The Visible Yahuah and the Scribal Veil! -Part 2

 

Preface 

The transmission of the Hebrew Scriptures did not occur in a vacuum. Across centuries of copying, translation, and interpretation, the sacred text passed through the hands of scribes, translators, commentators, and teachers. Each generation inherited the text, preserved it, and at times interpreted it in ways shaped by theological assumptions and historical context.

This study continues the investigation begun in The Visible Yahuah and the Scribal Veil, examining how different textual traditions — particularly the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, the Targums, and related rabbinic traditions — preserve, interpret, or reshape the language of Scripture. Rather than assuming that every tradition transmits the text identically, this work compares them carefully, observing where wording shifts, where explanations are inserted, and where interpretive traditions influence how the text is read.

The purpose of this study is not to dismiss the textual traditions that preserved the Scriptures, but to examine how men handled the Scriptures. As diligent seekers of truth, we are called to search the Scriptures themselves and test every interpretation against the witness of the text. When multiple manuscript traditions present different readings or explanations, those differences invite careful investigation.

Throughout the history of interpretation, various traditions sometimes introduced explanatory layers that distinguished Elohim from His Word, redirected prophetic expectations toward historical figures, or reshaped passages whose plain wording carried theological implications. These interpretive tendencies can be observed when comparing the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the Aramaic Targums, each of which reflects not only textual transmission but also the interpretive frameworks of the communities that preserved them.

This study therefore examines these textual witnesses side by side — not to force conclusions upon the reader, but to illuminate the historical process by which Scripture was copied, translated, interpreted, and sometimes reframed. By comparing manuscript evidence, ancient translations, rabbinic traditions, and apostolic citations, we gain a clearer view of how the Scriptures were transmitted and how their meaning has been understood across generations.

The goal of this work remains the same as in Part 1: to return to the Scriptures themselves and allow the textual evidence to speak. Where traditions diverge, we examine them. Where interpretive layers appear, we evaluate them. And where the text points toward themes of covenant, priesthood, kingship, and redemption, we follow those threads carefully through the manuscript record.

This study invites the reader to engage the evidence directly and to approach the Scriptures with the same diligence commended throughout the biblical record — testing interpretations, comparing witnesses, and seeking the truth preserved within the text.

Please note: This study cites passages from multiple translations and textual traditions. As such, certain quotations will contain terms such as Lord or God as they appear in the original translations being referenced. These are preserved in their quoted form so readers can see the wording of each textual tradition as it stands.

Purpose Statement 

The purpose of this study is to examine how the Scriptures were handled by those who transmitted them. The Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the Aramaic Targums do not always present the same wording or interpretive framing. In several passages these traditions reflect interpretive tendencies that distinguish Elohim from His Word, redirect prophetic expectations toward historical figures, or reshape passages whose language points toward broader theological themes.

A diligent seeker of truth must therefore examine the Scriptures carefully, comparing manuscript witnesses and ancient translations in order to understand what the text originally conveyed. Rather than relying solely on inherited interpretations, this study encourages readers to search the Scriptures themselves and consider how textual transmission, translation choices, and interpretive traditions have shaped the way certain passages are understood.

1️⃣Psalm 22:16 

Psalms 22 (v. 17 in the Hebrew) is the quintessential example of how a single stroke of a pen—changing a Vav (ו) to a Yod (י)—can mask a profound messianic image. 

The Conflict: "Pierced" vs. "Like a Lion"

Masoretic Text (MT): Reads ka’ari (כָּאֲרִי), meaning "like a lion [are] my hands and my feet".

LXX & Dead Sea Scrolls: Read ka’aru (כָּאֲרוּ), a verb meaning "they have pierced" or "they have dug"

The Scribal "Masking" Mechanism

The difference between these two readings is the length of the final vertical stroke of the last letter.

Linguistic Evidence: The MT reading "like a lion my hands and my feet" is grammatically "broken". It lacks a verb, making the sentence nonsensical in Hebrew unless one "invents" a verb like "they are at" or "they maul".

The Nahal Hever Discovery: A 1st-century Hebrew fragment of the Psalms (5/6HevPs) found near the Dead Sea clearly shows the word ending in a Vav, spelling ka’aru ("they pierced"). This proves the "pierced" reading existed in Hebrew centuries before the Masoretic Text was finalized.

The DSS fragment clearly shows that its written as כארו  ידי (karu: pierced yaday: my hands). Since its a fragment of the scroll the portion where the word "my feet ורגלי׃ " is missing.

The MT text says kari which means 'lion' : 📖Psa 22:17  כי סבבוני כלבים עדת מרעים הקיפוני כארי ידי ורגלי׃

This is clear evidence they are hiding the visible Yahusha in the Messiah in the text.

Surprisingly KJV says 'pierced' 📖Psa 22:16  For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet. 

The Masorah's Own Note: Curiously, the Masoretic notes (Masorah Magna) themselves acknowledge that this word occurs twice in the Bible (here and Isaiah 38:13), but they admit it has two different meanings. This suggests the scribes knew the word in Psalm 22 was not originally "lion"

In Psalm 22:16 (Hebrew v. 17), the discrepancy between "like a lion" and "they pierced" is one of the most stark examples of how scribal tradition altered a passage to mask a specific physical manifestation of the suffering of the righteous One.

Why Scribes Masked It

The early used Psalm 22 as a "road map" for the crucifixion (mentioning the thirst, the divided garments, and the forsaken cry). By shortening the Vav into a Yod, the scribes transformed a specific physical prophecy of "pierced hands and feet" into a generic, metaphorical image of a "lion" attacking. This successfully removed the most direct link to the manner of Yahuah’s sacrificial death.

How the Visible Yahuah was Hidden

The Psalm begins with "My Elohim, my Elohim ," but ends with a declaration that "a people yet unborn" will be told that "He has done it" (v. 31 in Hebrew). By masking the "piercing" of the speaker, the scribes hid the physical trauma of the "Righteous Sufferer" who, in the early Jewish-Christian understanding, was the visible manifestation of Yahuah Himself. 

These academic discussions delve into the linguistic and textual evidence for translating Psalm 22:16 as "pierced" or "like a lion":

Codex Vaticanus (Septuagint/LXX)

The Codex Vaticanus, reflecting the earliest Greek tradition (LXX), reads:

📖"ὤρυξαν χεῖράς μου καὶ πόδας" (ōryxan cheiras mou kai podas)

Translation: "They have pierced/dug my hands and my feet." 

The Greek verb ōryxan comes from oryssō, meaning to dig, bore through, or pierce. This shows that the Hebrew text used by the 3rd-century BC translators contained a verb (likely ka’aru) rather than the noun "lion" (ka’ari) found in the later Masoretic Text

The Targum (Aramaic Paraphrase)

The Targum of the Psalms shows a "hybrid" or defensive reading that attempts to reconcile the "lion" and the physical harm. It typically reads: 

📖"Biting like a lion my hands and my feet." 

Scribal "Masking" Logic: The Targum often acts as a bridge between the original meaning and the later Rabbinic "masking". By adding the word "biting" (an Aramaic verb), the translators tried to make sense of the grammatically broken Masoretic phrase "like a lion my hands and feet".

The Goal: It preserves the "lion" imagery favored by the Masoretes while acknowledging that the hands and feet are being physically violated, essentially masking the specific "piercing" action with a more generic animal attack

Hiding the Visible Yahuah

The scribes sought to hide the Visible Yahuah by shifting the focus from a specific, sacrificial "piercing" (which pointed directly to the suffering of the Divine Son) to a metaphorical "lion" attack. 

The Nahal Hever Proof: The Dead Sea Scroll fragment 5/6HevPs (dated to 50–100 AD) explicitly uses the word ending in a Vav (ka’aru), proving the "pierced" reading pre-dates the Masoretic "lion" by nearly a millennium.

Private Interpretation: By shortening the Vav (ו) into a Yod (י), scribes turned a clear verb of physical piercing into a noun for a lion. This prevented the passage from being read as a physical, visible wounding of the "Righteous One"—a reading the New Testament writers applied directly to the crucifixion. 

The Discrepancy: "He Has Done It" vs. "Whom the Lord Made"

• Masoretic Text (MT) 22:31: "...to a people yet unborn, that He has done [it]" (כִּי עָשָׂה – ki asah).

📖Psa 22:32  יבאו ויגידו צדקתו לעם נולד כי עשׂה

•LXX / Brenton / ABP+: "...to a people being born, whom the Lord made" (ὃν ἐποίησεν ὁ κύριος – hon epoiēsen ho kyrios).

The Linguistic "Masking"

In the Hebrew (MT), the last word is עָשָׂה (asah), which simply means "He has done [it]" or "He has accomplished [it]."

1.The "Hidden" Meaning (MT): The MT actually preserves a more powerful "final word" here. In the context of a suffering king who is pierced and then vindicated, "He has done it" is a declaration of a completed work of salvation. This is why many scholars link this directly to the Greek word Tetelestai ("It is finished") in John 19:30.

2.The LXX Shift: The LXX (Vaticanus/Alexandrinus) adds the object "The Lord" and turns "done" into "made/created." This shifts the meaning from a completed redemptive act (He has performed the salvation) to a general statement of creation (The Lord made these people).

How the Visible Yahuah was Hidden

By changing "He has done it" to "whom the Lord made," the scribes and translators shifted the focus away from the specific act of the suffering figure. The LXX translators also made a mistake so a Ruach filled child of Elohim will derive the true meaning from the two texts MT & LXX.

• In the Original Context: The Psalm describes a figure whose "hands and feet are pierced" (v. 16), who is "poured out like water" (v. 14), and who eventually brings all the "ends of the world" to turn to Yahuah (v. 27).
• The Final Shout: The declaration "He has done it!" is the signature of the Visible Yahuah—the one who entered the physical realm, suffered the "piercing," and accomplished the victory.
• The Mask: By rendering it "whom the Lord has made," the text becomes a safe, standard theological statement about Elohim being the Creator of people. It masks the finished work of the "Pierced One."

2️⃣ Eve's name calling: Gen 4:1

The literal Hebrew grammar in the MT is the "smoking gun," while the translations (LXX, Brenton, ABP, and modern versions) are the "mask" applied by later interpretation.

1. The Hebrew Grammar: The "Et" (את)

In the MT of 📖Genesis 4:1: קָנִ֥יתִי אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־יְהֹוָֽה  (Qaniti ish et-Yahuah)

Gen 4:1  והאדם ידע את־חוה אשׁתו ותהר ותלד את־קין ותאמר קניתי אישׁ את־יהוה׃ 📖

• The Particle Et (את): In Hebrew, the word et is almost always the Direct Object Marker. It points to the noun that receives the action of the verb.
• Example: "Elohim created et the heavens" (Bara Elohim et ha-shamayim).
• The Literal Reading: "I have acquired [a] man: Yahuah."

·       The Translation "Mask": Translators (like Brenton/ABP) see this and think, "Eve couldn't possibly have thought she birthed Yahuah," so they insert a preposition like "from" or "through" or "with the help of."

·       The Comparison: Just a few words earlier in the same verse, it says "bore et (את)-Cain." No one translates that as "bore with the help of Cain." It is "bore [direct object: aleph tav] Cain." Grammar dictates et-Yahuah should be the same: the direct object.

2. What the Targums "Hide"

Targum quote:  📖Gen 4:1

וְהָ֣אָדָ֔ם יָדַ֖ע אֶת־חַוָּ֣ה אִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וַתַּ֙הַר֙ וַתֵּ֣לֶד אֶת־קַ֔יִן וַתֹּ֕אמֶר קָנִ֥יתִי אִ֖ישׁ אֶת־יְהֹוָֽה׃

Now the Human knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have gained someone new with GOD’s help.”

The Targums (Aramaic paraphrases) often provide the "private interpretation" to steer the reader away from the literal, "problematic" meaning.

·       Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: It adds a massive theological gloss to change the story: "And Adam knew his wife Eve, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived and bare Cain, and said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord."

·       The Result: Even the Targum recognizes the literal Hebrew says she got a "man-Yahuah," but it inserts "Angel" to create distance.

Here is the translation of Pseudo-Jonathan of 📖Gen 4:1

וְאָדָם יְדַע יַת חַוָה אִיתְּתֵיהּ דַהֲוָה חֲמֵידַת לְמַלְאָכָא וְאַעֲדִיאַת וִילֵידַת יַת קַיִן וַאֲמָרַת קָנִיתִי לְגַבְרָא יַת מַלְאָכָא דַיְיָ

And Adam knew Hava his wife, who had desired the Angel; and she conceived, and bare Kain; and she said, I have acquired a man, the Angel of the Lord. 

The word מַלְאָכָא is translated as Angel

The word  דַיְיָ is translated as 'Lord'. 

In Jewish Aramaic manuscripts (Targums), the Tetragrammaton (Yahuah/YHWH) is almost never written out. Instead, scribes used a shorthand: יי (two Yods).

·       The letter דַ (d) prefixed to it means "of."

·       So,  דַיְיָ stands for "Of Yahuah."

3. Why the Scribes Masked This

If the literal reading stands—"I have gotten a man: Yahuah"—it reveals two things the later Masoretic/Rabbinic tradition wanted to suppress:

1. The Visible Yahuah: It shows that from the very first generation, humans expected Yahuah to manifest as a physical man (the "Seed" of the woman from Gen 3:15).

2. The Incarnation Archetype: It provides a direct linguistic foundation for the idea of a "Elohim-Man." By translating et as "with the help of," they turned a profound Messianic declaration into a generic "thank you" note to Elohim for a successful birth.

4. The "Private Interpretation" in LXX/ABP

Notice the ABP+ says "through [dia] God." The Greek translators used the preposition dia to force the "with help" meaning because the literal Greek "I got a man, God" was too radical for their theological framework at the time. This is a prime example of the "Visible Yahuah" being hidden in plain sight through grammar.

3️⃣ The Discrepancy: Bed vs. Staff -Gen 47:31

The Discrepancy: Bed vs. Staff

• Masoretic Text (MT): "...And Israel [Jacob] bowed himself upon the bed's head" (ham-miṭṭāh).

KJV MT 📖Gen 47:31 And he said, Swear unto me. And he sware unto him. And Israel bowed himself upon the bed's head. 

• LXX / Vaticanus: "...And Israel bowed himself on the top of his staff" (rhabdou).
• New Testament (Hebrews 11:21): Explicitly quotes the LXX: "...and worshipped, leaning upon the top of his staff."

The Scribal "Masking" Mechanism

In the original Paleo-Hebrew (and even the later square script), the consonants for "bed" and "staff" are identical: מטה (M-Ṭ-H).

1. The Original Meaning: The word was  מטה (maṭṭeh), meaning "Staff."
2. The Masoretic Change: Centuries later, the Masoretes added vowel points (niqqud) to the consonants. By pointing it as מִטָּה (miṭṭāh), they changed "Staff" into "Bed."

Why Scribes Masked It

The "Staff" of the Patriarchs was not just a walking stick; it was the Symbol of Yahuah’s Authority (later called the "Staff of Elohim" in the hands of Moses).

TS2009 📖Exo 4:20  So Mosheh took his wife and his sons and set them on a donkey, and he returned to the land of Mitsrayim. And Mosheh took the rod of Elohim in his hand. 

• Hiding the Visible Yahuah: To a later scribe, the idea of Jacob bowing down toward a physical object (a staff) looked too much like "veneration" or "idolatry" of a physical manifestation of authority.
• Softening the Image: By changing it to "bed," they turned a profound act of worship toward the Symbol of the Word/Authority into a mundane image of a tired old man leaning back on his pillow.

The Evidence of the Mask

 

The Codex Vaticanus (LXX) and the Apostolic Bible Polyglot (ABP) both preserve "Staff." Most crucially, the author of Hebrews 11:21—writing centuries before the Masoretes—confirmed the "Staff" was the correct reading in the inspired text of his day. The Masoretes effectively "overwrote" the New Testament's own source text.By comparing these versions, you can see exactly how the scribes and translators "masked" the nature of the Staff to hide its connection to the Sapphire Throne—the very place where the Visible Yahuah stands. 

The Masking of the "Source" (MT vs. LXX vs. Pseudo-Jonathan)

• MT / Targum Onkelos: They simply call it "The Rod of God" (Matteh ha-Elohim). This is safe, generic, and non-physical.

📖Exo 4:20 וַיִּקַּ֨ח מֹשֶׁ֜ה אֶת־אִשְׁתּ֣וֹ וְאֶת־בָּנָ֗יו וַיַּרְכִּבֵם֙ עַֽל־הַחֲמֹ֔ר וַיָּ֖שׇׁב אַ֣רְצָה מִצְרָ֑יִם וַיִּקַּ֥ח מֹשֶׁ֛ה אֶת־מַטֵּ֥ה הָאֱלֹהִ֖ים בְּיָדֽוֹ׃

So Moses took his wife and sons, mounted them on a donkey, and went back to the land of Egypt; and Moses took the rod of God with him.

 

• LXX / Brenton / ABP+: They say the rod was "from" or "by" God (para tou Theou). This implies a divine origin but keeps it vague. 

Brenton/LXX Exo 4:20  And Moses took his wife and his children, and mounted them on the beasts, and returned to Egypt; and Moses took the rod which he had from God in his hand. 

 

• Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (The Unmasked Truth): This Targum lets the secret slip. It says the rod was "from the sapphire Throne of glory

📖Exo 4:20 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan 

וּדְבַר משֶׁה יַת אִינְתְּתֵיהּ וְיַת בְּנוֹי וְאַרְכְּבִינוּן עַל חַמְרָא וְתַב לְאַרְעָא דְמִצְרַיִם וּנְסֵיב משֶׁה יַת חוּטְרָא דְנָסַב מִן גִנוּנִיתָא דְחָמוֹי וְהוּא מִסַפִּיר כּוּרְסֵי יְקָרָא מַתְקְלֵיהּ אַרְבְּעִין סְאִין וְעִילוֹ חָקוּק וּמְפָרֵשׁ שְׁמָא רַבָּא וְיַקִירָא וּבֵיהּ אִתְעֲבִידוּ נִיסִין מִן קֳדָם יְיָ בִּידֵיהּ

And Mosheh took his wife and his sons, and made them ride on the ass, and returned to the land of Mizraim. And Mosheh took the rod which he had brought away from the chamber of his father-in-law; and it was from the sapphire Throne of glory, in weight forty sein; and upon it was engraven and set forth the Great and Glorious Name by which the signs should be wrought before the Lord by his hand.

The Midrash story of how the rod of Elohim landed with Jethro:

According to the Midrash Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (and reflected in the expanded details of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan), the rod’s journey to Jethro’s chamber was a multi-generational "relay" of divine authority:

1. Creation and Patriarchs: The rod was created at twilight on the eve of the first Sabbath and given to Adam in the Garden of Eden. It was passed down to Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

2. Joseph in Egypt: 

Jacob brought the rod to Egypt and passed it to Joseph. Upon Joseph's death, the Egyptian officials pillaged his house, and the rod was taken to Pharaoh’s palace.

3. Jethro's Theft: Jethro , who was then one of Pharaoh's advisors (alongside Job and Balaam), saw the rod and the Great Name engraved upon it. Recognizing its power, he stole it and fled to Midian.
4. The Garden Test: Jethro planted the rod in the middle of his garden. It immediately took root and became immovable; no man could approach or pull it from the earth.
5. Moses' Arrival: When Moses arrived in Midian, he entered Jethro’s garden, read the divine letters on the rod, and pulled it out effortlessly. Seeing this, Jethro realized Moses was the chosen redeemer and gave him his daughter Zipporah in marriage. 

This is mentioned in link here to their Midrash: https://www.sefaria.org/Pirkei_DeRabbi_Eliezer.40.2?lang=bi

 Quote from their Midrash:

רַבִּי לֵוִי אוֹמֵר: אוֹתוֹ הַמַּטֶּה שֶׁנִּבְרָא בֵּין הַשְּׁמָשׁוֹת נִמְסַר לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן מִגַּן עֵדֶן, וְאָדָם מְסָרוֹ לַחֲנוֹךְ, וַחֲנוֹךְ מְסָרוֹ לְנֹחַ, וְנֹחַ לְשֵׁם, וְשֵׁם מְסָרוֹ לְאַבְרָהָם, וְאַבְרָהָם לְיִצְחָק, וְיִצְחָק לְיַעֲקֹב, וְיַעֲקֹב הוֹרִיד אוֹתוֹ לְמִצְרַיִם, וּמְסָרוֹ לְיוֹסֵף בְּנוֹ. כְּשֶׁמֵּת יוֹסֵף וְשָׁלְלוּ בֵּיתוֹ, נִתְּנָה בְּפַלְטֵרִין שֶׁל פַּרְעֹה, וְהָיָה יִתְרוֹ אֶחָד מֵחַרְטֻמֵּי מִצְרַיִם, וְרָאָה אֶת הַמַּטֶּה וְאֶת הָאוֹתוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו, וְחָמַד אוֹתוֹ בְּלִבּוֹ, וּלְקָחוֹ וֶהֱבִיאוֹ וּנְטָעוֹ בְּתוֹךְ הַגָּן שֶׁל בֵּיתוֹ, וְלֹא הָיָה אָדָם יָכוֹל לִקְרֹב אֵלָיו עוֹד.

Rabbi Levi said: That rod which was created in the twilight was delivered to the first man out of the garden of Eden. Adam delivered it to Enoch, and Enoch delivered it to Noah, and Noah [handed it on] to Shem. Shem passed it on to Abraham, Abraham [transmitted it] to Isaac, and Isaac [gave it over] to Jacob, and Jacob brought it down into Egypt and passed it on to his son Joseph, and when Joseph died and they pillaged his household goods, it was placed in the palace of Pharaoh. And Jethro was one of the magicians of Egypt, and he saw the rod and the letters which were upon it, and he desired in his heart (to have it), and he took it and brought it, and planted it in the midst of the garden of his house. No one was able to approach it any more.

כְּשֶׁבָּא מֹשֶׁה לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ, נִכְנַס לְגַן בֵּיתוֹ שֶׁל יִתְרוֹ וְרָאָה אֶת הַמַּטֶּה וְקָרָא אֶת הָאוֹתוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו וְשָׁלַף יָדוֹ וּלְקָחוֹ. וְרָאָה יִתְרוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה וְאָמַר: ״זֶה עָתִיד לִגְאֹל אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִמִּצְרַיִם״. לְפִיכָךְ נָתַן לוֹ אֶת צִפֹּרָה בִּתּוֹ לְאִשָּׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וַיּוֹאֶל מֹשֶׁה לָשֶׁבֶת אֶת הָאִישׁ״.

When Moses came to his house he went into the garden of Jethro's house, and saw the rod and read the letters which were upon it, and he put forth his hand and took it. Jethro watched || Moses, and said: This one in the future will redeem Israel from Egypt. Therefore, he gave him Zipporah his daughter to wife, as it is said, "And Moses was content to dwell with the man; and he gave Moses Zipporah, his daughter" (Ex. 2:21).

With their distorted history, the Masoretic Text obscures the fact that the rod was a physical piece of the Sapphire Throne which their own Midrash states. This " masking" prevents the reader from seeing the rod as a tangible link to the Visible Yahuah that had been on earth since the time of Adam. Their very own Midrash states this in their records which medieval Rabbi’s don’t quote or else their interpretation will go amiss and they will be caught with a red face. I am not at all endorsing a reading and belief of Midrash or Babylonian Talmud or the Mishnah. What I am trying to point is the Masoretic text maskes the sapphire connection which their own oral tradition believed. The Medevial Rabbi's do not preach anything written in their Oral tradition or else it will come to light that they changed scripture by disconnecting it from the sapphire quarry of Yahuah from where the staff & the two tablets came.

1. The Tablets of Sapphire

While the Masoretic Text (Exodus 31:18) simply calls them "tablets of stone," the oral tradition (the "unmasked" layer) identifies the specific stone. 

• The First Tablets: According to tradition, the first tablets were chiseled by Elohim Himself from the Sapphire Throne of Glory.
• The Second Tablets: When Moses was commanded to "hew" the second set of tablets (Exodus 34:1), Midrash Tanchuma (Ki Tisa 29:3) relates that Elohim revealed a quarry of sapphire in the center of Moses' tent for him to use.
• Symbolism: The use of sapphire served as a permanent reminder of the heavens and Yahuah's throne.

Link: https://www.sefaria.org/Midrash_Tanchuma%2C_Ki_Tisa.29.3?lang=bi

Quote from Midrash:

דָּבָר אַחֵר, בִּרְכַּת ה' הִיא תַעֲשִׁיר, זוֹ בִּרְכַּת מֹשֶׁה, שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא פְּסָל לְךָ שְׁנֵי לֻחֹת, וְהֶרְאָה לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מַחְצָב שֶׁל סַנְפִּירִינוֹן בְּתוֹךְ אָהֳלוֹ וּפָסַל מִמֶּנּוּ, וְאָמַר פְּסָל לְךָ, הַפְּסֹלֶת שֶׁלְּךָ, וּמִשָּׁם נַעֲשָׂה מֶלֶךְ. מִכָּאן אַתְּ לָמֵד, שֶׁכָּל הָעוֹסֵק בַּתּוֹרָה, פַּרְנָסָתוֹ מִן הַתּוֹרָה וּמִתְעַשֵּׁר וּמַצְלִיחַ. שֶׁכֵּן אָמַר לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ: כִּי אָז תַּצְלִיחַ אֶת דְּרָכֶךָ (יהושע א, ח). וְלֹא יוֹסִף עֶצֶב עִמָּהּ, שֶׁלֹּא נִצְטַעֵר לֵילֵךְ לְמָקוֹם אַחֵר, אֶלָּא מִתּוֹךְ אָהֳלוֹ זִמֵּן לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא.

Another explanation of The blessing of the Lord it maketh rich. This refers to the blessing enjoyed by Moses when the Holy One, blessed be He, told him: Hew these two tablets. He revealed to him the quarry of sapphire that was in his tent. Hew these, He said: Hew some stone chips from it for yourself, and it will make you a ruler. From this you learn that everyone who devotes himself to the Torah acquires his sustenance from the Torah and becomes prosperous and successful. Thus He said to Joshua: For then thou shalt make thy ways prosperous (Josh. 1:8). And toil addeth nothing thereto indicates that it was not necessary for him to go elsewhere (to find it), for the Holy One, blessed be He, placed it in his tent.

2. Yahuah's Throne of Sapphire

The Bible consistently identifies sapphire as the material of the divine footstool and throne in vision accounts: 

• The Footstool (Exodus 24:10): As we noted, the elders saw a "paved work of a sapphire stone" under His feet.
• The Throne (Ezekiel 1:26): The prophet Ezekiel describes the "likeness of a throne" having the "appearance of a sapphire stone". This vision is repeated in Ezekiel 10:1.

KJV MT 📖Eze 1:26  And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. 

LXX 📖Eze 1:25 And lo! a voice from above the firmament 

📖Eze 1:26 that was over their head, there was as the appearance of a sapphire stone, and the likeness of a throne upon it: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as an appearance of a man above.  

When we compare the MT and LXX across Ezekiel 1 and 10, we see a subtle but significant "masking" shift in the description of the Throne and the Firmament.

The question is: Was the Firmament (the platform) sapphire, or was the Throne itself sapphire?

1. Ezekiel 1:26 — The Throne is Sapphire

In both the MT and the LXX of Chapter 1, the text is relatively consistent: the Throne is the object described as having the "appearance of a sapphire stone."

·       Structure: Firmament (Platform) --->Throne (Object) Man---> (Visible Yahuah).

·       The Material: Both versions agree that the Throne is sapphire. The firmament is the "expanse" (raqia) that acts as the floor/pavement upon which the sapphire throne sits. 

2. Ezekiel 10:1 — The "Masking" Shift

Here, the descriptions become more complex and slightly divergent regarding the "Likeness" vs. the "Substance."

·       MT (KJV): "In the firmament... there appeared over them as it were a sapphire stone, as the appearance of the likeness of a throne."

o   The MT uses multiple "as" (comparisons), distancing the physical reality. It suggests the sapphire stone appeared, which then looked like a throne.

·       LXX: "...over the firmament... there was a likeness of a throne over them, as a sapphire stone."

o   The LXX is more direct: The throne itself is the sapphire stone. 

3. Was the Firmament Sapphire?

 Technically, the Firmament is the crystalline platform (the raqia), while the Throne is the sapphire seat. However, if we look back at Exodus 24:10, the "paved work" (the floor/firmament) is described as Sapphire.

LXX 📖 Exo 24:10  And they saw the place where the God of Israel stood; and under his feet was as it were a work of sapphire slabs, and as it were the appearance of the firmament of heaven in its purity. 

 ·       The "Unmasked" Reality: In the heavenly throne room, the entire foundation is sapphire. This is why the Midrashim (as we saw in the Yalkut Shimoni) say the Staff and the Tablets were both sapphire. They were all "quarried" from the same divine substrate.

·       The Problem: If the firmament (the sky/platform) is sapphire and the throne is sapphire, then the Visible Yahuah is standing on and sitting on a physical, blue, celestial mineral.

