Isaiah 53:9.

[John D. Brey]

In another thread, the concept of Abel's two bloods דמי came bubbling up. Someone noted Rashi's exegesis where it speaks of Abel's blood and the blood of his descendants, who, obviously, can't descend, in the natural way, thanks to the actions of the purported firstborn of creation (Cain), who, aborts the spring of Abel's offspring. I pointed out that in Isaiah the suffering servant has two deaths, like Abel's two bloods (blood representing death in Jewish symbolism), and that the text of Isaiah 53 speaks of the suffering messiah's postmortem offspring in an almost identical sense to that of Rashi's exegesis of Abel's two bloods.

So I did a study of Isaiah 53:9, and found, potentially, the most explosive proof, not only that Isaiah 53 is messianic, but that it speaks of a particular kind of messiah, a Christian kind of messiah.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

In another thread, the concept of Abel's two bloods דמי came bubbling up. Someone noted Rashi's exegesis where it speaks of Abel's blood and the blood of his descendants, who, obviously, can't descend, in the natural way, thanks to the actions of the purported firstborn of creation (Cain), who, aborts the spring of Abel's offspring. I pointed out that in Isaiah the suffering servant has two deaths, like Abel's two bloods (blood representing death in Jewish symbolism), and that the text of Isaiah 53 speaks of the suffering messiah's postmortem offspring in an almost identical sense to that of Rashi's exegesis of Abel's two bloods.

So I did a study of Isaiah 53:9, and found, potentially, the most explosive proof, not only that Isaiah 53 is messianic, but that it speaks of a particular kind of messiah, a Christian kind of messiah.



John

The word translated "death," is בְּמֹתָ֑יו and not the standard word for death. The word בְּמֹתָ֑יו means "shrine." And is used in some fundamentally important places in the Tanakh.

After describing all the elements of the crucifixion, being born from dry ground (an ancient metaphor for virgin birth), sprouting like a shoot from a dead root (Isa. 11:1) being made an offering such as one brings for leprosy, substitutionary atonement, sharing a grave with criminals and the rich, we learn in Isaiah 53:9 not that the suffering servant dies two deaths, but that in his death he becomes a "shrine בְּמֹתָ֑יו." And a shrine of a particular kind.



John

ד׳
חכמה עצה דעת רוחויראתד׳וגבורהובינה
רוח
רוח
רוח
ח
ו
ט
ר

ג ז ע​

 

[John D. Brey]

The word translated "death," is בְּמֹתָ֑יו and not the standard word for death. The word בְּמֹתָ֑יו means "shrine." And is used in some fundamentally important places in the Tanakh.

After describing all the elements of the crucifixion, being born from dry ground (an ancient metaphor for virgin birth), sprouting like a shoot from a dead root (Isa. 11:1) being made an offering such as one brings for leprosy, substitutionary atonement, sharing a grave with criminals and the rich, we learn in Isaiah 53:9 not that the suffering servant dies two deaths, but that in his death he becomes a "shrine בְּמֹתָ֑יו." And a shrine of a particular kind.



John

ד׳
חכמה עצה דעת רוחויראתד׳וגבורהובינה
רוח
רוח
רוח
ח
ו
ט
ר

ג ז ע​

Death is the paradoxical agent of Life: a salvific-messianic-act with human love at the center. . . Not only can physical death help atone for sins committed on earth, but a perfect martyrdom has the singular power to repair spiritual realities in the divine realm. . . Only in this state could the soul be released from its earthly prison ---whether to ascend to its source in heaven, or become a shrine for the holy Spirit.

Professor Michael Fishbane, The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism, p. 116 & 126-127.​

Isaiah 53 describes a perfect martydom. Which Professor Fishbane says is a "salvific-messianic-act." Isaiah 53:9 implies that the martyr is martyred though he's perfect. But it justifies Professor Fishbane's statement far more when we see that Professor Fishbane claims a perfect martyr, as described in verse nine of Isaiah chapter fifty-three, can become a "shrine" במתיו for the Holy Spirit. Verse nine of Isaiah 53 says both that the martyr is perfect, and that he becomes a shrine במתיו for the Holy Spirit.

If a would-be exegete searches the entire scripture they would find 376 uses of the word "death" מות and out of the those 376 uses of the word death there's not one single time that a beit is used as a prefix outside of Isaiah 53:9. There's not one time a yod-vav suffix is attached to מות or מת and yet here, Isaiah 53:9, we're to believe we have two hapax legomena: a beit ב prefix and a yod-vav יו suffix on the word "death" in order not to makes this suffering servant's death a "shrine" ּבמתיו for the Holy Spirit.



