Towards, unto, into and in Theos

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.

We established in the previous post that in both offerings on the day of the atonements that a ram was involved each time. Firstly, in the bullock offering for the sins of ‘Aharon and his house a ram is also mentioned. Secondly in the offering of the two kid goats for the sins of the children of Yisra’el there is also a ram mentioned. When we looked at the 5 homographic meanings of ‘el (אל), besides the title used by the creator in certain instances to describe himself, we saw that a relation of the word אל is the word for ‘ram’ (‘ayil – איל). The ram, as we mused at that time, carries the sense of direction and impetus, as rams mate and fight, but also the sense of strength and power, which we saw applied to the homographic אל when it is used to depict control where control is an outcome of power. So, we can see that at the heart of the two offerings is the presence of an animal whose title is a relation to the directional (and occasionally negative) אל.

The ram is used in both instances as a ‘burnt offering’ (‘olah עלה) which comes from the common word ‘upon’ or ‘by’ (על) which is used in the same chapter to describe the placing of the incense ‘upon’ the fire to create the cloud of incense to go into the holy of holies so that ‘Aharon does not die. It is also used to describe the placing of the blood upon the kaporeth when ‘Aharon kills the offerings. Homographically עלה is also used to describe ‘going up’, ‘exalting’ ‘arising’ etc. The idea of the ‘burnt offering’ therefore is that of something which is placed upon and something which is lifted up. This, like the kaporeth, describes the mediation of the spirit of Yahweh and its subsequent reception and reciprocation. The animal is placed upon, firstly in having the hands of those associated with it placed upon its head and then, after its slaughter, being placed upon the altar. It is exalted inasmuch as, sometimes, it was lifted up and heaved and waived in the direction of the heavens and it was then exalted inasmuch as the sweet savour of the smoke of the fire of its consumption rose upwards. The axis of the ‘burnt offering’ is vertical, up and down, while in the kaporeth it is horizontal, face to face, but the principle is the same: there is an unto/unto relationship in the parties involved. There is a bi-directional involvement in the offering and the offerer and then in the offering and he unto whom it is offered.

So, intimately bound up with the two sacrifices is the notion of direction and, in particular the bi-directional phenomenon of manifestation. Therefore, it may be as well to look at Leviticus 16 and the events of the day of the atonements in the light of ‘el (אל).

And Yahweh spake unto Mosheh after the death of the two sons of ‘Aharon, when they offered before (literally, to the faces of) Yahweh, and died; (Leviticus 16.1)

As we have seen ‘unto’ is very often used in the direction of speech, firstly from Yahweh unto Mosheh and then vice-versa. The truncated ל is also used and is highlighted ‘to’.

And Yahweh said unto Mosheh, Speak unto ‘Aharon thy brother, that he come not (אל) at all times into the holy place within the vail before (unto the faces of) the kaporeth, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear (be manifested) in the cloud upon the kaporeth. (Leviticus 16.2)

Note here the dual use of the word ‘upon’ (as in the word related to the ‘burnt offering’) – the kaporeth is upon the ark, the cloud is upon the kaporeth. Again, in this verse ‘unto’ is linked to speech and ordered manifestation. Yahweh speaks unto Mosheh so that Mosheh can speak unto ‘Aharon. The homographic אל is used to show that the way ‘into’ the holiest of all is not available at all times. The presence of ‘not’, and by implication its inverse, shows how that can be accomplished and, therefore, that every other way is excluded and would lead to the outcome that befell ‘Aharon’s two sons. This permitted way into the holy of holies is reminiscent of the words in Hebrews 9 which demonstrate that this figure showed that it is a one-off event, for all time.

Thus shall ‘Aharon come into the holy place: with a young bullock for a sin offering, and a ram (איל) for a burnt offering. (Leviticus 16.3)

So, the route ‘into’ the holiest of all begins with the offering of the sin offering and lifting up offering for the sins of the high priest and his house. Figuratively Iesous must offer for himself and for those of his house first in order to come before the faces of ‘elohym.

Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within (into the within) the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the kaporeth, and before the kaporeth: (Leviticus 16.15)

As we saw in the previous post the word ‘within’ derives from the word for house. In this verse we can see that the second of the offerings, that of the goat (also alongside a ram) which was for the sins of the children of Yisra’el, provides an entrance into that which is within the vail, that is the kaporeth set, as it is, in its house which is the holy of holies. We can see this pattern of the holy of holies being a dwelling place for the kaporeth when Dawid was given the pattern for the building of the temple and he gave it to his son:

Then Dawid gave to Shelomah his son the pattern of the porch, and of the houses thereof, and of the treasuries thereof, and of the upper chambers thereof, and of the inner parlours thereof, and of the place (בית house) of the kaporeth (1 Chronicles 28.11)

So we see two offerings functioning to the same end, that is to bring the high priest into the dwelling place within which was the kaporeth.

And he shall go out unto the altar that is before Yahweh, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. (Leviticus 16.18)

So, ‘Aharon leaves the holy of holies and does to the altar that is before Yahweh, the altar of incense within the holy place, as he has done with the kaporeth. The altar of incense speaking of the reciprocal element of manifestation. The cloud of incense is that which is created by man at the instruction of ‘elohym to rise up before him. Following which, and the completion of the reconciling (or atoning) of the holy, the tabernacle and the altar, we come to the scapegoat, the goat which was not killed but sent away.

