This is a continuation of “a fuller consideration” of “Matthew’s and the Holy Spirit’s word choices”¹ in Matthew 12:18-21. It became apparent in another essay that Behold, my servant whom I have chosen² wasn’t a quotation from Isaiah 42:1 exclusively: Behold my servant, whom I uphold.³ While preparing this essay I watched Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut again, which helped to illustrate the difference between them.

I recalled my first viewing (with my own eyes wide shut) enjoying the visual smorgasbord of female nudes in classic poses, even as I struggled to find some point to its story beyond a celebration that the Lord God made a woman and brought her to Adam. The story begins, I suppose, when Alice Harford (Nicole Kidman)—having resisted the dubious “charms” of a cad at a Christmas party—is offended by her husband’s lack of jealousy over her, his too facile faith in her fidelity. She angrily and hurtfully recounts her own conflicting emotions over an unconsummated lust for a stranger at a hotel on a family vacation that summer.

The persistent (and explicit) mental image of his beautiful young wife’s desire for another man, a naval officer, propels Bill Harford (Tom Cruise), a successful medical doctor, on a dark parody of a Hero’s Journey, even a mockery of the concept of the hero’s journey. It seems, at first, like a cinematic foray into Baal worship as described by B. Z. Goldberg in “The Sacred Fire, the story of sex in religion,” consorting with prostitutes as religious rite and ritual. Bill’s bookend encounters with Mr. Milich (Rade Šerbedžija), a costumer he bribed to reopen his shop late that night, were a poignant reminder that a prostitute is somebody’s daughter.

Bill needed a tuxedo, a cape with a hood and a mask to gain admittance to a secret orgy he heard about after a timely phone call from Alice aborted an impromptu assignation with Domino (Vinessa Shaw), a prostitute who had propositioned him as he wandered the streets. Awakened by Bill, as he reopens his shop Milich discovers his underage daughter (Leelee Sobieski) entertaining two older men. “We were invited here by the young lady,” one of them explains as Milich rages: “The young lady? It is my daughter. And couldn’t you see she is a child? You will have to explain to police.” Then he lashes out at his child, “You little whore! I’ll kill you for this.” Milich locks the two men in the front room of his shop as his daughter flees and cowers behind Bill.

Then Milich tends again to his rental business as his half-naked daughter, clinging to Bill for protection, whispers coquettishly into Bill’s ear. The scene ends without revealing how Bill extricates himself from her grasp or leaves her to her fate, which sets up the bookend scene the next morning. As he returns the rental costume (everything but the missing mask), Milich’s daughter, still in her underwear, emerges from the front of the shop, smiling. Her father greets her warmly and introduces her properly to Dr. Harford. Then the same two men from the night before emerge through the same doorway, fully clothed and looking like satisfied customers, and they are regarded as such by Mr. Milich.

Perplexed, Bill reminds Milich of his intent to call the police last night (without mentioning his intent to kill his daughter). “Well, uh, things change,” Milich responds, “we have come to another arrangement.” Then he offers his daughter to Bill as another potential rental item of interest, since Bill is clearly of interest to her. But the story has morphed into a thriller as Bill investigates the disappearance of a musician friend, Nick Nightingale (Todd Field), who told him about the secret orgy in the first place, and the suspiciously timed death of a prostitute, Mandy Curran (Julienne Davis), who offered herself as a sacrifice to “redeem” Bill from further humiliation (and other more lethal threats) when he was unmasked as an unwelcome intruder at the secret orgy.

Only at the end did I recognize “Eyes Wide Shut” as a love story. And after another divorce and a few more years of Bible study with God the Father, God the Son through God the indwelling Holy Spirit, I realize it’s a love story about the grace of God, protecting Dr. and Mrs. Harford from the deceitful desires of their old human during three nights and three days when their marriage is severely tested.

