Towards, unto, into and in Theos

The term ‘proverb’ which describes this book in its opening verse is mashal (משל). In fact, the first two words of the book, in Hebrew, are mishley shelomah (משלי שלמה), the proverbs of Shelomah. We can see immediately an inversion in the three main letters of both words – sh (ש), m (מ) and l (ל). If you look back to the post on inversions, you may remember the relationship that existed between the words kaporeth (כפרת) and paroketh (פרכת). This relationship is one of inversion in the letters and a juxtaposition in relationship, that is that the paroketh (the vail) separated the holy from the holy of holies, in which the kaporeth was situated and that, when the time came for the tabernacle to be dismantled to be moved, that the paroketh was draped over the ark, upon which the kaporeth was.

The name Shelomah seems to have two meanings. As with the 5 homographs of ‘el (אל), these 2 meanings complement each other. The first one is from the word for ‘peace’:

Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Shelomah, and I will give peace and quietness unto Yisra’el in his days. (1 Chronicles 22.9)

There are two gifts that Yahweh promises to bestow on Shelomah. The first is ‘rest’, this is a word that is related to the name Noah and to Manoah, the father of Shimshon:

And they departed from the mount of Yahweh three days’ journey: and the ark of the covenant of Yahweh went before them in the three days’ journey, to search out a resting place for them. And the cloud of Yahweh was upon them by day, when they went out of the camp. And it came to pass, when the ark set forward, that Mosheh said, Rise up, Yahweh, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee. And when it rested, he said, Return, Yahweh, unto the many thousands of Yisra’el. (Numbers.10.33-36)

You shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes. For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which Yahweh your ‘elohym gives you. But when you go over Yarden, and dwell in the land which Yahweh your ‘elohym gives you to inherit, and when he gives you rest from all your enemies round about, so that you dwell in safety; Then there shall be a place which Yahweh your ‘elohym shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; there shall you bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which you vow unto Yahweh: (Deuteronomy 12.8-11)

The rest which Yahweh promises is led by the cloud which leads the ark (with the kaporeth upon it and the paroketh draped over it) with the people following it into the land over Yarden and a place within it where Yahweh chooses to place his name there. You will remember that in the section on homographs we looked at the word shem/sham (שם) and its feminisation shamah (שמה). We concluded that ‘there’ is the culmination of Yahweh’s plan, described in his name, when he will be there with his people and they will be one. The journeying of the children of Yisra’el anticipates, in a figure, that journey towards a resting place. The promise of that rest along with the peace that accompanies it is enshrined in Shelomah’s name.

Speak unto ‘Aharon and unto his sons, saying, On this wise you shall bless the children of Yisra’el, saying unto them, Yahweh blesses thee, and keeps thee: Yahweh makes his face to shine upon thee, and is gracious unto thee: Yahweh lifts up his face upon thee, and gives thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Yisra’el; and I will bless them. (Numbers 6.23-27)

Peace is about reconciliation. It can be an accord between two parties who were previously at odds with one another but have now come to an agreed mind. The outcome of a peace negotiation is to be at rest from your enemies. Clearly, the primary enemy is the carnal mind and by Yahweh lifting up his face, that is revealing himself to his servants, the antagonism that is between the natural man and the spirit which is of Yahweh can be dispelled. This journey of the cutting off of the flesh unto the point of unity with him is the basis for Yahweh’s name. Like Yahweh’s name, Shelomah’s name also takes the final ‘h’ (he – ה). We saw this apparent feminisation in an earlier post when it was used in the case of the word ‘erets (ארץ) and its apparently feminised form ‘aretsah (ארצה) in, for example, Genesis 12.5 when ‘Abram and his family are obeying the commandment of Yahweh to come into the land of Kana’an. This feminisation can be used as an alternative to using the preposition ‘el (אל), that is ‘unto’.

The name Shelomah (שלםה) is a feminisation of the masculine shalom (שלום) and therefore gives a sense of the journey towards a place of reconciliation and rest. We may deduce that such a journey was the one that his father Dawid was on but his son Shelomah, and eventually the greater Shelomah, would cause to come to pass.

This journey, eventually taken and in the process of being accomplished by the greater Shelomah, is also a journey of the name. The journey of the name of Yahweh and the name of the father in his son Iesous, or Yehoshua’, in which, you will remember, the first three Hebrew letters are the same as Yahweh’s, is alluded to in the second homograph for Shelomah:

Tell me, O thou whom my soul loves, where thou feed, where thou make thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turns aside by the flocks of thy companions? (Song 1.7)

