Isaiah 63:11-12.

[dybmh]

That appearance of God, which is recognized as very peculiar in the narrative, hinges on the nature of tiferet as the appearance of God that allows God to transgress his relationship with nature herself.

Does it actually use the word tiferet?

What does the midrash actually say?

What are you adding to it?

---

You're probably correct in your observation, but you're using the wrong Hebrew word to describe it.

This is to validate a theory you have about the choshen?

Professor Daniel Boyarin points out even more pointedly, is the extreme problem

Professor Daniel Boyarin the religious outcast who is not welcome to participate, religiously, with his community.

I'm pointing this out, because name dropping him, Professor Daniel Boyarin, does not produce credibility. It's no different than digging through a trash heap, looking for scraps of paper that were discarded, imagining that these are the holy words of sages, not garbage that was thrown away.

Professor Daniel Boyarin points out even more pointedly, is the extreme problem (so far as Judaism is concerned)

So far as Judaism is concerned, Daniel Boyarin does not speak for us. He is an outcast, a rebel. That needs to be stated clearly.

Outcast. Does not represent Judaism.

---

the fact that God tells Moses to lift the rod and part the sea, but then the text says God himself parts the sea? Did Moses or God part the sea? Did God use Moses? Did he need Moses? Did Moses' hand part the sea (through God's power) or did the rod part the sea?

The answer to your question is in Exo14:13-14. I'll show you. I think you'll like this. Very much.

Let's go back to the beginning of the thread?

In Isaiah 63:12, the arm of the Lord (spoken of earlier in 53:1, i.e., to whom will it be revealed) is, ironically, revealed to be in Moses' right hand. Which is not quite as peculiar as it seems if we exegete Exodus 4:16 properly. There (Exodus 4:16) God implies that, archetypically speaking, Aaron will be to Moses, as Moses was originally to be to God, God's mouthpiece. When Moses wigs out on God (4:13), God makes Moses represent God, and Aaron represent the mouthpiece God originally wanted Moses to be. Moses becomes the avatar of God, while Aaron is, ironically, an avatar of Moses.

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.​

And that is the power of the Hebrew Torah

There's no need to do kabalistic back-flips.

 

[dybmh]

the text says God himself parts the sea? Did Moses or God part the sea? Did God use Moses? Did he need Moses? Did Moses' hand part the sea (through God's power) or did the rod part the sea?

maybe it's not an "or". ?? אלו ואלו ??

Judaism teaches everything is connected.

Moses is certainly needed. If he wasn't he wouldn't exist in that time and in that place. But what you're looking for is earlier in the story. I'll go fetch the Rabbi. Hold please.

 

[dybmh]

On Exodus 12:8, Rabbi Hirsch writes: ( spoiler and brackets are mine )​

On this night of freedom, they will be given back the lives they offered up, however, they must eat the lamb that symbolizes their offering in the following manner: צלי אש ומצות על מררים

roasted directly over the fire,
with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

The meaning of מצות and מורים is clear. When the Children of Israel left Egypt, their oppressors did not give them sufficient time to wait for their dough to rise, and so they had to take it with them as מצות. Throughout their enslavement, too, they were never given time to let their dough leaven; driven by the taskmaster's whip and the breathless rush of unremitting toil, they could bake their bread only in utmost haste. Thus, is the bread of slavery, and we still refer to it as "the bread of dependence, which our forefathers ate in Egypt." Hence, it clearly symbolizes עבדות
It is obviוus, too, that refers to ( וימררו את חייהם ) above 1:14

Spoiler: 1:14

וימררו את־חייהם בעבדה קשה בחמר ובלבנים ובכל־עבדה בשדה את כל־עבדתם אשר־עבדו בהם בפרך׃​

​

And they made their lives bitter with hard slavery, in mortar, and in brick, and in all kinds of service in the field; all their service, which they made them serve, was with rigor.​

Thus, they symbolize עינוי, the affliction with which the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers.