John

ד׳

חכמה עצה דעת רוחויראתד׳וגבורהובינה
רוח
רוח
רוח
ח
ו
ט
ר

ג ז ע​

 

[Shaul]

The word בְּמֹתָיו is a plural. It translates as “deaths”. The number of deaths is not specified so saying it is two deaths is adding to the text. Jesus of Nazareth did not experience more than one death, and presumably never will. One more reason Isaiah 53 is not about him. There is nothing in Isaiah that requires it to be about the moshiach. The collective body of the righteous remnant of Israel are explicitly called the servant (using a word in a singular) of G-d in numerous other places within Isaiah both before and after chapter 53. Furthermore identifying the righteous collective of Israel with the servant of chapter 53 is a complete match.

 

[John D. Brey]

The word בְּמֹתָיו is a plural. It translates as “deaths”. The number of deaths is not specified so saying it is two deaths is adding to the text. Jesus of Nazareth did not experience more than one death, and presumably never will. One more reason Isaiah 53 is not about him. There is nothing in Isaiah that requires it to be about the moshiach. The collective body of the righteous remnant of Israel are explicitly called the servant (using a word in a singular) of G-d in numerous other places within Isaiah both before and after chapter 53. Furthermore identifying the righteous collective of Israel with the servant of chapter 53 is a complete match.

The suffering servant is singular, so making is speak of a collective is adding to the text just as surely as saying the plural "deaths" isn't speaking of just two. It doesn't seem fair to apply literalness only where it suits your interpretation.

Show me a place anywhere in the Tanakh where the word for death, mot, מות has a beit prefix? Show me anywhere in the Tanakh where the word death, mot, מת has a yod-vav suffix?

וַיִּתֵּ֤ן אֶת־רְשָׁעִים֙ קִבְר֔וֹ וְאֶת־עָשִׁ֖יר בְּמֹתָ֑יו עַ֚ל לֹא־חָמָ֣ס עָשָׂ֔ה וְלֹ֥א מִרְמָ֖ה בְּפִֽיו׃

Isaiah 53:9 with word in question bolded.

וְכִי־תֹאמַ֣ר אֵלַ֔י אֶל־יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ בָּטָ֑חְנוּ הֲלוֹא־ה֗וּא אֲשֶׁ֨ר הֵסִ֤יר חִזְקִיָּ֙הוּ֙ אֶת־בָּמֹתָ֣יו וְאֶת־מִזְבְּחֹתָ֔יו וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לִֽיהוּדָה֙

Isaiah 36:7 with word in question bolded.

בָּמֹתָ֣יו
בְּמֹתָ֑יו

Using just the consonants, since the Masoretic points are interpretive, added later, not on the signature text, tell me, and anyone bothering to read this thread, what's the difference between the two words?

Nowhere else in the Tanakh is a mem-tav used for "death" where it's preceded by a beit suffix. Nowhere else in the Tanakh is mot suffixed by a yod-vav. And yet many places throughout the Tanakh we have the bolded word used to speak of a "shrine."

Why do you think the Jewish interpreter don't what Isaiah 53:9 to be speaking of a shrine? Would you believe it's because it's the key to the better part of Deutero-Isaiah?



John

 

[Shaul]

The suffering servant is singular, so making is speak of a collective is adding to the text just as surely as saying the plural "deaths" isn't speaking of just two. It doesn't seem fair to apply literalness only where it suits your interpretation.

Show me a place anywhere in the Tanakh where the word for death, mot, מות has a beit prefix? Show me anywhere in the Tanakh where the word death, mot, מת has a yod-vav suffix?

וַיִּתֵּ֤ן אֶת־רְשָׁעִים֙ קִבְר֔וֹ וְאֶת־עָשִׁ֖יר בְּמֹתָ֑יו עַ֚ל לֹא־חָמָ֣ס עָשָׂ֔ה וְלֹ֥א מִרְמָ֖ה בְּפִֽיו׃

Isaiah 53:9 with word in question bolded.

