So, two things:
1, the bizness:
There's a Indiegogo live if you missed the Kickstarter for the birthday card.2, I ran out of pages from issue 289/290 to run in front of Dave's Genesis Question commentaries. Dave suggested I use Jewish, Christian or Muslim religious images. So:
The remastered Volume 1, digitally for $9.99.
Postcard Kickstarter, no Star code for the remastered Jaka's Story yet, but I'll add it to the list when I get it!
___________________________________________________________________________
Holy Family with Saint Anne by El Greco, or as I call it: The FIRST Supper! |
9 November 14
Hi Troy & Mia; David & Marie:
Ezekiel 44
Then he brought me back the way of the gate
of the outward Sanctuary which looketh toward the East and it shut.
Then said the YHWH unto me, This gate shall
be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the
YHWH God of Israel hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.
For the Prince; the Prince, he shall sit in
it to eat bread before the YHWH; he shall enter by the way of the porch of that
gate, and shall go out by the way of the same.
The first three verses appear -- and I
suspect are intended to be -- contradictory.
If the "gate of the outward Sanctuary which looketh toward the
east" is shut, and given that "no man shall enter by it" then
how can the Prince "enter by the way of the porch of that gate, and shall
go out by the way of the same"? The inferred answer is that the Prince
isn't a man.
It also seems worth noting that these
verses being associated with the Messianic Expectation, there is no written
record explicitly stating that either the Synoptic Jesus or the Johannine Jesus
entered either Jerusalem or the Temple by means of the gate which "looketh
toward the east" and "which no man shall enter in by it". If
either had, obviously that would have been Big News and much would have been
made of it.
It also seems worth noting that the YHWH is
the one enunciating this and appears to have adopted the idea of the Prince, as
opposed to the King (I would infer, the YHWH having seen God's point: that only
the One True God is King which makes even the most elevated ruler a Prince at
best).
It's possible that the Johannine Jesus'
assertion "I am the bread from heaven having come down" is intended
to address what would be seen as the failed Messianic Expectation that he, the
purported Prince, did not "sit in" the gate that looketh toward the
east "to eat bread before the YHWH" for the good reason that he WAS
the bread. Which, it seems to me, would
open up the possibility that the Prince was one of the individuals
"munching" on the Johannine Jesus' spirit and who, at some point,
took up residence in the aforementioned gate -- unbeknownst to anyone in the
physically incarnated world but self-evident (I would guess) to anyone in the
spiritual world.
Of course, it's also as likely that the
failure of the Johannine Jesus or the Synoptic Jesus to literally fulfill this
prophecy in Ezekiel reinforces the Judaic view that the Meschiach hasn't yet
come -- that, whatever the Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic Jesus were, it
wasn't the Meschiach.
It's also possible that the first three
verses constitute a dialogue, with the "no man" assertion of the
first two verses being refuted with "the Prince" in the third verse
(compelling the inference that the first two verses are from the YHWH and the
third verse is from God).
These next two verses, I read as the YHWH
responding to God's intended inclusiveness in the previous verses and chapters
(which have, to say the least, aroused the YHWH's suspicions):
Then brought he me the way of the North
gate before the house, and I looked and behold, the glory of the YHWH filled
the house of the YHWH and I fell upon my face.
And the YHWH said unto me, Son of man, set
thy heart and behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, all that I say
unto thee, concerning all the ordinances of the house of the YHWH, and all the
laws thereof, and mark well the entering in of the house, with every going
forth of the Sanctuary.
Essentially, I see the YHWH as (as we've
already seen) having invoked every Masonic permutation of the geometric and
mathematical precision of the design of the Temple to imprison God within it,
and then the YHWH has his/her/its self entered into the Sanctuary by means of
one gate which the YHWH has then sealed.
That basically casts the YHWH as "the one god" and leaves God
with three options for entering:
"other he"-god, she-god and it-god. On top of that, the YHWH now basically
announces a preamble "concerning all the ordinances of the house of the
YHWH, and all the laws thereof" and then leaves off. If God is determined that God and YHWH will
maintain a consensus, it's up to God to announce "ordinances" and
"laws" that satisfy the YHWH.
Which, as I read it, God proceeds to do:
And thou shalt say to the rebellious, to
the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; O ye house of Israel, let it
suffice you, of all your abominations
In that ye have brought into my Sanctuary,
children of a stranger uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, to be
in my Sanctuary to pollute it, my House when ye offer my bread, the fat and the
blood, and they have broken my covenant, because of all your abominations.
