Towards, unto, into and in Theos

As we saw in the previous post, there are clear implications in terms of perspective with the subject under consideration here. Indeed, it follows on directly from considering ‘coming in’ and ‘going out’. The term ‘here’ that we are going to consider is used relatively rarely in the Old Testament, whereas the word ‘there’ is used much more often and we have already considered it in previous posts.

The first word we are going to consider is the word ‘here’, particularly in its form that occurs in Exodus 3:

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

‘Here’ is antithetical to ‘there’, as ‘coming’ is to ‘going’. Indeed, ‘here’ is a place you come to and ‘there’ is a place you go to. In the context of revelation these are perspective terms. The one who is ‘here’ is in a position where the other can come towards him. ‘There’ is a place we are heading towards.

In the above passage, ‘elohym is telling Mosheh not (with the homographic אל) to approach unto him. He needs to remove his shoes from his feet in the area approaching the ‘here’ as it is holy ground. The context, as we have ascertained on a number of occasions previously, is that of the revelation of the name of Yahweh at Horeb in the context of an apparent fulfilment of the promises to the patriarchs in respect of the land possession. The same terminology is used when Yehoshua’ takes the people into the land:

And the captain of Yahweh’s host said unto Yehoshua’, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou stand is holy. And Yehoshua’ did so. (Yehoshua’ 5.15)

Here, Yehoshua’, with the people, has traversed Yarden and is about to fight against Yeriko. The removal of shoes also occurs in another context under the law:

Then shall his brother’s wife come unto (אל) him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face, and shall answer and say, So shall it be done unto that man that will not build up his brother’s house. (Deuteronomy 25.9)

Here, the removal of a man’s shoe is a sign of his refusal to raise up seed unto his brother when his brother dies childless. The same refusal to take up the inheritance of a brother by taking his widow, and the ensuing sign of the removal of the shoes, is enacted in the narrative of Ruth:

Now this was the manner in former time in Yisra’el concerning redeeming and concerning changing, for to confirm all things; a man plucked off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour: and this was a testimony in Yisra’el. Therefore the kinsman said unto Bo’az, Buy it for thee. So he drew off his shoe. (Ruth 4.7,8)

The narrative of Ruth is all about possession and inheritance. Na’omi, Ruth’s mother-in-law, left the land inheritance of Yehudah to travel to Mo’ab. After the death of her husband and two sons, she returns to the land with her daughter-in-law, Ruth, and, because Ruth is widowed, there is a possession available to the near relative who marries her. The nearest kinsman will not marry her to take the possession but the faithful Bo’az, who sees in Ruth a woman who has forsaken her ‘elohym and joined herself to Yahweh, wishes to take the woman, and with it the inheritance. The near kinsman must remove his shoe to signify that he has rejected the possession. It is the faithful, and therewith the righteous, Bo’az who is able to take the dual possession of the bride and the land, as it is the faithful and righteous Iesous who will take the possession of the bride, redeeming Yahweh’s inheritance by virtue of his manifesting the righteousness of Theos. The near kinsman is unworthy of the possession because he is unfaithful and unrighteous.

In the New Testament Iohannes the baptist mentions shoe removal in the context of Iesous’ baptism:

Iohannes answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptise you with water; but one mightier than I comes, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptise you in holy spirit and fire: (Loukas 3.16)

Here, the holiness is that of the spirit of Theos, which is the inheritance of those obedient unto his name, rather than the land being holy in Exodus and Yehoshua’. Iohannes is not worthy to dispossess Iesous because Iesous is the inheritance of Theos, he is that in which Theos dwells. Removal of the shoe is a statement that someone is unequal to the task of walking through the possession, and in Iesous’ case of being the possession. Iesous can walk through the possession because he is becoming the fulness of the image of the father. The man who refuses to take the inheritance is utterly unworthy of that honour because he has rejected Yahweh’s inheritance. In the case of Mosheh and Yehoshua’ they also are unworthy to walk through the inheritance of Yahweh, as we all are. However, with the revelation of Yahweh’s name to him, in the case of Mosheh at Horeb, he is able to walk being shod by that revelation of Yahweh. The nakedness of his natural man (in respect of his feet) is clothed upon by the name of Yahweh, allowing him to take that wilderness journey unto the land. The same applies to Yehoshua’ who must be clothed upon by Yahweh’s approbation to come in and go out before his people in the land possession. Yahweh, similarly, provided a clothing for the children of Yisra’el’s feet as they walked in the wilderness unto the land inheritance:

And I have led you forty years in the wilderness: your clothes have not become old upon you, and thy shoe has not become old upon thy foot. (Deuteronomy 29.5)

The word for ‘here’ is also used in the book of Ruth:

And Bo’az said to her, At mealtime come here, and eat of the bread, and dip thy morsel in the vinegar. And she sat beside the reapers: and he reached her parched corn, and she did eat, and was sufficed, and left. (Ruth 2.14)

The idea of ‘here’ is dictated by the one who speaks, Bo’az. He is the prospective husband who is drawing the prospective bride unto him, to be in the place where he is, and his house. The trajectory of Ruth’s journey is that she has travelled from a land in which she worshipped other ‘elohym and to come into a place where she could truly serve Yahweh. The final steps in that journey are to come into the possession of Bo’az. In this he is like anointed taking the possession which is to become his bride. In order to do that he must be the one speaking in the first person (I) to draw her unto the place where she can, ultimately, become one with him.

In the New Testament we find a similar story, especially where it concerns Iesous.

But I say unto you, That here is greater than the temple. (Math.12.6)

In the middle of a discussion with the Pharisaioi about observance of the sabbath, Iesous points out that he is the fulfilment of the figure. He is the Lord of the sabbath because he will reign in the seventh day. He is the fulfilment of the temple because he is the dwelling of Theos in man. He has spoken, he is the word made flesh, and therefore ‘here’ is the greater temple. Later on in the chapter he also states that Solomon and Ionas are both inferior figures to the greater manifestation of the word of Theos. Therefore, ‘here’ is a place of the word being spoken unto the redemption of the promised possession. It is also the words spoken in the here and now in anticipation of that seventh day of inheritance. Thus:

Wherefore Iesous also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore towards ( προς) him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here we have no continuing city, but we seek one to come. (Hebrews 13.12-14)

‘Here’ can be seen as a time, a situation, in which Iesous is delivering his words, being the word made flesh, unto the redemption of his people. It is the beginning, and subsequent progression, of the journey whose beginning and continued impetus is fuelled by the word in him delivered to us and subsequently received and reciprocated. We follow him by going forth out of the arrangements of the camp, going forth in the unsettled state of those who are pilgrims and do not belong to this age. Constantly motivated by the energy of Theos’ spirit in Iesous.

The Greek word for ‘here’ is ode (ωδε) and is related to the word ode (οδε). This second word is used a number of times in Revelation 2 and 3:

And unto the angel of the ekklesia of the Laodikeans write; These things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of Theos (Revelation 3.14)

‘These things’ is a common phrase in the Hebrew Old Testament. The first verse of the book we refer to as Deuteronomy has this phrasing:

These be the words which Mosheh spoke unto (אל) all Yisra’el on this side Yarden in the wilderness, in the plain over against the Red sea, between Paran, and Tophel, and Laban, and Hazeroth, and Dizahab. (Deuteronomy 1.1)

‘Words’ and ‘things’ are translations of the same Hebrew word debarym (דברים) and ‘these’ is ‘eleh (אלה), a feminisation of the homographic ‘el (אל). We will see, in an upcoming blog, that one of the meanings when feminising a word is to give it a sense of direction. So, the motivating force of the journeys of Yisra’el is the speech which proceeded out of the mouth of Mosheh and came from Yahweh. It was that starting out point of the journey.

If ‘here’ is a setting of progression and direction, the beginning of the pilgrimage, then ‘there’ is that place, and those values, we desire to enter into. It is the fulfilment of the inheritance.

As we saw in the section on homographs, the word ‘there’ in Hebrew is sham (שם). It is translated as set/place (as a verb) and ‘there’. It is a homograph of the word (and name) shem and is translated ‘name’. There is therefore a relation between the meaning of the name and the outcome of the journey. Indeed, we ascertained that the meaning of the name is very much bound up in that notion of a journey unto a set place. As an antithesis to the true pattern and relation of ‘name’ to ‘there’, the narrative of the building of the tower of Babel is highly instructive.

And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. And it was, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelled there. And they said one to another (man unto – אל – his neighbour), Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. 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 built. And Yahweh said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. So Yahweh scattered them abroad from there upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because Yahweh did there confound the language of all the earth: and from there did Yahweh scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. (Genesis 11.1-9)

We can see a mirror image of the true. In a place described as ‘there’ they decided to build a city and tower, a permanent residence, to establish a name. However, it is a name, a fixed set of values which they have arrived at after a wandering journey, which is antithetical to Yahweh’s values. Therefore, in that place Yahweh confuses their oneness of speech, the place being named after such confusion – Babel, and scatters them. Yahweh thus reversing the pattern of a fixed destination of oneness of mind and speech arrived at after journeying, a place with a name. The reason being that the motivation creating a coming together into one place was the mind and imaginations of man not the word of Yahweh. If we look at this pattern we see the true and the false establishing of a name in the earth as an outcome of a journey motivated by a mind.

The forefather of the children of Yisra’el, ‘Abram, was one who sought a city which has foundations whose builder and maker is Theos. He was a pilgrim on the journey towards making Yahweh’s name his strong tower and lived out the meaning of that pursuit in his life:

And Yahweh appeared unto (אל) ‘Abram, and said, To thy seed will I give this land: and there built he an altar to Yahweh, who appeared unto (אל) him. And he removed from there to a mountain on the east of Beth-‘el (אל), and pitched his tent, having Beth-‘el (אל) on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he built an altar to Yahweh, and called in name Yahweh. (Genesis 12.7,8)

‘Abram’s response to Yahweh’s revelation is the building of an altar in a place that he has attained unto in his pilgrimages. This reciprocal altar building is set in the context of the house of ‘el (Beth-‘el) and of calling in name Yahweh, a reciprocation to the giving of Yahweh’s name to him. His continuous pilgrimage is punctuated, like the children of Yisra’el in the wilderness, by achieving a destination (‘there’), and several similar destinations on the way, but of never achieving a final settled state, all of which being accomplished as a result of the revelation and reciprocation of the name.

The children of Yisra’el were similarly offered that different journey to the inhabitants of Babel in the book of Deuteronomy:

Also Yahweh was angry with me for your sakes, saying, Thou also shall not go in there. Yehoshua’ the son of Nun, which stands before thee, he shall go in there: encourage him: for he shall cause Yisra’el to inherit it. Moreover your little ones, which you said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in there, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it. (Deuteronomy 1.37-39)

The ‘there’ which Yehoshua’ and the people shall go into is the feminised version of the word – shamah (שמה). As mentioned above, we will look at feminisation as a way of expressing the destination that is entered into but a number of the themes we have seen above clarify why the inheritance would be feminised when achieved.

This passage, set as it is on the verge of crossing Yarden, anticipates what Yehoshua’ will begin to accomplish because Mosheh is not allowed to go over. Deuteronomy also anticipates what should occur in the inheritance and with regard to the behaviour of the people in that inheritance:

Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as Yahweh my ‘elohym commanded me, that you should do so in the land whither you go to possess it. (Deuteronomy 4.5)

The ‘there’ which they are going over to possess is to be a place where the behaviour of the people is governed by the commandments they received while still on the wilderness journey. These words are anticipatory in nature, being both that which is done on the pilgrimage and that which is performed in the land. In that sense it is like the commandments we receive now, from the mouth of the Lord Iesous and his followers which leads us to attempt o behave and speak as if we were possessors of that rest though we are, at present, pilgrims.

The settled status of the rest which the children of Yisra’el were to inhabit is also dealt with by the word ‘there’ and its homographic ‘name’. Thus:

But unto (אל) the place which Yahweh your ‘elohym shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall you seek, and there thou shall come: And there you shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks: And there you shall eat before Yahweh your ‘elohym, and you shall rejoice in all that you put your hand unto, you and your households, wherein Yahweh thy ‘elohym has blessed thee. (Deuteronomy 12.5-7)

In the first two verses where the word ‘there’ is linked with the verb ‘to come’, which we looked at in the previous post, the word is feminised as it is juxtaposed with the directional verb. It is shamah (שמה). In the first verse the verb ‘to set’, ‘there’ and ‘name’ are placed alongside each other, marking out a triple emphasis of the homographic shem/sham (שם). We see the name being inextricably linked to the journey unto a destination. It is a journey which finds rest in a set place where his name is, a place where the people are one with their ‘elohym, where they rejoice. A place that is indicative of a unity of mind with Yahweh. They have become him. Of course, sadly, this was not accomplished by the children of Yisra’el once they had attained unto that place. They themselves were still supposedly engaged in a figure of a greater rest to come but, instead, they reverted to the worship of other ‘elohym, as they did at Horeb. Indeed the true reconciliation of the people to their ‘elohym is yet to come but is also expressed in the terms of being ‘there’, where ‘there’ is the destination of the journey and is thus expressed in the feminine.

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)

Again ‘name’ is set in the context of ‘there’ and especially here we see the fulfilment of the name of Yahweh. The end point of the journey is expressed in the feminine shamah (שמה).

