HOME
johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2017 John D. Brey.

Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395), believed that the Prophet Isaiah "knew more perfectly than all others the mystery of the religion of the Gospel". Jerome (c. 342–420) also lauds the Prophet Isaiah, saying, "He was more of an Evangelist than a Prophet, because he described all of the Mysteries of the Church of Christ so vividly that you would assume he was not prophesying about the future, but rather was composing a history of past events."[17]

Wikipedia's entry on Isaiah points out that early church fathers reckoned Isaiah something like the first apostle, the first evangelist, which no doubt he is. ----But why did these early church father's not untangle or unmangle the key to Isaiah's preternatural insight into the Gospel of Christ? ----Why did they not question how it was possible for Isaiah, living so long before the Gospel epoch, to so precisely describe the events that were so far out in the distance?

Could it be that the church fathers, still reeling from the battle between Pharisaical Judaism and the new faith (as so ably discussed in Rabbi Boyarin's Borderlines) couldn't bring themselves to accept the possibility that the Gospel of Christ they considered their prize possession was actually a product of Judaism and the Tanakh long before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth? Could a tinge of anti-Semitism account for the fact that even though Isaiah seems to propose a nearly perfect framework for the Gospels hundreds of years before the birth of the living paragon of the Christian faith the fathers of that faith feign ignorance concerning the archetype, or framework, Isaiah employs in order to paint his masterly image of the Christian Messiah?

Rabbi Daniel Boyarin's, Borderlines, discusses the breach between Pharisaical Judaism and the new faith that became Christianity. Likewise, his later book, The Jewish Gospel, points out the truism that aspects of the Christian Gospel existed in the Tanakh long before the first century of the current era.

But Isaiah's book goes far further than any of that. Isaiah speaks of Yeshua being worn as an ornament between the breast of Gentiles who are drawn toward the "banner" lifted up in the form of a spectacular ornament (tiferet). Isaiah implies that God will lift up a symbol, a "banner," that will cause the Gentiles to enter into the commonwealth grown out of the dry soil of Jerusalem. Isaiah implies that this "banner" will be worn between the breast of the newly faithful, as a symbol of Yeshua, of Salvation, purchased single-handedly by the suffering servant.

Adding to the mystery of the early church's odd inability to exegete the source of Isaiah's kerygmatic symbolism is the fact that all of the symbolism Isaiah needed was right there in front of him, and thus, right there in front of the church fathers?

Then his people recalled the days of old, the days of Moses and his people.---Where is he who brought them through the sea, with the shepherd of his flock? Where is he who set his Holy Spirit among them, who sent his glorious arm of power to be at Moses' right hand . . ..

Isaiah 63:11-12.

This "glorious arm of power" at Moses' right hand is the emblematic foundation of the entire book of Isaiah. As such, it's the symbolism ignored by the church fathers, in what appears to be their unwillingness to concede the seeds of their faith to the Jews they had so frequently demonized.

What, specifically, is this "glorious arm of power" that's central to the entire Bible? What precisely is Isaiah referencing in a manner dictating that any reasonable exegete must center this image as the gravity around which the rest of Isaiah’s prophesy revolves?

Nehushtan.

Isaiah 63:11-12 is clearly referencing Nehushtan. Moses is the "shepherd" and his shepherd's staff is Nehushtan. . . But the plot thickens when we realize that Moses' shepherd's staff is called the "glorious arm." ----The word "glorious" is the Hebrew "tiferet." Moses' shepherd's staff, Nehushtan, is being called "glorious." ---- But why? What's so glorious about Moses' shepherd's staff? What's so glorious about Nehushtan?

According to Isaiah 63:11, God sends his Holy Spirit with Moses. The passage claims the Holy Spirit is in Moses' right hand, as his shepherd's staff? This shepherd's staff, Nehushtan, is being called the Lord's "arm." Isaiah 53:1-2 asks the question concerning to whom the "arm" of the Lord will be revealed? And here, the "arm" of the Lord, his Holy Spirit, is a dry branch, a wooden rod? 

Who has believed our message and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? . . . A shoot will come up from the stump of Jesse; from his roots a branch will bear fruit. The Spirit of the Lord will rest on him . . ..

Isaiah 53:1; 11:1-2.

