• 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!

Jews only: Psalms 110:4

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
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.

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

Here is another reason I know you are wrong, about it not being one man that will have both positions.

We both know that the Branch (the Messiah) will sit on the throne of David. So it is obvious that he will wear the King's crown.

Now consider again the verses in Zechariah 6:9-14 that we have been discussing. The man symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah) here is the high priest. So now you tell me, if you were right, and it was only one crown placed on his head which crown would it be? The crown of the King or the crown of the priest?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
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.
You say that he won't personally kill someone while he was physically sitting on the throne, but the verse, according to your understanding says just that. To deny that is to change how you read the verse and once you do that, the throne stops being a physical chair and my point is confirmed. And you know it.

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.
Actually, it does say that: "who sit upon his throne, riding horse-drawn chariots, with their courtiers and their subjects." Can you show me that the text says that the events don't happen at the same time? You don't like what the verse says so you insert some other interpretation? Or maybe "sit upon his throne" is not the physical act and they ride chariots while assuming a position of power and the throne is not a reference to a physical chair, again confirming my point.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Here is another reason I know you are wrong, about it not being one man that will have both positions.

We both know that the Branch (the Messiah) will sit on the throne of David. So it is obvious that he will wear the King's crown.

Now consider again the verses in Zechariah 6:9-14 that we have been discussing. The man symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah) here is the high priest. So now you tell me, if you were right, and it was only one crown placed on his head which crown would it be? The crown of the King or the crown of the priest?
No, you are misreading pretty clear text. The voice of God says to the high priest that there will be a branch who will build the temple, a king. The fact that the text has the voice speaking to the priest referencing a branch in third person indicates 2 separate people:

"and say to him*, “Thus said the LORD of Hosts: Behold, a man called the Branch shall branch out from the place where he is, and he shall build the Temple of the LORD."

*the "him" is High Priest Joshua son of Jehozadak, as listed directly before the pronoun "him".

So God says to Joshua the priest that a man will branch out (future) and build the temple. And you want that man to be the same Joshua the high priest when the next verse reads, explicitly

"He shall build the Temple of the LORD and shall assume majesty, and he shall sit on his throne and rule. And there shall also be a priest seated on his throne, and harmonious understanding shall prevail between them.”"

If you recall, a bunch of messages back, it was explained to you, with textual citations, what "v'hayah chohen al kis'o" meant. I guess you don't remember or just reject that in order to create this fiction of a single person even when the text uses the words "two of them."
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
No, you are misreading pretty clear text. The voice of God says to the high priest that there will be a branch who will build the temple, a king. The fact that the text has the voice speaking to the priest referencing a branch in third person indicates 2 separate people:

"and say to him*, “Thus said the LORD of Hosts: Behold, a man called the Branch shall branch out from the place where he is, and he shall build the Temple of the LORD."

*the "him" is High Priest Joshua son of Jehozadak, as listed directly before the pronoun "him".

So God says to Joshua the priest that a man will branch out (future) and build the temple. And you want that man to be the same Joshua the high priest when the next verse reads, explicitly

"He shall build the Temple of the LORD and shall assume majesty, and he shall sit on his throne and rule. And there shall also be a priest seated on his throne, and harmonious understanding shall prevail between them.”"

If you recall, a bunch of messages back, it was explained to you, with textual citations, what "v'hayah chohen al kis'o" meant. I guess you don't remember or just reject that in order to create this fiction of a single person even when the text uses the words "two of them."

No I don't want that man to be the same Joshua the high priest. I have clearly said he was the man symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah).

You also avoided giving the answer to my question. You say it was only one crown placed on the head of the man symbolic of the Branch. Which crown was placed on the head of the man symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah)?

I remember what you said about the meaning of "v'hayah chohen al kis'o". What you gave was only one possible reading. Please translate the following English sentence into Hebrew for us. And he will be a priest on his throne.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Which crown was placed on the head of the man symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah)?
Neither WAS placed. The gold one WILL BE placed.
",ושמת בראש יהושע. לרמז שכתר כהונה גדולה שהוא בו עכשיו תהיה שמורה לזרעו אחריו עד עולם וכמ״ש למעלה וישימו הצניף הטהור על ראשו (לעיל ג) ויתכן אשר של הכסף אמר להשים בו כי אין מעלת כהונה הגדולה שוותה למעלת המלכות ועטרה השניה של הזהב היתה שמורה לרמז שעוד יוחזר המלוכה בגאולה העתידה למלכות בית דוד"

