Y’shua, the form of Yahweh

SG, Western Cape

I hope you don’t mind me taking up some of your hard pressed time. I am aware of your understanding of the nature of Yeshua as being an anointed human being who had no pre-existence and I’ve read your booklet as well as your discussions on your website.

However, I have a question that still wants for an adequate answer in this regard. I would appreciate your input if you have the time. I will be as brief as possible.

In John 5:37 Yeshua states /“ And the Father who sent Me, bore witness of Me/( or “/has testified _through_ Me/ “( Greek “peri”= through)/You have _neither heard His (Father’s) voice at any time, nor seen His form.”_/

Yet it is recorded in Tanak that Israel heard the voice *of YHVH* and that Moses both heard the Voice and saw the form *of YHVH.* ( Quite a few references for this which I am sure you already know) but I would like to look specifically at Numbers 12:8 which says /“ I ( YHVH) speak with him (Moses) mouth to mouth and plainly, not in riddles. And he (Moses) sees the form of YHVH….”/

So now the logical question is : If the “form of YHVH” that Moses saw was *_not _*the Father, according to Yeshua in John 5:37, then WHO was this “form of YHVH”? Clearly no ministering angelic being could bear the definition of “the form of YHVH,” Himself.

The Hebrew word for “form” in Numbers 12:8 is “temuna” which is explained as “something portioned out as a shape, embodiment or manifestation.” ( Note: not the WHOLE, but a portioned out _lesser_ measure) So Moses literally saw a portioned out , lesser measure of YHVH, the Father Spirit, made visible in an embodiment.)

Bearing in mind Yeshua’s words /“ The Father has testified through(Gk: “peri”) _ME,_ you have neither seen _His_ voice at any time nor seen _His _form “ /Is Yeshua not saying quite clearly that _He, _not the Father, was the audible voice ( The WORD of John 1) and visible ( LESSER, portioned out Spirit) “temuna” form of YHVH at Sinai? The Father testified of Himself */through Yeshua/* not only in the first Century, but from the very beginning of the Kingdom of Israel at Sinai and this same “temuna of YHVH” who was the link with the Father and the manifesting “Husband” of Sinai later “/has come in the flesh/” ( 1 John 4:2-7) in order to die the required death for His beloved, wayward Bride.

As I see it this understanding fully maintains the integrity of the ECHAD EL and is in no way a trinity doctrine, as the One El who “/is Spirit”/is quite capable of portioning out part of His One and only Spirit into a visible embodiment in order to commune with mankind – which would be utterly consumed if exposed to His whole appearance, as Tanak records. YHWH therefore deals with mankind through this Mediating lesser portion of Himself ( the temuna of YHVH)

Understanding Yeshua as the portioned out Spirit of the Father made visible in flesh also gives sense to Yeshua’s words that /“ My Father is greater than I”/and “ /If you have seen Me you have seen that Father/“– a portion of the ONE Spirit is the same Spirit even though not the whole!) This understanding is also the only way to understand how Yeshua carries out His stated mission of fulfilling all the requirements of the legalities of Torah and the predictions of the Prophets.

What do you think in regard to these Scriptures? If Yeshua was not the visible “temuna of YHVH” of Numbers 12, then please tell me who you understand that was? Whose voice did Israel hear and Who did Moses see if it was , indeed, not the Father? Also what is the point of Yeshua saying that the Father testified through Him and Father has never been seen or heard- if Sinai had nothing to do with these words- since the voice of YHVH is the very heart of the giving of Torah to Israel?

COMMENTS

Your question becomes less of an issue when one looks at the proper meaning of the Greek preposition “peri”. Strongs uses a very unconventional (and sometimes unintelligible!) method of explaining the meaning of words and although the English word “through” is mentioned in Strongs’ extended definition of the Greek word “peri”, most scholars will be able to confirm that “peri” is NEVER used to convey the idea of “through” in the sense that you have suggested in John 5:37. Here is a selection of definitions that I have found for this word in other dictionaries:

Thayer’s Greek Lexicon:
peri: about, concerning, on account of, because of, around, near

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon
peri: about, concerning, on account of, because of, around, near

An Intermediate Greek-English Lexicon (Liddell & Scott)
peri (with genitive): around, about, for, on account of, concerning, beyond

A Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament (Abbott-Smith)
peri (with genitive): about, on account of, concerning, in reference to.

Greek English Lexicon (Louw & Nida)
Peri:
A around (location)
B about (content)
C about (time)
D because (reason)
E on behalf of (benefaction)
F with (association)
G with regard to (specification)

I fully agree with you that the voice and the “form” of Yahweh that some of the well known figures of the Tanach have heard and seen, can only have been partial and limited – no ordinary human being can face the Almighty in his fullness and his splendour and stay alive. Exactly what the Voice sounded like and how the “temunah” appeared outwardly, I cannot tell. But in my understanding there is no suggestion in Scriptures that it was Y’shua (before his actual birth) who appeared to people like Mosheh and Avraham. Against this background, if I have to respond to your question //”Is Yeshua not saying quite clearly that _He, _not the Father, was the audible voice and visible “temuna” form of YHVH at Sinai?”, my answer has to be: No, this is surely NOT what He is saying. The question in John 5 is not about WHO the One is that spoke to Mosheh. It is about WHOM this One was speaking about …