TL:DR: The Genesis Question part forty-five

Hi, Everybody!

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 it ends today, so I hopes you gots yours!  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

7 December 14

Hi Troy & Mia; David & Marie!

Ezekiel 48

Now these [interpolated: are] the names of the Tribes, from the North end to the coast of the way of Hathlon, as one goeth to Hamath, Hazar-enan, the border of Damascus Northward, to the coast of (for these are his sides East & West) [interpolated: a portion] for Dan

It's odd that the listing of the tribes begins with Dan, since Reuben was the eldest son of Jacob/Israel.  It's also worth noting, I think, that Dan is the only tribe not represented as being "sealed" in Revelations 7.  According to my NEW BIBLE DICTIONARY that was because it was generally believed that the anti-Christ was destined to come out of the tribe of Dan.  Which is interesting to me, more in a "where on earth are they getting THAT from?" sense than in any theological sense. 

I would guess that the two facts -- Dan "leading off" Ezekiel 48 and Dan being omitted in Revelations 7 -- are related.  But, without any scriptural citation to support the "anti-Christ" supposition, I put the interpretation of what relationship there might be between those facts, in the "known only to God" category.

And by the border of Dan, from the East side unto the West, [interpolated; a portion] for Asher

And by the border of Asher, from the East side even unto the West side, [interpolated: a portion] for Naphtali

And by the border of Naphtali, from the East Side unto the West side, [interpolated: a portion] for Manasseh

And by the border of Manasseh, from the East side unto the West side, [interpolated: a portion] for Ephraim

And by the border of Ephraim, from the East side even unto the West side, [interpolated: a portion] for Reuben

And by the border of Reuben, from the East side unto the West side, [interpolated: a portion] for Judah

In a more general sense, I always wonder at the interpolations in the Torah, the Gospels and the Koran.  What sort of person or institution has so exalted an opinion of itself that it deems itself fully equipped, first of all, to suggest that it knows that there's something missing from God's Word and, second of all, that it knows exactly what it is that IS missing.

Here, "a portion" -- interpolated into seven consecutive scriptures -- it seems to me, prejudices the meaning of the text.  If God had intended it to say "a portion" I think God would have dictated it -- or delegated someone else to dictate it -- to Ezekiel.  All we can say for certain is that the original text simply cited the seven tribes in question and prefaced each tribe with "for".   That is, the text specifically only cites a geographic location having a) "East side" and "West side" parameters, b) adjacency to another geographic location c) that each geographic location is "for" a specific tribe.  It says absolutely nothing that would suggest "a portion", a term which has the compelled inference of equivalency:  that each tribe is being given a territory exactly comparable in size.

I'm not saying that that isn't what it is intended by God, what I'm saying is that isn't what the text says and means that human beings are eliminating meaning and narrowing meaning on their own initiative by interpolating terms like "a portion".

I think this is particularly important since, as we've already seen, Ezekiel 47:22 specifically states that "the strangers that sojourn among" the Tribes "shall have inheritance with you".  

It doesn't say how that is to be accomplished. 

In my reading of Scripture, it's not uncommon for God to appear to be unspecific in His pronouncements.  A good example is the answer to the question posed in the Koran as to what men are supposed to give as alms.  The answer is "What ye can spare."  Which is a real nutcracker of an answer.  How do I know how much I can spare?  Elsewhere in the Koran, it gets a little more specific:  "Neither have your hand tied up to the neck, neither open it with all openness lest ye sit you down in rebuke, in beggary." 

But, it's still a test of individual interpretation.  How generous are you?  How much do you keep for yourself and how much do you give to the poor? Okay, you actually gave some money to the poor.  Look at how much that was.  Do you REALLY think that that's ALL you can spare? Get your own mental image of "How much I think I can spare MAXIMUM" -- the point at which you would begin to jeopardize your own financial security and well-being, risking "rebuke and beggary" -- and "How much I think I can spare MINIMUM" and place your donation on that spectrum.  Are you erring on the side of generosity or on the side of greed and avarice?

