TL:DR: The Genesis Question part twenty-eight

Hi, Everybody!

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!