I remember what you said about the meaning of "v'hayah chohen al kis'o". What you gave was only one possible reading. Please translate the following English sentence into Hebrew for us. And he will be a priest on his throne.
That sentence can be translated as "v'hu y'hiyeh (l)kohen al kis'o"
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
Neither WAS placed. The gold one WILL BE placed.
",ושמת בראש יהושע. לרמז שכתר כהונה גדולה שהוא בו עכשיו תהיה שמורה לזרעו אחריו עד עולם וכמ״ש למעלה וישימו הצניף הטהור על ראשו (לעיל ג) ויתכן אשר של הכסף אמר להשים בו כי אין מעלת כהונה הגדולה שוותה למעלת המלכות ועטרה השניה של הזהב היתה שמורה לרמז שעוד יוחזר המלוכה בגאולה העתידה למלכות בית דוד"


That sentence can be translated as "v'hu y'hiyeh (l)kohen al kis'o"

Wow, So you are going to take the position that they didn't do what they were told to do in Zechariah 6:11?

Ok it looks like you are trying to be tricky - can it also be translated as "v'hayah chohen al kis'o"?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Wow, So you are going to take the position that they didn't do what they were told to do in Zechariah 6:11?
What are you talking about?
"They"? Here is the text - I will make the tenses more clear for you:


Take silver and gold and make crowns. Place [one] on the head of High Priest Joshua son of Jehozadak,
and say to him, “Thus said the LORD of Hosts: Behold, a man called the Branch shall branch out from the place where he is, and he shall build the Temple of the LORD.
He shall build the Temple of the LORD and shall assume majesty, and he shall sit on his throne and rule. And there shall also be a priest seated on his throne, and harmonious understanding shall prevail between them.”
The crowns shall remain in the Temple of the LORD as a memorial to Helem,Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Hen son of Zephaniah.
--------
Note that this is in the future and is a command of what to relate to one person about what will happen in the future.
Ok it looks like you are trying to be tricky - can it also be translated as "v'hayah chohen al kis'o"?
How is a translation into Hebrew trying to be tricky? Because it doesn't comport to what you want it to mean? Now you are asking a different question -- whether a HEBREW sentence can be translated to mean a particular English phrase. You had asked me about translating an ENGLISH sentence into Hebrew. Try to be clear about what you want.

To summarize -- the sentence "v'hayah kohen al kis'o" is translated as "and there will be a priest on his throne." The method of translation and the rules applied could certainly allow someone to derive a few other possible translations. However if you start with what you gave me, "And he will be a priest on his throne" you will not end up with v'hayah (among other differences.
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
Take silver and gold and make crowns. Place [one] on the head of High Priest Joshua son of Jehozadak,
and say to him, “Thus said the LORD of Hosts: Behold, a man called the Branch shall branch out from the place where he is, and he shall build the Temple of the LORD.
He shall build the Temple of the LORD and shall assume majesty, and he shall sit on his throne and rule. And there shall also be a priest seated on his throne, and harmonious understanding shall prevail between them.”
The crowns shall remain in the Temple of the LORD as a memorial to Helem,Tobijah, Jedaiah, and Hen son of Zephaniah.
--------
Note that this is in the future and is a command of what to relate to one person about what will happen in the future.

How is a translation into Hebrew trying to be tricky? Because it doesn't comport to what you want it to mean? Now you are asking a different question -- whether a HEBREW sentence can be translated to mean a particular English phrase. You had asked me about translating an ENGLISH sentence into Hebrew. Try to be clear about what you want.

To summarize -- the sentence "v'hayah kohen al kis'o" is translated as "and there will be a priest on his throne." The method of translation and the rules applied could certainly allow someone to derive a few other possible translations. However if you start with what you gave me, "And he will be a priest on his throne" you will not end up with v'hayah (among other differences.

Did they place a crown on the head of Joshua the high priest, the man symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah) or not? If so which crown(s)?
In post #65 you said neither was placed on his head. In posts #23, and #52 Tumah said a crown was placed on the head of Joshua the High Priest. Do you disagree with Tumah on this?