The arm of the Lord where the holy Spirit rests will be a dry branch that will bear fruit. ---- Numbers 17:8 claims that not only does Moses' shepherd's staff bud, but it bears fruit, it has offspring. Nehushtan is the shepherd's staff of Moses, which Isaiah is comparing to the "arm" of the Lord spoken of in Isaiah 53, a "branch," which Isaiah 11 claims is the place where the Holy Spirit of God resides.

It seems apparent that Moses' staff, his shepherd's rod, is being treated as an incarnation of God himself, the place God's very Spirit dwells?

In his book, Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism, Moshe Idel, Professor of Jewish thought at Hebrew University Jerusalem, points to the fact that unlike their orthodox rabbinical peers, the Jewish mystics came close to a Christian form of what he calls "strong exegesis" (exegesis that seeks out the unity of symbols, signs, and meanings, by means of a systematic approach that starts from the tacit acknowledgement of the existence of a unified theological substructure informing the entire Tanakh).

According to Professor Idel, the Rabbis of a more orthodox bent practice what he calls a "weak exegesis" (a form of exegesis that for the most part is unconcerned with a systematic approach which seeks out similarities, or underlying symmetry, based on similar symbols, concepts, or a systematic substructure forming an underlying unity of ideas).

I preface what follows with the distinction between a systematic approach, versus a rabbinic approach, for the simple reason that nothing seems so clear, so obvious, so beyond question, than that all of these scriptures speaking of the messianic Branch, the rod, or scepter, where the Holy Spirit dwells, a scepter first found in the right hand of Moses, are speaking, without question, not just of a theophany of God, but of a tangible incarnation of God in the image of the scepter, Nehushtan, in the right hand of Moses.

There’s little doubt but that the most contentious theological argument between rabbinical Judaism and Christianity revolves around the concept of an image of God shrouded in the mystery of an idolatrous entanglement of God and man. Christianity and Judaism struggle against one another concerning the possibility of such an idolatry-laden image capable of rendering the God of Israel in his most naked form --- man.

It seems that if even the basest "strong exegesis" is applied to various symbols which clearly represent an underlying unity of ideas and concepts ----we can't help ourselves from seeing the biblical idea of a tangible theophany of God associated with a particular "Branch" that at one time was actually destroyed by a Jewish king precisely because of its entanglement with the idolatrous implications and practices revolving around it.

Hezekiah's destruction of Nehushtan is a nearly perfect precursor to the Gospel account of another destruction associated with another Branch and another alleged theophany of the God of Israel in tangible form.

So similar is the Tanakh's talk of Nehushtan, Moses' ruling scepter, the Branch in his right hand (where the Holy Spirit dwelt) versus the idol become the most glorious image ever produced in the Gentile world, the Christian Nehushtan (the Crucifix), that only the weakest of weak exegesis could possibly not draw parallels between images and concepts so clearly delineated throughout the Tanakh that feigning ignorance can only with the greatest effort even be considered exegesis of any kind whatsoever.

A textbook example of this "weak exegesis" is found in a pivotal passage concerning Nehushtan. It's a particularly ironic example of "weak exegesis" since the exegete in question is taken for one of the strongest exegetes who's ever been. Since Rashi is not a weak exegete we can say that when he clearly exegetes weakly it's not because he’s himself a weak exegete but rather he's practicing a form of "weak exegesis" in line with his rabbinical peers.

Isaiah 25:7-8 is translated by King James' translators:

And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory . . .. 

The Zohar (1:54a) reads, "He will swallow up death forever . . .." . . . And yet Rashi feels compelled to replace "swallowed" with "concealed." According to Rashi, he won't "swallow" death. He will conceal it, hide it, from Israel, forever (Rashi).

Every Hebrew lexicon, HAL, BDB, Gesenius, DBLH, all, give the first translation of the Hebrew word bala as "swallow," or "swallow up." -----Most strong exegesis translates the word "swallowed," or "swallow up."-----And yet the strong exegete Rashi gives the weak exegesis of "conceal"? And the JPS Jewish Study Bible says "destroy." ---- Why "destroy" or "conceal" instead of "swallow"? What's at stake between the "weak exegesis," versus the "strong exegesis"? . . . And what does it have to do with Nehushtan?

Why would anyone familiar with all the parallel passages, all the etymological nuances, choose to render the word "swallowed" in this important passage, with the word "conceal" or merely "destroy"? . . . It's as though the strong and powerful exegetes are trying to conceal, or destroy the evidence, through a weak exegetical ploy?

