Going and Coming
I will ask the Father, and he will give you another helper who will be with you forever. John 14:16 NASB
Another helper – We all know this Greek word, Paraklete, “the Helper.” Growing up in the Western Church, we were told that this is a circumlocution for the Holy Spirit. This verse in John is typically used to establish the person of the Holy Spirit, the “other” helper who will come after Yeshua leaves. Sure enough, the Greek text reads allos parakleton, an accusative, singular, masculine noun. This construction indicates that the
Paraklete is the direct object of the Father’s action. “He will give another helper.”
Now let’s put this into Jewish/Hebraic thought. The “spirit” is the personal power of the presence of YHVH or His Messiah. There is no person called the Holy Spirit. In fact, until about 380 CE, there wasn’t even any official doctrine about the “Spirit” in Christianity. In Jewish thinking, the “spirit” is the expression of God’s action among men, whether it is found in Genesis 1:2, at Sinai, in the words of the prophets or in the life of the Messiah. It is God personally displayed.[1]
Given this Jewish idea, I want to point out an interesting connection. Yeshua tells us that the role of this personal presence of YHVH is to “convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment” (John 16:8), to provide encouragement (John 14:18)[2] and to testify of the Messiah (John 15:26). We might summarize these functions as offering truthful criticism and conviction, providing nourishing support and witnessing to God’s great gift in the Messiah. Here’s the interesting connection. This is essentially the role of the ‘ezer kenegdo, the woman of Genesis 2. She is to offer truthful criticism to her husband in order that he maintains a life of righteousness. She is to judge his intentions and actions in light of God’s goodness. She is to provide nourishment, encouragement and support when he is in alignment with God’s purposes. And she is to be the embodiment of God’s offer of forgiveness. Maimonides points out that the unusual preposition kenegdo entails the action of both coming and going. It means to draw toward when the husband is following YHVH, and to pull away when he is not. Could it be that Yeshua’s departure is also one side of the mystery of the ‘ezer kenegdo while the Paraklete is the other? “Going and coming” seem to be a pattern in God’s interactions with men. Maybe one of these patterns is the going to the Messiah because of the evil of this age and the coming of God’s presence to bring about the ‘olam ha’ba.
Of course, this is probably a stretch. It’s probably more than the text will support. But we do know that YHVH deliberately designed the ‘ezer kenegdo after His own character and we know what she is supposed to do. Why wouldn’t the Messiah’s role also include these intentions?
Topical Index: Paraklete, ‘ezer kenegdo, John 14:16
[1] For the Christian position concerning the “person” of the Spirit in this verse, you might look at http://irr.org/part-three-holy-spirit-paraclete-in-john
[2] Notice that it is YHVH who is the author of comfort according to Paul (2 Corinthians 1:4)
Makes sense to me. Form following function like God made little green apples. Salvation therefore manifests in reality in the FORM OF the Man, Yeshua. Form following function. And great is the mystery of Godliness.
Caution yellow flag using the motto God made little green apples what that mean that they would be the exact representation in a smaller form? Yes it sure is the exact representation of the way what does that make us a representation of Christ maybe I am too cautious we. Can introduce people to salvation.Jeshua yet he alone is salvation.. It is only in that name. Not the Believers name. I’m trying to convey the exclusiveness of both Yahweh and Yeshua. This has been a concern of mine. We do not want to lead people astray. We should be rightly dividing the word of Truth. No condemnation here just clarification. If you do not love one another then love is not in you then you do not know God I would not want to be found in that category please receive this with love I am not being quick to judge but clarify a point.
Its hard for me to figure out what your concern is, Brother Brett, but I will try to guess. Would it be better if I said that Yeshua was a Man Who successfully managed to be able to save us?
I understand your confusion, Laurita. But I don’t think it is correct to say that Yeshua as a man who successfully saved us. Salvation is found only in YHVH. Yeshua is the Messiah, and his role is to fulfill that task as YHVH’s representative. So Yeshua doesn’t actually save you. He is the vehicle through which YHVH saves you because he (Yeshua) establishes the kingdom of God by eliminating the final point of resistance.
If we say salvation is the function – in other words, salvation was there as the antecedent to the form salvation takes – then we could say that Yeshua is the form salvation took. Otherwise, we would have to say that Yeshua just happened to save us.
Brother Brett said he was confused by something I said before, but I can’t quite figure out what he was confused with, so I hope he could say it another way.
What I am trying to work out is a chicken and egg that is bigger; i.e. is YHVH a form that has nice attributes (functions) like love and saving, or is YHVH the manifestation (form) OF those functions?
Hello folks I guess I was not aware of how difficult it was to understand my concern I’ll be Point Blank this time. If God makes little green apples the little green apples exactly the same as the big green apple being God. The question in the point a picture for me one big apple being Yahweh one little apple Yeshua. Not little green apples plural we are not zactly like God we are a different kind of Apple Miss Hayes if you had mentioned in your first line God made little green apples plural and made that singular Apple it would be more appropriate my concern is we are not exactly like God we can introduce people to Salvation but we cannot give them salvation I hope this helps 🙂
Brother Brett, are you inferring that God can only replicate Himself?
Close now that we’re on the same page the clarification I can offer is God does not make us little gods which a lot of Christians think Big Apple little apple.
Perhaps, separating them is an impossibility, as the attributes of God could be seen as an extension of Him. In other words, when I encounter “good” (in whatever form that takes) I’ve encountered God, to some degree. The good news is that it gives me a chance to meet Him (or rather Him meeting me) without being consumed. 🙂 As you quoted, the mystery of godliness is great.