I think you knew what I was asking, that was why I said tricky, but I'll re-phrase my question for you. In Zechariah 6:13 can the part of the verse "v'hayah chohen al kis'o" be translated "and he will be a priest on his throne"? (I know enough Hebrew to know the answer.) I am looking for you to acknowledge that it can be translated that way.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Did they place a crown on the head of Joshua the high priest, the man symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah) or not? If so which crown(s)?
In post #65 you said neither was placed on his head. In posts #23, and #52 Tumah said a crown was placed on the head of Joshua the High Priest. Do you disagree with Tumah on this?
In 65 I said "Neither was placed" in response to your question about which was placed on the king (remember, you asked "Which crown was placed on the head of the man symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah)?"). I answered accurately, neither was. One will be. This doesn't mean that none was placed on the priest. In fact, if you read the text I provided in that same post, you would see quite the opposite. The text specifically lists which one the priest got and which the king WILL get.
I think you knew what I was asking, that was why I said tricky, but I'll re-phrase my question for you.
I answered what you asked, A lack of clarity on your part shouldn't empower you to impute subterfuge on my part.
In Zechariah 6:13 can the part of the verse "v'hayah chohen al kis'o" be translated "and he will be a priest on his throne"? (I know enough Hebrew to know the answer.) I am looking for you to acknowledge that it can be translated that way.
Strictly speaking and in a vacuum, you can if you accept that the vav is a vav hahipuch and the insertion of the pronoun is a matter of interpretation and not translation. This was already made clear by Tumah in #14. The problem seems to be that your knowledge of Hebrew ends at this point even though the verse is not in a vacuum. You asked for citations to verses where the verb form means anything different from your translation, and they were given. Can you acknowledge that based on grammar in context and precedent, it can mean something different from what you are seeking?
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
In 65 I said "Neither was placed" in response to your question about which was placed on the king (remember, you asked "Which crown was placed on the head of the man symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah)?"). I answered accurately, neither was. One will be. This doesn't mean that none was placed on the priest. In fact, if you read the text I provided in that same post, you would see quite the opposite. The text specifically lists which one the priest got and which the king WILL get.

Strictly speaking and in a vacuum, you can if you accept that the vav is a vav hahipuch and the insertion of the pronoun is a matter of interpretation and not translation. This was already made clear by Tumah in #14. The problem seems to be that your knowledge of Hebrew ends at this point even though the verse is not in a vacuum. You asked for citations to verses where the verb form means anything different from your translation, and they were given. Can you acknowledge that based on grammar in context and precedent, it can mean something different from what you are seeking?

Are you are saying Joshua the high priest here is not the man symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah)?
If so, that would mean you are saying he is not the one with the name of the Branch. Who is the one with the name of the Branch (the Messiah) that they are to behold?

I do acknowledge that there are possible alternate translations. In your replies you have made it sound like yours is the only accurate one based on the Hebrew, and that it was "and there will be a priest on his throne". I am trying to point out that it can also be accurately translated as "and he will be a priest on his throne".

The reason I was pointing this out again, was because in post #63 you said I either forgot what you explained to me the phrase meant or was rejecting it. (Making it sound like the translation I used can't be a possibility) So I am making it clear that it can be translated as "and he will be a priest on his throne".
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Are you are saying Joshua the high priest here is not the man symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah)?
If so, that would mean you are saying he is not the one with the name of the Branch. Who is the one with the name of the Branch (the Messiah) that they are to behold?
If you read the chapter, the narrative seems pretty clear. Zecharia hears from God and goes to Josiah's house. He then gets 2 crowns and finds Joshua:
"Take silver and gold and make crowns. Place [one] on the head of High Priest Joshua son of Jehozadak".
He puts one on Joshua and tells Joshua about the person who will, in the future, wear the other one:
"and say to him, “Thus said the LORD of Hosts: Behold, a man called the Branch shall branch out from the place where he is, and he shall build the Temple of the LORD."

So how can they be the same person? You want to know who that other person (the branch-symbolic) will be? Tzemach (the branch) is identified by most commentators as Zerubavel and then, secondarily as a reference to the future messiah. As Rashi writes:

" He is Zerubbabel, mentioned above (3:8): “Behold, I bring My servant, the Shoot,” since his greatness burgeoned little by little. Some interpret this as referring to the King Messiah, but the entire context deals with the [time of the] Second Temple."
I do acknowledge that there are possible alternate translations. In your replies you have made it sound like yours is the only accurate one based on the Hebrew, and that it was "and there will be a priest on his throne". I am trying to point out that it can also be accurately translated as "and he will be a priest on his throne".
No, not based on the Hebrew but based on the Hebrew in context. Something can be accurately translated on its own in a way which is inaccurate within the context of other verses.
The reason I was pointing this out again, was because in post #63 you said I either forgot what you explained to me the phrase meant or was rejecting it. (Making it sound like the translation I used can't be a possibility) So I am making it clear that it can be translated as "and he will be a priest on his throne".
What you forgot is that it was shown that this construction in biblical texts (regardless of how it could be translated in a vacuum) is used to mean something else.
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
I answered what you asked, A lack of clarity on your part shouldn't empower you to impute subterfuge on my part.

