Isaiah 53: The Arm of the Lord.

[John D. Brey]

As for a resurrection indicated in Is. 53, I dont see one, and the debate is still out whether this chapter speaks of Jesus in any fashion, even partly if you wanna splice and dice the context-application of who is being spoken of, while the clear context of chap. 53 and the whole book of Isaiah itself shows the Suffering Servant to be Israel, as God's Son, which refers to the entire nation collectively which would also include the Messiah of course (who is one with Isreal), but any particular passage which christians use to apply to Jesus must be interpreted in its proper context. - in this case Jesus just doesnt fit if most the cons against him outweigh the pros, but 'fancy figuring' and apologetics can put their own 'spin' on things

One of the greatest illusions in the world is the idea that we come to our beliefs inductively; that is to say that we see arguments, read the Bible, philosophy, or scientific treatises, and from that we decide if Jesus is God, our Savior, or a mere man. The truth is different. No person can exegete Jesus Christ out of Isaiah 53 unless they already believe he's there. And if they believe that, they believe it for reasons that have nothing to do with reading the Bible or logically calculating the probability that Jesus is the topic of Isaiah 53 let alone their Savior.

Though many people retroactively impute their faith in Christ to reading the Bible, or calculations about what they read in the Gospels, this retroactive activity is a ruse designed to help make sense of what makes no sense: people either know Jesus is their Savior or they don't. Those that do, falsely, retroactively, inductively, impute their knowledge to the Bible, an evangelistic sermon, logic, reason, or scientific acumen; those who don't, do the same thing concerning their lack of belief in the Savior.

I preface an examination of Isaiah 53 with the statement above so that no one thinks any exegesis that might follow is designed to try and convince anyone that Jesus is the topic of Isaiah 53 let alone their Lord and Savior. I don't think that's possible. Nevertheless, I do think Jesus is Lord, and I think Isaiah 53, and the whole of Isaiah, is primarily about Jesus Christ. This being the case, coupled with my belief that it's not in my power, or Isaiah's power, to convince anyone Jesus is both Lord, and the topic of Isaiah 53, my exegesis becomes a mere scientific exercise which I find extremely fulfilling not because I might convince anyone Jesus is the topic of Isaiah 53, or Lord (that's impossible), but because knowing he is, for myself, and then exercising that knowing in a scientific manner in order to logically, and rationally, exegete Isaiah 53 faithfully and scientifically, turns out to be an extremely fulfilling, though selfish, use of my time.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I preface an examination of Isaiah 53 with the statement above so that no one thinks any exegesis that might follow is designed to try and convince anyone that Jesus is the topic of Isaiah 53 let alone their Lord and Savior. I don't think that's possible. Nevertheless, I do think Jesus is Lord, and I think Isaiah 53, and the whole of Isaiah, is primarily about Jesus Christ. This being the case, coupled with my belief that it's not in my power, or Isaiah's power, to convince anyone Jesus is both Lord, and the topic of Isaiah 53, my exegesis becomes a mere scientific exercise which I find extremely fulfilling not because I might convince anyone Jesus is the topic of Isaiah 53, or Lord (that's impossible), but because knowing he is, for myself, and then exercising that knowing in a scientific manner in order to logically, and rationally, exegete Isaiah 53 faithfully and scientifically, turns out to be an extremely fulfilling, though selfish, use of my time.

Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed.​

​

Isaiah 53:1.​

Isaiah's question as to whom the arm of the Lord has been revealed rather undeniably refers back 5 verses to verse 10 of the previous chapter speaking specifically of the naked revelation of the arm of the Lord:

The Lord will lay bare his holy arm in the sight of all the Gentiles and all the ends of the earth will see the yeshua of our God.​

​

Isaiah 52:10.​

Isaiah 53:1 asks to whom the arm of the Lord (prophesied to be revealed in 52:10) has in fact been revealed? And Isaiah 52:10 has the strange answer. Not to Israel, but to all the goyim גוים found throughout the earth.

In that day [Isaiah 52:10] there shall be a root of Jesse, which will stand as a shrine for the people; to it the Gentiles [goyim] will beat a fast path. The shrine where the arm of the Lord rests will be glorious. And it shall come to pass in that day, the Lord shall lift his hand again, a second time, to recover the remnant of Israel. . . He will establish a shrine for the Gentiles, and then assemble the outcasts of Israel and gather the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.​

​

Isaiah 11:10-12.​

Everything in Isaiah 53:1 and 52:10 revolves around the veiled revelation of the "arm of the Lord." Context dictates that the revelation of this "arm of the Lord" is directly related to the Branch Moses raises in his right hand throughout the exodus in order to destroy Israel's enemies and save Israel from the serpents since in Exodus chapter 4, when Moses tries to get out of the hard task of redeeming Israel from the Egyptians, he, Moses, claims, to God, that Israel won't believe him when he says he's seen this arm of the Lord with his own eyes. Israel won't believe him that the arm of the Lord has been revealed to him as a Branch burning with fire that's unable to consume it.

In direct response to Moses' claim, God immediately asks Moses what's in his right hand? A Branch. God has Moses throw it to the ground where it becomes a serpent. He grabs it by the tail and it reverts to the Branch. God says that this serpent-Branch will be a portable burning-bush that he can take with him as a shrine to prove to Israel that the arm of the Lord has been revealed to him in the guise of the Branch or shrine he lifts up in his right hand. As the original Branch can't be consumed by the fire, the Branch/shrine in Moses' right hand can endure the power of the serpent (death) without succumbing to it (Numbers 21:8).

God continues:

Put now thine hand with the serpent Branch/shrine into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom. When he took it out, behold his hand and the Branch were leprous as snow. And God said put thine hand into thy bosom again. And when he plucked it out of his bosom it was healed of leprosy. God said it shall come to pass that if Israel rejects the leprous Branch of the Lord and hearkens not to the voice of the first sign, they will believe the voice of the second sign when the leprous Branch is healed.​

​

Exodus 4:7-8.​

The Rabbis said: His [Messiah's] name is 'the leper scholar,' as it is written, Surely he hath borne our grief, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him a leper, smitten of God, and afflicted.​

​

BT Sanhedrin 98b.​

O God, how long shall the adversary reproach? Shall the enemy blaspheme thy name forever? Why hide your arm in thy right hand? Pluck it out of thy bosom for God is my King of old working salvation in the midst of the earth, thou didst divide the sea by thy strength of thy arm.​

​

Psalm 74:10-13.​

​

Remember the days of old? Moses and his people? Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd rod of his flock? Where is he that put his holy spirit within it? That led them by the right hand of Moses lifting the glorious arm of the Lord: dividing the water before them in order to make himself an everlasting name?​

​

Isaiah 63:11-12.​

Paralleling Isaiah 11:10-12, where it's the Gentiles, the goyim, who make a fast track to the leprous arm of the Lord, in Exodus chapter 4 God prophesies that this will indeed be the case by telling Moses that if the Israelites reject the first sign, the leprous arm of the Lord (which the Gentiles don't reject), fear not, they won't (Israel won't) reject him when he returns healed of his leprosy.