And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. (Leviticus 16.22)

The goat has been presented before ‘Aharon who lays his hands on its head, in the same manner as preparing to kill it, but instead the sins of the children of Yisra’el are confessed over it and it is sent into the wilderness. The direction up to this point has been seen very much as a direction towards Yahweh. A reconciling with him of those who are counted as part of the holy [place] and are therefore the saints (or sanctified ones). It seems as if the outcome of the drawing near of those sanctified ones, embodied in the approaching of the sanctified high priest and his entering in to the dwelling of Yahweh, is for the movement in the opposite direction of the living bearing, as it does, the sins of the children of Yisra’el. We could see this in two ways. The first might be to look at the two goat sacrifice as an indication of life and death in the one sacrifice, much as the sacrifice of the two birds in the matter of cleansing from leprosy (Leviticus 14) can be seen in which one of the birds is killed over living waters and the other, dipped in its blood, is released. This would be indicative of death and resurrection in the one sacrifice. Another way in which it can be seen, and not necessarily exclusive of the first one, is the casting out of Yisra’el, bearing their sins, following the atoning sacrifice of Iesous. There appears to be some evidence of the latter in the use of the phrase ‘a land not inhabited’. The Hebrew translated ‘not inhabited’ is gizrah (גזרה). This unique word is related to the Hebrew gazar (גזר) which occurs alongside the word ‘land’ thus:

He was taken from prison and from judgment: and who shall declare his generation? for he was cut off out of the land of the living: for the transgression of my people was he stricken. (Yesha’yahu 53.8)

Here we see a passage closely associated with the work of Iesous, quoted several times in the New Testament as we saw in earlier posts when looking at the healing work that he did. However, this work is set in the context of the rejection of his manifestation of Theos in their midst by the people he came to. As reconciliation can only be accomplished by drawing near to Yahweh in his dwelling place then how can this atoning work be extended to those of his nominal people who have rejected that manifestational offering? This word translated as ‘cut off’ also occurs to describe Yisra’el’s own perception of their condition in the last days:

Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Yisra’el: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. (Yehezq’el 37.11)

This passage is set in the context of the Lord’s return and describes Yisra’el as a valley full of dry and scattered bones. They are then brought together and stand as an army firstly skeletal then clothed upon with flesh and then enlivened by the spirit of Yahweh. The beginning of this process, however, is Yisra’el as a scattered valley of bones, acknowledging their separation from Yahweh on account of their sins. Acknowledgement is the first stage of repentance and this repentance is about to be occasioned by the return of Iesous and the house of Yisra’el’s instruction by him and his saints who were redeemed, in that they are of his house, in that beginning of his reconciliatory work. The beginning of this reconciliatory work draws near those that believe and alienates those of the natural seed that will not believe. They wander in this cut off place until they are in a position to acknowledge those sins that have accompanied them. That teaching can only occur through the work of Iesous and his disciples.

And ‘Aharon shall come into the tabernacle of the congregation, and shall put off the linen garments, which he put on when he went into the holy place, and shall leave them there…And he that let go the goat for the scapegoat shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward come into the camp…and he that burns them shall wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp (Lev.16.23,26,28)

There is some movement back and forth here involving the conclusion of the reconciling of the holy, the tabernacle and the altar when ‘Aharon re-enters the tabernacle and removes his clothes in which he has accomplished this reconciliatory work and bathed himself before undergoing atonement for the people. We can see this as figurative for Iesous, following his initial reconciliatory work finally drawing the people back to ‘elohym. The man who separated the goat from the camp returns into the camp and so does the man that takes the residue of the sacrifice outside of the camp to burn it. This act seemingly prefiguring the fact that even with these precepts performed under the auspices of the law the solution to forgiveness of sins lies outside of those constraints:

We have an altar, whereof they have no right to eat which serve the tabernacle. For the bodies of those beasts, whose blood is brought into (εις) the sanctuary by the high priest for sin, are burned without the camp. Wherefore Iesous also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered without the gate. Let us go forth therefore unto (προς) him without the camp, bearing his reproach. For here have we no continuing city, but we seek one to come. (Hebrews 13.10-14)

The blood was brought into the holy, just as Iesous approached Theos ultimately in the shedding of his blood. We need to follow Iesous toward that destruction of the flesh. However, along with him it is done outside of the precepts of the mosaic law and it ends up in that aionian city.

Similarly, as we conclude in Leviticus 16 we see the principles of anticipatory manifestation being employed. The day of the atonements was an ‘olam statute (one anticipating the age to come). It is held in the seventh month (anticipating the seventh day). It is a sabbath (anticipating the sabbath) on which no work is done. This anticipatory day looks forward to the ultimate reconciliation of Yahweh with his people by Iesous. Firstly by his son and, in him, his house and, latterly, through Iesous and his house, the children of Yisra’el in the age to come.

In conclusion, direction is that of Yahweh to his anointed, who speaks to those who are santified by his voice, and the return journey of this voice back to ‘elohym. Only by this reciprocal unto/unto relationship, between ‘elohym and man, and the ensuing struggle to overcome the flesh by the spirit, and stedfastly maintain this reciprocity of mind, unto the shedding of blood is it possible to approach unto Yahweh and become one with him. This is the only way to approach, any other way is ‘not’ acceptable and, indeed, the antipathy of Yisra’el to Yahweh and his manifestation in his son prevents them from being saved and they must wander away from the dwelling of Yahweh with man until they are turned toward him and then they can enter into the gate and approach his dwelling by the work of the son, who they first rejected, and his disciples. By their obedient reception and reciprocation of that teaching they will receive they can become one faced and one mouthed with ‘elohym. This is the basis for reconciliation or making of atonement.

Yom hakipurym, or day of the coverings (poorly translated day of atonement) is an event, termed a holy convocation, which comes on the 10th day of the seventh month set, as it is, between the blowing of trumpets on the first day of the seventh month and the beginning of the feast of tabernacles on the 15th day of the seventh month.

The importance of this day is seen in relation to the word which describes it – coverings – kipurym (כפרים). It is from the verb ‘to cover’ (kapar כפר) but it is expressed as a plural noun because there were a number of such coverings but also, as we shall come to see that, like as ‘elohym are plural manifestations of the one ‘el, so kipurym are multiple offerings, events and animals that look to the one offering, the one reconciliation and its place of fulfillment – the kaporeth. The verb translated ‘make an atonement’ occurs 15 times in Leviticus 16, which is the chapter which describes the day of the atonements. On one occasion it is translated ‘reconciling’. It is from a family of words which include this verb plus the plural noun alluded to above and a singular noun sometimes translated ‘ransom’ and often equated with a parity of value required to satisfy someone that a release from a debt can be accomplished.

