come to my house I will come to your house, but if you do not come to my house I will not come to your house. The place any heart loveth, thither my feet lead me. — In connection with this passage the sages said: Wherever ten persons assemble in a synagogue the Shekhinah is with them, as it is said: "God standeth in the congregation of God" (Ps 82,1). And how do we know that he is also with three people holding court? It says: "In the midst of the judges he judgeth" (ibid.). And how do we know that he is also with two? It is said: "Then they that feared the Lord spoke one with another", 'etc. (Mal 3,16). And how do we know that he is even with one? It is said: "In every place where I cause My name to be mentioned I will come unto thee and bless thee"(13).
This Midrash presents anonymously two opposing opinions: one restricts God's presence to the Temple, the other affirms it also for other places. The saying of R. Eliezer b. Jacob stands apart from them and tells us nothing about the setting of the two traditions(14). It is, however, an indication that the redactor understood the problem to be God's presence or absence, not where the Tetragrammaton may be pronounced. We should note that the proof text for the Sbekhinah's presence among ten in the synogogue or -three people holding court", that is, those who judge, is taken from a psalm that was part of every Tuesday's liturgy in the Temple (mTamid 7,4). This observation does not allow us to date the origin of this idea or to consider identical God's presence inside and outside the Temple, but it weakens Goldberg's thesis that there was not connection between the ideas of the Shekhinah in the Temple and in the community (15).
The presence of the Shekhinah among three or more judges is a recurrent theme in rabbinic literature. is assumed in criminal and civil cases as well as during their deliberations concerning the fixing of the calendar (16).
The Mekhilta attaches no conditions other than fear of the Lord and remembrance of his name to the presence of the Shekhinah with one or two persons. In this it differs from most other traditions which consider preoccupation with Torah as the main requisite. Several sayings in the Mishnah tractate Abot illustrate this. They include the only two occurrences of the term Shekhinah in the entire Mishnah (17). The first and best known saying is attributed to Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradyon:
If two sit together and the words between them are not of Torah, then that is a session of scorners, as it is said, Nor hath sat in the seat of the scornful(18). But if two sit together and the
words between them are of Torah, then the Shekhinah is in their midst, as it is said, Then they that feared the Lord spoke on with another; and the Lord hearkened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before him, for them
that feared the Lord and that thought upon his name(Mal 3,16)(19).
Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradyon was a contemporary of Rabbi Akiba. According to the Talmud he died a martyr's death in the persecution of Hadrian (c. 135 AD). His exceptional emphasis on study and observance of Torah is highlighted by the story that he was burned olive wrapped in a Torah scroll(20). The above saying is fitting for such a man in a time of persecution. In its present form, including the reference to Torah, it .may be original with Hananiah. The idea of the Shekhinah with two people, however, is a concept that can be traced to the first century.21 The relation of this tradition to the above-quoted Mekhilta passage is not clear. But it is reasonable to suppose that the belief in the Shekhìnah's presence among at least ten people existed earlier.
A parallel to Rabbi Hananiah's saying is attributed to his contemporary Rabbi Halafta of Sepphoris in Abot de Rabbi Natan. He speaks of the presence of the Shekhinah with any "two or three who sit together in the marketplace and the words between them are of Torah(22). Similarly, in Abot Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai (c. 100-170) is quoted as saying: "When three eat at one table and do speak words of Torah there, it is as though they have eaten from the table of God"(23). Abot continues with a variety of sayings concerning the importance of Torah in one's life. Included is a dictum of Rabbi Halafta of Kefar Hananiah (late second century) maintaining that the Shekhinah is with those who occupy themselves with Torah, be they ten, five, three, two or only one (24).
In this context "Torah" should not be understood too narrowly as only the Pentateuch or as the Written and Oral Law in any strictly defined sense. In rabbinic literature the term is used in a variety of meanings, often including all the living halakhic traditions and their applications in life. A text dealing with the question of the Shekhinah among judges states that "also court proceedings are Torah", and one rabbi maintained that even the everyday talk of people in the
Holy Land is Torah.(25) At least one modem homiletic commentary explains that the saying of Rabbi Hananiah ben Teradyon implies an "obligation to apply and reflect the `words of Torah', its values, its norms and laws, in our everyday social and business world"(26).
In rabbinic thought occupation with Torah is not merely an intellectual enterprise, but a sharing in God's own activity(27). It is because of this that Torah is considered a way to experience his nearness, the Sbekbinab.
An area where the presence of the Shekhinah with two people is particularly stressed is married life. God is considered the third partner. A saying attributed to Rabbi Akiba reads as follows: "When husband and wife are worthy, the Sbekbinab abides with them; when they are not worthy fire consumes them". This saying is not simply a play on words, not just a pun, but it really seems to express the possibility of God's nearness to the married partners( 28).