In one of the most difficult verses in the difficult text (Is. 53, 10), YHVH states as a condition of the future life and work of the servant: “if his soul makes a guilt-offering.” Some scholars see in this a “clear and definite” expression of “vicarious expiation.” But the wording does not allow such an interpretation. Asham, “guilt-offering,” means compensation and not expiation. It is the name of the gift which the leper had to bring on the day of his purification (Lev. 4, 11ff). We have no indication as to how we should picture in our minds the future purification of him stricken with the leprosy of the world; but we are told that he must purify himself before he enters upon his duty of bringing to the nations the order of righteousness, and of linking them together to a people of peoples in his capacity as “covenant.”​

​

Martin Buber, The Prophetic Faith, p. 228.​

John

 

[freelight]

One of the greatest illusions in the world is the idea that we come to our beliefs inductively; that is to say that we see arguments, read the Bible, philosophy, or scientific treatises, and from that we decide if Jesus is God, our Savior, or a mere man. The truth is different. No person can exegete Jesus Christ out of Isaiah 53 unless they already believe he's there. And if they believe that, they believe it for reasons that have nothing to do with reading the Bible or logically calculating the probability that Jesus is the topic of Isaiah 53 let alone their Savior.

Though many people retroactively impute their faith in Christ to reading the Bible, or calculations about what they read in the Gospels, this retroactive activity is a ruse designed to help make sense of what makes no sense: people either know Jesus is their Savior or they don't. Those that do, falsely, retroactively, inductively, impute their knowledge to the Bible, an evangelistic sermon, logic, reason, or scientific acumen; those who don't, do the same thing concerning their lack of belief in the Savior.

I preface an examination of Isaiah 53 with the statement above so that no one thinks any exegesis that might follow is designed to try and convince anyone that Jesus is the topic of Isaiah 53 let alone their Lord and Savior. I don't think that's possible. Nevertheless, I do think Jesus is Lord, and I think Isaiah 53, and the whole of Isaiah, is primarily about Jesus Christ. This being the case, coupled with my belief that it's not in my power, or Isaiah's power, to convince anyone Jesus is both Lord, and the topic of Isaiah 53, my exegesis becomes a mere scientific exercise which I find extremely fulfilling not because I might convince anyone Jesus is the topic of Isaiah 53, or Lord (that's impossible), but because knowing he is, for myself, and then exercising that knowing in a scientific manner in order to logically, and rationally, exegete Isaiah 53 faithfully and scientifically, turns out to be an extremely fulfilling, though selfish, use of my time.



John

Hi John,

Aha, good 'foreward' before going on in debate on Is. 53....readers can link back to my original post that started our short relay in the thread about 'God killing Jesus' in this particular chapter here - my responses follow on this page onward in that thread.....

I've been exploring the Jewish interpretation of Is. 53, especially pro-Jewish ministries that are anti-christian missionary in orientation, trying to protect their faith from infiltrating christians twisting their scriptures. Rabbi Tovia Singer and Micheal Skobac are 2 heavy-hitters on the orthodox pro-Jew side of things,...I may look into christian apologist Dr. Michael Browns responses later perhaps.....to see if there are more pros for putting Jesus into the text or cons to leave him out. Since the NT does alot of quoting of OT passages to support its narrative and Jesus fulfilling prophesies, some which are 'twisted' more or less, I dont buy every claim or interpretation of course, but enjoy exploring probabilities/possibilities of how texts MAY be 'translated'. - yes, we all have our own bias or leaning towards readings, but always good to stay open minded, 'scientific approach'.

From my memory, I recall the 'arm' of the Lord refers to his 'power' .....it could probably apply to his messenger or 'messiah' as well, but its all by God's power/spirit anyways - 'God' alone is the Savior....no matter what 'agent' or 'agencies' are used to bring abotu 'salvation'. - all comes full circle.

A couple of Jewish takes below. -

~*~*~

 

[1213]

One of the greatest illusions in the world is the idea that we come to our beliefs inductively; that is to say that we see arguments, read the Bible, philosophy, or scientific treatises, and from that we decide if Jesus is God, our Savior, or a mere man. The truth is different. No person can exegete Jesus Christ out of Isaiah 53 unless they already believe he's there. ...

Difficult to see any other meaning than Jesus for what is said in Isaiah 53, by just reading the Bible. But, is it also so that one thinks it is about Israel, only if he has such belief first?

 

[John D. Brey]

Hi John,

Aha, good 'foreward' before going on in debate on Is. 53....readers can link back to my original post that started our short relay in the thread about 'God killing Jesus' in this particular chapter here - my responses follow on this page onward in that thread.....

I've been exploring the Jewish interpretation of Is. 53, especially pro-Jewish ministries that are anti-christian missionary in orientation, trying to protect their faith from infiltrating christians twisting their scriptures. Rabbi Tovia Singer and Micheal Skobac are 2 heavy-hitters on the orthodox pro-Jew side of things,...I may look into christian apologist Dr. Michael Browns responses later perhaps.....to see if there are more pros for putting Jesus into the text or cons to leave him out. Since the NT does alot of quoting of OT passages to support its narrative and Jesus fulfilling prophesies, some which are 'twisted' more or less, I dont buy every claim or interpretation of course, but enjoy exploring probabilities/possibilities of how texts MAY be 'translated'. - yes, we all have our own bias or leaning towards readings, but always good to stay open minded, 'scientific approach'.

From my memory, I recall the 'arm' of the Lord refers to his 'power' .....it could probably apply to his messenger or 'messiah' as well, but its all by God's power/spirit anyways - 'God' alone is the Savior....no matter what 'agent' or 'agencies' are used to bring abotu 'salvation'. - all comes full circle.

A couple of Jewish takes below. -

~*~*~

As you note, we all have preconceptions and biases that determine how we're predisposed to interpretation and the gleaning of meaning from texts and empirical observations. The scientific-method can't really change the very predisposition that is the prism ---the very microscope --- for what is perceived through that prism such that someone could perceptively say, "Then, dear John, what purpose do you see in doing your `scientific' exegesis if it can't convince anyone who has a preconceived notion different from yours"?

My original answer is that I enjoy doing the science of exegesis and would do it if no one read it (I think I've proven that over the decades I've participated in forums often or even mostly in a solipsistic soliloquized manner stinging together threads with no participants outside myself much of the time).

But there's a second reason for participating in the science of exegesis since when someone engages the exegesis (such as you have by linking to Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53) it provides the opportunity to show how far the rabbit hole of personal, cultural, and religious bias goes, by means of showing that the criteria for belief is never scientific in the first place.

This can be done by showing the factual, scientific, errors, that support interpretations that are other than scientifically motivated. The biases that come through when interpretation thinks it's true, rather than scientific, are subject to revision and correction by the scientific-method.

Which is all a set up to try and show the authenticity of all the foregoing since it allows me to use the scientific-method, scientific exegesis, to point out the biases of interpreters who allow a religious agenda to contaminate the science of their exegesis. Which is to say that I can challenge you, or anyone else, to provide a specific statement from Tovia Singer, or anyone else, that they, or you, think justifies their "Jewish" predisposition for interpretation of Isaiah 53, and I can show, using a scientific-exegesis, that the criteria for Singer's authenticity is not scientific, but personal, cultural, religious. Which is to say their exegesis won't withstand rigorous scientific examination that doesn't use their predisposed bias as the criteria for authenticity.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Difficult to see any other meaning than Jesus for what is said in Isaiah 53, by just reading the Bible. But, is it also so that one thinks it is about Israel, only if he has such belief first?

A rabbi once told the story of how Isaiah 53 was being read during a Shabbat celebration in his mother's home when his elderly, slightly senile mother, came down the stairs scolding in the harshest terms whichever SOB was reading Christian scripture in her home during Shabbat?




