Jews only: Psalms 110:4

TrueBeliever37 said:

Please clarify what Hebrew word you are using that means "place it" in singular.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, you're right. It doesn't mean "place it", the singular is obvious from the context, since the subjects are Joshuah the High Priest and Zerubabel.
See Zech 3:8 where Zerubabel is called the "Shoot" (actually see chapters 3 and 4 to verify that contextually the person who was prophesied there to build the forthcoming Temple is Zerubabel, which clarifies that 3:8 is in fact a reference to Zerubabel) who would build the Temple.
The prophecy here is adding another dimension - from under the Shoot (ie Zerubabel) would sprout another [Shoot (ie. the Messiah, Zerubabel's descendant)] who would [also] build the Sanctuary of G-d.
So clearly, one of these crowns (even though it's not stated that there are two, we also assume the smallest amount of a multiple) is meant for the High Priest and the other for the future king. And these crowns symbolized that these two individuals would hold the High Priesthood and the Kingship in their respective lines.

Calling Zerubabel "shoot" is actually a play on words, because the name Zerubabel means "sowed in Babylon".

Do any of the priests including the high priest have a throne

Click to expand...

If so, please show me somewhere in the scriptures, where the priest has a throne, other than here in Zechariah 6:13 (or scriptures referring to the same person Zechariah is talking about).

Click to expand...

The answer is obviously 1 Sam. 1:9 which mentions "the throne" of Eli at the door of the Sanctuary, although even without that, it's obvious that the throne and crown are just representations of their positions, so there's really no need to go hyper-literal.[/quote]

Tumah said:

The prophecy here is adding another dimension - from under the Shoot (ie Zerubabel) would sprout another [Shoot (ie. the Messiah, Zerubabel's descendant)] who would [also] build the Sanctuary of G-d.
So clearly, one of these crowns (even though it's not stated that there are two, we also assume the smallest amount of a multiple) is meant for the High Priest and the other for the future king. And these crowns symbolized that these two individuals would hold the High Priesthood and the Kingship in their respective lines.

Click to expand...

Then you admit that the Messiah comes through Zerubbabel. Something I recently made a thread about. That the curse of Coniah is overcome by the Messiah who restores the fallen fortunes of the line of David (Psalm 89:37-to the end) through Zerubbabel.

rosends said:

The text explicitly refers to two people so I'm not sure why you choose to ignore it to justify a single person. Do you really think that a word with multiple meanings has to mean what you want it to at every turn? You know that I have shown that the word means a variety of things. You know that I have shown that the verse clearly mentions two people who get along with each other. Why would you ignore these things?

Click to expand...

What the text clearly shows is that the same "he" that is going to be king, is also going to be the priest. (Read post 35 again) That was why I chose not to tweak the verse, but put it more literally word for word.

Are you trying to tell me the very same word used twice in the same verse, means two different things? And you know the king isn't just sitting on a chair.

Also what about Ezekiel 21:26-27 where God got fed up with things, and said for them to remove the diadem and the crown (both positions) until he (singular) come whose right it is, and I will give it him? (he didn't say until they come whose right it is, and I will give it them)

Tumah said:

I'm sorry, you're right. It doesn't mean "place it", the singular is obvious from the context, since the subjects are Joshuah the High Priest and Zerubabel.
See Zech 3:8 where Zerubabel is called the "Shoot" (actually see chapters 3 and 4 to verify that contextually the person who was prophesied there to build the forthcoming Temple is Zerubabel, which clarifies that 3:8 is in fact a reference to Zerubabel) who would build the Temple.
The prophecy here is adding another dimension - from under the Shoot (ie Zerubabel) would sprout another [Shoot (ie. the Messiah, Zerubabel's descendant)] who would [also] build the Sanctuary of G-d.
So clearly, one of these crowns (even though it's not stated that there are two, we also assume the smallest amount of a multiple) is meant for the High Priest and the other for the future king. And these crowns symbolized that these two individuals would hold the High Priesthood and the Kingship in their respective lines.

Calling Zerubabel "shoot" is actually a play on words, because the name Zerubabel means "sowed in Babylon".


The answer is obviously 1 Sam. 1:9 which mentions "the throne" of Eli at the door of the Sanctuary, although even without that, it's obvious that the throne and crown are just representations of their positions, so there's really no need to go hyper-literal.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

Ezekiel 21:26-27 - God told them to remove the crown and the diadem, that he would overturn, overturn, overturn it, until he (singular) comes whose right it is.