This part of Ezekiel seems to me to be in the same category.  The Jews have already been instructed -- at the end of the previous chapter -- to divide by lot their inheritance unto themselves and also unto the stranger.  It seems to me the same inherent structure applies:  God isn't necessary telling them to compromise the inherently Jewish nature of Israel (although He isn't necessarily NOT telling them to compromise the inherently Jewish nature of Israel), but He is explicitly telling them that they can't have an Exclusively Jewish Israel: that "strangers" who "sojourn" among them and have children in their midst must also be allowed to inherit the land.  How much of it?  Doesn't say.  More from one tribe than another? Doesn't say.  Prime land or lesser quality land?  Doesn't say. 

Interesting that -- just this week -- that was the deal-breaker which led to the calling of an election in Israel next year:  the reluctance and then refusal of the non-right wing political parties in the governing coalition to allow Benjamin Netanyahu to formally declare Israel a Jewish State.

The whole thing blows wide open in the next section which deals with the Levites and -- as I read it -- the attempt on the part of the YHWH, by means of Masonic geometry, architecture and mathematical precision, to imprison God within the Sanctuary/Temple:        

And by the border of Judah, from the East side unto the West side, shall be the offering which they shall offer of five and twenty thousand [interpolated: reeds in] breadth, and [interpolated: in] breadth, and [interpolated: in] length as one of the [interpolated: other] parts, from the East side unto the West side, and the Sanctuary shall be in the midst of it.

My own inference is that this is God reinforcing the "water narrative" of Ezekiel 47:2-5 where the water flowing out -- Eastward -- from the Sanctuary/Temple achieves such depth that it becomes impassable. Here God attempts to establish the size of the "macro-Sanctuary" -- the size of the precincts surrounding the Sanctuary and casting them in the form of an offering.  Which is another interesting "micro/macro" compelled inference.  God accepting that the "sin offerings" and "trespass offerings" are "micro-sacrifices" representing the ultimate "macro-sacrifice": all of the tribes.  But He only specifies the breadth of the territory ("five and twenty thousand").  The length he specifies as "one of the parts".  THAT suggests the non-specific "a portion" as a possible interpretation.

But, as I read the text, the YHWH is having none of that and attaches a specific breadth to the immediately surrounding territory:     

The oblation that ye shall offer unto the YHWH, [interpolated: shall be] of five and twenty thousand in length and of ten thousand in breadth.

And for them, [interpolated: even] for the priests shall be this holy oblation, toward the North, five and twenty thousand [interpolated: in length], and toward the West ten thousand in breadth, and toward the East ten thousand in breadth, and toward the South five and twenty thousand in length, & the Sanctuary of the YHWH shall be in the midst thereof

Note that what I read as God's suggested parameters is only called "The Sanctuary" whereas the parameters in this later verse specifically refer to "The Sanctuary of the YHWH":

[interpolated: It shall be] for the Priests that are sanctified [alternate translation: the sanctified portions shall be for the priests], of the sons of Zadok, which have kept my charge [word/ordinance] which went not astray when the children of Israel went astray, as the Levites went astray

It's another example where I see the interpolation as being an impediment to the meaning.  WITH the interpolation, it suggests that this is a new thought, an implication of the previous thought now clarified, whereas I think it's actually a continuation of the previous thought:  "& the Sanctuary of the YHWH shall be in the midst thereof," continuing as: "the sanctified portions shall be for the priests" which I see as an artful double meaning: on the one hand inferred as a POSSESSION of the priests and on the other hand as representing the priests AS SACRIFICES in themselves, a hidden meaning that then bifurcates between the sons of Zadok as the POSSESSION priests and the general Levites AS SACRIFICES/priests.    

And [interpolated: this] oblation of the land that is offered, shall be unto them a thing most holy by the border of the Levites

I think the fact that it says "BY the border of the Levites" rather than "WITHIN the border of the Levites" compels the inference that I've already drawn -- this is about the sons of Zadok as distinct from the general Levites -- as does the fact that the word "this" isn't actually in the text (and, to me, skews the meaning).  Without "this" the line reads:

 "And oblation of the land that is offered, shall be unto them a thing most holy"

The oblation, the act of sacrificing the land -- as I read it, the sons of Zadok sacrificing the Levites AND their land -- is the "thing most holy" to the sons of Zadok in the eyes of the YHWH.

