Hi, Everybody!
Sundays, am I right?
My printer was on the fritz. But I've got a new one, so you're getting two
weeks' worth of commentaries in one.
14 September 14
Hi Troy & Mia; David & Marie:
Okay, as I read chapter 34 of Ezekiel, as I
said last week, it begins with God asserting that the events of chapter 33 WILL
come to pass and WHEN they do, the people will know that a prophet -- Ezekiel
-- had been among them when it was announced.
The YHWH is interested in this and so,
either prompts God to elaborate on this or -- "off stage" gets the
whole thing rehearsed to he/she/it for approval before God announces it to
Ezekiel. Approval, presumably, was
forthcoming and it's the YHWH who makes contact with Ezekiel:
And the word of the YHWH came unto me,
saying
Son of man, prophecy against the shepherds
of Israel, prophecy and say unto them, Thus sayeth the Lord GOD unto the
shepherds, Woe to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves: should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the
wool, ye kill them that are fed: ye feed not the flock.
Essentially, it's more accurate
blame-laying than we saw in Chapter 33 where the blame was being laid at the
feet of Israel's "watchman":
you have to warn Pharaoh AND Israel and if you don't, then the buck
stops with you and you have to pay the price.
The YHWH is going to require Pharaoh's blood at your hand. Which is pretty short-sighted as tactics --
let alone strategies -- go. What if
Ezekiel attempts to get to Pharaoh and warn him and is taken captive before he
gets there? Which is presumably what
happened.
The advantage -- as the YHWH would see it
-- in this new model is that it recasts human beings as sheep which (I'm
guessing) the YHWH would never have seen them as being before but -- as soon as
it was presented to he/she/it in that form -- it would have a great deal of
appeal.
The imagination of man's heart isn't
necessarily evil from his youth, it's just, well, stupid most of the time. Like sheep.
They are completely domesticated by the time of Ezekiel and have been
for many, many generations. They need to
be cared for every minute of every day or they die because they're so
stupid. So the blame shifts to: Who is in charge of these sheep? Who isn't feeding them and isn't caring for
them?
It's a reasonably long list but also a
short list: Israel's political and
religious leaders. Leaders are shepherds
and it's their job to make sure that ALL of the sheep are fed.
It's simplistic, of course. Human beings aren't literally sheep -- human
beings are capable of thought and choice though lot of them ARE stupid, a lot
of them CHOOSE TO BE stupid and a lot of them CHOOSE TO BE evil (a very
different thing from BEING stupid and BEING evil). You will never eliminate
that and you will never make sure that everyone is fed to the extent that
everyone wants to be fed. But, it's certainly a more fruitful way of looking at
the situation than laying all of the blame at Ezekiel's feet because he didn't
get to Pharaoh and he didn't warn everyone in Israel and not everyone listened
to him.
The diseased have ye not strengthened,
neither have ye healed that which was sick, neither have ye bound up that which
is broken, neither have ye brought again that which was driven away, neither
have ye sought that which was lost; but with force and with cruelty have ye
ruled them.
It's interesting, because while it's a more
accurate way of viewing Israel as a collective of human beings it's also an
indictment of the YHWH's brand of theology which definitely militated against
the diseased and the sick which were excluded from the literal flocks as being
unsuitable for ritual Temple sacrifice.
And presumably this extended into the collective viewpoint that
"diseased" and "sick" were synonymous with
"evil". To say the least, the
YHWH is not inculpable in this: if anyone has been an inadequate shepherd to
Israel -- ruling the Hebrew people "with force and with cruelty" --
the YHWH is a prime suspect. But,
because the metaphorical construct is new, it allows the YHWH to evade
responsibility and lay the blame at the feet of those who are the most
"shepherd-like", structurally, in the context of Israel being viewed
as a giant sheepfold. "That which
was driven away" prefigures the core of the next Chapter -- the expulsion
of man, but not woman or womankind, from the Garden of Eden. But that's for next week.
