© 2007, Yirmeyahu Ben-David, Paqid 16
The Netzarim
www.netzarim.co.il
While Tana"kh describes the ברית כהנת עולם (bә-Midbar 25.13), the traditional English translation as the "covenant of eternal priesthood" is somewhat inaccurate and misleading. Hâ-olâm ha-bâ refers to the coming world-age, which is non-dimensional (i.e. non-physical, eternal). But olâm, by itself, merely refers to the world, the world-age, an epoch or era.
To connote "forever" or "eternal" requires the construct לעולם. Thus, לעולם, לעולם ועד, לעולם לנצח and לעולמי עולמים (and its corresponding Aramaic) all convey the sense of forever or eternal. (תמיד, by contrast, conveys "recurring perpetually" and is often misrendered as "daily" [sacrifice].)
Describing the Kәhunâh as olâm, rather than one of the constructs conveying eternity, suggests that the Kәhunâh was tied to some world-age.
Indeed, history shows that the Kohanim developed to officiate in the Mishkân and later in the Batei ha-Miqdâsh. Before the Mishkân, any adult Israeli male could function as a Kohein. Especially, the head of each family functioned as the Kohein of the family. (Malki-Tzëdëq, who was a monotheist Kohein of Eil Ëlyon, not a Kohein of the bәrit with ha-Sheim, poses no anomaly. Finally, the demise of the Second Beit ha-Miqdâsh, the raison d'être of the Kәhunâh, caused the corresponding final disappearance of the corrupted (Hellenized, see below) Kәhunâh: the Tzәdoqim Kohanim hâ-Rëshaim – defining a bәrit Kәhunâh specific to centralized worship – the "world-age of the (Mishkân and) Beit ha-Miqdâsh."
Thus, the ברית כהנת עולם of bә-Midbar 25.13, and related Scriptures, concern a Kәhunâh specific to centralized earthly worship – the "world-age of the (Mishkân and) Beit ha-Miqdâsh," not eternity or the non-dimensional realm addressed by Yәkhëzqeil.
This would seem to play into the Christian argument that this Kәhunâh was clearly transferred to J*esus and Christianity. After all, the Kәhunâh disappeared with the Beit ha-Miqdâsh in 70 C.E., only a few years after the death of Ribi Yәhoshua.
The most insidious falsehoods are built on partial truth. That few years difference is significant. A transfer of the Kәhunâh would have resulted in an immediate recognition of Ribi Yәhoshua as the Kohein ha-Jadol with the transfer of all authority and power. That, of course, never took place. Further, never in his lifetime did Ribi Yәhoshua perform any duties specific to a Kohein – performing sacrifices in the Beit ha-Miqdâsh, officiating in the Qodesh ha-Qâdâshim on Yom ha-Kipur, or the like.
Even more importantly, Yәkhëzqeil expanded the interpretation (44.9) to disqualify both "ערל לב וערל בשר… from (44.13) לכהן to/for Me." Oral Law understood circumcision to apply to both flesh and heart from the time of Moshëh (Masëkët Yomâ 71b). Yәkhëzqeil, himself a Kohein, merely codified Oral Law that later became characteristic of the Qumrân Tzәdoqim.
The legitimate Kohanim as defined in Nәkhëmyâh 7.63, ended by B.C.E. 168 with the ousting of כוניו (Khonyo, Hellenized to "Onias III") more properly, יכוניה (Yәkhonyâh) Bën-Shimon II Ben-Tzâdoq (see the historical preface to Khanukhâh) – almost two centuries before Ribi Yәhoshua was born!!! Any assertion of a transfer of the Kәhunâh to J*esus is, then, poorly-informed and anachronistic.
Because the Shәkhinâh and the other four essential elements were never in the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini, there is no reason for the ברית כהנת עולם to apply to the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini. Therefore, we should not be surprised that the legitimate Kohanim terminated long before the destruction of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Sheini.
In short, there was no chronological proximity to suggest a transfer of the Kәhunâh to J*esus or Christianity. Rather, there was a forcible ouster and termination of the Biblically-defined Kәhunâh centuries earlier, ca. B.C.E. 170.
With the demise of legitimate Kohanim, leaving only ceremonial Kohanim that we have today, the Pidyon ha-Bein, which substituted the Kәhunâh for the bәkhor, was similarly changed. But what does that imply?