Once he confesses all to Alice, Bill is uneasy, questioning what his wife is thinking and where he stands with her. Alice Harford, beautiful deeper than even her face or form, ponders aloud:

What do I think we should do? (Their young daughter Helena [Madison Eginton] interrupts.) What do I think? I don’t know. I mean, maybe I… (She tends to Helena again.) Maybe I think we should be grateful, grateful that we’ve managed to survive through all of our (she searches for a word) adventures—whether they were real or only a dream.

Gratitude is appropriate. Neither Bill nor Alice had any occasion for pride over any works of righteousness which had been done by any righteousness of their own derived from any law: Behold my servant, whom I uphold.⁴ This isn’t exactly what one expects of Jesus—Behold, my servant whom I have chosen⁵—but is appropriate to consider for servants who are not yet born from above, not yet created by means of [Christ]…into one new human.⁶

The Hebrew word translated I uphold was אֶתְמָךְ, a form of תָּמַךְ (tāmaḵ), which was translated ἀντιλήμψομαι or ἀντιλήψομαι in the Septuagint, forms of ἀντιλαμβάνω in the middle voice. The first occurrence of a form of תָּמַךְ (tāmaḵ) in the Masoretic text occurs in the story of Israel blessing Joseph and his two sons.

The next occurrence is found in the story of Israel’s battle with Amalek.

In the first occurrence Joseph held up, took, took hold of his father’s hand to correct what he perceived as wrong. In the second occurrence Aaron and Hur stayed up, held up, kept supporting, supported Moses’ hands to help him do what they perceived as right (Exodus 17:10, 11, 13 ESV):

So Joshua did as Moses told him, and fought with Amalek, while Moses, Aaron, and Hur went up to the top of the hill [Table]. Whenever Moses held up his hand, Israel prevailed, and whenever he lowered his hand, Amalek prevailed…And [because of a form of תָּמַךְ (tāmaḵ) done by Aaron and Hur] Joshua overwhelmed Amalek and his people with the sword.

David wrote (Psalm 16:1, 2, 5 ESV):

Preserve me, O God, for in you I take refuge. I say to the Lord, “You are my Lord; I have no good apart from you.”
The Lord is my chosen portion and my cup; you hold (תּוֹמִ֥יךְ, a form of תָּמַךְ, tāmaḵ) my lot.

When I returned to the church where I became an atheist, I believed wholeheartedly that Jesus would finally help me have my own righteousness derived from the law,⁷ which was a major departure from many years of experience that I was neither faithful nor good enough to receive any help from Him at all. My last hope before I disbelieved Him entirely was that He would punish me for my sins. He didn’t, not in anyway I expected or perceived.

When He brought me back I didn’t actually “know” that I wanted Him to help me have my own righteousness derived from the law, because I didn’t yet know that there was any alternative to my own righteousness derived from the law. So, though He still didn’t help me have my own righteousness derived from the law, He helped me to know and to desire his righteousness (τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ), the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness—a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness.⁸

The Greek words translated the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness were: τὴν, the righteousness that, διὰ, comes by way, πίστεως Χριστοῦ, of Christ’s faithfulness. A note (11) in the NET goes into some detail about scholarly arguments over translation here: in the ESV for instance τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ was translated that which comes through faith in Christ.⁹ While the arguments are interesting, the writer was Paul, who also wrote (Galatians 2:20 EXP11):

By means of Christ I have been crucified, but I live hereafter not I but He lives within me, Christ, so who now I live within flesh, by faithfulness I live by means of the Son of God who loved me and gave himself for me.

Paul is faithful because the indwelling Christ makes it so. And Paul didn’t retain this grace as a special privilege to himself alone (Ephesians 2:8-10 EXP14):

For by means of grace you are, were and continue to be saved through faith, and this not from within you, God’s gift, not out from works, so that no one may boast [about oneself]. For we are his workmanship, created by means of Christ Jesus to good works which God prepared beforehand, so that by means of them we may walk.

