Isaiah 48.

[John D. Brey]

"Listen to this, O house of Jacob, you who are called by the name of Israel."

Isaiah 48:1.​

This, "you are called by the name of Israel" is pejorative in context: Do you seriously think you deserve to be called Israel? Throughout the chapter two persons or personages are juxtaposed both related to the name "Israel":

Two nations are in thy womb בטנ, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels מעי, and the one people shall be stronger than the other people; though the elder, shall serve the younger.

Gen 25:23.​

As stated in verse 6 of Isaiah chapter 48, one of the two peoples (the latter, younger) associated with the name "Israel" are "hidden" (נערות) from the elder "Israel" in plain sight (נערות):

נוֹצְרִי m. Nazarene, of Nazareth (in southern Galilaea).—ישו הנ׳ Jesus of N. Snh. 43ᵃ Ms. M.; a. fr., v. יֵשׁוּ.—Ab. Zar. 7ᵇ יום נ׳ Ms. M. (v. Rabb. D. S. a. l. note; ed. יום א׳) the day of the Nazarene (Sunday).—Pl. נוֹצְרִים Christians. Taan. 27ᵇ מפני הנ׳ Ms. M. (ed. העב"ום; in some ed. the entire passage omitted) on account of (in order not to be identified with) the Christians (v. Treat. Sof’rim ch. XVII, 5).

Jastrow.

Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us [or even desire to be identified with us].

Isaiah 63:16.​

It's the "hidden" נערות Israel ("nazarene" is hidden in Isaiah 48:6 as the word "hidden") who at their revelation will be known by a new name (Galatians 6:16), a name other than "Israel." God's holy ones (not "seed") will be a branch of Israel hidden in the Hebrew word נצר–ות "branches" or Nosri ("At that time, the term simply designated followers of Jesus of Nazareth, as the Hebrew term נוֹצְרִי‎ (nôṣrî),[3] and the Arabic term نَصَارَى (naṣārā),[4] still do." Wikipedia). They will leave the former name "Israel" to the personage in verse one of Isaiah chapter 48 as a curse:

To my chosen ones your very name will be considered a curse; the Lord will put you to death, but to his other servants he will give another name [65:15]; one which will be used in conjunction with blessings [in the name of . . . amen]. He who takes an oath will swear [in . . .'s name amen]. . . they will be called by a new name associated with a portion פי of what the Lord is called [62:2] ["נוֹצְרִי m. Nazarene, of Nazareth (in southern Galilaea).—ישו הנ׳ Jesus of N." ----Jastrow]. . . Your brothers who hate you ["(in order not to be identified with) the Christians (v. Treat. Sof’rim ch. XVII, 5)"---Jastrow] because you're called according to a portion of my hidden [נצרות] name, mockingly say: "The Lord is multiple, not one, if you're genuinely his sons [66:5]."

Isaiah 65:15; 62:2; 66:5.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

God's holy ones (not "seed") will be a branch of Israel hidden in the Hebrew word נער–ית---"branches" or Nosri ("At that time, the term simply designated followers of Jesus of Nazareth, as the Hebrew term נוֹצְרִי‎ (nôṣrî) . . . Jastrow).

The book of the prophet Isaiah, with the rest of the Tanakh, is first, the older version, interpreted by the first of the two Israels. As such, any nuance lending itself to their younger brothers, who claim to be the very sons of God, are consciously, or probably mostly subconsiously, ignored and written over by the scribes and sages of the elder Israel.

Case in point is Ibn Ezra. The consummate Hebrew exegete consciously or subconsciously mangles the interpretation of the first verse of a chapter he can't possibly conscience if exegeted literally as he claims is his purpose:

Out of the waters of Judah. That is, out of the seed of Judah. . . They utter with their lips that they are God's people, but do not think so in their hearts nor show it in their deeds.​

This double-entendre is incredible since Ibn's deed is exegeting Isaiah 48:1, and he's not showing that in his heart he's serving the Israel of God by faithful exegesis since in the holy Hebrew text it reads "out of the waters of Judah" which literally-figuratively means out of the "womb" of Judah and not the "seed" of Judah. The text implies out of the womb (waters מי) of Judah and not from the male "seed" (זרע, i.e., "seed of copulation" זרע שכבת, Lev. 15:16).