Which is,
presumably, what had happened by the time of the Babylonian Conquest:
the goyim had been permitted -- not generally, but I would guess, anecdotally
-- into the inner courts of the Jewish Temple from which they had been banned
in Moshe's Law. God, being omniscient,
is aware of where the YHWH's primary sensitivities lie and this is one of
them. Letting one unclean goy into the
inner courts of the Temple "breaks the spell".
Which I'm sure is true so far as it
goes.
I would infer that God thinks that this
admission of goys isn't the primary problem, however, and that there are two
levels to the "stranger uncircumcised in heart" -- the stranger being
the anecdotal "spell-breaking" goy for the YHWH and the YHWH for
God.
Note:
"MY bread, THE fat and THE blood" which, it seems to me, is
God drawing a sharp distinction between that which represents HIS covenant --
the bread -- and that which represents the YHWH's covenant -- the fat and the
blood. At the same time retaining all
three as aspects of the joint God/YHWH covenant being enunciated.
"All your abominations" it seems
to me has the same coloration: an indictment of the house of Israel by God on
the YHWH's behalf, but also an indictment of the YHWH by God.
And ye have not kept the charge of my holy
things: but ye have set keepers of my [charge/word/ordinance] in my Sanctuary
for your selves.
This, it seems to me, continues the same
motif. Just as the joint covenant
includes God's bread and the YHWH's blood and fat, so does the term used here
cover all three of "charge" "word" and "ordinance". In this case "charge" and
"ordinance" seem to me to be "of the YHWH" while the
"word" is God's. It works on
the two levels, addressing another of the YHWH's prime sensitivities: that the
house of Israel, in choosing "keepers" in the Sanctuary have selected
the entirely self-interested on BEHALF of the entirely self-interested. They are only ostensibly worshippers of the
YHWH and custodians of the YHWH's law but are mostly "keepers in my
Sanctuary for your selves".
Which would have been entirely pleasing to
the YHWH to have it enunciated that clearly...
…while not recognizing that it also stands
as an indictment of the YHWH who -- as we have seen -- has "set keepers
of" God's word in God's Sanctuary (the Masonic geometric and
mathematically precise structure itself) for the YHWH's own entirely
self-interested purposes.
Thus saith the Lord GOD, No stranger
uncircumcised in heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter into MY
Sanctuary, of any stranger that among the children of Israel.
I've emphasized "my" because I
think that's how it needs to be read to convey what I see as God's pointed
purpose here: to satisfy the YHWH's own
vainglorious structural inferences -- the Sanctuary, to the YHWH, IS the YHWH's
-- while also asserting the larger truth that the physical Sanctuary is only a
small part of GOD's Sanctuary and that "no stranger uncircumcised in
heart, nor uncircumcised in flesh shall enter" into GOD's Sanctuary and (I
would infer) that, rather pointedly, includes the YHWH and anyone matching the
description "among the children of Israel".
And the Levites that are gone away from me,
when Israel went astray, which went away from me after their idols, they shall
even bear their iniquity.
Addressing directly (as this, it seems to
me, appears to do) what I see as the YHWH-directed "molten calf"
rebellion under Aaron, this passage would have aroused the YHWH's suspicions as
it was being enunciated. If the Levites
who followed Aaron in the rebellion -- as distinct from the Levites who remained
on the side of Moshe -- "shall even bear their iniquity", where would
that leave the YHWH? Which, it seems to
me, God being omniscient and therefore fully aware of the YHWH's state of mind
in all situations, leads God in the direction of seeming reassurance:
Yet they shall be ministers in my
Sanctuary, charge at the gates of the house and ministering to the house: they
shall slay the burnt offering and the sacrifice for the people, and they shall
stand before them to minister unto them
That is, there is no structural change
being made to the YHWH's Laws -- either the YHWH's "charge" or the
YHWH's form of "ministering to the house" (that, the YHWH would have
found reassuring, I think). "The
burnt offering and the sacrifice FOR the people" will continue. As will the ambiguity inherent in that: it can be read as a burnt offering and a
sacrifice being made on behalf of the people or it can be read as a burnt
offering and a sacrifice representative of what the people will experience
themselves because of the idolatrous worship represented by burnt offerings and
animal sacrifices.
The YHWH, I think, would have found that
equally reassuring. If the structure
continues then Israel will continue to be worthy of a) punishment for
idolatrous, pagan animal sacrifice OR b) punishment for failure to fulfill
their "duty" towards the YHWH with idolatrous, pagan animal
sacrifice.
Heads the YHWH wins, tails Israel loses.
With God complicit in either case.
And that is, in fact, what happens -- but only
through the Second Temple and Harod's Temple when the Messianic Expectation
appears to have been fulfilled by the Johannine Jesus and the Synoptic
Jesus. Whether it was just an appearance
or an actual fulfillment, it does accomplish the end of pagan animal sacrifice
as a centrepiece of Jewish worship.
