So, two things:
1, the bizness:
There's a Indiegogo live if you missed the Kickstarter for the birthday card.
The remastered Volume 1, digitally for $9.99.
Postcard Kickstarter ya got three weeks! no Star code for the remastered Jaka's Story yet, but I'll add it to the list when I get it!
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. But then, Superman's Frenemy: David Birdsong sent in a bunch of (so far) unused Cerebus in Hell? images and now I'ma gonna run them. So:
____________________________________________________________________________
image by Doré, Sim & Birdsong |
16 November 14
Hi Troy & Mia; David & Marie:
Ezeiel 45
Moreover [Hebrew: when ye cause the land to
fall/when ye shall divide by lot the land for inheritance] ye shall offer an
oblation unto the Lord, [Hebrew: holiness/a holy portion] of the land:
the length the length of five and twenty thousand, and the breadth ten
thousand: this holy in all the borders thereof round about.
It's an interesting way of phrasing it and,
to me, it's not surprising that the translators of the KJV chose "when ye
shall divide by lot the land for inheritance" as a replacement for the
more literal translation from the Hebrew: "when ye cause the land to
fall". I think the latter is a more
accurate expression of what God is doing here, which I read as capitulating to
the YHWH's theological structure in the -- long term -- interest of assisting
the YHWH to arrive at more rational conclusions.
"Causing the land to fall" in the
short term is what the YHWH's followers will be doing: essentially the
Babylonian Conquest will reiterate itself under Roman rule as a direct
consequence of the YHWH's inherent paganism.
But, of course, the YHWH, in a real sense,
IS the land. Which I suspect is God's
Larger Meaning concealed from the YHWH by virtue of the YHWH's own overweening
vanity. Even as late as 1611, when the
Bible was being translated, God's accomplishment was unrecognized. The translators, reading "holiness of
the land" convolute the meaning into "a holy portion of the land". No, what God promised to do in Ezekiel's time
was to redeem not only "the house of Israel" -- the Temple and the
nation -- but also the holiness inherent in the land Israel was -- and is --
built upon. That is, the YHWH, even
contemplated as a strictly physical entity, is not without holiness. God intends to redeem that holiness…while
appearing to subvert His own avowed purpose by capitulating to the YHWH's
UNholiness: the YHWH's paganism.
God, as I read it, methodically sets about
His purpose:
Of this there shall be for the Sanctuary
five hundredth, with five hundredth square round about and fifty cubits round
about for the [suburbs/void
places] thereof
And of this measure shalt thou measure the
length of five and twenty thousand and the breadth of ten thousand: and in it
shall be the Sanctuary [interpolated: and] the most holy place
"In it", as I read it, is the key
point. God is describing the Sanctuary
as a microcosm of Israel. Which, again, as I read it, is a point the
translators missed: "IN IT shall be the Sanctuary the most holy
place". The "holy of
holies", the innermost sanctum of the Temple is here construed as being,
metaphorically, the same AS the Sanctuary, the Temple itself. I'm sure the YHWH got the point right away: if the "holy of holies", the
innermost sanctum IS the Temple, what does that imply about the area AROUND the
Temple?
The holy portion of the land shall be for
the priests, the ministers of the Sanctuary, which shall come near to minister
unto the YHWH, and it shall be a place for houses and a holy place for the
Sanctuary.
And the five and twenty thousand of length,
and the ten thousand of breadth, shall also the Levites, the ministers of the
house have for themselves, for a possession for twenty chambers.
And ye shall appoint the possession of the
city five thousand broad, and five and twenty thousand long over against the
oblation of the holy portion: it shall be for the whole house of Israel.
This is, I think, where the translators got
the "portion" term that they grafted onto the earlier verse. But, I think they were missing the point.
See, it's particularly interesting to me because, as I read it, what God is
doing is finding a meeting place between God and YHWH, while also being aware
that the YHWH is, structurally, attempting to ensnare and imprison God within
the geometrically exact and mathematically exact Masonic Temple construct.
And what God is doing here is saying,
"Well, you missed a good bet, here, YHWH.
You've got Me -- theoretically -- trapped in the holy of holies, with
the Sanctuary itself as a prison within the prison. If you 'scale that up' and make the
geographic area AROUND the Temple into another prison: strictly inhabited by
the Levites who are offering pagan animal sacrifices on your behalf and against
Me, then you've got another layer of imprisoning context." It's like Houdini helpfully offering advice
on how to make the chains and locks you're putting on him more secure.