That's what I am saying, the throne and crowns are representations of two positions, not two people. The Branch (Messiah) would have both positions.

That is right, Zerubabel would build the natural temple in that day. But Zechariah 6:12-13 says that the Branch (the Messiah) will build the temple.

74x12 said:

Then you admit that the Messiah comes through Zerubbabel. Something I recently made a thread about. That the curse of Coniah is overcome by the Messiah who restores the fallen fortunes of the line of David (Psalm 89:37-to the end) through Zerubbabel.

Click to expand...

I don't see what there is that requires admitting. The text itself in Jer. 22:30 says that Coniah would not prosper in his days, implying that the curse was limited to his lifetime and that after "his days" ie, his lifetime, things would return. Aside from that, the Talmud states that he repented during his time in captivity which would naturally rescind the decree even if it had extended past his life.

TrueBeliever37 said:

Ezekiel 21:26-27 - God told them to remove the crown and the diadem, that he would overturn, overturn, overturn it, until he (singular) comes whose right it is.

That's what I am saying, the throne and crowns are representations of two positions, not two people. The Branch (Messiah) would have both positions.

That is right, Zerubabel would build the natural temple in that day. But Zechariah 6:12-13 says that the Branch (the Messiah) will build the temple.

Click to expand...

No, you're confusing two completely separate prophecies. The prophecy in Ezekiel is a prophecy against Zedekiah the king as verse 30 makes quite clear. It's saying there that he would lose his kingship until someone else would come and receive it. The person who would be the one to get it is Zerubabel as we know, who would come some 70 years later. It could also be understood long-term as a reference to the Messiah, since Zerubabel was more client than king, but that's not really important. The salient point is Eze. 21:30 which clearly states that this is a prophecy against Zedekiah, which means that it's a prophecy about the kingship, not the priesthood.

The prophecy in Zech. 6:12-13 also mentions Zerubabel, but only tangentially, as the ancestor of the Messiah who would bare the same nickname as he does the "Branch". Zerubabel is the Branch who would sprout another Branch. That second Branch would build the Third Temple. During the Third Temple era, both the priest and the king would enjoy peaceful relations. The reason why one crown was placed on Joshua's head but the other was not placed on Zerubabel's head is because Joshua was the actual High Priest, while Zerubabel never actually became a real king, it's only his future descendant who would become the king.

I think this is actually alluded to in the spelling of the verse as well, the word "crowns" in Zech. 6:14 is written ḥaser (meaning without the vav) which can cause it's reading to be in the singular. And the next word as well - tihiye - is in singular form as well (it should be tihiyu for plural to indicate both crowns). So although the simple reading of verse 14 is "and the crowns should be [each one] ... as a remembrance in the Sanctuary of G-d", it can also be read as "and the crown of [kingship] should be ...as a remembrance in the Sanctuary of G-d" while the other crown would belong to Joshua.

The point being that Zech is clearly talking about two people holding two separate positions who would have peace between them. It's honestly not clear at all to me who you can possibly understand this being a reference to one person when the end of verse 14 - after mentioning a king and a priest, goes on to add that there would be peace between both of them. It literally says "two of them". If it's only one person is the "two" an unveiled reference to his Multiple Personality Syndrome?

Tumah said:

No, you're confusing two completely separate prophecies. The prophecy in Ezekiel is a prophecy against Zedekiah the king as verse 30 makes quite clear. It's saying there that he would lose his kingship until someone else would come and receive it. The person who would be the one to get it is Zerubabel as we know, who would come some 70 years later. It could also be understood long-term as a reference to the Messiah, since Zerubabel was more client than king, but that's not really important. The salient point is Eze. 21:30 which clearly states that this is a prophecy against Zedekiah, which means that it's a prophecy about the kingship, not the priesthood.

The prophecy in Zech. 6:12-13 also mentions Zerubabel, but only tangentially, as the ancestor of the Messiah who would bare the same nickname as he does the "Branch". Zerubabel is the Branch who would sprout another Branch. That second Branch would build the Third Temple. During the Third Temple era, both the priest and the king would enjoy peaceful relations. The reason why one crown was placed on Joshua's head but the other was not placed on Zerubabel's head is because Joshua was the actual High Priest, while Zerubabel never actually became a real king, it's only his future descendant who would become the king.

