Action or Actor?
“Behold, My Servant, whom I uphold; My chosen one in whom My soul delights. I have put My Spirit upon Him; He will bring forth justice to the nations.” Isaiah 42:1 NASB
Uphold – YHVH speaks about His servant. “Look at him,” He says. “He is the one I uphold.” Pay attention. YHVH is the actor here. He does the grasping. The servant is held tightly. The servant is the recipient of the action, not the initiator.
The verb, tamak, is found in many Semitic languages. The basic idea is to hold something securely. According to Patterson, the verb has two categories of application in Scripture. The first is about holding fast to moral and spiritual truths. The second is significant for the exegesis of this verse. “The verb is also used of God’s sovereign ordering of the affairs of history. He brings judgment where needed (Amos 1:5, 8) until he sends forth his righteous servant whom he will ‘uphold’ in his just rule of the nations of the world (Isa 42:1). Similarly in Ps 16:5 God ‘upholds’ the Messiah (the form of the verb is an irregular active participle, or mispointing for tōmēk.”[1] We should note that the verb in Isaiah is an imperfect. The action is continuous and as-yet incomplete.
Why is this important? Because it not only echoes Yeshua’s claim that he only does what the Father shows him, it also clearly puts the operating power of the Messiah in the hands of YHVH. It is the Father who brings this to pass. YHVH’s sovereign ordering of history is the foundation of the Messianic assignment and it is through YHVH’s action that the Messiah fulfills that assignment. “I have put My spirit upon him,” is Hebrew parallelism, a restatement of what it means to “uphold.” YHVH is the active agent here. Frankly, none of this makes sense if the Messiah is also YHVH.
Perhaps we should think of this as “chain of command.” YHVH grants the Messiah the strength, power and endurance necessary to accomplish the orders given. The Messiah accepts this divine empowering and completes the mission. Along the way, the Messiah recruits others in the grand plan, and empowers them to act under the same orders with the same empowering agency. This is what Paul alludes to in his now-infamous analogy about “headship” (1 Corinthians 11:3). Once we correct our misunderstanding of the Greek kephale, we see that Paul is really speaking about the empowering source, not the hierarchical rank. YHVH empowers the Messiah. The Messiah empowers his followers. YHVH upholds His servant. His servant upholds us. What could be clearer?
You and I do not fulfill the commandments of our Lord, Yeshua HaMashiach, independently and without assistance. We are able because we have been enabled, both divinely and corporately. Ever since Havvah, keeping the commandments has been a mutual operation. Did you think it was any different for the Messiah?
Topical Index: Messiah, uphold, tamak, empower, Isaiah 42:1, 1 Corinthians 11:3
[1] Patterson, R. D. (1999). 2520 תָּמַך. In R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer, Jr. & B. K. Waltke (Eds.), Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament.
“Frankly, none of this makes sense if the Messiah is also YHVH.”
But does it not if YHWH is the family-name (“surname”) of the Heavenly Family?
“I have put My Ruach upon him” … The Father provides the Spirit to the Son to enable him.
I am not saying that they are “Co-equal”, etc., etc., just that there are mone than one Entity in action.
You might be right. I am investigating this Mesopotamian idea. But the point is that they are not ontologically identical.
Apparantly “The original Aramaic terminology (still used by the Aramaic speaking Assyrian Christians of the Church of the East) refers to three K’NUMEH [Unique individuality of aspect / substance] {hypostasis} and one PARSOPA [Unique character / personality which separates it from any other]{prosopon} or one KYANA (nature).”
I agree that they are definitely not identical. If we consider that the three aspects of the “God-family” are three K’NUMEH but are only one YHWH, and the possibility that the Abba is only part of YHWH and not the totality of YHWH.
This obviously challenges the traditional anthropomorphism of Judaism, Chritianity and Islam.
But then, can we truly face or comprehend this boundless being(s)?
I do not think it is expected of us… I think we are more supposed to enjoy YHWH and the mysteries.
