Towards, unto, into and in Theos

We have already seen what qualities are true of the Theos. One particular epithet is ‘true’ or ‘truth’. We then saw that Iesous manifested this attribute, among many others when he said:

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the father, but by me. (Iohannes 14.6)

The ‘I am’ here is ‘ego eimi’ (εγω ειμι) in the New Testament Greek. This phrase means ‘I, I am’, the ‘I’ being doubled up to give emphasis, as the ‘I’ is already present in the verb and then is emphasised by the addition of the added pronoun ‘ego’ (εγω). We have also seen, repeatedly, in many of the previous posts, that the foundation of the name of Yahweh is in the ‘I will be’ of Exodus 3.12,14. This ‘I will be’ (‘ehyeh אהיה) is then converted into a causal third person ‘(he) shall be’ to create the name Yahweh (יהוה). The promise enshrined in the name is of a people be(com)ing him in the future. This name is seen in the future promise of salvation, evidenced in the name of Iesous and in its Old Testament equivalent Yehoshua’, meaning ‘he shall save’. This idea of the name is at the heart of the creation of the ark and kaporeth and the reciprocal nature of the kerubym. It is enshrined in the reciprocal revelation at the heart of that figure leading the people to the promised inheritance. The promised inheritance made to ‘Abraham, Yitshaq and Ya’aqob, whose names Yahweh delighted to name himself by in Exodus 3, because these faithful men were in pursuit of becoming Yahweh themselves. His provision of Iesous is a demonstration of his mind, his word, expressed in, and as, a man. This being the case it is the first genuine fulfilment of the ‘I will be’, in which case it becomes an ‘I, I am’. The doubling up of the ‘I’ being also seen in the use of the ‘I will be’ in its ‘ehyeh (אהיה) form in the Old Testament:

I, I will be to him for (to) a father, and he, he shall be to me for (to) a son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: (2 Shemu’el 7.14)

In this verse the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘he’ are added to the verb, which already has the definition of the person built into them, in order to increase the emphasis. It also has the same ‘to’/’to’ structure we saw in other occurrences of the future ‘I will be’ construction – ‘I will be to them for (to) ‘elohym and they shall be to me for (to) a people’.

Therefore, the ‘I, I am’ is clearly a present tense fulfilment of the promise inherent in the ‘I, I will be’. It is a clear indication that the one speaking is be(com)ing, and has become, Theos in the flesh, a moral embodiment of the mind which resides in the heavens.

We also saw, particularly in the section on homographs, that there is a relationship between the Hebrew words for ‘name’ and ‘there’. They are, respectively, ‘shem’ (שם) and ‘sham’ (שם), clearly homographic of one another and indistinguishable on account of the original, unpointed, Hebrew. Again, at the heart of the idea of the name is that of a fixed destination that lies at the end of the journey. The ‘there’ is the place where the journey of becoming Yahweh finds its conclusion.

It was round about eighteen thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be, Yahweh is there. (Yehezq’el 48.35)

Behold my hands and my feet, that I am myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me have. (Loukas 24.39)

Here, in this place of being in the midst of his disciples, of having reached the conclusion of the journey of striving with the spirit in his battle with the flesh, Iesous stands as the glorified ‘I, I am’, having become Theos. This journey unto a destination is what he foresees and hopes for from his disciples:

He that loves his soul shall lose it; and he that hates his soul in this kosmos shall keep it unto life aionian. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my father honour. (Iohannes 12.25,26)

The ‘there’ where Iesous comes to be is a destination a believer can attain unto by hating his natural identity in this present order, by following him, by keeping his commandments and then he will obtain aionian life. He will have traded his soul for that of Theos, and then he, like Iesous, will have become Theos, will be in that set place, ‘there’ and in the present tense ‘I, I am’, with his shepherd who led the way:

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd gives his soul for the sheep…I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the father knows me, even so know I the father: and I lay down my soul for the sheep. (Iohannes 10.11,14,15)

He is the shepherd as his father is the shepherd (Psalm 23). He leads his flock; they follow his example. He knows the father and is known of him, so it is with the sheep who know him as they are known of him. He gives up his soul so that they may have aionian life. They have to do the same.

But he that enters in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep…Then said Iesous unto them again, Amen, Amen, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep…I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. (Iohannes 10.2,7,9)

The door, like the shepherd is firstly the father, the shepherd enters in via the door and becomes the door in manifesting (being) him. He is the way in for the sheep to enter into and, being in the fold, to obtain safety. Furthermore, he leads them out so that they will find pasture. We have already seen the language of an entrance used in the context of a path, where the gate was a struggle to find and the path a trial to follow. Iesous is that entrance, upon him becoming the father, so that we can tread the path he followed in laying down his soul so that we also can be the father.

I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the ending, says the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the pantokrator. (Revelation 1.8)

The revelation was given to Iohannes by Theos in anointed and the declaration of the ‘I, I am’ is made three times in this first chapter of the book. The ‘I am’ is both the father and the son. The father is the beginning, the door and gate of the path, and he is the completion of the journey, the final ‘there’, at which point he will say, along with those who have become him, I am. Iesous manifests that beginning and ending in many ways but, here in Revelation 1, it says:

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that lives, and was dead; and, behold, I am (ειμι) alive unto the ages of the ages, Amen; and have the keys of hades and of death. (Revelation 1.17,18)

There are a number of beginnings and endings in Iesous’ life, including the beginning of the euangelion that he embodied and preached from his baptism until the finishing of that journey on the stake. Here, the beginning of this journey is from his death and resurrection until the fulfilment of his work in the completion of the ages when the grave and death will no longer exercise their power.

At the conclusion of Revelation we see, again, the same language that was used in chapter 1 but is now employed at the conclusion of the journey, the ending:

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of the Theos is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and Theos himself shall be with them, and be their Theos…And he said unto me, It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his Theos, and he shall be my son. (Revelation 21.3,6,7)

The language here is looking back towards the prophetic utterances in Yeremyahu and Yehezq’el which promise the fulfilment of Yahweh’s name in a people, as we saw above – I, I will be to them for ‘elohym and they, they shall be to me for a people. Also, we see the same future tense (‘I will be’) promise of the fulfilment of his name in a son which we saw in 2 Shemu’el 7 when Yahweh spoke of Shelomah (and figuratively Iesous) when he said about being to him a father and he being to him a son. In this context we are reaching the destination of the figures falling away and the true coming to pass, so that there is no longer a temple, and the tabernacle of Theos is him, and him in Iesous, in the people and they in him. It is also where the light is Theos, and Theos in Iesous, which lightens the city. We saw earlier that the Theos is light, so the figure again falls away but the true remains. In this context he is the ‘I, I am’ because we are reaching the culmination of the ‘I will be’.

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Revelation 22.12,13)

Having seen the vision of the end of the path, we must return to the beginning. The reward of participation in the ‘last’ is conditional upon the keeping of his commandments, the ‘according as his work shall be’. We now see the ‘end’ from the ‘beginning’ as we return to our beginnings. Iesous is the fulfilment of the qualities of the Theos, he is the way, the truth and the life, because all these things are true of the father. By doing as he does in fulfilling the name of Yahweh, we can have access to the father via him.

As with all things that pertain to Theos, there is a ‘not’. So, what is the ‘I am not’?

Firstly, just to reiterate from before that eimi (ειμι) is ‘I am’ and ego eimi (εγω ειμι) is ‘I, I am’. We see few occurrences of ego eimi (εγω ειμι) but a few more of just eimi (ειμι) alone, when they are preceded by the negative – ouk (ουκ).

And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the anointed. And they asked him, What then? Are you Elias? And he says, I am not. Are you that prophet? And he answered, No…Iohannes answered them, saying, I baptise with water: but there stands one among you, whom you know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. (Iohannes 1.20,21,26,27)

The Greek here is ‘ouk eimi ego’ (ουκ ειμι εγω), ‘not I am, I’ in verse 20; ‘ouk eimi’ (ουκ ειμι) ‘not I am’ in verse 21; and ‘ego ouk eimi’ (εγω ουκ ειμι) ‘I, not I am’ in verse 27.

When asked if he is the anointed his response is ‘I am not’. In comparison to anointed he says, ‘I am not worthy’. The words ‘I am not worthy’ are used in all of the four narrative records to describe this moment when Iohannes the baptist is unable to put himself in a position of parity with anointed. The same words are also used by the centurion who also deems himself to be unworthy of Iesous being under his roof to heal his servant.

In a previous post we saw that this word ‘worthy’ is used to denote a parity of value and of reciprocal manifestation. In Iohannes 1 the word used is axios (αξιος) and is used to describe equivalence, as in parity, of effort and reward. It is the striving of the disciple to engage in being Iesous, in taking up the stake, that makes him worthy of Iesous and of inheriting life, as he has. He receives instruction from him and reciprocates such. In this sense he is ‘worthy’ of Iesous. In the other narrative records the word ‘worthy’ used by Iohannes is translated by the Greek word ikanos (ικανος). This is also the word used by the centurion and gives a sense of a large quantity, in number, of money, time, people. It indicates a sufficiency, a sense of ‘enough’, which is to say that by the presence of this large quantity there is a satisfaction as to the parity of quantity with the outcome thereof. For example, a compensatory payment being enough to satisfy the injured party that recompense of payment to damage done has occurred, there is an outcome of parity in the victim’s eyes.

In order for Iohannes, and the centurion, to have parity with Iesous, they must be on a similar level of outcome with him. This has not yet happened because Iesous’ journey to becoming Theos is not yet completed. He is not yet enough. When he is, if they follow in his steps then their souls can be ‘enough’. Iohannes is not the ‘I am’. Iesous is in the process of becoming the ‘I am’. Iohannes will die before that journey is completed. If we receive from the perfected Iesous and reflect that man becoming Theos then we also can become sufficient.

You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the anointed, but that I am sent before him. (Iohannes 3.28)

So, the negative definition of the ‘I am’ is because Iohannes is the one who goes before, not follows after.

Iesous himself also defines himself in the negative with respect to an ‘I am’:

And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the father that sent me…And he said unto them, You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this kosmos; I am not of this kosmos. I said therefore unto you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am, you shall die in your sins. (Iohannes 8,16,23,24)

Here Iesous is defining himself by both negative and positive forms of the manifestational ‘I am’. He does not merely bear witness of himself, but the father also bears witness of him which is why his judgment is true. Thus ‘I am not alone’ is a definition of him not being a not. If he were alone, he would not be manifesting the father as the father would not be in him because the father would not have revealed himself to, and in, him. He is, therefore from above, not beneath, as his enemies of the Ioudaioi were. This is a positive ‘I am’ because being from above is the father, who is above, revealing himself to, and in, him. In contrast to these enemies of his, he is not of this kosmos. He is not manifesting the mind of this present order, which his adversaries are. These adversaries will die in their sins if they are unable to recognise him as the ‘I am’, to see that he came forth from Theos and is the embodiment of his name.

And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the kosmos, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the kosmos has hated them, because they are not of the kosmos, even as I am not of the kosmos. I pray not that thou should take them out of the kosmos, but that thou should keep them from the evil. They are not of the kosmos, even as I am not of the kosmos. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou have sent me into the kosmos, even so have I also sent them into the kosmos. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. (Iohannes 17.13-19)

Here, Iesous is praying to the father concerning his disciples. Their situation is a reflection of his. The father has sent him; he is now going to send them into the kosmos. The kosmos hated him because he is not of the kosmos. They will share the same outcome. Iesous sanctifies himself through the word of truth of the Theos so that the disciples might also be sanctified through the word of truth. Iesous is here defining himself by the ‘not’ with regard to the kosmos. This set order which is the realm of his adversaries is not where he came from but, nevertheless, he had to live in it surrounded by his foes. The disciples, if they follow him, must share with him in this journey.

For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the ekklesia of the Theos. But by the grace of Theos I am who I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of Theos which was with me. (1 Corinthians 15.9,10)

I have highlighted the ‘not I’ at the end of verse 10 not because it is a negation of the ‘I am’ but because it brings into sharp relief the underlying allusion to Exodus 3 that is going on in these verses. You will remember that in Exodus 3 there is a theme of who is the ‘I’ that is in consideration. Mosheh is insistent that he (I) is unable to go and do these things but Yahweh, in revealing his name to him, is showing that the ‘I’ who will accomplish these things, who will put the words in his mouth, and whom Mosheh will manifest, is Yahweh not Mosheh. In 1 Corinthians 15, by the use of the ‘I am who I am’, Paulos is alluding to a fulfilment of the ‘I will be who I will be’. Here Paulos is like Mosheh. Intrinsically he is nothing, he is the ‘not’ apostle, not enough but by the gracious revelation of Theos to him he can become the manifestation of that name so that he is no longer the ‘I’, but because ‘he’ is with him, he can become part of the Theos.

So, we have seen that the ‘I, I am’ that Iesous uses of himself is there to show that he is the moral embodiment of the father by virtue of him receiving revelation from him. He is the fulfilment of the ‘I will be’ implicit in the name. The name speaks of the creation of that which is upon the earth by the impetus of that which is in, and from, heaven. As a result of this he is the way unto the father. He is a revelation of true enlightenment that leads his followers to them also becoming the Theos. The place where he is, is anticipatory of the place where the father will be, and all in him. In distinction from who he is, who he is not is ‘of the kosmos’. Him proceeding from the father is antithetical to belonging to the present set order, which in his case was embodied by his adversaries. The same needs to be said of his followers, that they are not of the kosmos. However, it can also be said that they are not the ‘I am’, until such time as they are able to follow him. In any previous state they are not enough, they are not in a kerubic relationship. They will become ‘enough’ when they have fulfilled the name of Yahweh, because they have looked upon him that trod that path first and walked in his steps.

In the previous blog we saw the juxtaposition of the Theos with a number of qualities, one of which is love.

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of the Theos; and every one that loves is born of the Theos, and knows the Theos. He that loves not knows not the Theos; for the Theos is love. In this was manifested the love of the Theos toward us, because that the Theos sent his only begotten son into the kosmos, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved the Theos, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if the Theos so loved us, we ought also to love one another. (1 Iohannes 4.7-11)

As we discussed in the previous blog, the Theos is defined by what he is, and will be, and what he is not, or will not be. He is definitively the Theos rather than any other theos and the qualities that define him are many and, in origin, exclusive to him. In the passage above, it is made clear that he loved us before we were able to love him. Indeed, loving him is an outcome of being loved by him. His love is demonstrated in that he sent his son as a ‘propitiation’/’mercyseat’ to declare his righteousness.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believes into (εις) him should not perish, but have aionian life. For the Theos so loved the kosmos, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes into (εις) him should not perish, but have aionian life. For the Theos sent not his son into (εις) the kosmos to condemn the kosmos; but that the kosmos through him might be saved. He that believes into (εις) him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed into (εις) the name of the only begotten son of the Theos. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into (εις) the kosmos, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes towards (προς) the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that does truth comes towards (προς) the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are worked in Theos. (Iohannes 3.14-21)

The premise for this passage is the brasen serpent that was erected in the camp of Israel for the people to look upon after they had been bitten by the deadly serpents that were sent into the camp following their disobedience. If they looked upon this elevated image, of that living scourge that had been reduced to a lifeless brass image, believing that in doing so they would be saved then they did not perish. The similarity is there for us to see that, in looking upon the elevated Iesous, both elevated in that he was lifted up on the stake and in that he also was lifted up in Theos (being lifted up in and by the spirit of the living Theos), the believer – seeing the man who had made that which killed us all (the flesh) powerless by his obedience and committing to following that same path – might also live.

This oft cited passage is not an unconditional offer based on the love of the father. It is a conditional offer based upon reciprocity. The salvation that is on offer is an outcome of the love of the father offering the people the representation of himself in his son which, if they were to look upon in belief, would be the gateway to their salvation. It is a passage accompanied by the directional eis (εις) and pros (προς), indicative of the bi-directional relationship enshrined in the kaporeth. Theos sent his son into (εις) the kosmos in order that those who believe into (εις) his name might be saved. He sent the light into (εις) the kosmos that those that do truth may come towards (προς) that light. There are a series of antitheses at play here. There are those that do truth and those that do evil. Respectively, their preference is for light and darkness. Overlapping the definition of those people are the epithets of belief and unbelief. The outcomes for these two categories of belief and unbelief are salvation unto aionian life and condemnation unto perishing/destruction. Overarching all of this is the love of Theos who presides over the outcomes for people dependent on their response. The love of Theos is not conditional, but the outcome is, dependent on the nature of the response. The only acceptable response is the journey of belief into/unto the name of the father revealed in the son. It is a journey of incrementally becoming him unto the age (aion), a journey characterised by continual belief, evidenced by works (words and actions).

The natural man sees love as an emotion, often times without rational basis, coming and going as a wave or a gust of wind. Clearly, the way of Theos is antithetical to that of man, so how do we determine what love is, particularly the love of Theos? How do we define it? Clearly, we can define it in the way scripture fills out its meaning. Often this can be in the form of yea and nay, in not and not/not terms.

You have heard that it has been said, Thou shall love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That you may be the children of your father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love them which love you, what reward have you? do not even the publicans the same? And if you salute your brothers only, what do you more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect. (Maththaios 5.43-48)

The behaviour of the believer, which is the only way to judge the love that motivates such works, is seen to be based on the behaviour of the father who is in heaven. We are called to represent him as Iesous did. Therefore, the love we should show is an outcome of determining the outworking of his love. The love, like the spirit, is the motivating impetus that drives him to actions which are directed both to the just and the unjust. If we behave like others then there is no reward because, by implication, we are not behaving as the Theos. There are many antitheses in play here but, ultimately the distinction is whether we are behaving as others or as the father. He first loved us which put us in a position whereby we were able to reciprocate that love. We were enemies to him but, when he showed his love to us by revealing himself in Iesous to the salvation of him and us, then we could become his friends and show love to him. If we offer love to our enemies, then they are in a position to reciprocate. Clearly, we can see here that love is not a natural emotion. If it were we could not love our enemies, that would be to go against natural sentiment. Instead, we have to overcome such sensibilities and love those we are disposed, naturally, not to love. The motivation for doing this is the utterances of the spirit. Love is an outcome of Theos’ spirit revealed in his word.