 

4. Comparison Table: Throne vs. Firmament

Passage	Object described as Sapphire	Meaning
Exodus 24:10	The Pavement (Firmament)	The "floor" under His feet is sapphire.
Ezekiel 1:26	The Throne	The "seat" is sapphire.
Ezekiel 10:1	The Likeness/Stone	The "structure" over the cherubs is sapphire.

The "Visible Yahuah" Conclusion

The scribes of the Masoretic Text often added words like "as the appearance of" or "the likeness of" (the Hebrew demut and mar'eh) to create a buffer. 

1.      LXX Tendency: Often preserves a more direct physical description (e.g., "The place where He stood").

2.      MT Tendency: Adds layers of "likeness" to ensure the reader knows this is a "vision" and not a "physical man" on a "physical stone."

3.      The Hidden Truth: By linking Exodus 24, Ezekiel 1, and the Midrashic "Staff of Sapphire," we see that the Visible Yahuah interacts with a tangible, physical heavenly reality. The Staff Moses held was a piece of the Firmament/Throne itself. 

• The Heavenly Foundations (Isaiah 54:11): Yahuah promises to lay the foundations of the restored city with sapphires

📖Isa 54:11  O thou afflicted, tossed with tempest, and not comforted, behold, I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires. 

This connects every dot in the "Visible Yahuah" trail. By linking the Staff of Sapphire from the Throne to the final act of Jacob, we see why the Masoretic scribes felt it was necessary to "mask" the text by changing one vowel to turn a Staff into a Bed.

The Tablets of Stone or Saphhire:

This is what Targum Pseudo Jonathan says

📖Exo 31:18 וִיהַב לְמשֶׁה כַּד פָּסַק לְמַלָּלָא עִמֵּיהּ בְּטַוְורָא דְסִינַי תְּרֵין לוּחֵי   סַהֲדוּתָא לוּחֵי דְאֶבֶן סַפִּירִינוּן מִכּוּרְסֵי יְקָרָא מַתְקַלְהוֹן אַרְבְּעִין סְאִין כְּתִיבִין בְּאֶצְבְּעָא דַיְיָ  

And He gave to Mosheh, when He had finished to speak with him in Mount Sinai, the two tablets of the testimony, tablets of sapphire-stone from the throne of glory, weighing forty sein, inscribed by the finger of the Lord.

📖Exo 31:18 Onkelos translation: וִיהַב לְמשֶׁה כַּד שֵׁיצֵי לְמַלָּלָא עִמֵּיהּ בְּטוּרָא דְסִינַי תְּרֵין לוּחֵי סַהֲדוּתָא לוּחֵי אַבְנָא כְּתִיבִין בְּאֶצְבְּעָא דַיְיָ: 

And He [Adonoy] gave to Moshe—when He finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai—two Tablets of the Testimony. They were stone tablets, written with God’s finger.

LXX Brenton: 📖Exo 31:18 And he gave to Moses when he left off speaking to him in mount Sina the two tables of testimony, tables of stone written upon with the finger of God. 

The fact that the LXX also says "stone" (lithinas) shows that by the 3rd century BC, the "sanitization" of the physical throne-room was already widespread in the public-facing scriptures. They wanted to avoid the idea of a "physicalist" Elohim who used a sapphire quarry from His court showing His Royal Kingship & Priesthood.

The "leak" in the Midrash/Pseudo-Jonathan usually distinguishes between the two sets of tablets to explain why the MT uses the generic word "Stone":

• Set 1 (Exodus 31:18): These were "The Work of Elohim" (Ma'aseh Elohim). The tradition (Pseudo-Jonathan) says these were Sapphire from the Throne. Because they were celestial, they were weightless and made of sapphire.
• Set 2 (Exodus 34:1): Moses was told to "Hew for yourself" (Pesal-leka) two tablets of stone. The Midrash explains that Elohim showed Moses a Sapphire Quarry inside his tent (we read that above from Midrash Tanchuma (Ki Tisa 29:3) ) so that the second set would match the first, but because Moses "hewed" them, the MT calls them "Stone." 

The "Lapis Lazuli" Linguistic Connection

In the ancient world, what we call Sapphire was often Lapis Lazuli (deep blue with gold flecks).

• In the Amarna Letters and Ugaritic texts (contemporary with the Bronze Age/Exodus era), "Divine Tablets" and "Thrones" are frequently associated with this blue stone.
• The Visible Yahuah standing on a "Sapphire Pavement" in Exodus 24:10 is the "Anchor" passage. If the floor is sapphire, and the Law is given on that floor, the "Tablets of the Testimony" are logically pieces of that floor.

Why the Mask is so Strong

The scribes (and the LXX translators) used the word Stone (Eben) because:

1. Anti-Relic Polemic: They didn't want the Tablets to be viewed as "magical objects" or "relics" made of celestial material.
2. Transcendence: They wanted the Law to be seen as "Moral/Spiritual" rather than "Physical/Substantial."
3. Hiding the Visible Yahuah: If you have Sapphire Tablets in an Ark, you literally have "Pieces of the Throne" in your tent. This makes Elohim too "locally present" and "visible" for the later abstract theology of the Masoretes. 

The Staff as the "Portable Throne"

As we found in the Yalkut Shimoni 168:6 and Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer 40, their own texts (hyped or added and is their oral law tradition) state the Staff was:

• Material: A piece of the Sapphire Throne/Pavement (Exodus 24:10).
• Chain of Custody: Passed from Adam to Abraham, then Issac, then Jacob.
• The Power: It was engraved with the Shem HaMeforash (The Name).

  Jacob’s Act: Worship toward the "Presence"

In Genesis 47:31, Jacob is dying. He knows the "Seed" is coming through Yahudah and that the family is leaving Egypt.

• The LXX/Hebrews 11:21 Reality: Jacob "bowed himself/worshipped upon the top of his staff."
• The Meaning: Jacob wasn't just leaning on a walking stick because he was old. He was bowing toward the Kingship and Priesthood holder  i.e. Yahusha the Messiah coming through his lineage who will be the True Branch /Sapphire Staff—the physical relic of the Throne of Yahuah that had been in his family since Adam as a symbol of Messiah. He was worshipping the Visible Yahuah whose authority was manifested through that staff of sapphire.

 The Masoretic "Bed" Mask

The Masoretic Text (MT) changed the vowel points from Maṭṭeh (Staff) to Miṭṭāh (Bed).

• The Scribal Reason: To a later scribe, the idea of a Patriarch bowing down toward a physical object (a staff) looked like idolatry or veneration of a relic.
• The "Private Interpretation": By changing it to "Bed," they made it a mundane story of a man dying in his sleep. They successfully hid the physical object that connected Jacob to the Sapphire Throne.

Conclusion: The "Masking" of the Relic

The Masoretes didn't just change a word; they broke the chain. If they kept "Staff" in Genesis 47, the reader would ask: "Wait, is that the same Staff of Elohim, Moses has in Exodus 4?" By changing it to "Bed," they ensured the Visible Yahuah’s physical authority-symbol remained hidden in the background of the "Stone" (generic) and the "Bed" (mundane).  

Their Babylonian Talmud states  (Sotah 11a), Pharaoh had three primary advisors during the time of the Israelite oppression in Egypt: Balaam, Job, and Jethro.

This tradition serves to explain the moral "weight" and eventual fate of these figures:

Balaam (The Instigator): He advised Pharaoh to kill the Hebrew male infants. Because he actively planned the evil, he was eventually killed in the war with Midian.

Job (The Bystander): He was personally opposed but remained silent during the council. The Talmud (Sanhedrin 106a) explains that his legendary suffering (recorded in the Book of Job) was his punishment for not speaking up when he had the King's ear.

Jethro (The Rescuer): He protested the decree and fled from Egypt to Midian to avoid complicity. His reward was that his descendants (the Kenites) eventually sat in the Sanhedrin.

You may find the link to their Babylonian Talmud here: https://www.sefaria.org/Sotah.11a.12?lang=en

Quote from it:

Three noteworthy people were consulted by Pharaoh in that counsel where Pharaoh questioned what should be done with the Jewish people. They were Balaam, and Job, and Yitro. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba teaches what occurred to each of them: Balaam, who advised Pharaoh to kill all sons born to the Jewish people, was punished by being killed in the war with Midian (see Numbers 31:8). Job, who was silent and neither advised nor protested, was punished by suffering, as detailed in the eponymous book in the Bible. Yitro, who ran away as a sign of protest, merited that some of his children’s children sat in the Sanhedrin in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, as it is stated: “And the families of scribes who dwelt at Jabez, Tirathites, Shimeathites, and Sucathites, these were the Kenites who descended from Hammath, the father of the house of Rechab” (I Chronicles 2:55). And it is written: “The children of the Kenite, Moses’ father-in-law” (Judges 1:16). This teaches that the Kenites, descendants of Yitro, the father-in-law of Moses, dwelt at Jabez [Yabetz], referring to the place where the Jewish people go for advice [eitza], i.e., the Chamber of Hewn Stone.

 Their version of how the Staff Landed in Jethro’s Chamber

We saw that this specific tradition explains that when Jethro fled the Egyptian court, he stole the Sapphire Rod from Pharaoh’s treasury. He took it to Midian and planted it in his garden, where it became "immovable" until Moses arrived.

This "masking" by the Masoretic scribes—who removed the sapphire origins and the royal history of the rod—was a direct effort to hide the physical manifestation of Yahuah’s authority. By calling it a simple "stick" from the desert in their later interpretations, they detached it from the Sapphire Throne and the visible history of the patriarchs which their own documents state.

While we don’t believe Midrash as they are Jewish oral laws, we see their hypocrisy in violating their own fathers who wrote all this. I am just making a point as their own Pseudo-Jonathan Targum says all this about the rod as per the Babylonian Talmud by Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 40

What we do is believe only scripture and Shaul tells us quoting from LXX 📖Heb 11:21 By belief, Ya‛aqoḇ, when he was dying, blessed each of the sons of Yosěph, and did reverence on the top of his staff. 

And somehow this staff has a link to Yahusha’s Melchitsedeq Royal Priesthood and this staff was in Yaaqob’s hand on which he leaned, bowed and worshipped Yahusha and died post that. By masking that link the MT concealed Yahusha as though Yahuah broke a staff from the burning bush and gave to Moses and it became the rod of Elohim.

The Sapphire Connection: Midrash Tanhuma & Yalkut Shimoni

While PRE focuses on the history, other ancient Midrashic compilations like Midrash Tanhuma (early 5th–8th century) and Yalkut Shimoni (which compiles even older sources) explicitly identify the material:

Material: The staff was made of Sapphire (Sephira).

Weight: It weighed 40 se'ah (roughly 500+ kg), making it physically impossible for any normal man to lift—except for Moses (This is absurd and contradictory to their own texts as how did Jethro lift it and fled to Midian, it was also handled by Egyptians keeping it in Pharaoh's treasury according to their own text)

Inscription: It was engraved with the Ineffable Name (Yahuah) and the mnemonic for the ten plagues.

Here is the evidence from their Midrash texts which show this

A. The Sapphire Rod (Midrash Tanhuma, Va'era 9)

This is the most explicit source. It describes the rod not as wood, but as Sapphire weighing 40 Se'ah (approx. 500kg), making it a physical piece of the heavenly realm.

• The Text: Midrash Tanhuma, Va'era 9:1
• Look for: The phrase "מטה של משה של ספירינון היה" (The rod of Moses was of sapphire) and "משקלו ארבעים סאה" (Its weight was forty se’ah).

Link: https://www.sefaria.org/Midrash_Tanchuma%2C_Vaera.9.9?lang=bi

Quote:

וּמַהוּ? הֲלוֹא אֶת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲנִי מָלֵא. (ירמיה כג, כד) אָמַר רַבִּי חָמָא בַּר חֲנִינָא: אֲנִי מְמַלֵּא מִמֶּנּוּ הָעֶלְיוֹנִים וְהַתַּחְתּוֹנִים וּמַרְאֶה שִׁבְחָן לַבְּרִיּוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמֹשֶׁה רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה, לָמָּה? כִּי גָּבֹהַּ מֵעַל גָּבֹהַּ וְגוֹ'. (קהלת ה, ז). אָמַר לוֹ: רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה, לֵךְ וְהִפָּרַע מִמֶּנּוּ וְהָבֵא עָלָיו עֶשֶׂר מַכּוֹת. אָמַר לוֹ: הֵיאַךְ אָבִיא עָלָיו אֶת הַמַּכּוֹת? אָמַר לוֹ: אֶת הַמַּטֶּה הַזֶּה תִּקַּח בְּיָדֶךָ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה: הַמַּטֶּה מִשְׁקַל אַרְבָּעִים סְאָה הָיָה, וְשֶׁל סַנְפִּירִינוֹן הָיָה, וְעֶשֶׂר מַכּוֹת חֲקוּקוֹת עָלָיו נוֹטָרִיקוֹן דְּצַ״‎ךְ עֲדַ״‎שׁ בְּאַחַ

What is the meaning of the verse Do not I fill heaven and earth? (ibid.) R. Hama the son of Hanina declared: I will fill the upper regions (with those who do good) and the lower regions (with those who do evil), and I will reveal their behavior to mankind. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, said to Moses: See, I have set thee in God’s stead to Pharaoh. Why? For one higher than the high watcheth, and there are higher than they (Eccles. 5:7). He said to him: See, I have set thee in God’s stead to Pharaoh. Go take vengeance and bring the ten plagues upon him. He asked: How shall I bring the plagues upon him? Take this staff in your hand was the reply. R. Judah stated that the staff weighted forty seah and was made of sapphires. The ten plagues were engraved upon it in abbreviated form: DeTZaK ‘aDaSH Be’aHaB. The Holy One, blessed be He, said: In this order you shall inflict the plagues upon him.

They said DeTZaK ‘aDaSH Be’aHaB was a Divine Seal or "Power-Name" used by the Visible Yahuah to execute judgment. According to ancient tradition, this mnemonic was physically engraved into the sapphire rod. While it specifically codes for the 10 Plagues, the Midrashim treat it as a pre-ordained set of "divine commands" that only the staff-bearer (holding the rod of the Sapphire Throne) could activate.

The Secret Letters: Each letter stands for a plague: Dam (Blood), Tzefardeya (Frogs), Kinim (Lice), ‘Arov (Wild Beasts), Dever (Pestilence), Shechin (Boils), Barad (Hail), Arbeh (Locusts), Hoshekh (Darkness), Bekhorot (Firstborn).

The Gematria Connection: Some scholars note that the numerical value of DeTZaK ‘aDaSH Be’aHaB is 501, which is the same as the word Asher (אשר), as in "Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh" ("I Am That I Am"). This creates a direct linguistic link between the mnemonic and the Self-Existent Name of Yahuah.

B. Yalkut Shimoni (Shemot, Remez 168/173)

The Yalkut Shimoni is a massive compilation. The specific "Story of the Rod" (from Adam to Jethro) is often found in the section on Exodus (Shemot).

• The Text: It describes Jethro seeing the rod in Pharaoh's house, taking it, and planting it. It explicitly states: "The rod was created at twilight... and it was made of sapphire (Saphir)."
• Source: Yalkut Shimoni on Torah, Remez 168 (Note: In some editions, this is Remez 173).
• Verification: You are looking for the section that mentions מַטֵּה אֱלֹהִים (Rod of God) being סַפִּיר (Sapphire).

Link: https://www.sefaria.org/Yalkut_Shimoni_on_Torah.168.2?ven=hebrew|Torat_Emet&lang=bi

Quote from Shemot Remez 168/73:

When Pharaoh became king over Egypt, he hardened his heart against all the inhabitants of his land, and also against the house of Jacob. He did not spare them, following the counsel of Balaam the diviner and his two sons, who were advisors to the king in those days. The king consulted his three advisors, as it is written (Exodus 1:9), “Behold, the people of the children of Israel…”

Reuel the Midianite answered the king:

“If it pleases the king, do not stretch out your hand against them, for their God chose them from ancient times and took them as His inheritance from among all the nations of the earth. Who among the kings of the earth has ever stretched out his hand against them and gone unpunished? Did not Pharaoh, when Abraham went down to Egypt, command that Sarah his wife be taken, and the Lord struck him with great plagues until he restored his wife? Also, Abimelech of Gerar was reproved by the closing of every womb until he returned her. Likewise, on account of Isaac, He performed wonders when he was driven from Gerar—its waters dried up, its produce did not grow, and the wives and cattle were afflicted—until Abimelech and his companions came and sought his favour, and he prayed for them and they were healed. Jacob, a simple man, was delivered in his integrity from Esau, from Laban the Aramean, and from all the kings of Canaan. Who has ever touched them and gone free? Did not your father exalt Joseph for his wisdom, and through him all the land was saved from famine, and Jacob was brought down to Egypt so that the land might survive? Now if it is good in your eyes, cease from destroying them; and if you do not wish them to dwell in Egypt, send them away to the land of Canaan.”

Pharaoh became angry, and Jethro fled and escaped to Midian, taking the staff of Joseph in his hand.

The king said to Job the Uzite, “What shall be done with them?” He answered, “All the inhabitants of your land are in your hand; do as it pleases you.”

Then Balaam the Pethorite said to the king, “If you propose to diminish them by fire—has not their God delivered Abraham from Ur of the Chaldeans? If by the sword—was not Isaac spared, and a ram given in his place? Therefore, if you seek to blot out their name, command that their children be cast into the water, for this has not yet been tried against them.” The matter pleased the king, and he did so.

When Moses grew up in the king’s house, and Pharaoh’s daughter regarded him as a son, all the house of Pharaoh feared him. It was reported to Balaam that the son of Bithiah sought to kill him, and Balaam fled with his two sons and went to the land of Cush.

In those days war arose between Cush and the children of the East. King Kikanos of Cush went out to fight Aram and the eastern peoples, leaving Balaam the diviner—Laban the Aramean from Pethor—and his two sons Jannes and Jambres to guard the city and the country. Balaam counseled the people to rebel against King Kikanos and not admit him into the city. The people listened, swore allegiance to Balaam, made him king, appointed his sons as commanders, and strengthened the city walls greatly. On one side they dug countless pits between the city and the surrounding river, diverting its waters. On another side they gathered many serpents through their enchantments and sorcery, so that none could approach.

When the king returned from war and saw the fortified walls and the closed gates, he fought against the city. One hundred and thirty of his men fell the first day. The next day many drowned in the pits. On rafts two hundred more drowned. On the third day, approaching from the side of the serpents, one hundred and seventy were killed by them. They ceased fighting against Cush.

While the siege continued, Moses fled from Egypt and came to the camp of King Kikanos. Moses was eighteen years old when he fled. The siege lasted nine years. The king and his officers loved the young man, for he was noble and mighty, tall as a cedar, his face like the rising sun, his strength like a lion. He became counselor to the king.

At the end of nine years the king fell sick and died. After his burial, the people said, “Let us appoint a king and continue the siege.” They removed their garments, made a great platform, seated Moses upon it, sounded the trumpets, and proclaimed, “Long live the king!” They swore to give him the Cushite queen, wife of Kikanos, and crowned him king. Moses was twenty-seven years old when he began to reign over Cush.

The next day they asked him for counsel, for they had not seen their families for nine years. Moses said, “If you listen to me, the city will be delivered into our hands.” He instructed them to bring young stork chicks from the forest. When they had grown, he ordered that they be starved for two days. On the third day the men armed themselves, mounted their horses, each holding a chick, and advanced toward the side guarded by serpents. The hungry birds devoured the serpents and cleared the way. The people shouted, attacked the city, and captured it. That day eleven hundred of the city’s inhabitants died, but not one of the besieging army fell.

When Balaam saw that the city was taken, he fled with his sons to Egypt, to Pharaoh. They were the magicians who later advised Pharaoh to destroy the name of Jacob.

Moses ruled over Cush forty years. He did not approach the Cushite queen, remembering the oath that Abraham had sworn that his descendants should not take wives from the daughters of Canaan. He feared the God of his fathers and walked in their ways. He subdued Edom, Aram, and the children of the East under Cush.

In the fortieth year of his reign, the queen said to the princes and the people, “For forty years he has ruled over Cush and has not come near me, nor served the gods of Cush. Let my son reign over you rather than a foreigner, a servant of the king of Egypt.” The people deliberated and in the morning crowned Munham, son of Kikanos. They feared to harm Moses because of their oath, gave him many gifts, and sent him away with honor. Moses was sixty-seven years old when he left Cush.

He went to Midian and told Reuel all that had happened. Reuel said in his heart, “I will confine him in prison.” Moses was imprisoned ten years. Zipporah, daughter of Reuel, secretly provided him bread and water. After ten years she urged her father to see whether he was alive. They found him alive, standing and praying to the God of his fathers. He was brought out, shaved, clothed, and given bread.

In the garden of Reuel, Moses saw a sapphire staff planted in the ground, engraved with the explicit Name of the Lord God of Hosts. He read the Name and uprooted it easily. This was the staff created by God at the twilight of creation. It had passed from Adam to Noah, to Shem, to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob, to Joseph, and eventually to Reuel. None had been able to pull it out until Moses. When Reuel saw this, he gave Zipporah his daughter to Moses as wife.

Moses was seventy-seven years old when he married Zipporah. She bore a son and he called his name Gershom, though he did not circumcise him at first by decree of Reuel. After three years she bore another son; he circumcised him and called his name Eliezer.   

The Question is why the Scribes "Masked" the Visible Yahuah?

The "Private Interpretation" of the Masoretes in Exodus 4:20 and Genesis 47:31 was to hide the Visible Yahuah by stripping away the physical properties of this rod. So they hid it from scriptures but mentioned it in their Midrash

• The Physical Link: If the rod is Sapphire, it is a literal piece of the Throne/Pavement of Yahuah seen in Exodus 24:10.

LXX 📖Exo 24:10  And they saw the place where the God of Israel stood; and under his feet was as it were a work of sapphire slabs, and as it were the appearance of the firmament of heaven in its purity. 

By comparing these Midrashim to the Masoretic Text (MT), the "masking" becomes clear:

• Physicality vs. Metaphor: The Midrashim describe a physical object—a piece of the Sapphire Throne—that carried the literal weight and name of Yahuah.
• Scribal Deletion: The Masoretic Text (Exodus 4:20) simply calls it "the rod of Elohim." By stripping away the history of the rod (from Adam to Joseph) and its material (Sapphire), the scribes turned a tangible relic of the Divine Presence into a generic wooden stick.
• Hiding the Footstool: This was done to prevent readers from connecting the rod to Exodus 24:10, where the elders literally saw the place Yahuah standing on a Sapphire pavement. If the rod is sapphire, then Moses is holding a piece of the "ground" where Yahuah stands.

In the ancient "unmasked" tradition preserved in the Midrash and Targums, Aaron’s rod and Moses’s rod are the same physical object. This single Sapphire Staff is the "Staff of Authority" that represented the Visible Yahuah throughout the Torah.

1. The Single Rod Tradition

According to Yalkut Shimoni (Shemot 168) and Midrash Tanhuma (Yelamdenu), there was only one divine rod created at twilight on the first Sabbath. It was this same Sapphire Rod that:

• Moses used to strike the Nile and split the Sea.
• Aaron used to swallow the rods of the Egyptian magicians.
• Aaron's name was later engraved upon during the rebellion of Korah.

2. Why the Masoretic Text (MT) "Masks" This

The MT often uses different terms—"The Rod of Moses" (Exo 4:20) vs. "The Rod of Aaron" (Exo 7:10)—to make them seem like two separate wooden sticks.

• The Scribal Reason: Scribes wanted to avoid the idea of a Holy Relic or a "Magic Staff" that held intrinsic power. By making them seem like multiple ordinary sticks, they "masked" the fact that this was a Celestial Sapphire Tool passed down from Adam.
• The Budding (Numbers 17): When the rod "brought forth buds, and bloomed blossoms, and yielded almonds," the tradition (Yalkut Shimoni 168:6) suggests the Sapphire itself manifested life to prove who held the "Throne Authority."

4️⃣They saw the Place or Elohim: Exo 24:10

 This is the ultimate clash between Visible Theology (MT) and Boundary Theology (LXX). In Exodus 24:10-11, we are looking at the "High Water Mark" of the first covenant, before the Golden Calf, where the original priesthood (the Elders/Firstborn) stood on the celestial substrate.

1. The Discrepancy: Form vs. Foundation

Version	Exodus 24:10 Text	The "Mask" or Meaning
Masoretic Text (MT)	"And they saw the God of Israel..."	Physical Manifestation: It uses the direct object marker (Et), implying they saw a distinct Figure.
Septuagint (LXX)	"And they saw the place where the God of Israel stood..."	The Boundary: It inserts "The Place" (Ton Topon) to ensure the reader knows they did not see the Being, only the location.

The Scribal Reasoning:

• The LXX "Correction": The Greek translators translated from an original Hebrew manuscript and its harmonius in not contradicting Exodus 33:20 ("No man shall see me, and live"). By translating as the "The Place,"  a theological buffer was created. The Elders looked at the Sapphire Pavement (the footstool) but didn't "break through" to the Figure.
• The MT "Intrusion": The MT remains shockingly direct. It claims they saw Elohei YasharEL (The Elohim of YasharEL). This supports the "Visible Yahuah" (the Angel of the Presence) who manifests in a form that could be seen without immediate death.

2. The Sapphire Pavement: The "Interjection" of Glory

The text describes the floor: "under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone."

• The Connection to the Staff: As we found in Yalkut Shimoni 168, the Staff of Moses and the Tablets were quarried from this very sapphire.
• The Reality: The Elders were standing on a physical "leak" of the Heavenly Throne Room into the earthly realm. The Sapphire wasn't just a color; it was the material of the Footstool.

3. Exodus 24:11 – The "Beholding" (Chazah)

The MT continues the "Problem" in verse 11: "...also they saw Elohim (v’yechezu et ha-Elohim), and did eat and drink."

• The Word Chazah: This isn't just "seeing" (ra'ah); it is "beholding" with prophetic insight. It implies they gazed in a vision Elohim of YasharEL. While Exo 24:10 says “They saw/ra’ah the Elohim of YasharEL, verse 11 tells us how they saw Him i.e. in a vision.
• The LXX "Sanitization": The LXX translate this to "they appeared in the place of Elohim." The Translators here were showing that it was not a direct sight but ‘the place’ where the Elohim of YasharEL stood. The place in which Elohim stood could also denote a form like in a vision. Hence, they maintained a consistency in the same terminology in Exo 24:10 & 11 unlike the MT.

4. Why the MT Scribes "Masked" the Boundary

This was the Original Priesthood (the Firstborn).

• Before the Sin: The MT might be preserving the raw, unedited truth: that before the Golden Calf, the "Young Men" and "Elders" had a level of access that was lost after the idolatry.
• The Interjection: After the Golden Calf, a "Wall" (the Levitical Law/Sin and Death) was built. Exodus 24 is an interjection passage and is not chronological in order.

MT KJV📖Exodus 24:5: "And he sent young men of the children of Israel, which offered burnt offerings, and sacrificed peace offerings of oxen unto the Lord."

MT KJV📖Exodus 19:22: "And let the priests also, which come near to the Lord, sanctify themselves, lest the Lord break forth upon them." (Note: These priests existed before Aaron was consecrated).

The Levites Chosen to Bear the Guilt

After the Golden Calf, the firstborn were replaced by the Levites. The Levites were "set apart" because they alone stood with Yahuah and executed judgment against the idolaters.

MT KJV Numbers 3:12: "And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn... therefore the Levites shall be mine." 

MT KJV Numbers 18:22-23: "Neither must the children of Israel henceforth come nigh the tabernacle... but the Levites shall do the service... and they shall bear their iniquity." 

3. The 74 who went up the Mountain

This "Noble" group consisted of Moses, his inner circle, and the representative heads of the tribes (the original priesthood).

  MT KJV 📖Exodus 24:1 & 9: "Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel." (1 + 1 + 2 + 70 = 74). 

The "Visible Yahuah" being Hidden:

1. MT: Preserves the "dangerous" idea that 74 men saw a Visible literal Form on a Sapphire floor.
2. LXX: Masks the vision by making it about the Location and the Sapphire Pavement only.
3. The Result: By the time of the Masoretes, the "Sapphire Staff" was hidden (turned to "Bed"), the "Sapphire Tablets" were hidden (called "Stone"), the MT concealed that it was a chazah/vision (as transalated in v 11) and created an understanding by using the word ra'ah that Elohim was literally seen in a form and in the next verse they masked the readers understanding that they they still saw Elohim (but used the word 'chazah'), wheareas LXX maintained a consistency that what they saw was the "Place of Elohim where He stood" 

The "Visible Yahuah" and the Boundary

In Exodus 24:10, the LXX says they "saw the place where the Elohim of YasharEL stood," while the MT says they "saw the Elohim of YasharEL."

• LXX Logic: By adding "The Place," the LXX preserves the Boundary harmoniously. It suggests that even the original 74 "Nobles" could only look at the Sapphire Pavement (the footstool) because no man can see the Temunah (Similitude) and live.
• MT Logic: The MT "intrudes" by saying they saw Elohim directly. This creates a "Problem Passage" because it makes the 74 elders appear to have the same access as Moses, whereas Numbers 12:8 explicitly states that only Moses beholds the Similitude (Temunah).