John

 

[John D. Brey]

From my memory, I recall the 'arm' of the Lord refers to his 'power' .....it could probably apply to his messenger or 'messiah' as well, but its all by God's power/spirit anyways

The "arm of the Lord" refers not only to God's power, but it's used as a term for his "dwelling presence," which theology refers to as the shekinah glory, "shekinah" being a word based on the Hebrew word "shakan" (שכן) which means "to dwell." The "arm of the Lord" is the shekinah glory where God's presence/glory/power dwells.

Which segues nicely into the exegesis on Exodus 4 where, quite literally interprerted, God tells Moses his serpent-Branch (later named "Nehushtan") is a hand-held shrine or ferula manifesting the burning-Branch, or bush, where he saw God's glory dwelling. Moses hand-held shrine (or ferula) is a manifestation of the "arm of the Lord," which is God's "dwellling glory" (shekinah).

It's appropriate to dwell on that glory since anyone familiar with the fact that the Hebrew letters are pictograms would know that the first letter of the Hebrew word used for God's "dwelling glory" (shekinah) is the letter shin ש which is a pictogram of a bush, branch, or even a thorn-bush, and also represents "fire." The second letter, kaf כ is a pictogram of a hand. The Hebrew word "kaf" literally means "hand." And the last letter is a nun-soffit ן, which is a staff, or rod, or branch, in Hebrew letter symbolism.

The very word for God's "dwelling presence" is a pictogram of a Branch surrounded by fire held in a hand. The Hebrew word of the "arm of the Lord," where God's glory dwells (shakan שכן), is a pictogram of the branch (nun) Moses lifted in his hand (kaf) to represent the burning-bush (shin). The Hebrew word for the dwelling of God's power and glory ----his holy arm ----is a pictogram of Nehushtan as the genesis of the serpent-Branch is described in Exodus chapter 4.

Which is all a long-winded preface to saying that since the "arm of the Lord" definitely refers to God's power, this truism makes Isaiah 52 and 53 all the more paradoxical since in revealing God's holy arm of power, we read that:

His visage was so marred that he could no longer be distinguished as a man.​

​

Isaiah 52:14.​

​

And:

We estemed him stricken, smitten of God, afflicted . . . wounded . . . bruised . . . striped with blood . . . opressed, afflicted . . . cut-off without offspring . . ..​

​

Isaiah 53:4-8.​

Isaiah's "arm of the Lord" ---the dwelling presence of God's glory --- is weak, scorned, afflicted, stripped naked, lifted up in a manner that Gentiles all over the world look up at him exactly as Israel looked up at Moses' rod Nehushtan seeking salvation from death:

As Moses lifted up his serpent-Branch/shrine in the wilderness so must the son of man be lifted up that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life.​

​

John 3:16.​

The Lord said to me, My powerful arm is manifest as complete weakness.​

​

2 Corinthians 12:9.​

John

 

[freelight]

As you note, we all have preconceptions and biases that determine how we're predisposed to interpretation and the gleaning of meaning from texts and empirical observations. The scientific-method can't really change the very predisposition that is the prism ---the very microscope --- for what is perceived through that prism such that someone could perceptively say, "Then, dear John, what purpose do you see in doing your `scientific' exegesis if it can't convince anyone who has a preconceived notion different from yours"?

My original answer is that I enjoy doing the science of exegesis and would do it if no one read it (I think I've proven that over the decades I've participated in forums often or even mostly in a solipsistic soliloquized manner stinging together threads with no participants outside myself much of the time).

But there's a second reason for participating in the science of exegesis since when someone engages the exegesis (such as you have by linking to Jewish interpretations of Isaiah 53) it provides the opportunity to show how far the rabbit hole of personal, cultural, and religious bias goes, by means of showing that the criteria for belief is never scientific in the first place.

This can be done by showing the factual, scientific, errors, that support interpretations that are other than scientifically motivated. The biases that come through when interpretation thinks it's true, rather than scientific, are subject to revision and correction by the scientific-method.

Which is all a set up to try and show the authenticity of all the foregoing since it allows me to use the scientific-method, scientific exegesis, to point out the biases of interpreters who allow a religious agenda to contaminate the science of their exegesis. Which is to say that I can challenge you, or anyone else, to provide a specific statement from Tovia Singer, or anyone else, that they, or you, think justifies their "Jewish" predisposition for interpretation of Isaiah 53, and I can show, using a scientific-exegesis, that the criteria for Singer's authenticity is not scientific, but personal, cultural, religious. Which is to say their exegesis won't withstand rigorous scientific examination that doesn't use their predisposed bias as the criteria for authenticity.



John

That the 'servant' is 'Israel' is very clear and many times spelled out in the chapters concerned in Isaiah, - Israel as God's Son also clearly can refer to Isaiah himself as in one passage, the collective nation of Israel, a righteous remnant, as well as include any or all propets and the Messiah himself, since 'Isreal' is a singular and collective designation,...but to interpret the chapters in their proper context is key here, in the time the text was written and all its figurative possibilities. The traditional orthodox Jewish interpretation seems most rational/logical to the context here, while 'Israel' is the servant, and continues to be in the entire context of the Tanahk. Yehuda indicates this clearly below -

I'm all for exegesis, as well as recognizing our eisegesis as well, plus the most probable/logical interpretation for any passage concerned. The passages speak for themselves, its how people are interpreting them that varies, while Jews are presumed to know their own scriptures better than a reform religion formed later that is reinterpreting the texts per their own agenda. Naturally as we noted,....bias is impossible to exclude, but we can review a text from all of its most logical rational points of most probable translation, if wanting to dissect it all. As they say, the devil is often 'in the details' but we can flesh those out if you like. The Suffering Servant is always ISRAEL,........the prophets and messiah are includes with and as 'Israel', as such holds thru-out the entire OT.

I have no investment as a zealous believer one way or another, but am leaning towards an orthodox Jewish view to see if it continues to hold,...I see no reason to dismiss it....while also allowing the messiah as included as being 'Israel' too as we understand the 'community' implied in the 'name'. - the christian assumes the passage is speaking of Jesus, just an assumption of course. What 'criteria' is applied to Is. 53 to determine who or what audience is being referred also blends together in the wash, so again...all depends on what factors influence and affect one's filter and contextual lens. The Jew awaits still waits for his messiah and the glorification/vindication of Israel, their Messiah will play an important role in that 'time' of course; but 'Isreal' and 'God' revealing himself thru 'Israel' and his people (Son)...is the main theme.


~*~*~

 

[freelight]

The "arm of the Lord" refers not only to God's power, but it's used as a term for his "dwelling presence," which theology refers to as the shekinah glory, "shekinah" being a word based on the Hebrew word "shakan" (שכן) which means "to dwell." The "arm of the Lord" is the shekinah glory where God's presence/glory/power dwells.

Which segues nicely into the exegesis on Exodus 4 where, quite literally interprerted, God tells Moses his serpent-Branch (later named "Nehushtan") is a hand-held shrine or ferula manifesting the burning-Branch, or bush, where he saw God's glory dwelling. Moses hand-held shrine (or ferula) is a manifestation of the "arm of the Lord," which is God's "dwellling glory" (shekinah).

It's appropriate to dwell on that glory since anyone familiar with the fact that the Hebrew letters are pictograms would know that the first letter of the Hebrew word used for God's "dwelling glory" (shekinah) is the letter shin ש which is a pictogram of a bush, branch, or even a thorn-bush, and also represents "fire." The second letter, kaf כ is a pictogram of a hand. The Hebrew word "kaf" literally means "hand." And the last letter is a nun-soffit ן, which is a staff, or rod, or branch, in Hebrew letter symbolism.

