Judah's Priest.

[John D. Brey]

In ancient mythology, god segregated out a people for himself. They were called "priests." And they were produced through jus primae noctis. God got first dibs on the tribe's brides. The firstborn male from every marriage was his son, his priest. Thereafter the bride's offspring were produced through her and her groom and made up the non-priestly clan. The firstborn was the price paid (pidyon haben) for being ruled by and protected by the tribal god.

In the ritual, the bride went into the most holy place of the temple, representing heaven, and placed oil (Heb. semen שמן) on a representation of a divine phallus (yesod) on which she would deflower herself, open her womb (tear the veil of her virginity) on the wooden or metal representation of the divine phallus. In this sense her firstborn was conceived by the tribal god and represented "messiah" which means the one born of the "anointing" of the divine phallus; he's the anointed one out of the rest of her offspring.

Interpreted anthropologically, the first human was the first bride of god, and was supposed to birth his first priest, the firstborn of humanity, messiah. Only thereafter was she to birth the non-priestly clan.

But Eve was the first case of adultery. Though she was created pregnant with god's firstborn (apart from sexual congress), her adultery (sexual congress) produced a twin in her womb, and this twin was born first (though he was second), causing her and the race born of her to begin to raise Cain from the get-go. On the other hand, God's firstborn was subject to an extreme stillbirth that lasted thousands of years.

A horrible thing occurred at Horeb. Because of Israel's sin (the golden calf fiasco) God allowed the birth of the stillborn of Eve as a lithopedion: the tablets of the law. Rather than giving them the living firstborn of creation (Messiah), they got a lithograph of the law that loosely represents the living Word.

The Levitical priesthood was ordained to administer to the law, which, as noted earlier in the thread, was the lithopedion, the lithographic, textual representation, of Messiah, the latter being the living Word. As John the Baptist proclaimed, God could have raised up Abraham's messianic son(s) from those stones if Israel had been willing.

When, in the Gospel of Luke, the Pharisee's chided Jesus for allowing his followers to proclaim him the anointed one, Jesus responded that if his followers weren't allowed to proclaim that truth, it would be left to the stones, the lithopedion, the lithograph, the law, to proclaim the same (Luke 19:40):

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.

John 5:39.
​

The primary point is that the pagan rituals (like the one described above) contain contamination related to the original sin that cast man out of the garden, and into confusion. Israel is the people through whom the pagan rituals will be cleansed of their contamination, their uncleanness.

For example, in the pagan rituals, the virgin bride enters the most holy place of the temple representing the heavenly bedchamber of god (Rashi) where the pagans (of the phallic-cults) have set up a wooden or metal phallic symbol. The veil of the virgin bride, her intact hymen, is torn from the outside in by a divine phallus symbolizing that her firstborn son belongs to the priesthood of the tribal god.

The pagan messiah (anointed one) is messianic, and priestly, because his virgin mother's temple veil was opened by an "anointed" (with holy oil) divine phallus.

Israel's rituals correct the pagan ritual not by obliterating the symbolism (N. Sarna), but by removing the contamination associated with the original sin.

For instance, whereas the veil of the virgin pagan temple (the virgin bride) is opened from the outside in by a divine phallus salubriously prepared for her by anointing it with oil (to make the ordeal less painful), in the Jewish ritual the phallus that opens the veil of the virgin temple (the kohen gadol) has been prepared, anointed, not with oil, but blood (brit milah). The high priest, who opens the veil of the virgin temple (without tearing it), must be circumcised prior to entering into the bedchamber of God (Rashi). The Torah says no intact man can enter behind the veil of the temple.

What that signifies is that the veil of the temple must be opened from the inside out (Matthew 27:51), rather than the outside in, and the messianic individual opening the veil from the inside out, rather than the outside in, must, one, not be conceived through a phallus (the blood that anoints the phallus of the high priest signifies that, birkat kohanim), and two, must therefore be virgin born. He, not some swinging Richard, opens the veil of the temple of his mother to come out of that flesh untainted and uncontaminated by the nature of the original sin (phallic-sex, Heb. semen שמן).

The information above came late in the thread on A New Priesthood. That thread, minus the information above, was edited into an essay derived from the thread The I AM of the Amidah (here). These threads often become difficult to follow. But most of them have an underlying theme that's eventually edited into a coherent and focused line of thought.

This thread (not to be confused with the metal band by a similar name) is interested in the new priesthood come not from Levi, i.e., the Levitical priesthood, but through Judah. The Tanakh is clear that the Levitical priesthood is an everlasting priesthood. This makes the existence of two priesthoods, the Levitical, and the priesthood come through Judah, extremely important. Attempting to understand the nature of a dual-priesthood would probably lend itself to seeing deeper into the division that divides Judaism and Christianity.



John

 

[dybmh]

Maybe there's a simple solution: Israel is a kingdom of priests.

Exodus 19:6 And unto Me you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you are to speak to the Israelites."