Yahweh is in the ‘here’ as we saw in Exodus 3. Yahweh is in Iesous and is in the ‘here’, as we saw in Maththaios 12. It is the revelation of the word whcih commences the journey and, in that sense, Yahweh is ‘here’. At the conclusion of the journey Yahweh is also ‘there’ as we saw in Yehezq’el 48. The two ends that mark the beginning and the ending of the journey, which lies between them, are both Yahweh. Of course, the direction from one to the other is the journey of progression, of growth, of incremental understanding which leads to the bride, the people (the feminine responding to the impetus of the masculine), becoming Yahweh in a much greater sense than they were at the beginning.

Of course, these posts are an outcome of examining and exploring the kaporeth. Notions of antitheses are born out of the relation of the kerubym one to another, in that they are ‘man unto (אל) his brother’. That the homographic אל is also translated in the negative (not, neither etc) in other places and that the two kerubym face one another, which in some contexts is seen as an antagonistic relationship, leads us to see the potential for antithesis in such a figure as the kaporeth is. Antitheses, where one value is the ‘not’ of the other, can be highly instructive in defining basic concepts.

The relation of the kaporeth to the latter of the antitheses covered in this post becomes even more sharply focused when we see ‘there’ used to describe the meeting of ‘elohym with man in relation to the kaporeth itself:

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 (אל) the children of Yisra’el. (Exodus 25.22)

The meeting, communing and revealing of commandments to Mosheh with the intent of delivering them unto Yisra’el is accomplished in between the covering lid of the ark and the kerubym. It is an outcome of that structure and of its symbolic meaning that it is possible for Yahweh to meet with man. This revelation of him to Mosheh is fundamental for the progression of the journey. At, or before, the beginning of the journey Yahweh is ‘there’, at the conclusion of the journey he is ‘there’ also, revealed to, and dwelling in, man. Between these two ‘theres’ he is always Yahweh, but the final ‘there’ and the incremental ‘theres’ along the way show a progression until there is a greater sense of him dwelling in man, as he will be all things in all. Yahweh is always in between. He is there in between the beginning and the ending of the journey; he is there in between the two kerubym. He is that which furthers the first ‘I will be’ to the latter ‘I will be’ in the revelation of the name in Exodus 3.14. He is the causation of the image of the one kerub becoming evident and reflective in the image of the other kerub. He is the one who will be unto ‘elohym unto his people as they will be reciprocal to him. This essence of beginning and ending of a journey is both true of ‘here’ and ‘there’, when it is from his perspective, and ‘there’ and ‘there’ when it is from Mosheh and the people’s standpoint. As ‘there’ is homographically ‘name’ (שם), this is a further illumination of the meaning of Yahweh’s name.

‘Here’ and ‘there’ are anithetical one to another as they bookend the journey between. At the beginning of the journey, the outset of the kerubic relationship unfolding, the man is unclothed upon with shoes, unable to make the journey without the covering of his feet by Yahweh’s revelation. He is in an antagonistic kaporeth relationship. By the end of the progressive pilgrimage to the inheritance, once he has achieved the ‘there’, he is fully clothed upon by the immersive spirit of ‘elohym. At this point in the kerubic relationship, as the receiving kerub, he is indistinguishable from the mediating kerub.

Blessed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy ground, and the fruit of thy cattle, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. Blessed shall be thy basket and thy store. Blessed shall thou be when thou come in, and blessed shall thou be when thou go out…Cursed shall thou be in the city, and cursed shall thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store. Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep. Cursed shall thou be when thou come in, and cursed shall thou be when thou go out. (Deuteronomy 28.4-6; 16-19)

Following on from the previous chapter we see here the enunciations of the blessings and cursings dependent, as they are, on the hearkening, or failure to do so, to the commandments of Yahweh and obedience, or lack thereof, to such precepts. Obviously, as we saw in the previous post, there is the antithesis of the blessings and cursings being pronounced from two mountains facing each other. We also have another interesting antithesis here, that of coming in and going out. We have seen various journeys up to this point, and many later, which have points of setting forth and points of entering in. We have seen ‘Abram setting forth from ‘Ur arriving at Haran, setting off from Haran and coming into the land of Kana’an. Setting forth from thence and entering into Mitsraym and returning to enter into the precincts of his allotted inheritance. Ultimately the children of Yisra’el have set forth from Mitsraym to enter into the land beyond Yarden. We have also seen, and will see once again in upcoming posts, the miniature journeys they took in the course of the larger one. All of these journeys, it might be argued, had a setting out point and an entering in. In the light of the above, bearing in mind that these blessings and cursings were set to be pronounced and fulfilled once the people had entered into the land, what can these journeyings allude to, if they had reached their destination?

The verb ‘to come in’ is the Hebrew bo’ (בוא). It is a common verb and is often translated as ‘come (in)’, ‘bring (in)’ and ‘enter (in)’. The sense of ‘in’ seems to be intrinsic to its meaning. Its first occurrence is in Genesis 2:

And out of the ground Yahweh ‘elohym formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto (אל) the man to see what he would call them: and whatsoever the man called every living creature, that was the name thereof…And the rib, which Yahweh ‘elohym had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto (אל) the man. Genesis 2.19,22)

Here the bringing is closely linked with ‘unto’ (אל) which, as we will recall is homographic to the title ‘el (אל) and thus alludes to a fundamental element of the character and definition of ‘el (אל). ‘Unto’, of course has, at its final point, ‘in’ as its destination. This alludes to the completion of the journey when man is ‘in’ Yahweh. Here, Yahweh brings animals unto the man to be named but there is no ‘help as before’ him and therefore there is no possibility of union. The woman, formed out of the man, is brought unto him and, because of her ability to be in a reciprocal relationship with the man (‘as before him’), union is a possible outcome of the journey ‘out of’ and ‘towards’. Bringing, in this case, is an act perpetrated by Yahweh ‘elohym towards the man. The possibility of it being received and reciprocated is down to what is brought and the man’s, and ultimately the woman’s, response. There is a kerubic manifestation towards the man and, it is to be hoped, such manifestation will be taken up by the man towards the woman. As we saw in the previous post, sadly, this is not the case. Following the sin of the woman and man, however, reconciliation and forgiveness can be afforded to them by sacrifice, looking forward, as it does, to the sacrifice of the woman’s seed. Thus:

And in process of time it came to pass, that Qayn brought of the fruit of the ground an offering to Yahweh. And Hebel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And Yahweh had respect unto (אל) Hebel and unto (אל) his offering: (Genesis 4.3,4)

The two sons of the man and the woman brought sacrifices unto Yahweh but only that which had been ordained by Yahweh was accepted. It required the death of the lamb to take away sin. The meal offering was not acceptable because it did not foresee the death of Iesous and the overcoming of the flesh in his death and resurrection. There is antithesis here between the two brothers: Hebel (as we are told in Hebrews 11) was motivated by belief, understanding the pattern of sacrifice required by the woman’s seed to overcome the curse; in contrast, Qayn lacked such understanding and belief and simply gave what seemed right in his eyes. Hebel ‘brought’ unto Yahweh such things as Yahweh had taught them he required. He was involved in an obedient and reciprocal relationship. Qayn did not hearken, obey or understand.

In Deuteronomy 28 the verb ‘to go out’ is yatsa’ (יצא). We have seen this verb used when we considered the children of Yisra’el’s journeyings in the post before last. We saw it used to describe the words that proceed from Yahweh’s mouth by which man ought to live. We saw it in the springing forth of the plants from the earth, and their subsequent fruitfulness, in creation. We saw it in the journeyings of ‘Abram:

And Terah took ‘Abram his son, and Lot the son of Haran his son’s son, and Saray his daughter in law, his son ‘Abram’s wife; and they went forth with them from ‘Ur of the Keshadym, to go into the land of Kana’an; and they came unto Haran, and dwelt there. (Genesis 11.31)

And ‘Abram took Saray his wife, 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)

In both these journeys we see the use of both ‘going out’ and ‘coming in’. The journeys match the micro journeyings of the children of Yisra’el. They are steps in a larger journey. As it were, journeys within a journey.

We might consider further occurrences of the two verbs occurring together:

And it was, when Mosheh went out unto (אל) the tent, that all the people rose up, and stood every man at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he was come into the tent. (Exodus 33.8)

We will recall the context of this passage. The children of Yisra’el have defiled themselves in serving the golden calf and, as a result, Yahweh removes the tabernacle from within the camp and sets it outside the camp. As a result, in order for Mosheh to receive instruction from Yahweh, to hearken unto his voice which proceeds from between the kerubym, he must go forth out of the camp and, after having received ‘elohym’s commandments he returns with those words back to the camp to deliver the message to the people. We can see the order of going and coming in this chapter. The going forth is seen as if standing in the camp and watching him, the coming into is seen as if stood within the tabernacle. Coming and going, or going and coming, are very much words of perspective. In this sense they are like revelation itself which is seen in the ‘I’ form of Yahweh speaking (from his perspective) but it is also seen as the ‘he’ speaking, as we saw in an earlier post on gender and identity, in a third person capacity given to us to be able to perceive him. He is the revelatory ‘I’ giving us the capacity to see the ‘him’ from our stance. We saw this in the movement of the naming of himself from the ‘I will be’ to the ‘he will be’ in Exodus 3. Exodus 33 and 34 give us the context of the calling of that name before Mosheh on account of the favour that Mosheh has found in Yahweh’s eyes. After the renewal of the covenant following the calling of the name Yahweh we see the outcome of that manifestation, that is, the knowing of Mosheh and ‘elohym one to another, as in the kaporeth from whence he received the commandments, and his subsequent mediation of such to the people.

And when Moses came in before Yahweh to speak with him, he took the vail off, until he went out. And he went out, and spoke unto (אל) the children of Yisra’el that which he was commanded. (Exodus 34.34)

Mosheh has emerged from speaking with Yahweh and his face shone so brightly that it was difficult for the hard hearted people to countenance. As a result he wore a vail except when he received instruction from Yahweh and gave it to the people.

Implicit in the verb ‘to come into’ is the idea of direction which results in being ‘in’ the house, the destination. Implicit in the verb to go forth is to proceed from a point outwards. It seems to, at the very least, be an auditory pun, on the the command/commandment family of words and is associated on other occasions, as well as this one, with the direction of commandments going forth from Yahweh or his representative. The representative of Yahweh must come in to the place where Yahweh is to be able to go forth with his words.

The same ‘coming into’ and ‘going forth’, in the same order as Exodus 34, also occurs in the context of the day of the atonements, reinforcing the link between reciprocal manifestation, as represented in the kaporeth, with the work of anointed:

And there shall be no man in the tent of the congregation when he comes in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he goes out, and has made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Yisra’el. (Leviticus 16.17)

In keeping with our previous post on the antitheses of ‘blessing’ and ‘cursing’ these two words, ‘come into’ and ‘go forth/out’, are used in the context of the blessings and cursings of Gerizym and ‘Ebal:

Therefore shall you keep all the commandments which I command you this day, that you may be strong, and go in and possess the land, where you go to possess it; And that you may prolong your days in the land, which Yahweh sware unto your fathers to give unto them and to their seed, a land that flows with milk and honey. For the land, where thou come in there to possess it, is not as the land of Mitsraym, from where you went forth, where thou sowed thy seed, and watered it with thy foot, as a garden of herbs: (Deuteronomy 11.8-10)

This passage is set in the run up to the children of Yisra’el passing over Yarden and, once they have entered into that possession, coming to ‘Ebal and Gerizym to pronounce the cursings and blessings:

Blessed are thou be when thou come in, and blessed aret thou be when thou go out…Cursed are thou be when thou come in, and cursed are thou be when thou go out. (Deuteronomy 28.6,19)

Thus, the potential for long life, figuratively for ‘olam, is conditional upon keeping the commandments that proceeded, via Mosheh, from the mouth of ‘elohym. The larger journey is completed by a coming in, as if Yahweh is already in the possession, which he is, of course, as he is the possession. This journey, once it began by the proceeding forth from Mitsraym at the commandment of Yahweh, is seemingly complete at the settling of being in the land, However, it is evident from the blessings and the cursings that there are other journeys still to be completed within that possession which will be blessed or cursed, dependent on obedience to the commandments of Yahweh.

