• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Isaiah 49:18.

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Half a dozen years ago the thread on Isaiah 49:16 (now an essay) revealed how flawed presuppositions, as well as incomplete revelation, led to distortions in the interpretation and translation of Isaiah chapter 49 of quite literally biblical proportions. And yet the original thread and essay provided only a thumb-nail scratch that while deep enough to draw blood, wasn't deep enough to cause it to bubble up from beneath.

A study of Isaiah 49:18 both supports the exegesis provided in the previous essay, and cuts deeper into truths fundamental not only to the Gospel understanding of Isaiah, but the distinction between Judaism's rendering of the prophet, versus the later apostolic apologetic concerning the latter chapters of the great prophesy.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Half a dozen years ago the thread on Isaiah 49:16 (now an essay) revealed how flawed presuppositions, as well as incomplete revelation, led to distortions in the interpretation and translation of Isaiah chapter 49 of quite literally biblical proportions. And yet the original thread and essay provided only a thumb-nail scratch that while deep enough to draw blood, wasn't deep enough to cause it to bubble up from beneath.

A study of Isaiah 49:18 both supports the exegesis provided in the previous essay, and cuts deeper into truths fundamental not only to the Gospel understanding of Isaiah, but the distinction between Judaism's rendering of the prophet, versus an apostolic apologetic concerning the latter chapters of the great prophesy.

Isaiah 49:18 could be considered one of the most difficult verses in all of the Tanakh so far as a Jewish understanding of the entire collection of books is concerned. Correcting one tiny slip of the scribal wrist threatens to unravel the entire older testament in ways both unimaginable and extremely unpalatable to Jewish sensibilities. And yet it's precisely Jewish sensibilities that are most likely to be sensible enough, mature enough, theologically adept enough, to appreciate the legitimacy of the exegesis that pulls a thorn out of the side, or forehead, of the suffering prophet's later chapters rendering them prolegomena on the latter day apostolic writings.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Isaiah 49:18 could be considered one of the most difficult verses in all of the Tanakh so far as a Jewish understanding of the entire collection of books is concerned. Correcting one tiny slip of the scribal wrist threatens to unravel the entire older testament in ways both unimaginable and extremely unpalatable to Jewish sensibilities. And yet it's precisely Jewish sensibilities that are most likely to be sensible enough, mature enough, theologically adept enough, to appreciate the legitimacy of the exegesis that pulls a thorn out of the side, or forehead, of the suffering prophet's later chapters rendering them prolegomena on the latter day apostolic writings.

The fatally flawed interpretation and translation of Isaiah 49:18 is as follows:

Lift up your eyes and look around, all your sons gather and come to you. As Surely as I live, declares the Lord, you will wear them all as ornaments; you will put them on like a bride.​

We know this interpretation is patently incorrect for many reasons, one of which is the fact that a parallel verse, Isaiah 61:10, speaking not of Zion but her offspring reads:

I delight greatly in the Lord; my soul rejoices in my God. For he hath clothed me with garments of salvation and arrayed me in a priest's garment, as a bridegroom adorns his head like a priest, and as a bride adorns herself with her jewels.​

Isaiah 49:18 is made to imply that Zion will wear her sons as a garment, an ornament, while in the later, parallel verse, 61:10, it's the sons and daughters of Zion who will wear the garment, the ornament, in a priestly manner. Ironically, right after claiming it's the sons and daughter of Zion who will wear a priestly ornament of salvation we read something peculiar and seemingly out of place since Isaiah 61:11 follows up the sons and daughters of Zion wearing an ornament of salvation with this:

For as the soil makes the sprout spring up, and a garden causes seeds to grow, so the sovereign Lord will make righteousness and praise spring up before all the nations.​

The connective vav between the two verses (61:10-11) is strange at best since it's difficult to connect being clothed with garments of salvation, or priestly jewelry (like a bride might wear), with the idea of basal shoots sprouting up from the soil? And yet we read a parallel statement in Psalms 132:16-17:

I will clothe its [Zion's] priests with salvation, and its devoted ones shall ever shout for joy. There I shall cause David's horn to spring up; there I have set in order a lamp for my anointed.​

