Isaiah 63:11-12.

[dybmh]

To your last question, part and parcel of the strained relationship between Jewish and Christian exegesis is based precisely on "fuller symbolic interpretation," versus less than full symbolic interpretation. Judaism often accuses Christianity of seeing too many things in symbols which Judaism is less willing to look at analogically or metaphorically.

It's not that. It's almost purely objections based on simple logic and lack of reading comprehension. I'll show you.

Christian exegesis is based precisely on "fuller symbolic interpretation,"

fuller symbolic interpretation reduces accuracy by casting a wide net

The preternatural ability of Isaiah to prophesy so closely the advent of a man's miraculous birth, life, and death, as recorded in the Gospels

That's a logical contradiction. It doesn't follow closely. It follows a symbolic interpretation. Following closely means that there is a close match in the details. A symbolic correlation is distant, not close.

 

[dybmh]

My bad. I apologize. The Luther Bible thing was a link to a different article. You know how they sometimes have links to other articles embedded in an article. When I cut and pasted it, I removed some of the links (which came across as part of the text since I had to post it as "text only" to get it to paste in this forum). I missed the Luther Bible link. But it had nothing to do with the article which, btw, was written by Yakov Z. Meir.

Regardless, in order to understand the midrash, we need to read what it says. They made a blunder relying on the english in the very beginning. From that point onward, I decided I would need to read it myself.

The subject of this verse is switched midway through: While in the initial part, Moses stretches out his arm, it is God who actually causes the sea to recede, thanks to the strong wind. So who has split the sea - Moses or God?

In the Hebrew, God and Moses are not pushing on the same identical "sea". But the author of this is reading the English and ignoring the Hebrew.

 

[John D. Brey]

That's a logical contradiction. It doesn't follow closely. It follows a symbolic interpretation. Following closely means that there is a close match in the details. A symbolic correlation is distant, not close.

Correct. It's the problem of a literal reading versus a symbolic or metaphorical reading. And as you and I know, the literal is what we must shoot for. Ibn Ezra criticized Christian exegesis for being too metaphorical. But then some Christian exegetes made him aware that a giant swath of the text of the Tanakh is literally-metaphorical. Believe it or not, that caught Ibn Ezra off guard.

In this forum I've shown where when he was exegeting Psalms 2:6 in the study of another book (Ecclesiastes) of the Bible, Ibn Ezra showed that exegeted literally, Psalm 2:6 says God poured out (as an offering) Messiah on the holy hill. That's what the text says literally. But then when Ibn Ezra exegeted Psalms 2:6, in a study of the chapter, he skewed the literal meaning to support the Jewish understanding (which obviously can't conscience God pouring out Messiah as a sacrificial offering). When he exegeted Psalms 2:6, in a study of Psalms, he said the verse says God "anointed" (rather than "poured out") Messiah. In his exegesis of Ecclesiastes he was using the verse in Psalms to show how people don't stick to the literal. But then, in his own exegesis of Psalms 2:6, he too felt compelled not to stick to the literal meaning.

Unfortunately, when he changed the literal to support Jewish tradition (kinda like Rabbi Hirsch chiding God for giving Moses a symbolic branch), he created not only an exegetical farce (since he's not sticking to the literal meaning of the text), but he created another interpretive problem since the only time a king is "anointed" in Jewish law is if he doesn't inherit the kingship by being the first one in line for the kingship. Messiah is a firstborn and thus doesn't require the anointing that isn't in the text of Psalms 2:6 anyway.



John

 

[GoodAttention]

Correct. It's the problem of a literal reading versus a symbolic or metaphorical reading. And as you and I know, the literal is what we must shoot for. Ibn Ezra criticized Christian exegesis for being too metaphorical. But then some Christian exegetes made him aware that a giant swath of the text of the Tanakh is literally-metaphorical. Believe it or not, that caught Ibn Ezra off guard.

In this forum I've shown where when he was exegeting Psalms 2:6 in the study of another book (Ecclesiastes) of the Bible, Ibn Ezra showed that exegeted literally, Psalm 2:6 says God poured out (as an offering) Messiah on the holy hill. That's what the text says literally. But then when Ibn Ezra exegeted Psalms 2:6, in a study of the chapter, he skewed the literal meaning to support the Jewish understanding (which obviously can't conscience God pouring out Messiah as a sacrificial offering). When he exegeted Psalms 2:6, in a study of Psalms, he said the verse says God "anointed" (rather than "poured out") Messiah. In his exegesis of Ecclesiastes he was using the verse in Psalms to show how people don't stick to the literal. But then, in his own exegesis of Psalms 2:6, he too felt compelled not to stick to the literal meaning.