‘Comings in’ and ‘goings out’ were what described the shepherd who had brought them to the verge of entering in to the land and to the one who was to replace him in crossing the Yarden and casting out the inhabitants of the land:

Let Yahweh, the ‘elohym of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation, Who may go out before them, and who may go in before them, and who may lead them out, and who may bring them in; that the congregation of Yahweh be not as sheep which have no shepherd. And Yahweh said unto (אל) Mosheh, Take thee Yehoshua’ the son of Nun, a man in whom is the spirit, and lay thine hand upon him; And set him before ‘Ele’azar the priest, and before all the congregation; and give him a charge in their sight. And thou shall put some of thine honour upon him, that all the congregation of the children of Yisra’el may be obedient. And he shall stand before ‘Ele’azar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him after the judgment of ‘Urim before Yahweh: at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the children of Yisra’el with him, even all the congregation. (Numbers 27.17-21)

Mosheh can no longer fulfill the role of shepherd to the children of Yisra’el. He has brought them out and he has placed them on the verge of entering (coming) into the possession. It is now for Yehoshua’ (the Hebrew equivalent, as we have seen, of Iesous in the New Testament Greek), who has been the faithful minister to Mosheh throughout the wilderness journey, to bring them in and to lead them forward to subdue their enemies and take full possession of the land. It is as an outcome of Mosheh’s manifestation of the role of ‘elohym to Yehoshua’ and the passing on of Mosheh’s role to him that Yehoshua’ is able to lead them out and bring them in according to his word. This same role of shepherd to Yisra’el, as an outcome of wisdom manifested to the receiver by ‘elohym, is replayed in the lives of Dawid and Shelomah:

Also in time past, when Sha’ul was king over us, thou was he that led out and brought in Yisra’el: and Yahweh said to thee, Thou shall feed my people Yisra’el, and thou shall be a captain over Yisra’el. (2 Shemu’el 5.2)

The elders of Yisra’el come to Dawid after he has been in exile from Sha’ul, after he has reigned over Yehudah for seven years and now they require him, having fought the battles of Yahweh, and being able to fight more, to provide a settled state in which to feed the flock of Yisra’el. The same transition from war to peace in the context of shepherding is repeated when Shelomah, Dawid’s son, becomes king and wrestles with the qualities he will need to take over this role:

Now, Yahweh ‘elohym, let thy promise unto Dawid my father be established: for thou has made me king over a people like the dust of the earth in multitude. Give me now wisdom and knowledge, that I may go out and come in before this people: for who can judge this thy people, that is so great? (2 Chronicles 1.9-10)

In Yehoshua’ and in Dawid there is an element of their goings forth and comings in that was linked to fighting the battles of Yahweh. The victories of the battles of Yahweh are what leads to the possibility of the flock being able to be at rest and to be fed in that state of peace. This was the inheritance offered to Shelomah who presided over a period of calm afforded to him by the victories enjoyed by his father. His goings out and comings in were occasioned by the wisdom that was given to him by Yahweh, as it was with Mosheh and Yehoshua’. We saw, and will see again in upcoming posts, the micro journeys that the children of Yisra’el engaged in en route to their inheriting the possession, the greater journey. They took down the camp and followed the ark to their new destination where they pitched, which we saw was related to the word for ‘grace’. They were involved in disruptive moments that led them to progression and peace where the kerubic relationship of the kaporeth could be re-established. Once in the land there were more goings forth and comings in that were occasioned by Yehoshua’ fighting the battles required to clear the land of the enemies of Yahweh’s people. These themes of shepherding the people of Theos, fighting the battles necessary to liberate his people, and that these things are occasioned by the gift of the wisdom of Theos granted to the shepherd to accomplish these ends, are brought into focus in the latter day Yehoshua’:

Amen, amen, I say unto you, He that enters not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbs up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber. But he that enters in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep. To him the porter opens; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calls his own sheep by name, and leads them out. And when he puts forth his own sheep, he goes before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice…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…I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd gives his soul for the sheep. (Iohannes 10.1-4,7,9,11)

The repeated use of the ‘I am’ shows that Iesous here is a fulfilment of the ‘I will be’ of his father. He is here manifesting his name. The sheepfold is the inheritance of Theos, which is Theos. Firstly, Iesous must enter in. He did this by hearkening to his father’s voice (the word) and becoming totally obedient. In this he lay down his natural identity that he might take up that new man which he had become by being as Theos. His performing of this exemplary role of shepherd allowed him to enter into Theos via the correct way. By doing this, he becomes the way that we enter, by endeavouring to follow his way. If we do this we can become in Theos too, by him. Once in Theos we may also go out and enter in. We have seen the battles fought by Iesous and his subsequent victory by which he is sat with the father, highly favoured of him. By virtue of this we have received his commandments by which we can inherit the favour that comes from reciprocal manifestation, while fighting the battles of Theos against the natural man, embodied in ourselves and others.

Just to remind ourselves why the notion of antithesis is relevant to this discussion. We noted in the early posts while discussing homographic uses of ‘el (אל) that one such usage was a less common word for ‘not’ and was an inversion of the more common word for the negative – lo’ (לא). As we also saw, when we looked at inversions, the inversion of letters can have a number of senses. It clearly indicates a relation of juxtaposition as we saw in the case of ‘grace’ and ‘Noah’ and also in the case of kaporeth and paroketh. It may also have a sense of inverted meaning so that ‘el (אל) could at one and the same time mean ‘not’ and, as it were, ‘not not’ or the inversion of the negative, that is the positive, for example, yes. It may be deemed therefore, as we see in the ten commandments, that fundamental to the meaning of the identity of ‘el (אל) is the idea of negative and, by implication, its antithesis. The ten commandments show this inasmuch as they are determined to be the fundamental commandments to be obeyed which form the basis of the covenant with Yisra’el and they take the form of a series of negative and positive propositions.

Furthermore, we will see in the following analysis an example of antithesis set in the context of the journeyings of the children of Yisra’el. So, a part of the identity of ‘el (אל), that is the association of him with both positive and negative, is juxtaposed with another fundamental part of his identity, that is the directional sense of ‘el (אל), both in the direction towards the land and in the direction of the kerubym one toward another seen in the kaporeth.

Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse; A blessing, if you hearken unto (אל) the commandments of Yahweh your ‘elohym, which I command you this day: And a curse, if ye will not hearken unto (אל) the commandments of Yahweh your ‘elohym, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other ‘elohym which you have not known. And it shall come to pass, when Yahweh thy ‘elohym has brought thee in unto (אל) the land where thou go to possess it, that thou shall put the blessing upon mount Gerizym, and the curse upon mount ‘Ebal. (Deuteronomy 11.26-29)

The book of Deuteronomy is the revelation which Mosheh received and delivered unto the children of Yisra’el in one day just prior to them crossing the Yarden and entering into their possession, a seeming fulfilment of a part of the promises made to ‘Abraham. In this specific chapter there is an emphasis on this crossing over and being in that possession and the way they should behave in the land. Indeed, Deuteronomy, as a whole, is a revelation given in the wilderness in anticipation of obedience to those precepts in the possession. In that sense Deuteronomy is very like the word given to those willing to receive it. It is instruction to be adhered to now in anticipation of observance of such in the place destined to be inherited. As such, it is determined that to obey these commandments, and to receive the blessings that come from that obedience, is to walk in the way. To disobey, and therefore to receive the cursings that come from such disobedience, is to stray out of the way and turn aside to other ‘elohym. To be in the way is to face ‘elohym and to move towards him; to be out of the way is to have turned aside to face other ‘elohym.

There are blessings toward the observance of these precepts and there are cursings involved in their disobedience. After entering the land, these blessings and cursings were to be enunciated on these two mountains on the other side Yarden.

In the Old Testament we find two distinct families of Hebrew words that translate the English ‘curse’ and in The New Testament we find a similar story with there being two distinct and unrelated families of words covering the same ground. The same is also true for the words ‘bless’ or ‘blessing’. That is that both in the Old Testament and the New there are two distinct families of words that cover this subject.

You may recall from the post ‘What is the euangelion?’ we looked at a number of Greek words that started with the same prefix ‘eu’ (ευ). One of these words is the word ‘to bless’ (eulogeo ευλογεω). Coming from two words, eu and logeo, it joins these two ideas together – that of ‘good’ or ‘well’ and ‘to speak’ – into one idea which is ‘to speak well’ and exists in both directions of the kaporeth. It is something that is given, that is, Theos speaks well of the patriarchs, and it is something that is received and reciprocated, as in when a believer blesses Theos. The inverse can be said to be true of one of the words for ‘curse’. This verb kakalogeo (κακαλογεω) is made up of the word kakos (κακος) meaning ‘evil’ or ‘wicked’ and the verb logeo (λογεω) from the noun logos (λογος), meaning (as in the word ‘to bless’) ‘word’ and from that ‘to speak’. Thus, cursing is the antithesis of ‘to speak well’, that is, it is ‘to speak evil’ and, therefore, can be inferred to be bi-directional, as ‘blessing’ is.

Thus:

For Theos commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curses father or mother, let him die the death. (Math.15.4)

Cursing here is seen as an antithesis to honouring father and mother and is set in the terms of a commandment of Theos. Indeed, honouring father and mother is one of the ten commandments that formed the elements of the covenant deposited inside the ark and covered by the kaporeth. It is also described as the first commandment with promise as it spoke of the promise of life to come. That is, that obedience to this commandment was couched in terms of the children of Yisra’el living long in the land, a prefiguring of living for ‘olam. The second part of this quotation that Iesous refers to is taken from Exodus 21:

And he that curses his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. (Exodus 21.17)

This route back to the Old Testament gives us one of the two words for ‘curse’ in the Hebrew. The word is qalal (קלל) and, although being predominantly translated ‘curse’, also has a number of alternative translations, including ‘abate’, ‘swift’, ‘revile’ and ‘light’. It seems to carry the sense of belittling, lightly esteeming etc. It is clearly used in a verbal slur as in:

And the Pelishty said unto Dawid, Am I a dog, that thou come to me with staves? And the Pelishty cursed Dawid by his ‘elohym. (1 Shemu’el 17.43)

In this passage Golyath is clearly cursing Dawid verbally by his ‘elohym, whereas Dawid tells him that he comes to him in the name of Yahweh, whom he has defied. Cursing, therefore, is a counterpoint to upholding Yahweh’s name.

The feminised noun from this word ‘to curse’ (qelalah קללה) is also used extensively and translated as ‘curse’ and is used, sparsely, in the references to ‘Ebal and Gerizym:

And these shall stand upon mount ‘Ebal to curse; Re’uben, Gad, and ‘Asher, and Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtaly. (Deuteronomy 27.13)

The Hebrew here being better translated as ‘upon the curse’, as qelalah (קללה) is a noun.

And:

But it shall be, if thou will not hearken unto the voice of Yahweh thy ‘elohym, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: (Deuteronomy 28.15)

The curses, like the blessings (as we shall come to see), are the words which are spoken in advance of the possibility of them coming to pass. The curses are conditional on disobedience, as the blessings are conditional on obedience, and the acts that are foretold in that, as it were, speech of evil will come to pass once that disobedience has been established. Cursing can be evil speech, it can be belittling or demeaning speech, as is intimated in the dishonouring of parents spoken of in Exodus 21 or the blasphemy of Yahweh’s name perpetrated by the man in the wilderness (Leviticus 21), but it can also be speech concerning an evil outcome. Therefore, we can see the cursing from ‘Ebal as the true speech of Yahweh predicting an evil outcome for the disobedient children of Yisra’el, whereas the blessing is both that which speaks well of someone but also speaks of a positive outcome for those who are obedient to Yahweh’s commands. This anticipatory speech covers the events at Gerizym and ‘Ebal, as we have seen, because it is a command given in the wilderness with the expected obedience of such command in the possession where they are headed. Cursing and blessing, therefore, can be seen in tandem with the journey itself. The journey always has the destination in mind. Throughout the journey there is an anticipation of the journey’s end. Commandments given on the journey are expected to be accomplished, complied with, when the possession is inhabited. Such a compliance with the journey commandments will lead to the blessing of the ‘olam inheritance. The opposite occurs with failure to do so.

The most common Hebrew word used in the ‘Ebal cursings is ‘arar (ארר):

Cursed is he that establishes not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen. (Deuteronomy 27.26)

This word is also used in Genesis to describe the bad outcome for the man and his future tillage of the land following the disobedience of the man and woman in the garden:

And to the man he said, Because thou hearkened to the voice of thy woman, and have eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shall not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shall thou eat of it all the days of thy life; (Genesis 3.17)

The outcome of the disobedience of the man is a deteriorating and less fruitful existence leading to his return to the ground from which he was taken. Death as an outcome of disobedience to the one commandment they were given was foretold. They were warned of the consequences of disobedience. From that point on they were expelled from the garden and the way to the tree of lives was guarded by kerubym. However, in the proclamation of such devastating consequences, there was still a hope of another journey and destination set out before them by the victory of the woman’s seed over the seed of the serpent.

The blessings, as the counterpoint to cursings, are seen in the promises made to ‘Abraham which, as in Genesis 3, look forward to an obedient seed to cause their fulfilment. The Hebrew word used here is one of two words used to describe ‘blessing’. Here, as in the blessings of Gerizym, the word used is barak (ברך). It describes the blessedness of man, and the prospect of his ensuing fruitfulness, in Genesis 1; it is used to describe the blessedness of the seventh day following the six days of creation; and it is used to describe the outcome of the promises on ‘Abram on account of his obedience:

And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shall be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curses thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (Genesis 12.2,3)

These positive sayings about positive outcomes are repeated in the following chapters. They are used concerning the words that Melkytsedek, the king of Shalem and the priest of the most high ‘el (אל), pronounces upon ‘Abram and which ‘Abram reciprocates by giving tithes and his subsequent words to the king of Sodom. It is used concerning Sarah and the son that will be born of her (Yitshaq) who, being ‘Abraham’s seed, prefigures the seed (Iesous) who will proceed from him, both genealogically and in spirit. It is used to ‘Abraham by the angel who stayed his hand from slaying his son Yitshaq, the promised seed, who ‘Abraham, in figure, killed and received back from the dead:

By belief Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaak: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten son, towards 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)

As we saw with cursings, there is evidently a journey of speech leading to outcome. This is clearly the case with blessings too. The believing and obedient ‘Abraham was to be the recipient of positive outcomes. There were some of these positive outcomes in his life: the positive words spoken to him by Yahweh and by his representative, himself a figure for Iesous, but the positive outcomes that were promised were not realised in his lifetime, neither in the lifetimes of his natural descendants, the children of Yisra’el, unto whom it appears that these promises were made. The positive outcomes, the fruitfulness and blessings, can only be achieved through his seed and will only be realised when ‘Abraham is there, in his resurrected form, when the possession he was promised is an ‘olam inheritance.