And they were scattered because no
shepherd: and they became meat to all the beasts of the field, when they were
scattered.
My sheep wandered through all the
mountains, and upon every high hill: yea my flock was scattered upon all the
face of the earth, and none did search or seek.
And as I read it, God stops there. And leaves it up to the YHWH as to whether or
not to continue. Which the YHWH does:
Therefore, ye shepherds, hear the word of
the YHWH.
Another prompt to God: given that the YHWH concurs in the
metaphorical assessment of the sheep/shepherds model that God has suggested,
what do the shepherds need to be told?
As I live saith the Lord GOD, surely
because my flock became a prey and my flock became meat to every beast of the
field because no shepherd, neither did my shepherds search for my flock, but
the shepherds fed themselves, and fed not my flock:
Basically, the YHWH gives God a big
"amen" to that one:
Therefore, O ye shepherds hear the word of
the YHWH.
So God continues:
Thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I against
the shepherds and I will require my flock at their hand, and cause them to
cease from feeding the flock, neither shall the shepherds feed themselves any
more: for I will deliver my flock from their mouth, that they may not be meat
for them.
This is the "adjusted
requirement" provision: instead of
requiring the blood of Pharaoh and his people at the hand of the watchman,
Ezekiel, God will require the blood of the "flock" -- Israel -- at
the hand of the shepherds, the political and religious leaders who have been
feathering their own nests and -- strengthening the metaphor -- devouring the
flock like beasts of prey.
For thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I, I
will both search my sheep and seek them out.
According to the seeking a shepherd seeketh
out his flock in the day that he is among his sheep that are scattered: so will
I seek out my sheep, and will deliver them out of all places, where they have
been scattered in the cloudy and dark day.
And I will bring them out from the people,
and gather them from the countries and will bring them to their own land, and
feed them upon the mountains of Israel by the rivers, and in all the inhabited
places of the country.
I will feed them in a good pasture, and
upon the high mountains of Israel shall their fold be: there shall they lie in
a good fold and a fat pasture shall they feed upon the mountains of Israel.
I will feed my flock and I will cause them
to lie down, saith the Lord GOD.
At the time, it must have seemed -- to the
YHWH, to Ezekiel, to Israel -- an impossible dream. They could see the reality of "the
cloudy and dark day", but how do you get from HERE to THERE?
I will seek that which was lost, and bring
again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken, and
will strengthen that which was sick: but I will destroy the fat and the strong,
I will feed them with judgement.
It didn't APPEAR to add up. "The fat and the strong" ARE the
shepherds, aren't they? Without the
"fat and the strong" how can you "seek that which was lost, and
bring again that which was driven away, and will bind up that which was broken,
and will strengthen that which was sick"?
God anticipates the question:
And as for you, O my flock, thus saith the
Lord GOD, Behold I judge between small cattle and lambs and kids between the
rams and the great he-goats.
The promised judgement is more wide-ranging
than people had been used to to that point.
Wealth and strength are not implicitly good -- you are wealthy and
strong because God favours you, being the populist theory. That isn't the actual basis for belonging to
God's flock, to being one of God's lost, driven away, broken or sick
sheep. Having established that He will
judge "like" with "like" -- small cattle and lambs and kids
will be judged relative to other small cattle and lambs and kids, and rams and
great he-goats will be judged relative to to other rams and great he-goats --
God begins with the "downside" of the "fat and the strong"
-- addressing them directly -- in his metaphorical "flock" sense:
Seemeth it a small thing unto you, to have
eaten up the good pasture, but ye must tread down with your feet the residue of
your pastures? And to have drunk of the
deep waters, but ye must foul the residue with your feet?
And as for my flock, they eat that which ye
have trodden with your feet and they drink that which ye have fouled with your
feet.
Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD unto
them, Behold I, I will judge between the fat cattle and between the lean
cattle.
Because ye have thrust with the side and
with shoulder and pushed all the diseased with your horns, till ye have
scattered them abroad:
Therefore will I save my flock and they
shall no more be a prey and I will judge between cattle and cattle.
