These things:
10 August 14
Hi Troy & Mia; David & Marie
I seem to be getting bogged down in endless
digressions lately. Matthew 11:
The question posed -- what came you out
into the wilderness to observe? in reference to John the Baptist only comes
after the Synoptic Jesus has been asked -- through intermediaries by John who
is in prison -- You are the ___ coming, or different ____ are we
expecting? A question the Synoptic
Jesus avoids by citing the various miracles he has performed and concluding: and
happy is who likely not might have been stumbled in me. As I read it, he knows that John will
draw the proper inference: the Synoptic Jesus, by not answering I am is
admitting that he isn't. But only to
someone like John who will see the evasiveness of the answer. And (I would also
infer) by any Sanhedrin member or theological authority listening.
So the follow-up question is really an
example of artful misdirection on the part of the Synoptic Jesus, shifting the
issue from Who is the Synoptic Jesus? to Who is John the Baptist? And shifting it further to Who do you, the
crowds, think that he is? The Synoptic
Jesus offers three options: reed by
wind being shaken? is the first, upon which he doesn't elaborate (and which
is all I'm going to talk about here: I need to get past these
digressions!).
The only theological application -- again,
to someone or someones well-versed in the Torah -- would be Egypt as an
unreliable ally. Only in this case, John
isn't a broken reed, he's merely a reed by wind being shaken. The reference could, in that case, be to
John the Baptist being an unreliable ally of the Synoptic Jesus because he's
asking the question. He's not necessarily an unreliable ally, but he's an ally
whose alliance is being shaken.
The average listener, I don't think, would
have caught the reference or have known what to make of it if they had.
The, to me, obvious inference is that the
Synoptic Jesus is taking advantage of the fact that the question has been
relayed to him from John in prison.
John has been shaken sufficiently by the wind of public opinion -- the
Synoptic Jesus might be the Meshiach, because the people are thronging
to him -- to think the question worth asking.
The Synoptic Jesus knows that he isn't the Meschiach, but he does know
he's a miracle worker and so do the crowds.
He poses his questions to the crowd to shore up his populist bona fides.
It doesn't matter to him that he isn't the Meschiach as long as enough people
are persuaded that he is.
So that adds another level to the
misdirection. The Synoptic Jesus can formally answer No to the question --
which he has done by not answering Yes -- and even suggest that John the
Baptist will be happy if he isn't stumbled in the Synoptic Jesus and at the
same time maintain and reinforce the popular belief -- the crowds' belief --
that he is the Meshiach because
blind are seeing again and lame are walking
about, lepers are being cleansed and deaf are hearing and dead are being raised
up and poor are being given good news.
The references are to Isaiah 35:4-6…
(following on from the reference in 35:2 "they shall see the glory of the
YHWH and the excellency of our god")
Say to them that are of a hasty heart: Be
strong, fear not: behold your god will come vengeance, god a recompense, he
will come and save you.Then the eyes of
the blind shall be opened and the ears of the deaf shall be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as a hart and
the tongue of the dumb sing: for in the wilderness waters break out and streams
in the desert
John would, I gather, have gotten the reference
to "them that are of a hasty heart" (the KJV 1611 translates it as
"fearful heart" but, fortunately, retains the original Hebraic
meaning in the margin) and would have seen that this is what the intent of the
miracles was: to seduce those of a "hasty heart". And that would have ended his meditations on
the Synoptic Jesus.
[It's ironic that the KJV 1611 includes
Isaiah 61:1 as a citation, which is a combination Lord GOD (God) and LORD
(YHWH) reference:
The Spirit of the Lord GOD upon me, because
the YHWH hath anointed me, to preach good tidings unto the meek, he hath sent
me to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives and the
opening of the prison to them are bound: to proclaim the acceptable year of the YHWH and the day
of vengeance of our god, to comfort all that mourn
since there was no liberty to John the
Baptist as captive or "the opening of the prison" for him!]
But -- the larger theological point at
stake, as I read it -- the fulfillment of Isaiah 35:4-6 isn't what's in
doubt. As Matthew 11:2 asserts
The ____ (however, John) having heard in
the jail the works of the Christ having sent through the disciples of him
He had already heard of the works. What he was looking for was confirmation of
the reason behind the works. Are you just a miracle worker or are you
the one we've been waiting for?