 

[John D. Brey]

Maybe there's a simple solution: Israel is a kingdom of priests.

Exodus 19:6 And unto Me you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you are to speak to the Israelites."

That was the original plan. Yes. But then came the Jewish original sin, the golden calf, which ended the original intention, for a time at least, so that the Levitical priesthood was instituted secondarily (because of the golden calf) as a specialized priesthood set apart (Exodus 32:29), to some degree, from the nation as a whole. Every Jewish firstborn male was initially supposed to be a priest (pidyon haben). And the nation was supposed to be a priestly nation (every family contributing the firstborn to the priesthood). There would be no specialized Levitical priesthood.

Which segues into the meat of this thread. Judaism is named from "Judah" יהודה and not "Levi" לוי. So that if not for the golden calf fiasco (requiring the specialized priesthood), the nation of Israel would be a priesthood associated directly with "Judaism" (Judah יהודה) and not with "Levi" לוי (the Levites).

It's the golden calf fiasco that required, or set the precedent, for two priesthoods rather than one. And since the original priesthood would have been Judah, Judaism, the second priesthood (which historically speaking is the first one initiated--the Levitical priesthood) is based on (or is at least a result of) the sin, while the first priesthood, the intended one, is nevertheless the original intent.

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD,
That I will make a new covenant
With the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers
In the day that I took them by the hand
To bring them out of the land of Egypt;
Which my covenant they brake . . .

Jer. 31:31–32



John

 

[paarsurrey]

When exegeting these passages from the Hebrew, one often finds how strong the traditional biases of the Jewish interpreters can be when its seen how the literal text is sometimes run over roughshod to justify the traditional reading. Jeremiah 31:31-32 is a case in point. In the KJV, based on the MT, the text reads that the new covenant will be made with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, as though they're two different entities.

But the Hebrew text uses an alef-tav את (a direct object marker) to separate "Israel" and "Judah." The direct object marker is used like "cum," so that the text should read that God will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, "that is" את, the house of Judah.

John

"In ancient mythology, god segregated out a people for himself. They were called "priests." "

Does one agree that Pauline-Christianity is mythical and based on the myths of Hellenism (dying rising deity), please? Right?

If not, why not, please? Right?

Regards

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

"In ancient mythology, god segregated out a people for himself. They were called "priests." "

Does one agree that Pauline-Christianity is mythical and based on the myths of Hellenism (dying rising deity), please? Right?

If not, why not, please? Right?

Yes. I agree that Pauline-Christianity parallels pagan myths. What the pagans get wrong, through contamination of the spiritual truth, Judaism and Christianity correct through the Holy Spirit.

Nevertheless, there are such close parallels between the pagan and Judeo/Christian myths that Judaism and Christianity can and should study the pagan myths to better understand their own mythology and symbolism.



John

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
"In ancient mythology, god segregated out a people for himself. They were called "priests." "

Does one agree that Pauline-Christianity is mythical and based on the myths of Hellenism (dying rising deity), please? Right?

If not, why not, please? Right?

Yes. I agree that Pauline-Christianity parallels pagan myths. What the pagans get wrong, through contamination of the spiritual truth, Judaism and Christianity correct through the Holy Spirit.
Nevertheless, there are such close parallels between the pagan and Judeo/Christian myths that Judaism and Christianity can and should study the pagan myths to better understand their own mythology and symbolism.
John

Friend @John D. Brey ,please.
" Yes. I agree that Pauline-Christianity parallels pagan myths "

and one knows it for sure that the mythical characters don't and never can exist in reality, please, right?

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

and one knows it for sure that the mythical characters don't and never can exist in reality, please, right?

I think a myth is like a parable. The characters in a parable might not be real, but the idea behind the parable is. The pagan parables, myths, symbols, stories, of a virgin born god man aren't real in the pagan myths, but the birth of a virgin born god man eventually turned out to be real, retroactively justifying or authenticating the myth.

This virgin born god man then established myths and parables that will themselves eventually turn out to be factual, and thus, retroactively justify, or authenticate, the myths and parables given by the virgin born god man.

It's very simple really.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

dybmh said: ↑
Maybe there's a simple solution: Israel is a kingdom of priests.

Exodus 19:6 And unto Me you shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.' These are the words that you are to speak to the Israelites."​

That was the original plan. Yes. But then came the Jewish original sin, the golden calf, which ended the original intention, for a time at least, so that the Levitical priesthood was instituted secondarily (because of the golden calf) as a specialized priesthood set apart (Exodus 32:29), to some degree, from the nation as a whole. Every Jewish firstborn male was initially supposed to be a priest (pidyon haben). And the nation was supposed to be a priestly nation (every family contributing the firstborn to the priesthood). There would be no specialized Levitical priesthood.

מלאו ידכם היום להי ----Dedicate yourselves [lit. Fill your hands] this day to Hashem. Rashi explains that through the act of executing the Divine will the Levites dedicated themselves to become Hashem's ministers. Until that time, the firstborn had carried out the functions of the Divine service, but they had not come forward in answer to Moses' urgent appeal. From then on the descendants of Levi replaced them.