It's worth, I think, looking at the literal dictionary definition of oblation to really get the sense of this verse and the next: Oblation is, indeed, a religious offering, the noun form of the verb "oblate" which cites as its origins in Latin: oblatio the pp. form of oferre i.e. offer, but Oblate also has a parallel meaning of "flattened at the poles" -- ob: towards, (pro) latus: flattened out -- which I suspect is part of the sense being conveyed by the territory being twenty-five thousand in length and ten thousand in breadth.

And over against the border of the Priests, the Levites [interpolated: shall have] five and twenty thousand in length, and ten thousand in breadth: all the length [interpolated: shall be] five and twenty thousand, and the breadth ten thousand.

I see this as the YHWH extrapolating from God's idea of the surrounding precincts being concentric "macro-metaphorical constructs" of (the new thought introduced) the sin offerings and the trespass offerings (and the already established context of) the holy of holies, the Inner courts and the Sanctuary and creating concentric "priest rings".  "The Priests" on the border of "the Levites" and "the Levites" on the border of the "sons of Zadok".   

And they shall not sell of it, neither exchange, nor alienate the first fruits of the land: for it [interpolated: is] most holy unto the YHWH.

This verse and the next verse, I see as being YHWH's answer to God's "the strangers' inheritance" proposition in 47:22.  First of all, a definite "no" when it comes to the concentric ring of priest constructs.  No selling, no exchanging and no alienating the priests. But then followed by a concession:

And the five thousand that are left in the breadth over against the five and twenty thousand, shall be a profane place for the city, for dwelling, and for suburbs, and the city shall be in the midst thereof.

It's an unworkable complication, ultimately, but it looks good on paper.  Just as the Sanctuary is in the midst of the concentric rings of priests, the tribes -- Levi foremost -- and in the context of the city, Jerusalem, so in the areas that are "left" the YHWH proposes a profane -- non-sacred -- jurisdiction in the midst of which will be the city. The YHWH's exact description is:

And these the measures thereof, the North side four thousand and five hundred, and the South side four thousand and five hundred, and on the East side four thousand and five hundred and on the West side, four thousand and five hundred.

And the suburbs of the city shall be toward the North two hundred and fifty, and toward the South two hundred and fifty, and toward the East two hundred and fifty, and toward the West two hundred and fifty. 

And the residue in length over against the oblation of the holy portion, [shall be] ten thousand Eastward, and ten thousand Westward: and it shall be over against the oblation of the holy portion, and the increase thereof shall be for food unto them that serve the city.

As I read it, it's a poisonous implication when you arrive at the "shall be for food unto them that serve the city". 

And they that serve the city, shall serve it out of all the tribes of Israel.

All the oblation [interpolated: shall be] five and twenty thousand, by five and twenty thousand: ye shall offer the holy oblation foursquare, with the possession of the city. 

That is, no "oblate".  No compressed dimension on the one side.  The profane section will be completely symmetrical on all four sides.  As I read it, what the YHWH is doing is setting up a "heads I win, tails you lose" construct.  Either the YHWH and the sons of Zadok prevail, spreading outward from the Sanctuary (in which case the YHWH wins) or men, being corrupt, will gradually expand the profane section of the city, crushing God, imprisoned within the Sanctuary and eradicating monotheistic worship (in which case God loses):

And the residue [interpolated: shall be] for the prince on the one side, and on the other of the holy oblation, and of the possession of the city over against the five and twenty thousand, of the oblation toward the East border, and Westward over against the portions for the prince, and it shall be the holy oblation, and the Sanctuary of the house [interpolated: shall be] in the midst thereof. 

Moreover, from the possession of the Levites, and from the possession of the city in the midst of that which is the prince's, between the border of Judah, and the border of Benjamin, shall be for the prince.