And [a portion shall be] for the prince on
the one side, and on the other side of the oblation of the holy [interpolation:
portion] and of the possession of the city, before the oblation of the holy [interpolation:
portion] and before the possession of the city from the West side Westward,
and from the East side Eastward, and the length over against one of the
portions from the West border unto the East border.
The translators keep wanting to stick
"portion" in there, as you can see.
They just see this as an instruction on "divvying up"
Israel. The Levites get a portion and
the prince gets a portion.
As I read it, it's actually a conclusion to
the discussion on the part of God.
Basically, God saying, if you (YHWH) set things up this way, the prince,
when he comes -- the "next David" so to speak, as the YHWH would read
it -- then he will already inhabit the context, between the Levites who will
have all of this physical territory around the Temple exclusively and the holy
of holies which is (theoretically) where The One True God lives and where the
YHWH keeps trying to trap God within that YHWHistic context. That will be "his place": the
"prince's" place.
It's structurally unworkable from a
YHWHistic perspective, but I don't think the YHWH saw that -- just the inherent
logic of building another insulating layer around the Temple itself.
The problem was that there were two
conflicting constructs: the monarchy had
established the supposition that when the "next David" arrived he
would be a King as David was and as the promised "prince" would be
(prince is a strictly royal title). And, on the other hand, you had the
Levitical priesthood, a competing power.
(which continues throughout human
history. Henry VIII basically made
himself into a substitute Pope by forming the Church of England and
endeavouring to make himself the head of the government AND the Church. The United States early on framed things in
terms of the separation of Church and State for the same reason: competing
interests that needed to be resolved structurally)
What God was proposing was physically
putting the royal figure between a rock -- "the holy of holies" --
and a hard place -- the Levitical geographic territory surrounding the
Temple. Ultimately, the Chief Priest
becomes the de facto "prince" as a result, which we see clearly in
the Jesus narratives. Once elevated to
the highest point in the Judaic theological context, proximate to God in the
holy of holies and ruler of all you surveyed in the area surrounding the Temple
it would be hard NOT to wonder if you were the "prince" promised in
Ezekiel's time and quite easy to keep control over any political or military
leader attempting to become "the prince".
It's strategically brilliant: it appeals to the YHWH's urge to contain God
within another layer of imprisonment -- so making it impossible for the YHWH to
object to it as a consensus construct with God -- while also serving to
politicize the office of Chief Priest, while anchoring the political within the
religious.
Once inserted into that construct, pretty
much every decision that you make would be political in one form or
another. The government of Israel is
subservient to you -- or is wrestling with you or, more likely, both. Whomever was the highest ranking
administrator, external to the religious context, in whatever time period could
also be forgiven for thinking himself to be "the prince".
This is why I see this as a conclusion and
not as "divvying up" Israel:
In the land shall be his possession in
Israel, and my princes shall no more oppress my people, and [interpolated: the
rest] of the land shall they give to the house of Israel according to their
tribes.
For God, every man serving at the apex of
any human construct is, structurally, a prince (with God as King). Reading it in that way, it includes the
YHWH. God is content to be
"imprisoned" by the YHWH and to allow the YHWH to perceive
his/her/its self as having dominion because it means that "innermost
motivation" comes to the fore. The
beneficent use of free will. Whether
you're the Chief Priest and think yourself to be "the prince" or
whether you're the senior administrator of Israel as a political entity and
think yourself to be "the prince", you have your instructions, direct
from God and YHWH. You shall "no
more oppress my people" and (secondary concern) you shall "of the
land…give to the house of Israel according to their tribes".
Thus saith the Lord GOD, let it suffice
you, O princes of Israel: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgement and
justice, take away your [Hebrew: expulsions/exactions] from my people, saith
the Lord GOD.
It's been a long, strange journey to arrive
at this point, but there was no point in enunciating all this without a
multi-thousand year history of violence and spoil, bad judgement and injustice,
expulsions (starting with the Garden of Eden) and exactions. The entire corrupt monarchy in Israel and
Judah needed to be gotten through so that observant Jews could know the
difference between a "good prince" and a "bad prince".
And God is doing this exclusively in the
YHWH's own frames of reference and, as I read it, in that spirit frames it in
YHWHistic terms:
Ye shall have just balances, and a just
Ephah, and a just Bath.