The very word for God's "dwelling presence" is a pictogram of a Branch surrounded by fire held in a hand. The Hebrew word of the "arm of the Lord," where God's glory dwells (shakan שכן), is a pictogram of the branch (nun) Moses lifted in his hand (kaf) to represent the burning-bush (shin). The Hebrew word for the dwelling of God's power and glory ----his holy arm ----is a pictogram of Nehushtan as the genesis of the serpent-Branch is described in Exodus chapter 4.

Which is all a long-winded preface to saying that since the "arm of the Lord" definitely refers to God's power, this truism makes Isaiah 52 and 53 all the more paradoxical since in revealing God's holy arm of power, we read that:

His visage was so marred that he could no longer be distinguished as a man.​

​

Isaiah 52:14.​

​

And:

We estemed him stricken, smitten of God, afflicted . . . wounded . . . bruised . . . striped with blood . . . opressed, afflicted . . . cut-off without offspring . . ..​

​

Isaiah 53:4-8.​

Isaiah's "arm of the Lord" ---the dwelling presence of God's glory --- is weak, scorned, afflicted, stripped naked, lifted up in a manner that Gentiles all over the world look up at him exactly as Israel looked up at Moses' rod Nehushtan seeking salvation from death:

As Moses lifted up his serpent-Branch/shrine in the wilderness so must the son of man be lifted up that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have eternal life.​

​

John 3:16.​

The Lord said to me, My powerful arm is manifest as complete weakness.​

​

2 Corinthians 12:9.​

John

All is fine as this is one possible interpretation look at all the data available, so the Lord reveals his power/glory thru his mighty ARM

The Creator uses his Agent(representative) or many different agents to reveal his GLORY, yes...thats pretty awesome. The skekinah is wonderful too, as a feminine aspect of the divine Presence, as is the holy spirit (ruach)....as well as Sophia (wisdom) as all these reflect God the Mother, the divine feminine IMO - but the divine Mother and Goddess are for another thread project.

~*~*~

 

[1213]

A rabbi once told the story of how Isaiah 53 was being read during a Shabbat celebration in his mother's home when his elderly, slightly senile mother, came down the stairs scolding in the harshest terms whichever SOB was reading Christian scripture in her home during Shabbat?

Would be funny, if true. But, I think it is interesting what mental-gymnastics one must practice to think it must be about Israel as nation. I think it being about Jacob, who is called also Israel, would be more fitting than that. And one reason for to think so is that I think nations are not sons but daughters (females) in the Bible, as for example here.

`Fallen, not again to rise, hath the virgin of Israel, Left on her land--she hath no raiser up.'
Amos 5:2

So, if person would not have any bias, how could he ever think it is about the nation?

 

[John D. Brey]

That the 'servant' is 'Israel' is very clear and many times spelled out in the chapters concerned in Isaiah, -

Right. But, as you note below, "Israel" can and does refer to various entities:

Listen to this, O house of Jacob, you who are called by the name of Israel . . . For my own name's sake, I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, so as not to cut you off.​

​

Isaiah 48:1, 9.​

​

You are among us O Lord, and we bear your name; do not forsake us.​

​

Jeremiah 14:8, 9.​

​

O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.​

​

Daniel 9:19.​

Israel as God's Son also clearly can refer to Isaiah himself as in one passage, the collective nation of Israel, a righteous remnant, as well as include any or all propets and the Messiah himself, since 'Isreal' is a singular and collective designation,...but to interpret the chapters in their proper context is key here, in the time the text was written and all its figurative possibilities. The traditional orthodox Jewish interpretation seems most rational/logical to the context here, while 'Israel' is the servant, and continues to be in the entire context of the Tanahk.

The same mysterious dialectic found throughout Isaiah is found throughout the Tanakh. In one place the servant of God is praised and beloved above all, in another, Israel, the servant, is rejected by God for unbelief, sin, and utter rejection of God. There's a righteous servant, and an unrighteous servant; and they're distinguished not according to the interpretation passed down through the Masoretic interpretation of the signature text (the so-called "Old Testament"), but only through the most careful exegesis done on the signature text (rather than abiding by the Masoretic imposition that nails down the "Jewish" reading of the text).

It's important to point out that by removing the Jewish/Masoretic "points" (that codify the "Jewish" interpretation of the signature text) we're not left with a "Christian" interpretation of the signature text. We're left with a text that lends itself to the exegete who can set aside eisegesis based on religious and cultural presupposition and abide by a scienfic examination of the most literal meaning of the text. Admittedly this can be like walking through lexicographical land-mines since the text is many times quasi-oxymoronic: literally-allegorical.

In many passages throughout Isaiah the dialectical language is paralleled in the same chapter somewhat clearly implying an undeniable distinction between a corrupt Israel and a righteous Israel. In fact, there's an argument that the dialectic between a corrupt servant and a righteous servant pivots on the distinction between the singular servant (and his direct offspring) versus a collective servant named Israel. This distinction between a singular servant with his own direct offspring is extremely important since this singular servant is called the singular "seed of Abraham" while his direct descendants are, amazingly, juxtaposed against the collective seed of Abraham that is the nation of Israel.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

In many passages throughout Isaiah the dialectical language is paralleled in the same chapter somewhat clearly implying an undeniable distinction between a corrupt Israel and a righteous Israel. In fact, there's an argument that the dialectic between a corrupt servant and a righteous servant pivots on the distinction between the singular servant (and his direct offspring) versus a collective servant named Israel. This distinction between a singular servant with his own direct offspring is extremely important since this singular servant is called the singular "seed of Abraham" while his direct descendants are, amazingly, juxtaposed against the collective seed of Abraham that is the nation of Israel.

For You are our Father ---for Abraham did not attend to us, and Yisrael will not want to recognize us. You, O God, are our Father, our "Redeemer from all eternity" is Your Name."​

​

Julius Hirsch, The Book of Yeshayah, 63:16.​

Isaiah 63:16 has been a thorn in the side of Jewish exegetes for a long time, since it implies the speaker in Isaiah 63:16 is someone other than the Israelites born in the line of Isaac and Jacob. If the speakers in Isaiah 63:16 were the Israelites born in the line of Isaac and Jacob, then why is Isaac left out of the notation of Abraham and Israel. "Israel" is firstly a name associated with Jacob, prior to the nation of Israel. If the speakers in Isaiah 63:16 are the nation of Israel, then the text should refer to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob/Israel, rather than merely Abraham and Israel? Where's Isaac? The text seems to be implying that Abraham, and the nation, are blind to the true sons of God.