Isaiah 61:10-11 is parallel, and also commentary on, Isaiah 49:18. They're both speaking of the personification of Zion; just as is Psalms 132:16-17. In all three passages, the morns and cries of the personified Zion, and her offspring, are to be transformed into shouts of joy such that the remaining parallels between the three scriptures should make any careful, or even sloppy, exegete, see a glaring contradiction and woeful error in translating Isaiah 49:18 as though it's implying that it's the personified city wearing her offspring, rather than the offspring of the city wearing an ornament representing the personification of Zion.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
I will clothe its [Zion's] priests with salvation, and its devoted ones shall ever shout for joy. There I shall cause David's horn to spring up; there I have set in order a lamp for my anointed.​

Isaiah 61:10-11 is parallel, and commentary, on Isaiah 49:18. They're both speaking of the personification of Zion, just as is Psalms 132. In all three passages, the morns and cries of the personified Zion, and her offspring, are to be transformed into shouts of joy such that the remaining parallels between the three scriptures should make any careful, or even sloppy, exegete, see a glaring contradiction and woeful error in translating Isaiah 49:18 to be implying that it's the personified city wearing her offspring, rather than the offspring of the city wearing an ornament representing the personification of Zion.

Anyone interested in uncovering a true biblical gem hidden in the earth all this time need only research the three passages in the cross hairs in the most vapid and shallow manner in order to acknowledge quite freely that all three passages are concerned with a future day of glory when a personified Zion, and her offspring, the latter born during her bereavement, will not only shout for joy, but will wear a particular and peculiar ornament directly associated with the salvation of both Zion and her children.

Once these parallels passages are acknowledged the more thoughtful examiner will wonder with serious concern why the interpretation and translation of Isaiah 49:18 come down to us through the Masoretic text inverts the relationship between the ornament of salvation and its wearer?

Don't believe for a second that the scribes and interpreters who have Zion wearing her offspring (Isaiah 49:18), rather than her offspring wearing Zion, made either a simple mistake, or are unfamiliar with the parallel passages (since there are many many more). On the contrary, whether consciously or intuitively, their wrists slip up at Isaiah 49:18 for a very good reason since in both of the passages that have the offspring of Zion wearing the personification of Zion (Isaiah 61:10 and Psalms 132:16) the next statement in each of the two concerns the sprouting up of a basal shoot representing the ornament of salvation. ------Worse, for the slippery-wristed scribes, Psalms 132:17 reveals a tidy morsel of information about the sprout that becomes the ornament of salvation; a morsel of information, fruit from the very basal shoot, completely and utterly unpalatable to the orthodox Jew.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Don't believe for a second that the scribes and interpreters who have Zion wearing her offspring (Isaiah 49:18), rather than her offspring wearing Zion, made either a simple mistake, or are unfamiliar with the parallel passages (since there are many many more). On the contrary, whether consciously or intuitively, their wrists slip up at Isaiah 49:18 for a very good reason since in both of the passages that have the offspring of Zion wearing the personification of Zion (Isaiah 61:10 and Psalms 132:16) the next statement in each of the two concerns the sprouting up of a basal shoot representing the ornament of salvation. ------Worse, for the slippery-wristed scribes, Psalms 132:17 reveals a tidy morsel of information about the sprout that becomes the ornament of salvation; a morsel of information, fruit from the very basal shoot, completely and utterly unpalatable to the orthodox Jew.

Psalms 132:17 says:

There I shall cause David's horn to sprout. There I have set in order a lamp for my Messiah.​

Voila! The faithful Jewish sage, the orthodox Jew, isn't about to eat the fruit sprouting from this tree since it's not till the latter apostolic writings of which Isaiah writing is merely a prolegomenon that eating Messiah (John 6:53) is made part and parcel of entrance into the covenant.

Do you see why Zion must wear her children at Isaiah 49:18 rather than her children wearing Messiah? God forbid we exegete further into Isaiah chapter 49 in order to fulfill our profound wonder at why this chapter, rather than say Psalms 132, or Isaiah 62, be seen as the worst of the three so far as normative Judaism's slippery slope concerning the revelation of Messiah is concerned.