The other word for ‘blessing’ in the Old Testament is the Hebrew word ‘eshrey (אשרי) and it comes from the word ‘asher (אשר). We can see the correlation in the naming of one of the sons of Ya’aqob:

And Leah said, Happy am I, for the daughters will call me blessed: and she called his name ‘Asher. (Genesis 30.13)

We have seen in previous posts that the word ‘asher (אשר) is at the heart of the meaning of Yahweh’s name. In Exodus ‘elohym says unto Mosheh, in response to Mosheh’s question as to what he shall say to the children of Yisra’el when they ask the name of the one sending him:

And ‘elohym said unto (אל) 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 (אל) you. (Exodus 3.14)

The word ‘who’ here is the Hebrew ‘asher (אשר) and denotes that medium through which the ‘I will be’ will appear unto those who he will become. This blessed medium is, in this context, Mosheh but looks forward to the mediator of the New Covenant, Iesous. It also, however, embodies all ‘who’ manifest that name of Yahweh in word and work, thus:

Blessed is the man who walks not in the counsel of the wicked, nor stands in the way of sinners, nor sits in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of Yahweh; and in his law does he meditate day and night. (Psalm 1.1,2)

We see here the word for ‘blessed’ (‘eshrey אשרי) alongside the word for ‘who’ (‘asher אשר), showing a close juxtaposition of the two words. The man ‘who’ is embodying, and walking in, the way of Yahweh, revealed in his law, and who has these precepts dwelling in him day and night, is/will be blessed. Furthermore, his behaviour is characterised by a series of negative propositions. He does not walk, sit or stand in evil ways (the negative) because (the positive) he delights and meditates continually in Yahweh’s law.

Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the Yahweh imputes not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile. (Psalm 32.1,2)

The outcome of this manifestation of Yahweh’s way is that sin is removed from the blessed man. This man (‘adam, as in Genesis 3) is any man who declares Yahweh in himself but, primarily, it is that second ‘adam in whom there was no fault. This faultlessness as an outcome of absorption of, and immersion in, the words of Yahweh is the same principle we saw outlined in the day of the atonements when the blood of the offerings for priest, his house and the people were all sprinkled on the kaporeth, that symbol of reciprocal manifestation.

Psalm 32 gives us a route into the New Testament as it is quoted in Romans 4:

Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. (Romans 4.7,8)

Here we have the use of the words who/whose that are, perhaps, implied but not uttered in Psalm 32. As in the quotation from Deuteronomy 32.43 into Romans 15.10, which we looked at in the ‘homographs’ section (in regard to the homographic nature of ‘with’ and ‘people’), the homographic relationship of ‘blessed’ and ‘who’ is made explicit in the New Testament quotation. This reference in Romans 4 also gives us a New Testament link to the Hebrew ‘eshrey (אשרי). The Greek here is the word makarios (μακαριος) and this is used in, what is commonly called, the sermon on the mount:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see Theos. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of Theos. Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. (Math.5.3-12)

Set on top of a mountain, Iesous proclaims 9 statements of blessedness which is concluded with a commandment to rejoice. It is as though we have a new ten commandments here being offered to a plural blessed group, as the word ‘blessed’ appears in its plural form. These are positive propositions which are based on manifestation. Therefore, those who are merciful will obtain mercy. The positive propositions are, however, contrasted with their antitheses. Those who hunger and thirst for righteousness will be filled; those who mourn will be comforted; and, above all, and offering us the one command form – ‘rejoice and be exceeding glad’ – is the idea that, in this age, those who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness shall receive the reward of the heavenly values of the age to come. Ultimately, those who are cursed by those of this present, evil age shall be blessed in the future by Theos. All of the ones who attempt to show in themselves the qualities of Theos are offered future reward, future comfort. The contrast, where there is one is in the present (wilderness journey) and the future (the inherited possession). This is the blessing/cursing antithesis.

We have seen, in the above, and, particularly referring back to ‘Ebal and Gerizym, that the future reward is dependent on the present obedience while en route to that aionian destination. The two mountains that represented that antithesis between blessing and cursing were juxtaposed opposite one another to show the divergence of these two behaviours and outcomes. The one mountain of Iesous’ teaching offers one set of outcomes based on one set of behaviours. These behaviours were seen in him who sat at the mountain top and led to him being without fault before Theos. If we walk after the example of that manifesting kerub, hearken to his voice and are reciprocal to it in word and deed, we too can be heirs of him. The antitheses of blessing and cursing show the difference between the now and the future and those who will inherit it. Cursing is of the now, it was the failure of the man and the woman in the garden that led to the curse of suffering and death. The blessing that was offered to ‘Abraham and to his seed is the obedience to the covenant of the cutting off of the flesh and holds promise for the undoing of the curse of ‘Eden and the return via the kerubym to the tree of lives and its fruit. The man and woman failed in kerubic manifestation, the woman teaching, falsely, the man how to behave and undermining the teaching of ‘elohym. The true pattern was the command of ‘elohym to man and the man’s reciprocation by receiving, reciprocating and turning to become the manifesting kerub to the woman. In ‘Eden this pattern was usurped. In the blessings of Gerizym, and the mountain of Iesous’ teaching, the true pattern is followed. In the cursings of ‘Ebal, and the failure of the children of Yisra’el to keep the covenant offered to them by Mosheh from the mount, we have the continuation of the expulsion from ‘Eden. Entering into Yahweh is dependent on the obedience of Iesous and those who are blessed in him through obedience to him. The identity of ‘el (אל) is premised on these contrasts.

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. And Mosheh wrote their goings out according to their journeys by the commandment of Yahweh: and these are their journeys according to their goings out. (Numbers 33.1,2)

This chapter of Numbers describes the journeys of the children of Yisra’el from the time they left the land of Mitsraym until they are on the brink of crossing the Yarden and entering the land proper under the hand of Yehoshua’. As the chapter progresses we follow them from the passover night through to their passing through the Red Sea and out the other side through the wilderness of Sin until they reach Horeb, the mountain of ‘elohym. After receiving the commandments and the pattern of the tabernacle they proceed, again by stages, until they reach Kadesh and are on the verge of entering into the land. Each stage is described like the following one:

And they departed from Rephidim, and pitched in the wilderness of Sinay. (Numbers 33.15)

There are 3 words being used in this chapter that we will focus in on because of their relation to the theme of journeying. Firstly, in the first three verses particularly, we see the use of the word yatsa’ (יצא) translated as ‘went forth’ or ‘brought forth’. Next we see the word ‘departed’ (as in the verse above) which is also translated ‘journeyed’ and is related to the word ‘journeys’ in the first two verses. This is the Hebrew word nasa’ (נסע). Finally, we have the word translated ‘pitched’ in the verse above. This is the Hebrew word hanah (חנה) and it is closely related to the word for ‘grace’. The journeys of the children of Yisra’el are associated with their going forth, the pitching of the camp is associated with grace.

Firstly, therefore, let us consider ‘going (or bringing) forth’. The Hebrew word here, as we saw above, is yatsa’ (יצא). The noun which is related to this verb is motsa’ (מוצא) and it occurs in verse 2 of Numbers 33 and is translated ‘goings out’. This noun is used to describe springs of water because they proceed out of the ground. It is also repeatedly used to describe speech as well:

And thou shall remember all the way which Yahweh thy ‘elohym led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, and to prove thee, to know what was in thine heart, whether thou would keep his commandments, or no. And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with the man (ha-man המן), which thou knew not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man shall not live by bread alone, but by all that goes forth from the mouth of Yahweh shall man live. (Deuteronomy 8.2,3)

Towards the end of their wilderness journey, therefore, Mosheh encourages the children of Yisra’el to reflect on the way which Yahweh has led them and to reflect on the fact that only by the words of Yahweh which go out of his mouth shall the man (ha-‘adam האדם) live. Of course, ultimately, it is the man who quoted this verse, while being tempted in the wilderness, who lives because of the utterances of his father.

The verb ‘to bring forth’ (yatsa’ יצא) is often used in journeys. For example, of ‘Abraham:

So ‘Abram departed, as Yahweh had spoken unto (אל) him; and Lot went with him: and ‘Abram was seventy and five years old when he departed out of Haran. And ‘Abram took Saray his wife, 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 12.4,5)

As with the children of Yisra’el, this journeying of ‘Abram was evidently a progression. He left ‘Ur and came to Haran. He left Haran and came into the land. He then separates from Lot when their cattle are too many for them to be together without strife. When he has accomplished these stages on his journey he has fuflfilled the command given in Genesis 12:

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

‘Abram has to complete these stages of progression as he progressively receives more of the promises and the covenant. First, leaving the land (‘Ur), then his father’s house (Haran), and then his kindred (Lot). On his journey to the land, as he casts off these hindrances he progressively has more of Yahweh, and his will, manifested to him. Yisra’el, his descendants, also come out of a place of darkness and proceed in stages towards the land promised to their father. They should be following the same pattern although it is a small number of individuals who truly follow in the steps of their father ‘Abraham, namely people like Kaleb, Yehoshua’ and Mosheh.

Being brought forth, or going forth is also associated with birth. The birth of plants, as they proceed out of the earth, and the birth of children as they proceed out of their fathers. Thus:

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and ‘elohym saw that it was good. (Genesis 1.12)

and:

And, behold, the word of Yahweh came unto (אל) him, saying, This shall not be thine heir; but he that shall come forth out of thine own bowels shall be thine heir. (Genesis 15.4)

Out of the darkness of the earth comes the birth of the plant. Out of the darkness of the woman’s womb, by the impetus of the man’s seed, comes forth the man, the heir to the promises. The fruitfulness of life out of death in respect of plants and people is beautifully articulated by Iesous:

Amen, Amen, I say unto you, Except a corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it abides alone: but if it die, it brings forth much fruit. (Ioh.12.24)

It is through the bringing forth of Iesous out of the grave that there will be the creation of much fruit.

So we see the bringing forth of the children of Yisra’el from Mitsraym with the hope that out of death (that of the firstborn) will be born plenty and fruitfulness. That outcome is dependent on the journeys that will follow that first departure.

These journeys, as we saw above, are repeatedly characterised by the phrasing:

And they removed from Elim, and encamped by the Red sea. (Numbers 33.10)

The word translated as ‘removed’ here is the verb nasa’ (נסע). This word seems to carry the ideas of journeying, as in the patriarchs, of going forward and not back as in the case of the children of Yisra’el when pursued by the Mitsraym and, finally, of breaking down the camp in order to go forward on a journey. These ideas are particularly relevant in the context of the journeying of the tabernacle and, therefore, of the ark and the kaporeth upon it.

And when the tabernacle sets forward, the Lewyym shall take it down: and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Lewyym shall set it up: and the stranger that comes near shall be put to death. (Numbers 1.51)

and:

And when the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Yisra’el went onward in all their journeys: But if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up. (Exodus 40.36,37)

We see, in the second passage that the journeying of the camp was dependent on the movement of the pillar of cloud. The journeyings of Yisra’el were an outcome of the determination of Yahweh that it would happen and were deemed to be in an onward trajectory. In the first passage we see the twofold nature of these stages in the journey. The outset is signified by the word nasa’ (נסע) while the conclusion of these stages is marked by the word ‘pitched which is the Hebrew hanah (חנה). This, as we have seen in a previous blog is from the word for ‘grace’. It signifies that the camp has come to rest after a period of disruption, but progress, that is a prerequisite to rest. We see an antithesis here. Disruption in travel which leads to progress is counterpointed by the rest of grace which is indicated when the camp is re-established, the tents are pitched once again and the tabernacle is reared up, according to its pattern.

We have considered the meaning of grace in the previous blog and determined that to reside in grace is to be in harmony with the revelation of the gracious utterances of Yahweh. It is to be in that kaporeth relationship associated with the revelation of his covenantal name. In figure, therefore we see the bringing forth, the birth, as it were, of the journeyings of Yisra’el out of Mitsraym. Furthermore we see the disruptive progress in a perpetual onward direction that is necessary before we come to a point of re-establishing the grace which goes along with that kerubic relationship at the heart of the tabernacle.

This shall be the service of the sons of Kohath in the tabernacle of the congregation, about the most holy things: And when the camp sets forward, ‘Aharon shall come, and his sons, and they shall take down the covering vail (paroketh), and cover the ark of testimony with it: And shall put thereon the covering of badgers’ skins, and shall spread over it a cloth wholly of blue, and shall put in the staves thereof…And when ‘Aharon and his sons have made an end of covering the sanctuary, and all the vessels of the sanctuary, as the camp is to set forward; after that, the sons of Kohath shall come to bear it: but they shall not touch any holy thing, lest they die. These things are the burden of the sons of Kohath in the tabernacle of the congregation. (Numbers 4.4-6,15)

Twice in the above verses we have the use of the verb to set forward (nasa’ נסע) and the noun ‘camp’ (mahaneh מחנה) which is closely related to the word ‘to pitch’, carrying with it the sense of grace.