To recap from previous posts then, we have seen the importance and positioning of the kaporeth. It was placed as a cover (kapar כפר) on the ark of the covenant, which was the first item of furniture revealed in Exodus 25 to be placed within the dwelling of ‘elohym with man and specifically in that place termed ‘holy the holies’, a cubic space situated beyond the vail (paroketh) where the glory of Yahweh was revealed and into which ‘Aharon alone was permitted to enter once a year.

That the kaporeth is set atop the ark of the covenant which contained the two tables of the ten commandments, whereby Yahweh made covenant with Yisra’el and in connection with which he revealed his covenantal name, reinforces the bi-directional covenant made with his people through Mosheh, which is accomplished by face to face revelation from ‘elohym to Mosheh and then from Mosheh to the people. This revelation is that which draws together, making one, the two kerubym. Thus embodying the idea of reconciliation.

This one day in the year when ‘Aharon entered into the holy of holies before the kaporeth was yom ha-kipurym and its focal point is the kaporeth. The ‘making atonement’, which we repeatedly see in Leviticus 16, is clearly related to the place where the blood of these offerings, that make atonement, is placed. This is seen by the relation of the Hebrew ‘make atonement’ (כפר) to the Hebrew kaporeth (כפרת).

The importance and figurative nature of this event is made clear by the writer to the Hebrews:

But into (εις) the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and the errors of the people: The holy spirit this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing…But anointed being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into (εις) the holy place, having obtained aionian redemption. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifies to the purifying of the flesh: How much more shall the blood of anointed, who through the aionian spirit offered himself without spot to Theos, purge your conscience from dead works to (εις) serve a living Theos? (Hebrews 9.7,8;11-14)

So we see that the offering of anointed is predicated on the building of a better dwelling place of Theos in him. Manifestation of Theos and sacrifice are inextricably linked and are seen as a journey which, for Iesous, comes to a fruition in the holiest of all and in the presence of the father and for us is a journey towards serving Theos.

The pre-amble to the events of the day of the atonements is the death of ‘Aharon’s sons, Nadab and Abyhu, because they offered unacceptably before Yahweh. Yahweh lays down the conditions by which ‘Aharon can come before him.

And Yahweh said unto (אל) Mosheh, Speak unto (אל) ‘Aharon thy brother, that he come not (אל) at all times into (אל) the holy place within the vail before (unto – אל – the faces of) the kaporeth, which is upon the ark; that he die not: for I will appear (manifest) in the cloud upon the kaporeth. (Leviticus 16.2)

As we can see, the Hebrew is fascinating. The littering of the verse with the homographic ‘el (אל) both as ‘unto’ and ‘not’; the use of the verb ‘to appear’ which has this sense of manifestation and by use of which we see that Yahweh will manifest himself upon the kaporeth. This manifestation is seen in the kerubic speech ‘unto’ Mosheh and from Mosheh ‘unto’ ‘Aharon with the destination of this speech being the entry ‘into’ the holy of holies and ‘unto’ the kaporeth (the ultimate destination of manifestation). This journey can only be accomplished by prohibition and injunction (yea and nay or not and not/not). Furthermore, we have the Hebrew for ‘within the vail’ which (as we saw in a previous post about inversions) is using the inverted letters of kaporeth to make paroketh for ‘vail’ but is also combined with the truncated ל (signifying ‘to’) and placed after the word ‘within’ which is from the word for house. This word for ‘within’ is used in Genesis 6 to describe the preparation of the ark by Noah:

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

Here we can see that the word for ‘pitch’ is a homograph of kaporeth and the second time is a homograph of kapar (atone). Furthermore, the word ‘within’ is used as it is in Leviticus 16. The word ‘ark’ here is not the same Hebrew word used to describe the ark of the covenant although the two ‘arks’ are brought together in the New Testament where the Greek word used to describe them both is the same word, so we can see they are thematically linked. Furthermore this word ‘within’, deriving, as it does, from the word ‘house’ is used later on in the narrative of No’ah:

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

So, we see No’ah, like Iesous, entering with his house into a dwelling place he built at the direction of Yahweh made secure against the destruction of the wicked by a covering (atonement) within (of the house) and without (outside the house). This salvation accomplished because Yahweh sees (appears/manifests) in him righteousness. No’ah, like Iesous (and in the context of Leviticus 16 ‘Aharon), has provided a dwelling place for those of him as Yahweh has begun to dwell in him. This dwelling place, constructed, like the tabernacle, after the pattern given from heaven is a haven from the judgmental destruction against that which is outside. The dwelling of ‘elohym in man is that which protects from the ingress of iniquity.

Returning to the day of the atonements, we see that the day breaks down into two offerings. The offerings involve a number of animals. These are all couched in terms of ‘making an atonement’.

The first offering is of a bullock and a ram but, after the first mention of the ram, the focus of the offering is the bullock.

And ‘Aharon shall offer his bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and make an atonement for himself, and for his house. (Leviticus 16.6)

The second offering is of two goat kids and a ram. Rather like with the offering of the bullock, any mention of the ram is restricted to the first description of the offerings and then the focus is on the two goats.

And he shall take the two goats, and present them before Yahweh at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And ‘Aharon shall cast lots upon the two goats; one lot for Yahweh, and the other lot for the scapegoat. And ‘Aharon shall bring the goat upon which Yahweh’s lot fell, and offer him for a sin offering. But the goat, on which the lot fell to be the scapegoat, shall be presented alive before Yahweh, to make an atonement with him, and to let him go for a scapegoat into the wilderness. (Leviticus 16.7-10)

So, both offerings are seen as ‘making an atonement’ firstly for ‘Aharon and his house, representative, as is clear from Hebrews 9, of Iesous and his house. The second offering that makes atonement is for the house of Yisra’el and is accomplished, in a figure, by a dual sacrifice. That is, the sacrifice, and that which it represents is one but it consists of the death of one and the life of another.