Verse 6 of Isaiah 25 says:

And on this mountain the Lord of Hosts make unto all the people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the dregs, of fat things full of marrow, of wines on the dregs well defined.

The statement links Isaiah's mindset with the Psalmist in Psalms 74:14: "Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness." -----This breaking of the heads of leviathan is directly associated with the feast, or wedding banquet where the serpent will be served up as the meal "swallowed down" in victory. The Lord and his servants will "swallow" up (or rather down) death, represented by leviathan, the serpent, tan, tanim, or levia-tan.

The meal celebrated in Isaiah 24:6, and Psalm 74:14, is the wedding banquet where death is served up, and swallowed down, forever.

Nevertheless, the symbolic nuances go much deeper since the source scripture for both Psalm 74:14, and Isaiah 24:6, is firstly Exodus 4:1-8, and then Exodus 7:12. The first passage reads:

And Moses answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, The LORD hath not appeared unto thee. 2 And the LORD said unto him, What is that in thine hand? And he said, A rod. 3 And he said, Cast it on the ground. And he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent; and Moses fled from before it. 4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Put forth thine hand, and take it by the tail. And he put forth his hand, and caught it, and it became a rod in his hand: 5 That they may believe that the LORD God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath appeared unto thee. 6 And the LORD said furthermore unto him, Put now thine hand into thy bosom. And he put his hand into his bosom: and when he took it out, behold, his hand was leprous as snow. 7 And he said, Put thine hand into thy bosom again. And he put his hand into his bosom again; and plucked it out of his bosom, and, behold, it was turned again as his other flesh. 8 And it shall come to pass, if they will not believe thee, neither hearken to the voice of the first sign, that they will believe the voice of the latter sign.

Simple exegesis ties Psalm 74 and Isaiah 25 to this particular passage (Ex. 4:1-8). Moses worries that Israel will not believe he's seen God, that he’s had a theophany of God at the burning bush. So what token does God give Moses as emblematic of his visionary experience of God in the burning thorn-bush? The serpentine rod that will eventually be augmented with a “fiery-one” to become Nehustan. Nehustan, the serpentine rod of God, the Branch representing God's right hand of power, the rod in Moses' right hand, is the portable theophany of God. God literally tells Moses that Israel will see that Moses has seen God when they see the emblem of the theophany, the serpent rod of Moses.

God adds a second element to the theophanic "banner" that will be Israel's own burning bush theophany. After having Moses pick up the flesh of the serpent become the rod of God's power, God tells Moses to place it between his breast, in his bosom. There it turns leprous. He tells him to return his hand to grasp the rod, "Pluck it out of thy bosom" (Psalm 74:11) and it will be restored.

The passage in Exodus is nothing if not clear that these two signs and symbols are theophanic. They’re said to be a symbolic reenactment of Moses' own theophany of God. The two of them are all Moses should need for Israel to see the right hand of God's power laid naked before them as the emblem lies between Moses bosom as a leprous and suffering servant, until plucked out of the bosom to become the arm of the Lord mighty and able to slay Leviathan, death, and establish the Kingdom of God on earth.

The second passage, Exodus 7:11, says:

Then Pharaoh also called the wise men and the sorcerers: now the magicians of Egypt, they also did in like manner with their enchantments. For they cast down every man his rod, and they became serpents: but Aaron's rod swallowed up their rods.

No serious exegete can with a straight face deny that based on these parallel passages, and many more too numerous to go into, Isaiah 25:8 is speaking of the strong arm of the Lord, the Messianic branch, the ruling scepter in Moses' right hand, Nehushtan, swallowing up death, as represented by the serpents controlled by Pharaoh, who had the power of death over Israel, and the fiery-ones in the desert who had, and represented, death to Israel. Nehustan was lifted up in the desert as an emblem of Moses' rod, emblematically pictured in the process of swallowing up the serpent of death plaguing Israel.

With these scriptural parallels, why would Rashi and the Rabbis go out of their way to change the "swallowing up" of death in victory (a direct link to the spirit of the text) with words like "conceal" and "destroy" which, although appropriate, are clearly an appropriation of weak exegetical principles in order to conceal the spirit of a passage by exegetically tweaking the verbiage in a manner that disunifies, and breaks the symbolic linkages that cannot be denied where the symbolism is kept intact? 

O God, how long shall the adversary reproach? Shall the enemy blaspheme thy name for ever? Why withdrawest thou thy hand, even thy right hand? Pluck it out of they bosom [Ex. 4:7]. . . [With it] thou breakest the heads of the dragons in the waters. Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, and gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.