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve Theos and mammon. (Maththaios 6.24)

Again, we see a series of antitheses. Primarily, one is Theos and the other is mammon, a set of values based on material wealth and self-interest, couched in terms of another theos. Theos is exhorting us not to be anxious for the daily needs of the body but rather to focus on seeking first his kingdom and his righteousness and the requirement for food and clothing will be dealt with by him. If we seek to serve Theos we must strive to do so and not focus on the present age, with its anxieties and riches. There is one and there is the other; there is love and hate; there is holding to and there is despising; there are two potential masters. We must choose which one to be in subjection to.

But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, belief, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are anointed’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and desires. If we live in spirit, let us also walk in spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. (Galatians 5.22-26)

The outcome, or fruit, of spirit is not only love but a list of other qualities which are of the same type as the qualities which describe the Theos. That is because the spirit is of Theos and therefore declares Theos and those who willingly receive it become Theos. The antithetical qualities which are delineated in the previous verses are those which are born of the flesh, that is of the mind which is antithetical to the spirit, the mind of the natural man. If love, amongst so many other positive attributes, is of the spirit of the Theos then that love must be the love of Theos. We can only manifest the kind of love which he shows. The love that he has shown to us in anointed is to willingly give himself for our benefit that we can be saved in becoming him. In becoming him, we can demonstrate that love to him and to others, as in the figure of the kaporeth. We can give ourselves up to him, that is to exchange our natural souls for his, and we can give ourselves up for the believers, or those who will become such, by similarly sacrificing our self-interest for theirs.

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Iesous answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, Israel; The Lord our Theos, the Lord is one: And thou shall love the Lord thy Theos with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, teacher, thou has said the truth: for there is one Theos; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Iesous saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou are not far from the kingdom of the Theos. And no man after that durst ask him any question. (Markos 12.28-34)

Here we have the description of the two fundamental commandments which follow the pattern we have described above. The first commandment is premised upon there being one Yahweh, a promise of unity in which all those of his people who become him will all be one in him at the last day, fulfilling his name. In order to achieve that profound oneness requires a reciprocity which is born out of giving up all those things which underpin our identities – our own strength, mind, soul and understanding – in order to take on and reciprocate his identity and, in doing so, become him. This is the first thing to achieve. The second thing is to take this change of identity and become him in ministering that love to others and, in doing so, to do it like he has done for us, that is to esteem them as being of as high an importance as we consider ourselves. We have to love them in such a way as they, like we hope to do, become him. The context of this interaction between Iesous and the scribe is a context of reciprocity. Iesous has answered his questioners ‘well’. When the scribe reciprocates Iesous’ words, with understanding, Iesous similarly commends his reciprocity after the man has commended Iesous for answering the question he posed ‘well’. The judgment of Iesous is that the scribe is not far from the kingdom of the Theos they have been discussing. This is because, as we saw in the blog on baptism, the kingdom of the Theos is that wherein the Theos dwells. Iesous is speaking the words of Theos, so he is the place where Theos reigns, that is in him. The scribe is in a reciprocal kerubic relationship with Iesous, so he, that is in his mouth, is where Theos dwells and reigns. Finally, because the two are in agreement then they are as the kaporeth and, therefore the Theos dwells, and reigns, in between the two men, man unto his brother, as it were.

We have seen that commandments are a necessary outcome of the revelation of the name. Man must obey the commands that Yahweh has given him to inherit that name, to receive the possession. In the above passage, the relevance of love is seen in the two fundamental commandments on which the law and prophets hang. Iesous clarifies the relevance of love in respect of the revelation of the father’s name and the commandments which he gives to his disciples at the outset of this new covenant.

And the glory which thou gave me I have given them; that they may be one (εν), even as we are one (εν): I in (εν) them, and thou in (εν) me, that they may be made perfect in one (εις εν); and that the kosmos may know that thou have sent me, and have loved them, as thou have loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou have given me, be with me where I am (eimi ego  ειμι εγω) ; that they may behold my glory, which thou have given me: for thou loved me before the foundation of the kosmos. Righteous Father, the kosmos has not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou have sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou have loved me may be in (εν) them, and I in (εν) them. (Iohannes 17.22-26)

Firstly, it is worth noting the homographic occurrences of en (εν) and eis (εις) depicting, as they do, both the notion of oneness but also of being directed ‘unto’/’into’ and of residing ‘in’. As we shall see, a little later on, the journey of the name, of becoming him, ends with dwelling in him and him in us.

Antithetical to Theos is the kosmos, an ordered system that is antagonistic to Theos and to him revealed in Iesous. However, this ordered system is witness to Iesous and his ministration of the unity and love of Theos in himself and with the intent of that same unity and love being in his disciples. He has declared the name of the father to his disciples with the intent of them manifesting his name. That name being bound up in the twin notions of oneness and love. Iesous desires them to be in the same place where he is. That place where the ‘I am’ is the fulfilment of the ‘I will be’. That place where Theos has become man in love and unity, where his name dwells and reigns in Iesous and his disciples. The system in which Iesous has walked and been tempted and hunted by those seeking to ensnare him in his words when he only spoke as the kerub of Yahweh, though their kerubic response was one of antagonism and hatred and variance, yet his speech was of unity and love; that system was the Ioudaioi that surrounded him, once a created order of Yahweh, prepared for the dwelling of his name but becoming not a people, as in Hoshea’ 1. This same system was the one in which Iesous knew his disciples would walk, similarly offering the euangelion of love and reconciliation in the face of tribulation occasioned by animosity and hatred. In this context Iesous offers them the new commandments that lie at the heart of this new covenant.

A new commandment I give unto you, That you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another. (Iohannes 13.34,35)

If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you unto (εις) the age…In (εν) that day you shall know that I am in (εν) my father, and you in (εν) me, and I in (εν) you. He that has my commandments, and keeps them, he it is that loves me: and he that loves me shall be loved of my father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Ioudas says unto him, not Iskariot, Lord, how is it that thou will manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the kosmos? Iesous answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my father will love him, and we will come towards (προς) him, and make our abode with him. He that loves me not keeps not my sayings: and the word which you hear is not mine, but the father’s which sent me. (Iohannes 14.15,16,20-24)

Above, the directional words eis (εις), en (εν), and pros (προς) have been indicated – unto/into, in, and towards, much as we saw in Iohannes 17. Again, we can consider that the first two of these directional words are also homographs for ‘one’. This is because the journey unto becoming one with and in Theos, and thus fulfilling the name of Yahweh, is to begin in a ‘towards’ (kerubic) relationship of being face to face, of travelling ‘unto’ that destination of becoming him until we enter ‘into’ and become ‘in’, and thus become ‘one’, Theos. This process is motivated by spirit which creates love, the outcome of which is reconciliation driven by Theos. The new commandment, not that it did not exist before, because, as we saw above, the commandment to love the Lord our Theos and our neighbour as ourselves was in the Old Testament, but rather that it is the foundation of a new, or renewed covenant with his people based on these manifestational principles.

The evidence of love by the disciples is the keeping of the commandments. This is the reciprocal part of the kaporeth relationship which fulfils the covenant name. Following on from such a reciprocity is the giving of the comforter, the spirit, which was to lead them into all truth. The comforter is described as ‘another’ comforter because Iesous was the first ‘comforter’. The Greek for comforter is parakletos (παρακλητος):

My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have a comforter towards (προς) the father, Iesous anointed the righteous: And he is the propitiation (ilasmos ιλασμος) concerning our sins: and not concerning ours only, but also concerning the whole kosmos. And in (εν) this we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that says, I know him, and keeps not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in (εν) him. But whoso keeps his word, in (εν) him verily is the love of the Theos perfected: in (εν) this know we that we are in (εν) him. (1 Iohannes 2.1-5)

Iesous is the comforter because he manifests the comfort that is of Theos (2 Corinthians 1.3). He reveals him to us. That comfort comes from revelation of the truth. This same pattern of revelation that brings consolation and reconciliation is evident in the sending of the holy spirit in the name of Iesous which he is alluding to in Iohannes 14. This manifestation is the basis for the propitiation/mercyseat which concerns the removal of sin. It is in this context that we are able to behold Iesous’ manifestation of the love of Theos in the provision of him as a kaporeth, that we are able to reciprocate that love by manifesting him in keeping his commandments. It is at this point that we can see our way to becoming in, and one, Theos.

Love, like grace, spirit, and belief is the invisible force that creates tangible evidence of its existence. The evidence of the existence of love in Theos is his provision of his beloved son. The evidence of the love of Theos in Iesous is that there is no greater love than that a man lay down his soul for his friends (Iohannes 15.13 – where ‘lay down’ is the verb related to Theos). The love of Theos in Iesous in the disciples is shown in their reciprocal relationship with Theos in Iesous seen in the keeping of the commandments and that they too seek to manifest him in laying down their souls for the brothers (1 Iohannes 3.16).

We have seen, in both this post and the previous one, the qualities which define the Theos in such an existential sense that they are often just juxtaposed, although sometimes given the verb ‘is’. We have also determined that there is an equivalence between Theos and ‘el (אל), where Theos is derived from a verb meaning ‘to set’ or ‘place’ and giving a vertical orientation of manifestation (that is top to bottom), whereas ‘el (אל) is homographic with, amongst others, the words for ‘to’/’unto’ and one of the words for the negative and, because of its association with direction and the face to face juxtaposition of the kerubym on the kaporeth, has a sense of the horizontal orientation of manifestation (that is, face to face). The word ‘el (אל) also carries a sense of power, as in control, and, along with its directional sense, gives us the sense of impetus and directional energy. This being said, to say that the Theos is love; is spirit; is grace; is faithful; is the word, is to associate directional impetus with these qualities. Love, therefore, is a directional force. It is given by the one who has it to the one who does not. The outcome of the receiving of love is to, potentially, reciprocate it. The Theos sent (directed) his son as the embodiment of himself to give us the opportunity of giving up our souls (our natural identities) unto him in order to become him. Love is a selfless force, it is to give up for the other, to relinquish for the other. Theos gave of himself by giving his son, who manifested him, for us to give up of ourselves to reciprocate towards him. The question of love is missed by the rich young man who couches it in terms of, What can I do to get something? The real question is, What can I give (up) to be transformed into Theos. The rich young man has not kept the commandments because he has not yielded himself to the Theos in love, neither has he loved his neighbour as himself. This is why he is unwilling to give up his wealth to the poor, because he is in the mindset of getting not giving. Love is a force of giving. Theos is a giver; indeed, he loves a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9.7), one who is manifesting him.

Furthermore, in keeping with the meaning of the homographic אל we can see love and, in particular, the love of Theos being defined by negative and positive characteristics. As, indeed, we can see the definition of that which embodies Theos, and therefore the love of Theos, being expressed in a similar fashion. This is because the Theos is love and, therefore, he and love are indistinguishable. If Theos (and אל its equivalent) can be determined by negative and positive, so can love. We can see love for what it is and what it is not. Iesous is defined by what he is, the ‘I am’, the spirit, and what he is not, the mind of the flesh. The love of Theos is perfected in him; he is the yea and the amen. We saw in Maththaios that we should love those that are in an antagonistic relationship with us, that is our enemies, as the Theos makes his rain to fall on the just and unjust alike. We are required to be perfect as Theos is perfect. We saw the definition of love as a fruit of spirit in opposition to the qualities, such as hatred and variance, which are the works of the flesh. We are required to uphold love not hatred.

The Theos is love. If we keep the commandments of Theos in Iesous then we love him and, becoming him, become love.

Framing the question in such a way may have already set the trajectory of this blog. Firstly, the tense of the question implies that it is a question of the present. However, in both Greek and Hebrew, although there is a verb ‘to be’, it is a common practice to juxtapose two terms together with an implied relationship, the tense not being relevant. Therefore, we are going to endeavour to do the same. Where we are not dealing with an epithet which is juxtaposed adjacent to Theos, we may look at the tense of that co-existence. This is why I have placed the ‘is’ in square brackets because often it is not there. The second point is whether it is relevant to consider whether there should be an article preceding Theos. In Greek there often is, although the articles vary but must be definite articles as there is no such thing as the indefinite article (a, an) in either Greek or Hebrew. Again, we will consider this.

Furthermore, and perhaps most pertinent to the trajectory of this blog, is the fact that Theos is an equivalent of the Old Testament ‘el (אל). This term, similarly mistranslated ‘God’, is, of course, homographic with the word ‘unto’; a word for ‘power’ (as in control); a word for the negative (‘no’, ‘not’ etc); an uncommon word for ‘oath’; and a word for ‘this’/’these’. We paid this some attention at the outset of these posts, at the beginning of our journey, as it were.

‘el (אל), when referring to the creator, occurs on 245 occasions in the Old Testament. It rarely takes the definite article (the). In this form it is ha’el (האל). In this form it occurs 29 times of which 22 times are used as the title for him, whereas the other occurrences typically refer to the homographic ‘these’/’those’.

Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto ‘Abraham thy father; (Genesis 26.3)

Yahweh is here reiterating the promises made to ‘Abraham to his son Yitshaq. The occurrence of ha’el (האל) is specific to the countries surrounding him. The same limiting definition is being placed on the refuge cities that a person guilty of manslaughter could flee to:

Then Mosheh severed three cities on this side Yarden toward the sunrising; That the slayer might flee there, which should kill his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in times past; and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live: (Deuteronomy 4.41,42)

The three of the six cities designated as refuge cities which were on the further side of the river were being defined and named. In this sense we can see the use of the definite article is definitive of the specific ones being named or understood and exclusive of any others. This kind of definition works when describing the ‘el himself:

Thou show lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompense the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the great, the mighty ‘el, Yahweh of hosts, is his name, (Yeremyahu 32.18)

In language highly reminiscent of Exodus 34, when Yahweh passes by Mosheh calling his name, some of the qualities of the ‘el are being defined here, in clear relation to his name, which we have seen is the identity of Yahweh he requires to live in men, it is that path to becoming him.

Know therefore that Yahweh thy ‘elohym, he is ‘elohym, the faithful ‘el, keeping covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations; (Deuteronomy 7.9)

Here we see the ‘el as being defined by his qualities of mercy and keeping covenant with those that love him and keep his commandments. This is the basis of the covenant name, an agreement to be honoured with those in a reciprocal relationship of love with him.

For Yahweh your ‘elohym is ‘elohym of the ‘elohym, and ‘adonay of the ‘adonym, the great ‘el, mighty, and fearful, who regards not persons, nor takes reward: (Deuteronomy 10.17)

Again, he is defined by characteristics pertaining to his name and superiority but specifically that he is not interested in outward appearances or rank in men. These qualities, as we shall see with others, are repeated in the New Testament with regard to Theos.

Blessed be ‘adonay, who daily loads (burdens) us, the ‘el of our salvation. Selah. The ‘el of us, an ‘el of salvation; and unto Yahweh ‘adonay are the issues from death. (Psalm 68.18,20)

Again, we shall see that him being the ‘el of our salvation is repeated in The New Testament.

The ‘el, his way is perfect: the word of Yahweh is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him. For who is ‘eloah save Yahweh? or who is a rock save our ‘elohym? The ‘el that girds me with strength, and makes my way perfect. (Psalm 18.30-32)

His way is perfect, and his word is the means to direct our steps along that way, and his word is also perfected in us through trial and he, through those utterances, becomes our shield (buckler), making our way perfect, like his.

So, in summary of the above, we can say that the ‘el is defined specifically in positive and negative terms, separating him from being defined as another ‘el, as not respecting persons in judgment; he is merciful and makes covenant with those who love and keep his commandments; he is great and to be feared; his word is perfect and directs believers along a perfect way, which is his way; he is faithful; and, taking all these together, he is the ‘el of [our] salvation.

In the New Testament we see these qualities reiterated, and much more, in terms of the definitive Theos, the Theos who is unlike any other theoi:

But if our euangelion be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the theos of this age has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious euangelion of anointed, who is the image of the Theos, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4.3-4)

The definite article is clearly making a distinction between two theoi here, the theos of this age, a carnal spirit of present wisdom that blinds potential believers from the true message of anointed, and the Theos, the only true one who lives and whose image is seen in the face of Iesous. This is the spirit of definition, making clear statements of identity that differentiate him from any other.

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me: Theos accepts no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: (Galatians 2.6)

As in the Old Testament passage above, Theos has no respect of faces toward men, whoever they are or think they are, he looks only upon the inner man and judges accordingly.

But the Theos, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us with anointed, (by grace you are saved;) (Ephesians 2.4,5)

This judgment is, of course, tempered by his great mercy, as is evidenced in the revelation of his name in Exodus 34.

Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of the Theos is sent unto the nations, and that they will hear it. (Acts 28.28)

This mercy leads to his salvation.