I think this is actually alluded to in the spelling of the verse as well, the word "crowns" in Zech. 6:14 is written ḥaser (meaning without the vav) which can cause it's reading to be in the singular. And the next word as well - tihiye - is in singular form as well (it should be tihiyu for plural to indicate both crowns). So although the simple reading of verse 14 is "and the crowns should be [each one] ... as a remembrance in the Sanctuary of G-d", it can also be read as "and the crown of [kingship] should be ...as a remembrance in the Sanctuary of G-d" while the other crown would belong to Joshua.

The point being that Zech is clearly talking about two people holding two separate positions who would have peace between them. It's honestly not clear at all to me who you can possibly understand this being a reference to one person when the end of verse 14 - after mentioning a king and a priest, goes on to add that there would be peace between both of them. It literally says "two of them". If it's only one person is the "two" an unveiled reference to his Multiple Personality Syndrome?

Click to expand...

I can't find the Hebrew word you are saying is in Zechariah 6:14 for crowns, because what I see is "vav-he-ayin-teth-resh-tav" meaning and the crowns. So the vav is there. (The Hebrew word you mentioned is not there in what I see.)

I disagree that it is not important about it being a reference to the Messiah. That is very important - that was my point. It is clearly not just against Zedekiah, as both the crown and the diadem were removed, and would be no more until he come whose right it is.

Once again, in Zechariah 6:11-15 both crowns were placed on the head of the man who was symbolic of the Messiah to come. It is also clear from the text that the same "he" that will wear the crown, will also be a priest. both crowns were also then placed in the temple as a memorial.

Peace between both of them, is referring to both positions, not two people. As you said in a post previously, the crowns also represent positions. It was also so clear in the text - "and he will sit and rule on his throne, and he will be a priest on his throne, and advice of harmony will be between two of them. (the harmony will be between the two positions)

As Psalms 110:1-7 says, the one YHWH is talking to, will rule from Zion with a mighty scepter (v.2), and he will also be a priest forever (v.4).

Who is the one being called my master in Psalms 110:5? It has been YHWH speaking to someone up to that point. I have heard that this was one of the places, where the scribes replaced the name with another word, but I haven't seen any proof or verification yet. It's just kind of odd how the manner of speaking changes.

I was just wondering, do you currently have a high priest? What about priests to offer sacrifices?

TrueBeliever37 said:

I can't find the Hebrew word you are saying is in Zechariah 6:14 for crowns, because what I see is "vav-he-ayin-teth-resh-tav" meaning and the crowns. So the vav is there. (The Hebrew word you mentioned is not there in what I see.)

Click to expand...

The vav that is there, the one in the beginning of the word, is a prefix that means "and". The vav I'm talking about should have been found between the resh and the tav, as Hebrew feminine words in their plural form are supposed to have the suffix "vav tav". So "atarah" in the singular and "ataroth" in the plural. The spelling of this word (not including the vowel points) renders this word "atereth", which means "crown of".
The other Hebrew word I mentioned, "tihiyeh" is the word following this one.

I disagree that it is not important about it being a reference to the Messiah. That is very important - that was my point. It is clearly not just against Zedekiah, as both the crown and the diadem were removed, and would be no more until he come whose right it is.

Click to expand...

That is a very difficult assertion to make considering the opening verse starts with a prophecy against the evil prince of Israel. The context is clearly laying out Zedekiah's punishment for being wicked. What did Jehozadak do that you're dragging him into this?
I assume that you think that because the word mitznefeth is mentioned and this is the name of the hat that the High Priest wore, that the reference here is to the High Priest as well. So I'll draw your attention to Isaiah 62:3 where, talking about Zion, G-d says that she will be a "tznif of kingship in the hands of G-d." Tznif and mitznefeth both being forms of the same word and naturally, translated similarly as well. So here you have the diadem used in reference to kingship, not priesthood. So there's no need to understand the diadem reference in Ezekiel as a reference to the High Priesthood and the simplest explanation is that it's just another poetic reference to the kingship that would be taken from Zedekiah.

Once again, in Zechariah 6:11-15 both crowns were placed on the head of the man who was symbolic of the Messiah to come. It is also clear from the text that the same "he" that will wear the crown, will also be a priest. both crowns were also then placed in the temple as a memorial.

Click to expand...

It does not say that both crowns were placed on the head of the High Priest. And technically, without playing around with the text, it doesn't even say that both crowns were placed in the Temple as I explained earlier.

Peace between both of them, is referring to both positions, not two people. As you said in a post previously, the crowns also represent positions. It was also so clear in the text - "and he will sit and rule on his throne, and he will be a priest on his throne, and advice of harmony will be between two of them. (the harmony will be between the two positions)

Click to expand...