Let me ask you another question. If I am wrong about this I will apologize. Because I admit I thought that you were taking advantage of a nuance in the Hebrew.

Would it still be correct Hebrew if you replaced the words "v'hayah chohen al kis'o" in the text of Zechariah 6:13 with the Hebrew words "v'hu y'hiyeh (l)kohen al kis'o" you gave me in post #65?

Or Is it because I made the English a separate sentence, or because it was starting a sentence that you were able to change it to those words?
 
Last edited:

rosends

Well-Known Member
Let me ask you another question. If I am wrong about this I will apologize. Because I admit I thought that you were taking advantage of a nuance in the Hebrew.

Would it still be correct Hebrew if you replaced the words "v'hayah chohen al kis'o" in the text of Zechariah 6:13 with the Hebrew words "v'hu y'hiyeh (l)kohen al kis'o" you gave me in post #65?

Or Is it because I made the English a separate sentence, or because it was starting a sentence that you were able to change it to those words?
I honestly don't understand your question. You ask if it would be correct Hebrew to replace one phrase with another. Sure it would be correct Hebrew. It would also be correct Hebrew if I replaced the word "bereisheet" in the first verse of Genesis with the word "basheini." The parts of speech which are necessary are there. The words just mean something else so the verse would mean something else.

You are essentially asking if "v'hayah" is exactly the same in meaning as "v'hu y'hiyeh" (because the rest of the words don't need to change). Why don't you just try and make that replacement in Gen 48:21 and see if it works:
v'hayah elokim imachem - and there will be God among you
v'hu y'hiyeh elokim imachem - and he will be God among you.

Both exist as proper grammatical structures, They clearly mean different things.
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
I honestly don't understand your question. You ask if it would be correct Hebrew to replace one phrase with another. Sure it would be correct Hebrew. It would also be correct Hebrew if I replaced the word "bereisheet" in the first verse of Genesis with the word "basheini." The parts of speech which are necessary are there. The words just mean something else so the verse would mean something else.

You are essentially asking if "v'hayah" is exactly the same in meaning as "v'hu y'hiyeh" (because the rest of the words don't need to change). Why don't you just try and make that replacement in Gen 48:21 and see if it works:
v'hayah elokim imachem - and there will be God among you
v'hu y'hiyeh elokim imachem - and he will be God among you.

Both exist as proper grammatical structures, They clearly mean different things.

I am asking you, if you could make the change in wording from v'hayah to v'hu y'hiyeh in Zechariah 6:13 without changing the meaning in any way, and still be using the proper form of Hebrew?

Do you agree with this - ( v'hayah can mean "and he will be", and v'hu y'hiyeh means "and he, he will be" )?

Clearly v'hayah elohim imachem could also be translated - and he will be God with you/among you
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
I am asking you, if you could make the change in wording from v'hayah to v'hu y'hiyeh in Zechariah 6:13 without changing the meaning in any way, and still be using the proper form of Hebrew?

Do you agree with this - ( v'hayah can mean "and he will be", and v'hu y'hiyeh means "and he, he will be" )?

Clearly v'hayah elohim imachem could also be translated - and he will be God with you/among you
Could you make the change, yes.
Would it convey the same meaning? Only if the context was the same -- as long as there was an antecedent and subsequent section of verse which clarifies the implied pronoun.

In Chronicles, this is the case (kol habah, all who come...will be a priest). In Zecharia, the lack of pronoun to connect it to the named antecedent, and the presence of the subsequent "shneihem" identifying 2 nouns means that if one made the change in Zecharia, the meaning would be altered in a way incongruous with the balance of the verse.

So, in short,
1. grammatically, it is possible regardless of context
2. in terms of meaning, it is possible, dependent on context
3. in the context of Chronicles, the meaning remains the same but in the context of Zecharia, it doesn't
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
Could you make the change, yes.
Would it convey the same meaning? Only if the context was the same -- as long as there was an antecedent and subsequent section of verse which clarifies the implied pronoun.