Now, if מצה and מרור symbolize two of the three aspects of the Egyptian גלות [ redemption ], it does not seem far-fetched to suggest that צלי אש symbolizes the third element, that of גרות. Without a foundation, without firm ground beneath its feet, suspended in midair --- not צלי קדר, roasted in pot, but תלי בשפוד, suspended on a spit ( Pesachim 41a and 74a ) - this is the manner in which the קרבן פסח must be prepared, until it is fit to eat. Without a foundation, without firm ground beneath one's feet --- this is a fitting description of the state of גרות in which this people, now rising to freedom and independence, was to mature for it's destiny.

...

Thus, at the moment of freedom regained, צלי אש ומצות על מדים symbolized the three primary aspects of Egyptian oppression, גרות עבדו שינוי, to make them aware that, even at the moment of their deliverance, the oppression still lay heavily upon them. They were still slaves under Egyptian domination, and it was God, and God alone, Who could and did grant them their freedom.

Spoiler: Rabbi Hirsch, Hirsch Chumash, commenting on Exo 12:8

 

[GoodAttention]

On Exodus 12:8, Rabbi Hirsch writes: ( spoiler and brackets are mine )​

On this night of freedom, they will be given back the lives they offered up, however, they must eat the lamb that symbolizes their offering in the following manner: צלי אש ומצות על מררים

roasted directly over the fire,
with unleavened bread and bitter herbs.

The meaning of מצות and מורים is clear. When the Children of Israel left Egypt, their oppressors did not give them sufficient time to wait for their dough to rise, and so they had to take it with them as מצות. Throughout their enslavement, too, they were never given time to let their dough leaven; driven by the taskmaster's whip and the breathless rush of unremitting toil, they could bake their bread only in utmost haste. Thus, is the bread of slavery, and we still refer to it as "the bread of dependence, which our forefathers ate in Egypt." Hence, it clearly symbolizes עבדות
It is obviוus, too, that refers to ( וימררו את חייהם ) above 1:14

Spoiler: 1:14

וימררו את־חייהם בעבדה קשה בחמר ובלבנים ובכל־עבדה בשדה את כל־עבדתם אשר־עבדו בהם בפרך׃​

​

And they made their lives bitter with hard slavery, in mortar, and in brick, and in all kinds of service in the field; all their service, which they made them serve, was with rigor.​

Thus, they symbolize עינוי, the affliction with which the Egyptians embittered the lives of our forefathers.

Now, if מצה and מרור symbolize two of the three aspects of the Egyptian גלות [ redemption ], it does not seem far-fetched to suggest that צלי אש symbolizes the third element, that of גרות. Without a foundation, without firm ground beneath its feet, suspended in midair --- not צלי קדר, roasted in pot, but תלי בשפוד, suspended on a spit ( Pesachim 41a and 74a ) - this is the manner in which the קרבן פסח must be prepared, until it is fit to eat. Without a foundation, without firm ground beneath one's feet --- this is a fitting description of the state of גרות in which this people, now rising to freedom and independence, was to mature for it's destiny.

...

Thus, at the moment of freedom regained, צלי אש ומצות על מדים symbolized the three primary aspects of Egyptian oppression, גרות עבדו שינוי, to make them aware that, even at the moment of their deliverance, the oppression still lay heavily upon them. They were still slaves under Egyptian domination, and it was God, and God alone, Who could and did grant them their freedom.

Spoiler: Rabbi Hirsch, Hirsch Chumash, commenting on Exo 12:8

View attachment 100289

Very interesting discussion, much appreciated.

The leavening of bread I believe would vary from month to month depending on how warm or cold it would get, particularly at night. I find it fascinating that we are talking specifically about hours, say 3-12, that the Israelites were “bound” by when in Egypt.

I personally find it interesting that, in Jerusalem, the winters are colder than along the Nile, and as such I believe the leavening time would be longer.

I see this as how God binds his people to him even greater than Egypt ever could.

 

[dybmh]

What a rag-tag representation of the triune Godhead

The 3, in this case, are God, Moses, and the Assembly.

1) If you're looking for what the Assembly is doing, to gain their freedom, look in chapter 12, listen to Rabbi Hirsch if you are inclined to do so. Take note of the linguistic feature embedded there: גלות requires גרות. Lamed requires reish.

2) If you're looking for what Moses is doing, chapter 14: precision is key. John, ask yourself, "how would Rabbi Hirsch read these verses?" Answer: "very carefully".