Psalm 74:10-14.

And on this mountain the Lord of Hosts make unto all the people a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the dregs. . . And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the vail that is spread over all nations. He will swallow up death in victory . . ..

Isaiah 25:6-8.

The Psalmist is requesting that God reach into his bosom and snatch Shaddai, the yod of the breast, the right hand of God, the suffering lamb of God, the leprous Messianic arm of the Lord (Isa. 53) who is in repose, rest, between God's breast. The psalmist is asking God to take his weapon, his papal ferula, Nehushtan, the rod of Moses, and lift it up before his enemies. Let the messianic Branch swallow up the enemies of God. Let victory reign, and the messianic banquet begin.

What's wrong with all this in Rashi and Rabbis' minds? 

First of all the leprous suffering servant between the breast, the idea of Nehustan, a dry Branch without life, blossoming asexually (Num. 17:8; 1 Cor. 15:20, Isa. 53:2; 11:1), and this tangible, dead, then living, Branch, being the "arm of the Lord," which is associated with deity.

Rashi and the Rabbis can't bring themselves to get their head around the idea of the tangible arm of the Lord, literally worn as an ornament, tiferet, the idea that Moses, standing there with Nehustan in his right hand, triumphing over death, as the Branch of God swallows up the fiery-one cast in bronze, is merely emblematic of God, with his own tangible Branch, the suffering servant lying between his own breast, bosom, a leprous suffering servant on a dead branch, with a leprous body, dangling there, between the breast, as an ornament of glory, tiferet, lying in repose, awaiting the day that God will reach a second time into his breast (Isa. 11:11) and rescue the soul of his Jewelry (Psalm 74:19), to once and for all, with his bride, swallow up the tanim of the sorcerers of death, and once and for all, finally, establish his Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven.

No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 1:18.

Something like ten times the prophet Isaiah speaks of a "banner" נס (nes) being lifted up as the paramount sign or signal used to draw people to Zion or Jerusalem. Nearly every time the prophet speaks of this "banner" he claims it's used as a symbol which the Gentiles will search out:

And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, Which shall stand for a banner נס of the people; To it the Gentiles shall inquire. And his rest shall be glorious (11:10).

Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, And set up my standard נס to the people (49:22).

In 11:10 (quoted above) it says "his rest shall be glorious כבוד (kabod)". ----- The "banner" which is the root of Jesse, and which is lifted up for the people, becomes a personal pronoun whose "rest" . . . or resting place . . . on the pole נס . . . is said to be "glorious" (kabod is used in this verse ----but tiferet is used later). Numerous passages contribute to the imagery of this "banner" or "standard" lifted up for the Gentile nations. Isaiah 52:10 says:

The Lord will lay bare his holy arm in the sight of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth will see the salvation ישועה [Yeshua] of our God.

The word translated "nations" is goyim גוימ, which generally means Gentiles. In most of the verses that speak of the "banner" lifted up for the nations it's implied that Gentiles from the very ends of the earth will see this banner and will consider this banner. They will come running to Jerusalem because of this banner.

A corrected interpretation/translation of Isaiah 49:14-16 reads as follows:

But Zion said, "The Lord has forsaken me, the Lord has forgotten me," "Can a mother forget the baby at her breast and have no compassion on the child she has borne? Though she may forget, I will not forget you! Yes they may forget, But I will not forget you. Behold I have you attached to my Rod with nails through your palms. Your cry is always with me."

This reading of Isaiah 49:14-16 is followed by a passage noted earlier:

Thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I will lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, And set up my standard נס to the people (49:22).

God is going to "lift up his hand" and in that hand is going to be the prototype papal ferula . . . the "standard" or "banner" נס which will cause Gentiles from the ends of the earth to bow down before it with their faces to the ground, kissing the dust on the feet (49:23).

Isaiah 49:16 interpreted according to the MT reads:

Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands.

The Hebrew looks like this:

הן חקתי ך על כפים

The key word is haqqoti חקתי translated "graven." The word is related to the word "chok" חק meaning "decree." It's used to speak of a "commander's staff" (BDB) or a ruler's rod. It has a connotation of "engraving" or cutting, like hieroglyphs, such that the primary idea is related to some important decree, idea, or image, being engraved, or cut into, a staff, a tomb (BDB), a tablet, or scroll.