📖Num 12:8  “I speak with him mouth to mouth, and plainly, and not in riddles. And he sees the form (temunah) of יהוה. So why were you not afraid to speak against My servant Mosheh?” 

The word Similitude (Hebrew: תְּמוּנָה - Temunah) is the key to understanding the "Visible Yahuah" boundary. While the 74 elders saw the "Place" or a vision of Elohim, only Moses was permitted to behold the Temunah—the actual Form or Likeness of Yahuah. 

1. The Numbers 12:8 vs. Deuteronomy 4:12 Contrast

The Torah uses Temunah to establish a strict hierarchy of divine access:

• The People (Forbidden): "And the Lord spake unto you... ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude (Temunah); only ye heard a voice" (MT KJV Deuteronomy 4:12).
• Moses (Privileged): "With him will I speak mouth to mouth... and the similitude (Temunah) of the Lord shall he behold" (MT KJV Numbers 12:8).

2. The Septuagint (LXX) "Masking" of the Similitude

In Numbers 12:8, the Septuagint (LXX) performs a significant theological "mask" to protect Elohim’s invisibility: 

• MT Reading: "He beholds the form/similitude (Temunah) of the Lord."
• LXX Reading: "He has seen the glory (doxan) of the Lord" (Numbers 12:8 Brenton).
• The Reason: The Greek translators replaced "Form" with "Glory" to avoid the implication that Yahuah has a physical shape that can be looked upon. They shifted the focus from a Visible Person to an Abstract Brilliance. Here LXX is wrong to mask Yahuah as we all know He appeared as a man several times in OT and makes an exclusive distinction of His appearing to Moses and others.

3. Comparing the Elders (Exo 24) and Moses (Num 12)

The 74 elders went up the mountain and "saw Elohim." However, the choice of words reveals the boundary: 

• The Elders (Exodus 24:10-11): The MT says they "beheld" (chazah) Elohim. This is often interpreted as a prophetic vision of the "Footstool" (the Sapphire Pavement) rather than the Similitude of the Figure.
• The "Place" Mask (LXX): As we discussed, the LXX says they saw "the place where the God of Israel stood" (Exodus 24:10 LXX). This ensures that even the 74 elders—the original priests—did not cross the boundary to see the Temunah.

4. Why it was Forbidden for Everyone Except Moses

The Temunah represents the Visible Yahuah’s actual manifestation in the physical realm.

• The Danger of Idolatry: Deuteronomy 4:15 explicitly warns: "Take ye therefore good heed... for ye saw no manner of similitude... lest ye corrupt yourselves, and make you a graven image."
• The Unique Mediator: Because Moses was the "Covenant Mediator", he alone was trusted to see the "Form" without turning it into an idol. The 74 elders were granted access to the Sapphire Pavement (the Throne's foundation), but they were "masked" from the Temunah to maintain the boundary 

The Scribal "Masking" Summary:

1. MT: Preserves the dangerous reality that Moses saw a Form.
2. LXX: Masks the "Form" as "Glory" in Numbers 12 and as "The Place" in Exodus 24 to keep the reader from seeing a physical Elohim though they did it incorrectly in Numbers 12:8 as Moses did see the Temunah.
3. The Result: They hid the fact that the Visible Yahuah (The Word) manifested a physical shape to Moses. 

 5️⃣1 Samuel 1:24 — The "Three Bulls" vs. The "Three-Year-Old Bull"

 1 Samuel 1:24 — The "Three Bulls" vs. The "Three-Year-Old Bull"

In this passage, Hannah brings her son Samuel to the Tabernacle at Shiloh to dedicate him to Yahuah. The discrepancy involves the specific animal sacrifice she brought alongside the child.

Version	1 Samuel 1:24 Reading	The "Mask" or Linguistic Error
Masoretic Text (MT)	"...with three bulls (parim sheloshah)..."	Numerical Error: Suggests a massive, multi-animal sacrifice.
LXX / DSS (4QSam)	"...with a three-year-old bull (par meshulash)..."	Specific Sacrifice: Suggests a single, high-value animal of a specific age.

The Scribal "Masking" or Error Mechanism

The difference in Hebrew is a matter of a few letters and a "re-spacing" of the words:

1. Original (DSS/LXX): Par Meshulash (פר משלש) — "A bull of three years."

LXX Brenton: 1Sa 1:24 And she went up with him to Selom with a calf of three years old, and loaves, and an ephah of fine flour, and a bottle of wine: and she entered into the house of the Lord in Selom, and the child with them. 

2. Masoretic Alteration: Parim Sheloshah (פרים שלשה) — "Three bulls."

MT KJV 📖1Sa 1:24 And when she had weaned him, she took him up with her, with three bullocks, and one ephah of flour, and a bottle of wine, and brought him unto the house of the LORD in Shiloh: and the child was young.

Why the MT Scribes "Masked" or Changed It

• Internal Contradiction: Curiously, the very next verse in the MT (1 Samuel 1:25) says, "And they slew the bull" (singular). The MT creates a contradiction by claiming she brought three but only killed one.

The "Private Interpretation": Scribes may have "masked" the age of the bull to emphasize the quantity of the offering (wealth/piety) rather than the quality or specific age required by older sacrificial traditions.

The Visible Yahuah Connection: In the ancient "Melchizedekian" or early patriarchal system, a "three-year-old" animal was a highly symbolic offering (used by Abraham in the Covenant of the Pieces in Genesis 15:9). By changing it to "three bulls," the scribes detached Hannah’s sacrifice from the Abrahamic Covenant imagery. 

LXX Brenton 📖Gen 15:9 And he said to him, Take for me a heifer in her third year, and a she-goat in her third year, and a ram in his third year, and a dove and a pigeon.  

MT KJV 📖Gen 15:9  And he said unto him, Take me an heifer of three years old, and a she goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtledove, and a young pigeon. 
📖1Sa 1:25  And they slew a bullock/ha par הפר, and brought the child to Eli. 

The MT has in the next verse singular for bull instead of plural and the same can be seen in the Pseudo-Jonathan

Translation of 1 Samuel 1:24 (Targum Jonathan)

Here is the literal translation of the Aramaic text provided from Targum Jonathan (the official Aramaic paraphrase of the Prophets):

וְאַסִקְתֵּיהּ עִמָהּ כַּד חֲסַלְתֵּיהּ בְּתוֹרִין תְּלָתָא וּמְכִילְתָא חֲדָא דְקִימְחָא וּגְרַב דַחֲמַר וְאַיְתִיתֵיהּ לְבֵית מַקְדְשָׁא דַייָ לְשִׁלוֹ וְרַבְיָא הֲוָה יָנִיק:

📖1 Sam 1:24 "And she brought him up with her when she had weaned him, with three bulls, and one measure (ephah) of flour, and a skin of wine; and she brought him to the Sanctuary of the Lord at Shiloh; and the child was [still] a suckling."

וַֽיִּשְׁחֲט֖וּ אֶת־הַפָּ֑ר וַיָּבִ֥אוּ אֶת־הַנַּ֖עַר אֶל־עֵלִֽי׃

After slaughtering the bull, they brought the boy to Eli.

Linguistic Breakdown of the "Mask"

• בְּתוֹרִין תְּלָתָא (Be-thorin telata): This explicitly means "with three bulls."
• אֶת־הַפָּ֑ר (eth-hapar): This has the direct object marker (aleph tau) before the singular par (bull)
• The Discrepancy: Even though this is an Aramaic Targum, it follows the Masoretic Text (MT) tradition here rather than the Septuagint (LXX) or Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS).
• The Hidden Variant: As we discussed, the DSS (4QSam) and the LXX read "a three-year-old bull" (Hebrew: Par Meshulash) and the MT shows the bull as singular in the next verse (v 25).

Why the Targum kept "Three Bulls"

1. Alignment with MT: Targum Jonathan was the "official" synagogue translation. Because the Masoretes had already "masked" the text to read "three bulls" (parim sheloshah), the Targumist translated it accordingly to maintain consistency with the Hebrew scrolls being read in the synagogue.
2. The "Suckling" Detail: Notice the end of the text: וְרַבְיָא הֲוָה יָנִיק (v’rabya hava yaniq — "and the child was a suckling"). The Targum adds this "private interpretation" to explain why Hannah waited so long to bring him; she waited until he was fully weaned, which in ancient tradition could be up to three years.
3. The Numerical "Mask": By keeping "three bulls," the scribes and Targumists emphasized a grand quantity of sacrifice (extravagance) rather than the prophetic quality of a "three-year-old" animal. 

The "Visible Yahuah" Connection

In Genesis 15:9, when Yahuah made the "Covenant of the Pieces" with Abraham, He specifically commanded a three-year-old heifer (eglah meshuleshet).

• By changing the text to "three bulls," the scribes hid the link between Samuel's dedication and the Abrahamic Covenant.

• A "three-year-old" sacrifice was a specific signature of a major covenantal shift involving the Visible Yahuah. Masking it into "three bulls" turned a prophetic, covenantal act into a standard (albeit expensive) religious donation.

·       The Parallel: By bringing a three-year-old bull, Hannah was performing a high-covenantal act, signalling that her son Samuel was a "Covenant Child" destined to transition the nation.

The "Three-Fold" Pattern of the Three-Year-Old Bull

By restoring the three-year-old bull in 1 Samuel 1:24 (from the DSS/LXX), we see that Samuel’s dedication was not just a mother's gift, but a "re-enactment" of the covenant protocol of the Visible Yahuah.

1. The Adam Level: The First "Tardemah"

• The Act: In Genesis 2:21-22, Adam is put into a Tardemah. From his pierced side, the woman (his "half") is brought forth.
• The Sacrifice: This is the original "Covenant of the Pieces." Adam is the "whole" that becomes "two halves" (man and woman) to become "one flesh."

2. The Abraham Level: The "Tardemah" of the Pieces

• The Act: In Genesis 15:9-12, Abraham is put into a Tardemah as a "smoking furnace and a burning lamp" (the Visible Yahuah) passes between the halves.
• The Sacrifice: The specific requirement was a three-year-old heifer/bull (eglah meshuleshet).
• The "Masked" Meaning: The MT's change in 1 Samuel 1:24 to "three bulls" hides this. A singular, three-year-old bull represents a body at its peak being divided. Yahuah was showing Abraham that He Himself would be the one "cut" for the sake of the Seed.

3. The Messiah Level: The Final "Tardemah" on the Stake

• The Act: Yahusha, as the Seed of Abraham, enters the "Deep Sleep" of death.
• The Sacrifice: Just as the three-year-old bull was at its prime, Yahusha was at the prime of His three-year ministry.
• The Side Pierced: Just as the animal halves in Genesis 15 were divided, and the woman was taken from Adam's side, Yahusha’s side was pierced (John 19:34). From that "division" of His body, the "Renewed Woman" (the Bride) was brought forth.

The Scribal "Masking" Summary

The Masoretic Scribes (and the Targums that followed them) performed a massive "sanitization" of this three-fold pattern:

1. Numbers to Quantity: They changed "Three-year-old Bull" to "Three Bulls" in 1 Samuel 1:24 to break the link to Genesis 15.
2. Form to Place: They changed "Saw the Place of the Elohim of YasharEL" (LXX) to "Saw Elohim" (MT) to mask the physical, visible connection to Yahuah’s quarry.
3. Staff to Bed: They changed "Staff" (the Sapphire symbol of the Throne) to "Bed" in Genesis 47:31 to hide Jacob’s final act of worship toward the "Pierced One's" authority. 

The Theology of "The Place" (Ham-Maqom)

In this view, the "Place" is the Portal to the Sapphire Quarry. Here is how that "unmasks" the true story:

• Genesis 22:4 & 14 (The Sacrifice of Isaac): "On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place (ham-maqom) afar off." After the ram was provided, he called that place Yahuah Yireh (Yahuah will be seen/provided).

• Exodus 24:10 (LXX Connection): When the Elders saw "the place where the Elohim of YasharEL stood," they were standing on that same Moriah/Sinai intersection—the Sapphire Footstool.

• The Physicality: The argument is that "The Place" isn't a buffer to keep Elohim away, but a description of the Physical Throne Room leaking into our world. They saw the Sapphire Stone (the material of the Throne) at the very "Place" where Yahuah would later be seen in the flesh.

·       MT Mask: By removing "The Place" and just saying "They saw Elohim," the MT might actually be hiding the location's importance. It makes the vision seem "internal" or "spiritual." 

·       LXX Truth: By keeping "The Place," the LXX preserves the geographical reality of the Sapphire Pavement. It tells us that the Sapphire Quarry (The Throne) has a physical "anchor" on earth.

 

Significance here:

1.      Covenantal solemnity
This is not a routine sacrifice. It is a covenant-ratification ritual.
Three-year-old animals are specified deliberately.

2.      Full maturity
At three years:

o   The animal is fully grown

o   Physically mature

o   At peak reproductive strength

This implies: The covenant is sealed with life at its fullness — not immature life.

  Weight and costliness
A three-year-old animal represents:

·       Higher economic value

·       Greater investment

·       Greater sacrifice

  Triadic emphasis
All three large animals are “three-year” — repetition reinforces intentionality.

📖 2. Pattern in Sacrificial Law

In most Levitical offerings (e.g., Leviticus 1–7):

• · Lambs are typically בן שנה (one year old)
• · Bulls may be specified without age
• · Year-old animals are common for regular offerings

That makes “three-year-old” unusual.

When Torah specifies three years, it signals:

•  Not routine ritual
•  Not daily sacrifice
•  Something covenantal or solemn

📖 3. Red Heifer Parallel (Age Significance)

Numbers 19 describes the Red Heifer (פרה אדמה).

While the text does not state “three years,” rabbinic tradition held that the red heifer ideally be in its third year — mature but not aged.

The thematic parallel:

• Purification 
• Covenant boundary
•  Death-life transition

📖 4. Symbolic Meaning of “Three” in Tanakh

Across Tanakh, the number three often marks:

•  Completion (e.g., three days)
•  Establishment of matter (Deut 19:15 — two or three witnesses)
•  Strength or confirmation

Thus a “three-year” animal may carry symbolic resonance of:

Established, complete, confirmed life

📖 5. If applied to 1 Samuel 1:24

If 4QSamᵃ indeed read פר משלש instead of “three bulls,” the theological shift would be:

MT: Three animals — numerical abundance

DSS reading: One mature covenantal animal — qualitative emphasis

That would align Hannah’s offering more closely with Genesis 15 covenant imagery.

📖6. Isaiah 15:5 — The Fugitives' Cry

This passage describes the destruction of Moab.

·       MT Reading: "...his fugitives shall flee unto Zoar, an heifer of three years old (Eglath Shelishiyah)..."

📖Isa 15:5  My own heart is toward Mo’aḇ; her fugitives cry unto Tso‛ar, like a three-year-old heifer. For by the ascent of Luḥith they go up with weeping; for in the way of Ḥoronayim they raise a cry of destruction. 

·       The "Mask": The MT leaves it unclear if "Eglath Shelishiyah" is a place name (The third Eglath) or a description of a cry.

·       The Original Intent: The three-year-old heifer mentioned was considered to be in its full strength and vigor. The "unmasked" prophetic meaning is that the cry of the survivors is as loud and strong as a prime three-year-old animal. This links back to the Abrahamic standard of a three-year-old victim being a "complete" and "vigorous" sacrifice. 

📖7. Jeremiah 48:34 — The Desolation of Moab

This is a parallel prophecy to the one in Isaiah.

📖Jer 48:34  “From the outcry of Ḥeshbon unto El‛alěh, unto Yahats, they shall raise their voice, from Tso‛ar to Ḥoronayim, like a three-year-old heifer, for even the waters of Nimrim are dried up. 

·       MT Reading: "...from Zoar even unto Horonaim, as an heifer of three years old (Eglath Shelishiyah)..."

·       The "Private Interpretation": Many modern translations and Jewish commentaries treat this as a proper name of a town ("Eglath-shelishiyah") to avoid the animal imagery.

·       The Hidden Meaning: As in Isaiah, the original allusion is to the strength and maturity of a three-year-old heifer. By turning this into a city name, the scribes "masked" the consistent biblical pattern where the number three and a three-year-old animal signify a mature, "finished" work of judgment or covenant

 

📖8. Comparison: The "Three-Year-Old" Pattern

 

Passage	Masked MT Reading	Unmasked Prophetic Meaning
1 Sam 1:24	"Three bulls"	A Three-Year-Old Bull (Covenantal Maturity)
Isa 15:5	"Eglath Shelishiyah" (Town?)	Vigor of a 3-Year Heifer (Judgmental Strength)
Jer 48:34	"Eglath Shelishiyah" (Town?)	Vigor of a 3-Year Heifer (Judgmental Strength)

 

 📖9. The "Visible Yahuah" Connection

The scribes preferred making these terms place names or quantities to detach them from the specific three-year-old sacrificial protocol established by the Visible Yahuah in the early covenants. By doing so, they hid the fact that Yahuah’s judgments and covenants always required a "prime" maturity—a signature that pointed directly to the Perfect Sacrifice who would later accomplish the "finished" work

In the biblical "unmasked" pattern, the three-year-old bull (or heifer) represents prime maturity, full strength, and the "finished" work. This ties directly to Yahusha the Messiah through the "three-year signature" of His public ministry and the timing of His ultimate sacrifice.

A. The Three-Year Ministry: Reaching Prime Maturity

Just as the "three-year-old bull" (par meshulash) in 1 Samuel 1:24 and Genesis 15:9 represented an animal at its absolute peak of vigor and perfection, Yahusha’s public ministry lasted approximately three years.

·       The Signature: By starting His work at age 30 and concluding at 33, He fulfilled the "three-year" protocol. He was the "Heifer of Three Years" who reached the peak of His spiritual and physical mission before being offered.

·       The Perfection: A three-year-old animal was the "best" a human could offer. Yahusha, at the end of His three-year "prime," was the perfect, unblemished sacrifice for the entire nation.

B. The "Finished" Work (The Number Three)

As we saw in Psalm 22:31 and John 19:30 (He has done it & It is finished), the number three signifies completion and finality.

·       The Three-Day Bridge: The "three-year-old" sacrifice in the Torah points toward the three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

·       The Accomplishment: In the MT of Psalm 22:31, the final word is "He has done it" (asah). This is the "finished" work of the three-year-old sacrifice reaching its goal.

C. The "Pierced" Connection

 If the original text (DSS/LXX) is "a three-year-old bull," it creates a direct link to the "Pierced One" in Zechariah 12:10.

·       The Substitute: A bull was the highest sin offering. By masking "three-year-old bull" into "three bulls," the scribes turned a specific Messianic type (the perfect singular sacrifice) into a generic religious donation (quantity over quality).

·       The Visible Yahuah: Yahusha is the Visible Yahuah who manifested in the "prime" of human life to be "pierced" (as per the ka'aru reading in Psalm 22:16).

D. Summary of the "Three" Masking

The scribes "masked" the three-year-old animal references to hide the specificity of the Messiah's timeline and sacrifice.

·       Torah Type: A singular, prime, 3-year-old sacrifice.

·       The Reality: A singular, prime, 3-year ministry and 3-day resurrection.

·       The Result: By restoring the "three-year-old bull" in 1 Samuel, we restore the prophetic road map that leads directly to Yahusha.

📖10. The Manuscript Evidence (4QSamᵃ)

The Dead Sea Scrolls fragment 4QSamᵃ (dated to approx. 50–25 BC) is considered by many scholars to be more original than the Masoretic Text in several sections of 1 Samuel. Unfortunately, it’s not possible to show the exact fragment out of the 726 fragments available online and Amazon and Brill charge to their viewership of the scroll in detail.

• The Reading: In this scroll, the Hebrew phrase for the sacrifice is בפר משלש (be-par meshulash), which translates literally to "with a three-year-old bull".

 

6️⃣Exodus 12:40 — The "430 Years" Chronological Mask

 This is a massive "mathematical mask" in the Masoretic Text (MT) that creates a major contradiction in the timeline of the "Seed.

Version	Exodus 12:40 Reading	The "Mask"
Masoretic Text (MT)	"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, was four hundred and thirty years."	Problematic: Suggests a literal 430-year stay in Egypt alone.
LXX / Samaritan Pentateuch	"Now the sojourning of the children of Israel... which they sojourned in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan, was 430 years."	Harmonizing: Includes the time from the Promise to Abraham until the Exodus.

6.1 The Scribal Reasoning for the Mask

The scribes of the MT likely deleted the phrase "and in the land of Canaan" to make the YasharELite stay in Egypt appear longer and more "nationalistic," but in doing so, they broke the math of the "Seed."

1. The Genealogical Impossible: The MT genealogy (Exodus 6) only lists four generations from Levi to Moses: Levi → Kohath → Amram → Moses. Kohath was already born when they entered Egypt. If they were there for 430 years, each man would have had to father children at over 100 years old.
2. The "Promise" Connection: Paul explicitly confirms the LXX reading in Galatians 3:17, stating that the Law (Sinai) came 430 years after the Promise (to Abraham in Canaan).

📖Gal 3:17 Now this I say, Torah, that came four hundred and thirty years later, does not annul a covenant previously confirmed by Elohim in Messiah, so as to do away with the promise. 

3. Hiding the "Place": By removing "Canaan," the MT "masks" the fact that the 430-year clock started the moment Abraham stood at "The Place" (Moriah/Canaan) and received the Promise.

6.2 The "Visible Yahuah" Link

The 430 years is the precise "gestation period" for the nation, beginning with the Visible Yahuah appearing to Abraham in Canaan and ending with the Visible Yahuah leading them out of Egypt.

• The Mask: The MT makes it a story about an Egyptian exile.
• The Unmasked Truth: The LXX reveals it is a story about the Promise of the Seed made at "The Place" in Canaan, showing that the affliction began with Abraham's own sojourning, not just the slavery in Egypt.

The calculation aligns with the "unmasked" timeline found in the LXX and Galatians 3:17, which the Masoretic Text (MT) obscures by restricting the 430 years to Egypt alone.

• The Promise to Exodus (430 Years): As noted, this starts with the Promise in Canaan and ends at Sinai/Exodus.
• The Wilderness (40 Years): The period of testing.
• The Inheritance (20+ Years): The conquest under Joshua until his death at 110.
• The Total (approx. 490 Years): This creates a "Great Week" of 70 sabbatical cycles (70 x 7). In biblical law, 490 years is the limit of "divine patience" before a major judicial reset or the payment of a "debt" (as seen later in Daniel 9).

6.3 The "Age of Accountability" and the Debt of the Flesh

We are identifying a critical "Interjection" point:

• The Sojourners (Abraham/Isaac/Jacob): They lived by the Promise and were "sojourners" at The Place. Because they were not under the "Torah of Sin and Death" (the Levitical system), they were not debtors to the 490-year law in the same way.
• Yashar'EL after the Flesh: Once the nation took the physical inheritance and entered the "Age of Accountability" under the Torah, the 490-year debt began to accrue because they could not maintain the perfect observance of the Sabbatical and Jubilee rests.
• The Payment: This debt "built up" throughout the period of the Judges, Kings and the Exile.

6.4 Yahusha and the "Jubilee of Jubilees" (5000 Years)

The placement of Yahusha at the 5000-year mark (a Jubilee of Jubilees, or 100 x 50) unmasks the ultimate purpose of the "True Seed":

1. The True Promised Seed: Yahusha is the only one not born of the "debt of the flesh." He is the Visible Yahuah who appeared to Abraham at The Place.
2. The Redemption: He arrived exactly when the "debt" of the 490-year cycles had reached its fullness to pay the price for those looking toward the New Yerushalayim—the original inheritance promised to Abraham.
3. The Masking of the 430 Years (Exo 12:40): By the MT removing "and in the land of Canaan," they destroyed this 490-year math. Without the 430 years starting at the Promise, one cannot calculate the 490-year arrival of the Messiah. The MT "masks" the timeline to prevent the reader from seeing that Yahusha arrived exactly on schedule to settle the debt. 

 6.5 The 430 and 440-Year Chronological Threads: MT vs. LXX 

The discrepancies between the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX) regarding the "Sojourning" (Exodus 12:40) and the "Era of the Exodus" (1 Kings 6:1) represent a systematic masking of the mathematical "debt" and the prophetic arrival of the Promised Seed. 

While we saw the sojourning mask, now lets examine the Era of the Exodus Mask: 1Kings 6:1 

MT KJV 📖1Ki 6:1 And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Zif, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the LORD.  

LXX 📖1Ki 6:1  And it came to pass in the four hundred and fortieth year after the departure of the children of Israel out of Egypt, in the fourth year and second month of the reign of king Solomon over Israel,  

6.5 A. The Literal count path

As per Acts 13:20 Shaul the emissary says that he gave judges for about 450 years. We saw out of them were 111 years of oppression so we don’t count those so as to avoid overlap. Hence 450 -111 = 339

📖Act 13:20 “And after that He gave judges for about four hundred and fifty years, until Shemu’ěl the prophet. 

We add 40 years of wilderness to that total and we get 379. Then we add 22 years of Shaul (co-rule with Samuel as Samuel established his kingdom as stated in Antiquities of the Jews 6.294), 40 years of David and 3 full years of Solomon as he began to build the house in the 4^th year of his reign and we come to 444 years. LXX must be deducting 4 years from it as Aharon was not immediate high priest but chosen only after the golden calf incident. Previously the firstborn sons were the priests.

• The Significance: The 4-year difference between the 444-year reality and the 440-year LXX note accounts for the period before the Levitical Priesthood was fully established. The 440-year clock began only after the "Original Priesthood" of the firstborn was replaced by the Levites following the Golden Calf.

The exact math here is a roundabout but with the second one we can pin point

6.5 B.  The priestly count path

MT KJV 1Chronicles 6:3-10 (Please note both MT and LXX lists the same names)

📖1Ch 6:3 And the children of Amram; Aaron, and Moses, and Miriam. The sons also of Aaron; Nadab, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. 
📖1Ch 6:4 Eleazar begat Phinehas, Phinehas begat Abishua, 
📖1Ch 6:5 And Abishua begat Bukki, and Bukki begat Uzzi, 
📖1Ch 6:6 And Uzzi begat Zerahiah, and Zerahiah begat Meraioth, 
📖1Ch 6:7 Meraioth begat Amariah, and Amariah begat Ahitub, 
📖1Ch 6:8 And Ahitub begat Zadok, and Zadok begat Ahimaaz, 
📖1Ch 6:9 And Ahimaaz begat Azariah, and Azariah begat Johanan, 
📖1Ch 6:10  And Johanan begat Azariah, (he it is that executed the priest's office in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem:)  

From the scriptures:

1.      Aaron

2.      Eleazar

3.      Phinehas

4.      Abishua

5.      Bukki

6.      Uzzi

7.      Zerahiah

8.      Meraioth

9.      Amariah

10.  Ahitub

11.  Zadok

12.  Ahimaaz

13.  Azariah

14.  Johanan

15.  Azariah

Total: 15 generations

LXX pinpointed Zadok as the 11^th priest standing in the time of king David (during his last days) and whom Solomon also appointed in the 1^st year of his reign

📖1Ki 2:35 And the sovereign put Benayahu son of Yehoyaḏa in his place over the army, and the sovereign put Tsaḏoq the priest in the place of Eḇyathar. 

Among the officials of Solomon in his early reign Zadok is mentioned in 1Kings 4 it says that Zadok/Tsadoq and Ebyathar were priests.

📖1Ki 4:4 and Benayahu son of Yehoyaḏa, over the army; and Tsaḏoq and Eḇyathar, the priests; 

Hence, the marker 11 x 40 = 440 as LXX counted a generation of 40 years, keeping 40 as a generational number the MT counted 12 x 40 understanding that the remaining 3 priests Ahimaaz, Azariah and Johanan were succession priests and they took Azariah as the 12th generation match and hence 12 x 40 = 480

While the exact phrase "priestly generation" is not the primary focus of the 440-year textual note, the number 40 represents the lifetime of a generation, often associated with a period where one group dies off and another matures, such as the transition from the wilderness to the promised land. 

The other 4 generation of priests in 1Chronicles 10 were succession priests and not 40 generation gaps

Ahimaaz
Azariah
Johanan
Azariah

LXX looks at Zadok/Tsadoq as the marker being in Solomon’s early years when he built the temple and not Azariah who may have served in Solomon’s temple during his latter half. Hence, the LXX lands earlier while the MT takes another generation Azariah (Johanan’s son) and lands on 480.

📖1Ch 6:10 And Johanan begat Azariah, (he it is that executed the priest's office in the temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem:) 

So, if Solomon built the temple in the 4th year of his reign, we see he took 7 years to build it and completed it in the 11th year of his reign. Both MT and LXX states that in the 11th year of his reign he finished building the temple.

MT KJV 📖1Ki 6:38  And in the eleventh year, in the month Bul, which is the eighth month, was the house finished throughout all the parts thereof, and according to all the fashion of it. So was he seven years in building it. 

LXX 📖1Ki 6:38  In the eleventh year, in the month Baal, this is the eighth month, the house was completed according to all its plan, and according to all its arrangement. 