That is a very forced interpretation. It is nt natural to describe the relationship between two positions held by one person as harmonious or a "council of peace". If it weren't for the NT, you would never consider such an interpretation and that alone makes the interpretation (and the NT) suspect.

As Psalms 110:1-7 says, the one YHWH is talking to, will rule from Zion with a mighty scepter (v.2), and he will also be a priest forever (v.4).

Click to expand...

I think we already hashed that one out and I explained that the word "priest" here is not a necessary interpretation. To put it another way, how do you translate 2 Sam. 8:18?

Who is the one being called my master in Psalms 110:5? It has been YHWH speaking to someone up to that point. I have heard that this was one of the places, where the scribes replaced the name with another word, but I haven't seen any proof or verification yet. It's just kind of odd how the manner of speaking changes.

Click to expand...

No one. It says "G-d" (Ad_nai) over there. G-d is at the subject's right hand to crush his enemies.

I was just wondering, do you currently have a high priest? What about priests to offer sacrifices?

Click to expand...

We do not currently have a High Priest although we do have plenty of priests.

Tumah said:

The vav that is there, the one in the beginning of the word, is a prefix that means "and". The vav I'm talking about should have been found between the resh and the tav, as Hebrew feminine words in their plural form are supposed to have the suffix "vav tav". So "atarah" in the singular and "ataroth" in the plural. The spelling of this word (not including the vowel points) renders this word "atereth", which means "crown of".
The other Hebrew word I mentioned, "tihiyeh" is the word following this one.

Click to expand...

The reason I was confused is you changed words on me. In the actual post you said it was "haser" (with a dot below the h). Now you are using "atereth". So why are the vowel points indicating to say it as if it were a plural ending and not as you are saying?

Also note the word for crowns mentioned previously, to be placed on the head of the man symbolic of the Branch, is plural in form. So crowns were to be placed on him.

Tumah said:

No one. It says "G-d" (Ad_nai) over there. G-d is at the subject's right hand to crush his enemies.

Click to expand...

I find this very interesting. I do agree that this is supposed to be talking about God here in Psalms 110:5. This is one of the places where it is said the scribes replaced the name with adonai. (Either way it would be talking about God.)

Do you think when it says "right hand" in verse one, that it is dealing with position relative to one another, or is it a Hebrew idiom, that somehow deals with power? Because if you notice in verse one, it makes it sound like someone is to sit at the right hand of YHWH, yet in verse five, it sounds like YHWH is at their right hand. (if it is position, who would be at who's right hand?)

I guess what I am asking, is if there is any kind of Hebrew idiom regarding right hand that is referring to power? For instance Benjamin means son of my right (or) right hand. Can or does this mean "son of my power"?

TrueBeliever37 said:

What the text clearly shows is that the same "he" that is going to be king, is also going to be the priest. (Read post 35 again) That was why I chose not to tweak the verse, but put it more literally word for word.

Click to expand...

Except that you ignored the last words which reference 2 people. I responded to your translation in message 37.

TrueBeliever37 said:

Are you trying to tell me the very same word used twice in the same verse, means two different things? And you know the king isn't just sitting on a chair.

Click to expand...

There are 2 possible answers to that -- 1, yes, it is possible for a single word to be used to mean 2 different things in one verse. The one who chairs the meeting might not sit in a chair. Or 2, that, no, the word does not mean a literal chair in either case but refers to a position. Either one works.

TrueBeliever37 said:

Also what about Ezekiel 21:26-27 where God got fed up with things, and said for them to remove the diadem and the crown (both positions) until he (singular) come whose right it is, and I will give it him? (he didn't say until they come whose right it is, and I will give it them)

Click to expand...

It looks like Tumah went through that pretty exhaustively. The verse in Ez. is talking about the relationship between the 2 positions. The king is to be removed (and lose his crown) and the role of high priest suffers as well. Eventually, someone will come along and reclaim the kingly crown. The phrase "zot v'lo zot" is understood by some to be pointing to the two different positions that are contingent on each other but not identical. For more on this, read the Malbim on the verse (he references Mas. Gittin, but that's a slightly off point interpretation). The clarifying word is at the end of the verse (hamishpat, the justice). The king will come forward and be given IT (the crown related to his role as judge) in his (singular) hand (check Rashi). He will not get THEM because he cannot be both the mishpat/kingship and the priestly role. So one guy, the appropriate crown determined by his job as king, in his hand.

TrueBeliever37 said:

The reason I was confused is you changed words on me. In the actual post you said it was "haser" (with a dot below the h). Now you are using "atereth". So why are the vowel points indicating to say it as if it were a plural ending and not as you are saying?