14:16 - God is directing Moses:
ואתה הרם את־מטך ונטה את־ידך על־הים ובקעהו ויבאו בני־ישראל בתוך הים ביבשה׃

הרם - not קום, not ישא
את־מטך - not המטך
נטה - not שלח
את־ידך על־הים
ובקעהו - not בדל

14:21 - This is what Moses is doing:
... ויט משה את־ידו על־הים

The secret, if there is one, is below:

? only יט ?
? where is הרם ?
? where is בקע ?

3) As mentioned previously, if you're looking for what God is doing continue reading verse 21:

14:21 (cont.)
ויולך יהוה את־הים ברוח קדים עזה ...׃ ...

In relation to what Moses is doing...

Moses: יט God: ילך

הרם and בקע are included in ברוח קדים עזה

---

Those are the basic elements, the building blocks, the pieces of the puzzle which answer the questions you're asking.

 

[dybmh]

Do you see the problem?

I think so, yes.

Because it's pointless to provide a possible solution unless the problem is understood

My vote? Take it or leave it. That problem is already solved. The solution doesn't need to be repeated. It doesn't need to be understood that deeply.

However, each and every detail you've mentioned are fascinating points of entry, glimmers, into how ancient people, of my heritage, understood their relationship with divinity. And that can certainly be useful for a Christian reading their scripture.

 

[dybmh]

Haaretz

I avoid Ha'aretz like the plague.

 

[John D. Brey]

I avoid Ha'aretz like the plague.

Ah . . . you're a MAGA man.




John

 

[dybmh]

Ah . . . you're a MAGA man.

Until there's IRV, I vote with the Democrats. And I could never vote for Trump regardless of affiliation.

 

[dybmh]

What do you think about how the article in Haaretz deals with the issue?

I'll go find it.

ETA: it's behind a paywall, and it isn't archived anywhere obvious.

 

[John D. Brey]

I'll go find it.

ETA: it's behind a paywall, and it isn't archived anywhere obvious.

It's not real long:

The seventh day of Passover is the day of the splitting of the Red Sea. A week has passed since the Exodus from Egypt began. The Israelites have stopped on the banks of the sea, with the Egyptians in close pursuit. Moses turns to God in supplication, but God shifts all responsibility back to his shoulders: "Wherefore criest thou unto Me? Speak unto the children of Israel, that they go forward. And lift thou up thy rod, and stretch out thy hand over the sea, and divide it; and the children of Israel shall go into the midst of the sea on dry ground" (Exodus 14:15-16 ). It is solely up to Moses whether the sea will be riven. When this occurs, the Torah states: "And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all the night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided" (Exod. 14:21 ).​

​

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? Did Moses split it with God's help or did God do so with the help of Moses' outstretched arm? Does God need Moses' outstretched arm to split the sea?​

​

In this mid-verse replacement of the subject, our sages identify a textual gap in the verse itself - one that must be bridged with the help of a midrash (Mekilta Beshalach, Vayehi 5 ). The following explication of this midrash appears in Daniel Boyarin's inspiring "Intertextuality and the Reading of the Midrash" (Indiana University Press, 1990 ), in a chapter entitled, "The Sea Resists: Midrash and the (Psycho )Dynamics of Intertextuality":​

​

"'And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea' (Exodus 14:21 ). The Sea began to resist him. Moses said, 'In the Name of the Holiness,' but it did not yield. The Holiness, Blessed be He, revealed Himself; the Sea began to flee, as it says, 'The Sea saw it and fled' (Psalms 114:3 ). Its mashal [parable]; to what is the matter similar? To a king of flesh and blood, who had two gardens, one inside the other. He sold the inner one, and the purchaser came to enter, but the guard did not allow him. He [i.e., the purchaser] said to him, 'In the name of the king,' but he did not yield. He showed him the signet, but he did not yield until the king came. Once the king came, the guard began to flee. He said, 'All day long I have been speaking to you in the name of the king and you did not yield. Now, why are you fleeing?' He said, 'Not from you am I fleeing, but from the king am I fleeing.'​

