Or
"Grok nok Spizzle-spoots!" As you say in the future -"Past" Matt
Sunday:
26 October 14
Hi Troy & Mia; David & Marie
Ezekiel 40-42
In the five and twentieth year of our
captivity, in the beginning of the year, in the tenth of the month, in the
fourteenth year after that the city was smitten, in the self same day, the hand
of the YHWH was upon me and brought me hither.
You would have to have a far better grasp
of the ins and outs of the Jewish calendar than I have to even accurately speculate
about the meaning or "meaning" or Meaning of the date -- and even
there, I would be willing to bet that there are as many theories as there are
Jewish scholars holding them. What jumps
out at me is the "fourteenth year" and "self same
day". Which I infer means fourteen
years to the day -- the God and YHWH in tandem, seven seven -- and consequently
of great significance.
As I read it, this is signified by the
rapid switch from (what appears to be) a YHWH narrative to a God narrative --
not Lord GOD, a Name which God seems to have reserved only for the legalisms
just concluded in chapter 39:
In the visions of God brought he me into
the land of Israel, and set me upon a very high mountain [by which/upon
which] as the frame of a city on the South.
It's difficult to infer what is meant by
this: particularly how much Ezekiel himself is inferring and whether he's
inferring correctly. "The hand of
the YHWH" -- usually in the Torah, as I read it, when a hand is involved,
that's God or a God proxy, not the YHWH.
Likewise visions tend to be the province of the YHWH, not God as is
indicated here. The inversion might be
intentional, signalling a meeting point where elements of The One become
elements of the other. I'm also not sure
what "the frame of a city on the South" is intended to mean. An unfinished city? If so, this is potentially the New Jerusalem
that won't be completed until the time of John's Revelation which is the next
monotheistic appearance of these narrative elements.
And he brought me thither, and behold a
man, whose appearance like the appearance of brass, with a line of flax in his
hand & a measuring reed and he stood in the gate.
It's hard for me -- in fact impossible --
not to relate these things to Revelations where John meets an equally
extraordinary figure in 1:13-15:
And in midst of the lampstands like son of
man, having been clothed reaching the foot and having been girded about toward
the breasts girdle golden; the ___ (however head) of him and the hairs white as
wool white, as snow, and the eyes of him as flame of fire and the feet of him
like to fine copper, as in furnace of having been fired, and the voice of him
as voice of waters many
I would speculate that this is the same
contextual figure who is Part: "of God" and Part: "of YHWH"
with the balance having shifted between them in the intervening five hundred
years. The Ezekiel version is "all
brass" while in John's version only "the feet of him like to fine
copper".
It's also interesting (to me, anyway) that
John describes him on first sight as "like son of man". Interesting because John would have been
familiar with the Synoptic Jesus, although I think he was -- primarily, if not
exclusively -- a disciple of the Johannine Jesus. It seems certain, anyway, that he was the
"beloved disciple".
Interesting on another level because
Ezekiel himself is addressed as "son of man".
"Having been girded about toward the
breasts girdle golden". Although girdles are both male and female attire
at the time, the "toward the breasts" and "clothed reaching the
foot" both suggest female attire.
The head and hair "white as wool white, as snow" as a
description of a Biblical figure I don't recall being used since the
description of Moshe's hand when he drew it forth from his breast. So, indirect reference (as I read it) to a
God reference: Moshe's hand, made miraculous. And here used to describe the
head and the hair.
"the eyes of him as flame of fire
and the feet of him like to fine copper, as in furnace of having been fired" certainly suggests, to me, the YHWH. While "the voice of him as voice of
waters many" suggests God to
me.
But, back to Ezekiel 40-42:
And he brought me thither and behold, a
man, whose appearance like the appearance of brass, with a line of flax in his
hand & a measuring reed: and he stood in the gate.
I note that Ezekiel is brought, first,
"hither" -- that is, "here" -- to the mountain and then is
brought "thither" -- that is, "there" -- presumably to the
"frame of the city on the South".