We have already looked at this first chapter of the Song of Songs earlier in this post in respect of the use of ‘good(s)’ to indicate the betterness of the true over the figure. That is, the betterness of the speaking of words from the bridegroom to the bride and its reciprocation than that of wine and of the betterness of the name over anointing oils. Here the homograph for Shelomah is translated ‘for why’ and is immediately followed by the rare verb ‘ehyeh (אהיה) – translated ‘I will be’ in Exodus 3.12,14 and used there as the basis for the meaning of the name Yahweh. ‘For why’ is a composite homograph being made up of, firstly, the letter sh (ש) which is used uncommonly as a truncation of ‘asher (אשר), also used in Exodus 3.14, and translated ‘who’ (as in ‘I will be who I will be’). The rest of the name Shelomah is made up of the letter ‘l’ (ל), truncated from ‘el (אל), meaning ‘to’ or ‘for’, and the word ‘mah’ (מה), meaning ‘what’. Often when ‘l’ (ל) and ‘mah’ (מה) are joined together into ‘lemah’ (למה) it is translated ‘why’. Therefore, we can translate this homographic Shelomah as ‘who to/for what’ or ‘who why’. The language is infused with allusions to the name and is spoken by the bride, the one who is seeking to take the journey of putting on his name for the journey of becoming him and finding rest in him. The question ‘who?’ is answered by ‘Yahweh in Iesous’, followed by ‘anointed in the bride’. The question ‘why?’ or ‘unto what?’ is that it is for the purpose of taking the journey unto salvation. Shelomah’s name takes these two homographic translations and binds them together. The feminisation is a journey unto a place of rest and peace in the settled state of the name of Yahweh having been fulfilled and an allusion to the fact that the becoming of him is in the female (the bride) who will become that settled place where he dwells.

The word for proverb (mashal משל) as we saw above has a relation of inversion to the primary three letters of Shelomah’s name and the word ‘peace’ (shalom שלום). This is a relation of inversion in letters but proximity as with the kaporeth and paroketh. Mashal (משל) is from the word ‘to rule’ and indicates that what is to follow in the book are those words which will form the basis of Shelomah’s rule. They are the rules of his rule. What follows are a series of couplets which we have already seen above in the section on ‘better’ and ‘than’ in Proverbs 16.

Put not forth thyself in the presence of the king, and stand not in the place of great men: For better it is that it be said unto thee, Come up hither; than that thou should be put lower in the presence of the prince whom thine eyes have seen. (Proverbs 25.6,7)

This proverb/rule is then taken up into the new testament by Iesous, when he utters a parable:

And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, When thou are bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou are bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee comes, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shall thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. For whosoever exalts himself shall be abased; and he that humbles himself shall be exalted. (Loukas 14.7-11)

Iesous’ words are often uttered in the form of a ‘parable’. In Maththaios 13 the whole chapter is given over to parables that liken themselves to the kingdom of heaven, a kingdom of heavenly origin, like the heavenly country of Hebrews 11 and the heavenly bread, the manna.

In Maththaios 13 it gives some Old Testament justifications for Iesous speaking in parables:

All these things spoke Iesous unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spoke he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the kosmos. (Math.13.34,35)

This is a quotation from Psalm 78:

I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old: (Ps.78.2)

The Hebrew translated ‘parable’ here is the word proverb – mashal (משל). Iesous’ parables are parallel to Shelomah’s proverbs and, as we have seen above, bear similarities in some of their narratives. We can see, therefore, that the parables are the precepts of Iesous’ rule. However, the Greek word for parable (parabole παραβολη) is not only used for a description of the way in which Iesous presents his words to the multitudes. The word parable (παραβολη) is related to the verb paraballo (παραβαλλω):

And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of the Theos? or with what comparison shall we compare it? (Markos 4.30)

Here, we have a doubling up of the parable idea. The Greek uses, firstly, a word for ‘likeness’ and, in so doing is introducing another aspect of representative language, that has its origins in Genesis 1. The second part of the sentence effectively says, with what parable shall we parabolise it?

And we sailed thence, and came the next day over against Kios; and the next day we arrived at Samos, and tarried at Trogyllium; and the next day we came to Miletus. (Acts 20.15)

This is the only other occurrence of this verb (paraballo παραβαλλω). It is set in the context of a journey by Paulos and his companions while they evangelised around that region. Indeed, the verb is immediately followed by eis (εις) preceding the place name Samos. You will recall that eis (εις), usually translated ‘unto’ or ‘into’, is an equivalent to the Hebrew ‘el (אל). Here, the context is of a journey but with the word paraballo (παραβαλλω) indicative of attaining unto a destination on one of the stages of the journey. We may deduce, therefore, that parabolising, that is the use of parables, is associated with achieving a place of understanding in the incremental journey of understanding unto becoming Theos. The verb paraballo (παραβαλλω) is constructed from the verb ballo (βαλλω), meaning ‘to cast’, ‘to send’, ‘to put’, or ‘to lay’, along with the preposition para (παρα), usually meaning ‘by’. This same principle of prefixing a verb by para (παρα) is used in the verb paratithemi (παρατιθημι), using, as it does, the verb tithemi (τιθημι) to follow the preposition para (παρα). You will recall that tithemi (τιθημι) is the verb associated with the title Theos and gives the idea of ‘setting’ or ‘placing’ and, as such has a relationship with the Hebrew shem/sham (שם) from which we get ‘name’ and ‘set’ and ‘there’, as we saw above.