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Do you see why Zion must wear her children at Isaiah 49:18 rather than her children wearing Messiah? God forbid we exegete further into Isaiah chapter 49 in order to fulfill our profound wonder at why this chapter, rather than say Psalms 132, or Isaiah 62, be seen as the worst of the three so far as normative Judaism's slippery slope concerning the revelation of Messiah is concerned.

Isaiah chapter 61 moves from Zion's children wearing the personification of Zion, which sprouts (asexually, see essay Isaiah 53:2) from the earth, adamah, immediately to this strange ornament's relationship to the light of the world:

For Zion's sake I will not keep silent, for Jerusalem's sake I will not remain quiet, till her righteousness shines out like the dawn, salvation like a blazing torch.​

This "blazing torch" was found out in a similarly thorough exegesis of Isaiah 49:16 (see careful exegesis here) to be the very personification of Zion (in the cross hairs of this current study) being lifted up (a few verses beyond Isaiah 49:18) as God's "banner" נס. In Isaiah 49:22, God says he will lift up this sprouting branch, this "banner," even as Moses lifted up Nehushtan in the desert (John 3:14):

Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles, And set up my banner for the people [of Israel].​

The verse above has a direct parallel in Isaiah 11:10:

In that day the root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the peoples [of Israel]; the Gentiles will rally to him, and the place where he rests [in peace] will be glorious.​

As is often the case when the true Author of the scripture wants to peak our interest in peeking below the surface narrative, the asymmetry of two parallel verses are reversed. In the first statement (Isaiah 49:22) God mentions lifting his hand to the Gentiles, and then setting up his banner for the peoples of Israel עמים. But in the earlier statement in Isaiah, 11:10, the banner for Israel is mentioned first, and the fact that the Gentiles will rally to "him" is second.

More importantly, for the serious exegete, is the fact that in Isaiah 49:22, God says he will lift his hand יד for the Gentiles, while he will "set up a banner" for Israel. For Israel, the sprouting personification of Zion is a "banner," or ornament, representing salvation, while for the Gentiles this banner is the very flesh and blood of God, his very hand יד; spoken of by means of a personal pronoun in Isaiah 11:10 הוא. In Isaiah 52:10 we read:

The Lord will lay bare his holy arm/hand in the sight of all the Gentiles, and all the ends of the earth will see the salvation of our God.​

The juxtaposition of the Gentiles and Israel, Zion and Jerusalem, in the verses above, and in our examination, is found, and clarified, in Isaiah 11:10-11. Isaiah 11:10 is quoted above, while verse 11 lends itself to the current study:

In that day, the Lord will reach out his hand יד a second time to reclaim the remnant that is left of his people [Israel] . . . .
In Isaiah 49:22, the "hand" of God, his very flesh and blood, his Presence, is lifted, revealed first, to the Gentiles, while only his "banner," a representation of salvation (John 3:14), is given to his people Israel. But in Isaiah chapter 11, we read that God will reach out his "hand" יד, get this, "a second time," to reclaim the remnant of his people Israel.

The first time the flesh of God, his hand, is raised, and even lain bare, before the Gentiles, it's the case that for Israel that Presence is related to an ornament, banner, or priestly accourtrement, such that the flesh is unrecognized by Israel the first time. But Isaiah claims he will raise up his flesh, his hand, "a second time," for Israel specifically, such that at that time what was first symbolized by a carefully chosen חשן ornament, or priestly form of religious jewelry, will only then be recognized as having been a profane representation of the divine become flesh and blood.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
The first time the flesh of God, his hand, is raised, and even lain bare, before the Gentiles, it's the case that for Israel that Presence is related to an ornament, banner, or priestly accourtrement, such that the flesh is unrecognized by Israel the first time. But Isaiah claims he will raise up his flesh, his hand, "a second time," for Israel specifically, such that at that time what was first symbolized by a carefully chosen חשן ornament, or priestly form of religious jewelry, will only then be recognized as having been a profane representation of the divine become flesh and blood.