The end of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh and, especially, the final end of the Kәhunâh (due to the destruction of the yukhasin) would seem to demonstrate that the Torâh promise of the ברית כהנת עולם is false. Yәkhëzqeil prophesied (37.26) "and I shall give מקדשי among them לעולם" and (37.28) "when מקדשי is among them לעולם)." The historical fact of the destructions of the Batei ha-Miqdâsh assuredly contradicts the interpretation of an eternal earthly / physical Beit ha-Miqdâsh or Kәhunâh!!!
This is reinforced by a glaring physical fact impacting Yәkhëzqeil's prophecy in 44.1-3 & 46.12, that the נשיא proceed(ed) into the Beit ha-Miqdâsh only through Sha·ar ha-Rakhamim, the East Gate. "Commentators, based on 34.24 and the usual meaning of the word, assume that [נשיא] refers to the king – and specifically to the mëlëkh ha-Mâshiakh" (Artscroll Yechezkel, p. 687). In a deliberate act to preclude any future Jewish Mâshiakh from fulfilling this prophecy, Muslims have irreversibly desecrated Sha·ar ha-Rakhamim by locating a Muslim cemetery in front of this gate. Anyone going through this gate would be desecrated by the dead and disqualified from being the Mâshiakh. Thus, this prophecy can only be fulfilled in one, or both, of two ways: [1] the Mâshiakh already proceeded through this gate before it was desecrated (as Ribi Yәhoshua did) or [2] understanding the prophecy to refer only (!) to the non-dimensional realm.
The latter, however, contradicts the bәrit that Yәkhëzqeil defined concerning the נשיא. Although נשיא Dâwid is eternal, in the non-dimensional realm (37.25, above), Yәkhëzqeil demonstrates that his function is also attached to the earthly עולם via a bәrit (34.25): "וכרתי להם ברית שלום" and (37.26): "וכרתי להם ברית שלום, ברית עולם shall it be with them."
How can the Scriptures (37.26) "and I shall give מקדשי among them לעולם" and (37.28) "when מקדשי is among them לעולם" be reconciled with the destruction (twice) and absence of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh? Even a moment's absence contradicts these passages.
How can the Scriptures (43.7) "אשכן among Bәnei-Yisrâ·eil לעולם" and (43.9) "ושכנתי among them לעולם" be reconciled with the irremediable loss of the Kәhunâh?
Nothing physical can be לעולם. No physical person can be a נשיא לעולם. Therefore, when using the term לעולם Yәkhëzqeil can only describe the non-dimensional realm: a non-dimensional Miqdâsh לעולם, a non-dimensional Kәhunâh לעולם administered by (37.24-25) a non-dimensional נשיא לעולם: "So My servant, Dâwid, shall be mëlëkh over them and the one shepherd for all of them, and in My mishpâtim they shall walk and My khuqot they shall watchguard and âsu them; and they shall settle on hâ-Ârëtz, which I gave to My servant Ya·aqov, wherein your patriarchs settled; and they shall settle on it, they, and their children and their children's children עד-עולם. And Dâwid, My servant, shall be נשיא for them לעולם."
The Beit ha-Miqdâsh described by Yәkhëzqeil is unlike the previous, earthly, Batei ha-Miqdâsh. The Beit ha-Miqdâsh described by Yәkhëzqeil is not subject to contamination (43.7), which proves that it can only refer to the non-dimensional realm. Further, "This one is to stand inviolate. [Ëlohim] is to dwell in it, never to depart (43.7)" (Artscroll Yechezkel, p. 605).
This is also corroborated by Yәkhëzqeil's recognition of the non-dimensional (i.e. eternal) Beit ha-Miqdâsh as the "site of My Throne and site of My Footstool" (43.7); the non-dimensional (i.e. eternal) Beit ha-Miqdâsh being the site of His Throne and the earthly Beit ha-Miqdâsh being the site of His earthly Footstool – the latter the earthly counterpart of the former.
This נשיא is described as מלך (Yәkhëzqeil 37.24-25), who is "one shepherd," yet, also serves in the capacity of Kohein – administering communal offerings (45.17), which only a Kohein could perform. Further, 45.7ff in concert with chapter 48 shows, "the sacred tәrumâh is part and parcel of the portion of the נשיא… Thus understood, the disposition of the land [interpreted in the non-dimensional realm] is highly significant. It is in the territory of the נשיא that the Shәkhinâh chooses to rest; the city whose name is to be השם שמה (see 48.35) in recognition of its complete oneness with the Divine is specifically situated in the נשיא's portion of the land" (Artscroll, Yechezkel, p. 710).
