johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2018 John
D. Brey.
In recent theological discussions the concept of Abel's two
bloods דמי suddenly came bubbling up. Someone noted Rashi's exegesis where it
speaks of Abel's two bloods: his blood, and the blood of his descendants, who,
obviously, can't descend, in the natural way, thanks to the actions of the
purported firstborn of creation (Cain), who, aborts the spring of Abel's
offspring. I pointed out that in Isaiah the suffering servant has two deaths,
like Abel's two bloods (blood representing death in Jewish symbolism), and that
the text of Isaiah 53 speaks of the suffering messiah's postmortem offspring in
an almost identical sense to that of Rashi's exegesis of Abel's two bloods.
So I did a study of Isaiah 53 and found, potentially, the most explosive proof, not only that Isaiah 53 is messianic, but that it speaks of a particular kind of messiah, a Christian kind of messiah.
So I did a study of Isaiah 53 and found, potentially, the most explosive proof, not only that Isaiah 53 is messianic, but that it speaks of a particular kind of messiah, a Christian kind of messiah.
The word
translated "death," is בְּמֹתָ֑יו and not the standard word for
death. The word בְּמֹתָ֑יו means "shrine." And is used in some
fundamentally important places in the Tanakh.
After describing all the elements of the crucifixion, being born from dry ground (an ancient metaphor for virgin birth), sprouting like a shoot from a dead root (Isa. 11:1) being made an offering such as one brings for leprosy, substitutionary atonement, sharing a grave with criminals and the rich, we learn in Isaiah 53:9, not that the suffering servant dies two deaths, but that in his death he becomes a "shrine בְּמֹתָ֑יו." And a shrine of a particular kind.
After describing all the elements of the crucifixion, being born from dry ground (an ancient metaphor for virgin birth), sprouting like a shoot from a dead root (Isa. 11:1) being made an offering such as one brings for leprosy, substitutionary atonement, sharing a grave with criminals and the rich, we learn in Isaiah 53:9, not that the suffering servant dies two deaths, but that in his death he becomes a "shrine בְּמֹתָ֑יו." And a shrine of a particular kind.
Death is the paradoxical agent of Life: a
salvific-messianic-act with human love at the center. . . Not only can physical
death help atone for sins committed on earth, but a perfect martyrdom has the
singular power to repair spiritual realities in the divine realm. . . Only in
this state could the soul be released from its earthly prison ---whether to
ascend to its source in heaven, or
become a shrine for the holy Spirit.
Professor Michael Fishbane, The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism, p. 116 & 126-127 (emphasis mine).
Professor Michael Fishbane, The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism, p. 116 & 126-127 (emphasis mine).
Isaiah 53 describes a perfect martyrdom. Which Professor Fishbane says is a "salvific-messianic-act." Isaiah 53:9 implies that the martyr is martyred even though he's perfect. Nevertheless, it justifies Professor Fishbane's statement far more when we see that Professor Fishbane claims a perfect martyr, as described in verse nine of Isaiah chapter fifty-three, can become a "shrine" במתיו for the Holy Spirit. Verse nine of Isaiah 53 says both that the martyr is perfect, and that he becomes a shrine במתיו for the Holy Spirit.
A "shrine" often functions as a altar where
prayers and worship are directed? In Exodus 20:22, God implies that wherever an
altar is erected he’ll make his Presence felt. In the Hirsch Chumash (commenting
on Exodus 20, speaking of the altar) Rabbi Hirsch says:
Wherever I
would have My Name remembered ---i.e., wherever I wish to reveal My special
Presence, so that people will say : ה׳ שמה, "God is there!"(Yechezkel
48:35) --- you will not have to look for Me in images, but will recognize me in
the blessing that I will bestow upon you.
So an altar is a "shrine" where God's Presence is
registered. And Isaiah’s altar/shrine במתיו, is the place where opposites are
being unified: life, and death, wicked רשע and honorable עשיר, Jew and Gentile.
Even God and man:
Death is the
paradoxical agent of Life: a salvific-messianic-act with human love at the
center. . . Not only can physical death help atone for sins committed on earth,
but a perfect martyrdom has the singular power to repair spiritual realities in
the divine realm. . . Only in this state could the soul be released from its
earthly prison ---whether to ascend to its source in heaven, or become a shrine for the holy Spirit.
Professor Michael Fishbane, The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism, p. 116 & 126-127 (emphasis mine).
Professor Michael Fishbane, The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism, p. 116 & 126-127 (emphasis mine).
It reads: And he made
his grave with the wicked and the honorable [or rich] in his altar/shrine.