It's an interesting way of putting it since "here" is where
you are and "there" is where you aren't. I suspect Ezekiel is trying to be
forensically accurate about the experience of being transported "in the
spirit" by God: that there are two transportational modes. One, where you are relocated bodily so you infer
the place you arrive at to be "hither" or "here" and two,
where only your spirit is relocated. So,
although you are able to more closely examine the place your spirit has been
relocated to, it remains "thither" or "there".
I'm not sure what a "line of
flax" is. Flax is a plant from
which we derive linen but I don't know in what part of the process
"flax" would become a "line of flax". But, like the reed, it's a simple plant, over
in the direction of the 'tender grass" which is the creation of the earth,
the YHWH (as I read the first chapter of Genesis) as distinct from trees and
animals and men which only God can create.
And the man said unto me: Son of man,
behold with thine eyes, and hear with thine ears, & set thy heart upon all
that I shall show thee: for to the intent that I might show unto thee, art thou
brought hither: declare all that thou seest to the house of Israel.
This would align with my inference of
Ezekiel trying to be as forensically accurate as possible in his descriptions
of his experience.
And behold a wall on the outside of the
house round about: and in the man's hand a measuring reed of six cubits by the
cubit, and a hand breadth: so he measured the breadth of the building, one
reed, and the height one reed.
Then came he unto the gate [which looketh
toward the East/ (Hebrew:)whose face was the way toward the East] and went
up the stairs thereof, and measured the threshold of the gate, one reed broad,
and the other threshold of the one reed broad.
These two verses, Ezekiel 40:5 and 6, begin
a lengthy description of the exact measurements of "the frame of a City on
the south". It resembles nothing so
much as the sudden injection into the narrative in Exodus the exact
measurements and composition of the construction of the Tabernacle (Exodus
25-27), a jarring and tedious interjection that I would guess has probably
caused more people to quit reading The Bible than any other.
My own inference is that this is pure
YHWHism and (more controversially) that the idea of a "place of
worship" is of pagan origin. I
infer this because it isn't until Jacob anoints the stone he has used for his
pillow -- when he dreams of a ladder stretching up to "heaven" --
that the concept of Beth El (as he rechristens the city, Luz) "House of
God" takes hold.
(a side note: reputedly that stone is the
sacred Stone of Scone which was repatriated to Scotland a few years back from
England where it had, for centuries, been ensconced beneath the throne upon
which all the kings and queens of England up to and including the present
sovereign, Elizabeth II, received their coronation and "anointing" as
God's representative on earth)
I think it needs to be said that God, over
the course of the first period of hundreds -- if not thousands -- of years of
this epoch since the advent of A Dam, felt no need to establish a place of
worship of Himself and it's only the usurper, Jacob, (who tends to invent much
of his relationship with God to suit his own material needs) who finds this
necessary. Backing up a bit:
Then came he unto the gate, whose face was
toward the east and went up the stairs thereof, and measured the threshold of
the gate, one reed broad, and the other threshold of the one reed broad.
"gate, which was" is interpolated
here in the KJV. That is, the original
Hebrew is "and the other threshold of the one reed broad" but the
translators see fit to modify that to "and the other threshold of the
GATE, WHICH WAS one reed broad."
Well, it doesn't say that and given the distinction between
"hither" and "thither" in the text, I think it's incautious
to compel the inference that the same gate is being referred to.
But returning to what I see as the Larger
Point to be made:
Although Ezekiel struggles manfully to be
as exact as he can be in his descriptions to "declare all that thou seest,
to the house of Israel", as with the description of the Tabernacle and the
later description of Solomon's Temple, it's pretty much impossible to describe
the technical aspects of architecture in prose form -- which is what all three
narratives attempt to do.
Whomever, in each context, has been pressed
into service to do so, does, I infer, describe what is being shown to him to
the best of his abilities. But, not
being an architect, he doesn't know what, specifically, it is that he's being
shown, what about it he is supposed to relate and how he is supposed to relate
it. A point, I suspect, missed by the
YHWH.