"In Malibim's view, verses [45.]13-17 describe a permanent arrangement which will be inaugurated with the coming of Messianic times… According to this interpretation all the communal sacrifices which are brought daily and in celebration of special days will be brought by the נשיא from his own property (v. 17). So that he can be enabled to fulfill these obligations, all the people are to be taxed in the amounts specified in verses 13-16. The Halâkhâh is quite clear, however, that communal sacrifices may not be brought by an individual [Masëkët Mәnâkhot 65a and Rambam Shәqalim 4.1]. If, nevertheless, the נשיא is designated to bring these sacrifices, this can only mean that his property, since it derives from the taxes of the community, is considered communal property. Thus, it is clear that not only is the נשיא the conduit through which the Divine Presence is to rest among the people; he is also the conduit through which the people pay homage to [Ëlohim] through the communal sacrifices." (Artscroll, Yechezkel, p. 710-11).
This convergence of mëlëkh and Kohein in mëlëkh ha-Mâshiakh corresponds to the convergence of Yisrâ·eil and Lewiyim-Kohanim as a "ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש," prophesied in Shәmot 19.6.
Another implication of the convergence of mëlëkh and Kohein with the consequent convergence of Yisrâ·eil and Lewiyim-Kohanim as a "ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש" answers the earlier question concerning the Pidyon ha-Bein. The demise of legitimate Kohanim, leaving only ceremonial Kohanim that we have today, suggests that the Pidyon ha-Bein, which substituted the Kәhunâh for the bәkhor in the earthly realm, no longer substitutes Kohanim for the dedication of the bәkhor in the eternal non-dimensional realm. This substitution was an earthly tavnit, symbolizing the substitution, in the non-dimensional realm, of Yisrâ·eil as Kohanim substituting for the bәkhor of the goyim, to whom Israel becomes Kohanim.
The functions of the Kәhunâh, spanning both the physical and non-dimensional realms, which Yisrâ·eil is to assume for the goyim, includes [1] cultic, [2] mantic, [3] purific (inspection and declaration of purity/impurity) and [4] jointly adjudicative with the mëlëkh (a composite Beit-Din in which the Kohein and mëlëkh have merged in the person of the Nâsi, as prophesied by Zәkharyâh 4). The Nәtzârim have already undertaken all four functions relative to the goyim.
This ממלכת כהנים is a responsibility, an obligation. "The Torâh stresses repeatedly that no special expectations of reward set Israel apart from the other nations. The promise of life for walking in [Ëlohim]'s statutes is to man in general ([wa-Yiqrâ] 18.5), not to Israel in particular; Heaven's gates are exhorted to open for any nation of enduring loyalty ([Yәshayâhu] 26.2). All [tzadiqim – defined by Torâh, i.e. Torâh-keeping] people will enter [Ëlohim]'s gates ([Tәhilim] 33.1). Nor will [Ëlohim]'s [khësëd] be bestowed upon Israel exclusively. All who are good and straightforward in their hearts ([i.e. geirim, Tәhilim] 125.4) will merit it (Yalqut, wa-Yiqrâ 591)" (Artscroll, Yechezkel, p. 430).
According to the Artscroll editors (Yechezkel, p. 671), arguments of some Jewish commentators, that Torâh prohibits the convergence of Kohein and mëlëkh, are based on Ramb"m (on bә-Reishit 41.10) and two passages of Scripture: Yirmәyâhu 33.24 and Zәkharyâh 4.14).
The context, introducing Yirmәyâhu 33.24, begins with 33.14, prophesying the Mâshiakh Bën-Dâvid. Pâsuq 17 promises "There shall not יכרת from Dâwid a man who sits on the throne of Beit-Yisrâ·eil. 18 And for the Kohanim, the Lewiyim, there will never יכרת a man from before Me who offers ascendance-sacrifices and burns Minkhâh and makes sacrifices all the days."
