Exegeting Isaiah 11:1.

[John D. Brey]

What to our untrained eyes often looks like "incongruity," is always, where the scripture is concerned, merely something beyond our exegetical pay grade. Revelation 5:6 is a case in point since Rabbi Samson Hirsch says that Isaiah's description of Messiah ---as found in chapter 11 ---perfectly describes the seven horned lamp in the holy place of the temple.

And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots:
Isaiah 11:1

Joshua/Yahushua/Yeshua is not the branch.

. . . Perhaps he's not, if we rely on incomplete English renditions. A more accurate translation from the Hebrew would read:

And there shall come forth an asexual shoot חטר [hoter] out of the coppiced stump גזע [geza] of Jesse. A Nazarene נצר [nazar] will grow out of his roots שרשי [sores].​

Should someone argue that Yeshua is not a Nazarene, they'd be arguing against the Talmud since even there Jesus is called the "Nazarene," which, "Nazarene," Isaiah happens to equate with "Messiah" throughout his book.

And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.​

​

Matthew 2:23.​

Hear now, O Joshua the high priest, thou, and thy fellows that sit before thee: for they [are] men wondered at: for, behold, I will bring forth my servant the BRANCH.
Zechariah 3:8-9

A clearer statement concerning this "branch" is found later in Zechariah 6:12 which the typical English translation renders:

Behold the man whose name is "branch." He shall grow up out of his place and build the temple of the Lord.​

Whereas Isaiah 11:1 speaks of a "Nazarene" נצר sprouting out of the root of Jesse as an asexual basal-shoot, Zechariah labels this same "branch" with a different Hebrew word צמח [tsemach]. Jesus the Nazarene is also a Tsemach. Which begs the question: What's the relationship between Jesus as a "Nazarene" נצר and Jesus as a "Tsemach" צמח?

I am the vine, ye [are] the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.
John 15:5

Again, the English bollixes this up a bit. The Greek speaks of a vine and the tendrils or small branches that grow out of the vine. A different analogy is being used here than in the broader concept of Jesus as Nazarene and Tsemach.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

Whereas Isaiah 11:1 speaks of a "Nazarene" נצר sprouting out of the root of Jesse as an asexual basal-shoot, Zechariah labels this same "branch" with a different Hebrew word צמח [tsemach]. Jesus the Nazarene is also a Tsemach. Which begs the question: What's the relationship between Jesus as a "Nazarene" נצר and Jesus as a "Tsemach" צמח?

The two words are a match made in heaven so far as relating to Messiah is concerned since Messiah is a "branch" (נצר nazar or netzer) growing out of the coppiced stump (גזע geza) of Jesse, even as Messiah is a "branch" (צמח tsemach) out of the roots of Adam HaRishon אדם הראשון. He's both. And both words lend messianic meaning to the other.

Hebrew etymology reveals that a netzer or nazar is a "basal-shoot," which is an asexual branch growing out of a coppiced stump (a stump cut to the ground) of the original tree such that it's a clone of the original tree (right out of the root) and not a new branch or tree produced from the fruit, and sexual propagation, of the original tree. Isaiah is clear that Jesse's stem, or stump (גזע geza), Jesse's tree of life (his fathering-organ), is coppiced ---ritually speaking ---down to a stump of its natural self through brit milah, ritual circumcision. Messiah is thus a new growth out of the tribe of Judah (the tribe or staff of Jesse) produced as a basal-shoot, a nazar or netzer, which is to say an asexual growth out of the root of the tribe of Jesse, the tribe of Judah.

Symbolically speaking, Messiah is born apart from the sexual propagation that's related to the biological staffs possessed by the men in the tribe of Jesse. In effect, Messiah is born out of the root of the tribe, rather than by means of the biological tribal staff and its natural sexual propagation. Isaiah's clear that so far as Messiah's conception is concerned, the staff that in all other cases propagates the tribal offspring, is, in Messiah's case, a bloody stump (גצע geza). Messiah is not a natural, sexual, product of the tree or staff prior to it being cut down to size in the ritual: brit milah and its symbolism.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Symbolically speaking, Messiah is born apart from the sexual propagation that's related to the biological staffs possessed by the men in the tribe of Jesse. In effect, Messiah is born out of the root of the tribe, rather than by means of the biological tribal staff and its natural sexual propagation. Isaiah's clear that so far as Messiah's conception is concerned, the staff that in all other cases propagates the tribal offspring, is, in Messiah's case, a bloody stump (גצע geza). Messiah is not a natural, sexual, product of the tree or staff prior to it being cut down to size in the ritual: brit milah and its symbolism.

Someone might assume the crux of all this unsolicited exegetical/etymological information shines such a bright light on the nature of Messiah's conception and birth that the prophet Zechariah threatens to bollix it all up by not using the strangely propitious Hebrew word nazar (or netzer) to speak of the Messiah from Nazar-eth? Why doesn't Zechariah authenticate all Isaiah's profoundly insightful etymological information by simply saying: Behold the man whose name is Nazar-ene, instead of, Behold the man whose name is Tsemach? How can saying, Behold the man whose name is Tsemach, possible do anything but confuse the issue come from the stump of Jesse by means of the word "nazar" or "netzer"?



John