All attempts to build reconstructions of
the Tabernacle, the Temple and New Jerusalem -- from the Sistine Chapel to
religiously-themed amusement parks -- founder on the imprecision. There's a lot of guesswork involved which
seems directly contrary to the avowed Scriptural intent: to "carve in stone" the exact
mathematical construction "specs" so they can be duplicated.
So, I'm not going to attempt to explain
what I think is -- unless you're a thirtieth order of Mason, let's say --
unexplainable.
My own theory is that there are very good
YHWHistic reasons for those specs to be very exact and that those reasons
predate monotheism, per se.
Of course there isn't anything that
predates God.
But the fact that we have evidence of whole
civilizations with architectural abilities which match and, in fact, exceed our
own, suggests to me that architecture is, in itself, a potent kind of
theology. We don't really know what the
pyramids ARE, but we know that they are constructed very exactly along strict
lines of mathematical principles at a mind-boggling cost in human lives,
enslaved, and national material wealth.
WHY, we don't know.
But when I read in the Torah and in John's
Revelation these exact descriptions of "how many cubits this way" and
"how many cubits that way", I infer that that's what I'm
reading: something a) pagan and/or
YHWHistic b) mathematical c) geometric and d) precise.
Something that isn't (I infer) going to
tell me WHY it's necessarily precise because the WHY is based in a
jealously-guarded efficaciousness which is the province of a specific
mathematics/architectural based system of belief which has -- at various points
in history -- incarnated in various forms.
And is not really interested in sharing its efficaciousness with anyone
besides its own.
That is, I don't think, personally, that
there's much difference between the Aaronic priesthood in Judaism (which I
infer was entrusted with this incarnation of architectural power at the behest
of the YHWH and which kept it from all other Jews and from the goyim) OR the
Pharaonic priesthood in Egypt OR Michelangelo and his design of St. Peter's OR
the layout of Washington DC with the Washington Monument being exactly 555 feet
high and exactly the straight geometric distance that it is from the White House
and the Jefferson Memorial being a comparable exact geometric distance from the
Washington Monument at a right angle to that in terms of Larger Intent.
The Larger Intent, I infer, in each case is
intended to be spiritual captivity: to build a mathematically precise physical
construct that imprisons the individual human spirit and ensnares it within
mathematical principles so that the former serves the latter.
I don't, personally, see that as something
that would be of interest to God. It doesn't add up, in my view, for God to
give each person free will and then, by means of ancient mathematical
principles, lines of geometric force, etc. to imprison that free will so that
it's less free.
But I do see it as being something that
would of great interest to the YHWH, because it would make human beings much
easier to control (at least theoretically).
Anyone entering the Washington Beltway, as an example, would enter a
construct the attributes of which they were unaware which would be constructed
in such a way as to "channel" their energies into prescribed
patterns. If you're in the White House,
the president is the epicentre so if you know who the president is for the next
four years you know where x number of energies subordinate to him are going to
go.
To say the least, I think this was probably
a lot more effective and potent in Bronze Age Mesopotamia, Ancient Egypt and
Victorian England than it is today. But
I think God had that factored in: that
although the YHWH's pagan use of mathematics, geometry and architecture would
encroach upon, distort and corrupt the purity of free will for a period of
time that period of time was going to be irrefutably finite.
Free will would, does and will prevail.
It seems to me a good example of the Longer
View. At the time -- that is, any time
in the history of this epoch between the creation of A Dam and today -- ceding
control and exclusive use of architecture and mathematical principles to your
adversary (as I infer God does) and allowing your adversary to entrench those
principles at the core of your own Scripture would have seemed (I don't think
it understates it) theologically suicidal.
Free will is Your best thing, Your greatest gift to Your creations and
yet You allow them to be enslaved within something they won't ever begin to
understand enough to escape because they'll be inside of it.
It doesn't happen overnight as we, with our
limited lifespans would see it, but from the vantage point of the YHWH it
happens in an eye blink . Movies, radio
and TV lead men and woman away from God, proving -- insofar as the YHWH is
concerned -- that "the imagination
of man's heart, evil from his youth".