Note the subtle contrast in language. In the first case, "There shall not יכרת from Dâwid a man…" while, in the second case, "for the Kohanim, the Lewiyim, there will never יכרת a man from before Me…" In the second case, that man isn't specified to be a Kohein or Leiwi. Thus, Ramb"m's conclusion (on bә-Reishit 41.10) that a Kohein cannot become mëlëkh is correct. However, the reverse direction, a mëlëkh becoming Kohein, is not ruled out. Indeed, the promise of a "ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש," prophesied in Shәmot 19.6, explicitly acknowledges this eventuality.
Pâsuq 24 cuts to the very heart of the issue under discussion: "Surely, you have seen what this am has spoken, saying, 'The two families that ha-Sheim chose [Kohanim Bәnei-Tzâdoq and Mәlâkhim Bәnei-Yәhudâh], He has rejected them,' thereby causing My am to spurn being a goy before them anymore." This is exactly the argument made by Christians. What is ha-Sheim's answer? Pәsuqim 25-26!
Contradicting those who cite Zәkharyâh 4.14 as precluding the convergence of Kohein and mëlëkh, the שני בני-יצהר, i.e. anointed ones = Mәshikhim, implies exactly the opposite. These are the two olive trees – mëlëkh and Kohein – that merge their olive oil, representing the Shәkhinâh, into the Mәnorâh, illuminating the world (with Torâh).
Conclusively, as shown concerning the נשיא, it is Dâwid ha-Mëlëkh who functions as Kohein ha-Jadol, offering the communal sacrifices in the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Shelishit.
"We now have an entirely new picture of [Mâshiakh ha-mëlëkh]. He is, on the one hand, to embody Israel's nationhood, as their representative in the [Beit ha-Miqdâsh] service, bringing the communal sacrifices [officiating as Kohein ha-Jadol] from the property which becomes his by way of the people. On the other hand, he brings Godliness to the people [commanding as mëlëkh], as the Divine Presence rests in his portion of the Land." (Artscroll, Yechezkel, p. 710).
The נשיא is the convergence of both mëlëkh and Kohein in the person of the Mâshiakh-נשיא, who (Yәkhëzqeil 7.27) is clothed in שממה – the same Mâshiakh-Kohein clothed in בגדים צואים in the vision of the two olive trees and Mәnorâh by Zәkharyâh (chapters 3-4). Briefly, this vision of Zәkharyâh is widely understood as prophesying the oil (= Shәkhinâh) of two olive trees (mëlëkh and Kohein, each of whom was Mâshiakh) converging in the Mәnorâh.
Yәkhëzqeil confirms this unambiguously as, on Rosh Khodësh, the נשיא is revealed as the Kohein ha-Jadol (46.2).
Ramb"m's opinion, based on bә-Midbar 16.21 (Artscroll, Yechezkel note, p. 671), was that this final Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Shelishit will be a structure built by human hands, because he understood that it was to be built by the (human) Mâshiakh (see Ma·asëh ha-qârbânot 2.14 and Mәlâkhim 11.1; Artscroll, p. 606). "However, Rashi (Masëkët Sukâh 41a, Rosh ha-Shânâh 30a) and Tosaphot (Masëkët Shәvu·ot 15b) write that the Beit ha-Miqdâsh will be made of fire and descend miraculously from heaven, already built. According to this opinion it would seem that the directions contained in the Book of Yәkhëzqeil will never concern us directly since the Beit ha-Miqdâsh will not be built by human hands (Artscroll, Yechezkel note p. 606-9).
"Maharil Diskin (quoted in Siddur HaGra) suggests a solution. The building which will descend from heaven will have certain indispensable parts missing. It will be our obligation to add these components and this will be our way of fulfilling the command to build the Beit ha-Miqdâsh. This theory explains the seeming redundancy in our Yom Tov tәphilot. We say, "[והראנו בבנינו ושמחנו בתקונו (sidur Teimâni, Yom Tov Musâph, Mëlëkh Rakhamân)]." The ["building"] would refer to the building, not made by human hands, descending from heaven. The ["correction or repair"] would be the finishing touches which we are to provide (ibid. p. 608).
"Both the opinions of Rashi and Tosaphot on the one hand and Ramb"m on the other can be justified on the basis of Talmudic and Midrashic sources" (ibid. p. 608).
"Another complicated issue is the question of whether the command to build a Beit ha-Miqdâsh is binding upon us even before the coming of the Mâshiakh (see Yәrushalmi ma·aseir Sheini 5.2)" (ibid. p. 608).