Robert, you are getting ‘warm’. I think what I am asking (and somebody might have a better way to put it – help!) is whether God is Himself because He is good or whether He is good because He is God. I know we always see both together, but that is not quite what I am asking. Perhaps it’s more like asking whether or not I lift heavy loads because I am strong or whether I am strong because I lift heavy loads. I have to be both to be either, of course, but that is not the question. Is salvation possible because God is good (for salvation is good) or is He God because He saves (along with all the other good)? Salvation is obviously a function of love, and a Saviour is also obviously the ‘form’ which salvation takes, but which is derived from the other (even though you will never see one without the other)?
Skip
Just a question. If Yeshua is the vehicle/instrument through which God saves, does this vehicle need to be physical to have such ability, as he had to be 2000 years ago. Or, is the work he done sufficient as Paul reiterates that we should build on such…
And then would the building on be the vehicle today. Or, would believing in be the correct vehicle?
I understand it to be the building on the foundation for which we are either the bricks or the mortar to use the allegory… Bricks pillars in community mortar the love binding entity…
Seeker, are you using building as a noun or verb? In my mind it should be used as a verb. Faith without works, a verb, is dead.
As below in response to Laurita.
It is difficult to imagine how death is conquered without something dying, in which case, that something must first be living, and since death is a symptom of sin in this world, I would surmise that what is living must be living in this world. Therefore, Yeshua as the reconciliation of the creation must be alive in this world, i.e., be human.
Skip says Yeshua doesn’t save us, instead He is the vehicle through which YHVH saves us, but I am in the middle of reading The Ruth-like Church, a book I got via Skip. Just last night I read the author’s comments on the confusion of exactly which One redeems us. He cited many verses.
YHVH our Redeemer.
Psa 19:14 . . . O Yahweh, my Rock and my Redeemer!
Psa 78:35 . . . Elohim is their Rock, And El, the Supreme, is their Redeemer.”
Isa 43:14 Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, The Holy One of Israel:
Jer 50:34 Their Redeemer [is] strong, Yahweh of Hosts [is] His name,
But even in the Tanakh the Messiah is called Redeemer.
Isa 59:20 And there comes to Zion the Redeemer, and “He shall turn back transgression from Jacob, averring is Yahweh.”
Jewish thought expected the Messiah to be a redeemer.
Luk 24:21 Yet we expected that He is the One about to be redeeming Israel.
Heb 9:15 . . . he is mediator, that, death having come, for redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant,
Paul called Yeshua our redeemer
Gal 4:4 . . . God sent forth His Son . . . that those under law he may redeem
Tit 2:14 . . . that He should be redeeming us
Col 1:14 in whom we have the redemption through his blood,
Rom 3:24 . . . through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
1Co 1:30 . . . Christ Jesus, who became to us . . . redemption,
Is there a contradiction here or, as the author concludes, we explain these verses by seeing Yeshua as the ARM of Yahweh.
Psa 77:15 With Your arm of power You redeemed Your people
I don’t think that’s a bad answer but another answer is to view Yeshua as the human incarnation of YHVH. I know that is a new and unacceptable thought for many, but, just saying, it does reconcile these verses.
David and I have talked a bit about his book. I met him in Sarasota. Great guy. The typical Hebrew idea of a representative is that the representative is essentially the human face of the one who sent him. You can think of the envoy of a king. When the envoy stands before you, it is as if the king were standing there. The envoy fully represents the king, not in the way we think of government today, but in the way ancient civilizations thought. So YHVH is fully represented in Yeshua, but that does not make Yeshua into YHVH. It means that YHVH accomplishes HIS salvation in the authorized representative.
I am having a problem with the idea that a mere man was born who somehow, after 4000 years of genetic and environmental degradation suddenly, with no explanation whatsoever, not only got it completely right from conception on, but was able to save us all without the capacity to love us all. Sounds like a perfect machine to me that just appeared to be a human, who numerous Biblical authors emphatically stated are ALL SINNERS, by the way. There are simply too many assumed, nonsupported imperatives in the idea that Yeshua started out JUST LIKE ME. Unless and until I see something addressed other than the lightly tossed comment that all of that magically got taken care of just because somebody was made to be something without being asked or equipped (an agent), is what is not making any sense to me. If Yeshua was a mere man without sin, that makes a whole bunch of Biblical authors into liars. That’s for starters. The clincher for me is that Yeshua, as a mere man, lacked the capacity to love me., Therefore, He did not die on that cross for me; He died because He had no choice in the matter, which would make Him the first person heaven ever compelled. Really?
Laurita I believe Skip referred to this on an earlier response as a living human which helps to redeem I add…
Something like either being a prophet or apostle not just a follower of an ritual way of living (Hebrew of old) or indoctrination (Christian today).
Today we follow tomorrow we lead God authors this principle or work. We are just humble in this divine presence.
Peace through Christ.
Dr. Eli Lizorkin-Eyzenberg has commented on a certain Menachem the Essene, who lived one generation before Yeshua, whose followers believed to be the Messiah, and who was killed by Roman soldiers in 4 B.C.E. That Hebrew name, Menachem, is that same noun behind the word Comforter. Dr. Eli asks if it is possible that Yeshua was identifying Himself as the true Comforter. Perhaps Yeshua was calling the Essene community to put its trust in Him. What do you think?
The Ruach YHWH is the “consort” to ABBA YHWH.
In true Hebrew tradition a husband and wife is (supposed to be) ECHAD.
Who better than Yashua’s mother to comfort us?
The world judges the action, but Yeshua said that it is the FRUIT of the action that tells the root. That is why you see ‘charities’ all day long that are, in fact, producing little to no fruit. Somehow, reality can tell if it is a tax writeoff. Yeshua knew that, too.
The tree bears the fruit while the root from the seed of David feeds the tree.
We are all but trees…