Pastors, leaders (and everyone else):
If you’ve been following me over the years, you’ll know that I do a lot of Biblical research. After 17 years of researching, I’ve come to this conclusion that I want to present for your consideration and feedback.
There have been studies on this in relation to the Targums, but not much concerning the Hebrew Text itself and the context of the Divine Name itself.
The bottom line of my research is this:
This is not the Father: יְהוָה
This is how the Masorets notated their Binitarianism. See those dots and jots under the Hebrew word? That was how they notated the Son of Man (from Daniel 7:14), in the Hebrew Bible.
This would be the “Herald” of God, or God’s Voice, or His “Word,” which is distinguished from God the Father, who was an unseen Spirit. This is how they explained the 46 instances when men and women interacted with “God” directly in the Hebrew Bible. It was actually the Son of Man.
This is a teaching that had gained some esteem leading up to and including the days of Yeshua (Jesus), and lasted for a century or two afterward and became known as the “Two Powers in Heaven” which was outlawed by the Rabbis. I would say, but not before it already had its impact on the Hebrew Text and the New Testament.
I would say that It is also the context for the New Testament’s 1st Chapter of the Gospel of John which begins, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the WORD was GOD.”
In most English Bibles this individual would be delineated as: LORD
(All CAPITAL LETTERS.)
The other spelling of the Divine Name: יְהוִה֙
In English Bibles is often written as: GOD.
This would be the Invisible Father.
(All CAPITAL LETTERS)
Anyone want to take it for a test drive in their own Bibles and give me some feedback?
Take a look especially at Messianic prophecies like Isaiah 7:14.
And Examples of “The Son of Man” as the Herald of God in passages like Ezekiel 16, 17, 18, 19…
It fulfills the Law of Agency, a concept well understood:
“The main point of the Jewish law of agency is expressed in the dictum, ‘a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself’ (Ned. 72B; Kidd, 41b). Therefore any act committed by a duly appointed agent is regarded as having been committed by the principal, who therefore bears full responsibility for it with consequent complete absence of liability.
-The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, Agent (Heb. Shaliah)
According to Talmudic law, the agent was equal in all respects to the party he represented; and the Jews even allowed betrothal, itself a contract, to take place by proxy.
-Jewish Encyclopedia, Talmudic Law (p. 32)
Here’s where you can find out more:
The New Messianic Version of the Bible
%d bloggers like this: