So, two things:
1, the bizness:
The Cerebus In Hell? "Approval Is An Authoritarian Construct" T-Shirt is available in the US and UK.
The remastered Volume 1 is available digitally for $9.99.
2, I ran out of pages from issue 289/290 to run in front of Dave's Genesis Question commentaries. Dave suggested I use Jewish, Christian or Muslim religious images. But then, Superman's Frenemy: David Birdsong sent in a bunch of (so far) unused Cerebus in Hell? images and now I'ma gonna run them. So:AND SEND IN YOUR @#$%ING FLIMSY @#$%ING POSTCARD FROM HELL? KICKSTARTER SURVEYS ALREADY!!! (What the HELL? is WRONG with you people?)
If you got a couple of extra bucks and want to do a fellow Cerebus fan a solid, Friend of the Blog Mike Battaglia has a go fund me here.
____________________________________________________________________________
image by Doré, Sim & Birdsong |
22 February 15
Hi Troy & Mia!
Habakkuk 3:3:
God came from Teman and the holy one from
mount Paran. Selah. His glory covered the heavens and the earth was full of his
praise.
Teman:
the grandson of Esau who may have given his name to the district, town
or tribe (or all three) of that name in Northern Edom. So, traditionally, considered an enemy of
Jacob/Israel and therefore of God.
"The prophets (Jeremiah 49:20; Ezekiel 25:13, Amos 1:12, Obadiah 9)
include Teman among the Edomite towns to be destroyed".
Therefore, interesting that one of the latter
prophets would have a vision that God (past tense) came from Edom.
Mount Paran: a wilderness situated in the East central
region of the Sinai Penninsula. It was
to this wilderness that Hagar and Ishmael went after their expulsion from
Abraham's household (Genesis 21:21).
Comparably interesting, to me, as this
suggests that what is being referred to is proto-Islamic in nature (Islam
descending from Abraham through Ishmael -- and Hagar).
Also interesting to see "Selah"
in there, which I only recall seeing in David's Psalms. Checking my NEW BIBLE DICTIONARY, sure
enough, the word occurs 71 times in the Psalms and three times in Habakkuk.
So there appears to be a triangulation
here, although I'm not sure, specifically, a triangulation of what.
The grandson of Esau would suggest the
status of "usurped" since the grandson of Esau would have inherited
Isaac's stature had Jacob not usurped it from Esau. Which would conform with my own notion that
YHWH is the prototypical usurper and that God comes from the tradition of the
"usurped", contextually speaking, in the Torah.
And, likewise, Ishmael was in place to be
Abraham's heir until Sarah insisted that Hagar and Ishmael be driven out into
the wilderness (a comparable enactment to A Dam being driven out of the Garden
of Eden by the YHWH).
In that case, it would seem to me that the
"Selah" (about which there are, evidently, varying theories as to its
point of origin: as a musical indicator of the nature of the Psalm or as a
liturgical mark or an expression comparable to "Amen!" or
"Hallelujah!") might be
intended ironically by God at the tail end of the Jewish Revelation, directed
against the YHWH's (and the Jewish people's) Davidic Messianic expectation,
basically leap-frogging the (relatively) imminent Christian Revelation and
anticipating the "origination" of God from Teman and Mount Paran:
that is, Islam.
Instead of the multiplicity of Psalms, this
is announced through one of the shortest revelations in the Torah. Habakkuk IS only three chapters long.
It's quite possible that 3:3 was intended
to serve as a Godly contrast to the previous verse, the YHWHistic 3:2:
O YHWH, I have heard thy report/thy
hearing/thy speech, [interpolated:
and] was afraid: O YHWH revive [alternative
meaning: preserve alive] thy work in the midst of the years, in the midst of
the years make known; in wrath, remember mercy.
There is, evidently, little unity on the
subject of the date of Habakkuk, its authorship and several of the references
within it. What I think can be agreed is
that it is a plea to God for an explanation of why He would raise up the
Chaldeans to overpower Pharaoh Neco and
then Jehoiakim, king of Judah. As I read
it, it's an example of God answering the question directly but the limitations
of human comprehension being such that the implicit verity can only be
recognized in retrospect:
Essentially, "You aren't looking at
the Big Picture. I am." Which is, I
think, invariably the only answer that God can give. Had God elaborated upon his answer -- which I
think he does in the rest of Chapter 3 by granting Habakkuk visions of
"what is yet to be" -- it would have been "The Chaldeans are
just a continuation of an extensive process.
There are Large Contentions enacting themselves in the world and they
will continue to enact themselves.