This is when we see the relevance of the ark and the kaporeth to the journey. We have already seen that the movement of the camp was dictated by the movement of the cloud that was upon the tabernacle. We now see that the order of movement of the camp was thus:

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)

The word ‘rested’ is from the family of words that includes the name ‘Noah’. We noted, in the previous post, that the letters of Noah were an inversion of the letters for the word ‘grace’. Thus demonstrating a relationship of juxtaposition between Noah and the grace that he found in Yahweh’s eyes. The word ‘grace’ is part of a family of words that includes the words ‘to pitch’ and the ‘camp’ and one of the words for ‘host’, as in multitude. It was a multitudinous camp that pitched under the stability of the presence of Yahweh’s cloud above the re-erected tabernacle and ark that lay within. The word for ‘rest’ which is related to Noah’s name is used, as well as the occurrence above, in a description of the coming to rest of an entirely different ark on the mountains of ‘ararat. (We considered in a previous post the relationship of the ark of Noah with the ark of the covenant.) We also see a reference to ‘elohym resting on the seventh day:

For in six days Yahweh made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore Yahweh blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. (Exodus 20.11)

The above passage set, as it is, in the ten commandments, and giving the rationale behind the sabbath observance, notes that the sabbath is a time of rest because ‘elohym rested after creating the heavens and earth. We can see the rest of the sabbath as being a piece of anticipatory manifestation because it is a work undertaken by the children of Yisra’el not only in recognition of the past but in acknowledgment of the future. Thus the rest of the sabbath is the rest of the age to come. A time of rest from the struggle with the flesh.

Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, make me to know now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people. And he said, My face shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest. (Exodus 33.13,14)

As we have seen above, in the context of the revelation of Yahweh’s name to Mosheh, he seeks and finds grace in the eyes of Yahweh while he is leading his people and, because of the face of Yahweh being before them and leading them, he will find rest.

Remember the word which Mosheh the servant of Yahweh commanded you, saying, Yahweh your ‘elohym has given you rest, and has given you this land. (Yehoshua’ 1.13)

The rest that the children of Yisra’el were aiming towards was the inheritance of the land. We know, however, that, ultimately, Yehoshua’ could not give them a true rest as the writer to the Hebrews says:

For if Iesous had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day. There remains therefore a rest to the people of Theos. (Hebrews 4.8,9)

The name Iesous here, as in Acts 7, refers to Yehoshua’ who, clearly, gave them rest from their enemies, only inasmuch as keeping the sabbath day is observing the rest of Yahweh. However, what is clear in this is that the journey stands for another journey, or series of journeys which end up in encampments of rest for a time only but anticipate a greater, fuller and more permanent rest.

The order of the breaking down of the camp shows us the order of preeminence and the way in which the journey is effected. The first, in order, was the cloud which indicated ‘elohym and his directional intent to lead the people to rest. Secondly, came the ark, with the kaporeth on top of it, covered by the paroketh and the covering of badgers’ skins and carried, by means of the staves that ran through the rings on the side of the ark and that protruded outside of the covering, by the kohathy. After which came the rest of the elements of the tabernacle and then the camp, in order.

It is, after the cloud, the kaporeth on top of the ark that leads the congregation of Yahweh’s people to the land. It is the kerubic relationship of ‘elohym with man that is an outcome of the dwelling of ‘elohym with man, shown in the cloud, that leads the people to their next station of rest en route to the final destination of rest which is, figuratively, the land but is, in truth, the inheritance of Yahweh.

We see, therefore, an onward direction with a purpose looking toward and facing the rest to come but we also see the mechanism of accomplishing that in the kaporeth upon the ark of the covenant. In this sense there are two distinct, and yet conjoined, ideas of ‘unto’. The first being that of ‘unto the rest’ of the onward journey and that of ‘man unto his brother’ of the kerubym on the kaporeth. The latter is the means by which the former is attained.

The individual stages of the entire journey follow the pattern of the entire journey. That is, they commence with a ‘setting forth’ and end with an encampment, a rest of grace. We can see these stages in a number of ways. Firstly, as acts of anticipatory manifestation. The stages are microcosms of the whole. Enacting one in small form is to anticipate the enacting of the whole. Furthermore, we can see these progressions by stages to be necessary progressions, by stage, in understanding. Thus, it is necessary to put in place one step before being able to put in place the next. If we see the journey as a journey of understanding, which it must be if the impetus for that journey is the revelation of Yahweh, then the stages of that journey must be progressive. We already saw this, above, in the stages of journeying in ‘Abraham’s pilgrimage and how they mirrored his progressive relinquishing of the burdens of the flesh and, as a result, received more revelation from Yahweh and further indications of the substance of the covenant made with him. This must clearly be the same with individual believers who are following his, and the Lord’s, example. Furthermore, in future posts we will endeavour to look at this progression in stages in other journeys, particularly the journeys of Iesous around the land.

And Noah found grace in the eyes of Yahweh. (Genesis 6.8)

The word for ‘grace’ (hen חן) is related to the word for ‘graciousness’ (hanan חנן) and is an inversion of the name Noah (נח). The inversion in this case seems to show a relationship of juxtaposition between Noah and the one showing him grace. The word translated ‘grace’ here is also translated ‘favour’ quite often and perhaps this gives us an insight into its meaning.

Furthermore, perhaps the real starting point on this journey of understanding relating to grace/favour is an issue of perspective. From which direction do we see the favour? In a kaporeth type relationship, in which direction does it come from and unto whom is it delivered? In the first 46 of the 69 occurrences in the Old Testament of ‘hen’ (חן), the word is linked with ‘eyes’ or ‘sight’. A particular person finds favour in the sight/eyes of the benevolent giver of grace/favour, usually and ultimately it is Yahweh. As we have seen above, the words grace (favour) and gracious (favourable) are linked. Thus, the gracious shows grace to the receiver of that favour. The benevolent and superior shows a demeanour of kindness to the other which results in a beneficial outcome for the receiver of such an inclination.

This kerubic relationship of the one favouring to the one who is favoured and the reciprocity of acceptance of such favour is implicit in the revelation of the name to Mosheh:

For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou go with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth. And Yahweh said unto Mosheh, I will do this thing also that thou has spoken: for thou has found grace in my sight, and I know thee in name. And he said, I beseech thee, show me thy glory. And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will proclaim the name of Yahweh before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. (Exodus 33.16-19)

So, Mosheh indicates that grace is shown when Yahweh goes with his people, that is, he is in their midst mediating his teachings to them. Yahweh indicates that Mosheh has found grace in his eyes and that he knows him intimately and this is clearly a result of Mosheh’s willingness to submit to Yahweh. Because of this he is going to show his glory to him, reveal his name and his goodness to Mosheh. This revelation, this graciousness, is because Mosheh is someone Yahweh has chosen to speak to, to be gracious to and, implicitly, there is good reason to do so. Mosheh, like Noah, has already shown himself to be inclined towards Yahweh, to receive his words and to be obedient to them. As a result Yahweh is going to show mercy upon both of them. In saving Noah and his house through the construction of the ark and, in the case of Mosheh, in causing him and his house to be saved by the construction of a different dwelling place for ‘elohym. We see that Yahweh has a choice. Mosheh is talking about the people finding grace in the eyes of Yahweh but Yahweh is talking about Mosheh finding grace in his eyes. Yahweh chooses who to be gracious and merciful to based upon his criteria. Here the criteria must be the inclination of the recipient to willingly reciprocate.

And Yahweh spoke unto (אל) Mosheh, saying, Speak unto (אל) ‘Aharon and unto (אל) his sons, saying, On this wise you shall bless the children of Yisra’el, saying unto them, Yahweh shall bless thee, and shall keep thee: Yahweh shall lighten his face unto (אל) thee, and shall be gracious to thee: Yahweh shall lift up his face unto (אל) thee, and shall set (שם) to thee peace. And they shall set (שם) my name (שם) upon the children of Yisra’el; and I will bless them. (Numbers 6.22-27)

This time the graciousness of Yahweh is extended to the children of Yisra’el but it is clearly, like the name, set in the future at a time when, presumably, they will be responsive to the word. In a sense we can see this in the blessings being unto a singular ‘thee’. That is, the graciousness of Yahweh is extended to willing individual recipients of that favour on account of their inclination to hearken and do his will. In one individual this was more apparent than in any other. We see his graciousness being juxtaposed with the shining of his face toward them. He shows grace when he reveals himself to them through the revelation of his face, particularly his mouth.

In the New Testament we find a similar pattern of translations where the Greek word karis (χαρις) is rendered as ‘grace’, ‘favour’ and ‘thank(s)’. This last translation takes us back to another of our ‘prerequisites – minor detours’ series about the euangelion where we saw the use of the word ευ as a prefix to a series of words which lent the sense of reciprocity to the word to which it was appended. In the case of karis (χαρις) we saw the expansion of this word for grace or favour into the verb eukaristeo (ευχαριστεω) meaning ‘to give thanks’. To give thanks is the reciprocal side of favour. Theos shows us favour in the revelation of his word unto salvation; we give thanks in reciprocating that revelation. The ultimate embodiment of grace is, of course, the Lord Iesous:

And the child grew, and became strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of Theos was upon him…And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart. And Iesous increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with Theos and man. (Loukas 2.40,51,52)

These verses recounting Iesous’ early years from shortly after his birth and leading up to the passover when he was 12 show that he was in a state of increasing favour primarily with Theos but also with man. We can assume that this was an outcome of his learning by the spirit of his father being ministered unto him. When he comes to the point of his readiness to engage in the ministry which has been set out before him, we find grace there too:

And all bare him witness, and wondered at the gracious words which proceeded out of his mouth. And they said, Is not this Ioseph’s son? (Loukas 4.22)

This is said after he has taken the scroll of Esaias and read in it the words concerning himself and, after handing the scroll back, proclaims that this scripture is fulfilled in their ears. The witness of the people is to the grace of the words which he has spoken. Therefore, grace is indicative of the words of Theos in the prophet and its explanation in the mouth of his son.

And the word was made flesh, and dwelled among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Iohannes bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that comes after me is preferred before me: for he was before me. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Iesous anointed. No man has seen Theos at any time; the only begotten son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him (Ioh.1.14-18)

We have already looked at Iohannes 1 and the phrasing in the first verses of the book relating to the relationship of the word toward Theos in the beginning. That is, a relationship of reciprocity. Here we see the word being made flesh, embodied, in the Lord Iesous. The outcome of that gracious word being embodied in him is that he embodies, and manifests in word and action, that favour of Theos toward man. Theos has been gracious to him in a kaporeth relationship. Iesous manifests that same kerubic relationship toward those who are willing to receive it. As favour was toward him from Theos in the ministering of the word to him, so he turns around and does the same to his followers. The favourable declaration of Theos by him towards his disciples is seen in a passage we have already looked at in regard to the mercyseat 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 mercyseat through belief in his blood, unto (εις) a declaration of his righteousness through the remission of sins that are past, in the forbearance of Theos; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Iesous. (Romans 3.24-26)

At the heart of the work of Iesous with respect to the taking away of sins is the kaporeth. It is in this figure that we see the declaration of the righteousness of Theos and the willing receiving of such and subsequent manifestation of it back to him and onward to others. By belief in, that is association with and participation in the same behaviour as, Iesous we can become righteous too, as Abraham was counted righteous by belief. It is the inclination of Theos towards the willing, or potentially willing, to unfold his merciful plan to accomplish this reconciliation with him that is covered by the terminology of ‘grace’ or ‘favour’. It is a phenomenon which behoves us to give thanks.

This gracious inclination is perpetuated in Iesous when he sends forth his disciples to declare the euangelion, the message of salvation, to the populace at that time. It was the grace of the Lord which was revealed to Paulos, the tentmaker, that offered him that opportunity to receive mercy and to be at peace with him and, having received such, to offer it to those potentially willing to receive.

For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the ekklesia of Theos. But by the grace of Theos I am what 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. Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so you believed. (1 Corinthians 15.9-11)

In language very similar to Iesous’ use of the ‘I am’, when he is showing that he is a fulfilment of the ‘I will be’ of Exodus 3, Paulos invokes the formula of that revelation of the name to Mosheh, saying that by Theos’ favour ‘I am what I am’ (echoing the ‘I will be who I will be’ of Ex.3.14). This reciprocal manifestation that is enshrined in the name has been offered to Paulos because Theos has shown him favour and the mechanism for the showing of that favour is in his (Theos’) gracious words.

Grace/favour is a directional phenomenon, rather like the bi-directional nature of the kaporeth. It is like this because it is accomplished by the bi-directional nature of the word. Grace is given by the word, it is received and reciprocated, by word. However, it seems as if, when this reciprocal relationship is fully under way the recipient may be deemed to be ‘in grace’. This state of grace, this dwelling of grace with the believer is because the word is in abundance in their soul. Thus:

And when the Ioudaioi were gone out of the synagogue, the nations besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath. Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Ioudaioi and religious proselytes followed Paulos and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of Theos. (Acts 13.42-43)

Here, the willing recipients of Theos’ words by Paulos and Barnabas are being encouraged to remain in that reciprocal relationship of giving and receiving of the word. They are encouraged to allow grace to abound and to dwell in grace. This dwelling in the abundance of grace, in the abundance of that reciprocal relationship of the gracious words of Theos, will become evident when we look, in the next post, at the pitching of the camp of Yisra’el after their journeyings.

The words that Paulos started his letters with hint at this reciprocal kaporeth relationship, dealing, as it does, with the reciprocal words of grace that lead to reconciliation, or peace. Thus:

Grace be unto you, and peace, from Theos our Father, and from the Lord Iesous anointed. I thank my Theos always concerning you, for the grace of Theos which is given you in Iesous anointed; That in every thing you are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge; (1 Cor.1.3-5)

So the gracious utterances of Theos in anointed lead to the reconciliation of him with the willing recipients of that grace. While they abide in those teachings, in that grace, they have access to the mercy of Theos which is offered because of his inclination towards them.