Rabbi Elie Munk, The Call of the Torah, Shemos, 32:29.​

As noted by Rabbi Munk (above), Rashi is clear that the Levites take over the priestly duties of Israel by killing their brothers, "Initiate yourselves: You who kill them, with this thing [act] you will initiate yourselves to be servants [i.e., kohanim] of the Omnipresent" (Rashi). Rabbi Samson Hirsch, whose intuitions are almost unmatched in a Jewish exegete, is recognizably disturbed by the implications of Exodus 32:29 (as should be every other serious exegete). In his commentary on the verse (in The Hirsch Chumash), Rabbi Hirsch uses language which the student of his commentary recognizes as strange for the Rabbi:

After the Levi'im had completed the act that saved the Torah, Moshe said to them: מלאו ידכם היום להי. Continue, in the future, to be what you have begun to be today!​

The statement made by Rabbi Hirsch (above) appears to be an attempt not to focus too directly on the fact that according to Rashi and the Chazal, the Levites become sanctified unto God (that is they become kohanim, priests) by killing their brother(s). This attempt to direct the narrative away from its most disturbing aspect (entry into the priesthood by killing son or brother), does quite the opposite since according to Rabbi Hirsch, the Levites, "save the Torah," specifically by murdering their brother(s). Rabbi Hirsch implies that a Levite who kills his brother, son, mother, in service to his God (thereby defending the written Torah), should understand and be prepared for the fact that he'll be called on to do the same in the future: kill his brother or son to defend the written Torah and the nation.

Ironically, a future high priest of the kohanim, the Levites, Caiaphas, John 18:14, appears to be acting in direct fulfillment of Rabbi Hirsch's reading of Exodus 32:29: Be prepared to kill a brother in the future as you've killed your brother(s) today, that you might be shown willing to kill in order to defend the written Torah scroll.

Now Caiaphas [the high priest of the Levites] is the one who counseled the Jews that it was expedient to kill their brother to save the nation.

John 18:14.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

מלאו ידכם היום להי ----Dedicate yourselves [lit. Fill your hands] this day to Hashem. Rashi explains that through the act of executing the Divine will the Levites dedicated themselves to become Hashem's ministers. Until that time, the firstborn had carried out the functions of the Divine service, but they had not come forward in answer to Moses' urgent appeal. From then on the descendants of Levi replaced them.

Rabbi Elie Munk, The Call of the Torah, Shemos, 32:29.​

As noted by Rabbi Munk (above), Rashi is clear that the Levites take over the priestly duties of Israel by killing their brothers, "Initiate yourselves: You who kill them, with this thing [act] you will initiate yourselves to be servants [i.e., kohanim] of the Omnipresent" (Rashi). Rabbi Samson Hirsch, whose intuitions are almost unmatched in a Jewish exegete, is recognizably disturbed by the implications of Exodus 32:29 (as should be every other serious exegete). In his commentary on the verse (in The Hirsch Chumash), Rabbi Hirsch uses language which the student of his commentary recognizes as strange for the Rabbi. Rabbi Hirsch says:

After the Levi'im had completed the act that saved the Torah, Moshe said to them: מלאו ידכם היום להי. Continue, in the future, to be what you have begun to be today!​

The statement made by Rabbi Hirsch (above) appears to be an attempt not to focus on the fact that according to Rashi and the Chazal, the Levites become sanctified unto God (that is, kohanim, priests) by killing their brother(s). Unfortunately, Rabbi Hirsch's attempt to direct the narrative away from its most disturbing aspect (sanctification by killing son or brother for the Lord), does quite the opposite, since according to Rabbi Hirsch, the Levites, "save the Torah," by murdering their brother(s). Rabbi Hirsch implies that the Levite who kills his brother, son, mother, in service to his God (thereby defending the written Torah), must understand that he will be called on to do the same in the future: kill his brother or son to defend the written Torah and the nation. It's difficult to deny that a future high priest of the kohanim, the Levites, Caiaphas, John 18:14, appears to be actin in direct fulfillment of Rabbi Hirsch's reading of Exodus 32:29: Be prepared to kill a brother in the future as you've killed your brother(s) today (in order to gain your position as the priesthood of the nation), that you might be shown willing to kill in order to defend the written Torah scroll.

Now Caiaphas [the high priest of the Levites] is the one who counseled the Jews that it was expedient to kill their brother to save the nation.