The Ephah and the Bath shall be one
measure, that the Bath may contain the tenth part of an Homer, and the Ephah
the tenth part of an Homer: the measure thereof shall be after the Homer.
And the shekel twenty Gerahs, twenty
shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels shall be your Maneh.
This is the oblation that ye shall offer,
the sixth part of an Ephah of an Homer of wheat, & ye shall give the sixth
part of an Ephah of an Homer of barley.
Concerning the ordinance of oil, the Bath
of oil, the tenth part of a Bath out of the Cor, an Homer of ten Baths, for ten
Baths an Homer.
The Larger Idea that I see God as conveying
here, is to move from the instructions to "those who would be the
prince" -- he who will aspire to be the prince -- to the smallest scale
and most literal and exact parts of the Law of Moshe with which every Jew was
personally familiar. Exact weights and
measurements. The sense conveyed is that
they're the same thing. You know good
and evil. Choose good. You know exact
weights and fraudulent weights. Weigh exactly.
It's all "of a piece" -- from the
size of the holy of holies relative to the Temple and the Temple relative to
the proposed surrounding Levitical habitations down to the daily measurements
used to measure what quantities you buy wheat and barley in.
That is, if you aspire to be "the
prince", you need to internalize ALL of that and be as exact as possible
in executing it/them. When does (as an
example) good public order become state-sanctioned "violence"? When does the financing of common welfare
become "spoil"? This, I read,
as the underlying message of "Let it suffice you, O princes of
Israel". If you have moved yourself
or found yourself at an apex point in the Judaic context, "Let it suffice
you".
And one [lamb/kid] out of the flock, out
of two hundred, out of the fat pastures of Israel for a meat offering, and for
a burnt offering, and for peace offerings to make a reconciliation for them,
saith the Lord GOD.
Note that God -- Lord God -- is specific in
what He is calling for. Not a "sin
offering" but "a meat offering, a burnt offering and for peace
offerings to make a reconciliation".
This hinges as well, as do all of God's instructions (as I read them),
on innermost motivation. If your
motivation in sacrificing a lamb or a kid of the goats is made to Him with your
innermost motivation being "reconciliation", THAT God accepts, even
though technically and structurally it's a pagan act. And, lest the YHWH accuse
God of weaselling out of the agreed-upon context:
All the people of the land [Hebrew: shall be
for] [shall (interpolated:) give] this oblation [for/with] the prince
in Israel.
The translators of the KJV, as I read it,
stumbled over this part because they lived on the other side of part of the
fulfillment and a few hundred years prior to the other part of the fulfillment
(the Holocaust). The sense of the Hebrew
is very specific: "All the people
of the land SHALL BE this oblation FOR the prince in Israel and WITH the prince
in Israel."
Basically, as I read it, there was no
agreement between God and YHWH on dominion over "the cattle" in
Genesis 1:26 (I infer that the "us" refers to God and YHWH):
And God said, let us make man in our Image,
after our likeness and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over
the fowl of the air and OVER THE CATTLE, AND OVER ALL THE EARTH and over every
creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
I think the YHWH's response can be
reasonably inferred from the content of Genesis 1:28:
And God blessed them, and God said unto
them, Be fruitful and multiply and REPLENISH THE EARTH AND SUDUE IT, and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air and over every
living thing that creepeth upon the earth.
That is, man was not given dominion over
the cattle or the earth (the YHWH).
Whereupon the YHWH instructed man to sacrifice cattle to the YHWH. Which, I infer, man was supposed to know he
was not supposed to do (all he had to do was read those two verses in the first
chapter of Genesis). So, basically, man
-- by sacrificing cattle to which he had no claim -- was making himself liable
for sacrifice. One man for each
cattle.
Hence:
"All the people of the land shall be for this oblation FOR the
prince in Israel/ WITH the prince in Israel" makes perfect, albeit
horrific, sense in the context, ultimately leading to the Holocaust. The interpolation changes that exact
meaning. As, it seems to me, does the
interpolation in the next verse:
And it shall be the prince's part [interpolated: to
give] burnt offerings, and meat offerings and drink offerings, in the
feasts, and in the new moons, and in the Sabbaths, in all the solemnities of
the house of Israel: he shall prepare
the sin offering and the meat offering, and the burnt offering and the peace
offerings to make reconciliation for the house of Israel.
See, it seems to me that God is just being
an inclusive as is necessary in the context.