That is, the YHWH is making a place for the YHWH's prince, the second coming of David and, artfully, placing him "from the possession of the Levites" -- giving him a presence in the sanctified YHWHistic context while not necessarily INcluding him in the inner circle of the sons of Zadok while not necessarily EXcluding him either -- and giving him a presence "between the border of Judah" (the tribe from which David came) "and the border of Benjamin" (who is both the youngest of the tribes and, by means of Joseph's connivance, Joseph's servant, therefore YHWH proxies).  This gives the prince the opportunity to spread across the context (if he proves sufficiently devoted to and observant of the YHWH's laws and statutes) THROUGH the Levites, THROUGH Judah or THROUGH Benjamin, through two of them or through all three.

Arguably Judas Maccabee came very close -- but not close enough when he signed the treaty with Rome -- to being that fulfillment. 

As for the rest of the tribes, from the East side unto the West side, Benjamin [interpolated: shall have] [KJV: a portion/Hebrew: one portion]

And by the border of Benjamin, from the East side unto the West side, Simeon [interpolated: shall have a portion]

And by the border of Simeon, from the East side unto the West side, Issachar [interpolated: a portion]

And by the border of Issachar, from the East side unto the West side, Zebulun [interpolated: a portion]

And by the border of Zebulun, from the East side unto the West side, Gad [interpolated: a portion]

I shake my head in mute disbelief at the "interpolation psychosis" being demonstrated here.  IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!  It says, very specifically, "Benjamin: one portion".  Yes.  But after that it just says "Simeon, Issachar, Zebulun and Gad".  Benjamin gets one portion.  Simeon, Issachar, Zebulun and Gad are just…there.  On each other's borders. 

As I read it, it's the YHWH coming as close as possible to accepting the inheritance of the "strangers" in Israel's midst -- by not specifically allocating a specific size or plot of land to any tribe besides Benjamin.  It doesn't say the "strangers" get anything but it doesn't say that they don't, either. 

This is, it seems "close enough" for God.  Which makes sense:  it seems to me that God always tries to err on the side of free-will solutions.  An agreement that doesn't bind the various tribes to a specific plot of land and which leaves it up to them how and to what extent they allow the "strangers" to inherit seems to me to be very much a God-approved construct:

And by the border of Gad, at the South side Southward, the border shall be even from Tamar, [interpolated: unto] the waters of strife [Hebrew: Meribah] [interpolated: in] Kadesh {interpolated: and] to the river, toward the great Sea.

That verse definitely says "God" to me.

It isn't so much geographic as it is metaphysical, in expressing that a conclusion that God can accept has been arrived at.

 First of all it refers to Tamar (Hebrew for palm tree) as if it's a geographic location (which has led to a lot of speculation as to where "Tamar" was: none of which I find as persuasive as God using the name Tamar as a way of saying "Okay, you win" since there were three previous Tamars in the Law & The Prophets, all of them representing big wins for the YHWH). 

Tamar was the daughter-in-law of Judah who married Er, his eldest son, and then after Er died was wed to Onan who was told by the YHWH to "raise up seed unto his brother".  Which was definitely a YHWHistic law that Onan, I suspect, knew was wrong.  Having sex with your brother's wife after he's dead is both incestuous and adulterous. And he "spilled his seed on the ground" rather than impregnate her. 

Both sons were struck dead by the YHWH (for violating the YHWH's laws: another "heads YHWH wins, tails God loses" situation -- had Onan impregnated Tamar, he would have been guilty of incest and adultery) which made Judah wary of wedding his youngest son to Tamar.  Whereupon Tamar pretended to be a prostitute and seduced Judah himself, taking his possessions as security for her payment, possessions which she later used to establish Judah's guilt when she became pregnant. The second Tamar was David's daughter who was raped by Amnon, her half-brother, which gave Abasalom cause for vengeance which enabled him to supplant David temporarily.  The third Tamar was one of Abasalom's daughters.