John 18:14.​

Rabbi Munk's commentary on Exodus 32:29 directs the reader of this bizarre sanctification of the Jewish priesthood in the blood of their brother(s) to a passage of scripture found at Genesis 49:5-11:

Simeon and Levi are brethren; Instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; Unto their assembly, mine honour, be not united: For in their anger they slew a man, And in their selfwill they digged down a wall. Cursed be their anger, for for it was fierce, And their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel. Judah, thou are he whom thy brethren shall praise: Thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; Thy father's children shall bow down before thee. . . The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh come, And unto him shall the gathering of the people be.​

Knowing the violent inclinations of Levi, Jacob clarifies not only that the true priesthood will come through Judah, not Levi, but, and this is a bridge too far for Jewish exegetes, Israel (the offspring of father Jacob) "shall bow down before Judah." Israel shall worship the high priest of Judah (Abraham's spiritual son). The high priest of Judah (who gives priestly decrees חק, interpreted "lawgiver") will be a king/priest since the "sceptre" won't depart from Judah's decree-giver before Messiah (Shiloh) has come. Messiah, the king/priest come from Judah, will be Messiah.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Simeon and Levi are brethren; Instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; Unto their assembly, mine honour, be not united: For in their anger they slew a man, And in their selfwill they digged down a wall. Cursed be their anger, for for it was fierce, And their wrath, for it was cruel: I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel. Judah, thou are he whom thy brethren shall praise: Thy hand shall be in the neck of thine enemies; Thy father's children shall bow down before thee. . . The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, Until Shiloh come, And unto him shall the gathering of the people be.

Genesis 49:5-11.​

The passage above is messianic to the core (as are the verses that follow). In the Hebrew, nearly every sentence above hides prophetic nuances related to Messiah. Case in point:

Simeon and Levi are brethren; Instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret.​

Jacob is afraid even to venture toward the deep and secretive סד (sod סד refers to the deepest secret of a text or narrative) nature of Levi's future (to include being sanctified as their brother's priesthood through the blood of their brothers --- sanctifying Israel and the Torah by the blood of a brother). The phrase interpreted and translated "Instruments of cruelty are in their habitations," is, literally, in the Hebrew, "An ornament of violence or torture is their device."

When, in the future, the Levitical priests fulfill their priestly mission (as prescribed by Rabbi Hirsch's commentary on Exodus 32:29), when they torture their brother ----through whose blood their priestly act is sanctified (at the time of the high priest Caiaphas) the "instrument" through which they torture their brother will become an "ornament" כלי worn throughout the world.

Interpreted literally, from the Hebrew, Jacob claims the quintessential "device" מכרתי though which the Levitical priesthood will be remembered and marked, is an "ornament" כלי of "torture" חמס. The Levitical priesthood will be symbolized forever, recognized forever, and this according to father Jacob, by means of an "ornament of torture" כלי חמס related to a future fulfillment of the activities canonized in Exodus 32:29.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Interpreted literally, from the Hebrew, Jacob claims the quintessential "device" מכרתי though which the Levitical priesthood will be remembered and marked, is an "ornament" כלי of "torture" חמס. The Levitical priesthood will be symbolized forever, recognized forever, and this according to father Jacob, by means of an "ornament of torture" כלי חמס related to a future fulfillment of the activities canonized in Exodus 32:29.

The Jewish sages are clear that what Jacob fears in relationship to Levi is a still future act that he wants no part in (Rashbam). He literally wants to be set outside the councils of their future act. Moreover, he wants, and prophesies, Judah, not Levi, to be the priestly tribe, hoping against hope that what he knows is in the make up of Levi won't (though he's sure it will) result in a future act orders of magnitude more disturbing than their past murder of a man after entering into a covenant with him.

Ibn Ezra claims that rather than speaking of the ornament of cruelty as their "device," the word ---מכרתי---- should probably be interpreted to speak of their origin and birth. Rabbi Hirsch discusses this possibility here (Genesis 49:5), and more deeply in his commentary on Deuteronomy 32:5, where God appears to parallel Jacob's desire that he not be associated with the future act of Levi that's causing his (Jacob's) dark foreboding.

Their moral frailty has corrupted them to become non-children; A generation persistent in crookedness, breaking away in opposition.

Deuteronomy 32:5.​

Rabbi Hirsch notes that the passage above "posses considerable difficulties." After noting that the verse appears to say "Corruption is not His; rather, His children ---theirs is the fault" (echoing Jacob in Genesis 49:6 speaking of Levi) Rabbi Hirsch offers commentary that parallels what appears to be going on with Jacob in Genesis 49, if we're inclined to assume Ibn Ezra is correct about Jacob disassociating himself with Levi's future act even though he fathered them (i.e., Jacob is disassociating himself with their very origin or the original sin that is their birth). Jacob appears to be trying to circumcise himself from Levi's future act even as in Deuteronomy 32:5 the Father God (echoing Jacob) appears to be trying to set himself apart from the moral flaws (and their consequences) he sees coming in the future of the nation.