Unfortunately, when he changed the literal to support Jewish tradition (kinda like Rabbi Hirsch chiding God for giving Moses a symbolic branch), he created not only an exegetical farce (since he's not sticking to the literal meaning of the text), but he created another interpretive problem since the only time a king is "anointed" in Jewish law is if he doesn't inherit the kingship by being the first one in line for the kingship. Messiah is a firstborn and thus doesn't require the anointing that isn't in the text of Psalms 2:6 anyway.



John

2 cents, just starting on Book of Psalms.

God’s firstborn son is Israel, and indeed the chapter, whilst not strictly metaphorical, is also not obviously literal in every sense.

The verses start with “other nations” conspiring, and end with the warning for the kings and judges of the earth, since God’s first born son is Israel, where all who take refugee are blessed.

 

[John D. Brey]

In the Hebrew, God and Moses are not pushing on the same identical "sea". But the author of this is reading the English and ignoring the Hebrew.

I have no doubt that you're reading genuinely important concepts out of the Hebrew using your own understanding of these things. But the problem that I find not only interesting, but of the utmost importance concerning the proper exegesis of Isaiah 63, is related to a giant, gaping, chasm, in the text as acknowledged in the midrash.

Rabbi Hirsch acknowledges the problem on some level too. Which is why he points out that according to Jewish tradition, Moses' rod is superfluous. In a Jewish understanding, Moses rod is an unnecessary mediator between God's power, and the implementation of that power, since in Jewish tradition it's problematic to envision a mediator between God's power and its implementation. Rabbi Hirsch is fully aware that Moses' rod represents an incarnate avatar of God or his power that lends itself to the Christian concept of an incarnate, singular, mediator between God, his power, and the world.

Rabbi Hirsch knows what so many of the examiners of the midrash know. Viz a viz, normative Jewish tradition has no singular manifestation or visible mediator between God's power, and the created world.

In the scriptural narrative, as noted by the Jewish sages, there's a real, and genuine problem since God clearly anoints Moses' rod as the avatar of his, God's power. In Exodus chapter 4, God goes so far as to make Moses' serpent-rod a portable manifestation of the burning-bush. Moses' rod is the portable burning-bush. And since the burning-bush is the "appearance of God" (as he's seen by Moses), therefore, Moses' rod represents a Mosaic appearance of God and his power.

Ergo, when, in the midrash, the sea refused to part when Moses lifts the burning-bush in his hand, the text has a real and genuine problem. Where do we go from here if the portable burning-bush, the very avatar of the "appearance of God" (at least the appearance given to Moses) fails to cause the sea to obey? Every serious exegete of the text is fully aware that Moses' rod is a portable emblem of the burning-bush. They all know it "represents" the "appearing of God."

So when the text and the narrative see the sea unimpressed with the "avatar" of God's appearance (the portable burning-bush), so that God has too . . . get this . . . appear for real, not in a portable form, not as an avatar, but for real . . . we'll, Houston, we have a serious problem!

Firstly, if God can just appear for real (and every Jewish sages knows that according to Jewish monotheism he can't), then why did he bother with a portable burning-bush? And since we know God empowered Moses with a portable burning-bush, how, or why, does the sea know it doesn't have to obey the portable emblem? What does the sea see, that's a deeper observation of the appearance of God than Moses got to see at the burning-bush?

This question is the question Rabbi Hirsch doesn't want to, isn't prepared to, entertain. This is the problem that makes the great Jewish sages scratch their head to the point of bleeding when the sea gets to see an appearance of God that transcends what Moses saw at the burning bush.

In Isaiah chapter 63, we too get to see something even greater than what the sea saw if we're able to see-saw between what Moses saw, what the sea saw, and what we read in Isaiah chapter 63. Isaiah chapter 63 references the very narrative in our crosshairs, the very midrash we're talking about, because Isaish is willing and able to allow us to see a sight that would make Rabbi Hirsch's eyes sore, Moses' eyes sore, and the eyes of Jewish tradition sorer still: an appearance of God hidden in said narrative and midrash such that Isaiah 63 is the cryptic key pullilng back the veil to see God more clearly than Judaism is traditionally situated to swallow.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

2 cents, just starting on Book of Psalms.