Because they ministered unto them before
their idols and were for a stumbling block of iniquity unto the house of
Israel, therefore have I lift up my hand against them saith the Lord GOD, and
they shall bear their iniquity.
And they shall not come near unto me to do
the office of a priest unto me, nor to come near to any of my holy things in
the most holy place: but they shall bear their shame and their abominations
which they have committed.
As I read this, it's God making full use of
the dual inference. Viewed as an
enunciation of the YHWH's perceptions of the Sanctuary: the ostensible YHWH
endorsement (which is actually a combined endorsement/denunciation) of pagan
animal sacrifice (which dates back to Cain and Hebel), for the YHWH's purposes
this satisfies both requirements. There
are good priests/Levites and bad priests Levites. The bad ones will be punished. The YHWH infers (incorrectly, I think) that
the YHWH will be the arbiter of the good/bad distinction. Which keeps the YHWH "on board"
"knowing" that the bad priests "shall bear their iniquity"…
…whereas what I think God is talking about
is the Larger Context of innermost motivation (which only God would know). There are priests "who ministered unto
them" -- the Jewish people -- "before their idols" (which can be read as "PRIOR to their
idols" or "IN FRONT of their idols") and there are priests who
"were for a stumbling block of iniquity unto the house of
Israel". It is the latter, I think,
that God -- the Lord GOD -- "has lift up [His] hand against
them". And I think that very much
includes the YHWH.
But I will make them keepers of the [charge/word/ordinance]
of the house for all the service thereof, and for all that shall be done therein.
It's seemingly contradictory but, as I read
it, in a way that maintains the status quo.
Yes, there are good priests and bad priests, yes, the bad priests will
be punished for being bad priests and, yes, the good priests and the bad
priests will continue ministering at God -- and YHWH's -- behest. The obvious
question is: when will the bad priests be punished? The Largest Answer, I think, is Judgement
Day. For the YHWH, however -- and I
think the YHWH was God's primary intended audience here -- that just means a
continuation of the "heads YHWH wins, tails Israel loses"
construct. Corruption and rebellion
increasing to an apex point -- like the Babylonian Conquest -- and then a
satisfying terror-filled mass bloodletting before the whole thing starts over
again.
But the priests the Levites, the sons of
Zadok, that kept the charge of my sanctuary, when the children of Israel went
astray from me, they shall come near to me to minister unto me, and they shall
stand before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord GOD.
The introduction of Zadok both clarifies
and complicates the discussion. Zadok,
according to my New Bible Dictionary:
a descendant of Eleazar, third son of
Aaron. He was priest at David's court
along with Abiathar and had charge of the ark.
He took part in the anointing of Solomon as David's successor when
Abiathar supported Adonijah. He and his
descendants discharged the chief-priestly duties in Solomon's Temple until its
destruction in 587 BC. Ezekiel restricts
the priestly privileges in his new commonwealth to the Zadokite family on the
ground that they alone were innocent of apostasy under the Monarchy.
It seems to me that this is an example of
the victor getting to write the history.
Arguably Adonijah should have been David's successor. At the very least, David's adulterous
relationship with Bathsheba would make Solomon suspect as the heir to the
kingdom. So, this -- it would seem to me
-- would have been satisfying to the YHWH: God seemingly being forced to
endorse an adulterous union and to indict "the children of Israel"
who "went astray from me" in choosing not to endorse the adulterous
union. Solomon with his many "strange
wives" and expansionist forms of worship which included a lot of paganism
would definitely be seen as YHWH's choice.
To me, it's God allowing the status quo to
continue towards its resolution with the sacrifices of the Johannine Jesus and
the Synoptic Jesus, and endorsing that status quo as a temporary but necessary
measure, even to the point of appearing to accept the blood sacrifices
personally ("…they shall stand
before me to offer unto me the fat and the blood, saith the Lord GOD"). It's a forensic distinction but, to me, a
vital one: they will OFFER the fat and
the blood. Accepted by the YHWH and not
accepted by God (again, this hearkens back to Cain and Hebel). Offering does not imply acceptance.
They shall enter into my sanctuary, and
they shall come near to my table to minister unto me, and they shall keep my [charge/word/ordinance]
Again, I think it's necessary to picture
the two levels on which this is being asserted: for the YHWH a confirmation of
the YHWH's Laws up to and including the distinction between Zadok and Abiathar.
The Temple is the Temple is the Temple.