I have noticed a nuance in the East that seems to have been lost in large part in the West when it comes to relationship, and that is the action of protection. The East recognizes that what you care about you take action to protect. It is usual to say to someone who you love “I will protect you”, and the two are linked together, too. If I say I love you to you, my beloved, but I am not in a position to protect you, I cannot then offer you my love. It is considered selfishness, in fact, to want to enjoy love without bringing the ability to protect that love to the relationship. You cannot afford a relationship with a person you cannot also provide protection for. In fact, if you cannot clear a runway for that person to love you back, and to freely accept your love, then your love is ineffective. You might even could say you have not been successful in your loving. Being a lover is a heavy proposition. (Try loving a person who has all their defenses up, and this becomes painfully apparent!) If I love the beloved, the burden is on me to keep the pathway for our love clear. (Of course, if the beloved chooses to love me back, they have chosen to sign on to the same obligation -at least for us humans, anyway – but I don’t think anyone can say that the way a man and a woman love each other is the same, even then.) Love presupposes obligation, but there are specific actions between a lover and a beloved, (and vice versa, too) that makes both different from each other. Just ask any husband and wife (who are not confused about their roles, that is). Love may be reciprocal, but, like electricity, it has a specific flow, and that flow is from the source (the lover) to the receiver (the beloved). Receiving love may be a part of love, as a glowing light bulb is part of an electrical system, but it is not the same as being the generator of that love.
I personally do not have a problem with accepting the fact that I cannot understand how love works, or even what all the elements are in love. That is because I am far, far away from being successful in love. I do not know, nor can I explain, how love works in heaven, either, nor what the structure of that love is. But I hope to never commit the folly of thinking that because I do not understand or am unable to explain that love, that it cannot or does not exist. God will always be a mystery to me. The Personhood of fully actualized Person(s) is likewise a mystery because I have never personally (lol) met a fully actualized person. I do think we are talking about things we do not understand or have a basis to understand when it comes to this subject. I don’t think that makes it nonsense, however. I do think that that makes us finite.
I personally have chosen to temporarily employ the metaphor of Lover, Beloved, and the Love in between to symbolize the action of love in what I currently choose to believe the Godhead to consist of. Action and function determine personhood. I can see discrete action when it comes to love, and the action of Lover and the consequent, reciprocal action of Beloved are not the same action. Twist and turn it as you like, but there has to be both before love is love. When I read my Bible within the context of this paradigm, it does not clear up all the mystery, but it does mean that it all fits together. That is going to have to be good enough for me. At least until I become a fully actualized person myself. Until then, I don’t think I am qualified to talk about the subject or the function of a person. Personally.
That is the paradigm that I have chosen to look at this from – at least today, anyway. Now back to yours!
Good stuff
Thank you Pieter
Enjoy YHVH. Is this through the grace that Yeshau has introduced?
Luarita Electrical connection love the explanation. An ongoing current of relieving and recharging. Is that not the work of of the Holy Spirit. Where the Father is the positive current and the Son the neutral…
The concept… He who loves Me (Yeshau – Salvation) will adhere to My teachings, and My Father will love him… And we (plural) will make abode in him… No reference that the holy ghost will no longer exist or be transferred…
Now the holy spirit is a comforter and supporting truth or strength until this promise manifests…
As Paul said these three are one. One in purpose, intent, process or entity… Does not sound like entity as Yeshau will be seated on the right hand of YHVH’ throne. Genesis reveals some other entities were involved when the creation of human kind was done. But not the rest of the creation. Now why would that be? Could it be that the natural only has a temporary purpose and because of that the support of the other divine entities was not needed. but to achieve that one purpose they all had to be included.
Maybe Yeshua is YHWH or vice versa?
From an Aramaeic translation:
1 Cor.12:3 Because of this, I make known to you,
that there is no one who speaks by the Spirit of Eloah
and says that Yeshua is accursed [doomed to destruction].
And neither is a man able to say that YHWH is Yeshua,
except by the Ruach HaKodesh.
Ever thought who is sitting at the left hand of Eloah?
And neither is a man able to say that YHWH is Yeshua,
except by the Ruach HaKodesh.
Shalom Pieter,
Peshitta Aramaic NT 1 Corinthians 12:3
“I therefore make known to you, that there is no man who by the Spirit of Aloha speaketh, and saith that Jeshu is accursed; and no man also can say that Jeshu is the Lord unless by the Spirit of Holiness.” Is there a reference to YHWH / LORD being Jeshu (as used in this version)?