The Talmud foretells that God will tell both Abraham and Jacob about their descendant's guilt. They will both respond that Israel should be destroyed in the sanctification of God's Name. Only Isaac will defend them, insisting that they are God's children as much as they are his, and that his own merit of offering himself as a sacrifice should be sufficient to warrant their salvation. Whereupon the nation will say to Isaac, "You are our father; Abraham may not know us and Israel may not recognize us." Isaac will respond that they should direct their praise to God, saying, "You Hashem are our Father; `our Eternal Redeemer' is Your Name" (Shabbos 89b). Thus, the criticism of the Patriarchs implied in this verse does not apply to Isaac.​

​

The Milstein Edition, The Prophets, Isaiah (63:16).​

Not supporting the self-aggrandizing nonsense above, Isaiah says, as the very mezuzah into his prophetic book:

The ox knows his master, the donkey his owner's manger, but Israel does not know, my people do not understand. Ah, sinful nation, a people loaded with guilt, a brood of evildoers, children given to corruption! They have forsaken the Lord; they have spurned the holy One of Israel and turned their backs on him [for they knew him not].​

​

Isaiah 1:3-4.​

Throughout Isaiah we have language like this interspersed and juxtaposed with extreme love for the suffering servant, who is also paralleled with the "arm of the Lord" (which is typically a reference to the power of divinity). That this brood of evildoers and vipers is made to speak of the same collective nation, as though they save themselves (or Isaac does), can't be made to jibe with serious exegesis of the text involved. The Jewish interpetation rides roughshod over a fundamental distinction found throughout the book of Isaiah between a singular seed of Abraham (and offspring "formed" from him) versus the collective seed of Abraham come through the patriarchal line the old fashioned way: phallic-sex.

In his opening salvo Isaiah says the ox knows his master and the donkey his owners manger but the people of Israel do not understand. Likewise, in Isaiah 43:20 the prophet says even the wild animals know God and honor him, as do the chosen ones he formed for himself:

And yet your have not called upon me O Jacob, you have not wearied yourselves for me, O Israel.​

​

Isaiah 43:22.​

The animals (domestic and wild) know the Lord and honor him, as do a new people he has "formed" for himself. But Israel, not so much. In their own minds they're born just fine the first time, as the collective seed of Abraham's intact patrilineal favor. They've no need for a new name, a new forming, a new seminal branch, nor even a new birth, come (so to say) after the ritual (or real) removal of the organ formerly associated with patrilineal favor. Collective-Israel fancies themselves favored by having been born through the organ Abraham only symbolically scathed such that no new kind of forming or naming need apply here. Abraham's natural-born seed are born just fine the first time since Abraham didn't really cut clean through to the truth of why a new seminal branch, the one found in Isaiah 53:2, is even necessary.




John

 

[freelight]

Right. But, as you note below, "Israel" can and does refer to various entities:

Listen to this, O house of Jacob, you who are called by the name of Israel . . . For my own name's sake, I delay my wrath; for the sake of my praise I hold it back from you, so as not to cut you off.​

​

Isaiah 48:1, 9.​

​

You are among us O Lord, and we bear your name; do not forsake us.​

​

Jeremiah 14:8, 9.​

​

O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name.​

​

Daniel 9:19.​

The same mysterious dialectic found throughout Isaiah is found throughout the Tanakh. In one place the servant of God is praised and beloved above all, in another, Israel, the servant, is rejected by God for unbelief, sin, and utter rejection of God. There's a righteous servant, and an unrighteous servant; and they're distinguished not according to the interpretation passed down through the Masoretic interpretation of the signature text (the so-called "Old Testament"), but only through the most careful exegesis done on the signature text (rather than abiding by the Masoretic imposition that nails down the "Jewish" reading of the text).

It's important to point out that by removing the Jewish/Masoretic "points" (that codify the "Jewish" interpretation of the signature text) we're not left with a "Christian" interpretation of the signature text. We're left with a text that lends itself to the exegete who can set aside eisegesis based on religious and cultural presupposition and abide by a scienfic examination of the most literal meaning of the text. Admittedly this can be like walking through lexicographical land-mines since the text is many times quasi-oxymoronic: literally-allegorical.

In many passages throughout Isaiah the dialectical language is paralleled in the same chapter somewhat clearly implying an undeniable distinction between a corrupt Israel and a righteous Israel. In fact, there's an argument that the dialectic between a corrupt servant and a righteous servant pivots on the distinction between the singular servant (and his direct offspring) versus a collective servant named Israel. This distinction between a singular servant with his own direct offspring is extremely important since this singular servant is called the singular "seed of Abraham" while his direct descendants are, amazingly, juxtaposed against the collective seed of Abraham that is the nation of Israel.



John

I think a compromise most take is it Israel refers to both the collective and singular 'Servant-Son', while it is still always Israel being God's chosen (no mention of Jesus), no matter if one spiritualizes 'Israel' or not as Paul and other christian theologians have done to graft themselves into the Vine, so to speak -The orthodox Jews still have a solid case for their traditional interpretation of their text (masoretic or otherwise) of there being no room for Jesus being referred to in the passages, even if apologists have managed to widen so much 'wiggle room' wherever any space affords.

The Lord has always been revealing his saving ARM to his people and thru his people Israel. Jesus failed the messianic expectations and prophecies of the Jews, hence their rejection of him; - who knows if their messiah will come?....besides a universal global ascension or upliftment of humanity by their own evolution and cooperation with Spirit, to bring in the New Age so to speak. And so....the planet awaits this new Utopia......has Christianity brought it about on earth so far? (2 millenia). Granted have other religious faith-traditions also assisted or retarded our soul growth? (Univesal Spirit indwells and pervades all, so each vessel of creation has some part in the whole). I think a more spiritualist route of all souls discovering the Christ within and with that 'repentance (change of consciousness), will usher in a time of universal peace (salvation, enlightenment) where natural and divine law is fulfilled within the heart (new covenent of heart/spirit), so the kingdom becomes a living reality here on earth. - granted while we entertain such ideals and possibilities, there is still individual free will and factors making for so many probable outcomes/futures, moment to moment.

The Jews still await their messiah and christians await Jesus assumed '2nd coming', but one might also see these as just wishful thinking, beyond what we do for ourselves by our own god-given powers to produce....but all works together as weaves in the bigger picture

'Christ in you, the hope of glory'......'YOU are the temple of divinity'.....'the kingdom of heaven is within you'.......'Spirit is life'......all comes back to abiding in love and 'God-consciousness'....call it 'Christ-consciousness' if you will. All life is a co-creation...if we truly have free will to cooperate or retard our eternal progression.

In the setting of the Tanahk.....the messiah is to rule in the designated city and all nations will be drawn to worship the 'God' of 'Israel', - if this will all unfold to the "t" of what scripture says in 'Jerusalem', again we come back to what is 'literal' and 'figurative', so yes.....its all word-salad.....at last its what meanings and value the language grants us and whatever context, if such a way actually fosters in us a realization of 'God' or any semblence of truth. The nations will be amazed so says the prophet as 'God' glorifies his servant Israel,...thats the main theme, of which we can translate in so many ways to include ourselves in that 'collective' as we join in faith to that 'love-covenant', and say YES to the divine process. Is 'Christ' being FORMED In us? - well, Paul thought so, so used his own language to articulate his own 'version' of the 'gospel'. We get to choose our 'versions' and be open to continually re-interpret those as needed.


~*~*~

 

[Yokefellow]

@John D. Brey . I ran your posts through my Bible Euphemism Rosetta Stone to see what I could find. The results surprised me.

I will begin with this verse...

Isaiah 52:1
"Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean."

New Jerusalem represents the Womb of Sarah. Mount Zion represents the Phallus of God that will fertilize the Ovum on the Tree of Life. Pay special attention to the fact that the 'uncircumcised Phallus' will not be able to penetrate the 'Gates of the Womb'. We are looking at Euphemism here. Thus, the phrase 'put on thy strength' has to do with consummation of the marriage. In other words, the Bridegroom must 'get in the mood' and ensure that there is plenty of 'libido' so that the Phallus can 'put on strength' and do its job.

Now here is the verse that surprised me...

Isaiah 51:9
"Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?"