It isn't REALLY "Okay, you win."  But it does seem to me to be God acknowledging the validity of the YHWH's construct even though it appears to stack the deck against Him in a way impossible to overcome (as was the case with the Tamar narratives).  In the same way that Judah was forced to acknowledge -- after first demanding that Tamar be executed as a harlot -- that Tamar "had been more righteous than I"  (Genesis 38:26). 

That is, I see this as a metaphorical way for God to express that the agreement arrived at -- and God and YHWH have, as I read it, here arrived at any agreement -- is as artfully nuanced but theologically irrefutable as the Tamar narratives/enactments had been. 

And that they have that in common with the Kadesh narratives.  Kadesh as a "macro-metaphor" of the border between Judaism and the goyim and between God and YHWH, an actual place which the Jewish tribes are referred to as having visited on their Exodus journeys twice, both visits marked by a significant God/YHWH event:

Numbers 13:26, Kadesh was where they were when the exploratory party first came to them with evidence of the bounty of the Promised Land.

Numbers 20:1 Kadesh was where they were encamped when Miriam died -- the "she" of the Moshe/Aaron/Miriam YHWHistic triune he/she/it construct -- and was buried

The events of Numbers 13:26 are recalled to the Jewish people in Deuteronomy 1:19 as an example of their lack of faith and of bad faith in being unwilling to take possession of the Promised Land

and also referred to by Moshe in Deuteronomy 1:45, as a site where "ye returned and wept before the YHWH, but the YHWH would not hearken to your voice, nor give ear unto you". 

I see that in this reference by Lord GOD -- that this is the likely outcome of the construct that God is agreeing to and that God is aware that that's how the YHWH intends it.

The "waters of strife" (Meribah) are a significant YHWH/God reference as well focussing on the events of Numbers 20, centred on God's medium, water, and a humiliating episode for the YHWH.  Where Moshe was told by the YHWH to ASK the rock (that is, YHWH) NICELY to give the tribes water and instead says to the rebel people "Hear now, ye rebels, must we fetch you water out of this rock?" and then HITS the rock twice with his staff. Whereupon it started spouting water at a great rate (and, I would guess, much laughter "on high" at the YHWH's expense). 

Which leads the YHWH to strip Aaron of his stature and to cause him to die.

To me, what God is saying is, "This is another way this agreement we've concluded can go:  you can think yourself in charge, YHWH, and end up humiliated."  Which is, of course, what ends up happening:  the YHWH is supplanted by Jesus.     

This [interpolated: is] the land which ye shall divide by lot unto the tribes of Israel for inheritance, and these [interpolated: are] their portions, saith the Lord GOD. 

And these [interpolated: are] the goings out of the city, on the North side four thousand and five hundred measures.

And the gates of the city [interpolated: shall be] after the names of the Tribes of Israel, three gates Northward, one gate of Reuben, one gate of Judah, one gate of Levi.

This restores the actual order of birth of Jacob's first three sons.

And at the East side four thousand and five hundred:  and three gates; and one gate of Joseph, one gate of Benjamin, one gate of Dan.

It's interesting to me that the Eastward facing gates consist of Joseph and Benjamin, who share between them the stature of "youngest tribe", Joseph by his manipulation of the Pharaoh/Butler narrative and Benjamin by virtue of being the actual youngest of Jacob's sons…

...and Dan, the first one addressed in this chapter and the only one omitted from Revelations 7.

And at the South side four thousand and five hundred measures, and three gates: one gate of Simeon, one gate of Issachar, one gate of Zebulun

At the West side four thousand and give hundred, [interpolated: with] their three gates: one gate of Gad, one gate of Asher, one gate of Naphtali

[Interpolated: It] was round about eighteen thousand [interpolated: measures] and the name of city from that day [interpolated: shall be] The YHWH [interpolated: is] there [Hebrew: Jehovah Shammah]

The YHWH is/was there all right!

Hope you enjoyed your visit with us, David & Marie -- and thanks for getting me to discuss Ezekiel in some depth. 

Troy & Mia:  Next week, back to THE GENESIS QUESTION!

Best,

Dave

____________________________________________________________________________

Next Time: Footloose-style "dance-off"? -Past Matt