The Theos is faithful, by whom you were called unto the fellowship of his Son Iesous anointed our Lord. (1 Corinthians 1.9)

So, we have seen attributes associated with the ‘el in the Old Testament reiterated in describing the Theos of the New. From this point on, in the New Testament, we start to see a different construction that juxtaposes [the] Theos with qualities, epithets or phenomena. In this case it is with the word pistos (πιστος) which is usually translated ‘faithful’ and, apart from defining the Theos, it can also define those who are receptive to his word and reciprocate it in belief. The related words in this family of Greek words are pistis (πιστις) usually translated ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ and pisteuo (πιστευω) ‘to believe’. The construction, here in 1 Cor.1.9 is ‘pistos ho Theos’ (πιστος ο θεος) – faithful the Theos. A similar construction occurs in 1 Timotheos:

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work. (1 Timotheos 3.1)

The phrasing ‘this is a true saying’ is pistos ho logos (πιστος ο λογος) and would perhaps be better translated ‘faithful the word’. It occurs in Paulos’ letters to Timotheos and Titos on a number of occasions. If we say that the word [is] faithful and we also say that the Theos [is] faithful then it is not a stretch to say that the Theos, also, [is] the word:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was towards the Theos, and the Word was Theos. (Iohannes 1.1)

Here, there is a verb, was, which is set in the past tense because the beginning being referred to is in the past. At that time the word was in a reciprocal (towards) relationship with Theos and was Theos. His utterances were indivisible from him because they were the speech that emanated from him and were the revelation of his mind, but they were sent forth to ‘elohym to perform the creation and were received back as obedient acts and verbal acknowledgement. It is this revelation of the spirit which is him and emanates from him:

But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth: for the father seeks such to worship him. The Theos is spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (Iohannes 4.23,24)

The Greek here follows the same construction as ‘the Theos [is] faithful’ and ‘the word [is] faithful’, that is the two elements are juxtaposed without a verb in between, thus – pneuma ho Theos (πνευμα ο θεος). Spirit denotes mind, as we have seen in an earlier blog. Spirit is Theos, Theos is a mind. The utterances of the spirit are the word. Theos [is] word. All the subsequent juxtapositions are dependent on this principle. The revelation of who he was, is and will be are revealed by and in himself. He seeks people to reciprocate such and worship him in spirit and in truth.

Of the epithets that include the verb ‘to be’ we find the statement that the Theos is true:

He that has received his testimony has set to his seal that the Theos is true. (Iohannes 3.33)

The Greek here is ‘ho Theos alethes estin’ (ο θεος αληθης εστιν). Iohannes the baptist is speaking about Iesous and the origination of his identity being heavenly, that is he was sent by Theos, embodying the characteristics of Theos. If somebody receives this witness from Iesous as coming from the Theos then he himself has committed to the truth of the Theos in Iesous and remains in that state so long as he remains in that belief. Other occurrences of ‘sealing’ indicate that an unwavering commitment to the truth of Theos is a certainty for salvation. Theos is true inasmuch as his revelation is a revelation of him and he is the source of truth, and it has the outcome of not being a lie. If this is what he is, what is intrinsic to his identity, then it is vital that those who seek to become him, and whom Theos seeks to become him, are also true. If they hold fast to that revelation of truth and seek to become true, as he is, then they can be assured of becoming him in the end. Whatsoever is of Theos, therefore, is true/truth; whatsoever is not of him is antithetical to that revelation of truth, it is false.

We can see these qualities in Iesous when he says, to Thomas:

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the father, but by me. (Iohannes 14.6)

Iesous uses the ‘ego eimi’ (εγω ειμι) form – ‘I, I am’. As a present tense fulfilment of the ‘I will be’ implicit in the name of Yahweh (Ex.3.14). He is fulfilling the identity of the Theos by being the embodiment of his way, his life and his truth, because the Theos is all of these things:

And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priskilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of the Theos more perfectly. (Acts 18.26)

manifestly declared to be the epistle of anointed ministered by us, written not with ink, but with spirit of living Theos; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. (2 Corinthians 3.3)

Theos is true, he is living and he has a way. It is the revelation of his truth that leads us to walk in the way which he has ordained, and trod in his son, that leads to aionian life:

And this is life aionian, that they might know thee the only true Theos, and Iesous anointed, whom thou have sent. (Iohannes 17.3)

Iesous embodies these things – way, truth, life – and therefore declares the name/identity of Theos in himself. If we assent to that declaration and hold on to it steadfastly then we can be assured of becoming him in the end. If we are to do so we must walk that way unto aionian life by the impetus of the revelation of his truth, which is himself.

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that the Theos is light, and in him is no darkness at all. (1 Iohannes 1.5)

Here, the Greek follows the same pattern as that of Theos being true – ho Theos phos estin (ο θεος φως εστιν). The verb to be is included again. In this beginning of the first letter of Iohannes, we find the same themes being expressed as we found, particularly, in Iohannes 1.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that aionian life, which was with the father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the father, and with his son Iesous anointed…If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Iesous anointed his son cleanses us from all sin. (1 Iohannes 1.1-3,6-7)

The word is living, because it is of Theos, and its way leads unto aionian life, which is also of, and is, the Theos. The life, in the living word, was manifested to us in Iesous. Having fellowship or communion – which is to share a oneness of mind – with the father and the son is to engage in the same manifestation as the son. If we walk in the light of that manifestation of the living word, then we will fight the carnal mind with that living spirit and we will have access to forgiveness of sins through the metonymic blood of anointed.

One of the qualities that people often associate with Theos is his goodness and, indeed, it is the thing that Yahweh says he will reveal to Mosheh when he passed by him and declared his name:

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have aionian life? And he said unto him, Why do you speak to me of good? there is none good but one the Theos: but if thou will enter into life, keep the commandments. (Maththaios 19.16,17)

Here the Greek is oudeis agathos ei me eis ho Theos (ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος) – there is none good but one the Theos. Iesous is not prepared to accept the appellation ‘good’, as the only source for goodness, and the revelation of the name, is the father. The man cannot do a good thing, he must become like the father to inherit aionian life, which is of the father. He can do this by keeping the commandments and giving up his wealth in this age. Fundamental to this description of Theos as being the only one that is good is that he is one, which is here represented by the homographic eis (εις), signifying, primarily, in this place, the meaning ‘one’, but carrying the homographic sense of unto, as the route unto Theos is the route unto becoming one with him.

And Iesous answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, Israel; The Lord our Theos, the Lord is one: And thou shall love the Lord thy Theos with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. (Markos 12.30)

The idea of Theos being one is something that we have dealt with in previous blogs, especially in respect of the name of Yahweh:

And Yahweh shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Yahweh, and his name one. (Zecharyah 14.9)

In the future tense fulfilment of Yahweh’s name when all people have been gathered together into him, in one, then it can be said that he is one. Although we can see that oneness has a sense of defining him exclusively, it is not a limiting factor of singularity. He is good and no other one can be that. He is one Theos, and there is no other but him. However, his oneness is seen in a unity of mind which is fulfilled when all the multitude of willing recipients of that spirit are gathered together into the one that is him.

There is one body, and one spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one belief, one baptism, One Theos and father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4.4-6)

We saw, in a previous blog, how that the terms for ‘one’ used here are a mixture of two terms – en (εν) and eis (εις) – which elsewhere are homographs of, respectively, ‘in’ and ‘unto’/’into’. So, the journey of becoming one with Theos is a directional path that ends up in him. It is occasioned through belief in that one spirit and overwhelming immersion in that same spirit.

For though there be that are called theoi, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be theoi many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one Theos, the father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Iesous anointed, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Corinthians 8.5-6)

Theos is defined by who he is, and of course will be, and who he is not. Out of him proceed all things, the things of his spirit and by that we are able to become one in him. This process has been occasioned by the creative work of Iesous who was the first to manifest Theos in perfection and after whom we must follow.

The final quality we shall look at is that of love:

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of the Theos; and every one that loves is born of the Theos, and knows the Theos. He that loves not knows not the Theos; for the Theos is love. In this was manifested the love of the Theos toward us, because that the Theos sent his only begotten son into the kosmos, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved the Theos, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if the Theos so loved us, we ought also to love one another. (1 Iohannes 4.7-11)

The Greek here is ‘ho Theos agape estin’ (ο θεος αγαπη εστιν) – the Theos love is. The word for ‘propitiation’ is ‘ilasmos’ (ιλασμος) and is closely related to the word, similarly translated ‘propitiation’, ‘ilasterion’ (ιλαστηριον) which occurs in Romans 3.25 (which we have looked at in a previous blog) and whose other occurrence is in Hebrews 9.5 where it is translated as ‘mercyseat’ and is clearly describing the kaporeth with the kerubym which sat on top of the ark.

Theos has loved us in that he sent his son to be that which occasions forgiveness of sins via the declaration of his righteousness. That is, the son manifested the love of the father by giving up his life/soul/identity by immersion in the spirit in order to overcome the carnal mind. When we see the son, we see the declaration of Theos and we are able to follow that path. The path of love requires that we follow his lead. We must reciprocate the love of Theos by reflecting to him who he is and by demonstrating to others, predominantly those that are, or will become, believers, the father.

In a future blog we will discuss in more detail the love of Theos but for now let us reflect on the qualities of Theos. The word Theos occurs 1,343 times in the New Testament and in almost every occurrence it gives us various aspects of his identity and behaviour. These include, but are not limited to, glory, perfection, gift giving, knowledge, wisdom, righteousness, grace, forbearance, mercy, hope, peace, consolation, comfort, that he raises the dead, that he is invisible, unseen by the eye of man, does not lie, does not tempt with evil, that he is immortal, he is immutable, and he builds. Besides these almost every statement of his is an indication of who he is, and will be, how he behaves towards us and towards those that oppose him and who it is we should be seeking. The few qualities we have looked at in more detail here – love, faithfulness, truth, light, spirit, goodness, oneness and word – have shown us some of those fundamental characteristics which he is happy to directly juxtapose with his title which, as we saw early on in this journey, is from the word ‘to set’ or ‘place’ and indicates the vertical orientation of order that comes down from the father through his representatives, particularly his son, and is received by willing and obedient ears whose mouths reciprocate back up towards him.

In the blog on baptism, it was evident that baptism is associated with forgiveness of sins and also that this association is directional. That is, it is unto the forgiveness of sins. Some of this has already been covered in, for example, the post on the mercy seat in the New Testament. However, as it is clear that there is such a close relationship with baptism and forgiveness of sins, as there is with the kaporeth and forgiveness of sins, it seems pertinent to revisit the journeying aspect of that forgiveness in the light of the journeying of baptisms:

And he came into all the country about Iordanes, preaching the baptism of repentance unto (εις) the remission of sins; (Loukas 3.3)

The word ‘remission’ is elsewhere translated ‘forgiveness’ and is the Greek noun aphesis (αφεσις) which is related to the verb aphiemi (αφιημι), sometimes translated ‘forgive’, but also translated ‘let’. ‘allow’ and ‘forsake’. This family of words is one of three that seem to cover the idea of forgiveness. The other two verbs are apoluo (απολυω) and karizomai (καριζομαι). In Romans 3, however, a word for ‘remission’ occurs that is unique, as a noun, in the New Testament:

Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in anointed Iesous: Whom Theos has set forth to be a propitiation through belief in his blood, unto a declaration of his righteousness through the remission of sins that are past, in the forbearance of Theos; Towards the declaration, at this time of his righteousness: unto his being just, and the justifier of him which believes in Iesous. (Romans 3.24-26)

The word ‘redemption’ here is apolutrosis (απολυτρωσις) and is related to one of the words for forgive mentioned above – apoluo (απολυω) – which means ‘to be loosed from’. Furthermore, that redemption is an outcome of the grace, which is in the anointed Iesous, as one of the words ‘to forgive’ (karizomai καριζομαι) is also related to ‘grace’ (karis χαρις). We have seen in previous blogs that the encampment of the children of Yisra’el was associated with the word for grace and that grace is an outcome of the kaporeth. Grace is the favour that an obedient believer is in receipt of through the word of Theos. It is his favour expressed toward us in his revelation, offering us the opportunity to reciprocate in belief.

Theos has set forth Iesous as a propitiation. Firstly, the word ‘propitiation’ is the identical Greek word used in Hebrews 9.5 (ilasterion ιλαστηριον) where it is translated ‘mercyseat’ and clearly is describing the kaporeth, the lid upon the ark out of which were formed the two kerubym. ‘Set forth’ derives from the same word which is the root for the term ‘Theos’. Theos has set, or set in order, Iesous in a vertical manifestational relationship. He has revealed himself to Iesous and created him as a set or placed one, as himself. This vertical order of placing or setting down describes an orientation of headship in which Theos is creating his likeness in Iesous. The outcome of this is that he will become the ‘mercyseat’ unto a declaration of Theos’ righteousness. He will be that which is created by the face to face mediation and reciprocation of the kerubym. Upon this place, where the kerubym created the unity which goes to the heart of the fulfilment of Yahweh’s name, was the blood of the bull and of the goat placed on the day of the atonements. It is through belief in that shed blood of the true sacrifice that remission of sins occurs. The blood of Iesous is materially of no consequence in remitting sins. It is the shedding of that blood which is of importance. The blood is metonymical, as was the cup and baptism Iesous told the sons of Zebedaios that they would partake of. It is the drinking of the cup of the will of Theos, it is the immersion in spirit that leads to the destruction of the carnal mind, it is the shedding of blood that is the culmination of that casting off of the flesh. A believer must acknowledge and share in that putting away of the carnal mind as a result of the interaction of the kaporeth. The flesh, and the transgressions that are a result of it, are dispersed by the receipt and reciprocation of the utterances of Theos.

‘Remission’ here in Romans 3 is, as we said above, a unique occurrence of this word (paresis παρεσις). However, it does have a relation to the most common of the words for remission (aphesis αφεσις) and its associated verb ‘to forgive’ (aphiemi αφιημι). The former word can be broken down into two constituent parts – para παρα (often translated as ‘of’ or ‘by’) and either iemi ιημι (meaning ‘to send’) or eimi ειμι (‘to go’). The latter has the preposition apo απο (often translated ‘from’) as the prefix for the same verb. Therefore, at their heart, both these words have a sense of sending, or going, away from. We can see a pattern emerging for the words that are used in the context of the removal/departure of sin(s) from the believer. That is, that there is a removal, a distancing, a loosening and a letting go of transgression from the disciple.

As the kaporeth has been invoked in Romans 3 in the context of forgiveness of sins, we can see the relevance of the journeying of that ark and kaporeth, as we have been investigating in recent posts. It is the kerubic relationship of reciprocal manifestation which is at the heart of the figure of the kaporeth, which is the directional impetus at the head of the children of Yisra’el and their procession towards their inheritance, as they follow the leading example of that ark and kaporeth. This is the figure that can be seen to lead us in an understanding of the incremental progression of forgiveness of sins unto the final destination.

So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to Theos, which gives us the victory through our Lord Iesous anointed. (1 Corinthians 15.54-57)

Standing as an antithesis to aphiemi (αφιημι) is the Greek verb eiseimi (εισειμι). The prefix to the verb is moving in the opposite direction from ‘forgive’ (aphiemi αφιημι) where it is ‘from’ (apo απο). Now in this verb it is ‘unto’ (eis εις).

Now when these things were thus ordained, the priests went always into the first tabernacle, accomplishing the service. (Hebrews 9.6)

Of the three other occurrences of this verb two are entrances into the temple in Ierousalem and the third is the entry of Paulos into the midst of the elders of the ekklesia in Ierousalem. Here, in Hebrews 9, we have once again the allusion to the tabernacle and its component parts, including the kaporeth, speaking, as it does, of the removal of sins. We have two directional impulses in this context. The sins of the people are directed away from them while the priests, representative of the priesthood of the whole nation, are entering into the dwelling of Theos. The journey is away from sin and towards, into and in Theos. This direction is possible by the impetus of his ordinances.

Petros clearly shows the journey of forgiveness of sins in Acts while preaching to the people:

Repent therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; And he shall send Iesous Anointed, which before was preached unto you: (Acts 3.19,20)

Forgiveness of sins can, in other places, seem to have been already accomplished. Yet from the above, and our understanding of the journeying of the ark and kaporeth and the entrance into the holy of holies accomplished on the day of the atonements, we can see that it is yet to be fulfilled.

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; Wherein he has abounded toward us in all wisdom and prudence; Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he has purposed in himself: That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in anointed, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: (Ephesians 1.7-10)

Of course, it becomes evident that this forgiveness of sins is dependent upon belief concerning the shedding of his blood and the meaning of that final act in relation to the struggle against the carnal mind throughout his life. It is an acknowledgment of that journey of his that came to an end at Golgotha upon the stake. It is a commitment to association with that journey by us, which is why it is dependent on the continued favour of Theos towards us and our abiding in his commandments. The outcome of that journey’s end comes at the return of the Lord and the resurrection of those who have believed in the shedding of his blood and have offered works meet for repentance, that is their resurrection after the pattern of his. This is when sin is removed entirely. The time and place when the people are separated from sin and unto, into and in Theos. The removal of sin is an incremental journey, much as that of the ark and kaporeth.

Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay you all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me what you owe. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay you all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O you wicked servant, I forgave you all that debt, because you desired me: Should not you also have had compassion on your fellowservant, even as I had pity on you? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if you from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses. (Maththaios 18.23-35)

Some points to note here. Firstly, in light of a discussion in the previous blog, this is a proverb to describe the kingdom of heaven. The embodiment on the earth of the heavenly values of Theos is seen in this allegory. It is a narrative based on manifestation. It is a response to Petros’ enquiry as to how often he should forgive his brother when he repents. The kingdom is when true reciprocal manifestation is engaged in by believers. This is not the case here. Forgiveness of sins is seen in the metaphor of clearance of financial debt. This is an important likeness as Iesous’ work is seen on at least three occasions as a ransom, a word which, in the Greek, is related to the ‘loosing’ of the debt that the king engages in with the first servant. The immense debt is forgiven by the king; the relative pittance of debt to his fellow servant is not cleared by the first servant. As a result of his failure to engage in manifestation the initial overwhelming debt is reinstated. The lesson is clear: we have received forgiveness of sins, and we must manifest the father in doing the same. Sin can be cleared but can be reinstated. In terms of the believer this is the case. In response to understanding the word of Theos, his commandments, and keeping it/them, the believer is able to proceed having been separated from sin and on an incremental journey of understanding motivated by remaining in a kerubic relationship with the father. Whilst on this onward journey to the destination of the kingdom and of his own resurrection the believer can remain in a position of receiving forgiveness of sins. Any backtracking on this understanding and failure of manifestation leads to the reinstating of the debt. The final and complete withdrawal of all debt is at a time when it will not be reinstated because the believer is glorified and incapable of sinning. In the end of the sabbath of rest and the dawning of the eighth day there will be no person left in sin and then sin and death will be utterly overcome.