Furthermore, if we have understood these interpretations correctly, שחת is not moral corruption but the social and political disaster that comes in its wake. Accordingly, that would also be the meaning of the parallel term "מום." However, מום is only a personal defect, usually a bodily defect, and by extension it could also be applied to a moral defect; but we can hardly assume that it can also be taken in the sense of a [future] personal or national disaster.​

Rabbi Hirsch is dealing with the difficulty of God blaming, cursing, Israel, for something he himself claims comes "out from" the womb as the natural endowment of the people he endowed as his sons. In his commentary on Isaiah 48:8, Ibn Ezra says that a verse with similar difficulties (verse 8 of Isaiah 48):

. . . alludes to the contradiction that seems to be implied in the fact, that on the one side the destinies of man are settled before his birth, and on the other side, free-will is conceded to him; [as in Jeremiah 1:5 where] the one has been appointed [foreordained or predestined] to be a prophet, the other a sinner.​

Picking up on the problem Rabbi Hirsch is dealing with in Deuteronomy 32, and Genesis 49:5-6, i.e., children being cursed for inborn birth-defects, Ibn Ezra similarly notes the "considerable difficulty" in understanding how, or why, God chides Israel for something that, as Rabbi Hirsch points out, is a characteristic of their birth, at best a birth-defect, and not a moral failing come from their freewill?

מומם: the character defect that clings to them from old ----עמ קשה עורף. In the continuation this defect is described by the expression "דור עקש ופתלתל." The meaning of the whole verse, then, would be: Their age-old defect so corrupted them that they became His non-children, and this ingrained defect of theirs is: דור עקש ופתלתל.

The Hirsch Chumash.​

How can a birth-defect be cursed by the birther? How can Jacob disassociate himself from Levi and the Levites when he birthed them? And more disturbingly, how can God dissociate himself from the children he himself claims to have fathered? How can Israel have a moral flaw associated with their birth as the nation of God, a birth-defect from that birthing, and God not be part and parcel of the defect? How can Jacob or God circumcise themselves from an in-born birth-defect that they, as fathers, surely passed on through the act by which the nation and the priesthood (the Levitical priesthood) was conceived?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The Jewish sages are clear that what Jacob fears in relationship to Levi is a still future act that he wants no part in (Rashbam). He literally wants to be set outside the councils of their future act. Moreover, he wants, and prophesies, Judah, not Levi, to be the priestly tribe, hoping against hope that what he knows is in the make up of Levi won't (though he's sure it will) result in a future act orders of magnitude more disturbing than their past murder of a man after entering into a covenant with him.

Ibn Ezra claims that rather than speaking of the ornament of cruelty as their "device," the word ---מכרתי---- should probably be interpreted to speak of their origin and birth. Rabbi Hirsch discusses this possibility here (Genesis 49:5), and more deeply in his commentary on Deuteronomy 32:5, where God appears to parallel Jacob's desire that he not be associated with the future act of Levi that's causing his (Jacob's) dark foreboding.

Their moral frailty has corrupted them to become non-children; A generation persistent in crookedness, breaking away in opposition.

Deuteronomy 32:5.​

Rabbi Hirsch notes that the passage above "posses considerable difficulties." After noting that the verse appears to say "Corruption is not His; rather, His children ---theirs is the fault" (echoing Jacob in Genesis 49:6 speaking of Levi) Rabbi Hirsch offers commentary that parallels what appears to be going on with Jacob in Genesis 49, if we're inclined to assume Ibn Ezra is correct about Jacob disassociating himself with Levi's future act even though he fathered them (i.e., Jacob is disassociating himself with their very origin or the original sin that is their birth). Jacob appears to be trying to circumcise himself from Levi's future act even as in Deuteronomy 32:5 the Father God (echoing Jacob) appears to be trying to set himself apart from the moral flaws (and their consequences) he sees coming in the future of the nation.

Furthermore, if we have understood these interpretations correctly, שחת is not moral corruption but the social and political disaster that comes in its wake. Accordingly, that would also be the meaning of the parallel term "מום." However, מום is only a personal defect, usually a bodily defect, and by extension it could also be applied to a moral defect; but we can hardly assume that it can also be taken in the sense of a [future] personal or national disaster.​

Rabbi Hirsch is dealing with the difficulty of God blaming, cursing, Israel, for something he himself claims comes "out from" the womb as the natural endowment of the people he endowed as his sons. In his commentary on Isaiah 48:8, Ibn Ezra says that a verse with similar difficulties (verse 8 of Isaiah 48):

. . . alludes to the contradiction that seems to be implied in the fact, that on the one side the destinies of man are settled before his birth, and on the other side, free-will is conceded to him; [as in Jeremiah 1:5 where] the one has been appointed [foreordained or predestined] to be a prophet, the other a sinner.​

Picking up on the problem Rabbi Hirsch is dealing with in Deuteronomy 32, and Genesis 49:5-6, i.e., children being cursed for inborn birth-defects, Ibn Ezra similarly notes the "considerable difficulty" in understanding how, or why, God chides Israel for something that, as Rabbi Hirsch points out, is a characteristic of their birth, at best a birth-defect, and not a moral failing come from their freewill?