Click to expand...

I'm sorry for not being clear about that, something you said earlier made me think you were more familiar with Hebrew grammar. I'll try to explain what I was saying more clearly.
The word ḥaser means "lacking" and in the context of Hebrew grammar, it refers to missing letters, usually vowel carriers, such as in this case, the vav that should be present between the resh and the tav. The word that is "lacking" is the word ateroth which makes it appear to be spelled atereth. I say appear to be, because the vav is only a vowel carrier, so the vowel can still be present even if the vowel carrier is missing. It's just that the spelling becomes atypical for ataroth. If we ignore the traditional vowelization however, this becomes the typical spelling of the word atereth.

The reading of atereth (meaning "crown of" - in singular) is further bolstered by the following word tihiye - "[she] shall be" which is in the singular form as well. In Hebrew, verbs take on the form of the noun they are connected to, so if the subject here was a plural of crowns, the correct verb should have been tihiyu, and this is not just a question of different vowelization, it's the last letter of the word (a "heh" instead of a "vav") that is different in the text itself.

As you may know, the vowel points are not part of the text but are traditions that were passed to us from the Masoretes of Babylon (there was another tradition from Jerusalem which I believe had originally passed to the Yemenites, or maybe some other Middle Eastern country, but I can't recall and I believe they switched eventually). It's from the Masoretic Text that the wider non-Jewish world determined the pronounce the Tetragrammaton as "Jehovah" - this is the most frequent vowelization that the Masoretes use for that word and the one that caught on among non-Jews.

The point being, that now we are left with two ways to interpret this verse - both of which require adding a bit more information into the text.
The Masoretic interpretation: "And the crowns, [each one] shall be... for a remembrance in the Sanctuary"
The non-vowelized interpretation: "And the crown of [kingship] shall be ... for a remembrance in the Sanctuary".
I add in the word kingship their instead of priesthood, since earlier in the text it says that at least two crowns were made and we have two events: placement on Joshua's head and putting away in the Sanctuary, so it's logical to understand it as one and one.

All that being said, I'm an Orthodox Jew and I also follow in the Masoretic tradition. So I don't think the second interpretation is the literal interpretation as the Masoretic vowelization is primary. But I do think that the verse is alluding to the idea that one crown in particular was put away, as there was no one capable of wearing it at the time.

Also note the word for crowns mentioned previously, to be placed on the head of the man symbolic of the Branch, is plural in form. So crowns were to be placed on him.

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't say that crowns were placed on him. It literally says, "And you shall take silver and gold and you shall make crowns. And you shall put on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak the High Priest". There's no mention at all of how many of the crowns were to be placed on his head. Contextually, it doesn't seem likely that they would put multiple crowns on his head. The following prophecy discusses a king and a priest, while Joshua is only a High Priest. Presumably, one crown was meant for the king and the other for the High Priest. Since there was no king present at the time, only one of the crowns was put on Joshua.

I find this very interesting. I do agree that this is supposed to be talking about God here in Psalms 110:5. This is one of the places where it is said the scribes replaced the name with adonai. (Either way it would be talking about God.)

Click to expand...

I don't see what difference it makes if the word is the Tetragrammaton or Ad-nai, when they both reference G-d.

Do you think when it says "right hand" in verse one, that it is dealing with position relative to one another, or is it a Hebrew idiom, that somehow deals with power? Because if you notice in verse one, it makes it sound like someone is to sit at the right hand of YHWH, yet in verse five, it sounds like YHWH is at their right hand. (if it is position, who would be at who's right hand?)


I guess what I am asking, is if there is any kind of Hebrew idiom regarding right hand that is referring to power? For instance Benjamin means son of my right (or) right hand. Can or does this mean "son of my power"?

Click to expand...

It can be understood as a reference to power. Psalm 118:16 says, "the right [hand] of G-d makes valor (ie. war)". In this verse, G-d is telling the Abraham/David/Messiah that He is going to fight their wars for them. So "sit at my right", is kind of saying that G-d will wage war on their behalf. Later, the verse is expressing the same idea by saying that G-d sits at their right, so that when Abraham/David/Messiah is swinging their swords, it's G-d who's really doing the swinging, which is why they tend to win.