וְכִי־תֹאמַ֣ר אֵלַ֔י אֶל־יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ בָּטָ֑חְנוּ הֲלוֹא־ה֗וּא אֲשֶׁ֨ר הֵסִ֤יר חִזְקִיָּ֙הוּ֙ אֶת־בָּמֹתָ֣יו וְאֶת־מִזְבְּחֹתָ֔יו וַיֹּ֤אמֶר לִֽיהוּדָה֙

Isaiah 36:7 with word in question bolded.

בָּמֹתָ֣יו
בְּמֹתָ֑יו

Using just the consonants, since the Masoretic points are interpretive, added later, not on the signature text, tell me, and anyone bothering to read this thread, what's the difference between the two words?

Nowhere else in the Tanakh is a mem-tav used for "death" where it's preceded by a beit suffix. Nowhere else in the Tanakh is mot suffixed by a yod-vav. And yet many places throughout the Tanakh we have the bolded word used to speak of a "shrine."



John

It isn’t adding to the text at all. Scripture itself explicitly states in other parts that the singular word servant refers to the collective righteous remnant of Israel. Scripture interprets scripture. This is basic exegesis.

A single combination use of a prefix/word doesn’t require any particular significance.

 

[John D. Brey]

It isn’t adding to the text at all. Scripture itself explicitly states in other parts that the singular word servant refers to the collective righteous remnant of Israel. Scripture interprets scripture. This is basic exegesis.

A single combination use of a prefix/word doesn’t require any particular significance.

. . . Doesn't the same other parts of scripture say that if Israel is the righteous remnant, it will never be subjugated by the nations? How then can righteous Israel be the suffering servant?

And while it's true that a hapax legomenon doesn't require an explanation, it does if the hapax legomenon is created by a strained interpretation. In other words, I say the word is "shrine" (with more contextual support than this thread has so far provided). Only the interpreter's claim it means "deaths" requires that it be a hapax legomenon. -----Which is to say that the word in question, in Isaiah 53:9 is only a hapax legomenon according to a questionable interpretation.

Apart from that interpretation we have ample cases of the exact consonants throughout the Tanakh. Unfortunately, the ample cases of the consonants throughout the Tanakh don't well serve the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53. So it has to be a hapax legomenon. . . . That's what we call desperation in interpretation.


John

 

[Shaul]

. . . Doesn't the same other parts of scripture say that if Israel is the righteous remnant, it will never be subjugated by the nations? How then can righteous Israel be the suffering servant?

And while it's true that a hapax legomenon doesn't require an explanation, it does if the hapax legomenon is created by a strained interpretation. In other words, I say the word is "shrine" (with more contextual support than this thread has so far provided). Only the interpreter's claim it means "deaths" requires that it be a hapax legomenon. -----Which is to say that the word in question, in Isaiah 53:9 is only a hapax legomenon according to a questionable interpretation.

Apart from that interpretation we have ample cases of the exact consonants throughout the Tanakh. Unfortunately, the ample cases of the consonants throughout the Tanakh don't well serve the Jewish interpretation of Isaiah 53. So it has to be a hapax legomenon. . . . That's what we call desperation in interpretation.


John

No, it doesn’t say that. Scripture teaches that Israel will suffer at the hands of the nations precisely as much as it remains faithful. The gentiles don’t accept the Torah and persecute the Jews for bearing witness to Torah. So the righteous remnant suffer, without guilt, because of the sins of the nations. Then, when the moshiach comes, G-d openly reveals their error. They repent and see they have persecuted the Jews for no reason.

I still don’t see why a term only occurring once here is any problem. It is in harmony with the rest of scripture.

Hebrew is the language of the Jews. It is quite silly when non-Jews try to tell us the “real” meaning of words of our own language.

 

[Tumah]

The word בְּמֹתָ֑יו means "shrine."

No, it mean "raised platform" Biblically in the sense of an altar made of stone where sacrifices are offered.

The suffering servant is singular, so making is speak of a collective is adding to the text just as surely as saying the plural "deaths" isn't speaking of just two. It doesn't seem fair to apply literalness only where it suits your interpretation.

No, this is wrong. In verse 8 למו is in plural third person meaning "to them". The servant is spoken of as a singular entity but is speaking about a nation (a singular word describing a plurality of people). So we do not find it odd that there should be other words in plural.

Show me a place anywhere in the Tanakh where the word for death, mot, מות has a beit prefix?

Ezekiel 18:32

Show me anywhere in the Tanakh where the word death, mot, מת has a yod-vav suffix?