This is not a small thing; and Ibn Ezra knows it since the two Israel's juxtaposed throughout the chapter will be contrasted, separated, by reference to two distinct kinds of birth.

זֶרַע m. (b. h.; preced.) seed; animalic semen (mostly שִׁכְבַת ז׳). Gen. R. s. 73 נעשו המים ז׳ וכ׳ the water in their bellies turned into semen.

Jastrow.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Out of the waters of Judah. That is, out of the seed of Judah. . . They utter with their lips that they are God's people, but do not think so in their hearts nor show it in their deeds.

Isaiah 48:1.​

זֶרַע m. (b. h.; preced.) seed; animalic semen (mostly שִׁכְבַת ז׳). Gen. R. s. 73 נעשו המים ז׳ וכ׳ the water in their bellies turned into semen.

Jastrow.​

The spirit of Isaiah chapter 48 comes out of the the ironies and paradoxes noted throughout the Talmud(s). The prophet Isaiah speaks of the "womb" of Judah, i.e., "out of the waters of Judah," while Ibn Ezra takes it for granted he's implying the "seed" זרע (semen virile), i.e., the patrilineal line of the fathers, as what's in the crosshairs.

In Jastrow's commentary on זרע "seed," he references a passage from the Jerusalem Talmud (Kilayim 1:5) that's seminal to this line of thought. In the dialogue it's noted that Jews are not allowed to graft a branch of one fruit tree onto the stump of another to produce a hybrid (contrary to the law of shatnez). This kind of grafting is "kilayim" (prohibited) for a Jew, as is eating the fruit of the hybrid.

In the discussion (kilayim 1:5) it's asked how one would know the product is from a prohibited birthing process (a mixing of kinds)? Rabbi Jonah's interlocutors point out that sometimes the leaves are the same, and sometimes the fruit looks the same, to which Rabbi Jonah replies that then they will know from the taste.

In his exegesis on Genesis, Rashi points out that when Adam fell, and received his curse, the fruits of the garden were cursed also. Rashi claims that now, after the Fall, the fruit and the tree taste different. Previously the tree was the fruit, and the fruit was the tree. But after sexual congress (the original sin) now the fruit is a mixture between one gender and the other, producing a shatnez-transgressing Duke's jus primae noctis induced mixture.


John

 

[dybmh]

To my chosen ones your very name will be considered a curse; the Lord will put you to death, but to his other servants he will give another name [65:15]; one which will be used in conjunction with blessings [in the name of . . . amen]. He who takes an oath will swear [in . . .'s name amen]. . . they will be called by a new name associated with a portion פי of what the Lord is called [62:2] ["נוֹצְרִי m. Nazarene, of Nazareth (in southern Galilaea).—ישו הנ׳ Jesus of N." ----Jastrow]. . . Your brothers who hate you ["(in order not to be identified with) the Christians (v. Treat. Sof’rim ch. XVII, 5)"---Jastrow] because you're called according to a portion of my hidden [נצרות] name, mockingly say: "The Lord is multiple, not one, if you're genuinely his sons [66:5]."

Isaiah 65:15; 62:2; 66:5.​

I couldn't follow this, sorry.

 

[dybmh]

Hebrew text it reads "out of the waters of Judah" which literally-figuratively means out of the "womb" of Judah and not the "seed" of Judah. The text implies out of the womb (waters מי) of Judah and not from the male "seed" (זרע, i.e., "seed of copulation" זרע שכבת, Lev. 15:16).

This is not a small thing; and Ibn Ezra knows it since the two Israel's juxtaposed throughout the chapter will be contrasted, separated, by reference to two distinct kinds of birth.

Well, I'm not seeing the juxtaposition. Hopefully you will elaborate more on that. As far as Ibn Ezra's comments. For whatever reason, Ibn Ezra is interpreting adding a yud to the word ממי in 48:1 making it מימי.