------His death, his grave, Golgotha, the elevated rock, with the sacrificial
blood, is the shrine where God's Presence, even the unification of polar
opposites, is being seen, when a Jew is seeing the blood of the sacrifice on
the altar/shrine.
When Moses sprinkles the blood of the sacrifice on the Israelites, he's making them, each and every one of them, a shrine where God's Presences dwells. That's what the tzitzit is all about. It signifies the Jew, who wears it, as being a shrine for the Holy Spirit, the place where God's Presence dwells.
When Moses sprinkles the blood of the sacrifice on the Israelites, he's making them, each and every one of them, a shrine where God's Presences dwells. That's what the tzitzit is all about. It signifies the Jew, who wears it, as being a shrine for the Holy Spirit, the place where God's Presence dwells.
Within post-temple practice, prayers have taken the place of
animal sacrifice. -----The new altar/shine is the Jew himself, who wears the
curtain with the shatnez rescinding techelet (the tzitzit) over his head, and who has, what no less than Rabbi
Sampson Hirsch called the "ark of the covenant in miniature" (the shel rosh) on the most holy place of his
body. The tefillin turns the Jewish body into a shrine, and the tallit tells us
what kind of shrine we're talking about: the veil in the temple (like the tzitzit) was died [sic] with techelet.
If we're inclined to take a brilliant Jewish Professor like Michael Fishbane seriously, then the sacrifice the penitent prayer-offer brings could very well be himself:
If we're inclined to take a brilliant Jewish Professor like Michael Fishbane seriously, then the sacrifice the penitent prayer-offer brings could very well be himself:
The proper
practice of the daily Shema is then as much a preparation for saintly death as
it is a credo of living love of God. The ritual recitation is thus an
interiorization of death, such that the true devotee is already in life a
spiritual martyr in deed. . . This interpretation of the Shema recitation as a
meditation on martyrological death recurs throughout the Middle Ages--- and
beyond.
Kiss of Death, p. 102.
Kiss of Death, p. 102.
Perhaps the temple was always just a stony anthropomorphism
all along? Perhaps that's what Jeremiah was talking about when he spoke of
replacing the stony home of the Torah with a heart of flesh and blood? Perhaps
every Jew is that living home of the Torah, the true temple, the true shrine?
One of the oddities of Isaiah is the fact that he constantly
claims it's the nations, the goy nations, who first recognize the suffering
servant in this particular shrine. In chapter 11, verse 10 and 11, Isaiah
implies that the Gentiles will first recognize the suffering servant (when he's
lifted up as a shrine), and then Israel will accept the same suffering servant,
the foundation of their faith, later.
This nuance undermines the idea that the nation of Israel is
the suffering servant spoken of in Deutero-Isaiah. Which is not to deny that
the nation too suffers unfairly just like the personage in Deutero-Isaiah. The
nation too suffers for righteousness sake. The nation of Israel is the
messianic nation, no doubt. And suffers like the personage in the cross-hairs
of Deutero-Isaiah. That can never be denied by a serious student of the word of
God.
Nevertheless, it's important to distinguish the singular suffering servant of Deutero-Isaiah from the larger nation. Isaiah 52:15 through 53:1, indeed seems to lend itself to the national suffering-servant interpretation. But in fact it's implying that the nations recognize the singular suffering-servant before the nation of Israel does. This is naturally problematic for modern Jews, but Isaiah thoroughly justifies the fact that the nations, not Israel, will first recognize the singular suffering-servant, who is the true paragon of the entire nation of Israel.
Nevertheless, it's important to distinguish the singular suffering servant of Deutero-Isaiah from the larger nation. Isaiah 52:15 through 53:1, indeed seems to lend itself to the national suffering-servant interpretation. But in fact it's implying that the nations recognize the singular suffering-servant before the nation of Israel does. This is naturally problematic for modern Jews, but Isaiah thoroughly justifies the fact that the nations, not Israel, will first recognize the singular suffering-servant, who is the true paragon of the entire nation of Israel.
Isaiah 53:8 seems to justify the national suffering-servant
since in the sentence, "For the transgression of my people he was
stricken" (KJV): מִפֶּ֥שַׁע עַמִּ֖י נֶ֥גַע לָֽמוֹ ----the pronoun למו
which implies that "he was stricken" נגע is actually a plural
pronoun, it would seem to suggest "they" were stricken, lending
itself to the idea that Isaiah 53 is speaking of the nation as the suffering-servant
rather than a singular suffering servant as is found in the King James
translation/interpretation.