The yod vav suffix just makes it mean "his [plural things]). That would be true regardless what the noun is (dead or altar).

Using just the consonants, since the Masoretic points are interpretive, added later, not on the signature text, tell me, and anyone bothering to read this thread, what's the difference between the two words?

Using just the consonants, there is no difference between these two words. This is not uncommon and why context is important.

Why do you think the Jewish interpreter don't what Isaiah 53:9 to be speaking of a shrine?

Because it would make less sense that way. It's a couplet with the first half of the verse, where the word "his grave" is used, so the obvious interpretation of the word במתיו is something that would parallel the grave.
Also translating במתיו as "his altars" is a non sequitur in context: "And he gave the wicked his grave and [he gave] the wealthy his altars".

. . . Doesn't the same other parts of scripture say that if Israel is the righteous remnant, it will never be subjugated by the nations? How then can righteous Israel be the suffering servant?

This is not a prophecy about what would happen to the Jews, but what the nations are saying seems to have happened to Jews. That's how the chapter starts off: what the leaders of the nations of the world are saying. That doesn't change until verse 10 where the narrator interjects as a lead-in to the following chapter.

 

[John D. Brey]

No, it doesn’t say that. Scripture teaches that Israel will suffer at the hands of the nations precisely as much as it remains faithful.

. . . Where does scripture teach that? And doesn't that contradict Deuteronomy 28:1-10:

And it shall come to pass, if thou shalt hearken diligently unto the voice of the Lord thy God, to observe and to do all his commandments which I command thee this day, that the Lord thy God will set thee on high above all nations of the earth: 2 And all these blessings shall come on thee, and overtake thee, if thou shalt hearken unto the voice of the Lord thy God. 3 Blessed shalt thou be in the city, and blessed shalt thou be in the field. 4 Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. 5 Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store. 6 Blessed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and blessed shalt thou be when thou goest out. 7 The Lord shall cause thine enemies that rise up against thee to be smitten before thy face: they shall come out against thee one way, and flee before thee seven ways. 8 The Lord shall command the blessing upon thee in thy storehouses, and in all that thou settest thine hand unto; and he shall bless thee in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee. 9 The Lord shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the Lord thy God, and walk in his ways. 10 And all people of the earth shall see that thou art called by the name of the Lord; and they shall be afraid of thee.
​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

The gentiles don’t accept the Torah and persecute the Jews for bearing witness to Torah. So the righteous remnant suffer, without guilt, because of the sins of the nations. Then, when the moshiach comes, G-d openly reveals their error. They repent and see they have persecuted the Jews for no reason.

That's one legitimate interpretation. Another is that Israel bore false witness concerning the Torah. And did so in the very face of Messiah; and are therefore currently under the divine discipline predicted if Israel broke the covenant which would have otherwise guaranteed their being hoisted to the head of nations.

Deuteronomy chapter 28 gives two possibilities. One based on a righteous Israel, and the other based on them becoming a "warped and crooked people" (Deuteronomy 31:5).

If Messiah has already come, the latter interpretation carries great weight. If Messiah hasn't already come, then the former is justified. Which is why the meaning of the word in question is of great importance. How that word is interpreted helps determine which of two legitimate interpretations is correct.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Hebrew is the language of the Jews. It is quite silly when non-Jews try to tell us the “real” meaning of words of our own language.

Language doesn't function like that. You don't have to have your foreskin removed to learn Hebrew even as you don't have to be white to learn English.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

John D. Brey said: ↑
The word בְּמֹתָ֑יו means "shrine."​

No, it mean "raised platform" Biblically in the sense of an altar made of stone where sacrifices are offered.

. . . Isn't a "shrine" often a "raised platform" functioning as a altar where prayers and worship are directed? In Exodus 20:22, God implies that wherever an altar is erected he will make his Presence felt. In the Hirsch Chumash (commenting on Exodus 20:22) Rabbi Hirsch says:

Wherever I would have My Name remembered ---i.e., wherever I wish to reveal My special Presence, so that people will say : ה׳ שמה, "God is there!"(Yechezkel 48:35) --- you will not have to look for Me in images, but will recognize me in the blessing that I will bestow upon you.​

So you see, an altar is a "shrine" where God's Presence is registered. . . Does that clarify why the proper interpretation of the word in the cross-hairs (so to say) of this examination is of utmost importance. Is the suffering servant's death an altar, a shrine, where God's Presence is registered.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

The suffering servant is singular, so making it speak of a collective is adding to the text just as surely as saying the plural "deaths" isn't speaking of just two. It doesn't seem fair to apply literalness only where it suits your interpretation.