This and numerous other instances show the ethical implications of the presence of the Shekhinah. People must be worthy of it. Sinful behavior, such as murder, adultery, idolatry, and slander, causes the departure of the Shekbinah(29). On the other hand, "whoever is meek will ultimately cause the Shekhinah to dwell with man off earth"(30).

III. The context of Matt 18,20
Whereas it is not clear how widespread the concept of Shekhinah was in the first century AD, the Gospels of Matthew and John appear to attest to its use.
Time and again scholars have pointed out that a most striking parallel to the saying of Hananiah b. Teradyon that we quoted above, is found in Matt 18,20: "For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in their midst". This verse forms part of a chapter of instructions for the early Christian community.
In its present context it stands between the teachings concerning reconciliation (v 1517) and forgiveness (v 21-22). It is preceded by the promise that the prayer of two people offered in unison will be answered (v 19) and by the bestowal of the power to bind and to loose (v 18). Verses 19-20 are clearly set off from their context by the introductory formulas in vv 19 and 21, and by their form and contents. They constitute two originally independent sayings, although v 20 is redactionally linked to v 19 by the conjunction "for" (gar) (31).
There have been several recent in-depth studies of Matt 18 in general 32 and 18,20 in particular(33). Therefore, instead of attempting a complete exegesis, I shall address myself to the question of what light rabbinic texts throw
on v 20 and vice versa. So far, little has been done to try to explain the nature of this relationship. One of the reasons for this certainly lies in the difficulty of relating a gospel passage dating from the first century to rabbinic sayings redacted over a century later. Sandmel rightly warns of “parallelomania"(34). And yet, a careful attempt at comparison of parallel features can be made.
On the surface the differences are quite obvious: Matthew has "my name" instead of "words of Torah", and refers to Jesus instead of the Shekhinah. These divergences, however, ere more understandable when we recognize that we are dealing with a "parallel with a fixed difference"(35). Almost consistently the gospels attribute to Jesus what rabbinic texts say about God and the Torah. If we further consider that the passages under consideration are distinct theological statements and not general ethical norms, the parallelism becomes even more interesting.
Since the parallels are so close, there is reasonable probability that some literary relationship exists. D is not to be excluded a priori that some rabbis knew Matthew's Gospel or simile': Christian traditions and adopted some of them for their own use. II is, however, not likely that the theological development of a concept as important as Shekhinah was a direct response to Christianity. Thus, most scholars readily admit that Matt 18,20 is based on a Jewish tradition and not vice versa(36).

IV. Analysis of Matthew 18.20
Two or three: the quorum for a special form of presence may simply be left vague or it may be an echo of the "two or three witnesses" mentioned in v 16b. There are, however, other possibilities. The concept of the Shekhinah between three judges may have been at work in this formulation. This cannot be proven, but because of the previous verses concerning Church proceedings in the case of a person's misconduct, it should not be dismissed lightly. In fact, a connection with Ps 82,1 and its rabbinic interpretation becomes even more plausible in a parallel apocryphal saying "Where there are three (gods), they are gods"(37). It is unclear whether there is any direct relationship between the two or three in Matt 18,20 and in Abot de R. Natan B quoted above.
Are gathered (eisin …. synégmenoi): It has frequently been suggested, now again by Englezakis,38 that Matt 18,20 refers to liturgical gatherings only. This, however, goes counter to the evidence: (a) In the NT the verb synagein is rarely used for liturgical assemblies. In Matthew, where it occurs most frequently (24 times), it never has such connotations. (b) V 20 speaks in a more general way than v 19 and does not specify a particular setting. (c) Even v 19 is not strictly limited to liturgical prayer. (d) Vv 15-18 deal with disciplinary, not liturgical matters. (e) 1 Cor 5,4, which in several respects resembles Matt 18,20, speaks of an assembly for disciplinary action, not liturgical celebration (see Col 3,17). (f) m. Abot 3,2b and similar rabbinic texts do not presuppose a liturgical setting or any formal gathering (39).
In my name (eis to emon onoma): It has frequently been indicated that this phrase translates the Hebrew/ Aramaic lishmi(40). This can be rendered "for my sake". One should compare a saying attributed to Babbi Yohanan the Sandal-maker (mid-second century): "Every assembly which is for the sake of Heaven (leshem shamayim) will in the end endure; but one which is not for the sake of Heaven will not endure in the end" (m. Abot 4,11; see 5,17). Heaven is here, as frequently in rabbinic and NT texts, a synonym for God. We should note that several biblical texts which the rabbis connected with Shekhinah speak of God's name. Mal 3,16, the prooftext for the Shekhinah between two, speaks of those who "think of his name" (see Exod 20,24).