Where a major slip of the scribe's wrist occurs, it can have repercussions throughout the text. Likewise, where a grave error is corrected, it can have a domino affect throughout the text. For instance, knowing it's the children of Zion wearing the personification of Zion, salvation, versus vise versa, sets up an important correction of the latter part of Isaiah 49:22, which is erroneously interpreted and translated: "And they shall bring thy sons in their arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders."

A corrected interpretation of the Hebrew of the statement above says "and carried by their sons in their bosom חען and thy daughters wear it suspended by their shoulders between their bosom."

Behold, I will lift up my flesh and blood, my very hand, to the Gentiles, and set up my banner, my priestly ornament, for the people of Israel. And it will be brought by their sons in their bosom, and their daughters will carry it upon their shoulders and between their breast.​



John
 
Quid est veritas?



John

The knowledge of the truth is this:

What is truth?

truth is a word, a certain pattern in the matter of existence.

What is knowledge?

To understand with certainty a certain pattern in the matter of existence, such as a word, is knowledge.

Heb 10:26 - 27 ¶ For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
A corrected interpretation of the Hebrew of the statement above says "and carried by their sons in their bosom חען and thy daughters wear it suspended by their shoulders between their bosom."

Behold, I will lift up my flesh and blood, my very hand, to the Gentiles, and set up my banner, my priestly ornament, for the people of Israel. And it will be brought by their sons in their bosom, and their daughters will carry it upon their shoulders and between their breast.​

The Masoretic interpretation of these verses attempts to justify the Masorete's traditional desire to make the suffering servant of Deutero-Isaiah God's people עמים, the nation, rather than the personification of Zion, salvation. So rather than the sons wearing the personification of Zion in their bosom חען, the Masoretic text interprets it to be implying that the Gentiles will bring the people of Israel, i.e., their sons and daughters, in their "arms" and around their necks/shoulders.

The hapax legomenon whereby the Hebrew word חען is interpreted "arms" rather than "bosom" is important to the shenanigans taking place interpretatively; and though it shows the desperation to purposely bollix the reading up, it pales in comparison to what's found immediately after verse 22:

And kings shall nurse you and their queens will be thy nursing mothers.​

The Masoretic implication is, again, that Gentiles will be the servants of the people of Israel (although the interpreters themselves must have been a tad discombobulated about the idea of a king nursing a child of Israel from his bosom)? Worse, once again there's a parallel passage that puts the lie to the idea that the suffering servant being saved, and elevated, is the people of Israel, rather than the personification of Zion, since in Isaiah 60:14-16 we read:

The sons of your oppressors will come bowing before you; all who despise you will bow down at your feet and will call you the city of the lord, Zion the Holy One of Israel. Although you have been forsaken and hated, with no one traveling through, I will make you the everlasting pride and the joy of all generations. You will drink the milk of the Gentiles and suck the breast שד of kings.​

Keep in mind that Isaiah chapter 49 is purposely juxtaposing Zion versus her children. The Masoretic text implies Zion will wear her children, while a correct reading of the Hebrew implies the children will wear the personified, saved, Zion. Whereas the Masoretes make it Gentiles carrying Zion's sons and daughter in their "arms" חען and around their necks/shoulders, a parallel passage (60:14-16) clarifies why the natural word for the Hebrew חען, "bosom," should be used in Isaiah 49:22 since the topic is "nursing" and not merely being carried. Isaiah 60:14-16 actually replaces the Hebrew word "bosom" חען with the Hebrew word "breast" שד, leaving no question whatsoever concerning the true topic in both places; and thus the true nature of the one being worn as a breast-borne ornament of a priestly nature.