In Chronicles, this is the case (kol habah, all who come...will be a priest). In Zecharia, the lack of pronoun to connect it to the named antecedent, and the presence of the subsequent "shneihem" identifying 2 nouns means that if one made the change in Zecharia, the meaning would be altered in a way incongruous with the balance of the verse.

So, in short,
1. grammatically, it is possible regardless of context
2. in terms of meaning, it is possible, dependent on context
3. in the context of Chronicles, the meaning remains the same but in the context of Zecharia, it doesn't

Exactly, but Zechariah 6:13 is the verse we were talking about, which was why I had originally said very tricky.

1. The words "v'hayah chohen al kis'o" in Zechariah 6:13 can be translated into English as "and he will be a priest on his throne"

2. Yet when I asked you to translate those same exact English words " And he will be a priest on his throne." , you said they would be translated
as "v'hu y'hiyeh (l)kohen al kis'o" (which may be correct, but gives the appearance that I have been wrong)

3. So I then rephrased my question, and asked if you could replace the words "v'hayah chohen al kis'o" in Zechariah 6:13 with "v'hu y'hiyeh (l)
kohen al kis'o" without changing the meaning, and still be using proper Hebrew. And the answer if I understand you correctly is NO.

So to me it seemed like you were trying to take advantage of my more limited knowledge of the Hebrew. But maybe it was just a coincidence, in the way things played out.
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
If you read the chapter, the narrative seems pretty clear. Zecharia hears from God and goes to Josiah's house. He then gets 2 crowns and finds Joshua:
"Take silver and gold and make crowns. Place [one] on the head of High Priest Joshua son of Jehozadak".
He puts one on Joshua and tells Joshua about the person who will, in the future, wear the other one:
"and say to him, “Thus said the LORD of Hosts: Behold, a man called the Branch shall branch out from the place where he is, and he shall build the Temple of the LORD."

So how can they be the same person? You want to know who that other person (the branch-symbolic) will be? Tzemach (the branch) is identified by most commentators as Zerubavel and then, secondarily as a reference to the future messiah. As Rashi writes:

" He is Zerubbabel, mentioned above (3:8): “Behold, I bring My servant, the Shoot,” since his greatness burgeoned little by little. Some interpret this as referring to the King Messiah, but the entire context deals with the [time of the] Second Temple."

1. First of all, it doesn't actually say place one on the head of Joshua the High Priest. (You have words and prefixes and suffixes in your language that allow for that to have been said.) It says make crowns, and then it says place on the head of Joshua the High Priest.

2. If you are correct and it was only one crown placed on Joshua the High Priest, which crown was it? Because in Zechariah 3:1-5 they had already put a turban on the head of Joshua the High Priest.

3. I have never said they were the same person. I have tried to clearly say that Joshua the High Priest was the man symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah). If Zerubbabel was symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah), why was a crown not placed on him?

4. If Zerubbabel was the Branch, why would it be said in Zechariah 3:8 to those sitting there (which included Zerubbabel) I am going to bring my servant the Branch?
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
Exactly, but Zechariah 6:13 is the verse we were talking about, which was why I had originally said very tricky.

1. The words "v'hayah chohen al kis'o" in Zechariah 6:13 can be translated into English as "and he will be a priest on his throne"
Yes, in a vacuum or in a context where it fits in with the rest of the section
2. Yet when I asked you to translate those same exact English words " And he will be a priest on his throne." , you said they would be translated
as "v'hu y'hiyeh (l)kohen al kis'o" (which may be correct, but gives the appearance that I have been wrong)
It is the way to translate them when one wants to mean exactly what you asked for, not into a form which might, but might not, mean what you asked for. The "v'hayah" construction might or might not mean that when working from Hebrew to English, so one would not give it as the translation when working from English to Hebrew.
3. So I then rephrased my question, and asked if you could replace the words "v'hayah chohen al kis'o" in Zechariah 6:13 with "v'hu y'hiyeh (l)
kohen al kis'o" without changing the meaning, and still be using proper Hebrew. And the answer if I understand you correctly is NO.
Correct.
So to me it seemed like you were trying to take advantage of my more limited knowledge of the Hebrew. But maybe it was just a coincidence, in the way things played out.
Quite the opposite -- I was trying to explain to you how the Hebrew works, understanding that you have a limited knowledge and it was that limited knowledge that was driving you to try and create meaning.
 