It is unclear whether in the Jewish tradition underlying Matt 18,20 there was a reference to the Torah or to God. In several passages in the synoptic gospels Jesus takes the place of Torah(41). This fact, however, has to be seen in conjunction with Matt 5,17: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets. I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them”.
There am I: This statement is the most radical departure from Jewish tradition. Some authors consider it in polemical antithesis to the rabbinic concept of God's presence (42). It appears, however, that Matthew's source does not intend tu replace but to explain that idea: the Shekhinah is manifested in Jesus. This impression is reinforced by the present context which speaks of reconciliation, prayer, and forgiveness, rather than of polemics.
It obviously cannot be proven that the underlying Jewish tradition actually used the terra Shekhinah. The likelihood, however, is rather great. We are dealing with a motif of presence which can easily be traced to OT notions (e.g., Exod 20,24). But v 20 is modeled on rabbinic formulations which in this context use Shekhinah. An allusion to the concept of Shekhinah itself may probably be found in the prologue of John's Gospel (1,14), and perhaps also in Rev 21,3 (43).
In their midst: Neithcr the rabbinic texts nor the NT presuppose a visible presence. In' the rabbinic texts the Shekhinah is sometimes imagined as standing or hovering above the people(44). Trilling compares this presence of Jesus "in their midst" to the Shekhinah in the Temple. He emphasizes its static nature and cultic connotations(45). But Goldberg has shown that although the Shekhinah is sometimes connected with a place, e.g., the Temple, it is at other times associated with people or events regardless of location(46).
Besides the similarities in wording, v 20 closely resembles m Abot 3:21, in structure too. Whereas Matt 18,15-19 contains a sequence of conditional sentences (ean plus aorist subjunctive is used 9 times), v 20 uses the indicative present. In contrast with v 15-19, it is not directed to a specific audience, but has the form of a general statement, with the dependent clause in the third person. This is apparently not a redactional development but is another indication that v 20 is — at least in part — based on a separate source(47).
If, as our findings suggest, a Jewish saying underlies Matt 18,20,the concept of God's presence with two or three persons must have existed at least some time before the redaction of Matthew's gospel. Furthermore, if we can find a terminus post quem for the Jewish tradition, this applies to Matt 18,20 as well. In this regard, however, our sources yield no precise data and we can only list the possibilities.
On one hand, it is possible that the concept of the Shekhinah with tee or less people existed already during the Second Temple period, although we have no verification for this(48). In this case we have no way of dating the origin of Matt 18,20. There is, however, substantial agreement that its present formulation presupposes the Easter event(49).
On the other hand, it has frequently been suggested that the broadened understanding of Shekhinah may be explained most plausibly as a response to the crisis caused by the destruction of the Temple: The .Shekhinah is no longer in the Tempie, but under certain conditions its presence can still be experienced, even by two or three people(50). If this was so, Matt 18,20 attests to the continuing links between Matthew's source and rabbinic Judaism as li developed in Jamnia (Yabneh) after the destruction of the Temple. In this case it also reflects a continuing profound experience of the Lord's presence in the Christian community(51).

V. Conclusion
The theme of God's presence among people runs through much of the rabbinic tradition as well as through the NT in general and the Gospel of Matthew in particular. Neither tradition denies that God can be with a single individual, but both attach special meaning to his presence with a group, however small it may be. The origins of the term Shekhinah lie in the Temple. Its adaptation to other situations has in part a liturgical basis (Ps 82). At least very soon after the destruction of the Temple it was felt that the Shekhinah was not bound to a particular place, that it could be found anywhere, not only in liturgical settings, if certain conditions were met. It seems that it is in this sense that Matthew's source adopted it. While common prayer is a principal occasion in which "two or three" can experience Jesus' presence, the only condition is that they are together in his name.
The rabbis call God's presence Shekhinah, a circumlocution that affirms bis nearness without denying his otherness. The Christian recognizes this presence in (and through) Jesus. Can one compare these two expressions without sounding blasphemous to the Jew and watered-down to the Christian? Can Jews and Christians meet "for the sake of Heaven", in the name of God, and in his presence?
On the Christian side the recent Vatican Guidelines for Implementing the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate encourage "a common meeting in the presence of God. . .. in whatever circumstances as shall prove possible and mutually acceptable”(52). On the other hand, Martin Buber affirms that "where two or three are truly together, they are together in the name of God"(53). Ultimately, especially for Jews, the question is not only
theological, but also historical. How can nineteen hundred years of separation, conflict, persecution, and indifference be overcome? Can Jews and Christians truly be together again?