We can see therefore that the path of forgiveness is conditional on belief in the shedding of the blood of anointed, and the believer’s commitment to follow suit; it is conditional on believing into the name of the son, which is the name of the father unto salvation, this name being the journey unto becoming him; it is conditional upon remaining in the favour of the father, which is the revelation of his spirit in his utterances.

And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink all of it; For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed concerning many unto the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom. (Maththaios 26.27-29)

Then Petros said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you upon the name of Iesous Anointed unto the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the holy spirit. (Acts 2.38)

Him has Theos exalted with his right hand to be a prince and a saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. (Acts 5.31)

To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believes into him shall receive remission of sins. (Acts 10.43)

But he, whom Theos raised again, saw no corruption. Be it known unto you therefore, men and brothers, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: (Acts 13.38)

Who has delivered us from the power of darkness, and has translated us into the kingdom of his dear son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: (Colossians 1.14)

In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace; (Ephesians 1.7)

This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; And their sins and iniquities will I remember no more. Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin. (Hebrews 10.16-18)

Remission of sin is an outcome of the manifestation of the name of the father by the son which culminates in his resurrection. Iesous has taken away sin. He was separated from sin by the spirit of the father in his utterances. He joined himself unto the father and became him. This path is open to us to follow, to take on his name, and therefore the father’s, unto separation from sin unto the age. This is the journey unto forgiveness of sins, premised upon the favour of Theos unto us in his revelation and our reciprocal belief and incremental pursuit of becoming him.

In the previous blog post to this one we looked at two incidents in the Old Testament which, when discussed in the New Testament, are seen as likenesses of baptism. Both the passing through the sea by the children of Yisra’el and the flood of Noah involved significant volumes of water which had an overwhelming element. In both scenarios the faithful man, as head of the house and along with his house, passes through the inundation unscathed while the adversaries of Yahweh are overwhelmed and perish in the experience. Clearly, both of these events have anticipatory value in their prefiguring of things to come. It is clear from these accounts and several others that, at the heart of this figurative and anticipatory work, a significant quantity of water is required for its enactment.

Our first encounters with baptism in the New Testament occur at the beginning of Iesous’ ministry:

The beginning of the euangelion of Iesous Anointed, the Son of Theos…Iohannes did baptise in the wilderness, and preach the baptism of repentance unto the forgiveness of sins. And there went out towards him all the land of Ioudaia, and they of Ierousalem, and were all baptised of him in the river Iordanes, confessing their sins. (Markos 1.1,4,5)

At the beginning of the journey which can be described as the euangelion, Iohannes is sent to prepare people for the coming of Iesous. We have already seen in previous blogs that euangelion (ευαγγελιον) is part of a family of words that begin with the Greek ‘eu’ (ευ), which means ‘well’ in, for example, ‘well done’. These words, like the word translated ‘godliness’, the word translated ‘give thanks’ etc., all have a sense of reciprocity. The euangelion is the message from Theos, delivered by a messenger (‘angel’ in Greek) with the intent of eliciting a reciprocal response. This preparation which Iohannes is involved in is accompanied by baptism, which is itself seen as a journey, in the waters of the river Iordanes towards forgiveness of sins. It is redolent of the entry, through the waters of the same river, into the land by the children of Yisra’el as they were completing their journey towards the destination promised to the patriarchs and which was reiterated in Exodus 3, at the outset of that same journey, in the context of the revelation of Yahweh’s name.

This message has a beginning and an ending in respect of Iesous’ life on the earth. The progression of this journey and of the journey of his followers is seen as having a destination of the forgiveness of sins. At the end of his journey Iesous says, regarding baptism:

Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them into the name of the father, and of the son, and of the holy spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, behold, I am with you always, even unto the completion of the age. (Maththaios 28.19,20)

and:

And he said unto them, Go into all the kosmos, and preach the euangelion to all creation. He that believes and is baptised shall be saved; but he that believes not shall be condemned. (Markos 16.15,16)

From these two statements of commission that Iesous gives to his disciples we can see that the journey unto the forgiveness of sins which baptism is part of is closely associated with the name of the father. We have already seen that the name of the father, that is the name of Yahweh, is about the journey of becoming him. It is about agency, representation. The angels/messengers that are sent in his name are his representatives; they have become so by the holy spirit. The holy spirit is him, because it is his mind, revealed unto the creation of holiness in others so that they then become representations of himself. Here that pursuit of the name is associated with the son and with the holy spirit. The son is the complete example of upholding the name (note that he says ‘I am’ in Maththaios 28.20, indicating his fulfilment of the ‘I will be’ of Exodus 3). The holy spirit is the mind of Theos as it moves from one kerub to the other. It is the verb, as it were, in the subject/verb/object construction. The holy spirit is the impetus and direction that reveals the name and creates the possibility of reciprocation. Yet, as it is the father also, then it is the subject of the sentence and, because its aim is to create the object with the aim of reflecting the subject by the object, we can argue that the spirit can encompass the whole process, the whole sentence. As we have seen previously, this phenomenon of mediation by direction and subsequent reciprocation with the intent of becoming one is the essence of the teaching of the name. Being baptised cannot be divorced from the attending teaching to observe whatsoever commandments the apostles will reveal to the believers. This is the reciprocation that is inherent in baptism into that process. It is the acknowledging of the mediation of Theos in Iesous in the disciples via the holy spirit and willingness to engage in it. In Markos we see the necessary function of baptism. That is, without baptism salvation is impossible. These two passages are set in the context of a command by Iesous to go forward, to take a journey, in offering the euangelion to the kosmos, that is, as it were, to go forward in his name (as representatives of him) to create, via the holy spirit, obedient representatives of him and, through him, the father. Of course, we have to ask, what is the baptism that is necessary for salvation? Is it the full immersion in water that is clearly envisaged in the flood and the Red Sea crossing or is it the immersion in holy spirit, the indefatigable pursuit of the name of Yahweh, and of him in Iesous, which will lead us to that final destination of becoming him?

Then comes Iesous from Galilaias to Iordanes unto Iohannes, to be baptised of him. But Iohannes forbad him, saying, I have need to be baptised of you, and come you to me? And Iesous answering said unto him, Suffer it to be so now: for thus it becomes us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suffered him. And Iesous, when he was baptised, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the spirit of Theos descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased. (Maththaios 3.13-17)

The answer then appears to be two-fold. Iesous says that it is imperative that he engages in the sign of full immersion in water as a work depicting his full immersion in the spirit of Theos, the sign of which the father shows in approbation after his obedience to the figurative work. It is, however, the full immersion in spirit that will lead to him taking away sins. There are issues of manifestation here. That is, that Iesous was required to demonstrate in a work, in a figure, the true of which he was partaking of at the beginning of the journey of his ministry. Iesous is manifesting Theos, because to be immersed in Theos is to become him, and we are called to follow him and manifest him. Therefore, we can assume that baptism unto salvation is immersion in Theos by his spirit, revealed to us in the words of this narrative, necessarily demonstrated by us following the example of Iesous in engaging with the figure of full immersion in water that depicts the true. Manifestation requires the participation in anticipatory figures and the fulfilment of the true.

Iesous answered and said unto him, Amen, Amen, I say unto you, Except a man be born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of Theos. Nikodemos says unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Iesous answered, Amen, Amen, I say unto you, Except a man be born of water and spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of Theos. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto you, You must be born from above. (Iohannes 3.3-7)

Iesous begins his conversation with Nikodemos, an elder of the Ioudaioi, by the straightforward statement that seeing the kingdom of Theos is dependent upon birth from above, a new birth, a new creation of a new identity supplied by Theos by his spirit. He also says that birth by water is also a requirement. That means that the entrance into the kingdom of Theos is barred from those who have not begun that journey of becoming Theos and have not indicated that journey unto him, and unto the removal of their sins, by being born in water. The new birth is like the old birth in figure but the new birth into the kingdom of Theos is out of the womb of the spirit in which the believer has been formed over time into the image of Theos, emerging into the light of that new day. The old birth is out of flesh, out of the woman’s womb. A failure to take the new journey will mean that the progression of the journey for the man of flesh will be like another growth within a carnal womb, fed by the umbilical cord of carnal wisdom until the emergence of the man is in an image wholly antithetical to the emergence of the man out of a prolonged journey of nourishment by spirit. The way to indicate commitment to this journey, knowing the trajectory and meaning of that way, is immersion in water.

The journey has a beginning, just as Iesous had a beginning, a beginning of the euangelion. Similarly, there is a beginning of the journey for the believer. It is at this time that immersion in water will signify that commitment to immersion in spirit. It is the purpose of this blog in its entirety, not just in this one post, to help discover the beginning, progression and destination of that path.

Enter in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it. (Maththaios 7.13,14)

I have left the word ‘strait’ untranslated here, but it is a word which, in English, derives from the idea of constraint and has the sense of narrow or tight. The word ‘narrow’, used to describe the way is from a family of Greek words meaning ‘afflicted’ or ‘troubled’. In the parallel passage in Loukas Iesous urges the disciples to ‘strive’ to enter in the gate where the word ‘strive’ is the Greek ‘agonise’. The people who take the journey have to struggle to find and enter in the gate. Along the way they are only able to reach the destination after abiding much tribulation and affliction. The point here is that there is a gate to the way. The way does not begin at our natural births, it has to be found, and only then can it be said that we are in the way, the path, unto Theos and his kingdom.

What is the beginning of this way that coincides with baptism in water, as an anticipatory act of baptism in spirit and emergence into the Theos and his kingdom?

But when they believed Philippos preaching the things concerning the kingdom of Theos, and the name of Iesous anointed, they were baptised, both men and women. (Acts 8.12)

Baptism here is seen as an act performed by adult males and females as a response to hearing the message concerning the name of Iesous Anointed and the kingdom of Theos. If we can understand these two themes of that message, then we will get to the gate that signifies the beginning of the journey.

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shall call his name Iesous: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanouel, which being interpreted is, Theos with us. (Maththaios 1.21-23)

The name of Iesous is clearly explained here. It means ‘he shall save’. Furthermore, his birth signifies that ‘el (אל) is with us. The question inherent in the statement ‘he shall save’ is, who is the ‘he’? The answer is supplied by the quotation from Yesha’yahu 7.14. It is ‘el who shall save as he is with us in Iesous. Iesous’ name is seen as equivalent, via references in Acts 7.45 and Hebrews 4.8 to that of Yehoshua’ the son of Nun.

These are the names of the men which Mosheh sent to spy out the land. And Mosheh called Hoshea the son of Nun Yehoshua’. (Numbers 13.16)

Originally, it seems, his name – Hoshea’ (הושע) was from the verb to save – yasha’ (ישע) but is then shunted into the future tense to become Yehoshua’ (יהושע). What is clear by looking at this newer, future tense, version of his name is that the first three letters in that name – y, h and w – are both the three letters that make up the name of Yahweh and also the structure that is used in many Hebrew names as a suffix, for example in the name of the prophet Yesha’yahu (ישעיהו), which is an inverted form of Yehoshua’, where the y, h and w follow rather than lead the ‘save’ verb. By seeing Yahweh’s name in the name of Yehoshua’ we see the meaning in Maththaios 1. Theos is in Iesous. The name of Yahweh is in the name of Iesous. We see the focus of the name, evident by the absence of the form Yahweh in the New Testament, in the name of Iesous. Therefore, to understand the name of Iesous we must understand the meaning of the name of Yahweh as evidenced in Iesous. That is, that Iesous is the heir of Yahweh’s name (Hebrews 1.4), he is the representation of Theos unto salvation. He creates the possibility of others becoming representations, also unto salvation. The name of Yahweh is the journey unto the inheritance that comes about by incrementally becoming him and leads to being him in perfection. As Iesous is the manifestation of that name he is the way towards, unto, into and in Theos.

The second part of the formula leading to belief and baptism by the preaching of Philippos is ‘the kingdom of Theos’. It is of course worth noting here that Philippos was ‘preaching’ this message. The word for preaching is ‘euangelizo’ (ευαγγελιζω) and, as you can see, is the verb associated with the noun ‘euangelion’ (ευαγγελιον). The message that Philippos is bringing is as a direct result of the commission which Iesous delivered to him and the other disciples in Maththaios 28 and Markos 16. It was a message of offering the opportunity for reciprocal manifestation to people who were willing to hear. It is the teaching of the name – of the possibility of willing and obedient people becoming representations of Theos in Iesous by the words of his representative.

The word ‘kingdom’ in Greek is basileia (βασιλεια) and is related to basileus (βασιλευς) which is the word for ‘king’. The kingdom, straightforwardly, is the domain of the king. It is that which the king rules over and which is subject to his directives.

Now after that Iohannes was put in prison, Iesous came into Galilaias, preaching the euangelion of the kingdom of Theos, And saying, The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of Theos is at hand: repent and believe the euangelion. (Markos 1.14,15)

The declaration of the euangelion in Iesous’ mouth is the proximity of the kingdom of Theos and is the kingdom of Theos. The kingdom of Theos is declared by the euangelion and it is the euangelion. It is nigh because the mouth that declares it is nigh.

But if I cast out demons in Theos’ spirit, then the kingdom of Theos is come unto you. (Maththaios 12.28)

Because Iesous was the representation of Theos in their midst, that is he was the spirit of Theos demonstrated amongst them because he was willingly obedient to that spirit, then the kingdom of Theos was there. The kingdom of Theos, therefore, is that wherein Theos dwells, namely the willing and obedient people who manifest him. Clearly, there are few who are on that path of manifesting him, so the anticipation is for a place (other than the place of their minds presently) and time when the kingdom of Theos is all and in all.

Amen I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day that I drink it new in the kingdom of Theos. (Markos 14.25)

Here, Iesous is engaging, with his disciples, in the anticipatory act of eating a supper with them before his death. He looks forward to a time, the kingdom of Theos, when he will drink of the cup with them. This is the sabbath of rest when they have been raised from the dead to be with him.

Now this I say, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of Theos; neither does corruption inherit incorruption…For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory. (1 Corinthians 15.50,53,54)

The kingdom of Theos comes to a destination in the willing recipients of its message, those that have separated themselves from the corruption of the carnal mind will become incorruptible and immortal. This culmination of the journey is available to those who have followed him in that way when the resurrection at the outset of the sabbath of rest occurs. The kingdom of Theos is a time and a place that incrementally progresses with the few that found the gate and walked in that way but comes to its culmination when all are in him and of him, at the conclusion of the sabbath of rest and the dawning of the new day.

But every man in his own order: Anointed the firstfruits; afterward they that are Anointed’s at his coming. Then is the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to Theos, even the father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power. For he must reign, till he has put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. For he has put all things under his feet. But when he says all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that Theos may be all things in all. (1 Corinthians 15.23-28)

A kingdom is an era of reigning. In Iesous, Theos was the ruler. In us the same needs to be said of Iesous, manifesting Theos, that is that we are subject to him, immersed in his spirit. Iesous will be the king over all until all things, including death are subject to his rule and then all things will be subject to the father so that he will rule over and in all. We can see, therefore, that the kingdom (reign) of Theos is a journey that involves, progressively, the one, the few, the many and the all until the time when (and where) there is none but Theos.

Another passage that deals with the beginning of the journey, the discovery of the gate as it were, is Hebrews 6:

Therefore leaving the beginning of the word of anointed, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of belief upon Theos, of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of aionian judgment. (Hebrews 6.1,2)

There is, again, a clear correlation between a beginning and baptism. As with the beginning of the ministry of the Lord Iesous so, here, the beginning of understanding the word of anointed is associated with a number of teachings, one of which is that of baptisms. The concept of baptisms in the plural is uncommon, and we should spend a moment contemplating this.

Firstly, the exact form of the word used here in Hebrews 6 is baptismos (βαπτισμος). This form of the ‘baptise’/’baptism’ family of words is not common and is translated ‘washing(s)’ in all of the other three occurrences, dealing with the washing of crockery by the Pharisaioi and:

Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Hebrews 9.10)

This chapter is dealing with the figures of the true enshrined in the law. Firstly, the tabernacle with the ark and kaporeth, then the day of the atonements on which the kaporeth is seen in its fundamental fulfilment, as a time and place where the high priest has entered into the holy of holies and is before the symbol of the revelation of Yahweh. It is in this context that the washings are indicated. These are imposed on the people until a time when they are no longer required. These washings were the cleansing of the sacrifices themselves, the cleansing of the high priest and his sons before preparation in their roles and as individual cleansings after times of contamination such as childbirth and menstruation in women and cleansing after coming into contact with death or with leprosy. In this we can see the relation of cleansing with the act of baptism in the new covenant, but the figurative element is only that. The cleansing from sin is, of course, as an outcome of immersion in spirit by Iesous and subsequently by his disciples. The outcome of which is reciprocation, or confession as outlined in 1 Petros 3.21.

As well as baptismos (βαπτισμος) – washings (see above) – this family of words also includes the related noun baptisma (βαπτισμα) – mostly translated as ‘baptism’ – and the verb baptizo (βαπτιζω) – usually translated as ‘baptise’.