Here's his comment: וממי יהודה, כמו זרע וכמו עין יעקב (דברים ל"ג כ"ח)
Then looking at דברים ל"ג כ"ח, his comment is: עין יעקב. כל מי שיצא ממעין יעקב. וכן ומימי יהודה יצאו

מימי is watery, not water; so it could be seed.
Klein Dictionary, מֵימִי

Hopefully this brings Ibn Ezra out of the dog house.

 

[dybmh]

contrary to the law of shatnez

contrary?

 

[dybmh]

In his exegesis on Genesis, Rashi points out that when Adam fell, and received his curse, the fruits of the garden were cursed also. Rashi claims that now, after the Fall, the fruit and the tree taste different. Previously the tree was the fruit, and the fruit was the tree. But after sexual congress (the original sin) now the fruit is a mixture between one gender and the other, producing a shatnez-transgressing Duke's jus primae noctis induced mixture.

It's weird to hear you cite Rashi, considering that you said his comments are intentionally anti-Christian.

 

[John D. Brey]

To my chosen ones your very name will be considered a curse; the Lord will put you to death, but to his other servants he will give another name [65:15]; one which will be used in conjunction with blessings [in the name of . . . amen]. He who takes an oath will swear [in . . .'s name amen]. . . they will be called by a new name associated with a portion פי of what the Lord is called [62:2] ["נוֹצְרִי m. Nazarene, of Nazareth (in southern Galilaea).—ישו הנ׳ Jesus of N." ----Jastrow]. . . Your brothers who hate you ["(in order not to be identified with) the Christians (v. Treat. Sof’rim ch. XVII, 5)"---Jastrow] because you're called according to a portion of my hidden [נצרות] name, mockingly say: "The Lord is multiple, not one, if you're genuinely his sons [66:5]."

Isaiah 65:15; 62:2; 66:5.​

I couldn't follow this, sorry.

To follow it requires assuming, for the sake of the argument, that there's more than one Israel's being discussed in deutero-Isaiah. Isaiah implies that "Israel" is actually the Lord's name such that for anyone other than the Lord "Israel" is a surname. In chapter 48, the Lord implies he's sorry that the tribes use his surname and that he isn't destroying them because he doesn't want to impugn his name which they share, and arrogantly glory in (48:9).

Isaiah 65:15 goes further than merely noting that "Israel" is a surname associating those with that name as people of the Lord. Isaiah 65:15 (with many other verses) says that God has hidden a third Israel from the second Israel, and that he's going to give them a new name since Israel two has so tarnished the name. Isaiah 65:15 states that "Israel" will become a term of derision for the Israel with a new name; a name "hidden" (verse 6) in the word נצרות (nazareth).

The Lord implies that Israel two, the tribes, arrogantly assume God has revealed everything to them, and them alone. But he says Voila! Look. I've hidden something from you that is only now going to be revealed through the prophet Isaiah: You have a younger brother who is, to you, as Jacob is to Esau, and as Zarah is to Perez.

In irony of biblical proportion, Isaiah 48 compares Israel two to Esau, Perez, and Cain, all of whom are actually the second born who, with help of their father's "seed" spreader, opened the membrane, the veil of their virgin mother, before, and instead of, allowing the hand of the true firstborn to open that veil.

Ibn Ezra's false interpretation of Isaiah 48:1, i.e., reading it as "seed" rather than merely "womb," is part and parcel of the arrogance noted in Isaiah chapter 48: assuming those who come from semen, seed, are all there is to serve God. Ironically, Rashi interprets Isaiah 48:1 correctly and goes so far as to speak of those who "emanate" out of the womb. Emanation is different than normal, bi-gendered, procreation.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

To my chosen ones your very name will be considered a curse; the Lord will put you to death, but to his other servants he will give another name [65:15]; one which will be used in conjunction with blessings [in the name of . . . amen]. He who takes an oath will swear [in . . .'s name amen]. . . they will be called by a new name associated with a portion פי of what the Lord is called [62:2] ["נוֹצְרִי m. Nazarene, of Nazareth (in southern Galilaea).—ישו הנ׳ Jesus of N." ----Jastrow]. . . Your brothers who hate you ["(in order not to be identified with) the Christians (v. Treat. Sof’rim ch. XVII, 5)"---Jastrow] because you're called according to a portion of my hidden [נצרות] name, mockingly say: "The Lord is multiple, not one, if you're genuinely his sons [66:5]."