I'm pretty sure John wasn't fooled.
That
was why he posed the question as simply and directly as possible in Matthew
11:3: You are the ___ coming or different ____ are we expecting? He
would have said to his disciples, This is exactly how you are to phrase the
question. Then come back and tell me EXACTLY what he said.
The only verifiable answer would be equally
simple and direct: I am. That's what John would have been looking
for. And which the Johannine Jesus uses
on several occasions -- translated as "I am he", I gather, because
the Christian Church fathers didn't "get" the reference to "I am
That I am" -- which God uses in identifying himself to Moshe as a means
for Moshe to convey who has sent him in Exodus 3:14 (I would guess that Moshe
was curious about the God/YHWH dichotomy):
And God said unto Moshe, I AM THAT I AM:
and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me
unto you."
There is God and there is YHWH. Only God -- or someone directly delegated by
God to do so -- self-identifies as "I am".
The account only appears in Matthew and
Luke. The Luke version (Luke 7:18-23)
varies in some ways. The question posed by John in Luke 7:19 is
You are the ___ coming, or different ____
we are expecting.
"We are" in Luke as opposed to
"are we" in Matthew. But when
the disciples pose the question in Luke 7:20 it's posed as
You are the ___ coming or another we are
expecting?
Two completely different Greek terms for
"different ____" and "another". This is the sort of things that make Orthodox
Jew rend their garments (metaphorically) when they contemplate Christianity. "They're theoretically disciples and
they can't even get the phrasing of the question right? And you entrench these
three different versions and call it SCRIPTURE?"
Anyway, back to Ezekiel 29 and the
references to Egypt as a broken reed.
When they took hold of thee by thy hand,
thou didst break, and rent all their shoulder and when they leaned upon thee,
thou breakest and made all their loins to be at a stand.
Again, as I read it, this constitutes
inadvertent self-indictment on the part of the YHWH, identifying clearly the
results of relying upon Not God in any form -- which is what Israel was doing
in relying on Egypt AND in relying upon the YHWH.
God then prompts with:
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold,
I will bring a sword upon thee, and cut off man and beast out of thee.
The YHWH is then left to either second the
indictment -- it's the YHWH's metaphorical sword to use or not use -- or to
refute it.
And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and
waste, and they shall know that I the YHWH: because he hath said, The river
mine, and I have made. [self-indictment
again: water is God's medium, the rivers of Egypt weren't made by and are not
the possessions of "Not God" either pagan Egypt or the YHWH] Behold
therefore, I against thee and against thy rivers and I will make the land of
Egypt wastes of waste from the tower of [Syene/Succoth] even unto the
border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall
pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be
inhabited forty years. And I will make
the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and
her cities among the cities that are laid waste, shall be desolate forty years:
and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and will disperse them
through the countries.
Which is a pretty thorough indictment which
God then sees the need to qualify with another prompt.
Yet, thus saith the Lord GOD, at the end of
forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the people wither they were
scattered.
Which leaves the YHWH with the choice of
ameliorating the verdict, maintaining the verdict or worsening the verdict
after the forty years have elapsed. The
YHWH definitely chooses the latter option:
And I will bring again the captivity of
Egypt and will cause them to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of
their habitation and they shall be there a low kingdom. It shall be the basest of the kingdoms,
neither shall it exalt itself any more above the nations: for I will diminish
them, that they shall no more rule over the nations.
Which allows God to conclude:
And it shall be no more the confidence of
the house of Israel, which bringeth iniquity to remembrance, when they shall
look after them: but they shall know that I, the Lord GOD.
Which stands as the final verdict upon
Egypt for a good seventeen years -- when God pronounces judgement, there's not
much that you can add to it, even if you're the YHWH and you're only following
the narrative on one level, not realizing that on another level you, YHWH, ARE
Egypt. What Egypt IS becomes "front
of mind" in Israel because of the verdict.
it is "iniquity" that comes to "remembrance" when
Israel looks at Egypt: not size, wealth and power.