It's possible that the YHWH, at this point,
was beginning to wonder if this was being directed at he/she/it. Which, as I read it, yes it was. It came as no surprise to God, I don't think,
that the YHWH-directed faith ended up driving away God's flock. It was just a matter of continuing in that
vein until the time of Ezekiel when the results of the implicit brutality of
the YHWH were self-evident and even the YHWH could see that something needed to
be done. But God also knows that there
is a sure way of keeping the YHWH "on board" -- which, as I read it,
is the underlying purpose of the Book of Ezekiel, unanimity between God and the
YHWH: invoking and personalizing the
single individual that the YHWH has always regarded as the apex of the
otherwise worthless ranks of human beings:
And I will set up one shepherd over them
and he shall feed them, my servant David: he shall feed them and he shall be
their shepherd.
It works a charm (as God knew it would):
And I the YHWH will be their God, and my
servant David a prince among them, I the YHWH have spoken.
And I will make with them a covenant of
peace and will cause the evil beasts to cease out of the land and they will
dwell safely in the wilderness and sleep in the woods.
Which rather misses the point: changing the metaphorical "evil
beasts" -- the self-aggrandizing "shepherds" of Israel as
constituted -- back into literal "evil beasts", not in the cities,
but in the wilderness.
But, metaphorically, it's still sustainable
as far as I can see as a God/YHWH consensus.
The important metaphorical element is the "covenant of peace"
with God's "flock". Even
though I'm pretty sure that the YHWH's imperfect understanding has more to do
with scapegoating -- "it's all the fault of those fat, strong, evil
shepherds" -- than with accurate understanding, God, I think, makes
sensible allowances: the "evil beasts", "the land",
"the wilderness" and "the woods" and "sleep" can
be regarded as metaphors yet to be addressed and clarified:
And I will make them and the places around
my hill a blessing and I will cause the shower to come down in his season: there shall be showers of blessing.
God's medium: water.
The absence of which, drought, indicates Divine disfavour. Whether the
passage originates with God or the YHWH, it is a consensus view: "showers
of blessing" will be a sign that God's flock has been restored.
And the tree of the field shall yield her
fruit and earth shall yield her increase and they shall be safe in their land
and shall know that I, the YHWH, when I have broken the bands of their yoke,
and delivered them out of the hand of those that served themselves of them.
This is typical of the YHWH. Trees are masculine, metaphors of God. As it says in Genesis 1:11 "the fruit
tree yielding fruit after HIS kind, whose seed in IT self". The tree isn't
"of the field" (i.e. "of the YHWH"). The earth is identified as female ("her
increase"). Both are attempted
provocations, as I read it -- "deal breakers" -- how can God agree
with notional female trees?
"Increase" originating with the YHWH? Crediting the YHWH with breaking "the
bands of their yoke"? when the
bands originated with the YHWH in the first place?
God, significantly, says nothing. The YHWH has no idea that all of this will be
dealt with by the advent of the Shepherd, the Johannine Jesus, the literal
incarnation of who David was a prototype for AND that the YHWH will have
his/her/its own version: the Synoptic
Jesus, a literal descendant of King David.
And they shall no more be a prey to the
heathen, neither shall the beasts of the land devour them: but they shall dwell
safely, and none shall make afraid.
And I will raise up for them a plant of
renown and they shall be no more taken away with hunger in the land, neither
bear the shame of the heathen any more.
Thus shall they know that I, the YHWH their
god with them
To which God appends only:
and that they, the house of Israel, my
people, saith the Lord GOD.
And then adds, by way of correction to the
YHWH's gender inversions:
And ye, my flock of my pasture, men, I,
your God, saith the Lord GOD.
It's John the Baptist who tells two of his
disciples, "Behold the Lamb of God" and points out the Johannine
Jesus. This, to me, is God's Shepherd
Construct: sheep are not the sharpest knives in the drawer, they need
guidance. And, obviously, even among sheep,
lambs need even more guidance. A lamb is
capable of just wandering off somewhere on its own with no thought or awareness
of imminent danger. That has to be
learned through experience and observation.