Nevertheless, grammatically speaking, the KJV can be seen as a correct translation since the word "stricken" is in the singular, and in Hebrew, a plural noun must take a plural verb form. "For the transgression of my people, for them, was the strike [administered]." ------The plural pronoun must be speaking of "my people" while the singular verb must refer back to he who, in the previous statement, was said to be cut off from the living (by means of the strike).
Nevertheless, grammatically speaking, the KJV can be seen as a correct translation since the word "stricken" is in the singular, and in Hebrew, a plural noun must take a plural verb form. "For the transgression of my people, for them, was the strike [administered]." ------The plural pronoun must be speaking of "my people" while the singular verb must refer back to he who, in the previous statement, was said to be cut off from the living (by means of the strike).
Verse 5 is a parallel to verse 8. Verse 5 makes it clear
that the text is speaking of a singular suffering-servant. Interpreting it as a
verb in verse 8 links it to "He was cut off from the land of the
living." By means of having been struck.
For he was cut off [masculine singular] from the land of the living: For the transgressions of my people, for them, stricken.
This is justified by verse 5:
But he [masculine singular] was wounded [masculine singular] for our transgressions, he was bruised [masculine singular] for our iniquities: The chastisement of our peace was upon him [masculine singular]; And with his stripes we are healed.
This is clearly a parallel construction speaking of the same personage and it's masculine singular all the way.
For he was cut off [masculine singular] from the land of the living: For the transgressions of my people, for them, stricken.
This is justified by verse 5:
But he [masculine singular] was wounded [masculine singular] for our transgressions, he was bruised [masculine singular] for our iniquities: The chastisement of our peace was upon him [masculine singular]; And with his stripes we are healed.
This is clearly a parallel construction speaking of the same personage and it's masculine singular all the way.
As translated in
the KJV, Isaiah 53:8, implies that the suffering servant receives his greatest
blow, or strike (causing death), for the sake of the sins of the nation of
Israel; their transgressions are the cause of the death of a righteous man.
He's judged for their transgressions; one of which, perhaps, is the
transgressive nature of his very judgment?
But that's all old hatan. ---What's new to this study is the correction of the word found in Isaiah 53:9, the word that’s actually a “shrine” במתין. The word means "shrine.” The nature of the strike received by the sufferer results in his becoming a shrine for the Holy Spirit; a "high place" where prayers, supplication, and the hope of salvation is directed.
As can be seen throughout Isaiah, he (Isaiah) has a particular shrine in mind when he writes what he wrote at 53:9:
But that's all old hatan. ---What's new to this study is the correction of the word found in Isaiah 53:9, the word that’s actually a “shrine” במתין. The word means "shrine.” The nature of the strike received by the sufferer results in his becoming a shrine for the Holy Spirit; a "high place" where prayers, supplication, and the hope of salvation is directed.
As can be seen throughout Isaiah, he (Isaiah) has a particular shrine in mind when he writes what he wrote at 53:9:
Then his people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses
and his people.---Where is he who brought them through the sea, with the
shepherd of his flock? Where is he who set his Holy Spirit among them, who sent
his glorious arm of power to be at Moses' right hand . . ..
Isaiah 63:11-12.
What, who,
specifically, is this "glorious arm of power" that's central to
understanding the spirit of Deutero-Isaiah? What precisely is Isaiah
referencing in a manner dictating that any reasonable exegete must center this
image as the gravity around which the rest of Isaiah’s prophesy revolves?
Nehushtan. A hand-held shrine constructed from Moses' serpent rod.
Nehushtan. A hand-held shrine constructed from Moses' serpent rod.
And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even
so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not
perish, but have eternal life.
John 3:14-15.
John 3:14-15.
The Apostle John,
justifying the premise of this examination, claims that the shrine, in Isaiah
53:9, constructed and consecrated when the suffering servant comes under the judgment
of Israel, will, get this, be lifted up as a hand-held shrine just like the one
Moses lifted in the desert. . . It's the latter part of John's statement that's
most remarkable. He claims that whosoever looks up at the shrine and believes,
will be saved.
The Talmud, as read by Rabbi Ellie Munk, asks how a copper snake on a branch (Nehushtan) could control life and death (Rosh Hashanah 29a). To quote Rabbi Munk, "The answer given is that when the Israelites raised their eyes to Hashem they were healed. . . when the people looked at the serpent at the top of the pole [Nehushtan] and held the thought that Hashem alone could cause a wound or its healing, then the healing soon followed." -----The wording is interesting in that Rabbi Munk, speaking for the Talmud, seems to echo John 3:14-15. ----The Israelites were raising their eyes to Hashem when they peered at the hand-held shrine. The Talmud is suggesting the serpent on the pole was designed to get the Israelites to cast their gaze toward Hashem. They’re healed by gazing up at Hashem.