God’s firstborn son is Israel, and indeed the chapter, whilst not strictly metaphorical, is also not obviously literal in every sense.

The verses start with “other nations” conspiring, and end with the warning for the kings and judges of the earth, since God’s first born son is Israel, where all who take refugee are blessed.

Your points are well taken. Particularly in line with @dybmh pointing out that if there was a triune revelation in the narrative in the crosshairs, it's God ---Moses and his rod ---and Israel (Israel being the closest thing to an incarnation of God's person and power, i.e, his "son").

In Jewish understanding, Israel is God' son, and thus the closest thing to divine incarnation that will ever be. The Jewish trinity is God, Moses (and or the rod as the spirit), and Israel.

Which is why Isaiah 63, and the midrash of Moses at the sea, is so important. The sea doesn't part for Moses, his rod, or the children of Israel. The sea parts because of an appearance of God that's neither Moses, his rod, nor the children of Israel. The sea sees something Isaiah saw when Nehushtan was taken outside the gates of Jerusalem and thown a good bloody beating before he's sold to the Gentiles for some silver coins. Isaiah is willing to show anyone who can do simple exegesis, precisely what the sea saw that wasn't Moses, Israel, or Moses' rod.

What the sea saw see-saws between Moses, his rod, and Israel, before looking deeper than the sea to see something rarely seen in the Tanakh, but which is there, beneath the water of the word, for those abel to sacrifice themselves and their traditions for the sake of their brothers.



John

 

[GoodAttention]

Your points are well taken. Particularly in line with @dybmh pointing out that if there was a triune revelation in the narrative in the crosshairs, it's God ---Moses and his rod ---and Israel (Israel being the closest thing to an incarnation of God's person and power, i.e, his "son").

In Jewish understanding, Israel is God' son, and thus the closest thing to divine incarnation that will every be. The Jewish trinity is God, Moses (or the rod as the spirit), and Israel.

Which is why Isaiah 63, and the midrash of Moses at the sea, is so important. The sea doesn't part for Moses, his rod, or the children of Israel. The sea parts because of an appearance of God that is neither Moses, his rod, nor the children of Israel. The sea sees something Isaiah saw when Nehushtan was taken outside the gates of Jerusalem and thown a good bloody beating before he's sold to the Gentiles for some silver coins. Isaiah is willing to show anyone who can do simple exegesis, precisely what the sea saw that wasn't Moses, Israel, or Moses' rod.

What the sea saw see-saws between Moses, his rod, and Israel, before looking deeper than the sea to see something rarely seen in the Tanakh, but which is there, beneath the water of the word, for those abel to sacrifice themselves and their traditions for the sake of their brothers.




John

Going through the Exodus verses what you call a rod I will call a staff (what is in the name?) since that is how I’ve read it.

We know the staff becomes a snake, or nahash, that Moses grasps by the tail, BUT it is also given to Aaron, and we will recall that it became a tannyin, which I understand to be describing a “sea monster”, that swallows up the Egyptian staffs.

The next use of the staff is related to water, in Aaron’s hand as the Nile is struck, turning Nile water into blood, and water again with frogs out of the waters of Egypt, ending for Aaron with a contrasting complete lack of water plague of dust into gnats.

The staff is then with Moses, but its significance wanes whilst Moses own hands become the tool through which Gods power is shown, almost taking a “back seat”, finally ending with Moses using only his hands to make darkness.

So, if asking the question why the sea did not part for Moses, is it because he was the “wrong” son of Amram, and Aaron would have got it done, since his connection to water seems more telling?

 

[dybmh]

Correct. It's the problem of a literal reading versus a symbolic or metaphorical reading.

Respectfully, sincerely

It's not correct, because that's only half of what I wrote.

And as you and I know, the literal is what we must shoot for

I disagree. Consistency. Symbol, story and law. If it is divine, all three will be consistent with each other.

1. symbol
2. story
3. law

If these three are not consistent with each other, something's wrong. Of those three, the symbolism is subjective and shaped by the reader's cultural context, their expectations, and their desires. This includes, most important, significance. Significance is extremely subjective.