At the conclusion of another essay I wrote:

Just as the conjunction καὶ (and) in Jesus’ prayer doesn’t deny his divinity but highlights and accentuates his humanity, even as the new human (τὸν καινὸν ἄνθρωπον) created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness,¹² so God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) chose this new human: Behold, my servant whom I have chosen. Eternal life is to know the only true God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) and this new human. How? by knowing Jesus Christ, through the Bible certainly, yet equally if not more importantly, through the time spent with the One who died to fulfill the Scriptures.

I chide myself for being so slow to understand. The relationship between Jesus as Christ and the new human is actually quite explicit (Romans 5:12-21 ESV).

Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man (δι᾿ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου), and death through sin, and so death spread to all men (εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους) because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come [Table].

But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass (τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι), much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man (τῇ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου) Jesus Christ abounded for many. And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin (οὐχ ὡς δι᾿ ἑνὸς ἁμαρτήσαντος). For the judgment following one trespass (ἐξ ἑνὸς) brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. For if, because of one man’s trespass (τῷ τοῦ ἑνὸς παραπτώματι), death reigned through that one man (διὰ τοῦ ἑνός), much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man (διὰ τοῦ ἑνὸς) Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass (ὡς δι᾿ ἑνὸς παραπτώματος) led to condemnation for all men (εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους), so one act of righteousness (δι᾿ ἑνὸς δικαιώματος) leads to justification and life for all men (εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους). For as by the one man’s disobedience (διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου) the many were made sinners (ἁμαρτωλοὶ κατεστάθησαν οἱ πολλοί), so by the one man’s obedience (διὰ τῆς ὑπακοῆς τοῦ ἑνὸς) the many will be made righteous (δίκαιοι κατασταθήσονται οἱ πολλοί). Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

And again (1 Corinthians 15:45-49 ESV):

Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;¹⁰ the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven [Table]. As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the man of heaven [Table].

And here, I return to Matthew 12:18a (ESV).

“Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is well pleased.

I’ll continue with the idea (NET note 28) that Isaiah 42:1 is a good place to start looking for the source of the quotation my beloved (ὁ ἀγαπητός μου). The next Hebrew word in Isaiah 42:1 in the Masoretic text is בְּחִירִ֖י, a form of בָּחִיר (bāḥîr):

In another essay I considered why the Septuagint translators may have been inclined to add Israel to these words, and won’t repeat it here. But does Matthew 12:18 help to corroborate the Masoretic text as more original this time?

Granted, the word Ισραηλ is missing from Matthew’s quotation as it is from the apparent source in the Masoretic text of Isaiah. But is ἀγαπητός a fitting synonym for ἐκλεκτός, or a reasonable translation of בְּחִירִ֖י, a form of בָּחִיר (bāḥîr)? The singular adjective ἀγαπητός in the nominative case doesn’t occur in the Greek translation of Isaiah. There are, however, two occurrences of other forms.

The first is fairly straightforward (Isaiah 5:1-4 ESV):

Let me sing for my beloved
my love song concerning his vineyard:
My beloved had a vineyard
on a very fertile hill.
He dug it and cleared it of stones,
and planted it with choice vines;
he built a watchtower in the midst of it,
and hewed out a wine vat in it;
and he looked for it to yield grapes,
but it yielded wild grapes.
And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem
and men of Judah,
judge between me and my vineyard.
What more was there to do for my vineyard,
that I have not done in it?
When I looked for it to yield grapes,
why did it yield wild grapes?

The Hebrew word translated my love in my love song concerning his vineyard above was דּוֹדִ֖י, a form of דּוֹד (dôḏ). A table with more detail follows:

So, one Hebrew word occurs twice in the Masoretic text: לִֽידִידִ֔י, a form of יָדִיד (yāḏîḏ), to my wellbeloved / My wellbeloved (Tanakh, KJV), to my love / My love (NET). It was translated τῷ ἠγαπημένῳ in the Septuagint, for the beloved / The beloved (NETS), to [my] beloved / [My] beloved (English Elpenor). And another occurs once: דּוֹדִ֖י, a form of דּוֹד (dôḏ), of my beloved (Tanakh, KJV), to my lover (NET). The ESV translators chose my love, abandoning any sense of personality, treating דּוֹדִ֖י, a form of דּוֹד (dôḏ), simply as an adjective describing song. It was translated τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ in the BLB Septuagint, of the loved one (NETS), and τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ μου in the Elpenor Septuagint, of my beloved (English Elpenor).