Tumah said:

I'm sorry for not being clear about that, something you said earlier made me think you were more familiar with Hebrew grammar. I'll try to explain what I was saying more clearly.
The word ḥaser means "lacking" and in the context of Hebrew grammar, it refers to missing letters, usually vowel carriers, such as in this case, the vav that should be present between the resh and the tav. The word that is "lacking" is the word ateroth which makes it appear to be spelled atereth. I say appear to be, because the vav is only a vowel carrier, so the vowel can still be present even if the vowel carrier is missing. It's just that the spelling becomes atypical for ataroth. If we ignore the traditional vowelization however, this becomes the typical spelling of the word atereth.

The reading of atereth (meaning "crown of" - in singular) is further bolstered by the following word tihiye - "[she] shall be" which is in the singular form as well. In Hebrew, verbs take on the form of the noun they are connected to, so if the subject here was a plural of crowns, the correct verb should have been tihiyu, and this is not just a question of different vowelization, it's the last letter of the word (a "heh" instead of a "vav") that is different in the text itself.

As you may know, the vowel points are not part of the text but are traditions that were passed to us from the Masoretes of Babylon (there was another tradition from Jerusalem which I believe had originally passed to the Yemenites, or maybe some other Middle Eastern country, but I can't recall and I believe they switched eventually). It's from the Masoretic Text that the wider non-Jewish world determined the pronounce the Tetragrammaton as "Jehovah" - this is the most frequent vowelization that the Masoretes use for that word and the one that caught on among non-Jews.

The point being, that now we are left with two ways to interpret this verse - both of which require adding a bit more information into the text.
The Masoretic interpretation: "And the crowns, [each one] shall be... for a remembrance in the Sanctuary"
The non-vowelized interpretation: "And the crown of [kingship] shall be ... for a remembrance in the Sanctuary".
I add in the word kingship their instead of priesthood, since earlier in the text it says that at least two crowns were made and we have two events: placement on Joshua's head and putting away in the Sanctuary, so it's logical to understand it as one and one.

All that being said, I'm an Orthodox Jew and I also follow in the Masoretic tradition. So I don't think the second interpretation is the literal interpretation as the Masoretic vowelization is primary. But I do think that the verse is alluding to the idea that one crown in particular was put away, as there was no one capable of wearing it at the time.


No, it doesn't say that crowns were placed on him. It literally says, "And you shall take silver and gold and you shall make crowns. And you shall put on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak the High Priest". There's no mention at all of how many of the crowns were to be placed on his head. Contextually, it doesn't seem likely that they would put multiple crowns on his head. The following prophecy discusses a king and a priest, while Joshua is only a High Priest. Presumably, one crown was meant for the king and the other for the High Priest. Since there was no king present at the time, only one of the crowns was put on Joshua.


I don't see what difference it makes if the word is the Tetragrammaton or Ad-nai, when they both reference G-d.


It can be understood as a reference to power. Psalm 118:16 says, "the right [hand] of G-d makes valor (ie. war)". In this verse, G-d is telling the Abraham/David/Messiah that He is going to fight their wars for them. So "sit at my right", is kind of saying that G-d will wage war on their behalf. Later, the verse is expressing the same idea by saying that G-d sits at their right, so that when Abraham/David/Messiah is swinging their swords, it's G-d who's really doing the swinging, which is why they tend to win.

Click to expand...

I do understand some about the Hebrew, but don't claim to be an expert by any means. But I wasn't familiar with the word you were using, and it wasn't matching the text, so I knew something was off.

Part of what is confusing is that crowns is definitely plural, the first time it is used. The second time it appears to be plural based on the vowel pointing they are using. I also know that sometimes they use defective spelling on some words like Jerusalem. And even you yourself had said in a previous post, that both crowns were put in the temple.

So how are you convinced of your conclusion that it is crowns the 2nd time, when the verb indicates singular? Please explain that a little more.

I just know it doesn't specifically say, that only one crown was put on the man symbolic of the Branch. You are deducing that from what your opinion is. (The same as you probably feel I am deducing mine from what I think.) But in my view, it was symbolic of the Messiah that would come, having both positions. So both crowns were placed on the head of the man symbolic of the Messiah, with maybe only one crown (not sure) being put in the temple. We probably won't agree on this, and will end up just making the same points back and forth.

I have thought for quite a while that "right hand" was sometimes a Hebrew idiom regarding power. And that what was mentioned in Psalms 110:1 is not talking about position. Because a Spirit that fills heaven and earth wouldn't have a literal right hand to sit at. But It was good to have someone Jewish, confirm that it can be an idiom for power.

rosends said:

Except that you ignored the last words which reference 2 people. I responded to your translation in message 37.