​

"Similarly, Moses came and stood at the sea. He said to him [i.e., the sea], 'In the name of the Holiness,' and it did not yield. He showed him the rod, and it did not yield, until the Holiness, Blessed be He, revealed Himself in His glory. The sea began to flee, as it is said, 'The Sea saw it and fled' (Psalms 114:3 ). Moses said to him, 'All day long I have been speaking to you in the name of the Holiness, Blessed be He, and you did not submit. Now, "what has happened to you, O Sea, that you flee?"' (Psalms 114:5 ). He answered him, 'Not from before you am I fleeing, son of Amram, but "from before the Master, tremble Earth [progenitor of the Earth], from before the God of Jacob"' (Psalms 114:7 )."​

​

In order to explain the gap in the verse, the midrash applies the principle, "Divrei ha-Torah aniyim bemakom echad va'ashirim bemakom aher - "In some places in the Torah the text is sparse, and in others it is rich." The midrash in effect inserts chapter 114 of Psalms into the gap. As a result, both the chapter and the complex text can be read in a new light. This chapter depicts what happens "When Israel came forth out of Egypt": "The sea saw it, and fled; the Jordan turned backward. The mountains skipped like rams, the hills like young sheep" (114:3-4 ). Nature itself becomes highly agitated in the presence of the Israelites' departure from Egypt. The narrator asks nature the reason for the great excitement: "What aileth thee, O thou sea, that thou fleest? thou Jordan, that thou turnest backward? Ye mountains, that ye skip like rams; ye hills, like young sheep?" (114:5-6 ). Nature replies: "Tremble, thou earth, at the presence of the Lord, at the presence of the God of Jacob; Who turned the rock into a pool of water, the flint into a fountain of waters" (Psalms. 114:7-8 ). This event takes place when Israel departs Egypt; however, the sea flees and the hills dance in the presence of God himself.​

​

The midrash places Psalm 114 in a specific historical context, essentially turning it into a dialogue between Moses and the sea - a dialogue that occurs between the moment Moses stretches out his arm and that when God bursts forth onto the scene in order to complete the task. Moses wants to split the sea as God has instructed, but the sea resists him, presenting itself as an independent being that is not prepared to be riven by a mere mortal, even not "in the name of God." But when God himself appears, the sea becomes frightened and flees in his presence. The Psalms' anonymous narrator is identified in the midrash as Moses, who asks, "[W]hat has happened to you, O Sea, that you flee?"​

​

The sea's response is given a new interpretation: Not only does it disclose its fear when confronting God but also, primarily, it declares a total absence of fear when facing Moses. In the personification performed by the midrash, the sea is presented as a primordial god who bursts forth from the sea and stands up for his rights; the midrash creates a miniature "reconstruction" of the universal myth of the hydromachia : the struggle between the god of heaven and the god of the sea. The sea's flight is the closing scene in this tale, and the mythologization of the biblical story explains the meaning of the above-mentioned gap in the text.​

​

However, the midrash goes beyond explaining the three-way relationship between God, Moses and the sea. God is compared to a king who has two gardens. The event that generates the drama here is the sale of the inner garden. According to the parable, reaching the latter is the goal of the Israelites' journey through the wilderness, while the sea is the outer garden that is not sold to them. The second part of the parable reverses the sea's personified image, transforming the triangular relationship into a dialogue between Moses and God, in which God speaks in two different voices.​

​

The command that God issues to the Israelites - to leave Egypt and journey to Canaan - represents two contradictory wishes, both of them God's. While God is the master of nature and thus master of the sea as well, nature apparently has the right to stand up for itself. On the other hand, God wants to enable Moses and the Israelites to reach the inner garden. This internal struggle - between God's loyalty to his people and his loyalty to nature - is succinctly expressed in the dialogue between Moses and the sea, and is also conveyed by the contradiction in the text. For a single moment, the options are evenly balanced and the Exodus from Egypt is represented as a breathtaking theistic psychosis.​

​

The moment of decision, when God himself emerges and faces the sea and when the sea flees and is riven, is a formative one in humanity's mythological history. It is a moment when nature, compared in the parable to the outer garden, is sold to man - not in order for man to "dress [or work] it and ... keep it" (Genesis 2:15 ). Rather instead it becomes man's property. Thus it is decided that man is not nature: Man is given precedence over nature, and the sea itself is simply the way to God's inner garden.​

​

The seventh day of Passover is the festival of the splitting of the Red Sea and is also commonly regarded as the festival of redemption. If this first redemption is constructed, in the view of our sages, on powerful mythological foundations, one can only imagine how the final redemption will be built.​

​

Who really split the sea?