Isaiah 49:16 is contextually related to Zion's claim of being forsaken, made desolate, destroyed, a leper. As noted above, the word haqqoti חקתי translated "graven," is related to the word for a "decree" חק whose seriousness, or sacredness, is marked by "engraving" the decree in stone, or a ruler's staff, or a tomb. A similar word forms a hapax legomenon in Judges 5:25 where the word "to cut" חקה (which is the word "decree" חק with a heh ה suffix) is used (just one time in scripture) with a mem מ prefix (מחקח) for someone dying by having their flesh pierced by a nail.

Isaiah 49:16 . . . which is clarified just four verses latter by God speaking of lifting his hand with a banner in it to call the Gentiles . . . is clearly speaking of a commander's staff (as Brown Driver Briggs claims the word implies). Beyond that, the verse Brown Driver Briggs references in relationship to the commander's staff, Genesis 49:9, speaks of the commander's staff, i.e., ruling authority, not departing from between Judah's "feet" until Messiah comes.

Messiah is from the tribe of Judah, and in an ironic parody on Genesis 49:9, in Isaiah chapter 49, Zion, the Suffering Servant, who is a precursor to the Messianic ruler, is "nailed" to the commander's staff (haqquoti) in such a manner that all ruling authority will literally be between his "feet" and his hands, nailed to the staff, until his rule is fully established in the Kingdom age. Which is to say, the papal ferula spoken of in Isaiah 49 is made to represent the emblem or banner of Messianic authority in its symbolic form as that form will exist until Shiloh comes into his Kingdom.

The papal ferula Moses lifts in the desert (to heal Israel from the serpent's bite) was a commander's staff with a serpent nailed to it. It was described by the word nes נס (nun-samech). . . In Isaiah chapter 49 God speaks of his own papal ferula. But instead of a serpent being nailed to it the Suffering Servant is the banner hanging from the staff.

The leaders of Israel interpreted Isaiah's oracle in only one of the possibilities his oracle circumscribes. Israel interpreted the Torah, and thus Isaiah, to predict a Messianic deliverer who would be born, mature, and rise to the seat of David prior to his death. He would be a king but not a priest. Which is to say he would save Israel from her temporal enemies while leaving the Levitical priesthood to deal with sin and atonement before God.

That was one possibility when Jesus of Nazareth offered himself up as Messiah. He could have fulfilled the more generally accepted version of the Messianic aeon and thus Israel would have entered the Kingdom Age in the first century of this era.

But Isaiah's prophesy accounted for the rejection of the first offer by Israel and the death of the Messiah. In this second possibility which is actualized at the crucifixion, Messiah offers himself as the atoning sacrifice that will cleanse not only Israel (who already had the Levitical priesthood to serve that purpose) but the Gentiles who had no priesthood capable of atoning for their sins.

In this second possibility, which was actualized at the crucifixion, Messiah dies before ascending to the throne, and therein becomes not merely a messianic king capable of dealing with Israel's temporal enemies, but a priest, the high priest, capable of performing the task formerly assigned to the Levites. . . When Israel concedes to the death of Messiah, he becomes in death, a King-Priest after the order of Melchizedek.

In the New Testament, Jesus is presented not only as King-Messiah, but as a high priest. The writer of the book of Hebrews points out that no member of the tribe of Judah ever functioned as a priest. . . So how could Jesus fulfill the function of a priest?

Through his resurrection Jesus begins a new epoch not revealed in the original reading of the Torah and not understood in Isaiah. But through retrospective exposition we see that Isaiah's prophesies (and the Torah text too) not only made provisions for this possibility, but privileged this reading when examined retrospectively (Isaiah 48:6-7).

Even though an oracle's prophesy might not be correctly interpreted until the first possibility is rendered impossible, nevertheless the oracle's work can be extremely valuable. Nowhere is this more true than in Deutero-Isaiah since even though the leaders of Israel selected only one of the possible interpretations of Isaiah ---the natural arrival and typical crowing of King Messiah --- Isaiah's oracle suggests that at some point Israel will come to understand the second possibility contained in his oracle, at which point Israel will attain to something far greater than anything associated with the possibility of the fulfillment of the oracle as originally understood.

It was foreordained that Israel would assume only one interpretation of the Torah, and Isaiah’s prophesy, was possible, such that through this very interpretation they would reject King Messiah as he presented himself in the light of the second possibility of the Torah and Isaiah.