Could it be that the 'Arm of the LORD' is being used as a euphemism for the Phallus in the above verse? Once again, we see that it must 'put on strength' as it did a long time ago when Rahab (Egypt) was 'cut' and the Dragon (Pharaoh) was wounded. We are looking at a picture of Phallus vs. Phallus. God's Phallus won the battle... lol.

I believe that each head of the Dragon in Revelation represents the Male Phallus that conceived the various Antichrists throughout history. I also believe that Pharoah was the first Antichrist, thus Pharoah represents the first 'head' of the Dragon that conceived him.

In this next verse, we see the Serpent (Phallus) is casting a 'flood' of semen out of its 'mouth' towards the Woman on the Moon...

Revelation 12:15
"And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood."

I believe the Moon represents the Ovum of Sarah. The Sun she is clothed with is Abraham's Seed. The Dragon is now angry that his Serpent Seed did not conceive first.

Anyhow, the point I am making is that the 'Arm of the LORD' is representative of how the Phallus of God conceived Isaac, and later it conceived the Nation of Israel. Thus, when the Arm of the LORD put on strength as in the ancient days, it was a euphemism for marriage consummation (Ovum Fertilization) having to do with Abraham/Sarah or perhaps Moses/Israel (birth of a Nation).

Now, let us plug the above information into the 'Rod'.

When a Rod is a Serpent, it represents the 'non-aroused' (no strength) Phallus. When a Rod 'hardens', it represents the 'aroused' or 'awakened' Phallus. The Seed of the Serpent of course is what comes out of the Phallus.

Let us now look at the following verse...

Isaiah 53:1-2
"Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the LORD revealed? For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him."

The Arm of the LORD is now a 'he'! It is a person! Who? Why it is Abraham's Seed that must be 'lifted up'...

John 12:34
"The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that Christ abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, The Son of man must be lifted up? who is this Son of man?"

The Phallus must be 'lifted up', in other words, it must 'put on strength'.

John 12:38
"That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed?"

Abraham's Seed sits on top of the Phallus of Mount Zion, ready to consummate the marriage...

Revelation 14:1
"And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Sion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father’s name written in their foreheads."

Again, this is the verse at the beginning of my post...

Isaiah 52:1
"Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean."

The Nations become Abraham's Seed and 'flow' (like semen) out of God's 'superior' Phallus, reaching ever so high...

Isaiah 2:2
"And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD’S house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it."

The semen flows into the 'Gates' of the New Jerusalem Womb.

OK, if you are able to comprehend what I wrote through the lens of euphemism, you should now be able to decipher the following verses...

Isaiah 52:7-10
"How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion. Break forth into joy, sing together, ye waste places of Jerusalem: for the LORD hath comforted his people, he hath redeemed Jerusalem. The LORD hath made bare his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations; and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God."

The phrase 'made bare' often has to do with being naked and exposing private parts, correct? The Phallus of God is exposed for all to see. The Salvation of our God is Abraham's Seed that comes from the Phallus, symbolized by the Holy Arm, Serpent on a Pole and the Rods of Aaron and Moses.

The so called 'Shekinah Glory' represents Conception in the Most Holy Place of the Temple Zygote where Aaron's Rod is stored under the 'Covering' where we are 'knit together' in the 'heart of the Earth' and the Womb of Jerusalem...

Job 10:11 (Berean Standard Bible)
"You clothed me with skin and flesh, and knit me together with bones and sinews."

Strong's Hebrew 5526: cakak
Definition: to overshadow, screen, cover

Strong's Hebrew: 5526. סָכַך (cakak) -- cover

 

[John D. Brey]

In the setting of the Tanahk.....the messiah is to rule in the designated city and all nations will be drawn to worship the 'God' of 'Israel', - if this will all unfold to the "t" of what scripture says in 'Jerusalem', again we come back to what is 'literal' and 'figurative', so yes.....its all word-salad.....at last its what meanings and value the language grants us and whatever context, if such a way actually fosters in us a realization of 'God' or any semblence of truth. The nations will be amazed so says the prophet as 'God' glorifies his servant Israel,...thats the main theme, of which we can translate in so many ways to include ourselves in that 'collective' as we join in faith to that 'love-covenant', and say YES to the divine process. Is 'Christ' being FORMED In us? - well, Paul thought so, so used his own language to articulate his own 'version' of the 'gospel'. We get to choose our 'versions' and be open to continually re-interpret those as needed.

In response, I'd point out the juxtaposition between the Jewish concept of redemption (i.e., the righteous collective of men ---Jews, and those serving that type of worldview, e.g., your statement above ---bring it about), versus the Christian idea that the final redemption will come like a thief in the night. In the Christian concept, the redemption doesn't come through human works, evolution, or scientific acumen and growth; not even psychological or religious growth and maturity. It's a work alone of Christ alone. Isaiah 59:16–19 says:

16 And he saw that there was no man,​

And wondered that there was no intercessor:​

Therefore his arm brought salvation unto him;​

And his righteousness, it sustained him.​

17 For he put on righteousness as a breastplate,​

And an helmet of salvation upon his head;​

And he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing,​

And was clad with zeal as a cloke.​

18 According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay,​

Fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies;​

To the islands he will repay recompence.​

19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west,​

And his glory from the rising of the sun.​

When the enemy shall come in like a flood,​

The Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.​

The passage of scripture above, Isaiah 59:16-19, shows some of the same problems found in the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 since when verse 16 says: "And I saw that there was no man, And wondered that there was no intercessor: Therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness sustained him," it's difficult to imagine this speaking of Jews or the Jewish-collective Israel. Would the Jews, and Israel, be astounded that the Gentiles didn't produce intercession for them before God? Seriously? Or does a singular Jew wonder that that nation which arises specifically to prepare a place for him failed miserably: they didn't prepare a place for him, such that when he arrives he marvels at Israel's disbelief and uses his own strong arm to do it alone?

Here, and Isaiah 53, Israel and the Jews must (if the Jewish interpretation is correct exegesis) become the collective "arm of the Lord"; they must be utterly righteous in comparison with the mere sinners that they save or kill according to their godlike power and authority. They affect their own salvation; they're going to singularly take part in (or are the salvific arm of) tikkun olam; they will singularly, from their own downright ornery righteousness and good deeds, redeem the whole world (tikkun olam) from its sins and unrighteousness, none of which is theirs; they then kill whomever they judge worthy of death. The world will then fear the name of collective-Israel, the nation, since it's clealry a direct surrogate, in place of Christ, for God himself.

The famous commentary of Kiel and Delitzsch points out numerous rather serious antinomies so far as the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 is concerned. Getting verse one correct is obviously of great importance: who is speaking, and to whom?