The Greek adjective ἀγαπητοῦ is a singular form of ἀγαπητός in the genitive case. Since Matthew and the Holy Spirit chose ἀγαπητός, referring to Jesus in Matthew 12:18, rather than ἐκλεκτός (which referred to Israel in the Septuagint), I’m primed to respond to the Lord’s questions as follows:

Question 1 (Isaiah 5:4a ESV):
What more was there to do for my vineyard, that I have not done in it?

Answer 1 (John 3:14-17 ESV):
As Moses¹¹ lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, that whoever believes in him¹² may have eternal life. “For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn (κρίνῃ, a form of κρίνω; literally judge) the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him [Table].

Question 2 (Isaiah 5:4b ESV):
When I looked for it to yield grapes, why did it yield wild grapes?

Answer 2 (John 3:6, 7; Romans 8:3, 4 ESV):
That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again’ (ἄνωθεν; literally from above).
For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do. By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned (κατέκρινεν, a form of κατακρίνω) sin in the flesh (ἐν τῇ σαρκί; or “by means of the flesh”), in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

I tend to understand the allegory of the vineyard as a reference to the people of Israel, more specifically to the people of the southern kingdom of Judah, or even more specifically to the Jews of Jerusalem, at the time of Isaiah. Without denying any of that, Rashi understood the vineyard as Adam, perhaps even humanity more generally (See Rashi’s commentary to Isaiah 5:7). But despite all his insight, including his recognition that God did more for Israel than for Adam, Rashi still hoped in Torah, in law, a millennium after Christ has come, Christ has died, Christ is risen again. And another millennium after Rashi “all the little Jewish children look forward to the happy day when they will begin to learn Chumash [Torah (The Pentateuch)] with Rashi…a new milestone on their wonderful and enchanting road to scholarship and wisdom.”¹³

The only other occurrence of a form of ἀγαπητός in the Greek translation of Isaiah is more difficult because the Masoretic text and Septuagint diverge significantly (Isaiah 26:16-19 ESV).

O Lord, in distress they sought you;
they poured out a whispered prayer
when your discipline was upon them.
Like a pregnant woman
who writhes and cries out in her pangs
when she is near to giving birth,
so were we because of you, O Lord;
we were pregnant, we writhed,
but we have given birth to wind.
We have accomplished no deliverance in the earth,
and the inhabitants of the world have not fallen.
Your dead shall live; their bodies shall rise.
You who dwell in the dust, awake and sing for joy!
For your dew is a dew of light,
and the earth will give birth to the dead [Table].

The differences between the Masoretic text and the Septuagint are reasonably apparent in English translation:

I’ll pause here to consider Isaiah 26:17 (26:17, 18a) in more detail:

The Hebrew word כֵּ֛ן (kēn), so (Tanakh, KJV, NET), was translated οὕτως in the Septuagint, so (NETS, English Elpenor). Then הָיִ֥ינוּ a form of הָיָה (hāyâ), have we been (Tanakh, KJV), were we (NET), was translated ἐγενήθημεν, were we (NETS), have we been (English Elpenor). The next word is absent from the Masoretic text: τῷ ἀγαπητῷ σου, to your beloved (NETS), to thy beloved (English Elpenor), only occurs in the Septuagint; ἀγαπητῷ is a form of the adjective ἀγαπητός in the dative case. The rabbis apparently translated a Hebrew manuscript that had a form of דּוֹד (dôḏ) at this point in the word string (based on Isaiah 5:1). The Masoretes either dropped it or favored a manuscript from which it was absent.