For God, the Temple is the Temple but only
insofar as its a means to an end. The
ritual pagan sacrifice of animals needs to be continued as YHWH's charge/God's
Word/YHWH's ordinance in order for God's Word to demonstrably prevail over the
other two (which it does: the
enunciation of the Word in the first chapter of John's Gospel -- which is
almost six hundred years in the future from Ezekiel's time -- is elevating,
transformational and restorative).
And it shall come to pass when they enter
in at the gates of the inner court, they shall be clothed with linen garments
and no wool shall come upon them, whilst they minister in the gates of the
inner court and within.
They shall have linen bonnets upon their
heads, and shall have linen breaches upon their loins: they shall not gird with
anything [in
sweating places/in/with/sweat/that causeth sweat]
These two verses, I infer, are God, in His
omniscience, addressing what, I also infer, was the YHWH's innermost concern in
the charge and the ordinance regarding the use of linen exclusively in the
priestly garments instead of wool. It
does raise the question "What? Is there something EVIL about wool? Is that why the priests can't wear wool when
they go into the holy of holies?"
It seems (as I read it, anyway)
that it's purely an aesthetic thing:
wearing wool in that enclosed a space causes sweat and sweat stinks and
YHWH doesn't want stinky sweat in the YHWH's holy of holies.
There follow several reiterations of
YHWHistic Levitical laws (again, I would infer, God -- knowing where the YHWH's
priorities lie for whatever obscure reasons known only to the YHWH and to God
-- being as amenable and inclusive as possible of those YHWHistic
peculiarities):
And when they go forth into the utter
court, into the utter court to the people, they shall put off their garments
wherein they ministered, and lay them in the holy chambers, and they shall put
on other garments, and they shall not sanctify the people with their garments.
Neither shall they shave their heads, nor
suffer their locks to grow long, they shall only poll their heads.
(That's an interesting one: seeming to refute the "separation
vow" of the Nazirite as enunciated by the YHWH in Numbers 6:5 -- Samson is
probably the most famous Nazirite -- wherein he wouldn't shave or cut his hair,
in favour of the "polling" of hair -- thinning it with brushes and
combs is what I infer -- without cutting it.)
Neither shall any priest drink wine when
they enter into the inner court.
(likewise with this verse which seems to
refute the Nazirite "separation vow" of eschewing not only alcohol
but grapes and any grape by-product in favour of not drinking wine before
entering into the inner court)
Neither shall they take for their wives a widow
or her that is [put
away/thrust forth] but they shall take maidens of the seed of the house of
Israel, or a widow [from a priest/that had a priest before]
(all of these would suggest that God isn't
directly refuting the YHWH, but rather moderating the YHWH's laws in the
interest of maintaining concurrence.
Which would certainly have assuaged the YHWH's generally suspicious
nature)
And they shall teach my people [interpolated: the
difference] between the holy and profane and cause men to discern between
the unclean and the clean.
The interpolation of "the
difference" is certainly understandable but, to me, misses the subtlety of
what God -- Lord GOD -- is actually enunciating and framing: a Sanctuary which
reflects both God and the YHWH. Far from
teaching "the difference" between holy and profane what is being
proposed, as I read it, is teaching God's people and the YHWH's people on a
middle ground between the holy and the profane.
Both God's holiness and the YHWH's profane constructs will be retained
and both will be taught, God having every confidence that holiness will
ultimately prevail over the profane.
And in controversy they shall stand in
judgement, and they shall judge it according to my judgements: and they shall
keep my laws and my statutes in all mine assemblies and they shall hallow my
Sabbaths.
See, as I read it, there it is again: "in controversy they shall stand in
judgement" can be read two ways. In
A controversy or in a controversial matter or construct, they -- God's people
and YHWH's people -- will stand in judgement.
But they will also inhabit controversy, the Sanctuary itself will be
based ON and IN controversy.
They will also both judge and BE
judged. Both interpretations match the
assertion that "they shall stand in judgement". "And they shall judge it according to my
judgements". It would be hard for
the YHWH not to endorse this given that the YHWH believes the Sanctuary to be
both structurally and irrefutably the YHWH's in a way engineered so as to -- by
definition -- supersede God.
"Sabbaths" plural is an
interesting addition here. The YHWH
naturally infers that it's referring exclusively to the "sundown to
sundown" Jewish Sabbath, whereas I think what God is addressing is that
the nature of the Sabbath itself -- in the context of God's Sanctuary -- which
will reveal itself as having a twofold nature in the fullness of time: the Jewish Sabbath and the Christian
Sabbath. Another example of "in
controversy they shall stand in judgement". Is the Jewish Sabbath wrong or is the
Christian Sabbath wrong? Whether you're
Jewish or Christian or pagan, you are IN that controversy and you are,
personally, standing "in judgement" depending on how you choose to
act, personally, IN that controversy.