מומם: the character defect that clings to them from old ----עמ קשה עורף. In the continuation this defect is described by the expression "דור עקש ופתלתל." The meaning of the whole verse, then, would be: Their age-old defect so corrupted them that they became His non-children, and this ingrained defect of theirs is: דור עקש ופתלתל.

The Hirsch Chumash.​

How can a birth-defect be cursed by the birther? How can Jacob disassociate himself from Levi and the Levites when he birthed them? And more disturbingly, how can God dissociate himself from the children he himself claims to have fathered? How can Israel have a moral flaw associated with their birth as the nation of God, a birth-defect from that birthing, and God not be part and parcel of the defect? How can Jacob or God circumcise themselves from an in-born birth-defect that they, as fathers, surely passed on through the act by which the nation and the priesthood (the Levitical priesthood) was conceived?

Judah, thou are he whom thy brethren shall praise: Thy hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies. Thy father's children shall bow down before thee.

Genesis 49:8.​

In the context of the verses that come before the one above, there's only one literal and viable interpretation of the verse above. It begins with Judah's brethren praising Judah, and ends by saying Jacob's other children will bow down before Judah. What's in the middle, though crucial to the proper exegesis, must be ignored by Jacob's other children: "Thy hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies."

Sandwiched as it is between the phrases on either side of the statement, the proper interpretation is clear that it's Judah's brethren, the other tribes and sons of Jacob, who are the enemy of Judah. In context with all that follows it, Jacob's statement here, claiming that for some reason Judah, unlike the rest of the clan, is free of the in-born birth-defect, such that Israel herself is Judah's sworn enemy, is key to understanding and solving the question posed earlier: how can the father disassociate himself from the son? Throughout the Tanakh, Israel is called "stiff-necked." By claiming that Judah's hand will be upon the stiff neck of Israel, Jacob is prophesying the salvation of Israel, the redemption of their in-born birth-defect, by means of Judah.



John

 

[paarsurrey]

I think a myth is like a parable. The characters in a parable might not be real, but the idea behind the parable is. The pagan parables, myths, symbols, stories, of a virgin born god man aren't real in the pagan myths, but the birth of a virgin born god man eventually turned out to be real, retroactively justifying or authenticating the myth.

This virgin born god man then established myths and parables that will themselves eventually turn out to be factual, and thus, retroactively justify, or authenticate, the myths and parables given by the virgin born god man.

It's very simple really.
John

" born god man "
But Yeshua never claimed to be G-d in an unequivocal manner and gave no reasonable arguments in this connection, please, right?

This is all "made in Rome", one would agree, Right?

Regards

 

[John D. Brey]

" born god man "
But Yeshua never claimed to be G-d in an unequivocal manner and gave no reasonable arguments in this connection, please, right?

This is all "made in Rome", one would agree, Right?

Regards

Those who quoted him from memory, and or oral tradition, i.e., the Gospels, seemed unequivocal in putting his deity in his mouth. Of course that's just heresay so to say. If you've spoken to Jesus personally, as you seem to imply, then disregard everything come through secondary sources, i.e., the Gospels.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

Judah, thou are he whom thy brethren shall praise: Thy hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies. Thy father's children shall bow down before thee.

Genesis 49:8.​

In the context of the verses that come before the one above, there's only one literal and viable interpretation of the verse above. It begins with Judah's brethren praising Judah, and ends by saying Jacob's other children will bow down before Judah. What's in the middle, though crucial to the proper exegesis, must be ignored by Jacob's other children: "Thy hand shall be on the neck of thine enemies."

Sandwiched as it is between the phrases on either side of the statement, the proper interpretation is clear that it's Judah's brethren, the other tribes and sons of Jacob, who are the enemy of Judah. In context with all that follows it, Jacob's statement here, claiming that for some reason Judah, unlike the rest of the clan, is free of the in-born birth-defect, such that Israel herself is Judah's sworn enemy, is key to understanding and solving the question posed earlier: how can the father disassociate himself from the son? Throughout the Tanakh, Israel is called "stiff-necked." By claiming that Judah's hand will be upon the stiff neck of Israel, Jacob is prophesying the salvation of Israel, the redemption of their in-born birth-defect, by means of Judah.

To say Judah's hand is on the neck of Jacob's stiff-necked children segues seamlessly into one of the most problematic passages Israel's sages have ever had to confront:

While the pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them: What think ye of Christ? Whose son is he? They say unto Him: David's. He saith unto them: How then doth David in the spirit call Him Lord, saying: "The Lord hath said unto my Lord: Sit Thou on My right hand until I make Thine enemies the stool of Thy feet?" If David then calls Him Lord, how is He his Son? And no man was able to answer him a word, either durst any one from that day forth question Him further.