In an eye blink, all of the Temples of God
-- St. Peter's in Rome and St. Paul's in London are inhabited by a thin residue
of parishioners. God is losing. But, as I infer it, the Temples were never
God's in the first place. God, it seems
to me, is only interested in what people choose to be, how they choose to act,
what their disposition is towards Him, how accurately they perceive themselves
and others and how they interact with those others, to what extent they choose
sin and to what extent they choose virtue and for how long. It's the YHWH who wants to control people and
-- as free will expressions both good and bad proliferate -- it's the YHWH who
experiences a loss of control to a far greater extent than does God.
If going to a church or a temple or a
synagogue or a mosque helps tilt them in the direction of God and away from
sin, then (I suspect) for God there is merit in the construct itself. But the primary concern is the use of free
will. The church doesn't make the
parishioner virtuous because it's God's House.
The parishioner chooses to be as virtuous as the parishioner chooses to
be when he or she is in church but, most particularly, when he or she
isn't.
Whereas, architecturally, churches had
disproportionate control of mind and spirit by virtue of immensity and a mathematical
and geometric manipulation in an age of competing interests and structures now
they just seem to be Incarnated Metaphors of the Past.
At one time, people believed contradictory
viewpoints: that God was omnipresent but that He also had a House that we had
to go to to see Him. In time, I think
the former will become more and more self-evident and the latter will just be
seen as…peculiar and endearingly quaint.
Which is, I think I'm safe in saying, an infuriating humiliation and
comeuppance for the YHWH.
The potency of the "House of God"
construct erodes, but it erodes in God's favour and in the direction of
God. Temples, synagogues, churches and
mosques become pretty much the only places in our world that aren't dedicated
to "Not God" and so become a more potent destination for those who
have sampled, extensively, as many aspects of "Not God" as they care
to and end up limping back or (more commonly today) or limping for the first
time in the direction of God. And there
they find not an edifice constructed in such a way as to control them, but a
tiny, residual population which -- anywhere else in our society -- wouldn't
qualify as an audience worth calling by that name. Nothing compared to the audience at a rock
concert or the audience at a sporting event.
But that, I think, suits God's purposes
admirably. Quality over quantity,
genuine power of faith and efficaciousness.
No status in any way that the average North American would see in
2014. The only reason to go to church in
2014 is because of sincere faith.
Worlds away from ancient mathematical and
geometric governing principles.
Next week: God willing, Ezekiel 43
Best,
Dave
Next Time: I dunno, that's the last The Last Day prologue page I got, and I'm only on page 259 of 368. So, images from Rick's Story next week?
9 comments:
Dave always had a strange weakness for numerology -- seeing signs in figures and dates.
-- Damian
I think he was riding that Robert Anton Wilson wave for a spell.
"We don't really know what the pyramids ARE"
Tombs. The pyramids are tombs.
"[B]ut we know that they are constructed very exactly along strict lines of mathematical principles at a mind-boggling cost in human lives, enslaved, and national material wealth.
WHY, we don't know."
Because the pharaohs' status as living gods was unquestioned, and dead gods get monumental tombs.
Is Dave hand-waving, or is he really ignorant of these things?
Alright,
Mitch.
Mitch, nobody who studies these things thinks that the great pyramids of Egypt are MERELY tombs, not even the most prosaic in the field.
I suppose you're right, depending on some particularly low value of "merely".
The ancient Egyptians said they were tombs, but what did they know:
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=bI47YJQY_K8C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=ancient+egyptian+pyramid+texts#v=onepage&q&f=false
There's no real controversy about this. Yes, maybe ancient Egyptians had more--much more--ritual associated with tombs that modern Westerners do. So what? They're tombs.
Mitch.
Was Dave laying out his own beliefs when he said that the reason for gods with animal parts stemmed from the ancient Egyptians' genetic-engineering programmes? It is plausible that Dave associates some mystical meaning with the pyramids.
-- Damian
Sorry, can't resist.
(That's clearly the YHWH waiting at home with the rolling pin.)
Well, given that he associates the human thumb with the Higgs Boson, it's safe to say pretty much anything is plausible in Daveworld.
Alright,
Mitch.
Post a Comment