rosends

Well-Known Member
1. First of all, it doesn't actually say place one on the head of Joshua the High Priest. (You have words and prefixes and suffixes in your language that allow for that to have been said.) It says make crowns, and then it says place on the head of Joshua the High Priest.
The suffix or pronoun necessary to turn the verb into a plural (place THEM) is not there so the assumption is that a person wears one crown on his head.
2. If you are correct and it was only one crown placed on Joshua the High Priest, which crown was it? Because in Zechariah 3:1-5 they had already put a turban on the head of Joshua the High Priest.
IIRC it was the silver crown. As to the question of the Tznif, the Metzudat David mentions that connection. Zech 3 was a vision of the angels and Joshua as shown in a dream to Zecharia (as per 3:1 and the chapters before which detail the visions shown to Zecharia).
3. I have never said they were the same person. I have tried to clearly say that Joshua the High Priest was the man symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah). If Zerubbabel was symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah), why was a crown not placed on him?
The M"David says explicitly that it is not to be put on Zerubavel but is to be saved for the future king after the final exile is over.
4. If Zerubbabel was the Branch, why would it be said in Zechariah 3:8 to those sitting there (which included Zerubbabel) I am going to bring my servant the Branch?
While Zerubavel is associated with the word "shoot/growth" the commentators explain that he is not the final growth referenced here, but from him that final messianic figure will descend in the future.
 

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
The suffix or pronoun necessary to turn the verb into a plural (place THEM) is not there so the assumption is that a person wears one crown on his head.

IIRC it was the silver crown. As to the question of the Tznif, the Metzudat David mentions that connection. Zech 3 was a vision of the angels and Joshua as shown in a dream to Zecharia (as per 3:1 and the chapters before which detail the visions shown to Zecharia).

The M"David says explicitly that it is not to be put on Zerubavel but is to be saved for the future king after the final exile is over.

While Zerubavel is associated with the word "shoot/growth" the commentators explain that he is not the final growth referenced here, but from him that final messianic figure will descend in the future.

Since he was told to make crowns and place on the head of Joshua the High Priest, (and it doesn't specify plural or singular) the assumption should be that both would be placed on his head. Especially since he is symbolic of the Branch (the Messiah) who will be both King and Priest. (Which is in line with many other scriptures)

It has almost amazed me the lengths you guys will go to, to avoid having things mean what they mean in the majority of cases. No matter what evidence is presented to you, you find a way to try to nullify it. Doesn't the preponderance of evidence mean anything to you?

v'hayah is commonly translated "and he will be" - yet in several posts you portrayed it as if that is not a common way to translate it. ("and it will be" - "and there will be" are just other possibilities) Your problem here is that if it is "and he will be", that would make the same one sitting on the throne also be a priest on his throne. (and you can't have that)

In Zechariah 6:13 where it said and he will be a priest on his throne. Suddenly kis'o didn't mean his throne, it just means his chair. Even though you know the King would sit on a throne.

Then there is Ezekiel 21:26-27 where God told them to remove both the diadem and the crown. He said he would overturn it until he come whose right it is and I will give it to him. (Once again it doesn't say them, it says he and him.) It might be a different prophecy, but it is still more evidence of one individual who will have both crowns.

Then in the discussion regarding Psalms 110:1-5
1. The vast majority of times this intro means a Psalm was written by David. (Suddenly you guys don't really know for sure if Psalms 110:1-5 was written by David or form him.)

2. Then you guys say Psalms 110:1-5 is about either David or Abraham or both. So you can choose written by David, if it is about Abraham, and written for David if it is about David, and I'm not sure what you choose when you think it is about both David and Abraham. And I think Tumah acknowledged it could also be about the Messiah. Who is the individual mentioned in Psalms 110:1? Neither David nor Abraham were Priests, and especially not forever.

3. Then since Psalms 110:4 said YHWH hath sworn and will not repent you are a priest forever after the order of Melchitzedek. Suddenly chohen doesn't mean priest in that verse, because that would cause you problems. Because even the very name Melchitzedec means King of righteousness. And in Genesis 14:18 Melchitzedec is said to be both King of Salem, and priest of the most high God. Which would make this individual mentioned in Psalms 110:1-4, both King and Priest. (And there is no way you want the Messiah to be both King and Priest)

4. Who is the "you" in Psalms 110:4 that will be a priest forever? And how will that individual be a priest forever? (no matter what you try to choose priest to mean)
 
Last edited:
Top