If we see the aforementioned explanation of the meaning of baptism, in respect of the name of Iesous anointed and the kingdom of Theos, as true and we also note the immersion in spirit that kills the flesh and gives life to the spirit and, furthermore, we see the process in the light of a journey of affliction and testing, then the figure of baptism expressed by this family of words makes complete sense. So:

But Iesous answered and said, You know not what you ask. Are you able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with? They say unto him, We are able. And he says unto them, You shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. (Maththaios 20.22,23)

After asking to be placed at the right and left of Iesous in his kingdom, the sons of Zebedaios are being asked by Iesous if they understand the journey that lies ahead of, and leads to, the destination. The cup that he will drink of is the suffering that he will endure, and which reaches its crescendo at the stake, an anticipation he struggles with in the garden when he accepts, in prayer to the father, that he must drink of this cup of fulfilling his will in anguish and affliction. The baptism that he is being baptised with and which they will be baptised with is similarly the outworking of the will of the father in affliction and tribulation. The question of their ability to do this is whether or not they are obedient to the word. ‘Ability’ is from a family of words that includes the word ‘power’ and is often related to the spirit. Being able to be baptised and to drink of the cup is having the foundation of the spirit’s teaching so that we can embark on that journey and reach the destination. It is uncertain what eventually happened to Iohannes but Iakobos died by the sword at the command of Herod. Of the twelve disciples it is thought that the vast majority were killed in ways not dissimilar to Iesous’ death. In that way they certainly did partake of doing the will of the father unto the death of the flesh.

The plurality of baptisms alluded to in Hebrews 6 would seem to look to the many baptisms that occur en route to the final baptism of which all are a prefiguring:

There is one (εν) body, and one (εν) spirit, even as you are called in (εν) one (μια from εις) hope of your calling; One (εις) Lord, one (μια from εις) belief, one (εν) baptism, One (εις) Theos and father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in (εν) you all. (Ephesians 4.4-6)

We have seen in previous posts that the name of Yahweh finds its fulfilment, its destination, at the point when his name is one (Zecharyah 14.9). Also, the first commandment, according to Iesous, is ‘hear, Israel, the Lord your Theos, the Lord is one.’ Here the terms for ‘one’ are homographic with the words in (εν) and into/unto (εις). The journey, as we have already described very early on in this journey of understanding, is about turning ‘towards’, then ‘unto’ and ‘into’ until finally residing ‘in’ Theos. The final state of immersion ‘in’ Theos is the final baptism, when all flesh has been overwhelmed by the spirit of Theos and all have become Theos in that dawning of the new day (see 1 Corinthians 15.24-28). En route to this final baptism is the willing immersion in spirit that Iesous undertook, the subsequent willing immersion in spirit that his disciples take in following him and the immersion in spirit that will occur in the seventh day in anticipation of that eighth day. These journeys are a path towards there being one Lord and they are accomplished by one belief in one spirit. They are pathways through death unto life, accomplished by looking to and following the way trod by the Lord Iesous. They are baptisms symbolised and anticipated by the work of belief, which is full immersion in water by the believer.

Speak unto the children of Yisra’el, that they turn and encamp before Py hahyroth, between Migdol and the sea, over against Ba’al Tsephon: before it shall ye encamp by the sea. (Exodus 14.2)

and:

And they removed from ‘Etham, and turned again unto Py hahiroth, which is before Ba’al Tsephon: and they pitched before Migdol. And they departed from before Hahyroth, and passed through the midst of the sea into the wilderness, and went three days’ journey in the wilderness of ‘Etham, and pitched in Marah. (Numbers 33.7,8)

The people have left their encampment at ‘Etham which, it says in Numbers 33.6 is in the edge of the wilderness. These two stages, bisected by their crossing of the sea, are accomplished within the wilderness which is called, once they have traversed the sea, the wilderness of ‘Etham. Interestingly, the Hebrew word for wilderness is midbar (מדבר) which dervives from the stem dabar (דבר) which means ‘word’. We may ask the question, What is the relationship between a desert place and the word? We would assume that the relationship might be one of opposites. A quiet and deserted place is devoid of speech. However, this wilderness was not devoid of people and they were being led by ‘elohym so that we might infer that the word was ever present. Iesous resorted to deserted places to contemplate and also to be tempted at the outset of his ministry. It is clear that there was an abundance of the word in such apparently unpromising conditions. As the journey unfolds, and with it the revelation of Yahweh’s covenant we can see that the word is present where there is an absence of material distractions and abundance.

The first of the two stages dealt with here sees the people embarking from ‘Etham, the place which we have seen as being homographically descriptive of the creation of a people with Yahweh. They then travel to a place which is defined in relation to four geographical points: Py-hahyroth; Ba’al Tsephon; Migdol and the sea. They, the people, are by the sea and before the other three places.

The first place is called both Py Hahyroth and then just Hahyroth. The word Py (פי) is, straightforwardly, the word for ‘mouth’. This is used as a description of a person’s mouth and then, metaphorically by implication, an edge or rim or limit, such as in the mouth of a well or a sack or the edge of a sword. Because it is indicative of a mouth it is also used to describe speech or commandment. This is interesting as the demarcation of the camp is limited by juxtaposition with three places and the sea, so the ‘mouth’ could be the edge of Hahyroth. The second part of the name is preceded by the definite article (the) which is represented by the ‘ha’ part of the Hebrew, that is the Hebrew ה (h) – Hahyroth. The remainder of the word – hyroth – seems to derive from a Hebrew stem – hor (חור) – which is usually translated as ‘hole(s)’ or ‘cave(s)’. However, here the place name occurs as a feminine plural whereas the, apparently, related noun is a masculine singular or plural.

The next place name that identifies the location of the encampment is Ba’al Tsephon (בעל צפון). This is made up of two words. The first word is Ba’al (בעל) which is the name of the false ‘el that is regularly referred to in the Old Testament and appears to be a deity widely worshipped in the region where the children of Yisra’el would eventually inhabit. It is sometimes linked with a place name too, such as Ba’al beryth, whereby the deity is linked to another concept, in that case ‘covenant’. The deity Ba’al was a constant problem for Yisra’el as, over the ensuing centuries, many turned aside to him instead of remaining faithful to Yahweh. A number of the kings of Yisra’el were devotees of Ba’al and built altars and shrines to him. It is also translated as ‘man’, ‘husband’ and ‘master’. The second word in the place name is Tsephon (צפון) and is usually translated, in this form, as ‘north’ or ‘northward’. It comes from the stem tsaphan (צפן) meaning ‘to hide’. We might infer a possible translation for the place name as ‘man/Ba’al of the north’. Indeed, the notion of coming from the north often implies a judgment whether by an army or by a wind.

The third place name mentioned above is Migdol (מגדול) which occurs as a place name in Mitsraym not only in Exodus 14 and Numbers 33 but also in Yeremyahu 44 and 46 when referring to the Yehudym that dwelt in Mitsraym and who thought, mistakenly, that they would be safe there from any threat of captivity in Babel. It also occurs on a further three occasions, where it is translated as ‘tower’. This is probably because the word ‘tower’ in Hebrew is migdal (מגדל), differing only from migdol (מגדול) in the absence of the letter waw (ו) from the former. The word appears to stem from the Hebrew gadal (גדל) meaning ‘to grow/magnify or be great’. This idea of increasing greatness is obvious when we think of a tower. It is something that becomes great as it is built.

The name of Yahweh is a strong tower: the righteous runs into it, and is safe. (Proverbs 18.10)

and:

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. And Yahweh came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. (Genesis 11.4,5)

The contrast here is clear. It is the difference between building the name/identity of Yahweh in ourselves, which creates true security, and the building of a name/identity of man’s thinking which Yahweh will frustrate and confuse.

The final point of defining the encampment is the sea. In this specific context the sea is referred to only as that. In previous and subsequent instances in both Exodus and Numbers the sea is called the Red Sea or yam suph (ים סוף). It would seem a reasonable inference that this is the geographical location being offered as the location of the camp before passing through the sea and, indeed, the actual sea passed through. The term suph (סוף), when not being used in the name of the sea, is translated as ‘flags’ or ‘reeds’ and is used, for example, in Exodus 2 to describe the water based vegetation by the side of the river where Mosheh’s ark was placed when he was a baby.

And ‘elohym called the dry land earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he seas: and ‘elohym saw that it was good (Genesis 1.10)

This is the first occurrence of the word sea (yam ים). In this verse, of course, it occurs in the plural ‘seas’ (yamym ימים). The seas are defined as being the gathering together of waters (maym מים), which appears, in the Hebrew, to be an inversion of the word for ‘seas’. The inversion strikes at a close relationship of meaning, not an antithesis.

Here in Exodus 14 and Numbers 33, therefore, we see that the children of Yisra’el are geographically contained by a place which may allude to the presence of caves or holes; a place which may allude to a northerly judgment; a place which alludes to a tower, greatness or growth and a considerable mass of waters.

The presence of caves or holes is a stretch to show as the place name is in the feminine plural, whereas the use of the term holes/caves would be expected to be in the masculine plural. Set against this may be the possibility that the language used to describe this place may not be Hebrew. The presence of caves/holes/dens of the earth is redolent of the fear of the children of Yisra’el in the future when they feared being overthrown by their enemies. The northerly judgment may be relevant as it is likely that the path of Phar’oh and his men may have come from the North to this point as it seems likely their journey took a similar route to the people they were pursuing. Northerly judgments from various nations, including ‘Aram, ‘Asshur, Babel, Greece and Rome speak to the repeated judgments upon a faithless Yisra’el. The magnitude or tower of the third place name could be seen as the name of Yahweh that they are fleeing towards. In the end this will require their pursuit of growth to be in righteousness. Although it could also speak to their own exaltation which would be brought low in judgment by Yahweh, as in the tower of Babel, where it was not his but their own name they were building. The final element is the sea, an overwhelming body of water which, at this time, is an impediment to the progression of their journey but, owing to the mercy of Yahweh and the work of Mosheh, on instruction from Yahweh, becomes salvation to them and judgment upon Phar’oh and his host.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of ‘elohym moved upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 1.2)

Right from the beginning there is a relationship seen between the waters, sometimes also referred to as the deep, and the spirit of ‘elohym. The same language as that of Genesis 1 is used to describe the movement of the ark of Noah:

And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 7.18)

The waters in the flood were, on the one hand, a judgment against the wickedness of nearly the whole population of the earth and, on the other, the means of salvation for Noah and his household. The ark moved upon the face of the waters because those inside it, particularly Noah, were obedient to Yahweh, were manifesting the spirit of ‘elohym, which also moved upon the face of the waters. That which was of ‘elohym, a mind (spirit), was also of Noah. So, the overwhelming judgment of Yahweh was destruction to those of the carnal mind and life unto those of the spirit. The waters are the overwhelming judgment of Yahweh pronounced by his mouth. Salvation is to those who are willing to drown the carnal mind in spirit and emerge a new man.

We will be looking at these themes in an upcoming blog about baptism. The flood is relevant in this regard:

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of Theos waited in the days of Noe, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. The like figure whereunto baptism does also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward Theos, – εις θεον) by the resurrection of Iesous Anointed: (1 Petros 3.20,21)

and:

Moreover, brothers, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; And were all baptised into (εις) Moses in the cloud and in the sea; (1 Corinthians 10.1,2)

Now, we see the coming together of two figurative baptisms that help us to a greater insight of the passage through the sea. The children of Yisra’el are brought to a point where they have no apparent escape. They are being chased down by the army of Phar’oh from the rear and ahead of them is the apparently unyielding mass of water that is the Red Sea. Yahweh, as he repeatedly does throughout the journey is testing them to see if they will be obedient and faithful to him when faced with apparently impossible odds. This same phenomenon appears to happen a number of times in the life of Iesous and his disciples with regard to water. Whether it be the storms crashing in on their boat while Iesous sleeps soundly through the maelstrom, the attempt by Petros to walk on the water after Iesous’ example or the apparently unyielding sea which yields a great catch at Iesous’ command. In all these incidents, as it is in the wilderness passage, his disciples are upbraided for either their littleness or lack of belief. Similarly, the same is occurring here. They are faced with the overwhelming presence of a body of water which is their only way out. They must move forward, towards the land, towards ‘el, as must we, but they are barred by water. The water, as a figure for spirit, is an impediment to the flesh but, because of the intervention of Yahweh in Mosheh (and figuratively in anointed) the faithful may pass through. When faced with the impending doom of the arrival of Phar’oh and his army, their response is:

And they said unto Mosheh, Because there were no graves in Mitsraym, have you taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore have you dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Mitsraym? (Exodus 14.11)

Yahweh tells them, however, to move forward and, on instruction from Yahweh, Mosheh stretches out the rod in his hand over the waters to part them. The children of Yisra’el pass through on dry land while the Mitsraym, following after, are eventually overthrown in the midst of the sea once Yisra’el has passed through. The word is effectual to those believing in it and destruction to the disobedient and unrighteous. These things, as Paulos states in 1 Corinthians 10, happened as examples that we should take heed and not falter after the same pattern of unbelief. It is easy, when faced with apparently overwhelming carnal odds, to not see the path ahead which Yahweh opens up to us to pursue the journey towards the promised possession. In reality, however, the greater dangers are pursuing us and are in danger of catching up and overtaking us. The impediment ahead is only an impediment if we have a lack of belief. The journey is clear and salvation is only possible with the shepherd leading the way and opening up the spirit for us to be immersed in. Through Yahweh’s favour towards Mosheh and, through him, his people the other side of the sea is reached and the journey progresses.

From the sea they travel a further three days in the wilderness of ‘Etham and come unto Marah, where they make their next encampment. We will deal with Marah in the next blog about the stages of the journey. Suffice it to say, at this point, and to reiterate an earlier assertion, that the whole of these two stages – from ‘Etham to Migdol and from thence through the sea and unto Marah – have been conducted in the region (and wilderness) of ‘Etham. This area that, being absent of fruitfulness, has been filled with the symbols of the abundance of Yahweh’s word, set in the context of the testing of his people. This region, that is homographically linked with the creation of the object (his people) by the subject (Yahweh), has seen more evidence of the taking of Yisra’el unto himself by the creative sign of their baptism into the obedience of his servant Mosheh.

And the children of Yisra’el removed from Rameses, and pitched in Sukoth. (Numbers 33.5)

This is the first stage of the journey mentioned in Numbers 33, as it details the individual journeys that make up the journey as a whole. The journey from Rameses is what we have dealt with in the previous blog when looking at the motivation for the flight from Mitsraym. Rameses represents the passover night and this first leg of the journey is the evidence of that direction out of bondage unto the land of promise.

The name Sukoth, as it appears in the Old Testament, seems to relate to at least two different locations. The first is mentioned in Genesis:

And Ya’aqob journeyed to Sukoth, and built him an house, and made booths for his cattle: therefore the name of the place is called Sukoth. (Genesis 33.17)

The Hebrew is very simple here. Ya’aqob built ‘booths’ (sukoth סכת) for his cattle and because of this the name of the place is called Sukoth (סכות). The term ‘cattle’ means ‘possession’ and is not restricted to what we think of, in English, as ‘cattle’. It often refers to sheep and goats also. These dwelling places were built alongside Ya’aqob building a house and indicates him eschewing his, heretofore, nomadic existence in favour of a sedentary one. In fact, if this was his intention, it soon became undone by the actions of his sons in massacring the locals because one of them had defiled their sister.

The second location is the one referred to here in Numbers 33 and also in Exodus 13 as the end point of the first stage of the journey from Mitsraym. In Exodus 13 we see the revisiting of the theme of the feast of unleavened bread, whose starting out point was the passover night. It is the passover which is the impetus for the journey, in time, of the feast of unleavened bread. Similarly, it is the passover night which is the impetus for the journey of the absence of the corruption of leaven within the house of Yisra’el. The conclusion, on the seventh day, is another feast unto Yahweh. The feast describes the progression from the sacrificial passover lamb to the final feasting before Yahweh, a beginning to an end. The exclusion of the corruption is seen in the unblemished lamb which saves the beginning of the strength of Yahweh (his firstborn) and it continues through the absence of leaven amongst those who have partaken of the lamb. In the passover and feast of unleavened bread there is a continual memorial of that salvation as it is kept, especially in the land, by the children of Yisra’el and rehearsed in speech unto their children. We see, therefore, that Yahweh’s firstborn is the beginning of a journey, shared by those who have partaken of the unleavened bread and are therefore similarly uncorrupted as the lamb without blemish was. They come to the end of that journey of uncorruption in a final day of convocation, or sabbath.

The same pattern is repeated in another feast which is named with the same Hebrew as the places mentioned above – sukoth (סכות).

Speak unto the children of Yisra’el, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days to Yahweh. (Leviticus 23.34)

The feast of sukoth (translated ‘tabernacles’ in Leviticus 23), has a similar time span to the feast of unleavened bread, beginning on the fifteenth day of the seventh month, rather than the fifteenth day of the first month in the case of the feast of unleavened bread. As with the feast of unleavened bread, which is preceded by the passover, the feast of Sukoth is preceded, some five days earlier, by the day of the atonements. It is, similarly, punctuated, at the beginning and the ending, by holy convocations. These effective sabbaths, as no work was to be done on them, work as bookends for the feasts. The purpose of this feast, like with the feast of unleavened bread, is to reflect on the past journey, especially once established in the land:

And you shall keep it a feast to Yahweh seven days in the year. It shall be an ‘olam statute in your generations: you shall celebrate it in the seventh month. You shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are in Yisra’el shall dwell in booths: That your generations may know that I made the children of Yisra’el to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Mitsraym: I am Yahweh your ‘elohym. (Leviticus 23.41-43)

Here, the booths are temporary dwellings that the children of Yisra’el, once established in the land, would erect in their dwellings to depict the temporary nature of the dwellings that their fathers lived in while they undertook their wilderness journey. Contrariwise, Ya’aqob was erecting more permanent booths for his cattle, as well as a house for himself, while Yahweh clearly wanted him, as his forefathers, to be a stranger and pilgrim through the land which he would inherit at a future time.