The next word מִפָּנֶ֖יךָ, a form of פָּנִים (pānîm), in thy sight (Tanakh, KJV), because of you (NET), was translated διὰ, because of (NETS, English Elpenor), in the Septuagint. Then again, a word, probably a form of יָרֵא (yārē’), is absent from the Masoretic text, but was translated τὸν φόβον σου, the fear of you (NETS), thy fear (English Elpenor), in the Septuagint. And finally, יְהֹוָֽה (yᵊhōvâ), O LORD (Tanakh, KJV), O Lord (NET), in the Masoretic text was translated Κύριε, O Lord (NETS, English Elpenor), in the Septuagint.

In the Greek of the Septuagint there is a point and purpose of this woman in hard labor imagery, a reference to some relationship between that labor and your beloved, thy beloved: so were we to your beloved because of the fear of you, O Lord (NETS), so have we been to thy beloved…O Lord, because of thy fear (English Elpenor). The point and purpose in the Tanakh and KJV translations of the Masoretic text is thy chastening: so have we been in thy sight, O LORD. The NET and ESV translations may hint at some other purpose: so were we because of you, O Lord. But I suspect that hint owes more to the translators’ consultation of the Septuagint than to any strict adherence to the Hebrew of the Masoretic text.

Since Matthew and the Holy Spirit chose ὁ ἀγαπητός μου in Matthew 12:18 my beloved (ESV) to specify Jesus, who fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah, rather than Israel (Ισραηλ ὁ ἐκλεκτός μου in Isaiah 42:1 in the Septuagint), I’m primed to recognize the identity of τῷ ἀγαπητῷ σου, to your beloved (NETS), to thy beloved (English Elpenor) as a prophetic reference to Jesus. And Paul, in his lament, was quite specific about Jesus’ relationship to Israel imagined as a woman in hard labor (Romans 9:1-5 ESV).

I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit—that I have great sorrow and unceasing anguish in my heart. For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh [Table]. They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises. To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.

The differences between the Masoretic text and Septuagint continue:

A more detailed table of Isaiah 26:18 follows:

The first word in the Masoretic text to diverge from the Septuagint is כְּמ֖וֹ (kᵊmô), as it were (Tanakh, KJV, NET). There is no counterpart in the Septuagint. But the next word יָלַ֣דְנוּ, a form of יָלַד (yālaḏ), we have…brought forth (Tanakh, KJV), we gave birth (NET), was translated ἐτέκομεν, gave birth (NETS), have brought forth (English Elpenor), in the Septuagint. This was followed by ר֑וּחַ (rûaḥ), wind (Tanakh, KJV), to wind (NET), translated πνεῦμα, a wind (NETS), the breath (English Elpenor). Then came יְשׁוּעֹת֙, a form of יְשׁוּעָה (yᵊšûʿâ), any deliverance (Tanakh, KJV), deliverance (NET), translated σωτηρίας σου, of your salvation (NETS), of thy salvation (English Elpenor), in the Septuagint.

The next word in the Hebrew word string of the Masoretic text is בַּל (bal), not (Tanakh, KJV), cannot (NET). There is no negative particle in the BLB Septuagint; οὐ in the Elpenor Septuagint occurs later in the word string and precedes a different verb. The verb negated in the Hebrew of the Masoretic text is נַ֣עֲשֶׂה, a form of עָשָׂה (ʿāśâ), we have…wrought (Tankah, KJV), We…produce (NET), and was translated ἐποιήσαμεν without any hint of negation in the Septuagint, we produced (NETS), which we have wrought (English Elpenor). And this is followed by אֶ֔רֶץ (ereṣ), in the earth (Tanakh, KJV), on the earth (NET), translated ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, on the earth (NETS), upon the earth (English Elpenor), in the Septuagint.

In other words, prior to many in Israel rejecting Jesus as Messiah there is Greek evidence of a Hebrew manuscript which prophesied something like: we produced a wind of your salvation on the earth [e.g., your beloved] (NETS); have brought forth the breath of thy salvation [e.g., thy beloved], which we have wrought upon the earth (English Elpenor). And after their rejection the Masoretic text reads: we have as it were brought forth wind [e.g., a fart]; we have not wrought any deliverance in the earth (Tanakh, KJV); we gave birth, as it were, to wind; We cannot produce deliverance on the earth (NET).