Isaiah 65:15; 62:2; 66:5.​

I couldn't follow this, sorry.

Isaiah 62:2 implies that the new name of the new Israel will be part and parcel of a name of the Lord which is unknown ("hidden" נצרות) to the old Israel. A "portion" of the Lord's unknown, hidden, name, will be used in the name of the new Israel.

This new Israel, with a new name, doesn't replace the old Israel, the tribes. All the unconditional covenants to the tribes of Israel will be fulfilled. Not one promise to the tribes of Israel will go unfulfilled. God's love for the tribes of Israel is eternal. Nothing about God's plan for their brothers, the נצרות, impugns God's love, or plan, for the tribes of Israel.

There׳s no mixing of the two peoples. Mixing the two would be kilayim, shatnez, since they׳re fundamentally different kinds of beings. They're not sexually compatible so far as mixing to create a new fruit is concerned. The procreative paraphernalia of the tribes of Israel produce flesh and blood. The sexual body of the נצרות produces spirit, not flesh. The fleshly body of the gentile, or Jew, or whomever, must already exist before the sexual organ ---the Nazarene ----can produce spirit out of that flesh (which is why rebirth, a second birth, is necessary).

Circumcision symbolizes the elimination of the fleshly organ of procreation, and metzitzah, the third stage of brit milah, represents drinking "spirit" out of the flesh formerly used to produce more flesh. As Rabbi Hirsch makes perfectly clear, blood represents spirit, such that metzitzah could hardly be a more perfect completion of the symbolism of ritual emasculation, i.e., brit milah. The spiritual Jew, the Noserim, are born a second time from the one flesh (not the phallus) that's able to transform other flesh into spirit. That flesh isn't the phallus. It's the Circumcision (which is at best an analogue to the phallus: Yesod יסד) .



John

 

[John D. Brey]

It's weird to hear you cite Rashi, considering that you said his comments are intentionally anti-Christian.

I literally love Rashi, Ibn Ezra, Rabbi Hirsch, Nachmanides, like brothers. That's what they are. But we fight like brothers who love one another will often fight and argue.

I more often quote these men as faithful authorities than pointing out disagreements.

It's like me and you. I have no idea how, from your context, you can stomach my Christian bias. But somehow you set aside the stuff that has to be very exasperating to see if there's something valuable.

There is mostly value in Rashi. But where there's clearly erroneous exegesis, it's there that some pearl, or gemstone of immense value lies, like Rashi (sometimes), to hide, or cover up the gemstone (from the נצרות).



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Well, I'm not seeing the juxtaposition. Hopefully you will elaborate more on that. As far as Ibn Ezra's comments. For whatever reason, Ibn Ezra is interpreting adding a yud to the word ממי in 48:1 making it מימי.

Here's his comment: וממי יהודה, כמו זרע וכמו עין יעקב (דברים ל"ג כ"ח)
Then looking at דברים ל"ג כ"ח, his comment is: עין יעקב. כל מי שיצא ממעין יעקב. וכן ומימי יהודה יצאו

מימי is watery, not water; so it could be seed.
Klein Dictionary, מֵימִי

Hopefully this brings Ibn Ezra out of the dog house.

שמעו. וממי יהודה, כמו זרע וכמו עין יעקב (דברים ל"ג כ"ח): Out of the waters of Judah. That is, out of the seed of Judah. Comp. The fountains of Jacob (Deut. 33:28).​

It seems like he's just condensing "out of" and "water"?