And ‘Aharon shall bring the bullock of the sin offering, which is for himself, and shall make an atonement for himself, and for his house, and shall kill the bullock of the sin offering which is for himself: And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from off the altar before Yahweh, and his hands full of sweet incense beaten small, and bring it within the vail: 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: And he shall take of the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it with his finger upon the kaporeth eastward; and before the kaporeth shall he sprinkle of the blood with his finger seven times. (Leviticus 16.11-14)

Then shall he kill the goat of the sin offering, that is for the people, and bring his blood within the vail, and do with that blood as he did with the blood of the bullock, and sprinkle it upon the kaporeth, and before the kaporeth: And he shall make an atonement for the holy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Yisra’el, and because of their transgressions in all their sins: and so shall he do for the tabernacle of the congregation, that remains among them in the midst of their uncleanness. And there shall be no man in the tabernacle of the congregation when he goes in to make an atonement in the holy place, until he come out, and have made an atonement for himself, and for his household, and for all the congregation of Yisra’el. And he shall go out unto (אל) the altar that is before Yahweh, and make an atonement for it; and shall take of the blood of the bullock, and of the blood of the goat, and put it upon the horns of the altar round about. (Leviticus 16.15-18)

So the figurative sacrifice involves reconciliation concerning the altar, representing the death of the sacrifice, and the kaporeth, representing reciprocal manifestation by spirit.

The making of atonement (or reconciling in v.20) is an outcome of the death of the bullock for the high priest and his house and the death of the goat and the life of the scapegoat for the reconciling of the people and the removal of their sins far away. These outcomes are premised upon the involvement of the kaporeth, where ‘elohym meets with man. The kaporeth is intimately bound up in the underpinnings of the euangelion – reciprocal manifestation – which is understood in the meaning of the name, which is the basis for the covenant, which speaks of a union (a reconciliation) between two who were previously at enmity.

This manifestation was particularly seen in Iesous, who manifested the name of the father in himself and gifted that opportunity of seeing/hearing and reciprocating to the father through him. This is the basis for his name: the name of the father revealed in him unto salvation.

As with ‘Abraham, receiving the covenant of circumcision, so with Iesous. He had to confront the flesh with the mind of Theos to overcome it, in himself and in his adversaries (within and without as it were) unto the shedding of his blood. The victory of his resurrection being the verdict of the father on his approbation of the son’s accomplishing of that task. Sacrifice unto the death of the flesh in the face of kerubic manifestation is the means both of the son’s (high priest’s) salvation and that of his house and, finally, that of the children of Yisra’el. This reconciliation is accomplished by faithful instruction and obedient reception of the word, unto the time and place of union, that time and place of becoming Theos.

Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the kosmos: but now once in the end of the age has he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So anointed was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation. (Hebrews 9.25-28)

It is an odd etymology in English that the two words seem to be related but when you consider the ideas in the Greek New Testament particularly it seems less so. We have already, in the previous post, considered the relation of the kaporeth figure to the idea of giving and receiving and the gift of Iesous’ soul as a release for many. So, we can see that giving can be associated with forgiveness of sins.

And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asks receives; and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it shall be opened…If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give holy spirit to them that ask him? (Loukas 11.9,10,13)

Following on from looking at giving and receiving, we can see that this passage tells us exactly what it is that we will be given, i.e. holy spirit, and therefore what we should be asking for. The gift of Theos to us is himself, the revelation of his mind and that is what we should be asking for. This is the foundation for understanding the giving of forgiveness of sins.

But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold…He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever has, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever has not, from him shall be taken away even that he has. (Math.13.8,11,12)

In the parable of the sower the seed is the word of Theos which is sown in a variety of different soils which represent the recipients who receive it and their ability to receive it with a view to being saved. The good soil are those who receive it with a good and honest heart and create a considerable increase on that original sowing. They ‘bring forth’ (give) fruit. So it is with the giving of the mind of Theos. It gives fruit in those in whom it is placed. They understand the revelation of the mystery of the kingdom and bear fruit. Iesous was the archetype of this pattern.

And he charged them straitly that no man should know it; and commanded that something should be given her to eat. (Markos 5.43)

Iesous has just raised a little girl from the dead and his immediate injunction is to give food that causes that renewed life to persist. Life is premised on the giving of food by the representative of Theos.

He answered and said unto them, Give them to eat. And they say unto him, Shall we go and buy two hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?… And when he had taken the five loaves and the two fishes, he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke the loaves, and gave them to his disciples to set before them; and the two fishes divided he among them all. (Markos 6.37,41)

Again Iesous is giving food to those who require it for the persistence of their lives. He causes the food to be given by the disciples. Iesous shares the food out to them and they divide it out to the multitude and the outcome of that sharing is the evidence of its multiplication – twelve baskets of leftovers. Here we see authority in action, just as the centurion had confessed to Iesous. Giving is done through agents, whether it be bread or the true bread from heaven, the word of Theos. This authority bestowed upon his disciples is seen in other manifestations:

And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them authority against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease…And as you go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons: freely you have received, freely give. (Math.10.1,7,8)

Iesous sends out the twelve to engage in activity which we saw earlier on in Maththaios (and we referred to in an earlier post) was indicative of forgiveness of sins, that is the healing of the sick and the raising of the dead. It was a gift which was bestowed upon them, that is Iesous gave them the authority to do it just as his father had given him the authority to bestow such blessings. He, and then his disciples, had freely received and must now freely give. Understanding then that forgiveness of sins is a gift from Theos it is evident that it can be, and indeed must be, administered by his representatives whom he has sent. Thus:

For Theos so loved the kosmos, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes into him should not perish, but have aionian life… Iohannes answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven… For he whom Theos has sent speaks the words of Theos: for Theos gives not the spirit by measure unto him. (Ioh.3.16,27,34)

The gift is from Theos. Theos gives his son so that aionian life will be the outcome to those who believe into him. The gift of the spirit is from heaven. Theos gifts his spirit to the son without restraint and offers aionian salvation on account of that gift. The son must subject himself to the father and manifest that word himself to create that opportunity of salvation for himself and his people.