No, this is wrong. In verse 8 למו is in plural third person meaning "to them". The servant is spoken of as a singular entity but is speaking about a nation (a singular word describing a plurality of people). So we do not find it odd that there should be other words in plural.

. . . We see how flexible grammar can be. Interpretation must therefore seek the highest unity of the entire context. למו can very easily mean not "to them" but "for them." And unfortunately, here, it is "for them," since the word that follows is the singular absolute "he was stricken."

For the transgression of my people (Isaiah's people), "for them" למו "he was stricken" נגע.

"Stricken" is the singular absolute so that למו in the plural isn't speaking of he who was stricken. Technically the passage reads: For he was cut off out of the land of the living. For the transgression of my people, for them, stricken.


John

 

[John D. Brey]

Ezekiel 18:32

. . . Thank you for correcting me. I appreciate it. I should have been more thorough. I searched all 300+ uses but somehow missed that.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Why do you think the Jewish interpreter don't want it to be speaking of a shrine?

Because it would make less sense that way. It's a couplet with the first half of the verse, where the word "his grave" is used, so the obvious interpretation of the word במתיו is something that would parallel the grave.
Also translating במתיו as "his altars" is a non sequitur in context: "And he gave the wicked his grave and [he gave] the wealthy his altars".

The altar/shrine במתיו is the place where opposites are being unified: life, and death, wicked רשע and honorable עשיר, Jew and Gentile. Even God and man:

Death is the paradoxical agent of Life: a salvific-messianic-act with human love at the center. . . Not only can physical death help atone for sins committed on earth, but a perfect martyrdom has the singular power to repair spiritual realities in the divine realm. . . Only in this state could the soul be released from its earthly prison ---whether to ascend to its source in heaven, or become a shrine for the holy Spirit.

Professor Michael Fishbane, The Kiss of God: Spiritual and Mystical Death in Judaism, p. 116 & 126-127.
​

It reads: And he made his grave with the wicked and the honorable [or rich] in his altar/shrine. ------His death, his grave, Golgotha, the elevated rock with the sacrificial blood, is the shrine where God's Presence, even the unification of polar opposites, is being seen, when a Jew is seeing the blood of the sacrifice on the altar/shrine.

When Moses sprinkles the blood of the sacrifice on the Israelites, he's making them, each and every one of them, a shrine where God's Presences dwells. That's what the tzitzit is all about. It signifies the Jew who wears it as being a shrine for the Holy Spirit, the place where God's Presence dwells.


John

 

[Tumah]

. . . Isn't a "shrine" often a "raised platform" functioning as a altar where prayers and worship are directed?

Prayers are not offered on either of those, they are specifically places where animals are burnt. If you want to say otherwise, bring a verse.

In Exodus 20:22, God implies that wherever an altar is erected he will make his Presence felt. In the Hirsch Chumash (commenting on Exodus 20:22) Rabbi Hirsch says:

Wherever I would have My Name remembered ---i.e., wherever I wish to reveal My special Presence, so that people will say : ה׳ שמה, "God is there!"(Yechezkel 48:35) --- you will not have to look for Me in images, but will recognize me in the blessing that I will bestow upon you.​

​

This is talking about in the Temple/Sanctuary in general. We understand this verse to refer to the Priestly Blessings, which, like the Altar, is only in the Temple.

So you see, an altar is a "shrine" where God's Presence is registered. . . Does that clarify why the proper interpretation of the word in the cross-hairs (so to say) of this examination is of utmost importance. Is the suffering servant's death an altar, a shrine, where God's Presence is registered.

No, I see you grasping at straws to make up the most fetid garbage in order to get attention.

. . . We see how flexible grammar can be. Interpretation must therefore seek the highest unity of the entire context. למו can very easily mean not "to them" but "for them." And unfortunately, here, it is "for them," since the word that follows is the singular absolute "he was stricken."

נגע here is a noun, not a verb: 'a strike' (nega'), not 'he was struck' (naga'). Grammar is not flexible, which is what makes it useful in conveying information. There is unity in the text translating as is, because the subject is already a plurality. We are comfortable with switching from singular to plural and back because there is precedent from Ex. 19:2.

For the transgression of my people (Isaiah's people), "for them" למו "he was stricken" נגע.