We hear the first lamentation (the question is, From whose mouth does it come?) in Isa 53:1 : "Who hath believed our preaching; and the arm of Jehovah, over whom has it been revealed?" "I was formerly mistaken," says Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, ii. 1, 159, 160), "as to the connection between Isa 53:1 and Isa 52:13-15, and thought that the Gentiles were the speakers in the former, simply because it was to them that the latter referred.​

Keil and Delitzsch quote Hofmann carefully exegeting the first verse in Isaiah 53. Hofmann originally thought Gentiles were speaking in Isaiah 53:1 since it's clearly the Gentiles referred to in Isaiah 52:13-15:

"But I see now that I was in error. It is affirmed of the heathen, that they have never heard before the things which they now see with their eyes [52:15]. Consequently it cannot be they who exclaim, or in whose name the inquiry is made, Who hath believed our preaching?" Moreover, it cannot be they, both because the redemption itself and the exaltation of the Mediator of the redemption are made known to them from the midst of Israel as already accomplished facts [after 30 CE], and also because according to Isa 52:15 (cf., Isa 49:7; Isa 42:4; Isa 51:5) they hear the things unheard of before, with amazement which passes into reverent awe, as the satisfaction of their own desires, in other words, with the glad obedience of faith.​

Isaiah 51:13-15 speaks of the Gentiles since "that which they had not been told they shall see." Keil and Delitzsch note that Isaiah 51:15 is clearly speaking of the Gentiles since what they come to see comes to them from "the midst of Israel" for whom the concept of a Jewish messiah is already known. When the Gentiles accept the redeemer it's wholly from Israel that his identity is made known to them. Without Israel they're blind to the things that hadn't been revealed but through Israel. Ergo, according to the logic of Keil and Delitzsch, Isaiah 53:1 is definitely not the Gentiles speaking.

And we may also add, that the expression in Isa 53:8, "for the transgression of my people," would be quite out of place in the mouths of Gentiles, and that, as a general rule, words attributed to Gentiles ought to be expressly introduced as theirs. Whenever we find a "we" introduced abruptly in the midst of a prophecy, it is always Israel that speaks, including the prophet himself (Isa 42:24; Isa 64:5; Isa 16:6; Isa 24:16, etc.).​

​

Keil, C. F.; Delitzsch, Franz. Commentary on the Old Testament . Kindle Edition.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Isaiah 52:1
"Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean."

Isaiah 51:9
"Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the LORD; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it that hath cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon?"

The parallel between these two verses lends itself to the spirit of this thread ---the arm of the Lord in Isaiah 53 ----since we see that Zion and the strong arm of the Lord are not only the same entity, but that they're represented by a specific Branch which, this particular Branch, is undeniably (see exegesis earlier in this thread) a portable "burning-Branch/bush" which is where the shekinah presence of the Lord was first laid bare for Moses' eyes. It's Moses' serpent-Branch that defeats Pharaoh's pride (Rahab) and the serpents that fight for Pharaoh's dragon-god in Exodus 7:12. It's Moses serpent-Branch that performs miracles, splits the sea, and even has power over death: Numbers 21:8.

Could it be that the 'Arm of the LORD' is being used as a euphemism for the Phallus in the above verse?

I think it's important to reverse that. The phallus is a fleshly symbol for the arm of the Lord. It's not until the arm of the Lord is bled (like the phallus, brit milah) that the presence of God is nakedly revealed:

Some of the Rabbis read circumcision as a necessary preparation for seeing God, the summum bonum of late-antique religious life . . . That is, circumcision here is not the sign of something happening in the spirit of the Jew, but it is the very event itself --- and it is, of course, in his body. Moreover, as I have argued elsewhere, for the rabbinic formulation, this seeing of God was not understood as the spiritual vision of a platonic eye of the mind, but as the physical seeing of fleshly eyes at a real moment in history.​

​

Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew, p. 126.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Anyhow, the point I am making is that the 'Arm of the LORD' is representative of how the Phallus of God conceived Isaac, and later it conceived the Nation of Israel.

Typologically, logically, and scripturally, it conceives Iaac as a ritual emblem of virgin birth (since sacrificial blood always, every single time, throughout the Tanakh, implies the utter cessation of the flesh where the blood is drawn; the sacrificial flesh never survives to live another day or father another son). And make no mistake, Judaism isn't mistaken, they know ritual circumcision is a ritual sacrifice of the fathering organ such that if the ritual became reality Isaac would, like Jesus Christ, be born of the blood of the sacrifice; in which case he'd be reckoned virgin born.

Now, let us plug the above information into the 'Rod'.

When a Rod is a Serpent, it represents the 'non-aroused' (no strength) Phallus. When a Rod 'hardens', it represents the 'aroused' or 'awakened' Phallus. The Seed of the Serpent of course is what comes out of the Phallus.

Put into my own terminological logic, "uncircumcision" speaks of the toxic masculinity that flow through an ithyphallic male-organ since typologically and logically circumcision is a ritual designed to take place under the chuppah: the father-in-law (described by a Hebrew word that means "circumciser") insures that, ritually speaking, his son-in-law will never have an ithphallic (uncircumcised organ) since by ritually emasculating him under the chuppah, he eliminates the possibility of his son-in-law or his daughter ever giving birth to a Genitile (a person born of an unbled male genital).

Ritually speaking, circumcision makes every Jew virgin born. The only good phallus is a bled phallus. As the only good arm of the Lord (who is the true Priapus) is a bled Pripaus. Which is why the cross is so emblematic throughout religious thought.

As a side note, yesterday I participated in a virtual shabbat service (the Park Avenue synagogue is live-streamed) as I'm wont to do. It's fitting that the altar at the synagogue, as is typical, has a veil covering the altar where the Torah scrolls are kept. Where this curtain, veil, or fore skene, is found in the synagoge, a giant crucifix is nakedly revealed in the Catholic cathedral. Remove the fore skene of the synagogue, circumcise the altar of the synagogue, and the eyes of the Gentile are agog seeing the redeemer of the sins of the world revealed bleding just like the male flesh at a ritual circumcision when the fore skene of that flesh (the curtian hiding what's beneath) is removed:

Some of the Rabbis read circumcision as a necessary preparation for seeing God, the summum bonum of late-antique religious life . . . That is, circumcision here is not the sign of something happening in the spirit of the Jew, but it is the very event itself --- and it is, of course, in his body. Moreover, as I have argued elsewhere, for the rabbinic formulation, this seeing of God was not understood as the spiritual vision of a platonic eye of the mind, but as the physical seeing of fleshly eyes at a real moment in history.​

​

Daniel Boyarin, A Radical Jew, p. 126.​

John

 

[Yokefellow]

Wow @John D. Brey . Amazing responses as usual.

I just realized that there is a Burning Bush on top of the Phallus of Mount Sinai in that Seder Masochism cartoon...

Someone knows the Secret... lol.

I want to share something that I am still researching. As you know, I believe that the Bible teaches a form of Reincarnation through the Lake of Fire.

I have been looking into how Jesus may have reincarnated. In fact, it may have been seven times. This particular verse is one of the ones I am focusing on...

Psalms 12:6
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

• Jesus would be the 'Word'.
• The 'Furnace of Earth' is the Lake of Fire (i.e., the Womb of an Earthly Mother).
• 'Purified seven times' means Jesus was reincarnated seven times.

Anyhow, your comments about Isaac really help prove my theory because I believe this next verse is basically Jesus admitting he was Isaac...

John 8:56
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."

The word 'rejoiced' is often used when a Child is born...

Proverbs 23:24
"The father of the righteous shall greatly rejoice: and he that begetteth a wise child shall have joy of him."

Abraham rejoiced to see Isaac. This would fit with Sarah being the Woman on the Moon giving birth to Isaac, who would later reincarnate into King David and others to finally become the One to be caught up to the Throne...

Revelation 12:5
"And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne."

Maybe it helps solve that one verse that people have so much trouble with?

Psalms 110:1
"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

Oh, and as a side note, the Rod of Iron represents Electromagnetism, i.e., the Power of the Holy Ghost.

The Spirit is what 'quickens' the Rod of RNA.

 

[John D. Brey]

Wow @John D. Brey . Amazing responses as usual.