For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his soul a release for many. (Markos 10.45)

We have already looked at this verse in a previous blog when considering what is a soul. It is clear that the disciples, like Iesous, were required to take (receive) the stake and follow him. This process of exchanging their own natural identity for the identity of Theos, by the process of supplanting the natural mind by the utterances of his spirit, is what leads to the release of many from the sentence of death. It is Theos that gifts this possibility. It is Iesous, and then his disciples, who must obey. The gift of Iesous’ identity, that is his manifestation of the soul of the father by ceding his own soul, is that which can release many others.

And this is the record, that Theos has given to us aionian life, and this life is in his son…These things have I written unto you that believe into (εις) the name of the son of Theos; that you may know that you have aionian life, and that you may believe into (εις) the name of the son of Theos…We know that whosoever is born of Theos sins not; but he that is begotten of Theos keeps himself, and that wicked one touches him not…And we know that the son of Theos is come, and has given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in (εν) him that is true, even in (εν) his son Iesous anointed. This is the true Theos, and aionian life. (1 Ioh.5.11,13,18,20)

Here we return to the theme of the blog – ‘into’ and ‘in’. Theos has given us aionian life by the revelation of himself in his son. These things are accessible to those that believe into the name of Iesous. Theos has given us this understanding so that we may become in his son and may become Theos having life for the ages. If we are born of Theos, as Iesous was, we do not sin. Iesous did not sin on account of the revelation of the father to him. We will not sin if we see that revelation of the father in him, receive it and reflect it. Ultimately, when we are finally in him, through the process of believing into him, we will become Theos we will possess aionian life. The life and Theos are indistinguishable.

The Theos of our fathers raised up Iesous, whom you slew and hanged on a tree. Him has Theos exalted with his right hand to be a prince and a saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. And we are his witnesses of these things; and so is also the holy spirit, which Theos has given to them that obey him. (Acts 5.30-32)

Petros is speaking to the council of the Ioudaioi that he cannot obey them and not speak in and about the name of Iesous as he must obey Theos. He then clearly shows the purpose of Theos in anointed in raising him up and exalting him in order to give the opportunity to Israel for repentance and subsequent forgiveness of their sins. The outcome of which is the giving of the spirit to those who are obedient. Repentance and subsequent forgiveness are conditional on the willing receiving of the revelation of Theos in Iesous.

A common theme, as seen above, is the giving of the spirit. This, in some places, is also juxtaposed with the idea of giving ‘grace’. Grace is a term intimately bound up with the meaning of the name of Yahweh:

And he said, I will make all my goodness pass before thee, and I will call the name Yahweh before thee; and will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will shew mercy on whom I will shew mercy. (Ex.33.19)

It is also linked with the kindness that a man may have to his wife when she finds grace in his sight. It is linked with Noah who found grace in Yahweh’s eyes. This idea of favour is linked to revelation. Yahweh told Noah his plans for judgment on an iniquitous earth and a plan for the salvation of Noah and his house. In the New Testament we see grace being given as a regular theme:

For this cause I Paulos, the prisoner of Iesous anointed for you nations, If you have heard of the stewardship of the grace of Theos which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote before in few words, Whereby, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of anointed) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets in spirit; That the nations should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in anointed by the euangelion: Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of Theos given unto me by the effectual working of his power. Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the nations the unsearchable riches of anointed; (Ephesians 3.1-8)

Paulos, like the centurion, is under authority by the word and has authority to minister the word. This position is referred to as a gift of grace because it is the favourable bestowing by the father of his revelation upon Paulos for his own salvation and that he might graciously bestow it upon others. This lies at the heart of the gift of forgiveness of sins. It is the favourable bestowing of his revelation, by the utterance of the spirit unto salvation.

This is seen quite beautifully in the construction of one of the words for ‘forgive’ – karizomai (χαριζομαι). It is far from the commonest word in the New Testament for forgive and is often translated ‘give’ but nevertheless it illuminates the relation of the two:

And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight…There was a certain creditor which had two debtors: the one owed five hundred pence, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing to pay, he frankly forgave them both. Tell me therefore, which of them will love him most? Simon answered and said, I suppose that he, to whom he forgave most. And he said unto him, Thou has rightly judged. (Loukas 7.21,41-3)

In this passage Iesous is showing to Iohannes the baptist’s followers that he is fulfilling scripture that shows he is the anointed. We recall from looking at Maththaios 8.16-17 that the various acts of healing were to demonstrate his power to forgive and take away sins by his word. Here we have the same phenomenon: the sick are healed, the dead raised and the euangelion is preached. Things are taken away and things are added or given. Sight is given, blindness is taken away. In the same chapter but later on we read about his encounter with a Pharisaios called Simon and a woman who enters Simon’s house to anoint Iesous’ feet and wipe them with her tears and her hair. Simon considers the woman a sinner. Iesous tells him the parable of the two creditors to show him the difference between him and the woman. She has kissed Iesous, anointed his feet and wiped them. Simon did none of these hospitable actions. He loves little, she loves much. He is forgiven little, she is forgiven much. She is repentant and Simon is not. Therefore forgiveness is granted, or given, to her while it is not for Simon. At the conclusion of all this Iesous tells her, Your sins are forgiven you. He uses here the more common word to forgive, which is aphiemi (αφιημι) meaning ‘to take away’. She manifested love to her lord because he is the revelation of Theos, he gave her forgiveness of sins and her sins were taken away. It is a giving because it is based on gifting of the word of Theos which results in the taking away of sin.