And over it the keroubim of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. (Hebrews 9.5)

We have already seen that this is the only place in the New Testament where a word is used to describe the kaporeth of, for example, Exodus 25. The New Testament Greek word used here is ilasterion (ιλαστηριον) and is only used in one other place:

Whom Theos has set forth to be a propitiation through belief in his blood, to (εις) declare his righteousness through the remission of sins that are past, in the forbearance of Theos (Romans 3.25)

The link with the kaporeth is clear in Romans 3 as it is talking about belief in his blood which we can see in the blood of the animals shed and then sprinkled upon the kaporeth. While at the same time we see here the declaration of righteousness which has caused the remission of past sins. The declaration of righteousness is the mediation of one kerub to the other and, as we have seen and will see, is part of the journey of the kaporeth. This is a journey which will lead to the final destination of the utter removal of sins from man.

As we saw in the previous blog the word ilasterion (ιλαστηριον) is related to another word which is also translated ‘propitiation’ ilasmos (ιλασμος):

My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have a comforter with the Father, Iesous Anointed the righteous: And he is the propitiation concerning our sins: and not concerning ours only, but also concerning the whole kosmos. (1 Ioh.2.1,2)

and:

He that loves not knows not Theos; for Theos is love. In this was manifested the love of Theos toward us, because that Theos sent his only begotten Son into the kosmos, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved Theos, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation concerning our sins. Beloved, if Theos so loved us, we ought also to love one another. (1 Ioh.4.8-11)

We saw, in the previous blog post, that being a propitiation is closely linked with being a comforter in the first passage. This is highly relevant as the ‘other’ comforter that was to be sent in Iesous’ name to the disciples, that is the holy spirit, was being sent to reveal truth to them, as Iesous had previously done. He had declared the righteousness of Theos, having become righteous himself. This is then linked to the issues concerning, or surrounding, our sins. That is, the need for the declaration of Theos’ righteousness in him that leads to the removal of sins in himself and in others by their also taking up the stake and following him. So, the coming together of propitiation/mercyseat and comforter goes straight to the heart of the kaporeth. That is, the sprinkling of the sacrificial blood in the place where the faces of the kerubym were toward one another.

Related to this second word translated ‘propitiation’ is the Greek word ilaskomai (ιλασκομαι) which occurs twice in the New Testament. Thus:

And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, Theos be merciful to me a sinner. (Loukas 18.13)

and:

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to Theos (προς  τον θεον), to (εις) make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (Heb.2.17)

We noted that in the beginning of Iohannes 1 it also uses the terminology προς τον θεον to describe the reciprocal kerubic relationship between Theos and the word. The merciful and faithful high priest, Iesous (but seen figuratively in the work of ‘Aharon), is indistinguishable in his work from the kaporeth. His reciprocal relationship with Theos is the precursor to his kerubic relationship with the believers that instructs them and causes them to know, and to distance themselves from, their disobedience to the heavenly precepts. The publican in the parable is the one who, seeking to become a receiver rather than a giver, accepts that this humility is the route to reconciliation with Theos. The Pharisaios, contariwise, is intent on telling Theos about his own goodness. He has become the mediating kerub when he should, in all humility, be the one willing to receive before reciprocating.

These words for reconciliation and propitiation appear to be related to the New Testament Greek word ileos (ιλεως) which occurs in two passages and, possibly gives us the reason why the term kaporeth is translated ‘mercy seat’.

For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (Hebrews 8.12)

Interestingly, the form ‘I will be’ (esomai εσομαι) that precedes the word ‘merciful’, which we are looking at, is the New Testament equivalent to the Hebrew ‘ehyeh (אהיה) which we saw used in Exodus 3 in the phrasing ‘I will be with thee’ and ‘I will be who I will be’ which are used for the basis of the covenantal name of Yahweh, and are set at the beginning of that first return journey into and out of Mitsraym which led the people to the foot of the mount from whence they received the covenant, embodied in the tables of testimony and the ark of the covenant with the kaporeth on top of it. Indeed, this same Greek word (esomai εσομαι) is used earlier in Hebrews 8 which, like the verse above is being quoted from Yeremyahu 31:

Behold, the days come, says Yahweh, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Yisra’el, and with the house of Yehudah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Mitsraym; which my covenant they broke, although I was an husband unto them, says Yahweh: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Yisra’el; After those days, says Yahweh, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be to them for ‘elohym, and they shall be to me for a people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know Yahweh: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, says Yahweh: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Yer.31.31-34)

Yahweh made an agreement with the children of Yisra’el in the wilderness which was embodied in the ark and its contents and by the kaporeth which sat on top of it and by the tabernacle in which it dwelt. They failed to keep that agreement and therefore their sin remained, their disobedience was evident. They failed to uphold the promise that is enshrined in his covenantal name. However, there is put in place a new covenant, a new agreement, which is embodied in the dwelling place of Theos in his son and the reconciling work which he undertook, firstly for himself and then for his house. This reconciliatory work, prefigured by the kaporeth, causes reconciliation with those who keep covenant with him, those who are obedient to the covenant and the meaning of it enshrined in the name of the son. These same believers, that true assembly of anointed, his bride, are the mechanism by which the new covenant is offered to, and accepted by, his natural people of Israel, who he first made covenant with. The mechanism by which this reconciliation is being offered is, of course, that which is seen in the kaporeth: mediation and reciprocation or giving and receiving.

The second occurrence of the Greek word ileos (ιλεως) is translated somewhat differently from ‘merciful’

From that time forth began Iesous to show unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Ierousalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Petros took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Petros, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou are an offence unto me: for thou savour not the things that be of Theos, but those that be of men. (Math.16.21-3)

This passage is very much an antagonistic kaporeth relationship. Iesous, the mediating kerub is giving understanding and the disciples should be in a position of receiving and reciprocating. Instead Petros is in a ‘not’ position, he is in opposition to Iesous’ true speech and, as such, must be rebuked with the appellation ‘satan’, an adversary to Iesous and therefore the will of Theos. The word translating ileos (ιλεως) here, which Petros uses, is translated as ‘be it far’. In what way can we see ‘be it far’ as being representative of ideas of reconciliation, to which family of words this word belongs? The answer, of course, is that reconciliation of people into a position of unity requires the removal of that which separates them. That is, the removal of antagonism or opposition, and particularly the ideas and propositions that cause it, must be accomplished in order that reconciliation may occur. Therefore, by instruction, opposing ideas can be removed, that is sin can be removed by teaching. Transgression can be removed far away, like the scapegoat and the remnants of the sacrifices were removed far from the camp. By removal of these faults far away reconciliation can occur. Thus:

Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remember that thy brother has anything against thee; Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. (Math.5.23-24)

Reconciliation requires the removal of that which lies between the two brothers. In the kaporeth the one kerub gives to the brother that which is required to remove the other’s alienation from the first so that they may become one. Regrettably, Petros had it the wrong way round. He was attempting to remove from Iesous the true path that lay ahead of him. He was attempting to subvert the way of taking up the stake with the broad way that, based upon the easy path of the flesh, leads to destruction. Thankfully, Iesous was the ‘not/not’ standing in the way of Petros’ ‘not’ and so established the yea and the amen.

For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to Theos by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life. And not only so, but we also joy in Theos through our Lord Iesous Anointed, by whom we have now received the atonement. (Romans 5.10,11)

The above passage is the only occurrence of the English word ‘atonement’ in the New Testament. The Greek noun used here is katallage (καταλλαγη) and is used on 3 other occasions in the New Testament and is translated reconciliation or reconciling. The related verb katallasso (καταλλασσω) occurs twice in the above passage and 4 further times, translated ‘reconciling’ or ‘reconciled’. We have already seen one of those occurrences in the previous blog post while discussing the difference between reconciliation and loosening and describes reconciliation of a man and his wife after being separated.

We can see, therefore, that this word is relatively rare. The other occurrence of the noun and verb coming together is in 2 Corinthians:

Therefore if any man be in anointed, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. And all things are of Theos, who has reconciled us to himself by Iesous anointed, and has given to us the ministry of reconciliation; To wit, that Theos was in anointed, reconciling the kosmos unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and has committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then we are ambassadors for anointed, as though Theos did beseech you by us: we pray you in anointed’s stead, be you reconciled to Theos. (2 Corinthians 5.17-20)

So, reconciliation between Theos and man is an outcome of Theos being in Anointed. As we have seen by looking at the ark and kaporeth and the day of the atonements the mechanism by which Theos is in Anointed is by the word and it being made flesh in Anointed, because Theos is the word. Theos gave that word to Anointed so that he was in Anointed. Anointed ministered that word to the apostles who then turned and mediated the same to the believers.

The etymology of the word katallasso (καταλλασσω) is that it derives from the word allasso (αλλασσω) which is translated as ‘change’. Thus:

Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. (1 Corinthians 15.51,52)

Change here is a change of substance, a change into something other than that which was before. A believer after the resurrection is changed, as a result of the moral change which they underwent in their lives prior to resurrection. This change is a profound alteration of their pre-resurrectional state, in mind and body. Change occurs in other contexts. Paulos wishes to change his voice toward the Galatians because they have been manipulated into believing in the necessity of observing the traditions of the law for the nations, even after the resurrection of Iesous. Stephanas is alleged to have said, by his accusers who then murdered him, that Iesous wished to change the Mosaic customs that they had received in respect of the worship at the temple. The children of Israel in the wilderness had changed the glory of the incorruptible Theos into the image of corruptible man. Finally the writer to the Hebrews, quoting Psalm 102 says of the old heavens and earth (figuratively the elements and embodiments of the first, or old, covenant):

And as a vesture shall thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou are the same, and thy years shall not fail. (Hebrews 1.12)

So, change is an outcome of transformation from one state to another. This is the basis of reconciliation and chimes very much with the idea of the day of the atonements. That is, that man, embodied by, firstly, ‘Aharon (and his house) and latterly Yisra’el are reconciled, joined into one, by the manifestation of ‘elohym in the faces of the kerubym. The movement of words from one to the other transforms the other into the one who first mediated the word. Reconciliation, at its heart therefore, embodies the idea of transformation into the other. Of course, we have also seen how that being face to face can also be an antithetical relationship, a relationship of fundamental disagreement and of confrontation, even conflict. In this case, the other always remains the other. The power of the kaporeth is accessed by the willing and obedient receiver and reciprocator who is willing to transform into the other, that is into Yahweh.

It is hardly surprising then that this verb ‘to change’ seems to come from a fairly common word allos (αλλος) which is usually translated ‘other’ or ‘another’. The occurrences of allos (αλλος) in the New Testament are varied. We can see it in contexts of conflicting, antithetical views and speech:

And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, No; but he deceives the people…Many of the people therefore, when they heard this saying, said, Of a truth this is the Prophet. Others said, This is the Anointed. But others said, Shall Anointed come out of Galilaias? (Ioh.7.12,40,41)

We can see in both sections of this passage that there is a conflict in opinion between at least two sections of the crowd as to who exactly Iesous is. Is he good or a deceiver? Is he Anointed, the prophet or not? Here the use of ‘others’ is depicting a face to face relationship of contrast and conflict, not of reconciliation. However, Iesous also shows us the mechanism by which he, first, and then another will manifest Theos unto the disciples that will lead to their drawing near to the Father:

And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you unto the age; Even the spirit of truth; whom the kosmos cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither knows him: but you know him; for he dwells with you, and shall be in you. (Ioh.14.16,17)

The comforter is another because it is both another in that it is face to face with the receiving kerub but also it is another comforter because Iesous himself was a comforter:

My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have a comforter with the Father, Iesous anointed the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the whole kosmos. (1 Ioh.2.1,2)

So Iesous is that comforter that brings understanding to the children of Theos and allows them to be reconciled to him. The word ‘propitiation’ (ilasmos ιλασμος) is related to the word translated ‘mercyseat’ (ilasterion ιλαστηριον) in Hebrews 9.5 but is also translated ‘propitiation’ in Romans 3.25 and is related to a verb that is translated ‘be merciful’ and ‘make reconciliation for’. Here again we see a pattern of the kaporeth. The place where reconciliation is made by the face to face interaction of ‘elohym and man and its relation to the forgiveness of sins accomplished in Iesous. We will look at this theme again in the next blog post.

So there is ‘another’ comforter who is sent in Iesous’ name. There has been one kerubic relationship from Theos to Iesous, now there is another relationship from Iesous to the disciples via the holy spirit. The receiving kerub has become the mediating one and he has done it in another.

For if he that comes preaches another Iesous, whom we have not preached, or if you receive another spirit, which you have not received, or another euangelion, which you have not accepted, you might well bear with him. (2 Corinthians 11.4)

Here, another Iesous is not the same as another comforter. This other Iesous is one that is not Iesous, just as this other euangelion or other spirit are, in fact, not the spirit and not the euangelion, they are interlopers. So, ‘another’ here is a negation of the true. Only the first occurrence of ‘another’ is allos (αλλος), the two further occurrences of ‘another’ are the Greek word heteros (ετερος). This word follows a similar trajectory to allos (αλλος), stressing on that which replaces the first and, most importantly, that which is opposed to the first. Thus:

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. (Math.6.24)

and:

Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. (Acts 4.12)

In the second passage the two words for ‘other’ (allos and heteros) come together to show that there is only one name, that of the father in the son, whereby salvation is possible. Furthermore, it is only possible to serve the one master. Therefore we can see that there is the one message, the one spirit, the one name and the one Lord and then there is that which is other than these. There is a straightforward choice between two. If we choose to conform to the one we will reject the other. An obedience to the one Lord will inevitably lead to entering into, and receiving the fruits of the obedience of, the covenants of promise.