The younger the lamb, the less experience and observation it has to go
on.
In this, I see God's point as being: If the Johannine Jesus ISN'T the Jewish
meschiach (and God, I think, isn't saying one way or the other) he is the
long-promised Shepherd of Ezekiel's prophecies.
This is the Shepherd who will guide, by his teachings, God's flock back
from the wilderness where they have been driven and fled and wandered. But
while the Johannine Jesus is the Shepherd, he is also God's Lamb. HE needs to be guided and sheltered and
coached and directed every step of the way of his entire life because even he,
the Shepherd, has the same limited perceptions and awarenesses that a lamb has
-- relative to a sheep and a sheep has relative to a Shepherd -- relative to
God.
Lengthy digression:
As I read it, the fullest hatching out of
this Shepherd Construct takes place in John's Gospel chapters 9-10, beginning
with the "man blind out of birth".
And questioned him the disciples of him
saying, Rabbi, who sinned, this or the parents of him, in order that blind he
should be generated?
There you have the YHWH philosophy extant
at that time and which we see being adjusted in Ezekiel 34: the strong and the wealthy are blessed by
God. Why? Because they're strong and wealthy. Someone
born blind has obviously sinned and is being punished. Or his parents sinned. Which is it? The Lamb of God is directed
SPECIFICALLY what to say about this:
Neither this sinned nor the parents of him,
but in order that might be manifested the works of the God in him.
Realizing that this is just too obscure an
observation for observant Jews to take in -- although it's pretty clear, to me,
what he's saying: blindness in and of itself isn't necessarily a punishment,
everything is an incarnation of God with different means of expressing itself
-- he attempts to qualify it.
To me, this must have been a lot of the
experience of being the Lamb of God.
What he was saying/told to say made perfect sense to him. Of course it did! It was imparted to him, directly, by God or
by some entity delegated to the task by God.
But he could also see when he was telling someone something how it was
that they were taking it. And in this
case:
Us it is necessary to be working the works
of the ____ having sent me until day is;
This is an "us" work -- this is
"of God' s flock". I wouldn't
be doing this if you hadn't asked me about the blind man. That was your "work" -- posing the
question. I'm an expression of God jut
as you are an expression of God. We are
both "works". Having this
discussion with you is one of God's "works".
But this kind of work that I'm about to do,
God's work, but performed at your unwitting behest, can only take place in this
historical moment. These kinds of works
are coming to an end. A new day will
dawn soon when I won't be here as I am now.
Then he looks further out, with God's
assistance to His Lamb:
is coming night when no one is able to be
working.
I think he would say these things because
that was what he was here to do: to enunciate truth. He would just say what he was told to say and
then he, himself, would wonder at it, because he understood it and saw how
everything fit together. And then look
at the disciples and see nothing but question marks over their heads. And he would try to find another way of
saying the same thing that they would understand:
Whenever in the world I may be, light I am
of the world.
As I read it, it's an even more profound
enunciation of the truth that he has just enunciated as it references "the
world" which, of course, is the physical incarnation of the YHWH. I doubt that it did anything for the question
marks over the disciples heads -- either increased them or decreased them --
but it did kick the imminent work into a much higher classification. He was not
only there to "illuminate" them, as both the Shepherd and the Lamb of
God, he was there to illuminate the YHWH, the earth his/her/itself.
These having said, he spat on the ground
and he made clay out of the spittle and he put upon of him the clay and upon
the eyes, and he said to him, Be going under, wash yourself into the pool of
the Siloam which is, being translated, Having been sent forth.
See, first he invokes the YHWH --
"whenever IN THE WORLD I may be, light I am OF THE WORLD". IN and OF.