There are 2 possible answers to that -- 1, yes, it is possible for a single word to be used to mean 2 different things in one verse. The one who chairs the meeting might not sit in a chair. Or 2, that, no, the word does not mean a literal chair in either case but refers to a position. Either one works.

Click to expand...

It doesn't specifically say there are two people. You just believe it is referencing 2 people.

I don't think it would say - and he will sit and he will rule "on/upon" his position. Nor would it say - and he will be priest "on/upon" his position. (I mean you have to remember there are more words involved than just throne/chair.)

Yes - you could try to say "and he will sit and he will rule as king" - if it meant his position. But then you would have to totally ignore "on/upon". (similiar thing regarding priest, and I am not even sure how you would go about wording that)

TrueBeliever37 said:

It doesn't specifically say there are two people. You just believe it is referencing 2 people.

Click to expand...

I'm confused as to how you can say that. The verse lists a person who will sit and rule, and a priest, and then references "the two of them." If it isn't referring to the two people mentioned in the text, who are the two between whom there is a counsel of peace?

TrueBeliever37 said:

I don't think it would say - and he will sit and he will rule "on/upon" his position. Nor would it say - and he will be priest "on/upon" his position. (I mean you have to remember there are more words involved than just throne/chair.)

Click to expand...

And I don't think that the text is referring to an actual throne, or even actual sitting. CF Kings 1, 16:11 where the exact same phrase means "ascending to the position of king" unless you say that the king could only kill someone when he was physically sitting on a physical throne or in Kings 1 22:19 if you insist that God sits on a physical throne. Even stranger would be the people who (Jer 22:4). sit on David's physical throne while riding chariots.

TrueBeliever37 said:

Yes - you could try to say "and he will sit and he will rule as king" - if it meant his position. But then you would have to totally ignore "on/upon". (similiar thing regarding priest, and I am not even sure how you would go about wording that)

Click to expand...

Again, nothing is ignored because the word "al" is part of the phrase "al kis'o" which is used in other situations textually to refer to assuming a position.

rosends said:

I'm confused as to how you can say that. The verse lists a person who will sit and rule, and a priest, and then references "the two of them." If it isn't referring to the two people mentioned in the text, who are the two between whom there is a counsel of peace?

Click to expand...

I have already dealt with this. The verse mentions one who will sit and rule on his throne, and that same "he" will also be priest on his throne. It doesn't say there are two people. The counsel of peace will be between both positions.

They were to make crowns (plural) and put on the head of the man symbolic of the messiah to come. You are changing it to be only one crown put on his head because of your beliefs. Let's go by what it actually says.

rosends said:

And I don't think that the text is referring to an actual throne, or even actual sitting. CF Kings 1, 16:11 where the exact same phrase means "ascending to the position of king" unless you say that the king could only kill someone when he was physically sitting on a physical throne or in Kings 1 22:19 if you insist that God sits on a physical throne. Even stranger would be the people who (Jer 22:4). sit on David's physical throne while riding chariots.

Click to expand...

Of course it is an actual throne in 1 Kings 16:11. What you are saying here is ridiculous. You know good and well he actually had ascended to the throne, and had been sitting on it. Of course he wouldn't personally kill someone, while he was physically sitting on the throne.

Yes I do believe he saw YHWH sitting on his throne, with the host of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left, just like it says. Do you think it is impossible for God to take on a body if he wants to? His angels are spirits, yet look like men when you see them.

Nothing strange about Jer 22:4. It doesn't say they will be sitting on the throne while riding chariots. They could do all of these things, but of course it wouldn't be at the same time.

Tumah said:

I don't see what difference it makes if the word is the Tetragrammaton or Ad-nai, when they both reference G-d.

Click to expand...

Tumah,
Since you are saying adonai in Psalms 110:5-7 is referring to God, please explain how he will drink from a brook beside the way, as it says in verse 7.

Tumah said:

No, it doesn't say that crowns were placed on him. It literally says, "And you shall take silver and gold and you shall make crowns. And you shall put on the head of Joshua the son of Jehozadak the High Priest". There's no mention at all of how many of the crowns were to be placed on his head. Contextually, it doesn't seem likely that they would put multiple crowns on his head. The following prophecy discusses a king and a priest, while Joshua is only a High Priest. Presumably, one crown was meant for the king and the other for the High Priest. Since there was no king present at the time, only one of the crowns was put on Joshua.

Click to expand...

It seems very likely contextually, if one man will have both positions.