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: (Math.13.24)

In this verse we not only have this verb ‘put forth’ but also ‘parable’ and ‘likened’, which we saw above in Markos 4.30.

This idea of putting forth is used on a number of occasions to describe the sharing out of the bread and fish at the feeding of the 4,000 and the 5,000.

And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people. And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before them. So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets. (Markos 8.6-8)

Iesous enacts a figure for the age to come. He delivers the food to his disciples; he commands them to set this food before the people. They obey. The people reciprocate by being filled and by a greater remnant of the food than the little at the beginning. Setting forth is the delivering, in figure, of the heavenly bread, the teaching of Theos before the people. It is incumbent on the people to see that which is set before them and to take the food and eat until they are full. The same verb is used to describe Iesous at his death:

And when Iesous had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the spirit. (Loukas 23.46)

Iesous, having become the embodiment of the spirit of Theos which had been laid upon him is at the conclusion of this stage of his journey. He sets forth before the father the sum of his identity which he has attained unto. In so doing he then exhales. We will come to the final words of Iesous on the stake in a subsequent post, particularly when he says, ‘it is finished’.

This setting forth is similar to the idea of the verb to parabolise. There is a directional journey and a set finishing point in that the words are juxtaposed with the people with a view to them being able to reach out and take them, if they have ears to hear.

As we mentioned above, the idea of parable is not only restricted to these analogies which Iesous speaks about to his disciples and the people:

But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The holy spirit this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for (εις) the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience. (Hebrews 9.7-9)

Here the word ‘parable’ is used to describe the ministration of the high priest on the day of the atonements. Prior to this the writer of the letter has been alluding to the tabernacle and its furniture, including the ark and the mercy seat (ilasterion ιλαστηριον), as also being prefigurative of the heavenly things they were made to represent. As you may recall, from previous posts, the place of the kaporeth (translated in Hebrews 9 as ‘mercy seat’) lies at the heart of the day of the atonements, being set in the holy of holies into which the high priest went once a year. It was before the glory of Yahweh, which was manifest in the kaporeth, in the reciprocal kerubym, that the blood of the bull and of the goat were sprinkled. This signifies the offering of anointed, who shed his blood for himself and for others. He did this by being in a face to face relationship with ‘elohym, being completely in communion with him, and representing him to his disciples so that they too could overcome the flesh, even unto the shedding of blood. The parable is the creation of this event and the dwelling of Yahweh amongst his people, which was intrinsic to the culmination of that day, as a likeness and comparison to the true of which it was the figure.

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaak: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten, Of whom it was said, That in Isaak shall thy seed be called: Accounting that Theos was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. (Hebrews 11.17-19)

This is the only other occurrence of parabole (παραβολη) being translated as ‘figure’. We have come across Genesis 22 before, the chapter being alluded to here, before. It was the time and place where ‘Abraham offered up Yitshaq, being prevented at the last minute by the angel. It is also the place which he called Yahweh-yir’eh. It was in this context that we looked at the chapter, on account of the homographic nature of yir’eh (יראה), being both ‘see’/’appear’/’manifest’ and ‘fear’. It was on account of this figurative sacrifice that the final iteration of the promises was made, that his seed (singular) would become a multitude of stars in the heaven and sand on the sea shore leading to a blessing for all nations. This figure which Yahweh created, a true account of an event just as the day of the atonements, was an inferior to the superior of the offering of Iesous and the subsequent multitudinous blessings for those who are created out of that death and resurrection. These are not parables like the parable of the sower, these are parallel, comparative, events that are true and yet less than the things which they portray. Specifically, both of these parables are representative of the representation/manifestation of Theos in his son to the end of saving him and creating a path of salvation for those who would choose to follow after. They are parables because they require the willingness of the scribe (Math.13.52) to unearth their meaning. This is why in Proverbs 25, after the reiteration that what is being written here are ‘proverbs’/’parables’ (mishley משלי), it says:

The glory of ‘elohym is to conceal a word: but the honour of kings is to search out a word. (Proverbs 25.2)

We can see therefore that a parable/proverb is the juxtaposing of two ideas parallel to one another. The one is lesser than the greater, one is the figure, the other the true. This is the case because the true has greater depth and detail than the fugure. The figure picks out a small number of similarities between itself and the true. This conciseness gives the allegory power. The interpretation of the parable/proverb is in the hands of the kings of the age to come to interpret. Without this interpretation the parable/proverb is shrouded in mystery. Typically, this interpretation is significantly greater than the figure because it deals with the explanation of the greater, the true. We will come to look at translation/interpretation in an upcoming post.

End of part 2