"Stricken" is the singular absolute so that למו in the plural isn't speaking of he who was stricken. Technically the passage reads: For he was cut off out of the land of the living. For the transgression of my people, for them, stricken.

It isn't Isaiah's people, because Isa. 52:15-53:1 establishes the speakers as the rulers of the nations. Each ruler is exclaiming in hindsight about the Jewish people, "for a transgression of my people, a strike [was struck] to them". So no, your "technical reading" is wrong.

. . . Thank you for correcting me. I appreciate it. I should have been more thorough. I searched all 300+ uses but somehow missed that.

It's fine. As you've established multiple times - including in this thread - you don't actually know Hebrew very well at all and only employ it to lend your posts a semblance of authority. So we don't expect you to be able to search for Hebrew words well either.

 

[John D. Brey]

Prayers are not offered on either of those, they are specifically places where animals are burnt. If you want to say otherwise, bring a verse.

. . . Then you're not aware that within post-Temple practice, prayers have taken the place of animal sacrifice? -----The new altar/shine is the Jew himself, who wears the curtain with the shatnez rescinding techelet (the tzitzit) over his head, and who has, what no less than Rabbi Sampson HIrsch called the "ark of the covenant in miniature" (the shel rosh) on the most holy place of his body. The tefillin turns the Jewish body into a shrine, and the tallit tells us what kind of shrine we're talking about. Hint, the veil in the temple (like the tzitzit) was died [sic] with techelet.

If we're inclined to take a brilliant Jewish Professor like Michael Fishbane seriously, then the sacrifice the penitent prayer-offer brings could very well be himself:

The proper practice of the daily Shema is then as much a preparation for saintly death as it is a credo of living love of God. The ritual recitation is thus an interiorization of death, such that the true devotee is already in life a spiritual martyr in deed. . . This interpretation of the Shema recitation as a meditation on martyrological death recurs throughout the Middle Ages--- and beyond.

Kiss of Death, p. 102.​

Perhaps the temple was always just a stony anthropomorphism all along? Perhaps that's what Jeremiah was talking about when he spoke of replacing the stony home of the Torah with a heart of flesh and blood? Perhaps you're that living home of the Torah, the true temple, the true shrine?

Why, how, could I suggest such things when a natural born Jew seems oblivious? As just a guess, it could well be because I may be the first person to wear techelet in nearly two thousand years. I may be the first person to have manufactured the true halachic dye used for over a thousand years prior to the destruction of the temple. Having techelet in one's presence is a true exegetical boon required to open up things closed for too long.

Even as the antagonistic protagonist of Toledot Yeshu stole the Name to affect miraculous powers and insights, this, your interlocutor, has stolen the recipe for techelet, in order to follow in the first thief's footsteps. He (the first thief) is coming to a neighborhood near you soon. . . That's perhaps the foremost insight come from the possession of a royal elixir just recently reintroduced to the world. But to a world, like the antediluvians, drunk on their own pseudo-spirituality and banality: "We don't need your stinking techelet, I got my tzitzit from Walmart."


John

 

[John D. Brey]

​

This is talking about in the Temple/Sanctuary in general. We understand this verse to refer to the Priestly Blessings, which, like the Altar, is only in the Temple.

. . . This could be a key to the most fundamental question of this thread. Of what do you speak when you speak of the "Priestly Blessings"? Because Rabbi Hirsch implies that these blessings are tied to the Presence of God where they (the blessings) exist. . . And since if I recall correctly, you're familiar with the Zohar, you may know it opens with a discussion of the cup of blessing that contains the contents of what follows throughout the rest of the Zohar.

What do you understand as the Priestly Blessings?


John

 

[John D. Brey]

. . . I see you grasping at straws to make up the most fetid garbage in order to get attention.

. . . Then you can relax, and give me a serious hearing, since, you at least, know that's not happening. You can read this asininity fearless concerning whether anyone is giving it any attention since you've been around these parts long enough to know that they ain't, and that that's not something that matters to me in the least.

My spiritual mentor, Col. R.B. Thieme Jr., used to say that God called him to his task such that if the pews of his church were empty, he'd still stand up there teaching the word of God to echos and ghosts. . . . Kinda neat that one of his students learned that principle and has shown it's not just fancy talk.

Where a true student of the word of God is presenting biblical truths he will always be a voice crying out into a wilderness of apathy and unconcern. Isaiah knew this too well.



John