I just realized that there is a Burning Bush on top of the Phallus of Mount Sinai in that Seder Masochism cartoon...

View attachment 84827

Someone knows the Secret... lol.

I want to share something that I am still researching. As you know, I believe that the Bible teaches a form of Reincarnation through the Lake of Fire.

I have been looking into how Jesus may have reincarnated. In fact, it may have been seven times. This particular verse is one of the ones I am focusing on...

Psalms 12:6
"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times."

• Jesus would be the 'Word'.
• The 'Furnace of Earth' is the Lake of Fire (i.e., the Womb of an Earthly Mother).
• 'Purified seven times' means Jesus was reincarnated seven times.

Anyhow, your comments about Isaac really help prove my theory because I believe this next verse is basically Jesus admitting he was Isaac...

John 8:56
"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad."

The word 'rejoiced' is often used when a Child is born...

Proverbs 23:24
"The father of the righteous shall greatly rejoice: and he that begetteth a wise child shall have joy of him."

Abraham rejoiced to see Isaac. This would fit with Sarah being the Woman on the Moon giving birth to Isaac, who would later reincarnate into King David and others to finally become the One to be caught up to the Throne...

Revelation 12:5
"And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne."

Maybe it helps solve that one verse that people have so much trouble with?

Psalms 110:1
"The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

Oh, and as a side note, the Rod of Iron represents Electromagnetism, i.e., the Power of the Holy Ghost.

View attachment 84828

The Spirit is what 'quickens' the Rod of RNA.

There's little doubt that when most people read our posts they see clear examples of parallelomania. And we might see in our interlocutors parallelophobia. Both are real phenomena that must be guarded against.




John

 

[freelight]

In response, I'd point out the juxtaposition between the Jewish concept of redemption (i.e., the righteous collective of men ---Jews, and those serving that type of worldview, e.g., your statement above ---bring it about), versus the Christian idea that the final redemption will come like a thief in the night. In the Christian concept, the redemption doesn't come through human works, evolution, or scientific acumen and growth; not even psychological or religious growth and maturity. It's a work alone of Christ alone. Isaiah 59:16–19 says:

16 And he saw that there was no man,​

And wondered that there was no intercessor:​

Therefore his arm brought salvation unto him;​

And his righteousness, it sustained him.​

17 For he put on righteousness as a breastplate,​

And an helmet of salvation upon his head;​

And he put on the garments of vengeance for clothing,​

And was clad with zeal as a cloke.​

18 According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay,​

Fury to his adversaries, recompence to his enemies;​

To the islands he will repay recompence.​

19 So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west,​

And his glory from the rising of the sun.​

When the enemy shall come in like a flood,​

The Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.​

The passage of scripture above, Isaiah 59:16-19, shows some of the same problems found in the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 since when verse 16 says: "And I saw that there was no man, And wondered that there was no intercessor: Therefore his arm brought salvation unto him; and his righteousness sustained him," it's difficult to imagine this speaking of Jews or the Jewish-collective Israel. Would the Jews, and Israel, be astounded that the Gentiles didn't produce intercession for them before God? Seriously? Or does a singular Jew wonder that that nation which arises specifically to prepare a place for him failed miserably: they didn't prepare a place for him, such that when he arrives he marvels at Israel's disbelief and uses his own strong arm to do it alone?

Here, and Isaiah 53, Israel and the Jews must (if the Jewish interpretation is correct exegesis) become the collective "arm of the Lord"; they must be utterly righteous in comparison with the mere sinners that they save or kill according to their godlike power and authority. They affect their own salvation; they're going to singularly take part in (or are the salvific arm of) tikkun olam; they will singularly, from their own downright ornery righteousness and good deeds, redeem the whole world (tikkun olam) from its sins and unrighteousness, none of which is theirs; they then kill whomever they judge worthy of death. The world will then fear the name of collective-Israel, the nation, since it's clealry a direct surrogate, in place of Christ, for God himself.

The famous commentary of Kiel and Delitzsch points out numerous rather serious antinomies so far as the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53 is concerned. Getting verse one correct is obviously of great importance: who is speaking, and to whom?

We hear the first lamentation (the question is, From whose mouth does it come?) in Isa 53:1 : "Who hath believed our preaching; and the arm of Jehovah, over whom has it been revealed?" "I was formerly mistaken," says Hofmann (Schriftbeweis, ii. 1, 159, 160), "as to the connection between Isa 53:1 and Isa 52:13-15, and thought that the Gentiles were the speakers in the former, simply because it was to them that the latter referred.​

Keil and Delitzsch quote Hofmann carefully exegeting the first verse in Isaiah 53. Hofmann originally thought Gentiles were speaking in Isaiah 53:1 since it's clearly the Gentiles referred to in Isaiah 52:13-15:

"But I see now that I was in error. It is affirmed of the heathen, that they have never heard before the things which they now see with their eyes [52:15]. Consequently it cannot be they who exclaim, or in whose name the inquiry is made, Who hath believed our preaching?" Moreover, it cannot be they, both because the redemption itself and the exaltation of the Mediator of the redemption are made known to them from the midst of Israel as already accomplished facts [after 30 CE], and also because according to Isa 52:15 (cf., Isa 49:7; Isa 42:4; Isa 51:5) they hear the things unheard of before, with amazement which passes into reverent awe, as the satisfaction of their own desires, in other words, with the glad obedience of faith.​

Isaiah 51:13-15 speaks of the Gentiles since "that which they had not been told they shall see." Keil and Delitzsch note that Isaiah 51:15 is clearly speaking of the Gentiles since what they come to see comes to them from "the midst of Israel" for whom the concept of a Jewish messiah is already known. When the Gentiles accept the redeemer it's wholly from Israel that his identity is made known to them. Without Israel they're blind to the things that hadn't been revealed but through Israel. Ergo, according to the logic of Keil and Delitzsch, Isaiah 53:1 is definitely not the Gentiles speaking.

And we may also add, that the expression in Isa 53:8, "for the transgression of my people," would be quite out of place in the mouths of Gentiles, and that, as a general rule, words attributed to Gentiles ought to be expressly introduced as theirs. Whenever we find a "we" introduced abruptly in the midst of a prophecy, it is always Israel that speaks, including the prophet himself (Isa 42:24; Isa 64:5; Isa 16:6; Isa 24:16, etc.).​

​

Keil, C. F.; Delitzsch, Franz. Commentary on the Old Testament . Kindle Edition.​

John

Well, thats where the 'contention' lies, as to WHO is speaking at beginning of chapter 53...most traditional Jewish interpreters see that as the Gentile kings and people speaking....after they witness the trials of the Jewish people and the Lord raising them up, etc. The traditional interpretation seems fine to me. A superimposed or presumed 'Christian' interpretation is just an assumption that this is about Jesus specifically, they reading him INTO the text - it would take a fair analysis of both 'exegesis' and 'eisegesis here, and even still...from an agnostic or even 'gnostic' viewpoint, since the literal reading is maybe not so important, neither absolute.......BOTH viewpoints are based in a 'belief' and HOPE that 'God' will raise up Isreael again SOMEDAY, so they just have the 'belief', thats it,....while christians have a double whammy 'belief' that Jesus came already and accomplished some kind of 'blood atonement transaction', and is yet to come AGAIN to reign down terror and wrath of 'God' but somehow be a 'Savior' ONLY to those who have faith in him,......looks like the 'christians' have a more complex and fantastical faith-complex

We'll look a bit further into this....and still, "the pure in heart will see God", thats key


~*~*~