One further interesting use of the word ‘another’, here as allos (αλλος), we see in the use of the word as an indication of a journey:

And being warned of Theos in a dream that they should not return to Herod, they departed into their own country another way. (Math.2.12)

The magoi, after visiting the baby Iesous, were instructed not to return via Herod to their own country but to choose ‘another’ route, that is one which was different to (not the same as) their route unto him. The theme of a journey is evident here as is the direction and destination and the return being something other than the outward journey.

Journeying is always present when considering Iesous’ ministry and in Maththaios 4 we see him having gone into the desert, following his baptism by Iohannes, to be tempted by the diabolos. Following on from this he goes to Galilaias. He leaves his hometown of Nazareth and comes to Kapharnaoum where, by the sea side, he meets Simon Petros and Andreas, who are brothers, and commands them to follow him, which commandment they duly obey.

And going on from thence, he saw other two brethren, Iakobos the son of Zebedaios, and Iohannes his brother, in a ship with Zebedaios their father, mending their nets; and he called them. (Math.4.21)

These two sets of brothers are not in conflict with either each other or Iesous. There is one and then there is another, they are supplemental to the first. We have a journey here whose staging posts, as it were, are people. Iesous passes by, on his journeying and comes to one set of brothers, he continues his journey and passes by another set of brothers, collecting them as he goes. In the figure of journeying, which is fundamental to the theme of this blog, the journey is punctuated by stops along the way. Each stop must be achieved before progression to the next before realising the final destination. Here Iesous is on a journey collecting his twelve disciples. These disciples will be the mechanism for his imparting of the euangelion to the believers, especially after the resurrection.

So, otherness is that which is antithetical to Theos and to his plan of salvation. Therefore it is imperative for us to change into that which is other than where we came from and is toward Theos. Otherness is also the transition of the role of kerubym as one changes from receiver to giver. Otherness is also supplemental and is relevant in the progression of the journey towards Theos.

And at the king’s commandment they made a chest, and set it without at the gate of the house of Yahweh. And they made a proclamation through Yehudah and Yerushalym, to bring in to Yahweh the collection that Mosheh the servant of ‘elohym laid upon Yisra’el in the wilderness. (2 Chronicles 24.8,9)

As we saw in the previous post, the word for ‘chest’ here is the same word as that for ‘ark’ as in the ark of the covenant. Furthermore, the money which is mentioned here as being ordained by Mosheh in the wilderness is the ransom or redemption money levied as half a shekel on each of the adult male sons of Yisra’el:

When thou take the sum of the children of Yisra’el after their number, then shall they give every man a ransom (כפר) for his soul unto Yahweh, when thou number them; that there be no plague among them, when thou number them. This they shall give, every one that passes among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary: (a shekel is twenty gerahs:) an half shekel shall be the offering of Yahweh. Every one that passes among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and above, shall give an offering unto Yahweh. The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less than half a shekel, when they give an offering unto Yahweh, to make an atonement (כפר) for your souls. And thou shall take the silver of the atonements (hakipurym הכפרים) of the children of Yisra’el, and shall appoint it for the service of the tabernacle of the congregation; that it may be a memorial unto the children of Yisra’el before Yahweh, to make an atonement (כפר) for your souls. (Exodus 30.12-16)

So, a number of points arise here. The money was taken at the numbering of the sons of Yisra’el and it was specifically for the service of the tabernacle. Therefore, it was entirely in keeping with Yahweh’s will that the ransom money should be used for the upkeep of the temple, as in the passage in Chronicles (above). Secondly, the half shekel ‘ransom’ money is an individual act which pertains to the individual soul. Furthermore, this reconciliatory offering, as a whole, is a reconciliatory act for all the souls of the children of Yisra’el represented by the tabernacle. In a previous post – What is a soul? – we showed that a soul is a life, and by virtue of that an identity, which is formed by respiration, taking in the breath/spirit of ‘elohym and then reciprocally exhaling it. Thus, reconciliation for a soul is that act of kerubic manifestation which causes the cutting off of the natural man and the putting on of the soul (life/identity) of Yahweh. We considered this in a previous post when we considered the work of the Lord Iesous and the disciple’s attempt to follow him, particularly in respect of the putting off of the soul:

Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his soul a ransom (release) for many. (Math.20.28)

and:

He that loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that takes not his stake, and follows after me, is not worthy of me. He that finds his soul shall lose it: and he that loses his soul for my sake shall find it. (Math.10.37-39)

As noted above (and before) the word for ransom is from a word meaning to loose and therefore a ransom is a release. He gave his soul as this act which releases many. As he performed this release first we must assume that it is a release from sin and death which his followers can also access. In the second quotation above we see how that giving up of one’s soul is in respect of valuing carnal connections as inferior to the love which we should have towards Iesous. If we engage in this valuation of him above all others, including our own soul, then we shall find a soul unto aionian life with him. We must take (receive) the suffering of the stake to accomplish this. That is, we must follow in his steps to cut off the carnal mind by struggling against it with the mind of Theos, as evidenced in the reconciliatory work of anointed accomplished in the face of the kaporeth.

The word translated ‘ransom’ coming from the word ‘to loose’ may seem to have a sense of a financial transaction, as in a payment made to release an abductee, but none of the contexts of this word indicate payments or financial transactions of any sort and it is not necessarily linked to the ransom in Exodus. Indeed, in 1 Corinthians 7 the word for ‘loose’ and the word ‘to reconcile’ (which we will come to see in future posts is related to the present discussion of ‘kapar’ כפר) seem to occur as antitheses:

But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away his wife. (1 Corinthians 7.11)

Are thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Are thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. (1 Corinthians 7.27)

This may well feed into our ongoing discussions of antitheses and not and not/not. On the one hand we have reconciliation as a movement of two towards one and on the other hand we have loosening as a separation of two things bound together. We saw a similar phenomenon with respect to ‘within’ and ‘without’ where the words are perspective driven. So, within the camp at a certain point is seen as desirable because it means within the household of faith and without the camp can be undesirable as it is where the leper is isolated to. However, these roles can be reversed so that within the camp can be where unbelief and corruption lies and the tabernacle needs to be removed from unto a place without the camp; or the auspices of the mosaic ordinances need to be left behind to go forth and be where Iesous was offered, outside the gate. Similarly, here we need to ask the questions relating to what you are reconciled unto and what you are loosed from. Reconciliation to Yahweh is desirable and loosening from the bonds of sin and death are the outcome of that reconciliation, as well as being loosened from the mind of the flesh is part of the process of being reconciled to Theos by the spirit. It is possible that union and loosening could be unto and from the opposite, however. So we can see a relationship of the two ideas but not an equivalence. Loosening and reconciliation are not the same but one can be the outcome of the other, or the two can exist in lock step as part of the same journey. Thus the ransom of Exodus (כפר), that is a reconciliation, and the ransom of the New Testament (lutron/antilutron λυτρον/αντιλυτρον), that is a loosening, seem to have a relation of juxtaposition or even opposition, while potentially being inextricably associated.

In the New Testament passage cited above the disciples are worthy of Iesous if, like him, they are willing to sacrifice their carnal identity for his sake. If they are willing to cut off carnal connections like he did. This idea of worthiness is related to the payment of kapar money in the Old Testament. The word for ‘worthy’ is the Greek word axios (αξιος). We get the English word axiom(atic) from it. Unlike the English word axiom the Greek word, in its occurrences in scripture, carries the sense of parity or equality. Thus:

Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance (Math.3.8)

And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house. (Loukas 10.7)

In the first passage Iohannes the Baptist requires the Pharisaioi to offer works in keeping, and demonstrating, repentance. In the second passage a reward or wage is in keeping with the work performed. So, a worker expends his energy on labour and the reward of such is to his satisfaction if it is equal, in his mind, to that effort. This idea of worthinees or satisfaction, of parity or even balance, crops up in the kapar money too:

Moreover you shall take no satisfaction for the soul of a murderer, which is guilty of death: but he shall be surely put to death. And you shall take no satisfaction for him that is fled to the city of his refuge, that he should come again to dwell in the land, until the death of the priest. (Numbers 35.31,32)

If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his soul whatsoever is laid upon him. (Exodus 21.30)

The words in bold translate the kapar money. The punishment of death to be imposed on a murderer under the law cannot be made equal with a sum of money to redeem the murderer’s life/soul. The equality of punishment is a life for a life, money is inadequate for compensating the taking of life. Similarly the manslaughter of a person cannot be balanced with payment. It must be balanced by exile. However, the death of a person at the hands of a beast can be compensated by a payment, so long as those who determine the payment are satisifed with its compliance. In all of these contexts it is a soul that can or cannot be redeemed from death by an equivalence of payment. Satisfaction, balance, parity are the conditions for a successful reconciliatory transaction.

How does this fit with the ark and the chest before the temple gate? Firstly, we have seen that the ark (ארון) is a vessel for death, in the case of Yoseph’s bones, and death and resurrection, in the case of ‘Aharon’s rod that budded. It is also a vessel for the word, as in the tables of testimony, and the word made flesh, as in the pot of manna. The ark is also the vessel that incorporated the lid (the kaporeth), being the place of reconciliation (atonement) where the blood was sprinkled on the day of the atonements but also, and in tandem with the above, being the place where ‘elohym and man meet and are joined in unity of mind and speech (symbolised by faces). So we see death and resurrection effected by the word made flesh leading to the reconciliation and keeping of covenant between Yahweh and his obedient people by virtue of their engaging in a kerubic relationship, as his son did. The chest which was before the gate of the temple picks up some of these themes. It, eventually, is filled with the ransom money (kapar) which redeems the souls of the children of Yisra’el when they are numbered. The redemption of their souls (lives and identities) is their reconciliation with Yahweh leading to the repair of the house of Yahweh. It is therefore highly figurative in that this manifestation of an ark leads to the reconciliation of Yahweh’s people to him when their relationship is repaired so that they become his house once more.

In the kaporeth we see equivalence or parity. Yahweh reveals himself to man and man reciprocates. If Yahweh sees this reciprocal relationship in the opposite face, as he did in his son, then he is satisfied. In that context the man is worthy of him.

As we have mentioned in a previous post the word translated ‘ark’ in, for example, Exodus 25 is not the same as the word translated ‘ark’ in Genesis 6 when applied to the boat which Noah was commanded to build. Thus:

Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shall thou make in the ark, and shall pitch it within and without with pitch. (Genesis 6.14)

The word for ‘ark’ here is tebah (תבה) which is used only of the boat that Noah was directed to build and the basketwork vessel in which Mosheh was placed, as a baby, among the bulrushes at the side of the river. The etymology of the Hebrew is unknown and there appear to be no obviously related words or homographs.

And they shall make an ark of acacia wood: [two] cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. And thou shall overlay it with pure gold, within and without shall thou overlay it, and shall make upon it a crown of gold round about. (Exodus 25.10,11)

The word for ark here is ‘aron (ארון). With the definite article ha (ה) the word becomes an inversion of the name of the high priest ‘Aharon. This seems to indicate a relationship of juxtaposition much like with the inversions paroketh (vail) and kaporeth. The vail and the kaporeth had a relationship of proximity and the ark and the high priest similarly had a relationship of proximity. In its many occurrences in the Old Testament the word ‘aron (ארון) is used almost always to describe the ark of the covenant. The two other contexts in which it is used is, firstly, in Genesis 50 where it describes the ‘coffin’ that Yoseph was put in after his death in Mitsraym with an undertaking to take his bones up into the land when the children of Yisra’el accomplished their exodus. The second occurrence is related in both 2 kings 12 and 2 chronicles 24 where Yehoyada’ the priest positions a ‘chest’ by the gate of the house of Yahweh to receive the redemption money of the children of Yisra’el so that the house could be repaired.

In the new testament we begin to see why two different hebrew words describing two different things are both ascribed the same English word in translation. This is because they are ascribed the same New Testament Greek word – kibotos (κιβωτος). Thus:

By belief Noe, being warned of Theos of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark unto the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the kosmos, and became heir of the righteousness which is according to belief. (Hebrews 11.7)

and:

And after the second veil, the tabernacle which is called holy of holies; Which had the golden censer, and the ark of the covenant overlaid round about with gold, wherein was the golden pot that had manna, and Aaron’s rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant; And over it the keroubim of glory shadowing the mercyseat; of which we cannot now speak particularly. (Hebrews 9.3-5)

The ark of the covenant was known as the testimony because it contained the tables of stone, also referred to as the testimony. Furthermore, the tabernacle is also referred to as the tabernacle of testimony. The testimony, the ten commandments, the utterances of Yahweh’s spirit (in ten positive and negative propositions), is the basis for the dwelling of him in man, expressed in the figures of the ark and tabernacle. Furthermore, within it was also kept a pot of the bread from heaven, of which the children of Yisra’el ate daily, and which anticipates the fulfilment of the name of Yahweh in Iesous when he says:

I am the living bread which came down from heaven (Ioh.6.51)

Within the ark was also kept the rod of ‘Aharon which budded. This happened when the children of Yisra’el questioned who should minister before Yahweh and they sought to reject the authority of Mosheh and ‘Aharon. The judgment on the ringleaders (Korah, Dathan and Abyram) and their houses was swift and severe. The follow up to which was that the twelve heads of the tribes were to present rods, and they were to be placed before the testimony where ‘elohym met with Mosheh, with ‘Aharon’s name on the rod for the tribe of Lewy. The outcome was that a seemingly dead piece of wood sprang to life and budded and blossomed, in the place where Yahweh revealed himself to his chosen one. This would appear to be figurative of the death and resurrection of anointed, a life which blossomed from the dead wood of the stake, accomplished in the face of manifestation of the name of the father.