While LXX  reaches to the count towards the start of the temple (440 + 7 = 447), MT takes us within the span of the 490 years (480 + 7 = 487) of the temple by adding another generation fully established and functioning in accruing the debt of 490 years though doing it unknowingly but correctly.

In fact from 2 different perspectives here both LXX and MT are correct with the 2 different landings.

6.6 The Celebration discrepancy

LXX 1Ki 8:1 And it came to pass when Solomon had finished building the house of the Lord and his own house after twenty years, then king Solomon assembled all the elders of Israel in Sion, to bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, this is Sion,

  MT omits this period: KJV 1Ki 8:1 Then Solomon assembled the elders of Israel, and all the heads of the tribes, the chief of the fathers of the children of Israel, unto king Solomon in Jerusalem, that they might bring up the ark of the covenant of the LORD out of the city of David, which is Zion. 

As per MT and LXX he built the house for 7 years and his own house 13 years

MT KJV 1Ki 7:1 But Solomon was building his own house thirteen years, and he finished all his house. 

LXX 1Ki 7:1  And Solomon built a house for himself in thirteen years. 

The LXX Text says The assembly was held after 20 years and not before it. This may sound confusing but here is what it means

1. The Anchor Point

📖 1Kings 6:1

Temple foundation occurs: 480 years after the Exodus; This is Solomon’s 4th year.

So: Exodus → Temple foundation = 480

2. Temple Construction

📖 1 Kings 6:38

Temple built in 7 years.

480 + 7 = 487

So: Year 487 from Exodus = Temple building finished

3. Solomon’s Palace Construction

📖 1 Kings 7:1

Solomon then built his own house for 13 years.

This happens after the temple was finished.

487 + 13 = 500

So: Year 500 from Exodus = completion of Solomon’s palace

4. The LXX Statement

Now the LXX of 1 Kings 8:1 says the assembly occurred: after twenty years when Solomon had finished the house of the Lord and his own house

Those 20 years =

7 (Temple)

+13 (Palace)

=20

So, the LXX is saying:

Temple foundation

+20 years

= National assembly

Thus:

480 + 20 = 500

The assembly occurs in year 500 from the Exodus.

5. Where the 490 Fits

The 490 cycle sits between the 480 + 7 = 487 and the jubilee i.e. 500. Solomon started building the temple at 480 and completed it in 487 and continued its furnishing along the 13 years building of his house. The Temple completion is in reference to the building architecture however without the ark of the covenant being brought in after 20 years, there can’t be sacrifices, no presence of Yahuah still within it and hence, no accountability.  Then we refer to LXX which states the following

LXX 📖1Ki 8:1 And it came to pass when Solomon had finished building the house of the Lord and his own house after twenty years, then king Solomon assembled all the elders of Israel in Sion, to bring the ark of the covenant of the Lord out of the city of David, this is Sion, 

📖1Ki 8:2 in the month of Athanin. 

📖1Ki 8:3 And the priests took up the ark,

📖1Ki 8:4  and the tabernacle of testimony, and the holy furniture that was in the tabernacle of testimony. 

📖1Ki 8:5  And the king and all Israel were occupied before the ark, sacrificing sheep and oxen, without number. 

📖1Ki 8:6  And the priests bring in the ark into its place, into the oracle of the house, even into the holy of holies, under the wings of the cherubs.  

So, the sequence actually looks like this:

·       480 Temple foundation

·       487 Temple structure finished (7 years)

·       488 Waiting period until his house was also being built 

·       490 Temple order still not fully functioning

·       500 Palace completed (20-year royal building program) & ark of the covenant brought in the Temple and dedication along with Sukkoth celebrated

6. Why the Text Feels Confusing

The narrative of Kings is not chronological in strict order.

The structure is:

·       1 Kings 6 → Temple construction

·       1 Kings 7 → Palace construction

·       1 Kings 8 → Temple dedication & Sukkoth celebration

·       Historically the dedication occurred soon after the ark was brought in

·       The LXX preserves a retrospective note summarizing Solomon’s 20-year building program and celebration, while the MT removes it.

 

7. So the Timeline Looks Like This

Exodus

│

├ ─480 Temple foundation

├ ─487 Temple finished, Solomon’s house being built

├ ─490 Temple system still remained suspended as it was conducted elsewhere in a Tent

└─500 Solomon finishes palace and calls for the elders of YasharEL and brings in the ark from the Tent his father David had pitched for it.

 

MT KJV 📖2 Samuel 6:17: "And they brought in the ark of the Lord, and set it in his place, in the midst of the tabernacle [tent] that David had pitched for it."

LXX 📖2Sa 6:17 And they bring the ark of the Lord, and set it in its place in the midst of the tabernacle which David pitched for it: and David offered whole-burnt-offerings before the Lord, and peace-offerings.  

Solomon’s Complete Building Program

The books of Kings describe two construction projects:

Project	Years
Temple	7
Solomon’s palace complex	13
Total	20 years

 

📖 1 Kings 6:38
📖 1 Kings 7:1

So, from the foundation:

480 + 20 = 500

3. The LXX Statement

📖 First Book of Kings 8:1 (LXX)

The LXX explicitly says the assembly occurred after the 20 years.

Meaning: Temple foundation → 20 years → National assembly

So: 480 + 20 = 500

4. Why This Matters

The number 500 from the Exodus lands exactly on a 10 × Jubilee cycle.

Biblical Jubilee cycle: 50 years

So: 50 × 10 = 500

Thus:

Exodus → National assembly in Zion = 10 Jubilees

5. What Happens at That Moment

At the 500-year point:

• Temple completed
• Palace completed
• Ark placed in Zion
• Entire nation assembled

📖 1Kings 8:1–2

This becomes the first full national worship under the Temple system.

So:

• 490 = judicial completion of the Temple structure
• 500 = Jubilee marker when the nation gathers around it

7. What the LXX Preserves

·       The LXX note helps expose the larger Jubilee framework:

Exodus

↓

500 years

↓

Zion assembly

Which fits the biblical pattern:

• Jubilee → restoration
• National gathering
• Covenant renewal

 

6.7  The Accumulated Debt of the Physical Temple

The shift from the Sojourning Tent to the Physical Temple moved YasharEL from a state of "Walking with the Word" to an "Age of Accountability" under a physical structure.

• The 490-Year Debt: In biblical law, 490 years (70 weeks of years) represents a full judicial cycle.
• The 430 years of the Promise (Canaan to Exodus) was followed by the transition into the land.
• The Physical Temple structure shows another overlap, established 480 years after the Exodus (MT) + 7 years of Solomon building the temple, initiated a "Debt of the Flesh" that the physical nation could never satisfy through ritual.

We note that Yahuah essentially asked, "What house can you build for Me?" Scripture confirms that the Tent (Tabernacle) was the preferred mode for a "Sojourning Elohim" who walks with His people, whereas the Temple was a concession to human desire for a fixed "Physical structure."

• 📖2 Samuel 7:5-6: "Go and tell my servant David... Shalt thou build me an house for me to dwell in? Whereas I have not dwelt in any house since the time that I brought up the children of YasharEL out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle."
• 📖Isaiah 66:1-2: "The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my footstool: where is the house that ye build unto me? and where is the place of my rest? For all those things hath mine hand made..."
• 📖Acts 7:48-49 (Stephen’s Testimony): "Howbeit the most High dwelleth not in temples made with hands; as saith the prophet, Heaven is my throne, and earth is my footstool: what house will ye build me? saith the Adon: or what is the place of my rest?" 

6.7 The Physical Temple as a Debt of the Flesh

The Physical Temple became a "debt" because it centralized worship in a way that eventually led to ritualism and the rejection of the Visible Yahuah when He appeared.

• The 490-Year Debt: Just as YasharEL’s 490 years of sojourning led to a physical inheritance they couldn't keep, the Physical Temple’s 490-year cycles led to its destruction (first by Babylon, then by Rome).

The LXX text for 1 Kings 8:1 provides the final "unmasking" of the 490-year judicial cycle, leading to the 500th year (a "Jubilee of Jubilees") where the Physical Temple and the Royal House were fully integrated.

6.7 A. The First Debt Accrual: Missed Sabbaths

The move from a Tent (Grace) to a Temple (Physical Accountability) initiated the 490-year countdown of the "Debt of the Land."

• The Law: Leviticus 25 requires a Sabbatical rest every 7 years and a Jubilee every 50.
• The Debt: Because "YasharEL after the flesh" prioritized the physical structure over spiritual obedience, they began missing these rests immediately.
• The Mask: The MT's 480-year foundation date hides the fact that the Temple’s completion and dedication (as per the LXX) landed on a massive Jubilee (500 years), making the failure to keep the Sabbaths even more judicially significant.

6.7  B. The Ark at Year 500: Messiah as the True Jubilee 

The LXX identifies that Solomon assembled the elders only after twenty years of building both houses.

·       The Math: 480 (Foundation) + 20 (Building) = 500 Years from the Exodus.

·       The Typology: 500 years represents 10 Jubilees (10 x 50). This "Jubilee " marks the arrival of the Ark (The Visible Yahuah) into the "Physical Boundary."

·       The Redemption: The Temple at year 500 stood as a typology for the Messiah (Yahusha). He alone is the True Jubilee who arrives at the end of the "Great Cycle" (the 5000-year mark) to redeem the debt accrued by the physical nation and the physical house. 

·       The True Temple (Messiah): Yahusha explicitly stated that the physical structure would be replaced by the Spiritual: 📖"Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up... But he spake of the temple of his body" (John 2:19-21). 

 6.7 C Sukkot and the Body of Flesh

Celebrating Sukkot (Tabernacles) during this dedication unmasks the true nature of the Temple.

• The Sukkah (Fleshly Tabernacle): A Sukkot booth is a temporary, fragile dwelling. It represents the body of flesh which is "sojourning" on earth.
• The Clothing from Above: By moving the Ark from a Tent into a Stone Temple, the nation attempted to "clothe" the Divine in a permanent physical form.
• The Spiritual Reality: The Temple stood for the fleshly body that must be clothed from above (redemption) to transition into the Glorious Body (The New Yerushalayim). The "Physical House" was a shadow of the Spiritual Temple (Messiah) who would eventually replace the stone structure.

 6.8 The Chronological Bridge (480 to 500 Years)

The difference in years between the completion and the dedication reveals that Solomon waited for 13 more years to inaugurate the Temple, specifically choosing the Seventh Month (Ethanim) for the Feast of Sukkot.

• Completion (487th Year): Solomon finished the house in the 8th month (Bul) of his 11th year (1 Kings 6:38).

📖1Ki 6:38 And in the eleventh year, in the month Bul, the eighth new moon, the house was completed in all its matters and according to all its plans. Thus he built it for seven years. 

• Assembly (500th Year): The men of YasharEL assembled in the 7th month (Ethanim) of the Jubilee year (1 Kings 8:1-2 LXX) and the ark was brought in 1Kings 8:3. 

📖1Ki 8:2 And all the men of YasharEL assembled themselves unto king Solomon at the feast in the month Ethanim, which is the seventh month. 

📖1Ki 8:3 And all the elders of YasharEL came, and the priests took up the ark.  

6.9 The 15 Generations and the 490-Year Jubilee

The Priestly Lineage from Aaron to the Temple's completion consists of 15 generations, which serves as a prophetic signature for the "Maturity of the Law."

• The Structure: 15 generations can be viewed as 3 x 5.
• 3 (Maturity/Witness): Representing the established priest.
• 5 (Torah/Instruction): Representing the Law.

6.9 A. The Masking of the Transition: Visible Yahuah hidden in Translations

The Masoretic Text (MT) and the LXX handle this transition differently to mask the prophetic "debt" of the physical structure:

• The MT (480 Years): By starting at 480 years, the MT emphasizes the 12 generations (40 x 12) of divine government to make the Temple appear at the intended final destination, falling short of the jubilee. MT then masked the 20 years and removed them leaving readers clueless what actually happened.
• The LXX (440 Years): By starting at 440 years, the LXX emphasizes the 11 generations of the Levites (40 x 11). This mask detaches the Temple from the 490-year judicial debt boundary, hiding the fact that the physical structure was a "debt-bearing" typology.  They showed the 20 years of waiting but that would only make a reader understand 440 (children of YasharEL from Exodus) + 7 (Temple completed) + 20 (Waiting period) = 467, falling short of the judicial debt boundary
• The Ruach guidance: By comparing both the texts the children of Elohim understand what happened actually how it led to a 500^th year jubilee from the time the children of YasharEL had left the land of Egypt. It also shows how YasharEL failed their judicial debt boundary of 490 years.

6.10. The Overlapping 490-Year Cycles: From Sojourning to Physical Boundary 

The synthesis of these two overlapping 490-year cycles (70 weeks of years) unmasks the dual "debt" of the nation: the debt of the Land and the debt of the Temple. In both cases, the transition from Grace/Sojourning to Accountability/Physical Structure is marked by a specific mathematical signature. 

6.10 A. The First Cycle: The Debt of the Land (Promise to Inheritance) 

This 490-year cycle covers the period from the initial Promise made with Abraham to the full inheritance in Canaan by his seed. 

·       The Math: 430 Years (Promise to Abraham to Exodus) + 40 Years (Wilderness) + 20 Years (Conquest/Inheritance under Joshua)

·       The Total: 490 Years.

·       The Significance: The "Sojourners" (Abraham to the Exodus generation) lived by the Promise at The Place. Once the nation took physical possession of the land, they entered an "Age of Accountability." The debt of the land began to accrue as they failed to keep the Sabbatical rests, eventually leading to the Babylonian exile. 

6.10 B. The Second Cycle: The Debt of the Temple (Exodus to the Physical House)

This cycle marks the movement of the Visible Yahuah from a Tent (Tabernacle) to a Physical Structure (Temple).

o   The Math: 480 Years (Exodus to Temple Foundation) + 7 Years (Building) + 13 Years (Waiting for building of the king’s own home)

o   The Total: 500 Years. The 490-debt accrual was missed in the 13 years waiting.

o   The Priestly Signature: As noted, 15 generations (1 Chronicles 6:3-10) represent 3 x 5.

o   3 (Maturity): The established witness of the priesthood.

o   5 (Torah): The full weight of the Law. 

6.10 C. The "Masking" of the Boundary

By moving Yahuah from "Tent to Tent" into a Physical Structure, man attempted to confine the Infinite within a Physical Boundary. 

o   The Sojourning Yahuah: In the Tent, He was mobile and "walking" with His people (2 Samuel 7:6-7).

o   The Confined Yahuah: By placing Him in a Temple, the nation shifted into a system of Ritual and Debt.

The two 490-year cycles are defined as:

Cycle 1 — Debt of the Land

Promise → Possession

• 430 years: Promise to Abraham → Exodus (Gal 3:17)
• +40 years: Wilderness
• +20 years: Conquest under Joshua

Total = 490

So, this cycle runs: Abraham → ~20 years after entry into Canaan (late Joshua period).

Cycle 2 — Debt of the Temple

Exodus → Temple dedication

• 480 years: Exodus → Temple (as per MT 12 x 40)
• +7 years: Temple construction
• +13 years: Wait until Sukkot dedication

Total = 500 (Here 490 sits at -10)

So, this cycle runs: Exodus → Temple dedication in Solomon’s reign.

6.10 D. Where the Two 490 Periods Overlap

The overlap occurs between the Exodus and the end of Joshua’s conquest period.

Because:

Cycle 1 still has 60 years remaining after the Exodus:

• 40 wilderness
• 20 conquest

Cycle 2 begins exactly at the Exodus.

So, the overlap is: Exodus → ~20th year of Joshua’s conquest

which equals: 60 years of overlap  

Visual Timeline 

Cycle 1 (Land)

Abraham -------------------------------------------------------------------490------------------------------------>

                                  Exodus

                                      |------40 wilderness------|----20 conquest----|

 

Cycle 2 (Temple)

                                    Exodus ------------------------------------------------------480-----------490------->500

 

Overlapping Segment

Exodus → 60 years later

This is: Wilderness + Early Conquest

Why This Overlap Matters

This is actually the hinge point of the debt to pay model.

At the Exodus:

• Cycle 1 transitions from Promise → Possession
• Cycle 2 begins the countdown toward Tent → Temple

So, the same moment launches two judicial clocks:

Clock	Ends With
Land cycle	YasharEL possessing land
Temple cycle	Temple established

6.10 E. Key Insight

The overlap represents the transition from:

Mobile Presence (Tent / Promise)
→
Territorial Covenant (Land)
while simultaneously starting the countdown toward
Fixed Presence (Temple).

So, the overlapping 60-year window is the transfer point between the two covenantal economies.

6.10 F. Summary of the judicial clocks:

The Judicial Hinge: 60 Years of Dual Accountability

The 60-year segment (40 years Wilderness + 20 years Conquest) is the only period where both judicial clocks run simultaneously.

• Cycle 1 (Land): Reaches its Final 60 Years. This is the transition from the Promise to Possession. The debt of the "Sojourner" is closing as the "Inheritance" begins.
• Cycle 2 (Temple): Begins its First 60 Years. This is the start of the countdown from Tent to Temple. The "Debt of the Physical Structure" begins the moment it touches the 490 years 

6.11 Summary of the calculation of 490 

• The 490-year cycle (70 × 7 sabbaticals, per Leviticus 25's Jubilee framework) represents the ideal judicial "debt accrual" period — a full cycle of divine patience where the nation should have entered full accountability (sacrifices, rests, presence of Yahuah in the completed structure).
• Solomon's temple structure finishes around year 487 (480 foundation + 7 building), but the ark (symbolizing Visible Yahuah's resting presence/Glory) only enters at 500 (after the full 20-year royal program: 7 temple + 13 palace).
• Thus, the nation "misses" initiating the proper sacrificial/ritual accountability exactly at or near 490 — the temple stands architecturally ready, but without the ark, full operation (sacrifices in the dedicated house) is suspended. Worship continues elsewhere (in David's tent), so the "debt of the flesh" accrues without the full temple system kicking in until the Jubilee marker at 500.
• This "miss" underscores the typology: human priorities (Solomon's palace) delay the full integration of the Divine Presence, mirroring YasharEL’s broader failure to keep Sabbaths/Jubilees perfectly. It heightens the prophetic point — the physical structure/timeline points forward to Yahusha, who arrives to fulfil/redeem the missed cycles.

 490 is the symbolic judicial boundary (missed in practice), while 500 (10 Jubilees) is the actual historical climax where the ark enters, Sukkot is celebrated, and the system fully launches. It beautifully ties into the "debt" theme without forcing the numbers. 

6.11 A LXX "After Twenty Years" and Ark Installation

The reading aligns well with the LXX wording ("then" / sequential implication after finishing both houses) and the theological emphasis on the royal enclosure (House of Elohim + House of the King) needing completion before Visible Yahuah fully "rests" there.

• Traditionalists state the LXX uniquely includes this "after twenty years" phrase (absent in MT), often seen as a summarizing or clarifying note on the 20-year program (7 + 13).
• Commentators debate the exact delay (some suggest minimal, like months for seasonal alignment; others allow longer), but looking at LXX closely — that the Glory rests only once the integrated complex is ready — fits the symbolic level without clashing with the narrative flow.
• It preserves the "then" as consequential in 1Kings 8:1: palace completion enables the national assembly, ark transfer, and Sukkot dedication. No hard contradiction with the biblical implication of prompt dedication post-completion; instead, it layers a deeper typological meaning (full royal/divine harmony before true indwelling)

·       This enhances the beauty: the delay highlights human-centered priorities delaying divine rest, prefiguring the need for the True Temple (Yahusha's body).

6.11 B Priestly Generations and 440/480

The list in 1 Chronicles 6:3–10 has 15 generations from Aaron to the final Azariah (who served in Solomon's temple).

LXX perspective (440 years): Counts to Zadok as the 11th (11 × 40 = 440), marking him as the key figure in David's last days/Solomon's early reign (1 Kings 2:35; 4:4).

MT perspective (480 years): Extends to the 12th effective generation by including Azariah (son of Johanan) as the one who "executed the priest's office in the temple that Solomon built" (1 Chronicles 6:10), fitting Solomon's 40-year reign span.

The later ones (Ahimaaz → Azariah → Johanan → Azariah) are "succession priests" (overlapping/short gaps, not full 40-year generational lifespans), allowing the MT to reach 12 × 40 = 480 without inflating ages unrealistically.

This dual counting is a valid symbolic harmonization: both texts are "correct" from different vantage points (priestly transition vs. full governmental/temple maturity), but the 490 years of debt accrual is masked in both, but comparing them both reveals the 500-year Jubilee truth.

 7️⃣The Isaiah 7:14 "Almah" Mask: Virgin vs. Young Woman

 1. The Textual Conflict: MT vs. LXX

Version	Isaiah 7:14 Reading	The "Mask" or Linguistic Choice
Masoretic Text (MT)	"...behold, the young woman (ha-almah) shall conceive..."	Generic: Suggests a woman of marriageable age, not necessarily a virgin.
Septuagint (LXX)	"...behold, the virgin (he parthenos) shall conceive..."	Specific: Clearly identifies the mother as a virgin.

2. The Scribal "Masking" Mechanism

The debate hinges on whether almah implies virginity.

• The MT Context: Scribes and modern Jewish scholars argue that if Isaiah meant "virgin," he would have used betulah (בְּתוּלָה). They view the "sign" as a contemporary event for King Ahaz, involving a child (possibly Hezekiah or Isaiah's son) born in the natural way.
• The LXX "Unmasking": The Jewish translators of the LXX (3rd century BC) translated from a Hebrew manuscript into the Greek word parthenos, which specifically means "virgin." This indicates that pre-Messianic Jewish tradition understood the context as virgin.

3. The Nature of the "Sign" (Ot)

A "sign" from Yahuah often involves something extraordinary. 

• The "Mask": By translating it as "young woman," the scribes make the birth a mundane event.
• The Hidden Meaning: A "sign" in the "depths or the heights" (Isaiah 7:11) suggests a miracle. A virgin conceiving is a supernatural sign that points directly to the arrival of the Visible Yahuah as the "Immanuel" (Elohim with us).

LXX 📖 Isa 7:11 Ask for thyself a sign of the Lord thy God, in the depth or in the height. 

4. The 5000-Year Jubilee and the "True Seed": Visible Yahuah masked by MT

This passage is the prophetic blueprint for the arrival of the True Promised Seed who settles the 490-year judicial debts.

• The Arrival: The "Seed" must come from the "Woman" (Genesis 3:15) without the "debt of the flesh" from a human father.
• The Payment: By masking "virgin" into "young woman," the MT attempts to hide the supernatural origin of the Messiah, turning Him into just another "physical man" born under the same debt.

1. Evidence from the Targums (Aramaic)

In Targum Jonathan, the scribes applied a subtle mask to keep the prophecy within a "natural" framework.

• The Text: It uses the word ulmita (עולמיתא). While it can mean "maiden," the Targum avoids any explicit language of a miracle. 

בְּכֵן יִתֵּן יְיָ הוּא לְכוֹן אָתָא הָא עוּלֶמְתָּא מְעַדְיָא וּתְלִיד בַּר וְתִקְרֵי שְׁמֵיהּ עִמָנוּאֵל:

Pseudo-Jonathan 📖 Isaiah 7:14 Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and she shall call His name Immanuel.

• The Reasoning: By the time of the final Targumic redactions, the "Virgin" reading had become a major point of contention. The Targumist "masked" the text by leaving it ambiguous, effectively siding with the "young woman" interpretation to avoid the Messianic implications.

2. Evidence from the "Second Century" Polemics

The Mishnah and Talmud do not explicitly discuss Isaiah 7:14 in depth, but we have evidence from the Jewish Greek revisions (Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion) from the 2nd century AD.

• The Change: These Jewish scholars produced new Greek versions specifically to replace the LXX. They purposefully changed Parthenos (Virgin) to Neanis (Young Woman).
• The "Private Interpretation": This was a direct "masking" effort to counter the early believers' use of the LXX to prove the supernatural birth of the True Seed (Yahusha).

3. The "Unmasked" Meaning of the "Sign" (Ot)

In Hebrew, an Ot (sign) from Yahuah is rarely a common event.

• Isaiah 7:11: Yahuah tells Ahaz to ask for a sign in the "depths" or the "heights."

📖MT KJV Isa 7:11  Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God; ask it either in the depth, or in the height above.

• The Logical Conclusion: A young woman having a baby is not a sign in the "depths or heights"—it happens every day. A Virgin conceiving is the only "sign" that matches the scale of the prophecy. The seed to be born was a sign of the heavens denoted by heights as well as Sheol denoted by depths coz He was the only One who descended and ascended.

4. How this ties to the "Debt of the Flesh"

As we discussed with the 490-year cycles:

1. The Debt: Every person born through the "flesh" of a human father inherits the debt of the physical structure.
2. The Virgin Seed: The Messiah had to be born of a Virgin to enter the timeline without the "Debt of the Flesh." This enabled Him to be the True Promised Seed who could settle the 490-year accounts.
3. The Mask: By changing "Virgin" to "Young Woman," the MT scribes "masked" the legal mechanism by which the Messiah paid the debt.

5. The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ) and Isaiah 7:14

The most significant Dead Sea Scroll evidence for this passage is the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ), dated to approximately 125 BC. It is the oldest and most complete Hebrew witness to the text of Isaiah.

The Reading: העלמה (Ha-Almah)

In 1QIsaᵃ, the text for Isaiah 7:14 reads העלמה (ha-almah), which is the same word found in the Masoretic Text (MT). 

The "Unmasked" Significance 

While the word is the same, the 1QIsaᵃ scroll provides a critical "unmasking" of the later Masoretic interpretation: 

1.      Vocalization vs. Consonants: The DSS contains only consonants (no vowel points). The "mask" of "young woman" was applied much later by the Masoretes through the addition of vowel points (niqqud) to force a specific non-supernatural reading.

2.      The Ancient Connotation: In the era of the DSS (2nd century BC), the word almah—derived from the root ‘alam ("to hide" or "conceal")—implied a woman who was "hidden" or "untouched" (a virgin). This is exactly why the Jewish translators of the Septuagint (LXX), working during the same era as the DSS, translated it as parthenos (virgin). 

2.A Verb: עלם H5956 

Meaning: To hide, conceal, or be hidden.

Example: Deuteronomy 22:3

“…thou shalt not hide thyself from them.”

Hebrew phrase: לא תוכל להתעלם 

lo tukhal lehit‘alem
“you cannot hide yourself / ignore.”

Here the verb התעלם literally means to conceal oneself / pretend not to see. 

2.B Noun: עולם (olam) 

Same root letters ע-ל-ם. 

Meaning:

·       eternity

·       long duration

·       ancient time

 The underlying idea is: something hidden from sight, beyond the visible horizon of time. 

That’s why olam can mean: 

·       ancient past

·       everlasting future 

Both are “hidden time.” 

2.C Related word: עלמה (almah) 

Example: Isaiah 7:14 

הנה העלמה הרה 

“Behold, the young woman shall conceive.”

Root concept: a young woman whose sexuality is still concealed / not publicly known.

Hence the semantic development: young woman → maiden. 

2.D Another related form: נעלם (ne‘elam) 

Meaning:

·       hidden

·       concealed

·       unknown 

Example: Leviticus 4:13

“If the thing be hidden from the eyes of the congregation…” 

Hebrew: ונעלם דבר 

MT KJV 📖Lev 4:13 And if the whole congregation of Israel sin through ignorance, and the thing be hid from the eyes of the assembly, and they have done somewhat against any of the commandments of the LORD concerning things which should not be done, and are guilty;  

2.E Conceptual idea in Hebrew thought 

The root עלם  often describes something:

·       outside present awareness

·       beyond immediate perception

·       hidden in time or knowledge 

This is why it produces words like:

·       olam (eternity)

·       almah (maiden)

·       ne‘elam (hidden thing) 

3.      The "Sign" (Ot): The DSS confirms the context of a "Great Sign" given by Yahuah Himself. As we discussed, a natural birth of a "young woman" would not be a sign. The DSS preserves the Hebrew text that the 72 rabbis used to proclaim a Virgin Birth. 

Connecting the "Debt of the Flesh"

The DSS confirms that the Visible Yahuah gave a specific promise of a Virgin Seed.

• The Mask: Later scribes used the ambiguity of the word almah to "mask" the supernatural nature of the Messiah's arrival through niqqud.
• The Debt: By changing the meaning to "young woman," they attempted to bring the Messiah under the "Debt of the Flesh" (born through a human father), thereby stripping Him of His legal ability to pay the 490-year judicial debts of the Land and the Temple. 

 8️⃣Numbers 24:7 — "Higher than Agag" vs. "Higher than Gog"

 This is a critical eschatological "mask" found in the prophecy of Balaam regarding the future of the Promised Seed.

Version	Numbers 24:7 Reading	The "Mask" or Linguistic Choice
Masoretic Text (MT)	"...and his king shall be higher than Agag..."	Local/Historical: Limits the prophecy to a local Amalekite king during the time of Saul.
LXX / Samaritan Pentateuch	"...and his king shall be higher than Gog..."	Global/Eschatological: Points to the ultimate victory of the Messiah over the global powers of Gog.

Full verse:

MT KJV 📖Num 24:7  He shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted. 