Keil and Delitzsch, Psalms 110.​

In their commentary (referred to above) Keil and Delitzsch point out that at the time the Gospels were composed, all, or nearly all, Jewish midrashim and exegesis considered Psalms 110 a Davidic Psalm (composed by David, not, ala Rabbi Hirsch, to David):

Since . . . the prophetico-Messianic character of the Psalm was acknowledged at the time (even as the later synagogue, in spite of the dilemma into which this Psalm brought it in opposition to the church, has never been able entirely to avoid this confession), the conclusion to be drawn from this Psalm must have been felt by the Pharisees themselves, that the Messiah, because the Son of David and Lord at the same time, was of human and at the same time of superhuman nature; that it was therefore in accordance with Scripture if this Jesus, who represented Himself to be the predicted Christ, should as such profess to be the Son of God and of divine nature.

Ibid.
​

Taken in context with all that's been said, Psalm 110 is justifying a simple reading of Genesis 49, where Jacob claims that all his sons will bow at the feet of Judah and praise Judah whom they once made their enemy. In Psalm 110, the scion of Judah, Messiah, will rule in the midst of his enemies, from a divine perch the understanding of which would need to make clear just how Judah, or at least the scion of Judah, Messiah, escapes the in-born birth-defect that affects the rest of the sons of Jacob as it affects all men Jew or Gentile save the Savior from the tribe of Judah?



John

 

[dybmh]

which would need to make clear just how Judah, or at least the scion of Judah, Messiah, escapes the in-born birth-defect that affects the rest of the sons of Jacob as it affects all men Jew or Gentile save the Savior from the tribe of Judah?

The evil inclination ( the in-born birth defect ) can be either subjugated or annihilated. The process for accomplishing this is beyond my understanding, but I know that it is addressed in chassidic mussar literature.

 

[John D. Brey]

The evil inclination ( the in-born birth defect ) can be either subjugated or annihilated. The process for accomplishing this is beyond my understanding, but I know that it is addressed in chassidic mussar literature.

Subjugating it is found throughout Jewish and Christian religion. Annihilating it is a whole other thing.

The idea in the context of this thread is that Jacob's claim that all of his other sons will bow at the feet of a scion of Judah implies that for some rather strange reason, a son, in the line of Judah, Jesse, David, will be born without the evil-inclination such that he doesn't have to subjugate it or annihilate it in himself, but only to destroy its power over his brothers and sisters who though they may be attempting to subjugate and annihilate it, are in truth, merely sublimating and negotiating with it while it rules over them and eventually and inevitably causes their demise.


John

 

[dybmh]

Subjugating it is found throughout Jewish and Christian religion. Annihilating it is a whole other thing.

The idea in the context of this thread is that Jacob's claim that all of his other sons will bow at the feet of a scion of Judah implies that for some rather strange reason, a son, in the line of Judah, Jesse, David, will be born without the evil-inclination such that he doesn't have to subjugate it or annihilate it in himself, but only to destroy its power over his brothers and sisters who though they may be attempting to subjugate and annihilate it, are in truth, merely sublimating and negotiating with it while it rules over them and eventually and inevitably causes their demise.


John

How does Jacob's claim imply that the future king from Judah will be born without the evil inclination? That part doesn't make sense to me.

 

[John D. Brey]

How does Jacob's claim imply that the future king from Judah will be born without the evil inclination? That part doesn't make sense to me.

Any attempt to make it make sense to you would appeal to a hermeneutical principle that's resisted by most Jewish theological thought based on the particularity of a Jewish kind of exegesis. That hermeneutical principle (that I'd use to answer your question) is the belief that all scripture is tied together as a branching-out from a transcendental signifier, or root/origin, in a manner such that if a person dedicates enough time to the study of this living organism, they can actually obtain a fractal-like cipher that's the key to following every branch, be it the prophets, or writings, or law, back toward the root, thereby unifying every narrative (law, prophets, writings), and or every type, throughout the scripture, in a way that proves, at lest to the exegete, that one Author wrote every narrative and did so in a manner that allows each and every narrative to lend itself to every other narrative, or even every word tie itself to every other word, in a meaningful and authoritative manner.

Professor of Jewish Studies at Harvard Divinity school, Jon D. Levenson (who I've quoted in other threads recently) described the situation as such:

I sat in a Protestant seminary listening to a distinguished continental biblicist lecture on old Testament theology. At the end of his talk, he remarked that in a year of research in Israel, he had been unable to find anyone interested in the subject. Finally he had asked a member of the Bible department at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem about this curious situation, and the latter replied…that he thought no-one in Israel…had any interest in the whole exercise…The effort to construct a systematic, harmonious theological statement out of the unsystematic and polydox materials in the Hebrew Bible fits Christianity better than Judaism because systematic theology in general is more prominent and more at home in the church..."