You're looking for easy answers and glib resolutions along the lines of And
God looked down and saw that His Chosen People weren't winning and he sent
Legions of Angels to devastate everyone who had set them against His Revelation
and the Legions of Angels won and everyone lived happily ever after The End.
"
So far as I know, I'm the only one who
reads 3:3 this way, but I think God's point is: when Abraham, at Sarah's
behest, abandoned Ishmael and his mother in the wilderness of Paran, he
abandoned Me. Ishmael wasn't an enemy to
Isaac and Hagar was not an affront to Sarah. That was a maternal delusion on
Sarah's part. If you look at how the
story unfolded, Hagar was an obedient servant, to God, to Abraham and to Sarah,
otherwise she wouldn't have allowed Abraham to impregnate her. Basically Abraham repeats A Dam's mistake of
"hearkening unto the voice of his wife" instead of doing what he
would have known to be right in the eyes of God. You can't just bring that story to a happy
resolution by saying that Hagar and Ishmael need to be abandoned to die of
thirst in the wilderness "and Abraham and Sarah lived happily ever after
The End." There IS a happily ever
after to the story, but it's the fact that Hagar, in her desperation as she and
Ishmael were on the verge of death discovered the Zam-Zam well. Although it was stopped up for generations,
even today, the Zam-Zam well supplies ABUNDANT water to Mecca, more than enough
for Saudi Arabia's largest city and more than enough for the millions of
pilgrims who come to the Sacred Mosque from around the world every year.
THERE, I see God as saying. THERE's the
Happily Ever After ending that you're looking for.
"God came from Teman and the Holy One
from Mount Paran."
Of course subsequent to that there is, as I
read it, the overlapping of God and YHWH.
Which, as I read it, is part of the problem and part of the
Revelation. The YHWH -- who believes men
are inherently evil -- exacts terrible retribution (verses 4-6):
And brightness was as the light: he, horns
out of his hand/bright beams out of his side, and there was the hiding of his
power: before him went the pestilence and burning diseases went forth at his
feet.
And this sounds like GOD to you? No, I think God is best described (and
describes Himself) at the end of verse 6:
He stood and measured the earth: he beheld
and drove asunder the nations, and the everlasting mountains were scattered,
the perpetual hills did bow: His ways
everlasting.
God has dominion over the YHWH, the earth,
the nations, the "everlasting" mountains and the
"perpetual" hills. But it was
men who chose to call upon the name of the YHWH (Genesis 4:26). You have to be a little more careful where
you place your faith, is God's point (in my opinion), or you have to suffer the
consequences.
This leads, as I read it, to a sharp
exchange between God and the YHWH, who are both (again, as I read it) imparting
revelations to Habakkuk. First God, as I read it:
Was the YHWH displeased against the
rivers? thine anger against the rivers?
thy wrath against the Sea, that thou didst ride upon thy horses thy chariots of
salvation? Thy bow was made quite naked to the oaths of the tribes. Word.
Selah.
This seems to me to follow on from the
Mount Paran reference and the discovery of the Zam-Zam well (called
Beer-lahai-roi in Genesis 16:14 "the well of Him that liveth and seeth
me"), a reference the YHWH is trying to bypass. God provided abundant water to all. What is the YHWH's problem with that? God
uses "Word" here as modern hip-hop uses it: as a definitive Truth.
It was, after all, the Angel of the YHWH
who told Hagar that the YHWH had heard of her affliction. And promised that Ishmael "will be a
wild man, his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him
& he shall dwell in the presence of his brethren." I think this the
meaning behind the reference to "Thy bow was made quite naked to the oaths
of the tribes. Word. Selah". That
is, the YHWH intention was, transparently, contention: to make Ishmael an
adversary to everyone and everyone an adversary to Ishmael (I think we see
echoes of this in the "lone nut" Muslim attacks of our modern day)
and to attempt to affront God in doing so.
God is saying that he isn't affronted.
He was in Mount Paran. He
saved Hagar and Ishmael and God will come again from Mount Paran,
despite the nakedness of the YHWH's bow -- Ishmael eventually becomes a great
archer (Genesis 25:12) -- the YHWH's overt advocacy of violent
confrontation.
The (as I read it) YHWH's response is both
immediate and infantile:
Thou didst cleave the earth with rivers.
Only the YHWH could see rivers as
comparable to pillaging and ravening entire civilizations -- as if the YHWH is
just doing to men what God is doing to the YHWH, the earth, with rivers. God's response is comparably immediate:
The mountains saw thee, they trembled: the
overflowing of the water passed by: the deep uttered his voice, lift up his
hands on high.