There is a clear association of meaning in the three homographic occurrences of Sukoth. There are two different geographical locations and one feast, all relating to the word which is translated ‘booths’. They are not the same place and the feast was not to be held in those places particularly. However, the relevance is in the association of meaning in respect of the dwelling places that Yisra’el dwelt in while they journeyed to the land of promise, and the dwelling of Ya’aqob’s cattle. There are issues relating to settled and wandering existences, that is they were antithetical being associated either with nomadism or a settled state. Furthermore, the relation of the two feasts (unleavened bread and sukoth) share a theme of, having reached the destination, the children of Yisra’el reflecting on the commencement of the journey and the beginning of their salvation that unfolded there and at that time. There is a clear theme of beginning and ending of a journey but looked at from the perspective of having achieved the end, the final salvation of which the beginning was an anticipation. Furthermore, as each stage of the journey appears to be a microcosm of the journey in its entirety, it sees the idea of beginning and ending in terms of the exit from Mitsraym and the attaining to a place of encampment (achieving grace in the eyes of Yahweh). This place (Sukoth), which was the first place of encampment on that journey, was a temporary resting place and the name given to it is compatible with the temporary dwellings (sukoth) in which they were to dwell. It is also anticipatory of the feast which the children of Yisra’el would observe (sukoth) in the land unto which they were travelling. This feast would then look back at the salvation accomplished that began at the passover and continued through the wilderness until they achieved that settled place. It sets out the first beginning and ending of a micro-journey in the context of the beginning and ending of the larger one.

Following the departure from Rameses and en route to Sukoth we find a few salient facts about the journey:

And the children of Yisra’el journeyed from Rameses to Sukoth, about six hundred thousand on foot that were men, beside children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them; and flocks, and herds, even very much cattle. And they baked unleavened cakes of the dough which they brought forth out of Mitsraym, for it was not leavened; because they were thrust out of Mitsraym, and could not tarry, neither had they prepared for themselves any victual. (Exodus 12.37-39)

There was a significant number of people, possibly around the 2 million mark, if you include women and children. There were significant numbers of livestock. They were unable to bake leavened bread as they were on the move and could not allow the dough to mature while they travelled. They were transient not sedentary in nature. We already know that they were observing the feast of unleavened bread immediately after the passover night. Presumably the stage that occurred between Rameses and Sukoth fell in the seven days that followed the passover and, therefore, were in the feast of unleavened bread. The absence of leaven was supposed to be indicative of a lack of corruption but here we see an added dimension to the feast. The lack of leaven also spoke of the nature of the journey and the urgency by which his people left Mitsraym. We might deduce that the two are related, that is that, in urgently leaving behind the things that are not of ‘el and without delay heading forwards toward those things that are of him, we can escape the corruption of those things that Mitsraym was figurative of. Furthermore, in the next chapter, we find some other defining features of this first stage:

And it shall be when thy son asks thee in time to come, saying, What is this? that thou shall say unto him, By strength of hand Yahweh brought us out from Mitsraym, from the house of bondage: (Exodus 13.14)

The beginning of chapter 13 is a rehearsal of what they have just been through. It details the keeping of the passover and subsequent feast of unleavened bread. As we discussed above, it deals with a future time, especially once the inheritance has been attained, when it is possible to look back at this time and reflect on the reason for observation. In this case it is similar to the feast of sukoth (tabernacles) in that it looks forward to a time of establshed, and sedentary, existence when it is necessary to look back and reflect on the salvation and subsequent wandering, or nomadic, existence.

There is an unto/unto (אל) relationship of time unfolding here. Firstly, we stand at the beginning of the journey and we see a distance between ‘here’ and ‘there’. It is a spatial distance. It is a distance that will be removed so that, as the children of Yisra’el journey forwards unto that place, there will be a closing of the gap between the ‘here’ and ‘there’ until there is no more ‘there’ but only ‘here’ because we are all, as Yahweh, standing in the one place. The ‘there’ is the prospect, in the distance, of achieving that place where Yahweh is, whereas the ‘here’ is ultimately fulfilled when we are in that place with him. This is a distance of space, as far as Mitsraym is from the land. It is also a distance of understanding inasmuch as being in darkness is far from being in light. We can therefore see, as we will look at in later posts, that the incremental nature of the unfolding stages of the journey looks to an incremental progression in understanding, whose impetus for direction is occasioned by Yahweh. This journey which he directs us on leads to an understanding which will eventually be one with his. The unfolding of this journey and the closing of the distance from ‘here’ to ‘there’ is also a journey in time. It is a journey from the ‘now’ to the ‘then’. It is a journey from this present age to the ‘olam to come, and beyond.

We know that the word, the utterances, the precepts of Yahweh are ‘of ‘olam’. That is they have the values of the age to come, because that is when his will is going to be achieved. His covenant is ‘of ‘olam’ because that is when his agreement with those faithful fathers will be accomplished, when the division that exists between him and his people will be taken away and when unity will be there. If the word is ‘of ‘olam’ then we can assume that what will be available at that time will be the complete, unadulterated, word of Yahweh. We are facing towards that time, we are looking unto that age. As much as the word is ‘of ‘olam’ it is also ‘to ‘olam’ or ‘unto the age’. As we become closer to that word, and closer to that age, we also can take that trajectory towards its perfect revelation. In the age, as anticipated in the feasts of unleavened bread and sukoth, the reciprocal conversation of man unto his son will also be in a directional orientation, this time towards the times that we now inhabit. It is a reciprocal relationship of the word which exists in time, and in space, and in understanding.

And it came to pass, when Phar’oh had let the people go, that ‘elohym led them not through the way of the land of the Pelishtym, although that was near; for ‘elohym said, Lest perhaps the people repent when they see war, and they return to Mitsraym: But ‘elohym led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea: and the children of Yisra’el went up harnessed out of the land of Mitsraym. And Mosheh took the bones of Yoseph with him: for he had straitly sworn the children of Yisra’el, saying, ‘elohym will surely visit you; and you shall carry up my bones away hence with you. (Exodus 13.17-19)

‘elohym is aware of the vulnerable nature of the children of Yisra’el and that, in such a parlous state, if he took them the quickest way to the land, they might rebel when they saw conflict and return to Mitsraym. Instead he takes them down and away from that point, as he knows he needs to bring them to Horeb to receive the covenant. They are also on the side of the Red sea which is toward Mitsraym and they are yet to cross it.

And they took their journey from Sukoth, and encamped in Etham, in the edge of the wilderness. And Yahweh went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night: (Exodus 13.20,21)

From the point of leaving Mitsraym to arriving at Horeb they are led by the pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. In this second stage of the journey they are led by Yahweh to a place called Etham. This staging post of the journey appears to be the only mention of such a place. It is positioned at the edge of the wilderness and also gives its name to the wilderness of Etham which they enter into on their emergence from the Red Sea after having passed through it. Only when the reference is to the wilderness does the name Etham, in Hebrew, stand on its own. In the previous occurrences of the word it is prefixed either by ‘in’ (the letter beth ב being appended to the beginning of the name) or ‘from’ (the letter mem מ being appended to the beginning of the name). All of these variants have homographic occurrences.

In the first instance the homographic ‘otham/’etham (אתם) occurs 463 times in the Old Testament. It is mostly translated ‘with them’ or just ‘them’. This is because it is a construction of the word ‘eth (את) and the suffix ‘m’ (מ). The suffix (מ) means ‘them’, whereas the word ‘eth (את) is a very common word and quite unique to Hebrew. This word is often not translated at all but is called ‘the sign of the direct object’. Where it is translated it is done so as the word ‘with’. The ‘sign of the direct object’ seems to fulfil a particular function in Hebrew as it precedes a word which is the direct object of the verb in a given sentence. In Genesis 1 for example it says:

‘elohym (he) created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1.1)

Here the sentence is clearly split into a) a subject – ‘elohym; b) a verb – he created; and c) two objects – the heavens and the earth. In the Hebrew both of these objects are preceded by the word ‘eth (את). In a kerubic pattern of speech the subject of the speech is the one giving utterance – the creator both in word and action; the verb is the directional speaking from one to the other – the energetic means by which the words are spoken, the things are created; and the object is that which receives that speech, that which is created. In this verse there are two direct objects. There are a number of occurrences where there is an accumulation of occurrences of ‘eth (את) which is finally summed up by ‘otham (אתם) – them.

And ‘elohym made -‘eth (את)- two great lights; -‘eth (את)- the greater light to rule the day, -‘eth (את)-and the lesser light to rule the night: he made -‘eth (את)-the stars also. And ‘elohym set them (‘otham אתם) in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth (Genesis 1.16,17)

Here we see the furtherance of the creative process with a series of objects having been created and preceded by the sign of the direct object and then being referred to, cumulatively, as ‘them’. Creation is a fundamental figure for the creative process of speech. The moral creation of substance from what is not seen, that is the spirit of ‘elohym, is at the core of the meaning of the name, of manifestation and, by implication, of the kerubic relationship at the heart of the meaning of the kaporeth. Yahweh (the subject) has spoken (the directional energy of the verb) to an object or objects which are the outcome of his creative speech and, being created by him, and in his image, can be seen as such and, in the case of the human creation, can (hopefully) reciprocate such. Indeed, they can then go on and engage in manifestational behaviour similar to that of his. The multiple singular objects of creation are gathered together into one ‘them’, so that, even though ‘them’ expresses a plural, it expresses a singular cumulative plural, a many in one.

Thus shall they know that I Yahweh their ‘elohym am with them, and that they, even the house of Yisra’el, are my people, says ‘adonay Yahweh. And you my flock, the flock of my pasture, are men, and I am your ‘elohym, says ‘adonay Yahweh. (Yehezq’el 34.30,31)

Here in Yehezq’el we can see the repeated use of the formula at the heart of the name of Yahweh – I will be to them for ‘elohym and they shall be to me for a people. This promise of becoming Yahweh in the end, at the conclusion of the manifestational journey, finds a present tense fulfilment here. They shall know, that is in the future, that I, Yahweh their ‘elohym, am with them, and that they are his people. Here the creative process of subject, verb, object ends up with the many individually created objects becoming one object, his singular people, which become indistinguishable from the subject, Yahweh their ‘elohym. At the point at which the creative sentence is complete the subject and object become one by virtue of the directional energy of the verb (‘to be’). The process of becoming Yahweh over the course of the journey is fulfilled when they are ‘with him’, in one entity.

The homographic ‘etham/’otham ( אתם) is used in the second verse here in Yehezq’el 34 but is translated as ‘you’ (‘ye’ in the KJV text), indicating a second person plural. Thou/thee indicating the singular ‘you’ in the KJV and ye/you indicating the plural ‘you’. This is not as common as the translation of ‘etham/’otham ( אתם) as ‘them’ or ‘with them’ but it does occur a significant number of times. One of which is in Hoshea’ 1:

Now when she had weaned Lo-ruhamah, she conceived, and bare a son. Then said he, Call his name Lo-‘ammy: for you are not my people, and I will not be to you [for ‘elohym]. Yet the number of the children of Yisra’el shall be as the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured nor numbered; and it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, You are not my people, there it shall be said unto them, the sons of the living ‘el (אל). (Hoshea’ 1.8-10)

Hoshea’ has been commanded to take a wife of whoredoms and to have children with her. We considered the naming of the children of Hoshea’ in a previous blog when we considered the inversion of אל to לא (lo’). The homographic אל can be not only the title ‘el, as we see in verse 10 of Hoshea’ 1 but also a less common version of the negative – ‘no’/’not’. However, the more common version of the negative is lo’ (לא) which, clearly is a direct inversion of אל. Here, the more common lo’ (לא) is used as a prefix to the names of two of his children – lo-‘ammy and lo-ruhamah – translating as ‘not my people’ and ‘not mercy’, because, as a result of the infidelity of his bride Yisra’el, Yahweh would not show mercy to them and they would not be his people. Both of these characteristics are indicative of the name. That is, Yahweh calls his name in Exodus 34 as:

Yahweh, Yahweh ‘el (אל), merciful amd gracious, longsuffering and abundant in lovingkindness and truth’ (Exodus 34.6)

and he says:

Since the day that I brought forth my people Yisra’el out of Mitsraym, I chose no city out of all the tribes of Yisra’el to build an house, that my name might be therein; but I chose Dawid to be over my people Yisra’el. (1 Kings 8.16)

Yahweh is speaking to Shelomah, in the context of the building of the temple for his name in Yerushalym, that, at the point that he brought Yisra’el out of Mitsraym, they were his people then and, more so when they were led by his faithful shepherd Dawid, Shelomah’s father.

These two characteristics of ‘people’ and ‘mercy’ are removed on account of the infidelity of Yisra’el and their desire to serve other ‘elohym, the ‘elohym of the nations round about. Here he uses ‘ye’/’you’ to describe them as he speaking to them in a kerubic conversation. This kerubic conversation, however, is not of a kerub speaking to a willing and receptive kerub who is willing to reciprocate but rather to a hard hearted, disobedient and stubborn opposite who is in an antagonistic relationship with Yahweh. In this context the name cannot be fulfilled but, nevertheless, Yahweh promises a future time when it will be said of them ‘you are my people’:

And I will set my tabernacle among you: and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you, and will be to you for ‘elohym, and you shall be to me for a people. I am Yahweh your ‘elohym, which brought you forth out of the land of Mitsraym, that you should not be their bondmen; and I have broken the bands of your yoke, and made you go upright. (Leviticus 26.11-13)

At the point that he brings them out of Mitsraym they become a people to him. They forsake him so he sends them forth to the nations whose ‘elohym they have sought after. Yahweh’s unity with his people is seen as occurring in an acceptable place: the tabernacle; the temple for his name; the land promised to the fathers. These geographical locations are in keeping with Yahweh and serving him. Serving other ‘elohym ends up in a journey away from these things. We can see the journey towards the land is a journey towards the fulfilment of his name in his people. Straying from that earnest endeavour leads to a journey away from that destination of becoming him.

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Yahweh my ‘elohym commanded me, that you should do so in the land where you go to possess it…And Yahweh spoke unto you out of the midst of the fire: you heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude; only a voice…And Yahweh commanded me at that time to teach you statutes and judgments, that you might do them in the land where you go over to possess it…And lest you lift up thy eyes unto heaven, and when thou see the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, should be driven to worship them, and serve them, which Yahweh your ‘elohym has divided unto (them) all nations under the whole heaven…I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that you shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto you go over Yarden to possess it; you shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. (Deuteronomy 4.5,12,14,19,26)

Yahweh’s creation is of a kerubic nature. It is created speech. He creates the commandments, which are plural but are to be obeyed as a singular because, being many, they are the reciprocation of the singular ‘el who has given utterance to them. They have been given to his people to keep en route to the land but with the express intent of obedience in the rest which is to be offered when they achieve that destination. It is anticipatory in nature. Keeping now in anticipation of a perfect obedience in that time and place to come. However, it is clear that, because the people are flesh and are weak, when they achieve that destination their gaze will be directed away from Yahweh and toward other ‘elohym. The result of this turning away will be an exile into those foreign lands until such a time when he will return their captivity with the intent to utterly fulfill his name in them.

Thus says Yahweh of hosts; Behold, I will save my people from the east country, and from the west country; And I will bring them, and they shall dwell in the midst of Yerushalym: and they shall be to me for a people, and I, I will be to them for ‘elohym, in truth and in righteousness. (Zecharyah 8.7,8)

This return to the possession of the land, and specifically to Yerushalym, the place where he delights to set his name there, indicates the final steps in the journey to fulfilling Yahweh’s name. He brought them out of Mitsraym to make a people and a name. They did not obey the commandments once in that possession which was indicative of serving and becoming one with them. He cast them out to wander in a journey away from him. He gathers them once again to bring them in to make them to become one with him.

In this journeying from the land of Mitsraym to the land of promise we can see in these steps, these stages of the journey, these launching forth points and coming to rest destinations, which then become the launching point for the next stage, microcosms of the journey as a whole. The initial energetic propulsion from Mitsraym driven by the name revealed and the judgment of Mitsraym’s ‘elohym which comes to rest at Sukoth. Sukoth stands as a place looking toward the rest of the land but remembering the temporary dwelling in the land. The setting out from this point to come to ‘Etham, redolent of the creation of a people and the prospect of a land in which to obey his created word and to become one with him. Yet mindful of the possibility of a relapse into a journey away from him. Yet Yahweh will always manifest his mercy and his purpose of creating that people and fulfilling the kaporeth relationship with those he has called will not go uncompleted.

As we saw in ‘Exploring the kaporeth X’, the journeyings of the camp are punctuated by setting out and pitching. In the pitched state (of grace) the camp is in its settled state of having the cloud, representing the glory of Yahweh, there above the ark and kaporeth while they reside in the holy of holies in the tabernacle in the midst of the camp. In such a state the kaporeth functions as a representation of the revelation of ‘elohym to man and the reciprocation of that manifestation. It is there to show the preeminence of that manifestation as the basis for sacrifice and forgiveness of sins. This ongoing mediation of the will of Yahweh to his people is contingent upon this settled state being achieved. It points, in miniature, to the overall journey in which the final settled state of rest in the favour of Yahweh’s sight is seen, in prospect, in the movement into the land. Each one of these stages, therefore, is a microcosm, a figurative enactment of the bigger journey. As such it shows the requirement for revelation and reciprocation to be both a prerequisite for the advancement of the journey and an end to the journey itself. Between these two settled states is the disruptive progress of the journey, fuelled by the first and incentivised by the second. These step changes are a stage by stage progression to the final goal. They have a beginning and a destination themselves but are set within the greater vision of a fundamental beginning and ending. One which is alluded to in Revelation 1:

I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, says the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the pantokrator. (Revelation 1.8)

The beginning and the ending is framed in the terms of the Greek alphabet, showing that the journey is an outcome of the utterance of the spirit. Furthermore, the journey is also linked to tenses of time. The verb ‘to be’ being expressed in the past and present tenses and the verb ‘to come’ expressed in the future. The destination is achieved at a future time when those pursuing that trajectory achieve the place where he, the Lord, is. That is, they come unto him.