We know these are parallel passages since after reading in Isaiah 49:23 that kings shall "nurse" the person in the cross hairs, we read immediately thereafter that: "They shall bow down to thee with their faces to the ground and lick the dust at thy feet." Isaiah 60:14 has the same language except that it adds some additional information. The sons of the oppressors of the person in the bosom will, perhaps along with the persons carrying Zion in their bosom, do the bowing down. As interpreted by the Masoretes, Isaiah 49:23 is implying that the Gentiles will bow down to the Jews when the parallel passage in chapter 60 implies in a direct way that the oppressors of the one in the bosom will bow down while by adding that they will kiss or lick the dust at the feet of the one in the bosom Isaiah 49:23 seems to imply that the enemies will bow in fear for themselves while the nursing kings and queens will bow in respect and reverence of the highest order. Since Isaiah 60:14 clarifies matter-of-factly that the person in the bosom is the personification of Zion, and not her offspring, we can know that the interpretation found in the Masoretic version of Isaiah 49:22-23 flounders in its absurd attempt to turn the truth of God into a lie for the benefit of a religion to this very day still badly in need of the Salvation found dangling in the bosom of the sons and daughters of the risen personification of Zion.



John
 
Last edited:

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
Heb 10:26 - 27 ¶ For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.

Truth could be said to be context dependent. In fact Kafka said truth is indivisible so that it can't be recognized or codified as though it were a lab rat or a dried rabbit's foot. He surmised from that that anyone who wants to recognize it, or blabber about it, must be a liar.



John
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
For one to say an act of mother nature is an act of God is what it means to change the truth of God into a lie. It is called blasphemy against the holy ghost, it is unforgivable. It is not more complicated than this.

For there to be a lie, there must be truth, and vice versa. And if truth is contextual, then the truth of an atheist is probably different than the truth of a God-fearer. And so nether the two should mix. Probably.



John
 
For there to be a lie, there must be truth, and vice versa. And if truth is contextual, then the truth of an atheist is probably different than the truth of a God-fearer. And so nether the two should mix. Probably.



John

God, being a being of wisdom and knowledge, is Perfect Proper Atheist, anti-theist to the infinite. For a human to believe some other thing is for a human to believe a lie.

I do not fear God. I understand how God came to experience fear, understand it, and get over it.
 

John D. Brey

Well-Known Member
We know these are parallel passages since after reading in Isaiah 49:23 that kings shall "nurse" the person in the cross hairs, we read immediately thereafter that: "They shall bow down to thee with their faces to the ground and lick the dust at thy feet." Isaiah 60:14 has the same language except that it adds some additional information. The sons of the oppressors of the person in the bosom will, perhaps along with the persons carrying Zion in their bosom, do the bowing down. As interpreted by the Masoretes, Isaiah 49:23 is implying that the Gentiles will bow down to the Jews when the parallel passage in chapter 60 implies in a direct way that the oppressors of the one in the bosom will bow down while by adding that they will kiss or lick the dust at the feet of the one in the bosom Isaiah 49:23 seems to imply that the enemies will bow in fear for themselves while the nursing kings and queens will bow in respect and reverence of the highest order.

In Isaiah 10:33-34, the people of Israel are compared to a forest, and the temple is reckoned the central tree of the garden. That forest and that tree are razed to the ground such that in the verses that follow, i.e., Isaiah chapter 11, Messiah rises out of that razed ground as a basal shoot growing not out of the normal propagation mechanisms of the forest, but out of the root hidden beneath the razed stump.

This new branch Isaiah calls here--as the "remnant" is designated holy in 4,3 ---by the name "seed of hallowing." This is no more the natural propagation and maintenance of the people, it is selection by removing . . . he means the place where truly takes place the hallowing of Israel by YHVH . . . the meaning of the "seed of hallowing" here is a particular kind of propagation of the people, set apart in the personal, removing and preserving interference of God, a kind of propagation that conducts the people through death to life, and now the regenerated people is hallowed.


Martin Buber, The Prophetic Faith, p. 133.​

It’s this basal-shoot, sprout, or branch, rising asexually out of the ruins of Jerusalem, out of the stump of the Lebanon (i.e., the second temple) that’s the source and design for the ornament representing the redemption and salvation of Zion and her children. And since Psalms 132:16-17 relates this sprout, rising out of the root of Jesse, with the anointed one, Messiah, David’s greater son, we understand why the wrists of Judaism’s scribes and Pharisees tighten up at Isaiah 49:18 since that verse implies the messianic branch, asexually propagated, and thus virgin born, will be borne in the bosom of the redeemed sons and daughters of Zion.



John
 
Top