And grieve not the holy spirit of Theos, in which you are sealed unto the day of redemption. Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil speaking, be put away from you, with all malice: And be kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as Theos in anointed has forgiven you. Be therefore followers of Theos, as dear children; And walk in love, as anointed also has loved us, and has given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to Theos for a sweetsmelling savour. (Ephesians 4.30-32; 5.1-2)

The word for ‘grieve’ is mostly translated as ‘sorrow’ and depicts a state of contention. Thus we must not be at odds with the spirit as it is the spirit of Theos which will make sure that we will be redeemed and we can only be redeemed within the framework of a kerubic relationship. Redemption being from the word ‘to loose’ which forms the basis for the word for ‘release’ which was what Iesous gave his soul for. The behaviour of the believer is what is critical here and is premised upon the willing receipt of the spirit of Theos. By virtue of this we are able to forgive as we are forgiven. The receipt of the spirit and the ensuing imitation of Theos is what we must strive to accomplish as anointed accomplished and by this gift of spirit that leads to redemption we may be forgiven en route to that redemption and aionian life.

The Kerubic pattern seen in the kaporeth, the face to face nature of the two creatures, can be seen in a number of oppositional ideas. One that we are going to consider firstly are words which describe this relationship from one side or the other and give expression to that relationship.

The first of these is giving and receiving. Two verbs which describe opposing sides of the same transaction:

But as many as received him, to them gave he authority to become the sons of Theos, even to them that believe into his name: Who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of Theos. (Ioh.1.12,13)

A number of things are going on here. The word unto/into (eis) is used to describe the journey of transformation envisioned by the teaching of the name. The end product of which is the becoming of sons of Theos, the image of the father. The use of the plural ‘who’ to describe those participating in this pilgrimage is pertinent too hinting, as it does, at the revelation of the name in Exodus 3 – I will be who I will be – where the ‘who’ is/are the medium for manifestation of that name and become, at the end of that journey, the destination, having become him. In this context the criterion for participating in such a wonderful journey is that of ‘receiving’ of him, that is Theos, who is the word, who is to be made flesh in the person of Iesous Anointed.

We can see here that the ‘receiving’ would seem to be a willing acceptance of the word which is being offered to them and we see this in uses of the greek word lambano (λαμβανω).

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and you shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asks receives; and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it shall be opened. (Math.7.7,8)

We can see here that the words ‘give’ and ‘receive’ are interchanged. If you ask it will be given (by someone); those who ask receive (themselves). This statement Iesous is making is about asking for good things, asking for the spirit, asking for understanding which the father will give to those who do ask. In the first statement it is the giver (Theos) who delivers; in the second, it is the receiver receiving. We can see the two sides of the kaporeth here: the one kerub giving while the other kerub receives. They also find when they seek, so a few verses later we read:

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

In the parallel passage in Loukas 13.24 we are told to ‘strive to enter’ where the word ‘to strive’ is ‘to agonise’ or ‘to fight’. It is an active struggle and battle to even get through the gate at the beginning of the path. The first steps on the journey are not accomplished without a struggle. In the light of this the idea of receiving becomes less than a passive receipt of a gift but an active struggle to take what is on offer to us from the giver. The kerubic relationship is, we can now see, more positively interactive and reciprocal.

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 we saw in a previous post (what is a soul?), a soul is an identity that exists because a person is alive due to breathing in and out. It is, in the true sense, an identity formed by the taking in and giving back of the spirit of Theos. The man worthy of Iesous is one ceding his natural identity and taking in Iesous’ identity. The word ‘take’ is translating the word we saw previously translated ‘receive’ (λαμβανω) and clearly shows a greater intent of action than a passive receiving. The stake (translated ‘cross’ and alluding to the manner of Iesous’ death) is something that is given and it is something which must be actively taken hold of by the aspiring believer in order to follow his Lord and be worthy of him. It is given inasmuch as conflict and tension between spirit and flesh is given upon receipt of the message. Once we are introduced to the spirit and the need to cast off the flesh by supplanting it with Theos’ spirit (as ‘Abraham was showing in a figure through the covenant of circumcision), we are acquainted with the conflict in ourselves, in our attachment to the flesh, and in others who do not want us to uphold that spirit. We therefore are introduced to the battle of the stake, of the death of the flesh and the victory of the spirit and of following Iesous in that endeavour. It comes as a ‘gift’ along with the gift of the euangelion. It is not, however, a passive gift but a gift we must actively take, lay hold of, and accept because fighting the flesh with the weapons of the euangelion is not a passive process and, if we are not willing to actively engage in the battle, we are not worthy of him.

Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a winepress in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far country: And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. And the husbandmen took his servants, and beat one, and killed another, and stoned another. Again, he sent other servants more than the first: and they did unto them likewise. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will reverence my son. But when the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves, This is the heir; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew him. (Math.21.33-39)

The parable is clearly spoken against the chief priests and elders and to the unfaithful of Israel throughout their generations who had repeatedly rejected the message of Yahweh. The Lord is Theos and the inheritance is the message and covenants he gave to his people. He requires reciprocation from them and sends prophets with his word to elicit such willing reciprocation. The response by the husbandmen who inhabit his inheritance is to take (receive) the gift of the servants (prophets) and abuse and kill them. The final and greatest gift of all is the son who is sent to them and they receive him too and kill him thinking, curiously, that such action will mean they get to seize the inheritance whereas, in truth, it leads to their expulsion. We can see here that the active taking of the gifts offered to them does not amount to a faithful manifestation of the receiving kerub but, contrariwise, to a relationship of being at enmity with the giving kerub. Here we have a failed kaporeth relationship. Rather than spirit revealed leading to spirit reciprocated, we have spirit revealed confronting the ugliness of the flesh fighting against it. We saw the same in the previous post when we considered Paulos persuading the Ephesians of the truth of the euangelion only to be confronted with cursing of the way and rejection of the message. If giving leads to receiving, and that actively, we can see that receiving is not always reciprocal manifestation.