Citing Susan Handelman: "One of the most interesting aspects of Rabbinic thought is its development of a highly sophisticated system of interpretation based on the uncovering and expanding of the primary concrete meaning, and yet drawing a variety of logical inferences from the meaning without the abstracting idealizing movement of Western thought... the search for the one great idea that pervades and unifies the Hebrew Bible is unlikely to interest Jews. Instead, Jewish biblical theology is a likely to be, as it has always been, a matter of piecemeal observations appended to the text and subordinate to its particularity…It is not only that Jews have less motivation than Christians to find a unity or center in their Bible: if they did find one, they would have trouble integrating it with their most traditional modes of textual reasoning. What Christians may perceive as a gain, Jews may perceive as a loss."​

For two-thousand years Jews have been doing their kind of exegesis, and doing it with amazing insight, foresight, and brilliance, while Christians have been doing their kind of exegesis, and doing it pretty well themselves. Neither have paid the proper attention to the other. Neither has fully integrated both kinds of exegesis (though the Jewish kabbalist come closest) in order to present the kind of exegesis and theology that will usher in the kingdom of God.

You and I have the opportunity, probably because of the technological and information explosion we find ourselves in, of seeing things in the scripture that neither the greatest Jewish exegetes, nor the greatest Christian exegetes, caught more than a fleeting glimpse of. To do so we merely need to acknowledge and respect the power of the Jewish exegetical instinct, and unify it with the Christian search for the prism, or cipher, that's a picture of the root, or origin, which (fractal image) can be used to pull everything together into a cohesive whole.

That's obviously a long-winded way of saying I believe what Jacob is saying about Judah in Genesis chapter 49 parallels what David is saying about the scion of Judah in Psalms 110. And that if we merely combine the concepts (found in these two scriptures), we will find a new branch that allows us to descend further down toward the root and source of the larger organism than the branch we've built our tree-house on as though we're prepared to stay put forever.



John

 

[dybmh]

Any attempt to make it make sense to you would appeal to a hermeneutical principle that's resisted by most Jewish theological thought based on the particularity of a Jewish kind of exegesis. That hermeneutical principle (that I'd use to answer your question) is the belief that all scripture is tied together as a branching-out from a transcendental signifier, or root/origin, in a manner such that if a person dedicates enough time to the study of this living organism, they can actually obtain a fractal-like cipher that's the key to following every branch, be it the prophets, or writings, or law, back toward the root, thereby unifying every narrative (law, prophets, writings), and or every type, throughout the scripture, in a way that proves, at lest to the exegete, that one Author wrote every narrative and did so in a manner that allows each and every narrative to lend itself to every other narrative, or even every word tie itself to every other word, in a meaningful and authoritative manner.

Professor of Jewish Studies at Harvard Divinity school, Jon D. Levenson (who I've quoted in other threads recently) described the situation as such:

I sat in a Protestant seminary listening to a distinguished continental biblicist lecture on old Testament theology. At the end of his talk, he remarked that in a year of research in Israel, he had been unable to find anyone interested in the subject. Finally he had asked a member of the Bible department at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem about this curious situation, and the latter replied…that he thought no-one in Israel…had any interest in the whole exercise…The effort to construct a systematic, harmonious theological statement out of the unsystematic and polydox materials in the Hebrew Bible fits Christianity better than Judaism because systematic theology in general is more prominent and more at home in the church..."

Citing Susan Handelman: "One of the most interesting aspects of Rabbinic thought is its development of a highly sophisticated system of interpretation based on the uncovering and expanding of the primary concrete meaning, and yet drawing a variety of logical inferences from the meaning without the abstracting idealizing movement of Western thought... the search for the one great idea that pervades and unifies the Hebrew Bible is unlikely to interest Jews. Instead, Jewish biblical theology is a likely to be, as it has always been, a matter of piecemeal observations appended to the text and subordinate to its particularity…It is not only that Jews have less motivation than Christians to find a unity or center in their Bible: if they did find one, they would have trouble integrating it with their most traditional modes of textual reasoning. What Christians may perceive as a gain, Jews may perceive as a loss."​

For two-thousand years Jews have been doing their kind of exegesis, and doing it with amazing insight, foresight, and brilliance, while Christians have been doing their kind of exegesis, and doing it pretty well themselves. Neither have paid the proper attention to the other. Neither has fully integrated both kinds of exegesis (though the Jewish kabbalist come closest) in order to present the kind of exegesis and theology that will usher in the kingdom of God.

You and I have the opportunity, probably because of the technological and information explosion we find ourselves in, of seeing things in the scripture that neither the greatest Jewish exegetes, nor the greatest Christian exegetes, caught more than a fleeting glimpse of. To do so we merely need to acknowledge and respect the power of the Jewish exegetical instinct, and unify it with the Christian search for the prism, or cipher, that's a picture of the root, or origin, which (fractal image) can be used to pull everything together into a cohesive whole.

That's obviously a long-winded way of saying I believe what Jacob is saying about Judah in Genesis chapter 49 parallels what David is saying about the scion of Judah in Psalms 110. And that if we merely combine the concepts (found in these two scriptures), we will find a new branch that allows us to descend further down toward the root and source of the larger organism than the branch we've built our tree-house on as though we're prepared to stay put forever.



John

Thank you, I still don't see the parallel between Gen 49 and Psalm 110, but at least I have an idea where your theory comes from in scripture.