However, there is only one solution that reconciles all of these seemingly incompatible requirements, including the Kәhunâh and the נשיא, and this is hinted in the sidur Teimâni Qabâlâh Shabât, commenting on Yәshayâhu 54.13 (Âmar Ribi Ëlâzâr):
"אל תקרי בניך אלא בוניך."
The Beit ha-Miqdâsh is, indeed, to be built by Israel. Yet, it is an eternal Beit ha-Miqdâsh, non-dimensional and not of this world. How can that be? The stones of this Beit ha-Miqdâsh, described in Yәshayâhu (54.11-12) as gemstones, are the nәphâshot of Torâh-keepers, who are attracted and taught to keep Torâh by the human hands of "ממלכת כהנים וגוי קדוש" of Israel (Shәmot 19.6) under the נשיא.
Another conundrum posed by the Sages is their disagreement whether the building of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh ha-Shelishit precedes the coming of the Mâshiakh Bën-Dâvid or vice-versa; some holding each opinion. The dual roles of Ribi Yәhoshua, as Mâshiakh Bën-Yoseiph and Mâshiakh Bën-Dâvid, resolves the dilemma: the answer is "both."
This solution also suggests that the departure of the Shәkhinâh from the Beit ha-Miqdâsh hâ-Rishon, described in Yәkhëzqeil 9.3; 10.4, 19; 11.22-23, was a withdrawal or return of the Shәkhinâh to this heavenly Beit ha-Miqdâsh as described in Yәkhëzqeil 43.1-5, which has been under construction from the time of Âdâm and will remain under construction until the last gemstone – nëphësh of a Torâh-keeper – is set in place.
Thus, the Beit ha-Miqdâsh, the Kәhunâh and the נשיא are all לעולם entities and, therefore, necessarily in the non-dimensional realm. This shouldn't be surprising since each of these three entities was a tavnit of the authentic entity in the non-dimensional realm. Consistently, each and all of these demonstrate that the earthly tavnit, the physical Beit ha-Miqdâsh and physical Kәhunâh, have always been mere symbols of what takes place in the non-dimensional realm (popularly "heavens").
Yәkhëzqeil 46.14 is not contradictory. The phrase describing Minkhâh as "חקות עולם תמיד" can be understood simply as "statutes of Minkhâh that recur perpetually in this world-age."
Perhaps because "Nazarene" has been confused with "Nazirite" in English, some Christians have mistakenly concluded that the Nәtzârim pәqidim, particularly Pâqid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq", were Kohanim (or, perhaps, some kind of Nazirite-like pseudo-Kohanim). Like Ribi Yәhoshua, Pâqid Ya·aqov "ha-Tzadiq" (and probably most of the rest of the pәqidim) were from the tribe of Yәhudâh and, hence, were not Kohanim.
All of the prophesies by Yәkhëzqeil relating to the Nâsi in the eternal Beit ha-Miqdâsh should be understood in this light.
 |
 |
|
|
See also commentaries on Shәmot 12.27, 43-49; 34.25-26 and Yәkhëzqeil 18.20-22
Therefore, Christians argue, "personal salvation" (see commentary at bә-Reishit 15.6) can only be obtained through the blood of J*esus
The animal sacrifice system established by Moshëh developed not in a vacuum but as a twofold need: [1] to facilitate communication with ha-Sheim and [2] to differentiate from the Egyptian and other goyim religions. Even before the Israeli Gâlut in Mitzrayim, as the paradigm for his descendants Avrâhâm substituted animal sacrifice in place of human sacrifice, especially of the firstborn son, viewed by the surrounding goyim as the ultimate gift of appeasement to placate and win the favor of their g*ods.
In the ancient Middle East before the Israeli Gâlut in Mitzrayim, human sacrifice seems to have been more prevalent than animal substitution, the latter apparently developing from the former. In Middle East cultures, the ultimate gift to a g*od was one's most precious asset: the firstborn son. (In other cultures of the world, virgin daughters were apparently the most precious.) This was likely also related to early cannibalism, where the belief was that the diner thereby absorbed the spirit (and, therefore, attributes) of the victim.