These are the journeys of the children of Yisra’el, which went forth out of the land of Mitsraym with their hosts under the hand of Mosheh and ‘Aharon. (Numbers 33.1)

We have seen this passage when looking at ‘comings’ and ‘goings’. This chapter presents a list of places where the children of Yisra’el encamped after journeying and from whence they set off on the next stage of the pilgrimage. As we have seen, the first verb, often translated ‘removed’ or ‘departed’ is from the same family of Hebrew words as the noun ‘journeys’, which is highlighted in the above passage. The word translated ‘encamped’ or ‘pitched’ is from the family of words which includes ‘grace’. The journeys mentioned up until, and including, verse 15 of this chapter are journeys executed without the presence of the tabernacle, or the ark and kaporeth. From the point of leaving Sinay the journeys are effected with the ark, and the kaporeth on top of it, leading the camp, after the cloud has removed and indicated the direction of travel.

The first journey of the children of Yisra’el is the departure of the people from Mitsraym following the passover night:

And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Yisra’el went out with an high hand in the sight of all the Mitsraym. (Numbers 33.3)

As we have seen, the ark and kaporeth are not in existence yet. However, the same phenomenon which is represented in the ark and kaporeth has also become the impetus for this journeying. As we have seen in previous posts, the narrative of the exodus from Mitsraym begins with the revelation of the name of Yahweh at the burning bush to Mosheh. The kaporeth displays the figure of the glory of Yahweh which is synonymous with the meaning of the name, that is, the transformation of the identity of those who receive and reciprocate into that of the one who mediates, leading to a similarity of image.

Exodus 3 provides this fuel that pushes the people forward and gets them from the revelation of the name at Horeb until they accomplish the return journey to that mountain and can receive the covenant, the tables of stone and the pattern of the tabernacle, including the ark and the kaporeth.

The use of the homographic אל is prevalent in Exodus 3, giving us an insight into the direction that Yahweh will take with respect to Mosheh:

Now Mosheh kept the flock of Yethro his father in law, the priest of Midyan: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came unto the mountain of the ‘elohym, even to Horeb (Horebah). (Exodus 3.1)

Mosheh ‘came’ unto the mountain. This, presumably, was not an accident. He was aware of his destination, he approached unto a place where revelation from ‘elohym was possible. Notice that the mountain’s name is feminised to denote direction towards it, as we saw in a previous post. Mosheh is on a three stage journey in his own wanderings. He became the child of the daughter of Phar’oh before having to flee after killing a Mitsraym. He was forty years old at the time. Becoming the son in law of the priest of Midyan he became a shepherd leading his flock. At the point of encountering ‘elohym at Horeb he is now 80 years old. After the wanderings in the wilderness with the children of Yisra’el and seemingly being on the cusp of entering into the inheritance he dies, aged 120 years old. His life has been subdivided into three parts which have seen two particular intervals of wandering. At the end of the first and the beginning of the second he comes unto Horeb when and where he is ready to receive this revelation.

And the angel of Yahweh appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. (Exodus 3.2)

So the angel of Yahweh manifests/reveals himself unto Mosheh. This is the first stage of the kaporeth phenomenon, the kerubic giving of speech from one unto the other. The direction is one of revelation.

And when Yahweh saw that he turned aside to see, ‘elohym called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Mosheh, Mosheh. And he said, Here am I. (Exodus 3.4)

This giving of speech from one to the other is seen in this verse as ‘elohym calls unto Mosheh. We also see the reciprocal element of the kaporeth relationship when Mosheh replies, Here I.

And he said, Draw not nigh here: put off thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place whereon thou stand is holy ground. (Exodus 3.5)

The homographic אל is used here in its negative form, as well as the presence of the ‘here’ we looked at in the section on ‘here and there’. Direction is an outcome of positive and negative propositions, as we see in the ten commandments. The direction towards the ‘here’ where Yahweh is/will be is determined by being unshod and shod upon by ‘elohym’s revelation. It is prohibited unless the people are shod with Yahweh’s covering.

Moreover he said, I am the ‘elohym of thy father, the ‘elohym of ‘Abraham, the ‘elohym of Yitshaq, and the ‘elohym of Ya’aqob. And Mosheh hid his face; for he was afraid to look unto the ‘elohym. (Exodus 3.6)

We begin to see the strong link with the patriarchs, with whom Yahweh made covenant in their wanderings, and to whom he promised an ‘olam inheritance in the land which is seen here as the destination of the children of Yisra’el’s journey.

And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Mitsraym, and to bring them up out of that land unto a good land and a large, unto a land flowing with milk and honey; unto the place of the Kana’any, and the Hitty, and the ‘Amory, and the Perizzy, and the Hiwy, and the Yebusy. (Exodus 3.8)

The destination of the journey associated with this revelation of his covenantal name is clearly being described here as ‘good’ (feminised by direction in the Hebrew) and ‘large’ (again feminised), a land flowing with milk and honey and a place presently occupied by a number of named nations, which they will expel. It is not only a geographical territory, as seen by referencing who currently occupies it, but by a moral dimension (good) and an expansiveness (large) and a fruitfulness of the word – the milk and the honey. It is a place, when attained, in which people can be good and fruitful, as their creator.

Now therefore, behold, the cry of the children of Yisra’el is come unto me: and I have also seen the oppression wherewith the Mitsraym oppress them. (Exodus 3.9)

In contrast to the place where they are going, with its fruitfulness and morality, the place where they are coming out of is oppressive and dark. It is a place where they are in servitude. They have cried unto him because of this oppression and this servitude so that he wishes to take them from it and lead them unto the antithesis of Mitsraym.

Come now therefore, and I will send thee unto Phar’oh, that thou may bring forth my people the children of Yisra’el out of Mitsraym. (Exodus 3.10)

The first impetus of direction has been the revelation of ‘elohym to Mosheh. Here, we see the outcome of the revelation which he is in the middle of receiving, that is, the impetus and direction towards Phar’oh. It is the journey unto Mitsraym to speak with Phar’oh.

And Mosheh said unto the ‘elohym, Who am I, that I should go unto Phar’oh, and that I should bring forth the children of Yisra’el out of Mitsraym? (Exodus 3.11)

Here, Mosheh’s reciprocity is not what we might expect. However, interaction with ‘elohym may sometimes be seen as a form of conflict before reconciliation. It is the obvious outcome of being face to face with someone. That which comes to us must first be questioned and tested before being acquiesced to. We see this figure in the wrestling of Ya’aqob with ‘elohym before he meets his brother again. Mosheh is, reasonably, asking who is the ‘I’ that must go, as he is clearly incapable, in his eyes, of going before Phar’oh. It requires further revelation ‘unto’ him to cause him to see that it is not the ‘I’ of Mosheh that will go but the ‘I’ of ‘elohym that will be going in Mosheh:

And he said, Certainly I will be with thee; and this shall be a token to thee, that I have sent thee: When thou has brought forth the people out of Mitsraym, you shall serve ‘elohym upon this mountain. (Exodus 3.12)

This verse does not include the directional אל but rather the truncated ל in the phrase ‘to thee’. The relevance here is the impetus for the direction into Mitsraym and unto Phar’oh is the ‘I will be’. It is ‘elohym that will be the driving force behind Mosheh’s appearance before Phar’oh and, indeed, all that Mosheh will accomplish with Yisra’el, particularly in bringing them back to this mountain. The impetus, the fuel for the circular journey, is this revelation of the ‘I will be’ name that will bring them back to the place where they will then receive the revelation of the covenant, its embodiment in the ten commandments on the tables of stone and the building of the dwelling of ‘elohym with man and its focus, the ark and kaporeth, all at the hand of Mosheh.

And Mosheh said unto the ‘elohym, Behold, when I come unto the children of Yisra’el, and shall say to them, The ‘elohym of your fathers has sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? what shall I say unto them? (Exodus 3.13)

Mosheh has made a connection between direction and name. Yahweh has already used the ‘I will be’ in the previous verse and this will provide the basis for the answer to the question of ‘what is his name?’ Mosheh, however, has identified, through his and ‘elohym’s reciprocal interaction, that ‘unto’, as a direction, is inextricably linked with that name. If Mosheh has been sent unto the children of Yisra’el by being directed to do so by ‘elohym then it is ‘elohym, in the person of Mosheh, who is appearing before the people. ‘Name’ is clearly linked to this idea of one person appearing ‘in the name of’ another. This cannot be achieved unless the messenger that bears those instructions has been told what those instructions are first. ‘elohym speaks unto Mosheh, Mosheh goes unto the children of Yisra’el, Mosheh speaks unto the children of Yisra’el what ‘elohym first told him. Mosheh has become ‘elohym with the intent that, on their realising the destination of Horeb, the people might also become ‘elohym.

And ‘elohym said unto Mosheh, I will be who I will be: and he said, Thus shall thou say to the children of Yisra’el, I will be has sent me unto you. (Exodus 3.14)

Yahweh’s name is set in the future tense, because it is a promise of what (or who) shall be. Mosheh becomes him by willing obedience to the word. The people can achieve the same through Mosheh’s mediatory work. Clearly, the future lies beyond these temporal fulfilments of becoming him.

And ‘elohym said moreover unto Mosheh, Thus shall thou say unto the children of Yisra’el, Yahweh ‘elohym of your fathers, the ‘elohym of ‘Abraham, the ‘elohym of Yitshaq, and the ‘elohym of Ya’aqob, has sent me unto you: this is my name for ‘olam, and this is my memorial unto all generations. (Exodus 3.15)

As we have seen in past blog posts, the ‘I’ of the ‘I will be’ has now moved into the ‘he’ of the name Yahweh. The name meaning ‘he will (cause to) be’. The meaning remains the same: Yahweh is the name which occurs when he will be in the people through the work of his mediator. We see this in Mosheh and we see this in Iesous. Clearly, the fulfilment of that name can only occur when all the people have become him. When this happens, the covenants made unto the patriarchs will come to pass.

Go, and gather the elders of Yisra’el together, and say unto them, Yahweh ‘elohym of your fathers, the ‘elohym of ‘Abraham, of Yitshaq, and of Ya’aqob, appeared unto me, saying, I have surely visited you, and seen that which is done to you in Mitsraym: And I have said, I will bring you up out of the affliction of Mitsraym unto the land of the Kana’any, and the Hitty, and the ‘Amory, and the Perizzy, and the Hiwy, and the Yebusy, unto a land flowing with milk and honey. And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shall come, thou and the elders of Yisra’el, unto the king of Mitsraym, and you shall say unto him, Yahweh ‘elohym of the Hebrews has met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days’ journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to Yahweh our ‘elohym.

The direction is clear: Yahweh has spoken unto Mosheh who speaks unto the people with the intent to bring them up out of the affliction of Mitsraym and take them unto the land of promise. The impetus for this journey out of Mitsraym and back unto Horeb is this initial revelation of the name unto Mosheh and, subsequently, the people. It is a direction of speech and it is a direction of journey on foot. The two are interconnected. This is the impetus for the first and fundamental stage of the journey which will take them through the ten plagues and up to the passover night and the exodus from Mitsraym. Without this fuel for the journey the initial exodus and stages of the journey mentioned in Numbers 33 become impossible. From the arrival at Horeb to the entering into the land the impetus for those stages of the journey is provided by the kerubic relationship enshrined in the kaporeth, which follows the pillar of cloud or fire.

It is imperative to see the background to the passover night and the impetus towards that deliverance before we come to the first stage of the journey mentioned in Numbers 33.5 – the stage from Rameses to Sukkoth.

And they departed from Rameses in the first month, on the fifteenth day of the first month; on the morrow after the passover the children of Yisra’el went out with an high hand in the sight of all the Mitsraym. For the Mitsraym buried all their firstborn, which Yahweh had smitten among them: upon their ‘elohym also Yahweh executed judgments. (Numbers 33.3,4)

The passover night is that which expels them from Mitsraym because it is the death of the firstborn which causes Phar’oh to send them out of the land. The ten plagues, of which the death of the firstborn is the last, are seen, in Numbers 33, as being aimed at the ‘elohym of Mitsraym in order to execute judgment upon them. The passover night is also clearly linked with the sacrificial work of the Lord Iesous also, as indeed the day of the atonements was, being the actual feast when Iesous was crucified and the supper of which he kept with his disciples. It is this sacrificial work of Iesous, which sees the firstborn of Yahweh’s inheritance redeemed but the firstborn of the Mitsraym slain, which is the impetus for the journey which will lead them out of Mitsraym unto the Red Sea, on to Horeb and, from thence, unto the land of promise.

The homographic ‘el (אל) occurs in nine verses in Exodus 12 of which eight are translated ‘unto’ and one as ‘not’.

And Yahweh spoke unto Mosheh and unto ‘Aharon in the land of Mitsraym, saying, This month shall be to you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak unto all the congregation of Yisra’el, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: (Exodus 12.1-3)

The directional revelation commences, as in Exodus 3, with speech unto Mosheh, and then unto ‘Aharon, resulting in their speech unto the congregation. This is the revelation of the name whereby the words of Yahweh are directed into the mouth of Mosheh and from him unto ‘Aharon, finding their destination in the ears of the children of Yisra’el so that the identity of Yahweh is transmitted directionally with the intent that the recipients become him. Furthermore, we see the beginning of the journey linked to time. This beginning of the way unto the land is fixed at a point in time that will be the beginning of months, the beginning of the year, to them. The beginning of this journey is marked by the slaughter of a lamb.

And if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbour next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb. (Exodus 12.4)

Here we have two households next ‘unto’ each other partaking of the one lamb, effectively becoming one house. Interestingly, the first occurrence of the word ‘lamb’ here takes a form which is a homograph of the name Mosheh (משה). Mosheh is a shepherd, both in his dealings with his flock of sheep which he first brought to Horeb, and also in his dealings with the flock of Yisra’el which he led out and brought in on the journey unto the land. Here Mosheh is, as it were, the lamb also. The figurative Mosheh is the one who is slain to save the people. The two houses partake of the one Mosheh in an unto/unto relationship, man unto his neighbour. The Mosheh, whether figurative or true, that has come unto the people to redeem them from Mitsraym has come in the name of Yahweh in order to effect that deliverance.

Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; his head with his legs, and with the purtenance thereof. (Exodus 12.9)

Here the homographic אל is used as a negative. The commandment to ‘not’ eat of the flesh raw is clear. This would have been to partake of the flesh untried and unconsumed by fire. The offering of the Lord was one in which the flesh, the carnal mind, was tried and transformed by the fire of the spirit contending with such flesh. This fulfilled and slain lamb was to be partaken of in its state after trying and satisfaction in the eyes of Yahweh. We do not partake of the natural man but the tried and consumed one. That is where we are aiming to be, aiming to share in, to be able to make that journey. The children of Yisra’el were to be clothed and shod and ready to make that journey as they ate.

Then Mosheh called for all the elders of Yisra’el, and said unto them, Draw out and take you a lamb according to your families, and kill the passover. (Exodus 12.21)

Again, the presence of ‘unto’ is part of the directional element of speech. The command is to kill the passover where the Hebrew for ‘kill’ is shahat (שחט). This word is related to the word for ‘destroyer’ which we will see occurring in verse 23.

And you shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the bason, and strike unto the lintel and unto the two side posts with the blood that is in the bason; and none of you shall go out at the door of his house until the morning. For Yahweh will pass through to smite the Mitsraym; and when he sees the blood upon the lintel, and on the two side posts, Yahweh will pass over the door, and will not suffer the destroyer to come in unto your houses to smite. (Exodus 12.22,23)

Yahweh passes through (‘abar עבר) and passes over (pasah פסח). The second word is the word from which we get ‘passover’. The feast is named after the fact that Yahweh, as a destroyer, does not enter into the houses of those who have placed the blood of the slain lamb unto the two sides and the lintel of the door. The first word ‘to pass through’ is from a family of words from which we get the word ‘Hebrew’. It is used in Exodus 34 to describe the angel of Yahweh passing by Mosheh and calling the name.

The act of slaying the firstborn of the enemies of Yahweh is done by a ‘slayer’ just as the lambs have been ‘slain’ by the children of Yisra’el. The blood of the slain lamb prevents the entry of the ‘slayer’ into the house to kill the firstborn of those obedient in Yisra’el to the commandment of Yahweh.

Again we see, as in the day of the atonements, the importance of sacrifice and manifestation of the name coming together. It is the angel of Yahweh, bearing the name of Yahweh, that passes by Mosheh in Exodus 34, that declares the name of Yahweh. It is, similarly, Yahweh who passes by to destroy the beginning of the strength of Mitsraym (the firstborn) and passes over to redeem the firstborn of his own creation, saved by the blood of the lamb, figuratively his true firstborn. It is the declaration of the name in one who is called by that name that delivers destruction to the adversary of Yahweh and salvation to his sons.

And it shall be, when you are come into the land which Yahweh will give you, according as he has promised, that you shall keep this service. And it shall be, when your children shall say unto you, What mean you by this service? (Exodus 12.25,26)

As we saw in Deuteronomy, the words are given to be performed in the inheritance. That which is done now anticipates that which is to come, in the inheritance. Once in the inheritance the memorial of this beginning of the journey of leaving Mitsraym is rehearsed unto the children.

As the children of Yisra’el are about to make those first steps on that journey, in distance and in time, we can recap on what has led them there. The revelation of the name unto Mosheh is a fundamental impetus of the preparations for the salvation of the passover. The meaning of that name in how the children of Yisra’el can become Yahweh by the transference of words, and with them the mind, of Yahweh impels them on that journey unto the place which represents their inheritance of him. This is what it is to be ‘elohym. We see in Iesous’ words in Iohannes 10 the meaning of ‘elohym:

If he called them theoi, unto whom the word of Theos came, and the scripture cannot be broken…(Ioh.10.35)

Here Iesous is quoting Psalm 82.6 where the Hebrew is ‘elohym where the New Testament Greek uses theoi. The message is clear, the psalmist is referring, according to Iesous, to those who receive the word of Theos, just as he had. ‘elohym describes the children of Yisra’el at some level as they have received the word of Yahweh. ‘elohym is a manifestational term. It depicts those agencies who, having received his word, then speak it and, in so doing, become him. This is true of those heavenly messengers we often refer to as ‘angels’. It is true of Mosheh, it is true of ‘Aharon, it is true of the children of Yisra’el. The better fulfilment of ‘elohym is those who receive and reciprocate, rather than just receive.