This is distinctly unsatisfying for the
YHWH even though the YHWH has reiterated God's judgement upon Egypt. Everything is simple and
straightforward. For the YHWH (as Bob
Burden famously remarked), "This calls for an emergency!" which it
takes the YHWH literally years to come up with:
And it came to pass in the seven and
twentieth year, in the first, in the first of the month, the word of the YHWH
came unto me, saying, Son of man, Nebuchad-rezzar king of Babylon caused his
army to serve a great service against Tyrus: every head was made bald and every
shoulder was peeled: yet had he no wages, nor his army, for Tyrus, for the
service that he had served against it.
It's an artful assertion on the part of the
YHWH, directed to Ezekiel: Tyrus is evil
-- definitely Not God -- and Babylon is evil -- definitely Not God -- but
Babylon did a great service to God in attacking and subduing Tyrus. Shouldn't Babylon have a reward for that
service?
Of course, God, being omniscient, has
anticipated and anticipates this.
Therefore, thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold
I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchad-rezzar king of Babylon and he shall
take her multitude and spoil her spoil and prey her prey and it shall be the
wages for his army. I have given him the
land of Egypt for his labour wherewith he served against it, because they
wrought for me, saith the Lord GOD.
As it says in the Koran, of those who plot,
God is the best at plotting. God rewards
Not God Babylon for his service against Not God Tyrus by giving Not God Babylon
Not God Egypt for a spoil and a prey to his army. The YHWH has already made Egypt a low kingdom
by pronouncing it to be such and has now engineered its being devoured by
Babylon by posing the artful question.
The YHWH appends to chapter 29:
In that day will I cause the horn of the
house of Israel to bud forth and I will give thee the opening of the mouth in
the midst of them and they shall know that I, the YHWH.
Basically the YHWH is saying, If Babylon
has devoured Tyrus and is being given Egypt to devour as a reward for doing so,
that still leaves a devouring mouth in the midst of Israel, Babylon, Tyrus and
Egypt.
The scenario is still hatching out in the
present day. When the Muslim Brotherhood
was in control of Egypt through President Morsi, Egypt was potentially an
Israel- devouring presence.
Potentially.
Muslim Brotherhood Egypt supporting Muslim
Brotherhood Gaza supporting Muslim Brotherhood Hamas. Borders wide open, tunnels being dug,
munitions freely passing from Egypt into Gaza.
However, when General Sisi overthrew Morsi, that changed. Now the devouring presence is Israel
supported by Egypt -- the "opening of the mouth in the midst of them"
is on either side of Hamas: the Egyptian
mouth and the Israeli mouth. The
question is always the same for the Israelis: is Egypt a broken reed that we
shouldn't lean on? The answer is always
yes -- "bringing iniquity to remembrance" -- Egypt is always
unstable. You lean on Anwar Sadat and he
proves to be the broken reed -- he's assassinated by his own troops for allying
himself with you.
But, it's a qualified "yes". If General Sisi proves to be temporarily
reliable -- a reed not broken YET -- until he breaks or is broken, you have the
nutcracker you need to root out Hamas in the Gaza Strip. But the act of rooting out Hamas in itself is
definitely going to weaken -- and probably break -- the reed. You have to get in at the right time and get
out at the right time before the "opening of the mouth in the midst of
them" starts opening under you.
Oy vey!
Best,
Dave
Next Time: Winning Lottery numbers? I'm "Past" Matt!
2 comments:
"...the Christian Church fathers didn't "get" the reference to "I am That I am" ..."
As they say on the Interwebs: Wow. Just...wow.
Only someone *completely* ignorant of early Christian ("patristic") thought could say that. OF COURSE the Fathers understood this reference; those guys were not dummies.
Oh, by the way, the Fathers read the Gospels in Greek; Dave is referring to the English translations that say "I am he." The Greek is "Ego eimi," which is a direct quote from the "burning bush" scene, Exodus ch. 3, in the Greek Old Testament ("septuagint"): "I AM THAT I AM" became "ego eimi ho on" (I am He who is) in Greek.
[/pedantry]
But I'm pretty sure that Dave believes the KJV is the one true version, so there's that. See "Inspired KJV" and "KJV as a New Revelation" at the link. (Sorry the link isn't clickable, Jeff S. Remember: highlight, copy, paste.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement
Post a Comment