But what's particularly important to this exegesis is the verse he gives (Deut. 33:28), since that verse speaks of the "fountain of Jacob" as the heaven's dropping down dew. "Dew" טל is used for rain, while "mist" אד comes out of the earth itself, rather than from heaven above (topside of the missionary position).

Throughout the Tanakh, rain represents the male side of dual-gendered reproduction (from above), while the earth is the mother, the female side. Rain or dew טל speaks of sexual reproduction, while "mist" אד speaks of the waters of the womb, and what's in the womb before it's opened by a till so that the rain can breach (perez) the broken veil of the temple of the earth.

The idea in all of this is that something is hidden in the earth, and the sacred text, such that even though sexual reproduction produces Cain, and Perez, and Esau, hidden in the text, and in the earth, is the ideas that the alleged firstborn (Cain, Perez, Esau) are not really firstborn afterall. Something, or someone, is hiding in the womb since they were created with the womb, with the earth . . . waiting to come out unannounced by a veil torn by the male's rake or till prior to their conception.

Rashi appears to know that in Genesis, the earth is created pregnant already. It doesn't rain until after the Fall. It's only after the Fall that sexual reproduction begins: the male, heaven, in the missionary position, causing all births, rather than the mother being pregnant the day she's created or born.



John

 

[dybmh]

are "hidden" (נערות)

Did you intend for this to be נערות, youngsters? Or was it a mistyped נצרות?

נערות fits with the overall theme, but it did throw me off in the first post. With the way you process the text, I could totally understand interchanging ayin <---> tzaddik.

 

[John D. Brey]

Did you intend for this to be נערות, youngsters? Or was it a mistyped נצרות?

נערות fits with the overall theme, but it did throw me off in the first post. With the way you process the text, I could totally understand interchanging ayin <---> tzaddik.

This time it was a slip of the wrist or finger.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Klein Dictionary, מֵימִי

Wow. The Sefaria Library has some serious resources. The Klein Dictionary says this about the word translated "hidden" in verse 6 of Isaiah 48:

נַצְרוּת f.n. NH Christianity. [Formed from נָצְרִי with suff. ◌וּת.]​

According to sound exegesis, "Christianity" is hidden from Israel because of their (Israel's) arrogance:

Behold, I have shewed thee new things from this time,
ונצורות. שהם נצורות והטעם אצל השם: even hidden things, that are kept (בצורות═נצורות4) with the Omniscient alone.

Ibn Ezra, Isaiah 48:6.​

The coming epoch of Christianity (נצרות) is "hidden" from Israel (Isa. 48:6). It's kept with the Omniscient alone: to be revealed to Israel only retroactively if they will receive it.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

The Klein Dictionary says this about the word translated "hidden" in verse 6 of Isaiah 48:

נַצְרוּת f.n. NH Christianity. [Formed from נָצְרִי with suff. ◌וּת.]​

According to sound exegesis, "Christianity" is hidden from Israel because of their (Israel's) arrogance:

Behold, I have shewed thee new things from this time,
ונצורות. שהם נצורות והטעם אצל השם: even hidden things, that are kept (בצורות═נצורות4) with the Omniscient alone.

Ibn Ezra, Isaiah 48:6.​

Hebrew Netzer
One view holds that "Nazareth" is derived from one of the Hebrew words for 'branch', namely ne·ṣer, ‏נֵ֫צֶר‎,[9] and alludes to the prophetic, messianic words in Book of Isaiah 11:1, 'from (Jesse's) roots a Branch (netzer) will bear fruit'. . . Alternatively, the name may derive from the verb na·ṣar, נָצַר, "watch, guard, keep,"[11] and understood either in the sense of "watchtower" or "guard place" . . ..

Wikipedia, Nazareth.​

There was another branch that miraculously bore fruit. And Isaiah is thinking of it (as will be shown) as he composes chapter 48.

God preserves a seed of life (נצר) in Yishai's shattered trunk (חטר) which will blossom (יפרה) into a branch producing a fruit that will bring blessing to Israel and all mankind ----Messiah.