Of course, as we saw in Maththaios 7, if there is one who is receiving, that is taking what is on offer, then there must be a giver. In these we see the kaporeth relationship of the kerubym, a giver and a receiver, with the receiver demonstrating what he has taken.

The giving in Math.7 and Ioh.1 (see above) are both translating the Greek word didomi (διδωμι). Although there are other verbs translated ‘to give’, this is a common one.

Giving occurs when someone has something and is prepared to make it available to someone who asks, usually because they don’t have it or perceive that they don’t have enough of it. As such it is the preserve of the kerub who is mediating understanding rather than the one in the receiving position. Firstly, it is the preserve of Theos, who has all things, to give gifts (his spirit) to whomsoever he will. Certainly, if they ask but, knowing that they do not know what to ask for initially, he can give in order for them to ask to be given. Giving can also be a gift by those who have first received and then give to others and then, finally, giving can be the reciprocation to the giver by those who first received from him.

In the last category we can see how the elders of the Ioudaioi tempted Iesous with regard to paying taxes to Kaisar:

Tell us therefore, What think thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Kaisar, or not?…[after showing him the penny and its image and writing] They say unto him, Kaisar’s. Then says he unto them, Render (apodidomi αποδιδωμι) therefore unto Kaisar the things which are Kaisar’s; and unto Theos the things that are Theos’. (Math.22.17,21)

The issue here being that we can only give after receiving but we must give the things that came from Theos back to Theos. This is the essence of the euangelion and of the kaporeth. There is an inter-relation of ideas which seem to be antitheses and are, in fact, two sides of the same coin.

The gift that is given, as we have seen above, is a gift given in the face of conflict with the flesh. With the euangelion comes the stake, because the flesh is resistant to the spirit. So, the one who is worthy of Iesous is the one who follows in the steps of his teacher and is willing to face that conflict and willingly receive the spirit and give to Theos and to others. Within this framework lies the basis for the forgiveness of sins.

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

We shall consider the matter of forgiveness of sins in the light of the kaporeth in the upcoming posts but suffice it to say, from what we have gleaned about the soul and giving/receiving, it is clear that Iesous gave up his natural identity by the receiving of his father’s spirit and gifted that example to his followers to copy.

The word ‘faith’ is predominantly a New Testament word and concept. This English word translates the Greek ‘pistis’ (πιστις). This noun is closely related to the verb ‘to believe’ which in Greek is ‘pisteuo’ (πιστευω). Therefore, at a straightforward level, we can translate the word ‘pistis’ as ‘belief’. There is nothing extra or magical about the word ‘faith’ above and beyond the fact that it is the noun which is associated with the verb ‘to believe’.

So, we may now ask, what is belief? Or, what is it to believe? These questions will have greater significance in future posts when we will consider the idea of ‘believing into’.

The verb ‘to believe’ and the word translated ‘faith’ do occur, albeit sparsely, in the Old Testament. Here, the Hebrew is ‘amen (אמן):

And he believed in Yahweh; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (Genesis 15.6)

In this passage. Yahweh has told him that he is ‘Abram’s shield and reward. Following the word of Yahweh coming unto ‘Abram and reassuring him of a seed proceeding from his own loins, ‘Abram believes. So, belief is an outcome of receiving the instruction of the word. It is the willing acceptance of such instruction and will lead to reciprocal acknowledgement in word and deed.

Belief or concern over a lack of it is in Mosheh’s mind in Exodus 4 after Yahweh has revealed his name to him and sent him to go and speak to the children of Yisra’el to use that revelation of the name to bring the people out of Mitsraym:

And Mosheh answered and said, But, behold, they will not believe me, nor hearken unto my voice: for they will say, Yahweh has not appeared unto thee (Ex.4.1)

Following the performing of three signs in the presence of the people by ‘Aharon, Mosheh’s brother (acting as Mosheh’s representative – see v.16), the people do accept his speech:

And the people believed: and when they heard that Yahweh had visited the children of Yisra’el, and that he had looked upon their affliction, then they bowed their heads and worshipped. (Ex.4.31)

So, here, in the context of the revelation of Yahweh’s name and of ‘Aharon being the manifestation of Mosheh’s revelation, the acceptance of the word of Yahweh, authorised by sign is described as ‘belief’.

The homographic ‘amen (אמן) is used, untranslated, as a form of acceptance and agreement repeatedly in the Old Testament. On a number of occasions this response is done by a congregation:

Blessed be Yahweh ‘elohym of Yisra’el from the ‘olam and unto (or during) the ‘olam. And all the people said, Amen, and praised Yahweh. (1 Chronicles 16.36)

This is the conclusion of a psalm Dawid uttered upon the occasion of the bringing of the ark up to Yerushalym and being placed in a tent he had pitched for it. Figuratively anticipating the arrival of the temporary dwelling of Yahweh in man into a more permanent dwelling place in that place where he has chosen to set his name, this event is coupled with the enunciation of belief by those there, witnessing and participating in this event.

Of course, belief in the New Testament also accompanies the witnessing of the dwelling of Theos in man in the Lord Iesous:

When Iesous heard these things, he marvelled at him, and turned him about, and said unto the people that followed him, I say unto you, I have not found so great belief no, not in Israel. (Loukas 7.9)

This is Iesous’ approbation of the roman centurion who had asked, via intermediaries, for Iesous to come and heal his servant. Also, by intermediaries, when he knows he is coming he sends word that Iesous should not come under his roof but speak the word only and his servant will be healed. He acknowledges that he is like Iesous in that he is able also to send word and command his subordinates being also a man subject to higher authority. In this, he is confessing that he knows that Iesous is subject to the father and heals by his word. This confession is a statement of belief by this man greater than anything Iesous has witnessed among Israel.