LXX 📖Num 24:7  There shall come a man out of his seed, and he shall rule over many nations; and the kingdom of Gog shall be exalted, and his kingdom shall be increased. 

8.1 The Scribal "Masking" Mechanism

The difference in Hebrew is a single letter:

1. Original (LXX/DSS/SP): גּוֹג (Gog).
2. Masoretic Alteration: אֲגַג (Agag).

Why the Scribes Masked It

• Neutralizing the Messiah: By changing "Gog" to "Agag," the scribes turned a global, end-times prophecy about the Visible Yahuah's kingdom into a past historical event. It "masked" the fact that the Seed would eventually rule over the entire world, not just a local tribe.

·       The Debt Payment: This prophecy describes the Seed's kingdom expanding to encompass all nations. By making it about "Agag," they hid the scale of the 5000-year Jubilee redemption, where the Messiah settles the debt of scattered YasharEL who lost identity as now as Gentiles, not just local YasharEL. 

8.2 The Connection to "The Place" 

Balaam was looking from the "heights" (the mountains of Moab) toward the camp of YasharEL. He was seeing the Mobile Presence (the Tent) in the wilderness—exactly during that 60-year overlap we discussed. 

·       The Visible Yahuah was moving them toward the Inheritance.

·       The original prophecy (Gog) showed that this inheritance was not just a piece of land in Canaan, but the New Yerushalayim that would eventually overcome all global opposition.

 

8.3 The Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Masking Gog with Saul's History 

The Aramaic text for Numbers 24:7 shows exactly how the later scribes used "private interpretation" to turn a global Messianic prophecy into a localized historical event involving King Saul and the Amalekites. 

יְקוּם מִנְהוֹן מַלְכֵיהוֹן וּפְרוֹקְהוֹן מִנְהוֹן וּבְהוֹן יֶהֱוֵי וְזַרְעֲיַיתְהוֹן בְּנוֹי דְיַעֲקב יִשְׁלְטוּן בְּעַמְמִין סַגִיאִין קַמָאָה דְיִמְלוֹךְ עֲלֵיהוֹן יַגִיחַ קְרָבָא בִּדְבֵית עֲמָלֵק וְיִתְרוֹמָם עַל אֲגַג מַלְכֵיהוֹן וּבְגִין דְיֵיחוֹס עֲלוֹי יִתְנְטֵיל מִנֵיהּ מַלְכוּתֵיהּ 

Targum Pseudo Jonathan: Numbers 24:7 From them their King shall arise, and their Redeemer be of them and among them, and the seed of the children of Jakob shall rule over many nations. The first who will reign over them will make war with the house of Amalek, and will be exalted above Agag their king; but because he had spared him his kingdom will be taken from him. 

KJV MT 📖Num 24:7 He shall pour the water out of his buckets, and his seed shall be in many waters, and his king shall be higher than Agag, and his kingdom shall be exalted.  

LXX Brenton 📖Num 24:7  There shall come a man out of his seed, and he shall rule over many nations; and the kingdom of Gog shall be exalted, and his kingdom shall be increased.  

8.4. The King vs. The Redeemer 

The Targum separates the figures: "From them their King shall arise, and their Redeemer be of them." 

·       The Mask: By distinguishing between "King" and "Redeemer," the Targumist creates a buffer. He makes the "King" (Saul) a historical failure while keeping the "Redeemer" as a future abstract hope.

·       The Original Intent (LXX/DSS): The original prophecy of Gog identifies a singular, supreme figure—the Visible Yahuah/Messiah—whose kingdom is higher than the ultimate global power (Gog). 

8.5. Why "Agag" is a Theological Mask 

As noted, the Targum follows the MT reading of Agag but adds the commentary about Saul's failure to kill him. 

·       The "Debt of the Flesh": By shifting the target to Agag (a local Amalekite), the scribes turned a spiritual victory over "Gog" into a local "fleshly" conflict. They reduced the 5000-year Jubilee redemption—where the Messiah crushes the head of the enemy of scattered YasharEL—into a localized military lesson about King Saul's disobedience.

·       The 60-Year Overlap: Balaam was prophesying during that 60-year hinge (Exodus to Joshua's end). He was seeing the Mobile Presence (the Tent) in its prime. The original prophecy of Gog showed that the "Seed" would conquer the entire world, not just a neighbouring tribe like Amalek. 

8.6. The Evidence of the Change

·       Septuagint (LXX): Explicitly reads "His kingdom shall be higher than GOG."

·       Samaritan Pentateuch: Explicitly reads "Higher than GOG."

·       The Mask: The Masoretes changed one letter (G to A) to make it Agag. This effectively "nationalized" the prophecy, stripping it of its global Messianic weight to prevent it from pointing clearly to the universal reign of Yahusha the Messiah. 

8.7 The Gog-Gomer Mask: Japheth Entering the Tents of Shem 

The identification of the link between Gog, Gomer, and the Tents of Shem is the key to unmasking the "Eschatological Debt" of the nations. The confusion between these names is not a mistake; it is a "private interpretation" by the scribes to hide the mechanism by which the Gentiles (Japheth) are grafted back into the inheritance of Yashar'EL (Shem). 

8.7 A.      The Genealogy: Gomer and Gog 

In the "Table of Nations" (Genesis 10:2), Gomer is the firstborn of Japheth. 

MT KJV 📖Gen 10:2 The sons of Japheth; Gomer, and Magog, and Madai, and Javan, and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras.  

LXX Brenton 📖Gen 10:2  The sons of Japheth, Gamer, and Magog, and Madoi, and Jovan, and Elisa, and Thobel, and Mosoch, and Thiras.  

·       The Interchangeable Mask: In later prophecy (specifically Ezekiel 38:2-6), Gog is the leader, and Gomer is one of his primary military wings.

·       The Gentile Identity: Japheth is the father of the "Isles of the Gentiles." They lost their tribal identity and original connection to the Visible Yahuah after the scattering at Babel. 

8.7 B. The Promise: "Elohim shall enlarge Japheth" (Genesis 9:27) 

The "unmasked" prophetic blueprint states: "Elohim shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem." 

·       The Tents of Shem: This refers to the Ruach (Spirit) of Yashar'EL.

·       The "Scattering" Reality: As noted, the image depicts the "Scattered Yashar'EL" who lost their identity and became like Gentiles. The "Gog/Gomer" system represents the physical, fleshly powers of the world that try to dominate the "Tents" while the true children are in exile. 

8.7 C. The Numbers 24:7 "Gog" Mask Re-Evaluated 

When Balaam saw the Tents of YasharEL from the heights (the 60-year hinge), he prophesied that the True Seed (the King) would be higher than GOG. 

·       The Significance: He was seeing the moment when the Visible Yahuah (The Word) would conquer the "Japhetic/Gentile" rebellion and bring those who lost their identity back into the Tents of Shem.

·       The "Agag" Mask: By the Masoretic Text (MT) changing "Gog" to "Agag" (a local Amalekite), they "masked" the global scope of this return. They hid the fact that the Jubilee of Jubilees was designed to bring the "Lost Sheep" (who look like Gentiles/Gomer) back into the true inheritance. 

8.8. The "Fleshly Seed" and the 490-Year Debt 

The insight about the "fleshly seed seeking inheritance" is critical: 

·       The Mixed Multitude: Along with the returning Ruach-YasharEL, there is always a "fleshly seed" (Agag/Amalek spirit) that seeks a physical inheritance without spiritual redemption. 

In the context of our discussion on the Physical Debt and the Visible Yahuah, the "perpetual war" with Amalek (Exodus 17:16) represents the constant struggle between the Spirit of the Promise (the Ruach of Yashar'EL) and the Debt of the Flesh. 

LXX 📖Exo 17:16 For with a secret hand the Lord wages war upon Amalec to all generations.  

MT KJV Exo 17:16  For he said, Because the LORD hath sworn that the LORD will have war with Amalek from generation to generation.  

The MT masks the ‘secret hand of Yahuah’ waging war upon Amalek to all generations for the arm of Yahuah is His visible form i.e. Yahusha. The scribes masked His identity by hiding His own arm bringing the salvation. 

8.9 The "Fleshly" Nature of Amalek 

Amalek is the first enemy to attack YasharEL after the Exodus, targeting the "hindmost"—the weak, the weary, and those lagging behind the Visible Yahuah’s pillar of cloud. 

·       The Judicial Debt: Amalek represents the "debt of the flesh" that refuses to acknowledge the 430-year Promise. They seek to destroy the "Seed" before it can reach the inheritance.

·       Generation to Generation: This is not just a military war; it is a chronological war. It spans every 490-year cycle we discussed. 

8.9 A. The Hinge Point (The 60-Year Overlap) 

During the Exodus to Joshua transition (the 60-year overlap), the war with Amalek was the "Physical Boundary" that tested the nation. 

·       Joshua’s Victory: Joshua fought Amalek while Moses held up the Staff of Elohim (the Sapphire Authority from the Throne).

·       The Prophetic Signature: As long as the Sapphire Authority was visible, the "Spirit" prevailed over the "Flesh." When the staff lowered, the "Flesh" (Amalek) prevailed. 

8.9 B. The Shift to the "Agag" Mask (Numbers 24:7) 

As we saw in Balaam’s prophecy, the original text said the King (the Seed) would be higher than Gog (the global Gentile rebellion). 

·       The Mask: The Masoretes changed "Gog" to "Agag" (the king of Amalek).

·       The Result: This masked the global victory of the Visible Yahuah and turned it into a localized, never-ending "fleshly" conflict with a small tribe. It hid the fact that the True Seed (Yahusha) would eventually settle the debt of the whole world by crushing the head of the global "Gog" fleshly system.  

8.10 The Numbers 24:7 "Gog" Variant in the Dead Sea Scrolls 

There is significant manuscript evidence that the original Hebrew text of Balaam's prophecy contained the name Gog (גּוֹג), identifying a global eschatological enemy, rather than the local King Agag (אֲגַג) found in the Masoretic Text (MT). Unfortunately, there is no hands on to get the image of the parchment as its unpublished for public viewing 

·       The Manuscript Evidence: Fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls (specifically 4QNumᴮ) confirm that the reading was indeed Gog. This aligns with the Septuagint (LXX) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP), which both explicitly state: "His kingdom shall be higher than Gog." 

·       The Scribal Mask: The MT's change from Gimel (ג) to Aleph (א) turned a cosmic prophecy about the Visible Yahuah's final victory over the global "Gog" system into a localized, past-tense event involving the Amalekites.

 

 9️⃣1 Samuel 14:41 (The Urim and Thummim)

LXX Brenton 1Sa 14:41 And Saul said, O Lord God of Israel, why hast thou not answered thy servant this day? is the iniquity in me, or in Jonathan my son? Lord God of Israel, give clear manifestations; and if the lot should declare this, give, I pray thee, to thy people of Israel, give, I pray, holiness. And Jonathan and Saul are taken, and the people escaped. 
1Sa 14:42 And Saul said, cast lots between me and my son Jonathan: whomsoever the Lord shall cause to be taken by lot, let him die: and the people said to Saul, This thing is not to be done: and Saul prevailed against the people, and they cast lots between him and Jonathan his son, and Jonathan is taken by lot.  

9.1 The Translations:

9.1 A What Brenton translates is from Standard LXX? 

“And Saul said, ‘O Lord God of Israel, why have You not answered Your servant today?
If the iniquity is in me or in Jonathan my son, give δηλωσιν (manifestation);
and if it is in Your people Israel, give **δικαιοσυνη (righteousness/holiness).’” 

Key Greek words:

·       δήλωσις (dēlōsis) = manifestation / disclosure

·       δικαιοσύνη (dikaiosynē) = righteousness / innocence 

These are interpretive equivalents of Urim and Thumim, not literal transliterations. 

9.1 B Reconstructed Hebrew Vorlage 

Scholars like S. Driver reconstruct the Hebrew that could produce the Greek reading: 

אם יש בי או ביהונתן בני העון הזה הבה אורים
ואם ישנו בעמך ישראל הבה תמים 

Meaning:

“If the guilt is in me or Jonathan my son, give Urim;
but if it is in your people Israel, give Thummim.” 

This reconstruction explains the Greek translation. 

Why this matters? 

The Books of Samuel are one of the clearest places where the Septuagint preserves an older text than the MT. 

Evidence:

·       Dead Sea Scrolls (especially 4QSamᵃ) agree with the LXX against the MT.

·       The MT version of Samuel is frequently shorter or altered.

·        So many scholars say: “The Septuagint preserves an earlier Hebrew Vorlage.” 

MT KJV 📖1Sa 14:41 Therefore Saul said unto the LORD God of Israel, Give a perfect lot. And Saul and Jonathan were taken: but the people escaped. 
📖1Sa 14:42  And Saul said, Cast lots between me and Jonathan my son. And Jonathan was taken.  

9.1 C Here is the comparison of the missing section: 

·       MT (Shortened): "Saul said to the Lord God of Israel: 'Give tamim/ תָּמִים (perfection/honesty).'"

·       LXX (Restored): "Saul said: 'O Lord God of Israel, why have you not answered your servant today? If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, O Lord God of Israel, give Urim; but if this guilt is in your people Israel, give Thummim.'" 

9.2 The "Lots" vs. "Urim and Thummim" Confusion 

The word lots (goral) is the general term for the practice, but the Urim and Thummim were the specific physical objects used by the priest to determine Elohim's "Yes/No" answer. 

MT's tamim is actually a corruption or abbreviation of the word Thummim. Because the scribe lost the context of the "Urim," the remaining word "Thummim" was later pointed by Masoretes as tamim ("perfect") to make sense of the fragmented sentence. 

In short, the LXX explicitly names the tools being used for the "lot," while the MT contains a linguistic remnant (tamim) that likely points back to the original Thummim. 

9.2 A The Talmud (Yoma 73a–b)  

The Talmud does not discuss the textual variant of 1 Samuel 14:41 specifically, but it provides the essential rabbinic definition of Urim and Thummim that explains why the MT might use the word tamim:  

·       Etymology: The Sages explain that Urim means "those whose words give light" (me'irim) and Thummim means "those whose words are fulfilled" or "perfected" (matmimin). 

·       Connection to tamim: Because the root of Thummim and tamim is the same (T-M-M, meaning completeness/perfection), the Talmudic understanding bridges the gap. To a Hebrew scribe, asking for a tamim ("perfection") was linguistically synonymous with asking for the Thummim to provide a "perfect" or final answer. 

Traditional Jewish commentators and Midrashic source’s view Elohim's silence toward Saul in 1Samuel 14:37 as a direct consequence of both immediate and deeper spiritual failures. 

·       Rashi and Kimhi (Radak): These commentators highlight that Saul's primary mistake was imposing a rash and unnecessary oath on his army, forbidding them to eat until evening.

·       Causing Corporate Sin: Because the soldiers were starving, they eventually "flew upon the spoil" and ate meat with the blood, a direct violation of Levitical law.

·       Divine Silence as Warning: Rashi explains that when God denies an answer, it is a signal to search for the "accursed thing" or hidden sin in the camp. The silence forced Saul to realize that something had gone wrong during the battle. 

9.2 B The Shift in Motive

·       Utilitarian Religion: Commentators like Radak and later Midrashic thought note that Saul's inquiry was "strategic rather than repentant". He was asking for "military intel" (whether to pursue the Philistines) rather than seeking spiritual alignment with Elohim. 

·       Spiritual Isolation: By replacing the prophet Samuel with the priest Ahijah—the grandson of the unfaithful priest Eli—Saul had surrounded himself with individuals who were often "opposed to Elohim's voice" 

9.2 C Theological Principles in the Talmud and Midrash 

·       Sin Blocks the Oracle: The general Rabbinic principle, often cited in the context of the Urim and Thummim, is that the oracle only answers those who are in a state of righteousness or performing a communal necessity. 

·       Mercy in Silence: Some interpretations suggest the silence was actually a form of divine mercy. By not answering, Elohim prevented Saul from leading a fatigued and blood-guilty army into a disastrous night pursuit that would have likely led to their ruin. 

9.3 The "Missing" Prayer in MT mentioned in 4QSamᵃ and LXX 

The defence given by traditionalists to the missing text is that the scribe’s eye jumped from the first instance of the word "Israel" to the second, skipping the central petition. The restored text from the scrolls and LXX reads 

And Saul said: 'O Lord God of Israel, why have you not answered your servant today? If this guilt is in me or in Jonathan my son, O Lord God of Israel, give Urim; but if this guilt is in your people Israel, give Thummim. 

9.3 A Why 4QSamᵃ is Significant 

·       Proof of the Vorlage: Before the scrolls were found, many thought the LXX translators "added" this prayer to fix a difficult text. 4QSamᵃ proves that a Hebrew original containing this longer prayer actually existed 1,000 years before our oldest Masoretic manuscripts.

·       The Technical Terms: The scroll uses the terms Urim and Thummim as tools for casting a binary lot (a "Yes/No" or "A/B" choice). In the MT, only the word tamim (perfection) remains, which is likely a corrupted remnant of the original Thummim.

·       The Result: The scroll concludes with the lot falling on Saul and Jonathan, matching the narrative flow where the "silent" Elohim finally speaks through the mechanical lot. 

9.3 B. Removal of the Direct Invocation 

·       The "Visible" Interaction: In the DSS/LXX, Saul speaks directly to Yahuah, asking a specific, agonizing question: "O Yahuah Elohim of YasharEL, why have you not answered your servant today?". This depicts an Elohim who is an active, hearing participant in the crisis.

·       The MT Concealment: The MT skips this entire prayer due to a scribal error (parablepsis). By removing the dialogue, the MT makes the event look like a mechanical ritual rather than a desperate personal interaction with a present Deity. 

9.3 C. Replacing Technical Tools with Abstract Morality 

·       The "Visible" Sign: The DSS/LXX explicitly names the Urim and Thummim—physical, possibly glowing or marked objects used to "show" Elohim's decision. Ancient sources like Josephus even record that these gemstones would shine to signify divine presence or favour.

·       The MT Concealment: The MT uses the word tamim ("perfection" or "innocence"). This shifts the focus from a visible, miraculous manifestation through the priest’s tools to an abstract request for "what is perfect". It turns a supernatural event into a generic legal proceeding. 

9.4. Reducing the Theocratic "Microcosm" 

·       The "Visible" Rule: The use of the Urim and Thummim was considered a "microcosm of the theocracy," where Yahuah acted as the visible and accessible Head of State who could be consulted directly in national crises. 

·       The MT Concealment: By omitting the detailed priestly protocol of the Urim and Thummim, the MT version subtly distances Elohim from this direct governance. It replaces the "accessible Headship" with a shorter, more distant narrative that emphasizes human lots over divine communication 

The Torah portion providing the original instructions and consecration for the Urim and Thummim is found in Exodus 27:20–30:10 and Leviticus 6:1–8:36. 

9.5. The Institution (Exodus 28:30) 

This is the foundational commandment where Elohim instructs Moses to place these objects inside the High Priest's "breastpiece of judgment" (choshen mishpat):  

"And you shall put in the breastpiece of judgment the Urim and the Thummim, and they shall be over Aaron’s heart when he goes in before Yahuah. So Aaron shall bear the judgment of the children of YasharELl over his heart before Yahuah continually." 

9.5 A. The Consecration (Leviticus 8:8) 

During the actual ceremony where Aaron is ordained as High Priest, Moses follows the command: "Then he put the breastpiece on him, and he put the Urim and the Thummim into the breastpiece. 

9.5 B The Operational Mandate (Numbers 27:21) 

Elohim defines their purpose for national leadership, specifically for Joshua (Moses' successor): "He shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall inquire for him by the judgment of the Urim before Yahuah. At his word they shall go out, and at his word they shall come in. 

9.5 C. The Tribal Blessing (Deuteronomy 33:8)

In Moses' final blessing, he confirms that the right to use these tools belongs exclusively to the tribe of Levi 

📖Deu 33:8  And of Lěwi he said, “Your Tummim and your Urim belong to your lovingly-commited One, whom You tried at Massah, with Whom You contended at the waters of Meriḇah,  

9.6 Why They Were Called "Lights and Perfections" 

The Talmud etymologizes the names based on this visual function:  

·       Urim: From the root or (light); called so because they illuminate their words for the Priest.

·       Thummim: From the root tam (complete/perfect); called so because they fulfil their words—meaning the answers given were always perfectly true and final. 

9.6 A The Difference in 1 Samuel 14 

In the episode with Ahijah and Saul, the Talmud notes that the oracle only worked when the Shekhinah (Divine Presence) rested upon the priest. Saul’s failure to get an answer through the Urim (1 Samuel 28:6) or the delay in 1 Samuel 14 is traditionally viewed as Elohim withdrawing His "Light" because of the spiritual decline of both the King and the house of Eli. 

9.6 B Ahijah and the High Priesthood 

Ahijah was the High Priest during the early reign of King Saul and was the direct great-grandson of Eli.  

·       Genealogy: Ahijah was the son of Ahitub, who was the brother of Ichabod and the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli.

·       Possession of the Stones: 1 Samuel 14:3 explicitly describes Ahijah as "wearing an ephod". This specific garment contained the "breast piece of judgment," which held the pouch for the Urim and Thummim.

·       Spiritual Condition: Although Ahijah possessed these sacred tools, he belonged to the cursed house of Eli. His presence at Saul's side symbolized a "rejected priesthood" serving a "rejected king," illustrating why divine communication eventually fell silent. 

In 1 Samuel 14:18-19, Saul initially asks Ahijah to "Bring the ark" (or the ephod in the LXX) to consult Yahuah, but he eventually orders Ahijah to "Withdraw your hand"—aborting the divine inquiry because he grew impatient with the process. 

9.7 Why did Saul not consult Samuel but Ahijah? 

A. The "Rejection" at Gilgal (1 Samuel 13) 

Just before the crisis in chapter 14, Samuel had already declared that Saul’s kingdom would not endure because Saul failed to wait for him to offer sacrifices (1 Samuel 13:13-14). 

·       The Conflict: Samuel represented a moral authority that Saul could not control.

·       The Choice: Consulting Samuel meant facing a rebuke. Consulting Ahijah meant using a technical tool (the Urim and Thummim) that Saul felt he could command as commander-in-chief.

B. Control vs. Revelation 

·       Samuel (The Word): Prophecy required waiting on a person who spoke as moved by the Spirit. It was unpredictable and often critical of the king.

·       Ahijah (The Device): The priest with the Ephod was a mobile "oracle-on-demand." Saul viewed Ahijah as part of his military staff. By keeping the High Priest in his camp, Saul attempted to "institutionalise" divine guidance, making it a weapon of war rather than a guide for repentance. 

C. The "Rejected" Alliance 

There is deep irony in this partnership: 

·       Ahijah was the grandson of Phinehas and great-grandson of Eli. Elohim had already stripped the permanent priesthood from Eli's house (1 Samuel 2:30-33).

·       Saul had been stripped of his dynasty by Samuel.

·       The Result: You have a rejected king consulting a rejected priest. This explains why the "Visible Yahuah" (the Urim) remained silent in the MT/DSS account—Elohim was not obligated to answer an alliance built on convenience rather than obedience. 

D. Tactical Proximity 

Samuel resided in Ramah, while Saul was at Gibeah preparing for battle. Saul chose the "nearest" source of the Divine. However, Jewish commentators note that Saul's impatience was so great that even when he did consult Ahijah, he told him to "Withdraw your hand" (stop the inquiry) the moment he saw the Philistines in disarray (1 Samuel 14:19). He wanted Elohim's blessing, but not Elohim's timing.

 9.8 Why did Elohim still answer Saul in 1 Sam 14:41 context? 

In the context of 1 Samuel 14:41, Elohim answered Saul not because of Saul’s righteousness, but because of the integrity of the Urim and Thummim and the corporate state of YasharEL. 

A. The Mechanics of the Covenant 

The Urim and Thummim were a covenantal obligation. As long as the High Priest wore the breastplate on behalf of "the children of YasharEL" (Exodus 28:30), the device remained the legal means of communication between the King and the Deity. Elohim answered to maintain the system of justice within the nation, specifically to identify why the "Visible Light" had gone dark during the battle. 

B. The Presence of Jonathan 

While Saul was under judgment, Jonathan was operating under divine favour. 1 Samuel 14:6 shows Jonathan’s faith: "It may be that Yahuah will work for us." The text notes that the people recognized Jonathan had "wrought with Elohim" that day (v. 45). Elohim answered the lot to expose the clash between Saul’s rashness and Jonathan’s divinely-led victory. 

C. To Expose Saul’s Corruption 

By answering the lot, Elohim forced a "Visible" demonstration of Saul’s failed leadership:

·       The lot fell on Saul and Jonathan, vindicating the entire army who had been starving under Saul's oath.

·       It forced Saul into a corner where he was willing to kill his own son to satisfy his own ego—a scene that caused the people to finally revolt against the King's command to save Jonathan. 

D. The "Finality" of the Thummim 

As noted in the Talmud (Yoma 73b), the Thummim are so named because they "perfect" or "complete" their words. Once the process of the lot began, the nature of the Urim/Thummim was to provide a definitive "Yes" or "No." Elohim provided the answer to bring the "hidden thing" (the broken oath) into the visible light, thereby resolving the spiritual "blockage" that was preventing the completion of the victory. 

While the Talmud preserves the "memory" of how the Urim and Thummim functioned (the glowing, protruding letters), the MT scribal tradition effectively "de-supernaturalised" the actual historical narrative of 1 Samuel 14:41.By reducing the text, they achieved three things that "mask" the Visible Yahuah: 

9.9 Erasure of the Manifestation 

In the Dead Sea Scrolls (4QSamᵃ) and the LXX, the text is a dramatic, interactive dialogue where Saul pleads for a visible sign ("give Urim... give Thummim"). In the MT, this is replaced by the singular, abstract phrase hava tamim ("give perfection"). This turns a divine manifestation into a moral request, hiding the fact that Yahuah was literally "lighting up" stones to communicate. 

A. The "Unfit" Narrative 

By shortening the verse, the MT makes Saul and Ahijah look even more disconnected from Elohim. 

·       In the original Hebrew (DSS): Even though Saul is flawed, there is a clear, functional line of communication with Yahuah.

·       In the MT: The dialogue is so fragmented and "silent" that it creates the impression that the tools weren't working at all because the men were rejected. It uses "silence" as a literary tool to emphasize their spiritual exile, even if the older manuscripts show Elohim was still responding. 

B. Transcendent Distance 

The Masoretic tradition often sought to protect the "transcendence" of Elohim. An Elohim who "talks" through glowing gems on a breastplate felt too close, too physical—too much like "Visible Yahuah." By trimming the technical details of the priestly ritual, the MT moves toward a more abstract, invisible Deity who is accessed through "truth" (tamim) rather than "lights" (Urim). 

C. The Scribal "Mask" 

By pointing Thummim as tamim ("perfect/honest"), the Masoretes effectively buried the tool under a definition. They didn't delete the letters (T-M-M), but they changed the vowels and the context so that a reader would think about "honesty" instead of a "sacred object."

This is a classic example of "theological smoothing": taking a raw, supernatural encounter with the Divine and polishing it into a respectable, moralized lesson.

🔟Masking the Memra

To see the "biggest masking," we must look at how the MT (Hebrew) uses singular, abstract pronouns to hide the Memra (The Word)—the distinct, Visible Person of Yahuah who acts on Earth.

In ancient Judaism, the Memra was not just a "word" spoken; it was the Agency of Yahuah. The MT "masks" this by collapsing the dialogue into a monologue, making it look like Elohim is talking to Himself.

1. Genesis 3:22 – The Council of the Word

This is the moment after the Fall when the "Us" of the Divine Council is addressed.

• The MT (Hebrew): "And Yahuah Elohim said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of us, to know good and evil...'"
• The Mask: The MT presents Yahuah speaking in a "plural of majesty" or to angels. It hides the inter-divine dialogue.
• The Unmasking (Targum Jerusalem): "And the Memra [Word] of Yahuah said: 'Behold, Adam whom I created is the only one in the world, as I am the only one in the high heavens...'"
• The Detail: The Targum identifies the Memra as the Creator and the Speaker. The MT masks this "Visible Creator" by using the generic Yahuah Elohim, which allows later theology to claim God has no distinct "Word" that functions as a Person. 

MT KJV 📖Gen 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 

LXX Brenton 📖Gen 3:23  And God said, Behold, Adam is become as one of us, to know good and evil, and now lest at any time he stretch forth his hand, and take of the tree of life and eat, and so he shall live forever— 

📖Targum Pseudo Jonathan Gen 3:22

וַאֲמַר יְיָ אֱלהִים לְמַלְאָכַיָא דִי מְשַׁמְשִׁין קֳדָמוֹי הָא אָדָם הֲוָה יְחִידִי בְּאַרְעָא הֵיכְמָא דַאֲנָא יְחִידִי בִּשְׁמֵי מְרוֹמָא וַעֲתִידִין לְמֵיקוּם מִינֵהּ דְיַדְעוּן לְמַפְרְשָׁא בֵּין טַב לְבִישׁ אִלוּ נָטַר מִצְוָותָא דִפְקִידְתֵּיהּ אִית הוּא חַי וְקַיָים בְּאִילָן חַיָיא עַד לְעַלְמִין וּכְדוֹן עַד דְלָא נְטַר מַה דְפַקִידְתֵּיהּ נִגְזוֹר עֲלוֹהִי וְנִטְרְדֵיהּ מִן גִנְתָא דְעֵדֶן קֳדָם עַד לָא יִפְשׁוֹט יְדֵיהּ וְיִסַב מִן פֵּירֵי אִילַן חַיָיא דְהָא אִין אָכִיל הוּא מִנֵיהּ הֲוֵי חַי וְקַיָם עַד לְעַלְמִין

And the Lord God said to the angels who ministered before Him, Behold, Adam is sole on the earth, as I am sole in the heavens above; and it will be that they will arise from him who will know to discern between good and evil. Had he kept the commandments which I appointed to him, he would have lived and subsisted as the tree of life for ever. But now, because he hath not kept that which I prescribed, it is decreed against him that we keep him from the garden of Eden, before he reach forth his hand and take of the tree of life: for, behold, if he eat thereof, living he will live and subsist for ever.