Julius Hirsch, The Book of Yeshayah, 11:1.​

There was another dry, dead, branch, that bloomed and produced fruit, almonds as it were (Numbers 17:8). And Isaiah is thinking of this particular branch as he composes his prophesy in chapter 48. Isaiah knows something about the priestly branch found in Numbers 17:8 that, like the נצרות, has been hidden from Israel and kept with the Omniscient alone. What Isaiah knows about this particular branch, that blooms almonds, is the key at the very least, to chapter 48 of the prophesy bearing his name, and more likely, the key to the entirety of deutero-Isaiah, if not the whole Tanakh.



John

 

[dybmh]

But where there's clearly erroneous exegesis, it's there that some pearl, or gemstone of immense value lies

Regarding the נצורות

From Sefaria:

Rashi is a little interesting. Is he having fun with words? נצורות and אוצרות sound similar.

ונצורות. ושמורות באוצרותי ואתה לא ידעתם
נצורות - and guarded things in my treasury and you do not know them
​

Ibn Ezra is a little weird too. It's reserved for God, but the prophet is revealing it? "הִשְׁמַעְתִּ֤יךָ". Maybe he's saying it's soooo secret that the essence will always remain a secret?

ונצורות. שהם נצורות והטעם אצל השם
ונצורות - that they [guarded/kept secret] and the flavor is reserved for God
​

Metzudat David is pretty boring if I was able to translate it correctly.

ונצורות. שמורות עמדי ואתם לא ידעתם אותם
ונצורות - things guarded will stand (?) and they don't know them
​

Metzudat Zion - this is wierd because it points to proverbs 26. I cannot fathom the connection. I also can't find a good translation for תאנה.

ונצורות. שמורות כמו נוצר תאנה (משלי כ״ו)
ונצורות - things guarded like a watchman ??? ( proverbs 26 )​

Redak is boring

ונצורות. שמורות אצלי ולא ידעתם אותם
ונצורות - things guarded will be reserved and don't know them​

From the book shelf:

The Daath Sofrim claims the hidden things "alludes to the prophecy of Cyrus", because there's no natural way for this to be known. Isaiah 44:28, Isaiah 45:1, Ezra 1:1-5.

The Me'am Lo'ez claims the new things / hidden secrets are the foretelling that Babylon will destroy Jerusalem.

So, what do you think? Is there a smokescreen in any of this?

 

[John D. Brey]

Regarding the נצורות

From Sefaria:

Rashi is a little interesting. Is he having fun with words? נצורות and אוצרות sound similar.

ונצורות. ושמורות באוצרותי ואתה לא ידעתם
נצורות - and guarded things in my treasury and you do not know them​

One of the things that makes studying the sages so interesting is beginning to see how they hide what's really bothering them in the way they exegete the text. The example you point out is a case in point. The word באוצרותי "guarded things in my treasury" is not only interesting in that it seems like a play on נצרות, but it's also Rashi noting, without saying so, that there's a rather serious problem in the text: nothing is being said to be "hidden." Every other time the word, or some declination of the word is used for "hiding" or "hidden" it's connected to a noun describing what's hidden, or a verb saying something is being hidden. Here, there's nothing being said to be "hidden," and no verb speaking of hiding, so that the word "hidden" is what's being hidden.

Rashi adds "guarded things" because he's aware that nothing is being said to be guarded. There's no "things," nor verb associated with the word.

Ibn Ezra is a little weird too. It's reserved for God, but the prophet is revealing it? "הִשְׁמַעְתִּ֤יךָ". Maybe he's saying it's soooo secret that the essence will always remain a secret?

ונצורות. שהם נצורות והטעם אצל השם
ונצורות - that they [guarded/kept secret] and the flavor is reserved for God​

Ibn Ezra notices the same problem. In the, Sefaria Ibn Ezra, note number four notices this problem:

ונצורות. שהם נצורות והטעם אצל השם: even hidden things, that are kept (בצורות═נצורות4The word כמו comp. seems to have been omitted in the Hebrew text. ) with the Omniscient alone.​

There's no word for what's hidden, nor even that somethings being hidden away, ala כמן (it seems like the word should be with a nun not a vav). The text says "hidden" --- not I "have hidden away." The word נצרות is being used in the text as though it's the very thing being hidden in the word "hidden."