And then spits on the ground, on YHWH -- which must have come as quite a
surprise! Nothing exceptional about the
ground that he spat on -- and only the YHWH would have known that -- but mixed
with the spittle of the "Having been sent forth" (metaphorically,
God's spittle), it makes a miraculous clay.
SO miraculous that it's able to heal the eyes of someone who was born
blind.
That can't be overstated: specifically, I think, it's intended to contrast
with the Synoptic Jesus -- who is credited with healing the blind, but never
specifically someone who was BORN blind.
There are all kinds of blindness:
hysterical blindness, feigned blindness, dim vision, etc. You don't need to be Jesus to be a faith
healer. Most people, properly channeled,
can heal themselves of their infirmities because most of them are the ones who
have made themselves sick.
This is one of the Johannine Jesus' few
miracles. His miracles were few but they
were monumental.
But it has its drawbacks, as all miracles
tend to:
The therefore neighbours and the beholding
him the former that beggar he was were saying, Not this is the ____ sitting and
begging? Others were saying that This
is; others were saying No, but like to him he is. That ___ was saying that I am.
"I am" is the Divine declaration,
as we have seen. The Exodus revelation
to Moshe -- "I am that I am" -- allows for the inferred inclusion of
the YHWH, both God and YHWH are "I am"s in that context. So the blind man is, in the context of the
work, blaspheming. He isn't "I
am". But, then, arguably, neither
is the Johannine Jesus. Only God is
actually "I am" but this is a "work of God". The Johannine Jesus is a "work of
God", his spittle mingled with the earth is a "work of God" with
its miraculous properties. The pool of
Siloam is a "work of God", it's very name meaning "Having been
sent forth". Arguably this was what
the pool of Siloam was created for, this "work of God". It was "sent forth" perhaps
thousands of years earlier in God's full awareness of what it was to be used
for and by whom it was to be used.
Everyone in the context of the story is "lamb-like" being
herded in a direction they don't really understand.
This leads to a lengthy confrontation
between the formerly blind man and the religious authorities which prefigures
Jesus' own trial before the Sanhedrin.
The upshot of which is that the formerly blind man is expelled from the
Temple more for the WAY he answered the authorities than for WHAT it was that
he was saying to them.
And they threw out him outside. Heard Jesus that they threw him out outside,
and having found him, he said You are believing into the son of the man?
The "son of man" is a Synoptic
Jesus self-identifier as the "lamb of God" is a Johannine Jesus
self-identifier. This suggests to me
that this is the Synoptic Jesus -- aware of the great miracle that was done by
the Johannine Jesus, healing a blind man who had been blind from his birth --
opportunistically (or, more accurately, at the opportunistic behest of the
YHWH) seeking to supplant the Johannine Jesus with himself. And being successful. The previously blind man didn't really
"register" who it was that healed him of his blindness. He wouldn't recognize him "on
sight":
Answered that and he said, And who is he,
lord, in order that I should believe into him?
Said to him the ____ (Jesus) And you have seen him and the ___ speaking
with you, that ____ is.
The ___ (however ____) said I am believing,
lord, and he did obeisance to him.
See, that's not something that someone
"having been sent forth" by God would allow. You only do obeisance to God if you're a
monotheist. But it's a tactical master
stroke by the YHWH, getting the "I am" formerly blind man to bow down
to his own proxy, the Synoptic Jesus.
Chapter 10 verses 1-18 is the Johannine Jesus reacting to the news
that his great miracle has been co-opted by the Synoptic Jesus and asserting
his own bona fides as the Shepherd of Ezekiel 34 and denouncing the Synoptic
Jesus:
Amen amen I am saying to you the ___ not
entering through the door into the fold of the sheep but going up from another
place that thief is and plunderer. The __ (however ____) entering through the
door shepherd is of the sheep.
It shows the difficulty in being "the
Lamb of God". How do you explain
what "the door" is? You
experience it and know it because that's who you are, but how do you EXPLAIN
the difference?
To this the doorkeeper is opening and the
sheep the voice of him is hearing and the own sheep he is sounding for
according to name and he is leading out them.