And they shall come at no dead person to
defile themselves: but for father or for mother or for son or for daughter for
brother or for sister that hath had no husband they may defile themselves.
Again, this is strict, by the book,
YHWHistic Levitical law.
And after he is cleansed they shall reckon
unto him seven days.
And in the day that he goeth into the
sanctuary, unto the inner court, to minister in the sanctuary, he shall offer
his sin offering, saith the Lord GOD.
God doesn't have to call it that to
maintain the consensus with the YHWH. My
own inference is that the "sin offering" was so named by the YHWH as
an artful bit of cleverness to indict men for being inherently sinful. "This offering is sinful which is why I
called it a 'sin offering'". God,
as an omniscient being, would know that. But here, it seems to me, for His own
Larger Purposes, He's content to retain that.
In God's Sanctuary, the issue, as I read it, isn't the nature of the
offering or the fact that a sacrificial offering is by nature pagan and
"in opposition to God". The
issue is innermost motivation. If you
are following Levitical law scrupulously because you're sure that it is God's
Law, that (it seems to me is God's point) is your innermost motivation. You're "in controversy" and you are
judging and being judged -- but, I infer, on a very different scale of values
from those perceived by, enunciated by and dictated by the YHWH.
And it shall be unto them for an
inheritance; I their inheritance: and ye shall give them no possession in
Israel; I their possession
To me, a monumental and epoch-making
assertion: basically this is the YHWH's
assertion regarding the Levites: that
they are a separate tribe that isn't given a plot of land in the Promised Land
because the YHWH is their inheritance and their possession. Basically God adopts it for Himself. Even though it was directed at Him in a
negative way -- as a means of the YHWH to insulate his/her/its self behind a
tribe of priests ministering to the YHWH and enacting the YHWH's laws -- God
turns it to a good purpose. God is
Israel's inheritance and God is Israel's possession.
They shall eat the meat offering, and the
sin offering, and the trespass offering and every [dedicated/devoted]
thing in Israel shall be theirs.
It's another tripartite iteration of the
structure. On the one hand, the offering
is just a meat offering. In that sense
it's God's if that is your innermost motivation in offering it: to find favour
in the sight of God. But it's also a
"sin offering" and a "trespass offering" -- an offering
motivated by sin against God and motivated by the desire to trespass against
God. That makes it a YHWH offering. "Every dedicated/devoted thing in
Israel shall be theirs". Theirs in
the sense that they choose to whom it is dedicated and devoted. "In controversy they shall stand in
judgement". The YHWH has no way of
knowing that this will continue for another nearly six hundred years before
another massive bloodletting, all by God's permission and all according to
God's plan.
And the first of all the first fruits of
all things, and every oblation of all of every sort of your oblations shall be
the priest's: ye shall also give unto the priest the first of your dough, that
he may cause the blessing to rest in thy house.
In other words, even though the priestly
class has been created by the YHWH AT God and to spite God, God has nothing
against the priests per se. Nor does God
have anything against the YHWH's dietary laws or means of "sharing the
wealth". All of those are beside
the point when compared with innermost motivation. WHAT does the individual priest do and WHY
does the individual priest do that?
That's all that really matters to God.
And one final Levitical instruction (which
is also enunciated in the Koran, as a general rule of dietary law -- lest God
be viewed as inconsistent):
The priest shall not eat any thing that is
dead of itself or torn, whether it be foul or beast.
Next week, God willing, Ezekiel 45.
Best,
___________________________________________________________________________
Next Time: I'm doing these ahead again, so... I got know idea what that wacky Future Matt is up to...
5 comments:
More El Greco, please! I loves me some of the Greek guy!
Hm. This week's logorrhea isn't as funny as last week's.
-- Damian
"Which, as I read it, God proceeds to do:
And thou shalt say to the rebellious, to the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD"
-- I suspect this issue has come up before (I just discovered the blog, and haven't read the archives), but how do you handle the fact that the Hebrew here doesn't say anything like "Elohim" ("God")? "Lord GOD" is the KJV convention for rendering "Adonai YHWH" (given that "Lord LORD" would read weird), and that is in fact what the Hebrew says here: Adonai YHWH says the things following.
Yes, Daniel; Apparently Dave thinks "YHWH" and "Adonai YHWH" are two separate beings. Nobody here can figure out why, or actually cares that much...
He also renders English sentences with Greek syntax, which he seems to consider "authentic" or some such thing. We got tired of making fun of it - mostly - oh, 25 or 30 "installments" ago.
Post a Comment