So, as we have seen, the ark was fundamentally a figure of the dwelling of Yahweh in man, particularly in his son, accomplished by his obedience to the words of his covenant resulting in his resurrection. This vessel which spoke of these things was overlaid within and without with gold over the structure of acacia wood. Furthermore, it was covered with the kaporeth, of which we have spoken at length. Of gold it is evident that it is comparable, but inferior, to the words of Yahweh:

Therefore I love thy commandments above gold; yes, above fine gold. (Ps.119.127)

and of the response to the word, which is belief:

That the trial of your belief, being much more precious than of gold that perishes, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Iesous anointed (1 Petros 1.7)

Gold, therefore, is figurative for the pure word of Yahweh and the tried belief of those who receive and reciprocate that word. Indeed, the gold that was used to cover the ark was that which the children of Yisra’el had freely given to the work. It is therefore a good example of the pattern of reciprocity in manifestation. Yahweh told them to spoil the Mitsraym for the gold and other precious materials which he would then receive from them as a free will offering in the run up to the construction of the tabernacle.This aionian covering of that reciprocal gold over the temporal substance of wood was performed both within and without. This same language is used to describe the ark of Noah as we have already seen:

Make thee an ark of gopher wood; rooms shall thou make in the ark, and shall pitch it within and without with pitch. (Genesis 6.14)

And Yahweh said unto Noah, Come thou and all thy house into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in this generation. (Gen.7.1)

We have already seen that the covering with which the ark of Noah was covered is the same word as the atonement, and the kaporeth, that were so ubiquitous on the day of the atonements. This ark was similarly coated within and without. The word within, as we have seen in a previous post, is the word mebayith (מבית) and is from the word for ‘house’. This word is then used in Genesis 7:

So, that which is within the ark is akin to his household. Noah’s household is reconciled to Yahweh through the righteousness of Noah and this is prefigured in the construction of the ark. Similarly, there were those that were accorded the epithet of being of the house of Yisra’el:

What man soever there be of the house of Yisra’el, that kills an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that kills it out of the camp (Leviticus 17.3)

That which is within, therefore, is that which is ‘of the house’. Therefore, that which is ‘of the house’ is reconciled in the ark of Noah and is overlaid (hidden) with gold in the ark of the covenant. Furthermore, that which is within the vail is that which is utterly reconciled with Yahweh in the reconciliatory work of the true high priest when he makes reconciliation for himself and his house, it is intimately bound up with the dwelling of ‘elohym in man.

As an antithesis to the ‘within’ is that which is ‘without’. The word for ‘without’ is mehuts (מחוץ) and comes from the word huts (חוץ). This is translated as outside, abroad and streets. Specifically, in the context of the day of the atonements, it is used to describe that which is outside of the boundaries of the camp of Yisra’el. The remains of the bodies of the animals sacrificed for the reconciliation of the high priest, his house, and the people had to be burnt outside the camp.

All the days wherein the plague shall be in him he shall be defiled; he is unclean: he shall dwell alone; without the camp shall his habitation be. (Lev.13.46)

This describes the leper, whose disease is unclean and seems to represent the corruption that is endemic in the flesh. While he has this disease he must remain outside of the household of the people of Yahweh. Once he is cleansed he can return within that house, that is the camp. Of course there are examples where ‘without’ is better because that which is within is altered and has become, spiritually ‘without’ like when Mosheh moves the tabernacle because of the defiled state of the house of Yisra’el:

And Mosheh took the tabernacle, and pitched it without the camp, afar off from the camp, and called it the Tabernacle of the congregation. And it came to pass, that every one which sought Yahweh went out unto the tabernacle of the congregation, which was without the camp. (Exodus 33.7)

Here, the people who wished to seek Yahweh had to go out of that which was of the carnal Yisra’el, who had defiled themselves by worshipping the golden calf, and seek unto him which had become outside the camp. This language is taken further with regard to the offerings of the law, including those offered on yom hakipurym:

Wherefore Iesous also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto him without the camp, bearing his reproach. (Hebrews 13.12,13)

Iesous’ reconciliatory work was, seemingly, conducted within the house of Israel but was outside of the auspices of the Mosaic ordinances of animal sacrifice and pointed forward to salvation for all those prepared to walk beyond those ordinances whether they be of Israel or the nations.

So, we can see that the covering (hiding) of gold, within and without of the ark of the covenant, and the covering (reconciling) within and without of the ark of Noah are intricately linked. The reconciliatory work, consisting of giving and receiving of the gold of the word and reciprocal belief, of Iesous (followed by his disciples) is the salvation of the house (within) and that which is without. It can be protection from that which is within and without, the flesh, and also salvation to those of that flesh that turn to and seek Yahweh.

Finally, we should consider the role of death in both arks. In the ark of Noah that which was without died. That which was within was saved and began a new creation upon the earth. Sadly that which was within was immediately corrupted. In the ark we see the coffin of Yoseph in Genesis 50, speaking of the hope of the exodus. Similarly, in the ark of the covenant we see the death of the covenant maker:

For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator. For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator lives. (Hebrews 9.16,17)

Testament here is covenant. So the promise, the agreement, symbolised in the ark and kaporeth between a living ‘el and his people who obey must be effected by the death of the one who embodies, manifests, ‘el. Through the resurrection, following his death, can this agreement be fulfilled. The flesh must be slain in those who seek Yahweh, for his life to live in them. Iesous was the forerunner for this process.

Furthermore, in the ark, we see the chest which was placed by the gate of the temple to hold the redemption or ransom money which was required to repair the temple.

And at the king’s commandment they made a chest (ark), and set it without at the gate of the house of Yahweh. (2 Chronicles 24.8)

In the next post we will consider the meaning of this money which Mosheh ordained should be levied at the hands of the children of Yisra’el in the wilderness.

It may seem a strange question to ask on the fifth blog of exploring the kaporeth but nevertheless it is a legitimate one as we may slide into presupposing certain things about it.

The term kaporeth occurs relatively rarely in the old testament. Occurring primarily in the chapters that deal with the construction of the tabernacle and then in the offerings surrounding its sanctification, in Leviticus 16, dealing with the day of the atonements, and then once regarding the delivering of the pattern of the temple by Dawid to his son Shelomah.

Arguably, it is mentioned elsewhere when the ark is being referenced, as the kaporeth was the lid or covering that sat atop the ark. In that sense it and the ark become one. We see this pattern of assimilation of articles into one repeatedly regarding the kaporeth and ark. For example the ark is referenced as ‘the testimony’ or the ark of the testimony. This is because the two tables of stone that Mosheh brought down from the mountain are referred to as the testimony:

And he gave unto Mosheh, when he had made an end of communing with him upon mount Sinai, two tables of testimony, tables of stone, written with the finger of ‘elohym. (Exodus 31.18)

And thou shall put into the ark the testimony which I shall give unto thee… And thou shall put the kaporeth above upon the ark; and into the ark thou shall put the testimony that I shall give unto thee. 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 25.16,21,22)

So, the tables of stone bearing the ten commandments written with the finger of ‘elohym are referred to as the testimony (or witness). These tables of stone are placed into the ark which is then referred to as the ark of the testimony (as well as the ark of the covenant) and eventually it is referred to just as the testimony, upon which the kaporeth is placed.

And he shall put the incense upon the fire before Yahweh, that the cloud of the incense may cover the kaporeth that is upon the testimony, that he die not: (Leviticus 16.13)

So, the writing of ‘elohym, the ten commandments, which are a witness, are the basis for the ark. The fundamental teachings of Yahweh revealed in the mountain unto Mosheh are the basis for the covenant which he makes with Yisra’el. The testimony is the primary purpose of the ark, that is it contains the revealed word of Yahweh. Once the testimony is within the ark then the ark becomes the testimony. Once the substantive word dwells within a vessel then that vessel becomes what is within it, the utterance of Yahweh’s spirit. The kaporeth sits on top of this vessel and becomes part of this vessel so that, going forward, references to the ark can be assumed to include the kaporeth as the kaporeth is not removed from the vessel it covers and the contents which it hides from man’s sight.

We can see, therefore, that the kaporeth was made for the ark, to be one with the ark, to become the ark. It is intrinsically bound up with that which is within, the tables of testimony, which were given to make a covenant with the house of Yisra’el.

And thou shall make a kaporeth of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof. And thou shall make two kerubym of gold, of beaten work shall thou make them, in the two ends of the kaporeth. And make one kerub on the one end, and the other kerub on the other end: even from the kaporeth shall ye make the kerubym on the two ends thereof. And the kerubym shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the kaporeth with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another (man unto his brother); toward the kaporeth shall the faces of the kerubym be. And thou shall put the kaporeth above upon the ark; and into the ark thou shall put the testimony that I shall give unto thee. 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 25.17-22)

Yahweh’s instruction is unto Mosheh and he is the one instructed to make these things, which is why the instruction is to ‘thou’ (singular) although ‘ye’ is invoked in the making of the kerubym. The first attribution of the term ‘kaporeth’ is straightforwardly the name given to the lid that covers the ark with the same dimensions as are given to the length and width of the ark: [two] cubits and a half by a cubit and a half. The next stage is the making of the kerubym. It is uncertain whether, technically, they are separately constructed and appended to the kaporeth but the language seems to imply that they were not. In this chapter it says ‘from’ or ‘out of’ the kaporeth and in Exodus 37.7 it says ‘of one piece’ albeit the Hebrew for ‘of one piece’ is from a word meaning ‘to harden’ and is often translated ‘of beaten work’. In any case the kerubym are clearly one with the kaporeth so that, although the kaporeth means ‘a covering’ and its seemingly primary function is as a covering for the ark, they are at one with it. This duality is often seen where there appears, like the ark with the testimony within it, a distinction between one and the other. At times the term ‘ark’ incorporates the kaporeth; at times and for the most part, the term kaporeth includes the kerubic manifestation over it but sometimes is focusing on the flat lid that covered the ark.

Yahweh makes this apparent distinction in the verses above in Exodus 25. He says that he will meet and commune with Mosheh ‘there’ (sham שם – see the post on homographs) from above the kaporeth from between the two kerubym. The kerubym are seen in relation one man unto his brother and with faces unto the kaporeth. Their faces look to both. They look to the covering of the testimony and they look to one another in reciprocity. This duality is where Yahweh will commune with Mosheh from. That is he will commune with him in a reciprocal unto/unto relationship based upon the dwelling of the commandments in his chosen vessel for that purpose, by which he makes covenant with his people.

Yahweh says that he will meet and commune with Mosheh ‘there’. We have already considered the meaning of the homographic שם and how it depicts the words ‘name’ and ‘there’. Showing the meaning of the name as a journey unto a pre-ordained place and time when man may become Yahweh. This ties in very nicely with the word ‘meet’ as used here in Exodus 25.22. The Hebrew word is ya’ad (יעד) and carries the sense of an appointed time or place of assembling together but, also and very interestingly, is translated as ‘betrothed’. Betrothal is the agreement of two people to become one in marriage. Similarly, the meeting of Yahweh with Mosheh is to join himself unto him and, through him, unto his people. If the testimony that is within the ark is hearkened to and obeyed by the people then this manifestation of himself unto Mosheh, and through him unto his people, can be fulfilled in union.

And they brought up the ark of Yahweh, and the tabernacle of the congregation, and all the holy vessels that were in the tabernacle, even those did the priests and the Lewyym bring up. And king Shelomah, and all the congregation of Yisra’el, that were assembled unto him, were with him before the ark, sacrificing sheep and oxen, that could not be told nor numbered for multitude. And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of Yahweh unto his place, into the oracle of the house, into the most holy place, even under (unto beneath) the wings of the kerubym. (1 Kings 8.4-6)

We saw that Dawid had given the pattern of the temple, which he had received from ‘elohym, to his son Shelomah and that part of that pattern was a place (house) for the kaporeth. Here we see that final set place, or house/dwelling place for the kaporeth coming to fruition. At this point the congregation of Yisra’el are united with Yahweh before the ark. This assembly is the final fulfillment of that unity being foreseen in the ark and kaporeth.

The word ‘commune’ that Yahweh uses to describe his meeting with Mosheh is simply the word ‘to speak’ (dabar דבר) and is the same Hebrew as ‘word’. Yahweh’s union with Mosheh, and with his people is through speech, through the utterance of his mind in the word, the embodiment of which in the tables of stone resides in the ark beneath the kaporeth.

When we look back at Leviticus 16 and the day of the atonements we can see now how the two phenomena interact. The kaporeth is the place that represents the union of ‘elohym and man through the word and anticipates the assembly of all together in that one set place of the eighth day, once it is set in its final resting place. However, there is a way that is required to get to that place. The way is the taking up of the stake firstly by Iesous and then his disciples. The vessel of the dwelling of the commandments of Yahweh is accomplished by reciprocal manifestation which is accomplished in the face of the struggle with the flesh unto the shedding of blood. This is the path of taking up the stake. It is of following in the steps of he who took up his stake unto the shedding of his blood in accomplishing the will of his father. Only on this pathway lies the destination of the removal of sins.