Whenever the own all he should thrust out, in front of them he is going,
and the sheep to him is following, because they have known the voice of him; to
stranger however not not they will follow but they will flee from him, because
not they have known of the strangers the voice.
John himself says:
This the comparison said to them the ____
(Jesus); those _____s (however, ____s) not knew what was which he was speaking
to them.
The Johannine Jesus tries again, opting for
personalization (which he often did, self-identifying as, among other things,
"the light", "the bread" and "the door"). "The doorkeeper" didn't strike
quite the accurate note he had been trying for.
The blind man did obeisance to the Synoptic Jesus, so didn't that make
HIM the doorkeeper?
Said therefore again the ____ (Jesus), Amen
amen I am saying to you, I am the door of the sheep.
It's more succinct and more specific:
All as many came before me thieves are and
plunderers; but not heard of them the sheep.
This is, presumably, accurate but dangerous
territory since, arguably, it includes all of the Jewish prophets to that point
who have been "thieves and plunderers" on behalf of the YHWH. The Johannine Jesus is, I infer, the first
who represents God exclusively. Sensing the
danger in the faces of his listeners, the Johannine Jesus retreats to the
earlier assertion:
I am the door; through me if ever anyone
should enter he will be saved and he will go in and he will go out and
pasturage he will find.
And then ventures into the same dangerous
territory. It needs to be said:
The thief not is coming if not in order
that he might thieve and he might slay and he might destroy;
You would have to have been a devotee and a
keenly observant devotee to see and accept what he was saying. You would have to have known that HE had
healed the man blind from birth and the Synoptic Jesus had come later and
induced the same fellow to do obeisance to him.
You would have had to have not doubted that knowledge and you would have
had to have drawn a profoundly negative inference from what the Synoptic Jesus
had done. That's a very tall order.
I
came in order that life they may have and abundant they may have. I am the shepherd the fine; the shepherd the
fine the soul of him is putting over the sheep;
This would have been reassuring to his
long-time listeners. Less reassuring
would have been:
the hireling and not being shepherd of whom
not is the sheep own, he is beholding the wolf coming and he is letting go off
the sheep and he is fleeing -- and the wolf is snatching them and is scattering
-- because hireling he is and not it is mattering to him about the sheep.
Even if you, as a keenly observant devotee,
knew, okay, the Johannine Jesus performed the miracle and the Synoptic Jesus is
taking credit for it. The impulse would be "What's the difference? They're both messengers sent by God, aren't
they? Think of all the healing the Synoptic Jesus has done!" It's a major drawback to being God's first
ever "God exclusive" messenger being experienced by people who
universally believe God and YHWH to be the same being.
Wisely, the Johannine Jesus limits himself
to self-description and avoids discussing the Synoptic Jesus entirely. Those who instinctively know the difference
respond to that simple truth being enunciated in a variety of ways:
I am the shepherd the fine, and I am
knowing the mine and are knowing me the mine, according as is knowing me the
Father and I am knowing the Father, and the soul of me I am putting over the
sheep. And other sheep I am having which
is not out of the fold this; and those it is necessary me to lead, and of the
voice of me they will hear, and they will become one flock, one shepherd. Through this me the Father is loving because
I am putting the soul of me, in order that again I should receive it. No one lifted up it from me, but I am putting
it from myself. Authority I am having to
put it and authority I am having again to receive it; this the commandment I
received beside of the Father of me.
Not surprisingly:
Split again occurred in the Jews through
the words these. Were saying ___
(however many out of them) Demon he is having and he is mad; why of him you are
hearing?
These would be the YHWHists,
characteristically inverting who was demon-possessed and who wasn't. The genuinely Godly knew exactly what he was
saying, that he was speaking specifically to them and they were able to hear
him in a way the others couldn't:
Others were saying These the sayings not is
of being demonized; not demon is able of blind ____s eyes to open?
Best,
Dave
Next Time: Merry Christmas, Everybody! (What'd ya get me?)