The seventh day of Passover is the festival of the splitting of the Red Sea and is also commonly regarded as the festival of redemption.

www.haaretz.com

​

​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Until there's IRV, I vote with the Democrats. And I could never vote for Trump regardless of affiliation.

Haaretz is pretty left-wing. So I thought that might be your problem with it.




John

 

[dybmh]

Haaretz is pretty left-wing. So I thought that might be your problem with it.

I have a particular problem with Ha'aretz. They pick and choose which articles to hide behind the paywall. If it's scandalous against Israel, criticizing it, they'll allow full reading of it. The others will have sensational headlines, but the moderating details, actual quotes from officials, are blocked by the paywall. The headlines get picked up and aggregated on social media, going viral ; "Israeli news admits x, y, and z. Evil Zionist controlled west does nothing."

It was pretty bad for awhile. Of course Ha'aretz benefits. Do they care? Are they happy about it?

Here's Ha'aretz reporting on it. But no one can read it.

How media outlets like Haaretz are weaponized in the fake news wars over Israel and Hamas

***

www.haaretz.com

Here's other sources: LINK

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I have a particular problem with Ha'aretz. They pick and choose which articles to hide behind the paywall.

All media do this.

 

[marriedmanoffaith]

Then he remembered the days of old, Moses, and his people, saying, Where is he that brought them up out of the sea with the shepherd of his flock? Where is he that put his holy spirit within him? That led them by the right hand of Moses with his glorious תפארת arm, dividing the water before them, to make himself an everlasting name?Isaiah 63:11-12.
In context, the verses above can appear to be the personage from Edom and Bozrah (wearing blood-stained garments) thinking back to the "signs" that signify the nature of his position in, if not the Godhead (Judaism forbid), then at least in the wonder-workings of God's plan. The personage in the crux of Isaiah 63:11-12 is wondering out loud to himself why, based on verses 11-12, no one from Israel received him when he came, no one listened to his message, such that he was forced to provide salvation singularly. Taken this way, the chapter fits together like a puzzle except that one of the pieces isn't familiar to Judaism proper.

Fundamentally, there was no reason to equip Moshe with a אות [sign], a miracle. The guarantee of success was included in the words spoken to Moshe and to us, for all time: כי אהיה עמך וזה לך (above, 3:12). The historic path we have traveled through the ages, weak as we were, with nothing but the Torah in our arms, is reliable testimony forever that Moshe and his Torah are true.
No less a sage than Rabbi Samson Hirsch dispenses with the third member of the triune Godhead as found in Exodus 4:16-17. He dispenses with this glorious arm of the Lord just as no less a king than the feted Hezekiah dispensed with Moses' Branch, rod, or staff, after it was embellished with the serpentine fore skene the implementation of which gave it its latter day nom de plume "Nehushtan." As Hezekiah had Nehushtan (which is the latter manifestation of Moses' rod) hammered down as a leprous, leavened, icon of sin, idolatry, and divine judgment, so too, Rabbi Hirsch's pen dispenses with God's error in even bothering with the useless rod Judaism has all but ignored in her exegesis of these things.

I found this post fascinating - it touches on some complex theological and psychological dynamics between Judaism and Christianity. I can't help but notice how Rabbi Hirsch's interpretation reflects a deeply rooted need to maintain clear theological boundaries.

The passage discusses Isaiah 63, where there's this striking image of a figure from Edom in blood-stained garments, reflecting on earlier miraculous events involving Moses. What's particularly interesting is how Christian and Jewish interpretations diverge so dramatically here. Christians traditionally see this as a messianic prophecy pointing to Christ, while Jewish scholars like Rabbi Hirsch explicitly reject any trinitarian implications.

The psychological aspect that jumps out at me is how Rabbi Hirsch dismisses the need for Moses' miraculous signs, including the rod (later called Nehushtan). From my Catholic perspective, I see this as perhaps an overcorrection - a scholarly attempt to distance Judaism from anything that might support Christian trinitarian theology. As a historian, I can understand this position given the historical tensions between our faiths and the need for Jewish scholars to preserve their monotheistic tradition.