Christian exegesis is based precisely on "fuller symbolic interpretation,"

Which is highly subjective and error prone because it is not consistent with the story as it's written nor the law which comes from it.

... Jewish and Christian exegesis is based precisely on "fuller symbolic interpretation," versus less than full symbolic interpretation.

Judaism includes the story, the law, and the symbolism. All three. Lifting up symbolism, whose significance is highly subjective, whose interpretation is highly error prone, in spite of the story, in spite of the law is ... drumroll ... creating a brand new religion. And... that's Christianity. It's why you have your own bibles.

... the strained relationship between Jewish and Christian ...

... is natural.

IMO

Christianity intends to correct Judaism, just as Islam intends to correct the other two. However, most Christians do not have the Hebrew language skills to make any meaningful corrections. They over-compensate for this with their passion. And lots of it. That's where the strain comes from.

IMO

 

[John D. Brey]

Going through the Exodus verses what you call a rod I will call a staff (what is in the name?) since that is how I’ve read it.

Staff, rod, or what have you, it's factual to state that when Moses tells God Israel won't believe he's seen God in a burning-bush, God immediately responds by asking him what's in his hand. He then commences to turn Moses' staff into a serpent-rod that's clearly being offered as an avatar of the burning-bush (a portable burning-bush). If you don't have access to all the Hebrew letters and words in play, you might scratch your head why the serpent-rod faithfully represents an avatar of the burning-bush?

But before you get into the Hebrew words signifying Moses' staff as a portable burning-bush, you need to see deeper into the narrative than you're gonna read in the Masoretic Text, or the "Old Testament" based on the Masoretic Text. In those malfeasant interpretations of the text, we're not keyed in to the fact that when Moses places his hand in his bosom (Exodus 4:6), he's holding his newly minted serpent-rod. Mind you this serpent-rod represents the "appearance of God" in the burning bush or branch so that in Exodus 4:6, Moses' staff, in his right hand, turns leprous. Which is to say the God who's appearance the staff represents, will become leprous. God will be seen as a leper on a branch in his first advent/manifestation.

God, foreknowing the future, implies Israel mightn't accept God when he appears as a leper on a branch (John 3:14). Fear not. God tells Moses that when the leper on the branch (staff or rod) is healed of the leprosy, Israel will then accept the second advent of God. God concedes to Moses Israel mightn't accept the leper on the branch, but that they will definitely accept him when he comes out of the bosom of God (John 1:18) declaring the truth originally rejected (John 3:14-16).




John

 

[GoodAttention]

Staff, rod, or what have you, it's factual to state that when Moses tells God Israel won't believe he's seen God in a burning-bush, God immediately responds by asking him what's in his hand. He then commences to turn Moses' staff into a serpent-rod that's clearly being offered as an avatar of the burning-bush (a portable burning-bush).

Moses thinks they won’t believe him because he wouldn’t not know how to even explain God to them, his faltering lips.

If you don't have access to all the Hebrew letters and words in play, you might scratch your head why the serpent-rod faithfully represents an avatar of the burning-bush?

But before you get into the Hebrew words signifying Moses' staff as a portable burning-bush, you need to see deeper into the narrative than you're gonna read in the Masoretic Text, or the "Old Testament" based on the Masoretic Text. In those malfeasant interpretations of the text, we're not keyed in to the fact that when Moses places his hand in his bosom (Exodus 4:6), he's holding his newly minted serpent-rod. Mind you this serpent-rod represents the "appearance of God" in the burning bush or branch so that in Exodus 4:6, Moses' staff, in his right hand, turns leprous. Which is to say the God who's appearance the staff represents, will become leprous. God will be seen as a leper on a branch in his first advent/manifestation.

Why would God contradict the signs that he knows will make the Hebrews believe Moses?

God, foreknowing the future, implies Israel mightn't accept God when he appears as a leper on a branch (John 3:14). Fear not. God tells Moses that when the leper on the branch (staff or rod) is healed of the leprosy, Israel will then accept the second advent of God. God concedes to Moses Israel mightn't accept the leper on the branch, but that they will definitely accept him when he comes out of the bosom of God (John 1:18) declaring the truth originally rejected (John 3:14-16).




John

I don’t follow John sorry.

 

[John D. Brey]

Moses thinks they won’t believe him because he wouldn’t not know how to even explain God to them, his faltering lips.