St. Paul calls the "Christian" (Klein's definition for נצרות) era "a mystery" hidden since the foundation of the world (Romans 16:25). Throughout his epistles Paul teaches that nothing in the Tanakh directly reveals the hidden mystery that Messiah would come, be rejected, and call out, or choose, a second people of God (who absolutely do not replace the first). Paul is clear that there's no way this mystery can be seen in the Tanakh except retroactively, i.e., looking in the prophets retrospectively.

Israel is not responsible for not knowing about this mystery dispensation since God hid it from them, and said he hid it from them. And this is a great mystery in itself. How could God hold Israel responsible for not knowing something he himself says he hid from Israel? We dealt with this bizarre anomaly in a thread here a couple years ago called A Crack in the Torah.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Paul is clear that there's no way this mystery can be seen in the Tanakh except retroactively, i.e., looking in the prophets retrospectively.

But this creates a giant mystery and a problem since Israel is faithfully guarding the Tanakh and the original, traditional, reading of the Tanakh, as they're commanded to do. Ergo, it's impossible, or nearly so, to expect Israel to retrospectively search the prophets for the possibility that a suffering Messiah will come, be killed, resurrected, and call out a new people, since even entertaining that possibility (a requirement for searching the prophets retrospectively) would be a breach of the commandment to guard the traditional reading of the Tanakh.

Secondarily, since nothing in the Tanakh gives Israel or anyone else an inkling that God will call out another "chosen" people, the mystery of that calling out transgresses every instinct of the older, or original, chosen ones, and appears to transgress the very scriptures that hide a mystery in a latter day epoch in a manner that transgresses the concept that the second is a phenomenon of the first, and not vice versa. To their credit the Jewish sages note that though the Tanakh text is logical, it's not necessarily always chronological.

The mystery of the Christian epoch appears to hide an even deeper mystery related to the eventual union of the two chosen peoples in the Kingdom age. There seem like no knowable way that these two unique and contradictory epochs (each transgressing the logic of the other) could ever be united unless there's a piece of the puzzle not yet possessed by either of God's chosen people.

Fwiw, techelet תכלת seems to be key in the uniting of the two peoples since something doused in techelet isn't subject to shatnez/kilayim, i.e., a prohibition against mixing two unlike things. You'd seemingly need to get a Jew and a Christian together, and sprinkle them (or baptize them) with/in techelet before they'd be completely compatible.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Secondarily, since nothing in the Tanakh gives Israel or anyone else an inkling that God will call out another "chosen" people, the mystery of that calling out transgresses every instinct of the older, or original, chosen ones, and appears to transgress the very scriptures that hide a mystery in a latter day epoch in a manner that transgresses the concept that the second is a phenomenon of the first, and not vice versa.

This is to say that the very notion of looking for a Nazarene-like Messiah in the Tanakh transgresses the concept that you must first see this Nazarene-like Messiah in the original/traditional reading, digest it, and then speak of it, or acknowledge it, after digesting it, rather than doing it in reverse.

Which is why Taanit 5b got the bells and whistles sounding like a freight train rounding the bend (Dylan) since Rabbi Yitzhak reverses this eat and digest first, and then speak, even though reversing it is so transgressive that it's literally a death-sentence (literally and figuratively) to speak it before digesting it.

Taanit 5b seems to intuit that there's a case where it's justified to transgress a commandment backed up by a "death-sentence" for the sake of a revelation greater than anything in the world of the living-dead. Taanit 5b seems to be a justification for just what we're hinting at by implying that a נצרות-like Messiah is found in the word נצרות as that word is made to stand out like a sore (bleeding) reproductive organ in the text of Isaiah 48:6.



John

 

[dybmh]

Paul is clear that there's no way this mystery can be seen in the Tanakh except retroactively, i.e., looking in the prophets retrospectively.

I recall hearing/reading somewhere that this is clearest in Isaiah. Is that true? Do any others come close?