TrueBeliever37 said:

I have already dealt with this. The verse mentions one who will sit and rule on his throne, and that same "he" will also be priest on his throne. It doesn't say there are two people. The counsel of peace will be between both positions.

Click to expand...

No, as has been shown grammatically and with references to other locations, the wording does not indicate one person but two. And then to claim that the statement of "shnei'hem" "the two of them" refers to peace between two positions makes no sense. You started earlier in this thread (IIRC) asking about whether a certain wording could have a particular reading. It has been shown that the wording echoes other verses and means something. Now, if you want to stick with the alternative you originally sought, then have fun, but that doesn't change the actual text.

TrueBeliever37 said:

They were to make crowns (plural) and put on the head of the man symbolic of the messiah to come.

Click to expand...

Yes, that is your claim. It isn't one borne out here, but that's your belief.

TrueBeliever37 said:

You are changing it to be only one crown put on his head because of your beliefs. Let's go by what it actually says.

Click to expand...

It says "two of them." It lists two positions and mentions two people. That's what it says.

TrueBeliever37 said:

Of course it is an actual throne in 1 Kings 16:11. What you are saying here is ridiculous. You know good and well he actually had ascended to the throne, and had been sitting on it. Of course he wouldn't personally kill someone, while he was physically sitting on the throne.

Click to expand...

The text is pretty clear about it -- he sits in the throne and kills someone according to you. So he can only kill someone while he is sitting in a physical chair. Of course, if you see it (as you write) as "ascended to the throne" then he needn't be in a physical chair when someone is killed. I think a king has the right to kill or have people killed even when he is standing because he has assumed a role/rank. Your insistence that he be seated in a physical chair while doing it is ludicrous and you must know this.

TrueBeliever37 said:

Do you think it is impossible for God to take on a body if he wants to?

Click to expand...

I can see how that concept would be important to you. It is not to me.

TrueBeliever37 said:

Nothing strange about Jer 22:4. It doesn't say they will be sitting on the throne while riding chariots. They could do all of these things, but of course it wouldn't be at the same time.

Click to expand...

It says "For if you fulfill this command, then through the gates of this palace shall enter kings of David’s line who sit upon his throne, riding horse-drawn chariots, with their courtiers and their subjects."
So they will enter gates while sitting on the throne, riding chariots right? No, it speaks of people who have risen to assume a rank/role, not sit in an actual chair. This is a figure of speech which you are choosing to try and understand literally when that would make no sense.

TrueBeliever37 said:

Tumah,
Since you are saying adonai in Psalms 110:5-7 is referring to God, please explain how he will drink from a brook beside the way, as it says in verse 7.

Click to expand...

Drinking from a stream is a metaphor. Building on the previous verse of heaping bodies and crushed heads of the subject's enemies, the next verse uses the metaphor of drinking from a stream to mean that the blood of His vanquished enemies with flow. Since His enemies are all defeated, His head (ie. standing) is raised.
This verse can be understood as referring to G-d who is fighting through Abraham, David or the Messiah. It can also be understood as referring back to Abraham/David/the Messiah, now in the third person, as a summation of the previous 6 verses.

It seems very likely contextually, if one man will have both positions.

Click to expand...

That's true, but as we saw from the context, that itself doesn't seem likely since it relies on very forced interpretations.

rosends said:

The text is pretty clear about it -- he sits in the throne and kills someone according to you. So he can only kill someone while he is sitting in a physical chair. Of course, if you see it (as you write) as "ascended to the throne" then he needn't be in a physical chair when someone is killed. I think a king has the right to kill or have people killed even when he is standing because he has assumed a role/rank. Your insistence that he be seated in a physical chair while doing it is ludicrous and you must know this.

Click to expand...

I had said in my post "Of course he wouldn't personally kill someone, while he was physically sitting on the throne" So for you to turn around and give the above reply, saying that I insist on him being seated in a physical chair while doing it is false, and you know it.

rosends said:

It says "For if you fulfill this command, then through the gates of this palace shall enter kings of David’s line who sit upon his throne, riding horse-drawn chariots, with their courtiers and their subjects."
So they will enter gates while sitting on the throne, riding chariots right? No, it speaks of people who have risen to assume a rank/role, not sit in an actual chair. This is a figure of speech which you are choosing to try and understand literally when that would make no sense.

Click to expand...

Once again what I actually said was - "It doesn't say they will be sitting on the throne while riding chariots. They could do all of these things, but of course it wouldn't be at the same time." So why do you then give the above reply, that makes it look like I said they will enter gates while sitting on the throne, riding chariots? You know that is not what I said.