As well as being related to the verb ‘to believe’ (πιστευω) the noun ‘belief’ (πιστις) seems to be related to a verb translated predominantly ‘persuade’ – peitho (πειθω):

And he went into the synagogue, and spake boldly for the space of three months, disputing and persuading the things concerning the kingdom of Theos. (Acts 19.8)

In language reminiscent of the work of Philippos in Acts 8, we see Paulos, in Ephesus, teaching people about the way. The response to this persuasion is entirely down to the recipients of that teaching. It can be belief but in this case it is not:

But when divers were hardened, and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus. (Acts 19.9)

So, persuasion leads to choice. The choice being to accept, obey, reciprocate, that is to believe, or its antitheses – refusal to accept and thus not to believe.

Iesous says unto him, Thomas, because thou has seen me, thou has believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. (Ioh.20.29)

There are many occurrences of the word ‘to believe’ (pisteuo) but here is an example that shows the basis for belief. It is not sight but rather to hear the word. Thomas, initially doubting that Iesous was risen, sees him face to face and confesses that he is his Lord and Theos, that is that he has appeared as the manifestation of Yahweh and of ‘el, glorified in resurrection. Of course, as Iesous is pointing out, blessing is upon those that have believed without seeing, that is they have heard the word and ‘seen’ the representation of Theos in him and the hope of following him.

So, belief is a response to teaching, teaching that leads to an understanding of manifestation and a participation in it. It is the kerubic response to mediation of the word.

Then they that gladly received his word were baptised: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers…And all that believed were together (upon the same), and had all things common; (Acts 2.41,42,44)

I have picked Acts 2 to show that those who received the word and were baptised, joining themselves to Theos, then continued in listening to the apostles teaching and shared all things. They were in a state of receptive obedience that was continual and led to sharing of possessions, a work depicting their shared beliefs. The commonality of their possessions is from the same word as ‘fellowship’. They had common possessions because they had a common mind (communion). That common mind was theirs because they all assented to the teaching of the apostles. Belief can only be the one belief (Ephesians 4) if we are united in following the same teaching. In such a case the beliefs of believers will be in common with the beliefs of other believers because they all are from the same source.

And Yahweh ‘elohym formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2.7)

The word ‘breathe’ is used only 12 times in the Old Testament and is translated in different ways but is also translated ‘breathe’ in Yehezq’el 37:

Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say unto the wind, Thus says ‘adonay Yahweh; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. (Yehez.37.9)

Rather like in Genesis 2 we have lifeless bodies requiring to come to life. In this case the lifeless bodies are representative of a lifeless Yisra’el requiring the spirit of Yahweh to enter into them to live. The words ‘wind’ and ‘breath’ in this verse translate the Hebrew ‘ruah’ (רוח) which is often translated ‘spirit’ when referring to the spirit of Yahweh. So in this verse it is the spirit of Yahweh that is figuratively blown upon these slain.

We can infer then that it is the breath or spirit of Yahweh ‘elohym that is blown into the nostrils of the man in Genesis 2 to make him live, or have the breath of lives, and become a living soul. Thus the existence of a living soul is premised upon firstly Yahweh breathing life into a man. As we saw this taking place figuratively in Yehezq’el so in Genesis 2 it can be interpreted on a figurative level. If Yahweh’s breath is his spirit then we see a figuratively lifeless man enlivened by Yahweh’s spirit. The outcome of such a breathing is that the man can exhale that breath and begin the process of inhalation and exhalation which will cause his life to persist. If spirit is the mind of Yahweh directed towards man in his utterances we can see a beginning of a kerubic relationship. Yahweh directs his mind to the man, the man receives the first breath and reciprocates by exhalation and then can continue to do so by dint of his willingness to continue after this pattern. The resultant state will be life, the resultant identity is soul. Over time, and the persistence of breathing, an identity is formed. This is what a soul is, it is the person, the identity, that is created by persistent breathing. Seen on a natural level, this is obvious for, without respiration, existence, and therefore identity formation, is impossible. Figuratively the same applies, that is, without inhalation and exhalation of Theos’ spirit we cannot form his identity within us. Of course the spirit we inhale and exhale may not be Yahweh’s but may be man’s and in such a case the identity or soul formed is not of him. In this case we may require to follow Iesous’ injunction to give up our soul for him.

Then said Iesous unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his stake, and follow me. For whosoever will save his life (soul – psyche – ψυχη) shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life (soul) for my sake shall find it. (Math.16.24,25)

A disciple is one who is prepared to follow Iesous, to crucify the flesh, to give up his life (his natural identity derived from his existence) and will thus be able to gain the life/identity which is of Theos. Indeed Theos says that he has a soul:

Behold my servant, whom I have chosen; my beloved, unto who my soul is well pleased (eudokeo): I will put my spirit upon him, and he shall show judgment to the Gentiles. (Math.12.18)

The above verse, a quotation from Esaias, uses a whole host of fascinating words. My beloved, like ‘Abraham being a friend (loved one) unto Yahweh; unto (eis) who (like the who in Yahweh’s name revealed in Exodus 3); ‘soul’ (here it is Yahweh’s soul); well pleased, which we saw in the previous post and is a declaration that Theos was ‘well thought’ in Iesous; ‘I will put’ is from the verb tithemi, being where the title Theos comes from; and, ‘show’ (apangelo) from the word ‘message’ which forms the basis of the word euangelion.

So, we see that Iesous is the one who, having been breathed into by the spirit of Theos, is showing that life (soul/identity) of Theos in his words and works.

All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him. Come unto me, all that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. (Math.11.27-29)

We must follow Iesous and receive his revelation; as he knew the father so we must know him and by that we will know the father. If we do this we will find rest unto our souls in the end. So a soul is a result of a reciprocal relationship, and a soul that is well thought in Theos’ sight can only be a result of a true kerubic relationship.