When Israel comes to realize that Isaiah's oracle has two (or more) possibilities they will re-examine the oracle retrospectively and see that Jesus of Nazareth presented himself in light of a legitimate element in Isaiah's oracle. At that time Israel will use Isaiah's oracle in order to attune themselves to the second possibility in the oracle such that the oracle will retroactively fulfill its mission in orienting Israel to the still living reality of the second possibility.

In the second possibility Messiah is the first human being resurrected from the dead. His resurrection is the power through which all other human beings will be raised from the dead. As Moses led Israel out of Egypt, Messiah will lead the elect from the entire human race out of the realm of death. As Moses freed Israel from slavery to the Egyptians, Messiah will free humanity from slavery to death and want. As Moses lifted the banner to free Israel from the death of the serpent's bite (death from original sin transmitted through phallic-sex) Messiah will himself be lifted up on a pole as one born apart from phallic-sex, and thus free from original sin, so that as Israel was freed from death by Moses' papal ferula, all humanity will be freed from death when Messiah is lifted up on God's papal ferula.

The messianic expectations of Israel have had their time come and go. There was a fixed time-frame for the advent of Messiah; and there was a general expectation that he would be a normal king in the line of David, who would simply overcome the Gentiles and set up a Kingdom ruled over by God, through the Messianic son of David.

That interpretation was the correct, maybe even the only legitimate interpretation, until its time can and went.

Those Jews in the first century who knew that the messianic expectations were completely destroyed by the destruction of the temple by the Romans were dumbfounded. Many of them knew that something very important was taking place, something that threw the whole interpretation of Messiah into confusion: Messiah had to come before the destruction of the temple by the Romans according to the traditional interpretation of the Tanakh by the Jewish sages.

One brilliant Jew, Saul of Tarsus, looked at the failed prophesies of the advent of the Messiah and realized that if the prophesies were true oracles from God, then they weren't incorrect, they were merely being interpreted incorrectly. He had only to go back to all the prophesies, cleansed of the incorrect interpretation that was the traditional Jewish reading in order to re-open the oracles with new eyes. When he did that he had a revelation that has changed the world more dramatically than any revelation that has ever been.

Saul of Tarsus realized that the death and destruction of messiah prior to the fulfillment of the messianic expectations far from neutralizing the oracles in the Tanakh that spoke of him, in fact opened a back-door to a deeper level of the oracle that's so tremendous that Saul could hardly contain himself. Saul knew that the Tanakh was correct, he knew that Isaiah's oracle was correct. Secondarily, he had experienced a vision that convinced him Jesus was in fact Messiah even though he was dead.

That contradiction caused a conflagration in Saul’s mind. He knew two true things, which appeared incompatible, were in fact both true. . . He had only one option, and that was to re-examine the oracles concerning Messiah, to find out exactly what was going on? How could all the messianic expectations of Israel have been so woefully fulfilled prior to the death of the person Saul knew to be the dead Messiah?

Armed with his belief that Jesus of Nazareth was Messiah, even though he couldn't be, if the prophets were correct, Saul came to the realization that the prophets, and particularly Isaiah, produced oracles whose deepest meaning literally required the failure of their more general interpretation, as the very key to opening up the deeper level. Those whose faith in the oracles, in the prophets, can't endure the falsification of the first, or general interpretation, never enter into the deeper revelation hidden behind the alleged falsification of the oracle in the failure of the original interpretation.

In this sense, there are a number of different traditional Jews. Firstly, those who, knowing that the traditional interpretation failed with the Roman destruction of the temple, left the faith. Secondly, those who reinterpreted the prophesies loosely (creating a "weak exegesis") so that the falsification of the expected arrival of Messiah was merely ignored such that he can come at some future date anywhere out there in the wild blue yonder.

Lastly there were those like Saul who were unable to merely trifle with the prophets in order to keep their faith faithful to tradition. These kinds of Jews had only two options: realize the faith failed when the traditional interpretation of the oracles failed, or re-examine the oracles to see if indeed something was missed, if there was some element to the oracle that couldn’t even be seen until the traditional understanding failed.

There's a fundamental difference between a weakening of the oracle (leading to a tradition of "weak exegesis", i.e., accepting that the traditional interpretation failed, but merely giving it more time, even though time was a real element, and that element failed), versus looking at the oracle in the light of its utter and absolute failure, to see if there's life-blood below the surface that is now (the surface) appreciated as a veil, or obstruction, and not the true oracle after all.