The parallel drawn between King Hezekiah destroying the Nehushtan and Rabbi Hirsch's dismissal of the rod's significance is particularly telling. Both actions seem to represent a kind of theological boundary-setting, though I believe this might sometimes come at the cost of fully engaging with these rich scriptural symbols.

What do you think about this tension between maintaining theological distinctiveness and allowing for fuller symbolic interpretations?

 

[John D. Brey]

All media do this.

CNN has even recently begun to do it.



John

 

[dybmh]

All media do this.

We're discussing paywalls and how they are weaponized. Not all media do it.

 

[John D. Brey]

I found this post fascinating - it touches on some complex theological and psychological dynamics between Judaism and Christianity. I can't help but notice how Rabbi Hirsch's interpretation reflects a deeply rooted need to maintain clear theological boundaries.

The passage discusses Isaiah 63, where there's this striking image of a figure from Edom in blood-stained garments, reflecting on earlier miraculous events involving Moses. What's particularly interesting is how Christian and Jewish interpretations diverge so dramatically here. Christians traditionally see this as a messianic prophecy pointing to Christ, while Jewish scholars like Rabbi Hirsch explicitly reject any trinitarian implications.

The psychological aspect that jumps out at me is how Rabbi Hirsch dismisses the need for Moses' miraculous signs, including the rod (later called Nehushtan). From my Catholic perspective, I see this as perhaps an overcorrection - a scholarly attempt to distance Judaism from anything that might support Christian trinitarian theology. As a historian, I can understand this position given the historical tensions between our faiths and the need for Jewish scholars to preserve their monotheistic tradition.

The parallel drawn between King Hezekiah destroying the Nehushtan and Rabbi Hirsch's dismissal of the rod's significance is particularly telling. Both actions seem to represent a kind of theological boundary-setting, though I believe this might sometimes come at the cost of fully engaging with these rich scriptural symbols.

What do you think about this tension between maintaining theological distinctiveness and allowing for fuller symbolic interpretations?

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.

In this light, no symbol is more important than Moses' rod. I'm happy that you picked up on the rather amazing statement from Rabbi Hirsch that implies God didn't need to give the rod to Moses. The psychological/theological depth of that statement is breath-taking. In effect, Rabbi Hirsch is denying precisely what Moses' rod represents in the grand scheme of the Tanakh as a divine puzzle. He's willing to forego thinking about the most central, transcendental, signifier, in the entire Tanakh.

Where the breadcrumbs related to Moses' rod are followed for a while, it turns out, amazingly, that Moses' rod is the same emblem later named "Nehushtan." Nehushtan is Moses' original serpent-rod after it's given a fore skene of bronze. Realizing that one rod is in the crosshairs throughout multiple narratives throughout the Tanakh leads directly to a lonely cross on Golgotha where a rod or branch or shoot is lifted up as an emblem later found betwixt the breast of millions (make that billions) of god-fearers around the globe.

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, lends itself to one of Rabbi Hirsch's other statements which says that nothing in the scripture is new or novel. The prophet Isaiah didn't make up Isaiah 53 or 63 from out of nowhere. One particular event was seared into the prophet's psyche. He was there to see Nehushtan taken out of the city, beaten to pulp with hammers, and sold to the goyim for a few pieces of silver.

Knowing what all of us should and can know about what Nehushtan represents, Isaiah was able, all those years ago, to say some remarkable things about the personage he knew Nehushtan represented analogically and metaphorically. When we know Isaiah knew what Nehushtan represents, when we know Isaiah saw the end of that symbol, we know how he foresaw the miraculous virgin birth, the miracle working life, and problematic nature of the end of King Messiah's first advent.



John

 

[dybmh]

It's not real long:

I didn't read it in depth because ...

... from the Luther Bible, Germany, c. 1530.

They're not using the Hebrew Bible.

What do you think about how the article in Haaretz deals with the issue?

I think there's value in knowing where to look in the midrash to read it for ourselves in Hebrew, word for word. Don't skip anything. Don't add anything. If you would like to do that, let me know.

 

[John D. Brey]

I didn't read it in depth because ...

They're not using the Hebrew Bible.

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.



John