The next word in the Hebrew word string of the Masoretic text is another negative particle וּבַֽל, a form of בַּל (bal), neither (Tanakh, KJV), no people (NET). Here is where the negative particle οὐ occurs in the Elpenor Septuagint only, preceding πεσούμεθα (a form of πίπτω), we shall not fall (English Elpenor). Frankly, whether this is evidence of yet another Hebrew manuscript or simply an editorial comment identifying The dead [who] shall rise,¹⁴ is of no concern to me at present. Both the BLB and Elpenor Septuagint have the conjunction ἀλλὰ here, but (NETS, English Elpenor), rather than a negative particle when οὐ πεσούμεθα is bracketed aside.

The next word in the Hebrew of the Masoretic text is יִפְּל֖וּ, a form of נָפַל (nāp̄al), have…fallen (Tanakh, KJV), are born (NET), and was translated πεσοῦνται, will fall (NETS), shall fall (English Elpenor), in the Septuagint. Then יֹֽשְׁבֵ֥י, a form of יָשַׁב (yāšaḇ), the inhabitants (Tanakh, KJV), to populate (NET), was translated οἱ ἐνοικοῦντες (BLB Septuagint), those who dwell (NETS) and πάντες οἱ ἐνοικοῦντες (Elpenor Septuagint), all that dwell (English Elpenor). Finally, תֵבֵֽל (tēḇēl), of the world (Tanakh, KJV), the world (NET), was translated ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, on the earth (NETS), upon the land (English Elpenor).

None of this persuades me that ἀγαπητός in Matthew 12:18 calls the originality of בְּחִירִ֖י, a form of בָּחִיר (bāḥîr) in Isaiah 42:1, into question. On the contrary, ἀγαπητός seems to be a deliberate choice to bind Isaiah 42 to Isaiah 5 and Isaiah 26 in Matthew 12:18, even as it distinguishes Jesus somewhat from Israel (as translated in the Septuagint). Even in the mutilated remains of Isaiah 26:18 in the Masoretic text one finds ר֑וּחַ (rûaḥ) followed by יְשׁוּעֹת֙, a form of יְשׁוּעָה (yᵊšûʿâ; pronounced yesh-oo’-aw), “spirit of salvation.” As Paul wrote: the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.¹⁵ And Matthew wrote that Jesus fulfilled what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah.¹⁶ And the Holy Spirit called Him: my beloved¹⁷ (ὁ ἀγαπητός μου).

Israel…pursued a law that would lead to righteousness¹⁸…as if it were based on works,¹⁹ Paul assessed the failure of his brothers, [his] kinsmen according to the flesh.²⁰ The Masoretes confirmed his assessment: we were pregnant, we writhed, but we have given birth to wind. We have accomplished no deliverance in the earth.²¹ In other words, they did not pursue it by faith²² in the faithfulness of God: Behold my servant, whom I uphold.²³ And many still reject his “spirit of salvation,” Behold, my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved.²⁴

When Bill Harford (Tom Cruise) returned home late on the third night, he found the missing mask he had to purchase from the man who prostituted his own daughter. He found that mask, which he wore in a vain attempt to fit in at a secret orgy hoping in vain to hide his true identity, lying on his pillow in his place in his bed next to his sleeping wife—and he repented.

Tables comparing Exodus 17:12; 17:11; 17:13; Psalm 16:1; 16:2; 16:5; Isaiah 5:1; 5:2; 5:3; 5:4; 26:16; 26:17 and 26:18 in the Tanakh, KJV and NET, and comparing the Greek of Exodus 17:12; 17:11; 17:13; Psalm 16:1 (15:1); 16:2 (15:2); 16:5 (15:5); Isaiah 5:1; 5:2; 5:3; 5:4; 26:16; 26:17 and 26:18 in the Septuagint (BLB and Elpenor), and a table comparing John 3:14, 15 in the KJV and NET follow.