Towards, unto, into and in Theos

When we say unto/unto it is an allusion to the reciprocal nature of interaction that is seen between the Kerubym of the Kaporeth and in the interactions of Mosheh and Yahweh and ‘Abraham and Yahweh who were both known as friends of ‘elohym and knowing him face to face.

Unto, on its own, is a journey to a destination.

The purpose of this post is to look at some occurrences of אל particularly where it is translated ‘to’/’unto’.

We have already considered Genesis 1.9 as it is the first occurrence of אל in any of its homographs.

And ‘elohym said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so (Gen.1.9)

Here the idea of אל is clearly a directional one with a destination, the one place that the waters should be gathered unto.

The next occurrences of אל in Genesis are highly instructive:

And out of the ground Yahweh ‘elohym formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. (Gen.2.19)

and again 3 verses later:

And the rib, which Yahweh ‘elohym had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. (Gen.2.22)

These are the first interactions characterised by אל in which, firstly, animals are brought unto ‘Adam and then a woman, who is created out of him, is brought unto him. The first, which includes the verb ‘call’ and the word ‘name’, fulfills the initial idea of calling Yahweh’s name, that is a single direction of ‘unto’, but does not fulfill the second which is the reciprocal nature of calling. That is, that having been called by the name it is imperative for those faithful respondents to reciprocate in calling back to him. The need for the second occurrence of ‘unto’ hints at this secondary reciprocal element. ‘Adam requires ‘a help as before him’ (verses 18,20) and the animals are not able to satisfy this requirement. Clearly this is because for someone to be ‘before him’ they must be in a face to face relationship and thus be able to interact in reciprocal speech and understanding. This is the foundational basis for the relationship between the man and the woman seen here but ultimately to be fulfilled in Anointed and the ekklesia in the age to come. The man is teacher, the woman receiver and reciprocator. When this reciprocal pattern is in evidence then the name is being fulfilled.

This makes what happens in the next chapter particularly problematic. Indeed, another major theme of אל comes into the dialogue in Genesis 3, although the presence of the homographic אל as ‘not’ is not present here but rather its inversion לא. Nevertheless, the chapter is littered with negatives and positives and the tension that arises when face to face relationships fail. The setting is of a series of conversations between a number of correspondents.

The precursor to this chapter is the second use of not לא – in Genesis 2:

And Yahweh ‘elohym commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat: but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die. (Gen.2.17,18)

After the commandment in Genesis 1.28 to go forth, multiply, fill the earth and have dominion over the creatures of the earth, this is the next commandment that is given to the man by ‘elohym. It is clear that this is both a positive and negative commandment with a significant censure on failure to keep it.

The presence of the serpent as a means to introduce the temptation in the woman’s mind begins the process of opposing (or negating) the assertion of ‘elohym to not eat. Not eating is life, eating is death. The woman is tempted and succumbs to the serpent narrative. The serpent represents that which is not of Yahweh. He is the embodiment of the not. Yahweh ‘elohym is the embodiment of the yea. When the seed of the woman appears on the earth (who is also the son of Theos) he will undo the not of the serpent and affirm the yea of the promises of Theos.

And he said unto the woman, Yea, has ‘elohym said, You shall not eat of every tree of the garden? (Gen.3.1)

The deep irony here that the serpent utters the word ‘yea’ (or indeed or also) should not be lost on us. He poses as the one making an emphatic statement of affirmation but in doing so he is questioning the not commandment of ‘elohym by counterpointing his certainty. The real certainty is that disobedience to the command will certainly lead to death.

This is the beginning of a conversation of reasoning that will lead to the overthrow of the negative command. It is not the pattern of conversation anticipated in the ‘help as before him’ that was being provided for ‘Adam. Rather than being a reciprocator to ‘Adam the woman is overthrowing the Kerubic pattern of man unto woman followed by woman unto man. She will replace it with its antithesis – woman unto man and man unto woman.

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also to her man with her; and he did eat. (Gen.3.6)

I have highlighted here the truncated form of אל. The outcome of this overthrow of the true reciprocal relationship of man unto woman leads to expulsion from the garden and to death.

And Yahweh ‘elohym called unto ‘Adam, and said unto him, Where are you? (Gen.3.9)

When Yahweh finds the two and that they now know they are naked a period of interaction occurs in which blame and counter blame are thrown around until Yahweh addresses himself to the woman and to the serpent:

And Yahweh ‘elohym said unto the woman, What is this that you have done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. (Gen.3.13)

And Yahweh ‘elohym said unto the serpent, Because you have done this, you are cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon your belly shall you go, and dust shall you eat all the days of your life:

And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; it shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel. (Gen.3.14,15)

The outcome of the overthrow of the true order of obedience of ‘elohym’s commandment, of the overthrow of the true pattern of man unto woman is a period of mutual antagonism between that which is of Yahweh (the yea), that is the seed of the woman (and the son of Theos) and between that which is not of Yahweh, that is the serpent and his seed, that is those who similarly are not of Yahweh. The inevitable conclusion of that antagonism is a permanent end to the not while a temporary injurious state occurs by the not towards the ‘yea’.

Of course the immediate outcome of the overthrow of that true order is the expulsion from Eden.

So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Kerubym, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of lives. (Gen.3.24)

The irony is that the very things which stand as a metaphor for the unification of ‘elohym with man through the expression of the word one unto another are now used as a sign of antagonism between ‘elohym and man preventing an opportunity to eat of the tree of lives and live for ‘olam. They keep the way of the tree of lives. The way remains but access to it is presently barred. However, by their presence and by their indication of the phenomenon of salvation via reciprocal speech and understanding, they stand as a reminder that the way to life is still possible.