This is the perfect place to slow down because Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is doing something very specific here to "bridge" the gap between the visible and invisible realms.

The Linguistic Key: The "Double Yod" (יי)

The name of Yahuah written as יי. In Aramaic manuscripts and Targums, this is the standard abbreviation for the Tetragrammaton (Yahuah). It was used to avoid writing the full Set Apart Name while still indicating exactly who was speaking. When you see יי אֱלהִים (Yaya Elohim), it is the Aramaic equivalent of the Hebrew יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים.

The Anatomy of the Mask in Genesis 3:22

1. The MT (Hebrew) Version: The "Ambiguous Plural"

Hebrew: "And Yahuah Elohim said, 'Behold, the man has become like one of us (ke-achad mimmennu)...'"

• The Mask: The MT uses "Us." This creates a "theological fog." Is Elohim talking to Himself? Is He talking to a Council? By leaving it as a plural pronoun, the MT masks the specific identity of the Speaker. It allows later interpreters to say Elohim was just using a "royal we."

2. The Pseudo-Jonathan Version: The "Visible Distinction"

Aramaic: "And יי אֱלהִים said to the angels (le-mal’akaya) who ministered before Him..."

• The Unmasking: Pseudo-Jonathan explicitly identifies the audience. Yahuah is not talking to Himself. He is the Head of the Council speaking to His ministers.
• The Parallel of Solitude: The Targum adds a line not found in the MT: "Behold, Adam is sole [alone/unique] on the earth, as I am sole [alone/unique] in the heavens above."
• The "Visible" Connection: By emphasizing that He is "Sole in the heavens," the Targum identifies the Speaker as the Unified Authority, the one in likeness of Adam. In the MT, the "Us" makes Elohim sound fragmented. In the Targum, the Speaker is the Visible Sovereign (the Memra/Word) who stands as the earthly counterpart to the heavenly solitude.

3. The Shift from "Us" to "I"

Notice the massive grammatical shift:

• MT: "Become like one of us." (Plural)
• Targum: "As I am sole in the heavens." (Singular)

The Targum actually corrects the MT’s plural "Us" to a singular "I." Why? To show that the Visible Yahuah (the One walking in the garden) is the direct representative of the One in the heavens. The MT’s "Us" masks this relationship by making it look like a group decision, whereas the Targum shows a Manifested Person explaining His unique status to the angels.

4. The Decree of the "We" (The Mask of Agency)

At the end of the quote, the Targum says: "It is decreed against him that we keep him from the garden..."
This "We" refers to the Memra and the Council executing the One in Heaven’s will. The MT simply says, "He [Elohim] drove out the man." By masking the "We," the MT hides the hierarchical execution of the judgment—the fact that the Visible Yahuah works through His heavenly host to guard the Way. 

📖Targum Jerusalem Gen 3:22

וַאֲמַר מֵימְרָא דַיְיָ אֱלהִים הָא אָדָם דְבָרִית יָתֵיהּ יְחִידִי בְּגוֹי עַלְמֵי הֵיךְ מַה דְאֲנָא יְחִידִי בִּשְׁמֵי מְרוֹמָא עֲתִידִין אוּמִין סַגִיאִין לְמֵיקַם מִינֵיהּ מִינֵיהּ תְקוּם אוּמָה דְיַדְעָה לְמִפְרְשָׁא בֵּין טַב לְבִישׁ וּכְדוּן טַב דְנִטְרוֹד יָתֵיהּ מִן גִינְתָא דְעֵדֶן מִן קֳדָם עַד לָא יִפְשׁוֹט יְדֵיהּ וְיִסַב לְחוֹד מִן פֵּירֵי אִילָנָא חַיָיא וְיֵכוֹל וְיֶחִי לַעֲלָם:

And the Word of the Lord God said, Behold, Adam whom I have created is sole in my world, as I am sole in the heavens above. It is to be that a great people are to arise from him; from him will arise a people who will know how to discern between good and evil. And now it is good that we keep him from the garden of Eden before he stretch forth his hand and take also of the fruit of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

 מֵימְרָא דַיְיָ  (Memra da-Yeya) is the Aramaic way of saying "The Word of Yahuah."

In these texts, the double-yod (יי) is the scribal shorthand for the Tetragrammaton (יהוה). So, when the Targum says Memra da-Yeya, it is explicitly identifying the Visible Person of Yahuah.

The "Biggest Masking" in Genesis 3:22

When you compare the Hebrew MT to the Targum Jerusalem , the masking isn't just about a "word choice"—it’s a total theological reassignment of who is in the Garden.

1. The Mask of the "Plural" (Us vs. I)

• MT Hebrew: "...man has become like one of us (ke-achad mimmennu)."
• Targum Jerusalem: "...as I am (de-ana) sole in the heavens above."
• The Exposition: The MT uses "Us," which creates a "Council" or "Royal We." This allows later interpreters to say Elohim was talking to angels or himself.
• The Masking: By using "Us," the MT hides the Singular Authority of the Memra.
• The Unmasking: The Targum changes it to "I am." The Memra is standing there in the Garden, identifying Himself as the exclusive Heavenly Authority reflected in Adam’s unique earthly status. The MT masks this Direct Analogy between the Visible Word and the First Man.

2. The Mask of the "Creator" (Elohim vs. Memra)

• MT Hebrew: Attributes creation to the general title Elohim (Gen 1-2).
• Targum Jerusalem: "...Adam whom I have created (de-barit yateh)..."
• The Exposition: In the MT, the "Word" is just a command ("And Elohim said..."). It’s a vibration or a sound.
• The Masking: The MT masks the Hands-on Agency of the Word.
• The Unmasking: The Targum identifies the Memra as the Active Creator. The one "walking" in the Garden is the one who "made" the Garden. By deleting "Memra," the MT turns the Creator into an invisible, abstract force rather than the Visible Person who shaped Adam.

3. The Mask of the "Action" (He vs. We)

• MT Hebrew: "Lest he [Adam] reach forth his hand..." (Implicitly, the invisible Elohim acts).
• Targum Jerusalem: "And now it is good that we (de-nitrode) keep him..."
• The Exposition: In the MT, the action is singular.
• The Masking: The MT masks the Unity-in-Diversity of the Visible Yahuah vs the Invisible Yahuah.
• The Unmasking: The Targum uses "We." This "We" is the Memra acting in conjunction with the Invisible in the heavens. The Visible Word executes the decree of the Invisible Spirit. The MT collapses this into a single, distant "He," hiding the relationship between the Two.

Summary of the "Mask

The MT takes the Memra da-Yeya (the Visible Person who creates, speaks as "I," and acts as "We") and strips the title "Memra" away.

The Result: You are left with a text that sounds like a lonely Elohim talking to a group of angels ("Us") about a man who broke a rule.

The Original Reality (Targum): It is the Visible Word asserting His own creative right over His "image" (Adam) and deciding—within the unity of the Divine Nature in Representation—to exile the man for his own protection.

Why the LXX "Got It Wrong"

The Septuagint was translated in Alexandria (c. 250 BC) for a Greek-speaking audience. Because Greek philosophy viewed Elohim as a purely spiritual, "unmoved" being, the translators often "smoothed over" the physical and personal descriptions of Yahuah: 

• Literalism over Meaning: The LXX translators often translated Hebrew phrases literally without accounting for the underlying theology of the "Visible Agent." In Genesis 3:22, the LXX followed the Masoretic Text (MT) literally, keeping the plural "as one of us" (Greek: hōs heis ex hēmōn), which obscures the specific identity of the Speaker.

·       Hellenistic Influence: To avoid appearing "pagan" or "primitive," the LXX often removed anthropomorphisms (Elohim having feet, eating, or walking). By turning a "Person" into a "Voice," they protected Elohim's invisibility but masked the Memra. 

·       A "Secondary" Text: While the LXX is based on older Hebrew manuscripts than the MT, it was a translation of a translation in many places, losing the nuanced "sacred technical terms" used in the Land of YasharEL 

How the Targums Retained the Original Content

The Targums (Jonathan and Jerusalem) were not just translations; they were liturgical interpretations designed to be read aloud in synagogues alongside the Hebrew scroll. They retained the original "content" of the Hebrew by making the implied identity of the Speaker explicit: 

• Oral Tradition Preservation: The Targums preserve the pre-Messianic Jewish understanding of Elohim's "Word" as a distinct, acting Person. While the MT and LXX used "He" or "Us," the Targums used Memra because the oral tradition knew that the one in the Garden was the Visible Yahuah.
• Targeted Accuracy: The Targumists were "canon-conscious." When they saw Yahuah acting on earth (like walking in the Garden or standing on a rock), they used Memra to signal to the listener: "This is the Visible Presence of the Invisible King."
• Resistance to "Smoothing": Unlike the LXX, which was influenced by Greek thought, the Targums were Palestinian productions. They weren't afraid of the "Two Yahuahs" or the "Active Word" because that was the bedrock of their faith.

·       The "Masking" Summary

Feature	Septuagint (LXX)	Targum (Jerusalem)
Strategy	Literal/Philosophical	Theological/Literal
Genesis 3:22 Speaker	"Lord God" (Abstract)	"Memra of Yeya" (Visible Person)
Genesis 3:22 Audience	Ambiguous "Us"	Singular "I" (Memra)
Result	Masks the Agent to protect Invisibility.	Unmasks the Agent to show Agency.

  

2. Exodus 20:1-The One who gave the Ten Commandments

In Exodus 20:1, we find one of the most significant "masks" in the entire Bible. This is the moment the Ten Commandments are delivered. The identity of the speaker determines whether the Law was given by a distant, invisible Spirit or by the Visible Person of Yahuah—the Memra.

1.      The MT (Hebrew) – The General Title

MT KJV 📖Exo 20:1 And God spake all these words, saying, 

Hebrew: Vaydabber Elohim et kol-haddevarim ha-eleh lemor...
Translation: "And God [Elohim] spoke all these words, saying...

• The Mask: The MT uses the general plural title Elohim. While this is a title for the true Elohim, it is an abstract category. By using Elohim, the MT masks the specific identity of the Speaker. It allows the reader to assume it is the "Infinite Father" speaking from a cloud, rather than a Visible Envoy. 

📖Targum Pseudo Jonathan Exo 20:1

וּמַלֵּיל יְיָ יַת כָּל דִּבְּרַיָא הָאִילֵין לְמֵימָר

And the Lord spake all these words, saying:

In Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, the Aramaic reads: וּמַלֵּיל יְיָ יַת כָּל דִּבְּרַיָא הָאִילֵין לְמֵימָר (Umalleil Yeya yat kol dibraya ha-illein le-meimar).

At first glance, this looks like a literal translation of the MT ("And the Lord spoke..."), but the "Big Masking" is hidden in the second and very last word of that sentence: 

·       Second word: We saw Yahuah was written in a short hand יְיָ

·       Last Word: Le-meimar לְמֵימָר

1. The Mask of the "Infinitive"

In the MT (Hebrew), the word is lemor (לֵאמֹר), which modern translations treat as a simple "saying" or a colon (:).

• The Mask: It turns the "Word" into a grammatical function. It's just a way to introduce a quote.
• The Unmasking: In Aramaic, the root of le-meimar is Memra. While it can mean "to say," the Targumist is using a deliberate wordplay. He is linking the Act of Speaking to the Person of the Word.

2. The "Voice" vs. the "Speaker"

If you look at the Jerusalem Targum and compare it to this Pseudo-Jonathan, you see two different ways of "unmasking":

• Jerusalem Targum: Explicitly says "The Memra of Yahuah spoke." (Direct Identification).
• Pseudo-Jonathan: Says "Yahuah spoke... by His Memra [le-meimar]." (Mediated Identification).

📖Targum Jerusalem Exo 20:1

וּמַלֵּיל מֵימְרָא דַיְיָ כָּל שְׁבַח דִּבְּרַיָא הָאִילֵין לְמֵימָר:

And the Word of the Lord spake all the excellency of these words saying:

3. The "Messengers" in the Detail

The real unmasking in Pseudo-Jonathan for Exodus 20:1 happens in the expanded commentary (the aggadah) that follows this verse in the Aramaic tradition.
Pseudo-Jonathan (and the Midrash) describes the First Commandment as a Physical Fire that went out from the mouth of the Almighty, was engraved on the tablets, and then flew through the air to address every YasharELite individually.

• The Detail: The "Words" (Dibraya) themselves are treated as Living Messengers.
• The Mask: The MT strips away this "supernatural life" of the Word. It presents the 10 Commandments as static "rules" spoken by a distant Elohim.
• The Unmasking: The Targum tradition shows that the Word (Memra) is an active, living force—the Visible Agency that touches the people.

4. Why Pseudo-Jonathan kept it subtle here

Pseudo-Jonathan often stays closer to the Hebrew "surface" than the Jerusalem Targum, but it uses the term יי (Yeya) to represent the Manifested Name.

• In the MT, "Elohim" (The Abstract) is the subject of verse 1.
• In Pseudo-Jonathan, "Yeya" (The Personal Name) is the subject.

By switching Elohim (MT) to Yeya (Targum), the translator is already pulling the mask off. He is saying: "It wasn't just 'Elohim' in a general sense; it was Yahuah Himself in His revealed representation who spoke."

The New Testament Record

These two New Testament passages i.e. Acts 7:53 and Gal 3:19 are the ultimate "unmasking" of the Masoretic Text's (MT) version of Exodus 20:1. While the MT simply says "Elohim spoke," Stephen and Shaul (Paul) both reveal a multi-person reality that the Hebrew scribes later "smoothed over.

1. The "Messengers" (Angels) and the Memra

In Acts 7:53 and Galatians 3:19, the Greek word is angelōn (messengers/angels).

• The Conflict: If you only read the MT, you see one Elohimspeaking directly. You don't see "messengers" giving the Law.
• The Unmasking: Stephen and Shaul are drawing from the same ancient Hebrew tradition preserved in the Targums. As we saw in the Targum Jerusalem for Exodus 20:1, it was the Memra (The Word/The Chief Messenger) who spoke.
• The Hierarchy: The Memra is the "Angel of the Presence" (the Visible Yahuah) who is surrounded by the "thousands of angels" mentioned in Psalm 68:17. The Law was ordained by the Memra in the midst of this heavenly host.

2. The "Mediator" (Mesitēs)

Shaul’s statement in Galatians 3:19 is the "biggest masking" reveal:

"It [the Torah] was ordained through messengers in the hand of a mediator."

• Who is the Mediator? While some say Moses, the context of "Visible Yahuah" points to the Memra. In the MT, there is no room for a Divine Mediator—it’s just "Elohim" and "Man."
• The Masking: By removing the Memra from Exodus 20:1 and replacing Him with the general title Elohim, the MT masks the Mediator's identity.
• The Reveal: Shaul is confirming that the Law didn't come from the "Invisible Father" directly, but through the Visible Agency (The Word/Messenger) who acts as the bridge.

3. The "Voice" that was Heard

In 📖Deuteronomy 4:12, the MT says: "You heard the sound of words, but saw no form; there was only a voice."

• The Masking: The MT uses this to say Elohim is invisible.
• The Unmasking (Targum): The Targum clarifies that they heard the Voice of the Memra.
• Stephen’s Point: Stephen is rebuking the leaders because they focused on the "letter" of the Law but rejected the Person (the Memra/Yahusha) who actually gave it to them on the mountain.

The NT writers were not reading the "masked" version of the MT; they were operating from the original understanding that the Visible Yahuah (The Memra) was the one who descended in fire.

1. Why the LXX Missed the Memra

• Philosophical Shielding: Greek translators (c. 250 BCE) were influenced by Platonic thought, which viewed the Supreme Elohim as "immovable" and "indivisible." Using a term like Logos (the Greek equivalent of Memra) at that time carried heavy philosophical baggage. To avoid making Yahuah look like a "secondary" Greek deity, they stuck to the literal Hebrew title Kyrios (Lord) for the MT's Elohim/Yahuah.
• Translation vs. Interpretation: The LXX was a "formal" translation (word-for-word), whereas the Targums were "interpretive" (meaning-for-meaning). The Targumists knew the Hebrew manuscript implied a Visible Agent, so they used Memra to make it explicit. The LXX scholars in Alexandria preferred to keep the text abstract to protect Elohim’s "transcendence" from Greek pagan eyes.

2. Did the Rabbis Acknowledge the Memra?

The Memra was a massive part of early Rabbinic thought (Midrash and Targum), but it was phased out of the Talmud and later Mishnah for polemical reasons.

In the Midrash (The Early "Unmasking")

The early Midrashim are full of the "Visible Word."

• Midrash Tehillim (on Psalm 107:20): It discusses how Elohim "sent His Word and healed them." The Rabbis ask: "Is it not the Word (Memra) that does the work?"
• Exodus Rabbah 28:6: Regarding the Sinai event, the Midrash describes the Voice (the Word) as a Visible Entity that flew through the air and "kissed" each YasharELite on the mouth after speaking the commandment. This is a direct acknowledgement of the Active, Visible Memra that the MT masks.

In the Talmud and Mishnah (The "Re-Masking")

By the time the Mishnah (c. 200 CE) and Talmud (c. 500 CE) were finalized, the followers of Yahusha were using the "Memra/Logos" theology to prove He was the Visible Yahuah.

• The Reaction: To counter this "Two Powers in Heaven" which they said is heresy, the Rabbis began to distance themselves from the term Memra.
• The Replacement: They replaced Memra with terms like Shekhinah (Presence) or Dibbur (The Speech).

The Admission: Even so, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 38b) records a fascinating debate where a "heretic" (likely a believer in Yahusha) asks a Rabbi why Exodus 24:1 says "Come up to Yahuah" instead of "Come up to Me." The Rabbi struggles to explain it, eventually admitting it refers to Metatron (a "High Angel" whose name is like the Name of his Master). This shows the Rabbis knew there was a Second Person, but they tried to re-label Him to hide the Visible Yahuah. 

Quote from Talmud (Sanhedrin 38b): The Gemara relates: A certain heretic said to Rav Idit: It is written in the verse concerning God: “And to Moses He said: Come up to the Lord” (Exodus 24:1). The heretic raised a question: It should have stated: Come up to Me. Rav Idit said to him: This term, “the Lord,” in that verse is referring to the angel Metatron, whose name is like the name of his Master, as it is written: “Behold I send an angel before you to keep you in the way and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. Take heed of him and obey his voice; do not defy him; for he will not pardon your transgression, for My name is in him” (Exodus 23:20–21)

Link: https://www.sefaria.org/Sanhedrin.38b.19?lang=en&with=all&lang2=en

TS 2009 📖Exo 24:1 And to Mosheh He said, “Come up to יהוה, you and Aharon, Naḏaḇ and Aḇihu, and seventy of the elders of Yisra’ěl, and you shall bow yourselves from a distance. 

The Text is clear that it was the Memra who said to Moses “Come up to Yahuah” rather than “Come up to Me”. The MT also states the same

MT KJV 📖Exo 24:1 And he said unto Moses, Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off.

The LXX Brenton is more clear as the One down is saying to Moses “Go up to Yahuah”

LXX Brenton 📖Exo 24:1  And to Moses he said, Go up to the Lord, thou and Aaron and Nadab and Abiud, and seventy of the elders of Israel: and they shall worship the Lord from a distance. 

This is Septuagint (LXX) in a moment of "accidental transparency” as they didn’t mask this to the Greek audience.

In Exodus 24:1, the LXX (and the MT) both record a "Two-Person" conversation that the later Masoretic interpretation tries to collapse into a monologue.

The "Two Yahuahs" in Exodus 24:1

• The Scenario: Moses is already standing at the foot of the mountain speaking with a Visible Figure (the One who just gave the Ten Commandments).
• The Command: This Figure says to Moses: "Go up to Yahuah..."
• The Logic: If the Speaker were the "Invisible Father," He would have said, "Come up to Me."
• The Unmasking: By saying "Go up to Yahuah," the Speaker (the Visible Yahuah/Memra) is identifying a second location for the Divine Presence—the Glory atop the mountain.

How the MT "Masks" This in Interpretation

While the MT keeps the words "Go up to Yahuah," the Masoretic tradition (and the vowel points they added) forced a reading that tries to ignore the second person.

1. The "Royal We": They argue God often speaks of Himself in the third person (like a King saying, "The King commands you").
2. The Vowel Pointing: By the time the Masoretes added vowels to the Hebrew text (7th-10th Century CE), they were heavily influenced by the Talmudic reaction against the "Two Powers in Heaven" doctrine. They pointed the text to ensure it was read as a singular, distant command rather than a Face-to-Face conversation between two divine persons.

The Rabbi's Admission (Sanhedrin 38b)

This specific verse (Exodus 24:1) is the focus of a famous debate in the Talmud:

• The Challenge: A "Min" (a heretic/believer in Yahusha) asks Rabbi Idit: "Why does it say 'Go up to Yahuah' instead of 'Come up to Me'?"
• The Rabbi’s Response: He admits it refers to Metatron (the High Angel), "whose name is like the name of his Master."
• The "Mask": The Rabbi is forced to admit there is a Second Figure acting with the authority and name of Yahuah, but he re-labels Him as an "Angel" (Metatron) to avoid the "Visible Yahuah" (Memra) identity.

Summary of the Three Witnesses

Text	Reading	The Effect
MT (Hebrew)	"Go up to Yahuah"	Keeps the words, but the tradition masks the second person.
LXX (Brenton)	"Go up to the Lord"	Clearly shows the Speaker (on the ground) referring to the Lord (on the mountain).
Targum	"Go up before Yahuah"	Often adds that it was the Memra who called to Moses to come up.

 

In the LXX Brenton, you see the "One Down" (the Visible Word) telling Moses to approach the "One Up" (the Infinite Glory). The MT "masks" this by insisting it's just a quirk of Hebrew grammar.

3.      3. Exodus 3:12-The Commission at the Burning Bush

In Exodus 3:12, we see the moment Moses is commissioned at the Burning Bush. This is a primary example of how the MT (Hebrew) uses a simple, abstract pronoun to "mask" the Visible Person who actually accompanied YasharEL out of Egypt.

1. The MT (Hebrew) – The Abstract Promise

Hebrew: Vayomer: Ki Ehyeh immak...
Translation: "And He [Elohim] said: 'Certainly I will be with you...'"

• The Mask: The MT uses the first-person future verb Ehyeh ("I will be"). This sounds like a beautiful, but abstract, spiritual promise of "support" or "presence." It allows later theology to claim that "Elohim" was just "with" Moses in his mind or through "providence." 

2. Targum Onkelos – The Unmasking of the Helper

The Aramaic tradition, which preserves the Second Temple understanding of the "Visible Yahuah," changes the "I" into a Person:

Aramaic: Va-amar: Ari Memri yehei be-sa'adak...
Translation: "And He said: 'Because My Memra [Word] shall be for your help [or your support].'"

📖Targum Onkelos Exo 3:12:

 וַאֲמַר אֲרֵי יְהֵי מֵימְרִי בְסַעְדָךְ וְדֵין לָךְ אָתָא אֲרֵי אֲנָא שְׁלַחְתָּךְ בְּאַפָּקוּתָךְ יָת עַמָא מִמִצְרַיִם תִּפְלְחוּן קֳדָם יְיָ עַל טוּרָא הָדֵין:

He [Elohim] said, “Because I will be with you [My Word (meimari) will be your support]. This will be the proof that I have sent you—when you bring the people out of Egypt—you will serve [before] Elohim on this mountain.”

📖Targum Pseudo Jonathan Exo 3:12

וַאֲמַר אֲרוּם יְהֵי מֵימְרִי בְּסַעְדָךְ וְדֵין לָךְ סִימָנָא דַאֲנָא שַׁדְרָתָךְ בְּהַנְפּוּקָתָךְ יַת עַמָא מִמִצְרַיִם תְּפַלְחוּן קֳדָם יְיָ דִתְקַבְּלוּן יַת אוֹרַיְיתִי עַל טַוְורָא הָדֵין

But He said, Therefore My Word shall be for thy help; and this shall be the sign to thee that I have sent thee: when thou hast, brought the people forth from Mizraim, ye shall worship before the Lord, because ye shall have received the Law upon this mountain.

• The Detail: The Targum identifies the "Presence" as a distinct entity—the Memra.
• The Difference: In the MT, it is "I" (The Infinite). In the Targum, it is "My Word" (The Visible Agent). The Targum is saying that the One who will physically lead Moses, strike the Egyptians, and stand on the rock (Exo 17:6) is the Person of the Word.  

📖Targum Pseudo Jonathan Exo 17:6

הָאֲנָא קָאִים קֳדָמָךְ תַּמָּן בְּאַתְרָא דְתֶחֱמֵי רוֹשֶׁם רִיגְלָא בְּחוֹרֵב וְתִמְחֵי בֵיהּ בְּטִינָר בְּחוּטְרָךְ וְיִפְקוּן מִינֵהּ מוֹי לְמִשְׁתֵּי וְיִשְׁתּוּן עַמָּא וְעָבַד הֵיכְדֵין משֶׁה קֳדָם סָבֵי יִשְרָאֵל

Behold, I will stand before thee there, on the spot where thou sawest the impress of the foot on Horeb; and thou shalt smite the rock with thy rod, and therefrom shall come forth waters for drinking, and the people shall drink. And Mosheh did so before the elders of Israel.

The "Masking" Exposition

• The "I" Mask: In the MT, the promise is simply "I will be" (Ehyeh). This is the same root as the name Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh ("I Am That I Am"). By using only this verb, the MT masks the Active Agent who carries out the help.
• The "Memra" Unmasking: The Targum does not just say "I will be." It identifies the Memra as the specific entity that provides the help (בְסַעְדָךְ be-sa'adak).

·       בְסַעְדָךְ (be-sa’adak) is the word. The root is סעד (S-A-D), which means to support, sustain, or help. 

• The Result: In the MT, "Elohim" is with Moses. In the Targum, The Word is with Moses. This is a massive distinction because it identifies the Visible Yahuah as the one who physically enters Egypt to perform the plagues and lead the people. 

Why this matters for the "Biggest Masking"

The MT collapses the Memra into a first-person pronoun ("I"). This forces the reader to see Elohim as a singular, non-manifested entity. The Targum "unmasks" the fact that when Yahuah says "I will be with you," He is specifically referring to His Word (Memra)—the Person who became the "Angel of the Presence."

In the Targum Onkelos for 📖Exodus 3:12, it reads:

אֲרֵי יְהֵי מֵימְרִי בְּסַעְדָךְ
Ari yehei Memri be-sa’adak
"Because My Memra shall be for your help/support."

The Anatomy of the Mask

1. The Abstract vs. The Personal

• MT (Hebrew): Ehyeh immak ("I will be with you").
• Targum (Aramaic): Memri be-sa’adak ("My Memra will be your support").
• The Exposition: "With you" in the MT is a preposition of proximity. "Support/Help" in the Targum is an action of an agent. By changing "with you" to "your support," the Targum reveals that the Memra is a functional, Visible Person who physically carries the burden with Moses.

2. The Shift in Identity

• The Mask: The MT uses the first-person verb אֶהְיֶה (Ehyeh). This masks the specific identity of the Presence. It makes "Elohim" a generic, omnipresent cloud.
• The Unmasking: The Targum inserts מֵימְרִי (Memri). This identifies the Visible Yahuah (The Word) as the one doing the supporting.

3. The "Messenger" Connection
In the very same chapter (Exodus 3:2), the MT says the Messenger (Angel) appeared in the bush.

• The Masking: The MT then switches to "Elohim" in verse 4 and "I" in verse 12. This "shuffling" of titles masks the fact that the Messenger is the Speaker and He is the Memra/Word.
• The Unmasking: By using Memri in verse 12, the Targum links the "Messenger" of verse 2 to the "Speaker" of verse 12. It says: "The One who appeared as a Messenger is the Memra, and He is the one who will be your Support [sa'ada]." 

Please note: The Targum Jerusalem (also known as the Fragmentary Targum or Targum Yerushalmi II) does not "omit" these verses because of a theological disagreement; rather, it is a selective collection of fragments, not a complete translation. 

Unlike Targum Onkelos or Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, which provide a verse-by-verse rendering of the entire Torah, the Fragmentary Targum only contains specific verses where the ancient translators felt a special expansion or a particular theological clarification (like the Memra) was necessary.