I think the reference is to Habakkuk
himself. "He's expressing
incredulity and exasperation, YHWH. Your
own component elements, the mountains, react to you in the same way. That SHOULD tell you something." And then refers to the Book of Joshua
10:12-13, where Joshua pleaded with the YHWH to have the sun stand still in the
sky so the Jewish people could thoroughly eradicate the Amorites:
The sun, moon, stood still in habitation,
at the light of thine arrows they went, at the shining of thy glittering
spear. Thou didst march through the land
in indignation, thou didst thresh the heathen in anger. Thou wentest forth for
the salvation of thy people, for salvation with thine Anointed, thou woundedst
the head out of the house of the wicked, making naked the neck. Selah. Thou didst strike through with his staves the
head of his villages, they were tempestuous as a whirlwind to scatter Me: their
rejoicing as to devour the poor secretly.
And in answer to the suggestion that the
rivers were some kind of invasion of the YHWH:
Thou didst walk through the Sea with thy
horses, the heap of great waters.
What I always remark upon is God's Infinite
Patience in these situations. Men are
calling upon the name of the YHWH to grant them absolute victory over their
perceived enemies and the YHWH is wreaking vengeance both upon men for
disobeying he/she/it and upon their enemies at their behest and -- every once
in a while -- someone accidentally refers to God instead of the YHWH in
pleading for an answer to What In the Heck Is Going On? As Habakkuk does here.
Well, what is God to say? It's a huge mess. A huge mess of men's devising and of the
YHWH's devising. There you go. That's what free will misapplied gets
you. The best God can be is Reassuring
In The Long Term. Men are basically
good, the YHWH's view notwithstanding.
That's what God has addressed to Habakkuk: these are fundamental errors in decision-making
but God is abiding strictly to the governing principle that everyone is allowed
to express their free will in whatever form they choose. In the Short Term, this is what it leads to. And God renders visions unto Habakkuk of
SPECIFICALLY what it leads to.
Presumably those visions could include every generation of our epoch up
to the present day. ISIS is nothing new
in our world. Isis was the Egyptian
earth goddess, the sister and wife of Osiris. Isis is just another name for the
YHWH and the YHWH's impulse toward genocidal brutality.
Habakkuk's reaction is significant,
predictable and (to me) sad:
When I heard my belly trembled: my lips
quivered at the voice: rottenness entered into my bones, and I trembled in
myself, that I might rest in the day of trouble: when he commeth up unto the
people, he will cut them in pieces.
Although the fig tree shall not blossom,
neither fruit in the vines: the labour
of the Olive shall lie, and the fields shall yield no meat, the flock shall be
cut off from the fold and there no herd in the stalls:
Yet I will rejoice in the YHWH: I will joy
in the God of my salvation. The YHWH God
my strength, and he will make my feet like hind's and he will make me to walk
upon my high places. To the chief singer
on my stringed instrument.
Let me know how that's working out for you,
Habakkuk!
Next week, God willing, Acts 14:17
Best,
Dave
____________________________________________________________________________Next Time: Lord Julius? -Past Matt
8 comments:
What makes you say this is the last one? The "Next week:" at the end suggests otherwise.
David Birdsong, peace. Jesus is already answering my prayer. I did not know that Gustave Dore did many Bible drawings, and some or more of the scenes I drew for you. I include a few here (Not on AMOC) as attachments. Thank you for accidentally helping me know this. I am going to copy and paste this message also on the newest AMOC commentary, and on the five part comment post I commented on, only in case you will see it there first before here, but I am not going back there (AMOC) in the future, and this or by mail is the way to reach me. I promise you I will not message you again unless you want me to, but I hope you get back to me. Thanks.
David B, here is the url for Dore's Bible drawings. Sorry, I forgot putting it in those bracket like pointy thingees would make the code here not show it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_Dor%C3%A9%27s_illustrations_for_La_Grande_Bible_de_Tours
"The storm had now definitely abated, and what thunder there was now grumbled over more distant hills, like a man saying 'AND ANOTHER THING' twenty minutes after admitting he's lost the argument."
Matt
"No Country For Old Men" quote, Matt?
If so, we do get tired, do we not?
Otherwise, if I'm wrong; source, please?
Jeff,
So Long and Thanks For All the Fish by Douglas Adams. The fourth book in the increasingly in accurately named Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy Trilogy.
Matt
David J. is still here, still promising not to come back?
These "commentaries" are an interesting example of a frequent Simean rhetorical tactic: cherry-picking evidence, accepting or rejecting it based on whether it supports his preconceived arguments, rather than coming up with an argument that accounts for all the evidence. As Neil Gaiman once paraphrased Dave: "Of course, you proving me wrong only further proves my case."
-- Damian
Post a Comment