We are told that the plagues, of which the passover was the fulfilment were an execution of judgment upon the ‘elohym of Mitsraym. This execution of judgment on the ‘elohym of Mitsraym was to elevate the name of Yahweh while casting the antithesis of this name down to the ground. We can see from this that there are true ‘elohym and false ‘elohym. ‘elohym which are the outcome of the receipt, and preferably reciprocation, of the mind of Yahweh are true, whereas those that are the product of a reciprocal relationship with the flesh are false. Receipt and reciprocation can be carnal as much as spiritual. ‘elohym can be created in the image of man, and his thinking, just as ‘elohym can be in the image of he who made them, where it is the creator of the heavens and earth, both in form and in mind. The ‘elohym of Mitsraym were the former and were thus destroyed as man’s mind will be destroyed in the end. Indeed, as the mind of man was destroyed in the true passover lamb, the Lord Iesous anointed.

We noted, when looking at the ten commandments, that the number ten can be indicative of reciprocation. The tithes were tenths, one in ten of the lepers returned to give glory to Theos after Iesous had healed them all. The ten commandments are like this. They create the image of ‘elohym in the obedient children of Yisra’el if they are observed and, in particular, the one overarching value seen through them all, the observance of the name of Yahweh. The ten plagues are the destruction of those elements of false reciprocal observance of the thinking of the flesh. They culminate in one plague, the death of the beginning of the strength of Mitsraym, the firstborn, and, most poignantly, in the death of the firstborn of Phar’oh, who was worshipped as a deity. The death of Phar’oh being ultimately accomplished when he and his mighty men were overthrown in the sea.

It is the impetus of the declaration of Yahweh’s name in overwhelming the ‘elohym of Mitsraym; it is the impetus of the slain lamb and the hope for the creation of ‘elohym in his sons that pushes the children of Yisra’el from Mitsraym.

Mitsraym (and its values), seen in its ‘elohym, is the ultimate ‘from’/’out of’. The land of promise is the ultimate ‘unto’. However, as we have seen, it is what the land represents which is the ultimate ‘unto’. The land represents a place and time when/where the patriarchs are. It is a place and time where/when only the willingly obedient are there, particularly the son of Theos. It is a place and time which is Yahweh, the true inheritance. It is Yahweh shamah.

And there I will meet with thee, and I will commune with thee from above the kaporeth, from between the two kerubym which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Yisra’el. (Exodus 25.22)

There are here two axes of separation in the midst of which is the meeting and communing of ‘elohym with the man Mosheh. The first is ‘from above’ the kaporeth, that is above or upon the covering of the ark and beneath the overshadowing wings. The second is ‘from between’ the two kerubym, that is in the space that is between one kerub and the other. In the midst of these two separate orientations (top and bottom, side to side) is where, and how, the glory of ‘elohym is. The vertical axis depicts an order of top to bottom, or head to foot, while the horizontal axis depicts a face to face or ‘man unto his brother/neighbour’ relationship. Both imply directional speech and potential reciprocation while one, the vertical, stresses on superiority of the upper over the covering, while the horizontal stresses on the face to face aspect of speech leading to reciprocity and a mirror image of the first kerub created in the second.

The Hebrew for ‘between’ is bayin (בין). It denotes division and separation and is homographic for a word most commonly translated ‘understanding’. These seem to derive from the ‘build’ family of words which also includes the word for ‘son’ as well as the associated words ‘house’ and ‘daughter’, denoting the building of a familial structure. The first occurrence of bayin (בין) is in Genesis:

And ‘elohym saw the light, that it was good: and ‘elohym divided between the light and between the darkness. (Genesis 1.4)

This pattern of separation continues in the division of waters above and below the expanse (verses 6 and 7) and the division of light and dark by virtue of the lights in the heavens (verses 14 and 18). These separations, set in the context of the ‘very good’ state of the creation (before corruption set in), are indicative of ‘elohym exhibiting the positive and negative qualities at the heart of the meaning of אל (the not and the not/not). However, the separation and division that emerges in the next occurrence of bayin (בין) is indicative of a separation of ‘elohym from man rather than the use of contrast to illuminate meaning:

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and between her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel. (Genesis 3.15)

In the aftermath of the sin of the woman and the man and the provocation of the serpent, Yahweh indicates the fight that will occur between the woman’s offspring and that of the serpent. Hinting at the struggle of the flesh and the spirit which is an outcome of the separation of ‘elohym from man which has occurred because of the sin of the inhabitants of ‘Eden. The separation is an active phenomenon from both parties, that is to say that the separation (the ‘between’) is from the seed of the woman toward the serpent seed and from the serpent seed toward the woman’s seed, it is not an abstract gap but a gap because of the persistent and continued mind that is inherent in the struggle between spirit and flesh. Of course, within this delineation of that separation there is also the promise of the defeat of the serpent seed by the woman’s seed. This can only be done by the shutting down of the persistent mind which is alien to ‘elohym. This closing of the gap is done by ‘elohym in the willing by virtue of his understanding revealed in the woman’s seed. This closing of that separation is perhaps more clearly indicated in the next occurrence of bayin (בין):

And ‘elohym said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and between you and between every living creature that is with you, for ‘olam generations: (Genesis 9.12)

Following the further indication of the division, the distance, between man and ‘elohym and their respective values, seen in the days of Noah and Yahweh’s resolution of it by a worldwide inundation, Yahweh seeks to bridge this gap by establishing an agreement with Noah. This anticipates the agreement which Yahweh will make with all people through his drawing near unto them through the Lord Iesous, of whom Noah is a figure.

The bridging of this separation is an outcome of understanding which is given by the one and received and reciprocated by the other. It is, as in the kaporeth, a bi-directional resolve to remove the separation by reciprocal understanding that first emanates from Yahweh. It is an understanding which builds the house of Noah and, in the truth of which Noah’s is a figure, the house of Theos in anointed. This salvation, this bridging of this divide is occasioned by the salvation of the ark, which (as you will remember from an earlier post) was covered within and without with a covering (homographically the kaporeth).

The language of ‘between’ being used in covenant making settings is further emphasised in the next great covenant that Yahweh makes with man:

And I will make my covenant between me and between thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly…And I will establish my covenant between me and between thee and between thy seed after thee in their generations for an ‘olam covenant, to be ‘elohym unto thee, and to thy seed after thee…This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and between you and thy seed after thee; Every man child among you shall be circumcised. And you shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant between me and between you. (Genesis 17.2,7,10,11)

The covenant is an agreement between ‘elohym and ‘Abraham with the intent to become ‘elohym unto him. ‘Between’ is not just about the divide between two entities, it is about the coming together of those entities, the bridging of that which lies between them. That bridging occurs from both parties, as it does in the kaporeth, with understanding. ‘elohym reveals the word to ‘Abraham and ‘Abraham keeps the covenant and shows that in the token of circumcision, which shows to ‘elohym, in a figure, what is going on in his mind, the cutting off of the flesh, that is the separation from the carnal mind and the separation unto ‘elohym. In this we can see why ‘between’ occurs on both sides – between me and between you.

In the case of ‘Abraham the bridging between him and ‘elohym is done via the manifestation of the ‘he’, in ‘elohym, to deliver the message of reconciliation by obedient belief. In the case of Mosheh, the mediation of the covenant is extended to another manifesting kerub, Mosheh himself. So, ‘he’ appears in ‘elohym appearing in Mosheh to the children of Yisra’el:

These are the statutes and judgments and laws, which Yahweh made between him and between the children of Yisra’el in mount Sinay by the hand of Mosheh. (Leviticus 26.46)

And:

Yahweh made not this covenant with our fathers, but with us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. Yahweh talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of the fire, (I stood between Yahweh and between you at that time, to show you the word of Yahweh: for you were afraid by reason of the fire, and went not up into the mount;) saying, I am Yahweh thy ‘elohym, which brought thee out of the land of Mitsraym, from the house of bondage. (Deuteronomy 5.3-6)

This mediation of the covenant from Yahweh through Mosheh unto the people is seen in the new covenant where the division/separation between Theos and man is being bridged by the willing reciprocation of Iesous anointed:

For there is one (εις) Theos, and one (εις) mediator between Theos and men, the man anointed Iesous; (1 Tim.2.5)

You will notice the homographic eis (εις) used here to translate ‘one’, although it can also function as the preposition ‘unto’. The word ‘between’ is not highlighted here as there is no separate word for ‘between’, rather it is implied in the word ‘mediator’. The Greek word ‘mediator’ is mesites (μεσιτης) and is related to the word mesos (μεσος) which is mostly translated ‘midst’ or ‘among’ and, therefore, indicates being in between or in the middle, that is in a space between, at least, two others. Here, that position is occupied by Iesous, he is in the space between Theos and man and is travelling in the direction toward man from Theos. The term mediator in the New Testament is primarily associated with Iesous but is implicitly modelled on the example of Mosheh:

Wherefore then is the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator. Now a mediator is not of one, but Theos is one (εις). (Galatians 3.19,20)

This directly refers back to the passage above in Leviticus. Mosheh is the mediator into whose hand the covenant was delivered by the angel of Yahweh. The middle space that Mosheh occupied in between Yahweh and the children of Yisra’el was an outcome of his ministration of those words from ‘elohym towards the people and, when they showed their willing obedience, to return their reciprocity to him.

As in the kaporeth on the day of the atonements, and the blood which was sprinkled upon it, the themes of the mediation of the covenants of promise are closely tied to the redemptive work of Iesous in his offering of himself:

Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of Theos when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, says he, that thou make all things according to the pattern showed to thee in the mount. But now has he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. (Hebrews 8.5,6)

and:

But anointed being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained aionian redemption. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of anointed, who through the aionian spirit offered himself without spot to Theos, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living Theos? And for this cause he is the mediator of the new covenant, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of aionian inheritance. (Hebrews 9.11-15)

So, the law, being the figure and not the true, requires two people (Mosheh and ‘Aharon) to accomplish the work of anointed. Firstly as the mediator of the covenant in giving the pattern of the tabernacle, including the kaporeth, to be a dwelling place of ‘elohym and, secondly, in offering the sacrifices which speak of the forgiveness of sins and the promise of life for the age. Iesous is between Theos and man as Mosheh was between Yahweh and the people. In this space of between is the glory of ‘elohym revealed. The glory of Yahweh is seen in the face of Iesous anointed.

We can see in the above that ‘between’ is a space in the middle of two interactive agencies. One kerub speaks to another, the glory of Yahweh is between. The divide between the two, and the bridging of it, is an active outcome of the behaviours of the two parties. While the seed of the woman and that of the serpent are divided it is because of the active enmity between the two. Where such a divide exists between ‘elohym and man then it is because ‘elohym is, actively, spirit and man is, actively, flesh. Where closing of the gap, that is reconciliation, is possible it is because of the active direction of the spirit towards man and the willing obedient receipt and reciprocation of such spirit. When this occurs the glory of ‘elohym exists in that space of interaction. The striving of moving from a state of division to a state of union is the work of anointed and is an endeavour of such pain and suffering that, ultimately, it requires the shedding of blood, it requires the death of the flesh. If we are to hope to achieve such an aionian salvation we must attempt to walk in his steps by receiving the mediation of the new covenant and to allow it to dwell in us unto the closing of the gap between us and Theos by the destruction of the flesh by the spirit.

In the previous post we came across the use of the word ‘there’ (sham שם) and how it has an expanded, feminine, form in some places, including Yehezq’el 48.35 – shamah (שמה). In this form the final hebrew letter ה (h) is added. This denotes a feminisation of the word. The feminisation of the word can also be seen as a place unto which someone travels. In this case ‘there’ as a final destination where the name of Yahweh is fulfilled.

The idea of the feminine as a place unto which we can travel can be highly instructive and we did see a number of those themes being explored in the previous post, particularly in relation to Ruth and Bo’az and the figure of redemption of the possession in marriage.

The first thing to note, on a technical level, is that we normally use the homographic preposition ‘el (אל), or its truncated form l (ל), immediately prior to the thing, person or place unto which the direction is headed. Thus:

Now Yahweh said unto (אל) ‘Abram, Get thee from thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto (אל) a land that I will show thee: (Genesis 12.1)

In the above passage the direction of travel is preceded by the direction of Yahweh’s speech unto ‘Abram. The direction that follows the verb (in command form) ‘get thee’ is ‘from’ three times and ‘unto’ in the final instance. The journey is distinguished primarily by three negatives, that is the need to leave behind his land, father’s house and relatives to be able to head in the direction of the positive ‘land’ which Yahweh will reveal, or manifest, unto him. The journey to this land is characterised by the preposition ‘el (אל). The Hebrew is ‘el-ha’arets (אל־הארץ).

And ‘Abram took Saray his woman, and Lot his brother’s son, and all their substance that they had gathered, and the souls that they had gotten in Haran; and they went forth to go into the land of Kana’an; and into the land of Kana’an they came. (Genesis 12.5)

Here, ‘into the land’ is preceded, in the first instance, by the verb ‘went forth’ and, in the second, by the verb ‘came’. We saw these two verbs in the post about ‘comings and goings’, having a direct relevance to the ideas of ‘here’ and ‘there’. The outcomes of these two verbs is the entering into the land. The Hebrew here which translates ‘into the land’ is ‘eretsah (ארצה). The word for ‘land’ (‘erets ארץ) has been feminised by the addition of the final letter ‘h’ (ה). The presence of the final letter ‘h’ (ה) often denotes the feminine. So, we can see that Yahweh commands him to go unto (אל) the land and when he and his household obey the command the destination is no longer referred to with אל but, rather, the destination is feminised. The verbs ‘coming’ and ‘going’ depicting, as they do, the obedience to the command, govern the feminisation of the destination. In fact, here, we can argue that, because the land (‘erets ארץ) as a noun is already a feminine, that we have a double feminisation of the destination. That is, as we saw in an early post, gender is directly related to the author/source/creator being masculine and the receiver/created being feminine. We could, therefore, expect the object of Yahweh’s creative endeavour, the land, the inheritance, the final fulfilment of his purpose with his people, to be the feminine. Yet it has this added layer of feminisation when those chosen to receive his promises and blessings are to come into, and become, that possession. Doubling up in scripture is seen as a point of emphasis where something must surely come to pass, as in Yoseph’s dreams of the stalks of wheat and the cattle (Genesis 41).

Now Mosheh kept the flock of Yethro his father in law, the priest of Midyan: and he led the flock to the backside of the desert, and came unto (אל) the mountain of ‘elohym, even to Horeb. (Exodus 3.1)

Here we see that the verb ‘came’, as above, precedes the destination of Mosheh’s travel and is, in the first instance, followed by the preposition אל but is then qualified by the name of that destination. Here, the mountain name, ‘Horeb’, has been given the h (ה) ending making it Horebah.

Exodus 3 is littered with occurrences of the preposition אל but these are primarily describing the direction of travel of speech from Yahweh to Mosheh, Mosheh’s direction towards the children of Yisra’el to speak to them and towards Phar’oh. However, Yahweh gives the seeming overarching purpose of the revelation of his name:

And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Mitsraym, and to bring them up out of that land unto (אל) a good land and a large, unto (אל) a land flowing with milk and honey; unto (אל) the place of the kana’any, and the Hitty, and the ‘Amory, and the Perizy, and the Hiwy, and the Yebusy. (Exodus 3.8)

When Yahweh is giving commandment of the future inheritance of the land we see the use of אל but when someone comes or goes, but in any case enters into the place, then the object of that journey is feminised. We have already seen that a feminine noun – ‘erets (land) – can be apparently feminised further when it is achieved by those who obediently come into it.

Clearly, Exodus 3 is fundamental in getting to grips with the meaning of the name (shem שם). We have also seen that ‘name’ and ‘there’ are homographic, being represented by the same Hebrew letters. ‘Name’ is a masculine noun, ‘there’ is, technically, an adverb so does not have a gender. Though ‘name’ is a masculine noun, it can take the feminine ending (h ה) and thus transform to shemah (שמה), ‘her name’, thus:

And ‘elohym said unto ‘Abraham, As for Saray thy woman, thou shall not call her name Saray, but Sarah is her name. (Genesis 17.15)

So, the changed status of the woman of the foremost of the believing patriarchs, by whom Yahweh was happy to call his own name (Ex.3), is depicted using the word shemah (שמה). Her name changes as she is to become the mother of the promised seed. The word shemah (שמה) is, of course, homographic with the word ‘there’ where it occurs in Yehezq’el 48.35. ‘Yahweh is there’ (shamah שמה). We might also note at this point that Yahweh’s name also carries what appears to be the feminine ending h (ה) and indeed we may conclude that at the point when the unity of the people with him is fulfilled that his name has a feminine sense, because, at that point, he has become the bride and the bride him. Clearly, the name Yahweh is in the masculine gender as the adjectives associated with him occur in the masculine form. He is in the masculine because the ‘he’ that lies behind the manifestational and covenantal name, is the creator and source of all things and he reveals himself to the created and receivers, who are the feminine, by his spirit. However, as the name is fundamentally about that journey towards the final destination of him in others, it has the feminine sense of that destination achieved when he comes into his possession. At that point, when he is in the bride of his possession, is his name fulfilled. The name of Yahweh describes his purpose, it is a name for ‘olam, not an absolute label like our names, which we see as permanent and indivisible from our natural form. The name of Yahweh describes the progressive, and incremental, journey of manifestation unto a destination of perfect kerubic reflection of his name.