In 2 Kings 18:4, we're told the Israelites gave the salvific-branch-shrine a personal name, “Nehushtan.” They used the shrine pretty much as Christian's use the crucifix. As a salvific-emblem where prayers, supplications, and the hopes for salvation are directed toward God. That is, as a shrine.
In a bizarre echo from the Gospels, after explaining that the Israelites were worshiping at the salvific-shrine, Nehushtan, the very next statement (2 Kings 18:5) reads : "He trusted in Hashem, the Hashem of Israel." . . . The Gospel documents that when they looked up at Jesus hanging on the cross the Israelites said: "He trusted in Hashem; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God" (Matthew 27:43).
Jewish exegetes will say 2 Kings 18:5 is speaking of Hezekiah (Hezekiah trusted Hashem), who, Hezekiah, the passage claims, crucified Nehustan because Jews were seeking it out as the means of salvation and contact with God. Hezekiah's attitude toward Nehushtan was like his latter-day Jewish priest's attitude toward Jesus of Nazareth.
But the passage claims the one who trusted in Hashem was, get this, the greatest king of Judah of all time. None were greater before him, and none will be greater after him. ----This is speaking of Messiah (since no other king is greater than David). -----And it's why Rashi, Redak, and many Jewish sages claim other messianic passages in Isaiah are speaking of Hezekiah, rather than Messiah. They transpose the statement speaking of Nehushtan, the salvific-shrine, which we now know to be the messianic-salvific-shrine of Isaiah 53:9, with Hezekiah, who actually destroyed the messianic-salvific-shrine, in a manner that received, and still receives, lauds and applauds, from Pharisaical Jews, and their modern Jewish religion.
The prophet Isaiah literally witnessed the crucifixion of Nehushtan. He saw the destruction of Nehushtan.
Some of the best exegetes and historians of the Tanakh have remarked on the supernatural abilities of Isaiah to seemingly presage the spirit of the Gospels so many years before its direct manifestation. The pathos of this almost Delphic ability to channel the future, an ability verging on the pathological, is the fact that Isaiah is the only prophet allowed to witness the crucifixion of Nehushtan at the hands of the sacrilegious and religion fevered rulers over Israel.
Since Nehushtan was a visible manifestation of the invisible God, the destruction of Nehushtan was the crucifixion of the visible manifestation of the invisible God.
Ironically, the same cast of characters found in the Gospel account of the crucifixion of the visible manifestation of the invisible God, the sanctimonious and sacrilegious rulers of Israel, destroy Nehushtan, the ancient crucifix, precisely as their latter day offspring mimic them at the crucifixion of the living manifestation of Nehushtan. -----Isaiah is the only writer in the Tanakh to witness the crucifixion of the visible manifestation of God, the portable theophany in Moses’ hand. Isaiah was privileged not only to witness this preemptive strike against the Branch, but also to provide an eye-witness account --- an oracular prophesy--- of an event that wouldn’t occur for many hundreds of years.
Deutero-Isaiah is drenched in the blood of Nehushtan such that only through a conspiracy concocted by the same people who destroyed Nehushtan could any person possibly ignore the fact that Isaiah saw, in the destruction of Nehushtan, which he personally witnessed, the death of the One Nehushtan only symbolized, the One spoken of in Isaiah 53, who is given the same blow Hezekiah gave Nehushtan, in order to become the universal emblem that is the messianic-salvific-shrine, par פאר excellent תפארת.
The Talmud, as read by Rabbi Ellie Munk, asks how a copper snake on a branch (Nehushtan) could control life and death (Rosh Hashanah 29a). To quote Rabbi Munk, "The answer given is that when the Israelites raised their eyes to Hashem they were healed. . . when the people looked at the serpent at the top of the pole [Nehushtan] and held the thought that Hashem alone could cause a wound or its healing, then the healing soon followed." -----The wording is interesting in that Rabbi Munk, speaking for the Talmud, seems to echo John 3:14-15. ----The Israelites were raising their eyes to Hashem when they peered at the hand-held shrine. The Talmud is suggesting the serpent on the pole was designed to get the Israelites to cast their gaze toward Hashem. They’re healed by gazing up at Hashem.
In 2 Kings 18:4, we're told the Israelites gave the salvific-branch-shrine a personal name, “Nehushtan.” They used the shrine pretty much as Christian's use the crucifix. As a salvific-emblem where prayers, supplications, and the hopes for salvation are directed toward God. That is, as a shrine.