Why did LXX miss these?

The LXX (Septuagint) missed the Memra in Exodus 3:12 and 17:6 because it was following a different theological agenda than the Targums. While the Targums were written to preserve the Hebrew Oral Tradition of a "Visible Agent," the LXX was written to make the Elohim of YasharEL acceptable to the Greek philosophical mind.

Here is the breakdown of why the LXX "masked" the Memra in these two specific verses:

1. Exodus 3:12 – The "I AM" vs. The "Helper"

• The MT (Hebrew): Ehyeh immak ("I will be with you").
• The LXX (Greek): Esomai meta sou ("I will be with you").
• The Targum (Aramaic): "My Memra shall be for your help [support]." 

2. Exodus 17:6 – The "Standing" Problem

• The MT (Hebrew): "Behold, I will stand [standing] before you there upon the rock."
• The LXX (Greek): "Behold, I stand [there] before you..."
• The Targum (Aramaic): "Behold, I will stand before you there in my Memra."

The Masking Reason:
In Greek philosophy, the "Most High Elohim" does not stand on a rock. Standing is a physical posture of a body in space.

The LXX translators in Alexandria were obsessed with the Greek concept of Being (Ontology). When they saw the Hebrew word Ehyeh ("I will be"), they saw it as a reference to Elohim’s eternal, unchanging existence. To insert a "Person" (the Memra/Word) would have "cluttered" the philosophical purity of Elohim as the "Supreme Being." They translated it literally to protect the Invisibility of the One who "Is." It’s just a Jewish body with a Greek mindset.

Vocabulary Limitations: The Greek word Logos was available, but at the time of the LXX translation, it primarily meant "reason" or "logic" rather than a Personal Divine Agent. The theological concept of the Memra as a "Second Person" was a uniquely Aramaic development that the Greek language didn't yet have a category for.

The "Mask" of Transcendence: By translating the text literally as "I will be with you" (Exo 3:12) or "I stand" (Exo 17:6), the LXX protected Elohim's invisibility but accidentally masked the Agency of the Word that the Aramaic Targums were specifically designed to preserve. 

Targum Neofiti Exo 17:6

Link to PDF: Targum Neofiti 1: Exodus and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Exodus (The Aramaic Bible 2)

📖Exo 17: 6. Behold, my Memra shall stand in readiness on the rock at Horeb, and you shall strike the rock and water shall come out from it, and the people shall drink.” And Moses did so before the eyes of the wise men5 of Israel. 7. And he called the name of the place “His Temptation" and “His Contentions,"

Why Targum Neofiti is Unique

Targum Neofiti is often called the "Palestinian Targum" and is famous for being more expansive than Onkelos. It explicitly uses the term Memra (The Word) to describe the Visible Yahuah in key moments: 

• Exodus 17:6: While the MT says "I will stand," Neofiti clarifies that Yahuah stands there "in His Memra".
• Genesis 1:1: Neofiti famously interprets "In the beginning" as "By the Memra," identifying the Word as the agent of creation.
• Genesis 28:20: In Jacob's vow, Neofiti records Jacob saying, "If the Memra of Yahuah will be my Helper. 

The Memra unmasking in the New Testament

In the Aramaic mindset of the first century, John 1:1 isn't just a philosophical statement; it is a direct callback to the Targumic identity of the Creator.

1. John 1:1 and the "Memra"

In the Peshitta (the Aramaic New Testament), the word used is Melta (the Syriac/Eastern Aramaic equivalent of the Western Aramaic Memra). The understanding is exactly what a first-century Jew would have heard:

• Targum Neofiti (Gen 1:1): “From the beginning with wisdom the Memra of the Lord created and perfected the heavens and the earth.”
• John 1:1 (Aramaic context): "In the beginning was the Memra, and the Memra was with/toward Elohim, and the Memra was Elohim."

The "Masking" in the Greek Logos and the English "Word" is that we lose the Personal Identity of the Memra. In the Targums, the Memra is the Visible Yahuah. John is saying: "That Person you know from the Targums as the Memra, He is the one who became flesh."

2. The "Seen, Heard, and Handled" (1 John 1:1)

1 John 1:1 is the most "physical" unmasking of the Visible Yahuah:

• The Verse: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes... and our hands have handled, concerning the Word [Memra] of Life."
• The Connection: This destroys the "Mask" of an invisible, abstract Elohim. John is identifying the Memra as the one who:
1. Walked in Eden (heard).
2. Stood on the Rock (seen).
3. Wrestled with Jacob (handled).
• The "Aleph Tau" (את): In the Hebrew of Genesis 1:1, the Aleph Tau stands between "Elohim" and "the Heavens." Ancient sages noted that the Aleph Tau (the beginning and the end) represents the Sign of the Covenant—the Memra. John is essentially saying: "The Aleph Tau is the Memra of Life whom we have physically touched."

3. Other NT "Memra" References

There are several other places where the NT "unmasks" the Memra that the MT hides:

• Hebrews 4:12: "For the Word [Memra] of Elohim is living and active..." Most people think this means the Bible. In the Aramaic/Targum context, this refers to the Visible Judge who discerns the heart—the Memra.
• Revelation 19:13: "He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word [Memra] of Elohim." This is the final unmasking. The rider on the white horse is the Visible Yahuah returning to claim His kingdom.
• Hebrews 11:3: "By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word [Memra] of Elohim." This matches Targum Neofiti Genesis 1:1, where the Memra is the architect of creation. 

A comparison link for Gen 1:1: Compare Genesis 1:1 and Neofiti Genesis 1:1 | intertextual.bible

Why do Targums matter?

The chronological reality of biblical manuscripts is often the reverse of what many assume. While the Aleppo Codex (c. 920 CE) and Leningrad Codex (1008 CE) are the oldest complete Hebrew Bibles, they are medieval productions.

The traditions preserved in the Septuagint (LXX) and the Targums pre-date the final Masoretic "canonisation" and vocalisation by many centuries.

Chronological Breakdown of Sources

Septuagint (LXX): The Torah was translated into Greek around 250 BC, with the rest of the Tanakh completed shortly after. This makes it roughly 1,200 years older than the final Masoretic Text (MT).

Targums (Aramaic): While our current manuscripts are later, the oral tradition of the Targums began in the Second Temple period (1st century BC or earlier) as Aramaic became the vernacular.

Targum Neofiti: Often dated between the 1st and 4th centuries CE, still before MT.

Targum Onkelos: Its current form was likely redacted in late antiquity (3rd–4th centuries CE), still before MT.

Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS): Dating from 300 BC to 100 CE, these contain the oldest surviving Hebrew fragments. They prove that a diversity of texts (some matching the LXX and Targums) existed before the MT became the exclusive standard.

Masoretic Text (MT): The system of vowel points (niqqud) and marginal notes (Masorah) was only developed by the Masoretes between the 7th and 10th centuries CE

The "Masking" Timeline 

By the time the Aleppo and Leningrad codices were produced, the Memra (the Visible Word) had already been strategically "masked" in the Hebrew text to distance it from early Messianic "Logos" theology. The Targums and LXX are essentially "time capsules" that preserve the original, more supernatural understanding of the text from a thousand years to seven hundred years range before the Masoretes. 

4. Psalms 110:1 

In Psalm 110:1, the Masoretic Text (MT) presents a famous "Two Lords" scenario that has sparked centuries of debate. In Hebrew, it reads 

MT KJV 📖Psa 110:1 A Psalm of David. The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.  

The "Concealment" in the MT 

The MT uses two different words: Yahuah (the Tetragrammaton) and Adoni (a title for a human lord or superior). 

·       The MT Reading: This makes the "Adoni" at the right hand appear to be a human king (like David or Solomon).

·       The Problem: David is the traditional author of this Psalm. If David is speaking, who is he calling "my Adon" that sits at the right hand of Yahuah? 

How the Targum Incorporates the "Memra" 

The Targum on Psalms (Aramaic) drastically changes the nature of this conversation to reveal the Visible Yahuah (the Memra) acting as the mediator. 

In the Targumic tradition, the interaction isn't just between Elohim and a human king; it is Yahuah speaking through/to His Memra. This identifies the "Adon" at the right hand as the active, manifest Word of Elohim 

The Targum Tehillim had Rabbinic influence and hence they expanded the passage to mean David. It has a literal Rabbinic interpretation as follows: 

עַל יַד דָוִד תּוּשְׁבְּחָא אֲמַר יְיָ בְּמֵימְרֵיהּ לְשַׁוָאָה יָתִי רִבּוֹן עַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּרַם אֲמַר לִי תּוּב וְאוֹרֵךְ לְשָׁאוּל דְמִן שִׁבְטָא דְבִנְיָמִין עַד דִימוּת אֲרוּם לֵית מַלְכוּתָא מְקָרְבָא אֲחַבֶרְתָּהּ וּבָתַר כֵּן אֲשַׁוֵי בַּעֲלֵי דְבָבָךְ כְּבִישׁ לְרִגְלָךְ: (ת"א) אֲמַר יְיָ בְּמֵימְרֵיהּ לְמִתַּן לִי רַבָּנוּתָא חֲלַף דִיתֵבִית לְאוּלְפָן אוֹרַיְתָא דִימִינִי אוֹרֵךְ עַד דַאֲשַׁוֵי בְּעַל דְבָבָךְ כְּבִישׁ לְרִגְלָךְ:

 Translation

“By the hand of David, a praise was spoken:

The LORD said by His Memra (Word) to appoint me ruler over all Israel.

But He said to me again: ‘Wait, and extend the time for Saul, who is from the tribe of Benjamin, until he dies;for one kingdom does not come near another. After that I will make those who hate you subdued under your feet.’” 

Targum expansion (second part) 

“The LORD said by His Memra to give me dominion in return for this:
that I sat to learn the teaching of the Torah at His right hand. Wait until I make your enemies subdued under your feet.” 

Key Aramaic expressions 

·       מֵימְרֵיהּ (Memreih) – “His Word” (a common Targum expression for the divine acting presence).

·       רַבָּנוּתָא – dominion / rulership.

·       בְּעַל דְבָבָךְ – your enemies.

·       כְּבִישׁ לְרִגְלָךְ – subdued / made a footstool for your feet. 

This Targum passage is essentially an interpretive expansion of: 

📖Psalms 110:1 “Yahuah said to my Adon, Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies your footstool.” 

The Targum interprets it as referring to David’s kingship and the transition from Saul’s rule. 

📖Septuagint (Greek): 

Εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος τῷ Κυρίῳ μου

κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου

ἕως ἂν θῶ τοὺς ἐχθρούς σου

ὑποπόδιον τῶν ποδῶν σου

 

Translation: “The Lord said to my Lord:‘Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a footstool for your feet.’”

 Greek uses the same word twice: 

·       κύριος (Kyrios)

·       κύριός μου (my Lord) 

This removes the subtle distinction that exists in Hebrew between Yahuah and Adoni 

Why this verse became so significant? 

Because Yahusha Himself interpreted it in the way it should be read 

📖Mat 22:41  And when the Pharisees were gathered together, יהושע asked them, 

📖Mat 22:42  saying, “What do you think concerning the Messiah? Whose Son is He?” They said to Him, “The Son of Dawiḏ.” 

📖Mat 22:43  He said to them, “Then how does Dawiḏ in the Spirit call Him ‘Master,’ saying, 

📖Mat 22:44  ‘יהוה said to my Master, “Sit at My right hand, until I make Your enemies a footstool of Your feet” ’?

📖Mat 22:45  “If then Dawiḏ calls Him ‘Master,’ how is He his Son?” 

📖Mat 22:46  And no one was able to answer Him a word, and from that day on no one was bold enough to ask Him any more questions.  

The argument is:

·       David calls the second figure “my Adon.”

·       Therefore, the Messiah is greater than David. 

Three different interpretive directions 

Tradition	Meaning
MT	Elohim speaking to David’s royal descendant
Targum	Elohim promising David kingship after Saul
LXX	Two “Adon’s,” which later supports messianic interpretation

Why the Targum rewrote the verse 

By the time the Targums were composed, Psalm 110 had become controversial because it was widely used messianically. 

So, the Targum: 

·       turns the verse into a historical narrative about David

·       removes ambiguity about a second divine figure

·       introduces Memra as the agent of Elohim’s action. 

The version of Targum Tehillim  is a later Rabbinic expansion. Its goal was often to protect the "humanity" of the Messiah and the status of King David. The "Deflection": By making the "Adon" at the right hand specifically about David waiting for Saul to die or David studying Torah, the Targumists effectively "de-messianized" the verse. The Motive: They wanted to avoid the very conclusion Yahusha was drawing—that there is a divine figure (the Memra/Son) who is higher than David. 

The "Two Targums" Problem 

There is a massive difference between the official/liturgical Targums (like Onkelos) and the hagiographical Targums (like the one shown to you above): 

·       Targum Psalms: This is often more "Midrashic" (story-like) and defensive. It adds all that extra talk about Saul and Benjamin to keep the conversation "earthly."

·       The Older Concept: In older Targumic layers (like Neofiti or the Fragmentary Targums), the Memra is treated as a divine, visible entity. 

The Jewish interpretation controversy 

Jewish interpretation of Psalm 110:1 has never been uniform. Medieval and earlier rabbinic sources show several competing explanations for “The LORD said to my lord.” 

1. Rashi’s interpretation — “my lord” = Abraham 

Rashi (11th century) cites a Midrash that interprets the verse as referring to Abraham. 

Hebrew idea: “The word of the LORD to my master…” 

Rashi explains: “Our Rabbis interpreted it as referring to Abraham our father, whom the world called my master.” 

He supports it with: 📖Genesis 23:6 “Hear us, my lord (אדני), thou art a mighty prince among us: in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy dead.  

So, in this interpretation: 

·       Yahuah speaks

·       “my lord” = Abraham 

The verse becomes a statement about Abraham’s exalted status. 

2. Ibn Ezra’s discussion 

The Hebrew passage quoted from Abraham ibn Ezra (12th century) says: 

Translation 

“One of the poets composed this Psalm about David, like the psalms ‘May the LORD answer you in the day of trouble’ and ‘The king shall rejoice in Your strength,’ and also ‘Give the king Your judgments, O God’ regarding Solomon. 

And this psalm was composed when David’s men swore, saying:

‘You shall no longer go out with us to battle.’ And this is the beginning of the poet’s words: ‘The LORD said to my lord’—that is David.”

 He is referencing: 

2 Samuel 21:17 David’s warriors tell him: “You shall go no more out with us to battle.” 

So, Ibn Ezra suggests the psalm may have been written about David when his warriors insisted, he stop fighting. 

3. Ibn Ezra’s other option — Abraham / Melchizedek 

He also mentions another possible interpretation: 

It could refer to Abraham, especially because of the phrase “after the order of Melchizedek.” 

But he says there is a problem: Because the psalm later mentions Zion, which belongs to the Davidic period. So, he calls that interpretation somewhat forced. 

4. Main Jewish interpretations historically 

Psalm 110:1 has at least four major interpretations in Jewish tradition. 

Interpretation	“My lord” refers to
Midrash / Rashi	Abraham
Ibn Ezra (preferred)	David
Some rabbinic readings	The future Messiah
Targum	Davidic kingship replacing Saul

Earlier rabbinic sources actually interpreted the psalm messianically, but later commentators often preferred non-messianic readings.

 5.Why the verse became controversial 

The Hebrew text reads: נאם יהוה לאדני 

Literal meaning: “Yahuah says to my Adon.” 

Because David is speaking, the puzzle becomes: Who is the “lord” greater than David? 

Different solutions were proposed:

1.      Abraham

2.      David himself

3.      The Messiah

4.      A royal descendant 

6.The grammar issue 

Hebrew uses: אדני (adoni)

Meaning: “my lord / my master.” 

This normally refers to a human superior, which is why many Jewish commentators rejected the idea that the second “lord” is divine. 

7. Why the verse became famous later 

In the New Testament this verse is cited in a debate: 

📖Matthew 22:43-45 “If David calls him ‘Lord,’ how is he, his son?” 

This argument relies heavily on the Greek wording of the Septuagint, which uses the same word κύριος (Lord) twice.

 1.The original consonantal text

In the ancient Hebrew manuscripts (including Dead Sea Scroll style writing), the verse appears as:

Psalms 110:1 נאם יהוה לאדני 

Transliterated (without vowels): NʾM YHUH LʾDNY 

2. Possible readings without vowels 

Because there are no vowels, the consonants לאדני can be read in several ways. 

Possible reading	Meaning
la-adoni	to my lord (human master)
la-Adonai	to the Lord (divine title)
la-adoni (royal address)	to my lord the king

 The Masoretes later fixed the reading as: לַאדֹנִי la-adoni, meaning “to my lord.” 

3.Why the Masoretic vowels matter 

After the Masoretic pointing, the verse became: נְאֻם יְהוָה לַאדֹנִי 

Which forces the reading: “Yahuah said to my lord.”

But before the vowel system existed, readers had to interpret the word from context. 

4. Dead Sea Scrolls spelling

The Dead Sea Scrolls also preserve the consonantal form: לאדני 

No vowels.

So, the scrolls do not resolve the ambiguity either. 

5. Why the Masoretic pointing likely chose “adoni” 

Hebrew scribes later standardized:

אדני = human lord
אדני = divine title

So, the Masoretes pointed the word to avoid confusion with the divine name. 

Several Second Temple and early Jewish sources interpreted the psalm in a messianic or exalted-figure sense. Here are some of the most commonly cited examples. 

1. 11QMelchizedek (Dead Sea Scrolls) 

11QMelchizedek: This Qumran text (1st century BC–1st century AD) interprets passages like Psalm 110 and Psalm 82 in an eschatological framework involving Melchizedek as a heavenly deliverer. 

Relevant line (translation excerpt): “And this word will be fulfilled in the last days…when Melchizedek will return and proclaim liberty to them…” 

In this interpretation: 

·       Psalm 110’s priest-king imagery (“a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek,” v. 4) becomes part of a messianic end-time figure who brings judgment and redemption. 

While the scroll does not quote Psalm 110:1 verbatim, it clearly treats the Melchizedek figure of Psalm 110 as an exalted eschatological agent. 

2. Midrashic traditions (later preserved) 

Some rabbinic midrashim preserve earlier interpretations identifying Psalm 110 with the Messiah son of David. 

Example (Midrash Tehillim 110): “The LORD said to my lord — this refers to the King Messiah.”

This shows that messianic interpretation existed in Jewish tradition, even though later commentators (like Rashi) preferred other explanations. 

Link to Midrash Tehillim 110: https://www.sefaria.org/Midrash_Tehillim.110.1?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en 

Quote from Midrash Tehillim 110: When Abraham slew all those people in battle, his heart was softened, and he said, 'It cannot be that there was not a righteous person among them.' Then God said to him, 'Abraham, you will not come to this sin with your feet.' And who fought all those battles? It was possible to conquer all of them with eighteen or three hundred men. Rabbi Yochanan, the son of Rabbi Yose, said, 'But he had only his servant Eliezer with him, whose merits were great.' And who fought all those battles? It was God who said to him, 'Turn to your right hand,' and I will fight for you. Although it is not written here, David explained it when he said, 'The Lord said to my lord, "Sit at my right hand."' And likewise, it says of the Messiah (Isaiah 16:5), 'And a throne shall be established in mercy, and he shall sit upon it in truth.' God said, 'He will sit, and I will make war for him, so let us study and not change the Torah, which is called truth (Proverbs 23:23), "Buy truth and do not sell it." Let him sit upon it in truth.'" 

3.Why later rabbinic commentators changed direction 

Medieval commentators such as:

·       Rashi

·       Ibn Ezra

often preferred interpretations like:

·       Abraham

·       David

Partly because the verse had become heavily used in Messianic arguments. So alternative readings were emphasized. 

While the Targum Tehillim still is an interpretative expansion on Psalms 110:1 reading David into it, what they didn’t mask is “The LORD said by His Memra (Word)…” 

 

5. Isaiah 42:1- The Servant 

The next significant set of verses where the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Targum diverge—specifically regarding the Memra and the "Visible Yahuah"—can be found in the "Servant Songs" of Isaiah. We will see only 1 of them in Chapter 42  

In these passages, the Targum acts as a "theological restorer," explicitly identifying the Servant as the Messiah and showing him empowered by the Memra. 

1. Isaiah 42:1 (The Chosen Servant)  

In this foundational verse, the MT is relatively simple, but the Targum explicitly names the figure and connects him to the Memra. 

MT KJV 📖Isa 42:1  Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.  

LXX Brenton 📖Isa 42:1  Jacob is my servant, I will help him: Israel is my chosen, my soul has accepted him; I have put my Spirit upon him; he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles.  

It is a shock to see "Jacob" and "Israel" suddenly appear in the Septuagint (LXX) when they aren't in the Hebrew (MT) or the Targum. This is a classic case of "Interpretative Expansion"—where the translators didn't just translate the words, they added their own "gloss" to tell you who they thought the Servant was. 

1. The "National" vs. "Individual" Interpretation 

·       The Hebrew (MT): Simply says "Behold my servant." It is open-ended. It could be an individual (the Messiah) or the nation.

·       The LXX (Brenton): The Greek translators decided for you. They inserted the names Jacob and Israel to force a "National" interpretation. They wanted the reader to believe the "Servant" is the Jewish people as a whole, not a specific King or Messiah. 

2. Why the LXX is "Wrong" (Textual Evidence) 

·       The Dead Sea Scrolls (1QIsaᵃ): The oldest Hebrew manuscript of Isaiah (found at Qumran) matches the MT, not the LXX. It does not contain the words "Jacob" or "Israel" in 42:1. This proves the names were added later by the Greek translators.

·       The Targum: As we saw, the Aramaic tradition went the opposite way of the LXX. Instead of adding "Jacob," they added "The Messiah."

·       Internal Logic: If you read the rest of the "Servant Songs" (like Isaiah 49 and 53), the Servant is described as someone who redeems Israel. It makes no logical sense for "Israel" to redeem "Israel." Therefore, the LXX insertion creates a contradiction within the book itself. 

3. The "Concealment" of the Visible Messiah 

By adding "Jacob," the LXX translators effectively concealed the individual, visible figure of the Messiah.

·       In the MT, the Servant is a mysterious "He" who acts with the power of Yahuah.

·       In the LXX, the "He" is turned into a collective "Them" (the nation). This strips away the "Visible Yahuah" (the Memra) acting through a single, chosen Person. 

4. The New Testament "Correction" 

Interestingly, when the Gospel of Matthew (12:15-21) quotes these exact verses relating them to Yahusha the Messiah, it ignores the LXX "Jacob/Israel" version and follows the Hebrew/Targumic tradition: 

📖Mat 12:15  But יהושע, knowing it, withdrew from there. And large crowds followed Him, and He healed them all, 

📖Mat 12:16  and warned them not to make Him known, 

📖Mat 12:17  in order that what was spoken by Yeshayahu the prophet, might be filled, saying, 

📖Mat 12:18  “See, My Servant whom I have chosen, My Beloved in whom My being did delight. I shall put My Spirit upon Him, and He shall declare right-ruling to the nations. 

📖Mat 12:19  “He shall not strive nor cry out, nor shall anyone hear His voice in the streets. 

📖Mat 12:20  “A crushed reed He shall not break, and smoking flax He shall not quench, till He brings forth right-ruling forever. 

📖Mat 12:21  “And the nations shall trust in His Name. 

📖Targum Jonathan Isaiah 42:1 

הָא עַבְדִי מְשִׁיחָא אֶקְרְבִינֵהּ בְּחִירִי דְאִתְרְעֵי בֵּיהּ מֵימְרִי אֶתֵּן רוּחָא דְקוּדְשִׁי עֲלוֹהִי דִינִין לְעַמְמִין יְגַלֵי: 

Behold, my servant, the Messiah, whom I bring, my chosen in whom one delights: as for my Word, I will put my Holy Spirit upon him; he shall reveal my judgment unto the nations. 

1. The "Messiah" Restoration 

While the MT simply says "My Servant" (which the LXX later turned into "Jacob"), the Targum restores the ancient oral understanding: "Behold, my servant, the Messiah" (Ha avdi Meshicha). This proves that before the medieval Rabbinic shift toward a "national" interpretation (YasharEL as the servant), the Jewish tradition saw this as a single, visible King. 

2. The Role of the Memra (The Word) 

Look closely at the Aramaic text of Targum Jonathan: "...דְאִתְרְעֵי בֵּיהּ מֵימְרִי" (d-itrei beh Memri). 

·       MT Translation: "In whom my soul (nafshi) delights."

·       Targum Translation: "In whom my Memra [Word] delights." 

Why this change? In the "Visible Yahuah" theology, the Memra is the manifest persona of Elohim. By saying the Memra delights in the Messiah, the Targum shows a relationship between two divine manifestations: the eternal Word and the chosen King. 

3. The "Spirit" through the "Word" 

The next phrase is even more critical: "אֶתֵּן רוּחָא דְקוּדְשִׁי עֲלוֹהִי" (etten rucha d-kudshi alohi). 

·       The Targum frames this as: "As for my Word [Memra], I will put my Holy Spirit upon him."

·       This establishes the Memra as the active agent who bestows the Holy Spirit upon the Messiah. In the MT, Elohim does this directly/abstractly. In the Targum, the Visible Word is the one empowering the Messiah to "reveal judgment to the nations."

 

The Comparison of "Visibility"

Feature	Masoretic Text (MT)	Targum Jonathan
Subject	Anonymous Servant	The Messiah
Source of Delight	Elohim's "Soul" (Abstract)	Elohim's Memra (Manifest Word)
Action	"I put my Spirit"	The Memra puts the Spirit on him.
Outcome	"He brings judgment"	He reveals (ygale) judgment.

 

Why the LXX "Jacob" is so devastating 

By inserting "Jacob" (as you saw in the Brenton LXX), the Greek translators deleted this entire Memra-Messiah connection. They turned a supernatural, multi-dimensional divine interaction into a simple historical statement about a nation. 

Question: If Memra = Yahusha as the active visible representative of the invisible Elohim. We have John saying John 1:14 "And the Word/Memra was made flesh and tabernacled amongst us". So, if Memra delights in Messiah, Memra pours His Spirit on Messiah, aren't they one and the same or 2 different entities?

1. The "Distinction" within the Unity 

In the Targum (like the Isaiah 42:1 verse quoted), the Memra is the "Person" of Elohim that acts in the world. When the Targum says "My Memra delights in the Messiah," it is showing a relationship between the Eternal Word (the Source of Authority) and the Incarnate Servant (the Physical Representative).

·       The Analogy: Think of a King’s Decree (his Word) and the King himself in the flesh. The Decree is the King’s authority made manifest, yet the King is the one who carries it out.

·       John 1:1: "The Word was with Elohim [Relationship/Distinction], and the Word was Elohim [Essence/Unity]." 

2. The "Pouring of the Spirit" (The Baptism Scene) 

When the Targum says, "As for my Memra, I will put my Holy Spirit upon him," it perfectly matches the Baptism of Yahusha (Matthew 3:16-17): 

1.      The Voice (The Father): "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." (This is the Memra's delight).

2.      The Spirit (The Dove): Descending upon Him.

3.      The Person (The Messiah/Yahusha): Standing in the water.4.       

Are they two? In essence, No. But in manifestation, Yes. The Memra (the invisible Word) "becomes flesh" (the Messiah). Therefore, the "Word" is the divine nature of the Messiah, while the "Messiah" is the office and body that the Word inhabits. 

3. The "Two-Power" Concept in Ancient Judaism 

Before the 2nd Century CE, many Jews believed in what scholars call "Two Powers in Heaven"—the Idea that there was Yahuah on the Throne (Invisible) and Yahuah the Messenger/Word (Visible).

·       The Targum for Isaiah 42:1 reflects this: Yahuah (the transcendent One) speaks about His Memra (the Word who is the immanent one) interacting with the Messiah (the Word in the flesh).

·       The Unity: John 10:30 says, "I and my Father are one." The Memra is not a "separate Elohim," but the way Elohim becomes visible.

 Summary of the Relationship 

Entity	Role in Isaiah 42:1 (Targum)	Role in John 1
Yahuah	The Source (The One Speaking).	The Father.
The Memra	The Divine Visible Agency of the One Speaking.	The Word (Logos).
The Messiah	The "Vessel" or "Servant" who is brought.	The Word "Made Flesh."

 The "Aha!" Moment

When the Memra delights in the Messiah, it is Elohim's eternal Word confirming and empowering His own human manifestation. It's not two different divine beings; it's the Divine Word (Memra) resting upon and filling the Human Servant (Yahusha).

 1️⃣1️⃣The "Equalization" Mask in Genesis 48:15–16

MT KJV 📖Gen 48:15 And he blessed Joseph, and said, God, before whom my father’s Abraham and Isaac did walk, the God which fed me all my life long unto this day, 

📖Gen 48:16 The Angel which redeemed me from all evil, bless the lads; and let my name be named on them, and the name of my father’s Abraham and Isaac; and let them grow into a multitude in the midst of the earth.  