Right. That's what Moses says. So God says the serpent-rod will represent the burning-bush, which, burning-bush, is where Moses saw God. Right?

Moses sees God in the burning bush. That's where God "appears" to Moses. So, since Moses won't be able to verbalize what he saw (i.e., the burning-bush) when he sees God (in the burning-bush), God makes Moses staff represent the burning-bush.

That's plain and simple in the reading of the text. What part of that do you disagree with, or not understand?



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Right. That's what Moses says. So God says the serpent-rod will represent the burning-bush, which, burning-bush, is where Moses saw God. Right?

Moses sees God in the burning bush. That's where God "appears" to Moses. So, since Moses won't be able to verbalize what he saw (i.e., the burning-bush) when he sees God (in the burning-bush), God makes Moses staff represent the burning-bush.

That's plain and simple in the reading of the text. What part of that do you disagree with, or not understand?

. . . We could say that Israel wouldn't believe God appeared to Moses in a burning bush if Moses said so. And, ironically, we see that they don't believe the serpent-rod is an appearance of God either, such that we have a real problem here.
But be of good cheer. Israel will believe God appeared on a wooden rod, leprous and all, when he returns healed. God says as much in a narrative that seemingly makes no sense to those who read it.



John

 

[GoodAttention]

Right. That's what Moses says. So God says the serpent-rod will represent the burning-bush, which, burning-bush, is where Moses saw God. Right?

The burning-bush was a curiosity that led Moses to God, but God says with conviction how the 3 signs will convince the Hebrews Moses has been sent by him.

Moses sees God in the burning bush. That's where God "appears" to Moses. So, since Moses won't be able to verbalize what he saw (i.e., the burning-bush) when he sees God (in the burning-bush), God makes Moses staff represent the burning-bush.

Yet the staff transforms into a snake, when Moses performs the sign this is what is being conveyed.

That's plain and simple in the reading of the text. What part of that do you disagree with, or not understand?



John

As above, the burning bush was simply a curiosity. It pales in comparison to the 3 signs Moses is armed with to convince the Hebrew people, in addition to knowing God’s name.

 

[John D. Brey]

I don’t follow John sorry.

No problem. It saves me laying out the Hebrew that justifies the reading. I'm lazy that way.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

As above, the burning bush was simply a curiosity. It pales in comparison to the 3 signs Moses is armed with to convince the Hebrew people, in addition to knowing God’s name.

What are the three signs?



John

 

[GoodAttention]

No problem. It saves me laying out the Hebrew that justifies the reading. I'm lazy that way.



John

Your zealous passion makes up for your lackadaisical effort

 

[GoodAttention]

What are the three signs?



John

The staff becomes a snake
The hand appears white (leporous is a misnomer)
The Nile water turns to blood

 

[GoodAttention]

. . . We could say that Israel wouldn't believe God appeared to Moses in a burning bush if Moses said so. And, ironically, we see that they don't believe the serpent-rod is an appearance of God either, such that we have a real problem here.
But be of good cheer. Israel will believe God appeared on a wooden rod, leprous and all, when he returns healed. God says as much in a narrative that seemingly makes no sense to those who read it.



John

As you know, I am neither Christian or Jewish, I am learning by reading and making my own conclusions.

I feel though, that searching for Christ in the first 2 books, when Israel hasn’t been established yet, doesn’t do Christ justice and takes away from understanding the story of the Jews.

 

[dybmh]

laying out the Hebrew

please see below:

14:13
ויאמר משה אל־העם אל־תיראו התיצבו וראו את־ישועת יהוה אשר־יעשה לכם היום כי אשר ראיתם את־מצרים היום לא תספו לראתם עוד עד־עולם׃

And Moses said to the people, Do not fear, stand still, and see את־ישועת יהוה, which he will show to you today; for the Egyptians whom you have seen today, you shall never see them again.


14:14
יהוה ילחם לכם ואתם תחרשון׃

יהוה shall fight for you, and you shall hold your peace.

John, It's Yeshua. Explicitly. In a hula-skirt. Jumping up and down.

Did you see this? What do you think?

 

[dybmh]

I feel though, that searching for Christ in the first 2 books, when Israel hasn’t been established yet, doesn’t do Christ justice and takes away from understanding the story of the Jews.

Christ is salvation. It is certainly included in the Exodus story. Please see the above post.