In a bizarre echo from the Gospels, after explaining that the Israelites were worshiping at the salvific-shrine, Nehushtan, the very next statement (2 Kings 18:5) reads : "He trusted in Hashem, the Hashem of Israel." . . . The Gospel documents that when they looked up at Jesus hanging on the cross the Israelites said: "He trusted in Hashem; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God" (Matthew 27:43).
Jewish exegetes will say 2 Kings 18:5 is speaking of Hezekiah (Hezekiah trusted Hashem), who, Hezekiah, the passage claims, crucified Nehustan because Jews were seeking it out as the means of salvation and contact with God. Hezekiah's attitude toward Nehushtan was like his latter-day Jewish priest's attitude toward Jesus of Nazareth.
But the passage claims the one who trusted in Hashem was, get this, the greatest king of Judah of all time. None were greater before him, and none will be greater after him. ----This is speaking of Messiah (since no other king is greater than David). -----And it's why Rashi, Redak, and many Jewish sages claim other messianic passages in Isaiah are speaking of Hezekiah, rather than Messiah. They transpose the statement speaking of Nehushtan, the salvific-shrine, which we now know to be the messianic-salvific-shrine of Isaiah 53:9, with Hezekiah, who actually destroyed the messianic-salvific-shrine, in a manner that received, and still receives, lauds and applauds, from Pharisaical Jews, and their modern Jewish religion.
The prophet Isaiah literally witnessed the crucifixion of Nehushtan. He saw the destruction of Nehushtan.
Some of the best exegetes and historians of the Tanakh have remarked on the supernatural abilities of Isaiah to seemingly presage the spirit of the Gospels so many years before its direct manifestation. The pathos of this almost Delphic ability to channel the future, an ability verging on the pathological, is the fact that Isaiah is the only prophet allowed to witness the crucifixion of Nehushtan at the hands of the sacrilegious and religion fevered rulers over Israel.
Since Nehushtan was a visible manifestation of the invisible God, the destruction of Nehushtan was the crucifixion of the visible manifestation of the invisible God.
Ironically, the same cast of characters found in the Gospel account of the crucifixion of the visible manifestation of the invisible God, the sanctimonious and sacrilegious rulers of Israel, destroy Nehushtan, the ancient crucifix, precisely as their latter day offspring mimic them at the crucifixion of the living manifestation of Nehushtan. -----Isaiah is the only writer in the Tanakh to witness the crucifixion of the visible manifestation of God, the portable theophany in Moses’ hand. Isaiah was privileged not only to witness this preemptive strike against the Branch, but also to provide an eye-witness account --- an oracular prophesy--- of an event that wouldn’t occur for many hundreds of years.
Deutero-Isaiah is drenched in the blood of Nehushtan such that only through a conspiracy concocted by the same people who destroyed Nehushtan could any person possibly ignore the fact that Isaiah saw, in the destruction of Nehushtan, which he personally witnessed, the death of the One Nehushtan only symbolized, the One spoken of in Isaiah 53, who is given the same blow Hezekiah gave Nehushtan, in order to become the universal emblem that is the messianic-salvific-shrine, par פאר excellent תפארת.
These things are
missing from Judaism. Even the great sages strain, with the angels (1 Peter
1:10-12), to understand things that are hidden from Judaism, and perhaps also to
intuit why they're hidden? But there’s things hidden from Christianity too. And
ironically what's hidden from Judaism is found in Christianity, and what's
hidden from Christianity is found in Judaism. God made it that way so that only
those who can harbor the melding of two contradictions between their bosom, can
wear Yeshua, as all priests must wear Yeshua.
Salvation comes
from the lamb of God whose Name is Shaddai. He’s the yid in the shad. The
melding of the opposites of life and death, light and dark, man and not man,
Jew and Gentile, in the greatest bosom-born ornament the world has, or will,
ever know. As Rabbi Hirsch teaches, the menorah-image (below) must be worn
between the bosom of a Jewish priest (Exodus 28:30) whenever he seeks the
Presence of God in his very midst (or mid-section, say between his breast).
God's is the yod י whose
abode is between the shad (the breast) שד. He's the yod, or yid, between the shad. That's his shrine,
per Isaiah 53:9. ------That’s his abode. ------It’s where his Name and his
Presence are found, if in fact they’re in fact found.
ד׳
חכמה עצה דעת רוחויראתד׳וגבורהובינה
רוח
רוח
רוח
ח
ו
ט
ר
ג ז ע
חכמה עצה דעת רוחויראתד׳וגבורהובינה
רוח
רוח
רוח
ח
ו
ט
ר
ג ז ע