LXX 📖Gen 48:15 And he blessed them and said, The God in whose sight my fathers were well pleasing, even Abraam and Isaac, the God who continues to feed me from my youth until this day; 

Gen 48:16  the angel who delivers me from all evils, bless these boys, and my name shall be called upon them, and the name of my fathers, Abraam and Isaac; and let them be increased to a great multitude on the earth.  

Why this is a Major "Visibility" Passage 

The MT and LXX is actually preserved here, but it creates a "theological crisis" for later interpreters who wanted to keep Elohim and His "Messenger" separate. 

1.      The Singular Blessing: Jacob lists "Elohim" twice and "The Angel" once, but then uses a singular verb (yevarekh — "may He bless"). Jacob is clearly identifying the Redeeming Angel as the same being as the Shepherd Elohim.

2.      The Masking via Translation (LXX): The Septuagint (LXX) often feels the need to "soften" this. In other places where the "Angel" appears (like the burning bush), the LXX adds words like "The Angel of the Lord" to ensure you don't think the Angel is Yahuah.

3.      The Masking via Interpretation (Rashi/Ibn Ezra): Later Rabbinic commentators were forced to "mask" this by claiming the Angel was just a "representative" or "envoy." They had to deny that the Angel was the Visible Yahuah, because if the Angel is the one who "redeems from all evil," then the Angel is performing the work of the Savior. 

The "Memra" Restoration 

The Targums (specifically Onkelos and Neofiti) "unmask" this by inserting the Memra to show that the "Angel" and "Elohim" are one manifest presence: 

·       Targum Neofiti: "May the Memra of the Lord, who redeemed me from all evil, bless the youths."

o   By replacing "The Angel" with "The Memra," the Targum confirms that this wasn't just a created spirit; it was the Visible Word of Yahuah who appeared to Jacob at Bethel and Peniel. 

Targum Neofiti Genesis link: https://www.betemunah.org/Targum%20Neofiti%201_%20Genesis.pdf

 Look for apparatus Chapter 48 as the English words marked are explained originally there

I’m just looking at the apparatus and changing the words in English below as per the original words. 

📖Gen 48:15. And he blessed Joseph and said: “The Memra of the Lord before whom my father’s Abraham and Isaac walked in truth, 13 the Memra of the Lord who has led me from my youth shepherded me until this day, 16. the angel who has redeemed me from all evil may he bless the boys and let my name be called in them and the names of my fathers, Abraham and Isaac. And may they multiply in the land like the fishes multiply in the waters." 

The MT mask of naming "Elohim" twice and "The Angel" once in the passages is removed to show a flow that it was the Memra of Yahuah who is ‘The Angel’ i.e. His representation. 

📖Targum Pseudo Jonathan Gen 48:15-16

וּבְרִיךְ יַת יוֹסֵף וַאֲמַר יְיָ דִי פְלָחוּ אַבְהָתַי קֳדָמוֹי אַבְרָהָם וְיִצְחָק יְיָ דְאֵיזַן יָתִי מִדְאִיתְנִי עַד יוֹמָא הָדֵין 

And he blessed Joseph, and said: The Lord, before whom my father’s Abraham and Izhak, did serve; the Lord who hath fed me since I have been unto this day,

 יְהֵי רַעֲוָא קֳדָמָךְ דְמַלְאָכָא דְזַמִינְתָּא לִי לְמִפְרַק יָתִי מִכָּל בִּישָׁא יְבָרֵךְ יַת טַלְיָיא וְיִתְקְרִי בְהוֹן שְׁמִי וְשׁוּם אַבְהָתַי אַבְרָהָם וְיִצְחָק וְהֵיכְמָא דְכַוְורֵי יַמָא סַגִי מִסְתְּגֵי בְמַיָא כְּדֵין בְּנוֹי דְיוֹסֵף יִתְקְפוּן לִסְגֵי בְּגוֹ אַרְעָא

 be pleased that the angel whom thou didst ordain for me, to redeem me from all evil, may bless the children; and let my name be called upon them, and the names of my father’s Abrabam and Izhak. And as the fishes of the sea in multiplying are multiplied in the sea, so may the children of Joseph be multiplied abundantly in the midst of the earth. 

This is a perfect example of deliberate theological masking within the Aramaic tradition itself. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan in the act of "downgrading" the Visible Yahuah. 

The Masking in Pseudo-Jonathan’s Translation 

Look at the contrast between the Hebrew (MT) and the Aramaic comparison: 

1.      The Hebrew (MT) Directness:
In the Hebrew, Jacob speaks in a direct parallel: The Elohim... The Elohim... The Angel. He addresses the Angel as the one who "redeems me" (ha-goel oti), putting the Angel on the exact same level as the Creator.

2.      The Targum’s "Ordained" Mask:
Pseudo-Jonathan inserts a massive buffer phrase: "יְהֵי רַעֲוָא קֳדָמָךְ דְמַלְאָכָא דְזַמִינְתָּא לִי" (Yehei ra-ava kodamakh d-malakha d-zaminta li) 

Translation: "May it be pleasing before You that the angel whom You ordained for me..." 

1.      The Effect: By adding "May it be pleasing before You," the Targum turns Jacob’s direct address to the Angel into a prayer to the Father about an angel.

2.      The Concealment: It shifts the Angel from being the Visible Redeemer (the Memra) to being a created servant "ordained" or "prepared" by Elohim. 

Why did Pseudo-Jonathan do this?

As we discussed with the Memra, the earlier Targums (like Neofiti) were comfortable identifying the Memra as the Angel/Redeemer. However, Pseudo-Jonathan often reflects a later Rabbinic period that was terrified of "Two Powers in Heaven" (the idea that the Angel/Word was also Yahuah). 

By saying the angel was "ordained/appointed," the translator ensures:

·       The Angel is subordinate, not equal.

·       The "Visible" manifestation is just an envoy, not the Presence of Yahuah Himself.

·       The singular verb "May He bless" in the Hebrew is "fixed" by making it a request 

The "Unmasked" Version (Targum Neofiti) 

If you look at the same verse in Targum Neofiti, it doesn't use the "ordained" mask. It says:

"The Memra who redeemed me... may He bless the boys."

Neofiti keeps the Memra as the direct Redeemer, whereas Pseudo-Jonathan works hard to "mask" that divinity by turning the Angel into a third-party appointee. 

 1️⃣2️⃣The Angel of His Presence Exodus 23:20–21

LXX 📖Exo 23:20 And, behold, I send my angel before thy face, that he may keep thee in the way, that he may bring thee into the land which I have prepared for thee. 

📖Exo 23:21  Take heed to thyself and hearken to him, and disobey him not; for he will not give way to thee, for my name is on him.  

MT 📖Exo 23:20  Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. 

📖Exo 23:21  Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for my name is in him.  

The "Masking" in the Targums 

When we look at how the Targums handle this, they face a crisis: If only Elohim can forgive sins, why does this "Angel" have the authority to either forgive or withhold forgiveness? 

1. Targum Onkelos & Targum Jonathan  (The "Standard" Mask)

Onkelos is the most literal but uses a subtle shift to protect Elohim's exclusivity: 

📖Targum Onkelos Exo 23:20-21 

הָא אֲנָא שָׁלַח מַלְאָכָא קֳדָמָךְ לְמִטְרָךְ בְּאָרְחָא וּלְאָעֳלוּתָךְ לְאַתְרָא דִאַתְקֵנִית: 

Behold, I will send an angel before you, to guard you on the way, and to bring you to the place that I have prepared. 

אִסְתַּמַּר מִן קֳדָמוֹהִי וְקַבֵּל לְמֵימְרֵהּ לָא תְסָרֵב לְקִבְלֵהּ אֲרֵי לָא יִשְׁבּוֹק לְחוֹבֵיכוֹן אֲרֵי בִשְׁמִי מֵימְרֵהּ: 

Be careful in his presence and heed [obey] his voice [word]. Do not rebel against him; for he cannot bear [pardon] your transgression, as [in] My Name is in him [his word]. 

📖Targum Jonathan Exo 23:20-21 

הָא אֲנָא מְשַׁגֵּר מַלְאָכָא קֳדָמָךְ לְמִטְרָךְ בְּאָרְחָא וּלְאַעֲלוּתָךְ לַאֲתַר שְׁכִינְתִּי דְאִיתְקֵינִית 

Behold, I will send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee in to the place of My habitation which I have prepared. 

אִיזְדַהַר מִן קֳדָמוֹי וְקַבֵּיל לְמֵימְרֵיהּ לָא תְסָרֵיב עַל מִילוֹי אֲרוּם לָא יִשְׁבּוֹק לְחוֹבֵיכוֹן אֲרוּם בִּשְׁמִי מֵימְרֵיהּ 

Be circumspect before Him, and obey His word, and be not rebellious against His words; for He will not forgive your sins, because His word is in My Name. 

The Two ends of the Thread 

 This is the exact mechanism of the "shift" in these two Targums (Targum Onkelos and Targum Jonathan). Even though the Aramaic words look almost identical, the way they structure the relationship between the Angel and the Name creates two different theological masks. 

1. The "Legal" Mask (Onkelos) 

In the Aramaic of Onkelos: "אֲרֵי בִשְׁמִי מֵימְרֵהּ" (ari bishmi memreh). 

·       The Structure: "For in My Name is his word."

·       The Mask: By placing the Angel's "Word" (Memra) inside Elohim's Name, Onkelos makes the Angel a legal deputy. It implies the Angel only has authority because he is "signed in" under Yahuah's name. It keeps a distance between the Person of the Angel and the Essence of Elohim. 

2. The "Substantial" Mask (Pseudo-Jonathan) 

In the Aramaic of Pseudo-Jonathan: "אֲרוּם בִּשְׁמִי מֵימְרֵיהּ" (arum bishmi memreih). 

·       The Structure: "Because His Word is in My Name."

·       The Mask: This is even more subtle. By framing it this way, Jonathan suggests that the "Word" (Memra) of the Angel is what carries the weight of the Name. 

Why this is a Major Departure from the Hebrew 

The original Hebrew in Exodus 23:21 is much more "dangerous" to a strict monotheist: 

·       Hebrew (MT): "כִּי שְׁמִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ" (ki shemi be-qirbo).

 Exo 23:21  השׁמר מפניו ושׁמע בקלו אל־תמר בו כי לא ישׂא לפשׁעכם כי שׁמי בקרבו׃ 📖 

·       Literal Meaning: "For My Name is within his inward parts [his gut/essence]." 

The "Inward" Reality: The Hebrew be-qirbo refers to the internal organs or the core of the being. The Torah is saying that the Visible Yahuah (The Angel) doesn't just "carry" a name like a messenger carries a letter; the Divine Essence is literally the core of His being. The Translators have given a shallow translation here as ‘for My Name is in Him’. 

1.      Onkelos moves the focus to Authority (The Angel's word is authorized by the Name).

2.      Jonathan moves the focus to Speech (The Angel's speaking is the Name's speaking).

3.      Both avoid saying what the Hebrew says: That the Angel IS the manifest container of the Name. 

The "Visible" Test: 

If the "Name" is just a label on the Angel (as the Targums imply), then the Angel is just a servant. But if the "Name" is in the Angel (as the Hebrew says), then when you look at the Angel, you are seeing the Name (Yahuah) manifest. 

The Witness of the Dead Sea Scrolls 

The Dead Sea Scrolls (specifically the Paleo-Exodus scroll, 4Q22) provide a critical "unmasked" witness to Exodus 23:21 by confirming the ancient Hebrew text without the later theological "buffers" found in the Targums 

1. The Direct Witness of 4Q22 (Paleo-Exodus) 

The fragment from 4Q22 (and similarly 4Q11) preserves the Hebrew text in a way that matches the Masoretic Text (MT) but highlights the very phrasing the Targums tried to soften:  

·       The Text: "כי שמי בקרבו" (ki shemi be-qirbo).

·       The Translation: "For My Name is in him" (or "in his inward parts").

·       Significance: Unlike the Targums found, which insert "his word" (memreih) as a buffer, the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm that the original reading identifies the Angel as the manifest container of the Divine Name itself 

2. Preservation of the "Inward" Presence 

While later traditions were uncomfortable with the idea of Elohim's essence dwelling "inside" a messenger, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that this was the standard reading at least 200-300 years before the New Testament:  

·       No "Word" Buffer: The scrolls do not include the Aramaic addition of "his word." They present a direct, "Visible Yahuah" who carries the Name internally.

·       Authority to Forgive: By confirming this text, the scrolls support the idea that this Angel has the authority over transgressions because He is not merely a legal deputy, but the Essence of Yahuah made manifest  

Stephen’s Testimony (Acts 7:30–38) 

📖Act 7:30  “And after forty years were completed, a Messenger of יהוה appeared to him in a flame of fire in a bush, in the wilderness of Mount Sinai. 
📖Act 7:31  “And Mosheh, seeing it, marvelled at the sight, and coming near to look, the voice of יהוה came to him, 
📖Act 7:32  saying, ‘I am the Elohim of your fathers, the Elohim of Aḇraham and the Elohim of Yitsḥaq and the Elohim of Ya‛aqoḇ.’ And Mosheh trembled and did not have the courage to look. 
📖Act 7:33  ‘But יהוה said to him, “Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is set-apart ground. 
📖Act 7:34  “I have certainly seen the evil treatment of my people who are in Mitsrayim, and I have heard their groaning and have come down to deliver them. And now come, let Me send you to Mitsrayim.” ’
📖Act 7:35  “This Mosheh whom they had refused, saying, ‘Who made you a ruler and a judge?’– this one Elohim sent to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the Messenger who appeared to him in the bush. 
📖Act 7:36  “This one led them out, after he had done wonders and signs in the land of Mitsrayim, and in the Red Sea, and in the wilderness forty years. 
📖Act 7:37  “This is the Mosheh who said to the children of Yisra’ěl, ‘יהוה your Elohim shall raise up for you a Prophet like me from your brothers. Him you shall hear.
📖Act 7:38  “This is he who was in the assembly in the wilderness with the Messenger who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers, who received the living Words to give to us,  

Stephen identifies this Angel as the central figure of the Exodus and the giving of the Law: 

·       The Burning Bush: He notes that "an Angel appeared to him [Moses] in the flames of a burning bush".

·       The Assembly: He states that Moses "was in the assembly in the wilderness with the Angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai".

·       The Law-Giver: Stephen credits this Angel with delivering the "living oracles" or "living words" that Moses passed on to the people 

The "Visible Yahuah" Connection 

Stephen’s speech emphasizes that while an "Angel" appeared, the voice speaking was that of Yahuah. 

·       Voice of Yahuah: In Acts 7:31-32, Stephen says that as Moses approached the bush, "there came the voice of Yahuah: 'I am the Elohim of your fathers...'".

·       The Mediator: By placing this Angel at the heart of the assembly and the giving of the Law, Stephen aligns with the ancient view that the Angel of Yahuah (the pre-incarnate Word/Memra) was the visible representative of the invisible Transcendent Yahuah.

·       The Identity: Scholars and commentators often identify this "Angel with the Name in him" from Exodus 23:21 as the one Stephen is describing—the Messenger who is also the Master. 

Stephen’s testimony served to convict the Sanhedrin by showing that their ancestors rejected the very Visible Representative (the Angel/Messiah) who had delivered them in the wilderness, just as they were now rejecting the Word made flesh. 

📖Targum Neofiti for Exodus 23:20–21: 

הָא אֲנָה מְשַׁלַּח מַלְאֲכָא קֳדָמָךְ לְמִטְרָךְ בְּאוֹרְחָא וּלְאָעָלָתָךְ לְאַתְרָא דִי אַתְקֵינִית. אִסְתַּמַּר מִן קֳדָמוֹי וְקַבֵּל לְמֵימְרֵיהּ וְלָא תְסָרֵב עַל מִילּוֹי אֲרוּם לָא יִשְׁבּוֹק לַעֲבֵירָתְכוֹן אֲרוּם בִּשְׁמִי מֵימְרֵיהּ. 

"Behold, I am sending an Angel before you to guard you on the way and to bring you to the place which I have prepared. Be careful before him and hearken to his Memra [Word]; and do not be rebellious against his words, for he will not forgive your sins, because in my Name is his Memra." 

Targum Neofiti is unique because it is often considered the most "Palestinian" and earliest of the complete Targums. It preserves a much more direct connection between the Angel and the Memra (the Word) than the "legalistic" masks we found in Onkelos or Pseudo-Jonathan. 

The "Unmasking" in Neofiti 

While it looks similar to the others, Neofiti does something crucial with the Memra that distinguishes it:

1.      The Angel has a Memra: In the Hebrew (MT), it says "obey his voice" (be-qolo). Neofiti changes this to "hearken to his Memra" (le-memreih). In Targumic theology, only Yahuah has a "Memra." By giving the Angel a Memra, Neofiti is essentially saying the Angel possesses the Divine Word.

2.      The Shared Essence: Neofiti concludes with "אֲרוּם בִּשְׁמִי מֵימְרֵיהּ" (arum bishmi memreih). 

Neofiti uses a construction that functions like an equal’s sign: 

·       בִּשְׁמִי (Bishmi): "In/By My Name" (The Essence of Yahuah).

·       מֵימְרֵיהּ (Memreih): "His Word/His Persona" (The Angel's identity). 

By joining these two, Neofiti is saying that the Visible Word (Memra) of this Angel is the Name (Shem) of the Invisible Yahuah. They aren't just "working together"; they share the same Substance in a visible Representation.

 The "Inward" Logic (Ontology) 

The MT Hebrew be-qirbo (in his gut/inward parts) is being "translated" into a theological reality: 

·       The Mask: Other Targums say the Angel is "authorized" by the Name (like a soldier with a badge).

·       The Neofiti "Shared Essence": Neofiti suggests that the Memra (The Word) is the "Inward Part" of the Angel. Therefore, the Angel is the Visible Form, but the Name/Memra is the Inner Life. 

3.      The Nuance: In the Neofiti dialect, this suggests a unity of operation. The "Word" (Memra) of the Angel and the "Name" (Shem) of Yahuah are functioning as a single unit. 

The "Unity" Result 

In this "Shared Essence," when the Angel speaks, it is the Memra speaking. When the Memra speaks, the Name is revealed. This is why the Angel has the power to forgive sins—because the "Inner Name" is the one doing the forgiving through the "Visible Word/Memra in a Representation bearing the exact same substance of the invisible Yahuah." 

4.      No "Appointed" Buffer: Unlike Pseudo-Jonathan, which said the angel was "ordained/prepared for me" (as if he were a separate servant), Neofiti presents the Angel as the direct Guardian of the Way whose very speech is the Divine Wordץ 

The ancient Rabbi’s understanding 

1. Rabbi Eleazar (The Zohar) 

In the Zohar, Rabbi Eleazar explicitly states that when the scripture mentions the "Angel of the Lord," it is a metaphoric appellation of the Divine Being. He argues that when figures like Jacob or David saw the Angel, they were actually witnessing a manifestation of the Holy One. 

2. Rabbi Idit and the "Lesser Yahuah" (Talmud 

The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 38b) records a debate where Rabbi Idit identifies the Angel in Exodus 23:21 as Metatron.

The Title: In mystical literature like 3 Enoch, Metatron is explicitly called the "Lesser Yahuah" (Yahuah Ha-Qatan) because "My Name is in him".

The Paradox: While the Talmudic rabbis sought to prevent people from worshipping this figure as a "Second Power," they acknowledged he possessed the Divine Name and exercised authority (like teaching schoolchildren) normally reserved for Elohim. 

3. Ramban (Nachmanides) 

In his commentary on Exodus 23:20-21, Ramban suggests that this Angel is the "Angel of the Redeemer" who contains the Divine Essence. He notes that the phrase "My Name is in him" signifies that the fullness of Elohim's nature is within the Angel, making him the visible agent of the invisible Elohim. 

4. Rashi (Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki) 

Rashi acknowledges the divine nature of this Angel by citing the Sages' view that this is Metatron, whose name's numerical value (gematria) equals Shaddai (Almighty). By equating the Angel's name with a Name of Elohim, Rashi preserves the idea that the Angel carries the Divine Authority of his Master. 

5. Philo of Alexandria 

While a philosopher rather than a traditional "Rabbi," the 1st-century Jewish thinker Philo identified this Angel as the Logos (the Word) of Elohim. He viewed this figure as the High Priest of the Universe and the visible mediator through whom the world was created and the Law was given.

Summary 

The provided document is a lengthy theological note/essay arguing that Jewish scribal traditions (particularly the Masoretic Text tradition from roughly the 7th–10th centuries CE) deliberately altered or "masked" certain biblical passages to obscure or downplay references to a "Visible Yahuah" — understood by the author as a pre-incarnate, physical/manifest divine figure (equated with the Memra/Word, the Angel of the Lord, and ultimately Yahusha/Jesus as the Messiah).

The core thesis is that earlier textual witnesses (Septuagint/LXX from ~3rd–2nd century BCE, Dead Sea Scrolls/DSS from ~3rd century BCE–1st century CE, Targums, and New Testament quotations) often preserve a more "supernatural" or messianic reading, while the later Masoretic vowel-pointing, marginal notes, and interpretive traditions (including some Targums) shift toward abstract, national, or non-divine interpretations to avoid implications of divine plurality, incarnation, or a visible divine agent.

Main Examples Discussed 

1️⃣ Psalm 22:16

This section highlights the most striking example of scribal alteration: a single stroke changing the final letter from vav (ו) to yod (י) transforms the word from ka’aru (“they have pierced”) to ka’ari (“like a lion”). The Masoretic Text (MT) reads “like a lion [are] my hands and my feet,” creating a grammatically broken sentence lacking a verb. The LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls (Nahal Hever fragment 5/6HevPs, dated 50–100 AD), and early translations preserve ka’aru (“they have pierced”), supported by the physical evidence of the fragment showing the vav. The Masorah Magna itself notes the word appears twice with different meanings, hinting the scribes knew the original was not “lion.” The change removes the direct prophecy of pierced hands and feet, which the early understanding linked to the suffering of the righteous One — the physical manifestation of Yahuah. The psalm’s ending (“He has done it” in MT vs. LXX’s “whom Yahuah made”) further masks the completed redemptive work. The Targum adds “biting like a lion” as a hybrid defense to soften the physical piercing while preserving the MT’s imagery. The author concludes this successfully hid the visible suffering of Yahusha in the text.

 2️⃣ Eve's name calling: Gen 4:1

The literal Hebrew grammar of the Masoretic Text is qaniti ish et-Yahuah (“I have acquired a man: Yahuah”), where et (את) is the direct-object marker — exactly as it marks “bore et-Cain” earlier in the same verse. Translations (LXX, Brenton, ABP+, modern versions) insert “with the help of” or “through” to avoid the plain meaning. The Targums (especially Pseudo-Jonathan) recognize the literal reading but insert “the Angel” and change “Yahuah” to “the Angel of Yahuah” to create theological distance. The author argues the scribes masked this because the literal sense reveals the ancient expectation that Yahuah would manifest as a physical man — the “Seed” of the woman — providing the linguistic foundation for the incarnation archetype from the very first generation.

3️⃣ The Discrepancy: Bed vs. Staff - Gen 47:31

The consonants מטה can be pointed as mittah (“bed”) in the MT or matteh (“staff”) in the LXX and Hebrews 11:21. The MT reads Jacob bowed “upon the head of the bed”; the LXX and New Testament quote read “upon the top of his staff.” The staff was the symbol of Yahuah’s authority, later called the rod of Elohim in Moses’ hand. Extensive midrashic and Targum Pseudo-Jonathan details describe it as a sapphire piece from the throne of glory, passed from Adam through the patriarchs to Joseph, stolen by Jethro, planted in his garden, and retrieved by Moses. It was engraved with the Name, weighed forty se’ah, and performed the plagues. The Masoretes changed the pointing to “bed” to eliminate any appearance of veneration of a physical relic linked to the sapphire throne and the visible Yahuah. The author notes Hebrews 11:21 confirms the staff reading centuries before the Masoretes, showing the MT overwrote the source text used by the apostles. This also masks the connection to the sapphire pavement seen in Exodus 24:10 and the throne in Ezekiel.

4️⃣ They saw the Place or Elohim: Exo 24:10

The MT states the elders “saw the Elohim of YasharEL” with a sapphire pavement under His feet. The LXX inserts “the place where the Elohim of YasharEL stood” to create a theological buffer, preventing any implication of direct vision of the Being (to harmonize with Exodus 33:20). The MT preserves the direct “they saw Elohim,” while verse 11 uses chazah (beheld in vision). The LXX keeps consistency with “the place” in both verses. The author explains this as the clash between visible theology (MT) and boundary theology (LXX). The 74 elders (original firstborn priesthood) stood on the sapphire substrate — the very material later linked to the staff and tablets. After the golden calf, the Levites replaced the firstborn, and access was restricted. The MT keeps the raw reality of the visible form; the LXX adds distance to protect transcendence. Numbers 12:8 and Deuteronomy 4:12 establish Moses alone saw the temunah (similitude/form), while the LXX further masks this in Numbers 12:8 by changing “form” to “glory.”

5️⃣ 1 Samuel 1:24 — The "Three Bulls" vs. The "Three-Year-Old Bull"

The MT reads “with three bulls” (parim sheloshah), but the next verse says they slew “the bull” (singular), creating contradiction. The LXX, Dead Sea Scrolls (4QSamᵃ), and logical grammar read “a three-year-old bull” (par meshulash), matching the single animal slain. The change from age-specific to quantity hides the covenantal link to Abraham’s three-year-old animals in Genesis 15:9 (the Covenant of the Pieces). The three-year-old bull symbolizes prime maturity and the “finished work.” The author connects this pattern to the three-year ministry of Yahusha, the three-day resurrection, and the pierced side, showing the MT’s numerical shift detached Hannah’s dedication from the visible covenant protocol of Yahuah.

6️⃣ Exodus 12:40 — The "430 Years" Chronological Mask

The MT limits the 430 years to “in Egypt,” creating genealogical impossibility (only four generations from Levi to Moses). The LXX and Samaritan Pentateuch include “and in the land of Canaan,” making the total 430 years from the promise to Abraham. Paul in Galatians 3:17 confirms the LXX reading. The MT’s removal of “and in Canaan” masks the starting point at “the Place” in Canaan, breaking the 490-year debt cycle (70 × 7 sabbaticals) that culminates in the arrival of Yahusha at the 5000-year mark to settle the debt of the flesh. The LXX preserves the precise gestation period of the nation under the visible promise of Yahuah.

9️⃣ 1 Samuel 14:41 (The Urim and Thummim)

The MT shortens Saul’s prayer to the abstract “give perfection” (hava tamim). The LXX and reconstructed Dead Sea Scrolls preserve the full interactive dialogue: Saul explicitly calls for “Urim” or “Thummim” to reveal guilt. The Masoretic omission removes the visible, supernatural mechanism (glowing stones revealing truth). The Talmud preserves the memory of the Urim illuminating letters, but the MT de-supernaturalizes the event. The author sees this as another instance of masking the visible communication of Yahuah through the sacred objects.

🔟 Masking the Memra

This overarching section shows how the Masoretic Text uses singular, abstract language to hide the Memra — the distinct, visible Person of Yahuah acting on earth. Examples include: • Genesis 3:22 — MT’s ambiguous “one of us” becomes Targum’s explicit Memra speaking to angels. • Exodus 20:1 — MT’s “Elohim spoke” becomes Targum’s “Yahuah spoke by His Memra.” • Exodus 24:1 — The visible Speaker tells Moses “Go up to Yahuah,” revealing two manifestations. • Exodus 3:12 — MT’s “I will be with you” becomes Targum Onkelos/Neofiti’s “My Memra shall be your support.” The LXX often follows the MT’s abstract approach under Greek philosophical influence, while Targums retain the Memra as the active, visible agent. The New Testament (John 1:1, 1 John 1:1, Revelation 19:13, etc.) fully unmasks the Memra as the Word who became flesh.

1️⃣1️⃣ The "Equalization" Mask in Genesis 48:15–16

Jacob blesses using a singular verb over “the Elohim… the Elohim… the Angel who redeemed me from all evil.” Targum Neofiti replaces “Angel” with “Memra of Yahuah who redeemed me.” Targum Pseudo-Jonathan inserts a buffer prayer (“may it be pleasing before You that the angel whom You ordained…”) to subordinate the figure and avoid direct identification with Yahuah. The MT’s direct equation and singular verb identify the redeeming Angel as the same visible manifestation of Elohim. Later Targums mask this unity to preserve distance.

1️⃣2️⃣ The Angel of His Presence Exodus 23:20–21

The Hebrew states the Angel has “My Name in his inward parts” (be-qirbo), granting authority to forgive or withhold forgiveness. Targums buffer this: Onkelos/Jonathan shift to “My Name is in his word/Memra”; Neofiti keeps the shared essence (“in My Name is his Memra”). Dead Sea Scrolls (4Q22) confirm the original inward-presence reading without buffers. Stephen in Acts 7 identifies this same Angel as the one in the burning bush and at Sinai who gave the living words. Rabbinic sources (Talmud Sanhedrin 38b, Zohar, Ramban, Rashi, Philo) link the figure to Metatron / Lesser Yahuah / Logos but later distance to avoid “Two Powers in Heaven.” The author concludes the Angel is the visible manifestation of Yahuah — the Memra bearing the Name in His essence.