Part of "the prince's part" is to BE burnt offerings and meat
offerings and drink offerings. This was
what the Johannine Jesus was talking about in offering his flesh to eat and his
blood to drink -- and that of the Synoptic Jesus. He was the inferred "prince" and
the first not to just make a metaphorical self-sacrifice of the cattle, but to
BECOME the sacrificial animal in himself. And it IS a "sin offering":
explicitly stated.
But, at the time, the YHWH could be
forgiven for thinking that God had lost His mind:
Thus saith the Lord GOD, In the first [interpolate:
month], in the first [interpolated: day] of the month, thou shall
take a young bullock without blemish, and cleanse the Sanctuary.
And the priest shall take of the blood of
the sin offering, and put it upon the posts of the house, and upon the four
corners of the settle of the Altar, and upon the posts of the gate of the inner
court.
And so thou shalt do the seventh of the
month, for every one that erreth, and for him that is simple: so shall ye
reconcile the house.
"Every one that erreth and for him
that is simple" is a good way of putting it. Yes, it's pretty basic that man was not given
dominion over the cattle. It's right
there in the first chapter. It's an
error and a dumb one ("simple" is a nice way of putting it) on the
part of men, generally. But the YHWH, I
think, would have seen it as an inconceivable "capstone" for God to
basically concede the promised "prince" as being basically "of a
piece" with every man who came before him:
erring in sacrificing cattle and "simple" in not seeing how
stupid it was to do that.
In the first, in the fourteenth day of the
month, ye shall have the passover, a feast of seven days, unleavened bread
shall be eaten.
And upon that day shall the prince prepare
for himself, and for all the people of the land, a bullock for a sin offering.
And there it is, the prince will PREPARE
FOR HIMSELF AND FOR ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE LAND a bullock for a SIN
offering. As far as the YHWH could see,
there was no escape clause.
There WAS an escape clause, but strictly
one based in inference. Who WAS "the prince"? Two itinerant preachers? Or the designated apex of the Judaic Temple
observance?
At the same time that the Synoptic Jesus
and the Johannine Jesus were preparing for themselves to BE sacrifices, the
Chief Priest would be enacting the next part of the covenant between God and
YHWH:
And seven days of the feast, he shall
prepare a burnt offering to the YHWH, seven bullocks, and seven rams without
blemish daily the seven days, and a kid of the goats daily for a sin
offering.
And he shall prepare a meat offering of an
Ephah for a bullock, and an Ephah for a ram, and a Hin of oil for an Ephah.
In the seventh, in the fifteenth day of the
month shall he do the like in the feast of the seven days, according to the sin
offering, according to the burnt offering, & according to the meat
offering, and according to the oil.
If the Chief Priest was "the
prince" or if "the prince" was yet to come, it was all status
quo. The Chief Priest did what he was
supposed to do according to the covenant that concludes the Book of Ezekiel.
But inference was the central problem.
Who inferred what?
The idea that either the Johannine Jesus or
the Synoptic Jesus were "the prince" would not have been a popular
one at the time of their deaths and for many decades afterward. It would have just been seen as a weird
Jewish heresy, both by the Jews and by the goyim. But that popularity would
shift dramatically as 70 AD and the newest destruction of the Temple came about
-- and then shift even more dramatically as there was, this time, a Jewish AND
Christian diaspora which resulted. The
weird Jewish heresy, in retrospect, was quite specifically prophetic about what
was about to happen. And WHY it was about to happen.
The inference evolved and became a societal
juggernaut which steamrolled the YHWH's pagan Temple worship.
God is not mocked.
Next week, God willing, Ezekiel 46.
Best,
Dave
______________________________________________________________________________
Next Time: Everybody gets laid! (Or not...) -PAST Matt!!!
2 comments:
Once again we should all give thanks to Dave, the first person in history to understand the Bible correctly, for giving us "a more accurate expression of what God is doing".
Pretty funny this week! I love how Dave's conclusions directly contradict the text he quotes. Reminds me of Neil Gaiman's paraphrase of Dave's views: "Of course, your proving me wrong just demonstrates how right I am."
-- Damian
"And what God is doing here is saying..."
"Basically, God saying..."
"What God was proposing was..."
It's difficult to even imagine how much actual time Dave has wasted over the last decade or so figuring out the mind of God (i.e. disappearing into a wormhole of insanity). It's too bad he wasn't doing something useful with all that time. Instead, we now probably have as much bullshit about God as we have Cerebus stories. God, that's depressing.
Post a Comment