Like other cultures of the ancient world, Middle East belief systems adapted paradigms found in the natural world in order to commune with their g*ods in the "afterworld," i.e., the non-physical (non-dimensional or spiritual) world. "Everyone" could see for themselves that there were many spirits in certain mountains, some animated springs of "living waters," others spewed lava, steam, etc. "Obviously," these mountains, being the highest point on earth, nearest the stars (considered the visible evidence of their g*ods), were extra-dimensional "hot spots" traveled by the spirits – holy mountains. Although no one could explain how that might work, everyone could "see" that it did work and that was enough. Pharaohs, considering themselves g*ods, built their own "holy mountains," the pyramids; but these mountains never showed any signs of life. Consequently, about the time of Moshëh and the Yәtziâh, interest in building pyramids was clearly fading.
It may have been Moshëh, a Hebrew-born adopted Egyptian Prince in the Pharaoh's Royal Household then known by his Egyptian name, perhaps Sen-en-mut (see The Mirrored Sphinxes), who, before realizing the religion of his Hebrew roots, explored ways to tap into real holy mountains to commune with the spirits. For his love, Queen Pharaoh Khât-
In the case of Khât-
 Khat-shepset temple-in-mountain 0250x167.jpg "ccc") |
 Khat-shepset temple-in-mountain 1840x1232.jpg "Click to enlarge"){kind=small} Temple of Queen Pharaoh Khat-shepsut featuring an internal holy place and, within the holy place, a holy of holies having a false door into the rock face of the mountain. Designed and built by her lover, Sen-en-mut. |
It was apparently at this point that Sen-en-mut / Moshëh coincidentally recognized that physicality was an irremediable barrier to human commuting to the world of their g*ods, that only the spiritual, abstract and non-physical, aspects of mortals would be able to commute and commune with the non-physical world of the divine. In any case, the innovation of a false door into a holy mountain quickly disappeared. However, the insight clearly didn't extend to transferring food and gifts to the afterlife to accompany the dead, as well as offering food and gifts to the g*ods, both of which continued in Egypt. Similarly, upon attaining their freedom, the Israelis resumed the animal sacrifices of their ancestors.
Nevertheless, there was a significant difference between the Egyptian approach, attempting to relate to an afterlife of capricious g*ods, versus the Israeli – Avrâhâmic – perspective of conforming one's conduct to please a Perfect Creator (implying ascertaining what conduct pleases that Perfect Creator) Whose Throne is far above the (ancient concept of a) heavenly canopy. While belief in literal gift-essence transference to the afterlife was intrinsic to both the ancient Egyptian and mainland Middle Eastern goyim, Avrâhâm severed all connection to any belief in a g*od that was capricious or had any use (much less need) for food-essences, gift-essences, or the like. Avrâhâm's paradigm was clearly not a transferal of a gift to the heavens of food-essence to a Creator he realized was non-physical and has neither need nor use for food. Avrâhâm's substitute at the Aqeidâh introduced not merely a vicarious blood-sacrifice but, since it involved no blood transferal of a gift-essence like that of the surrounding goyim, his paradigm marks the abstraction of blood-sacrifice essence-transferal to a symbolic ritual-demonstration of propitiatory offering that ensued from repentance and tәshuvâh. Avrâhâm's paradigm demonstrated not supernatural blood-transferal like the surrounding goyim, but, rather, repentance, a propitiatory gesture and tәshuvâh – the requirements to qualify for kipur out of the khein of ha-Sheim. It was these punitive sacrifices and placating gifts, ensuing from repentance and a repentant heart, that were intended to make reparation, appease and expiate. There can be no expiation without repentance.
Realizing the contradiction and impossibility of the initial goal, to commute physically with the non-physical world, triggered the insight of circumventing the barrier of physicality by revising the goal to that of communing non-physically with the non-physical (spiritual) world. This abstraction marks the birth of spirituality in contrast to superstitious belief of the goyim in magic, incantations, blood rituals and supernatural forces. For non-physical-to-non-physical contact, symbolic models facilitating non-physical focus were sufficient and effective. Abstract, non-physical, mental-spiritual contact, through a mnemonic of symbolic ritual, displaced the more primitive ambitions of physical transference through ritualistic mechanical manipulation (including belief in supernatural transference qualities inherent in blood).
This was apparently accompanied by a realization that the Divine was evident and must be Present everywhere in the world at all times; not limited to holy mountains. Although holy mountains continued to be perceived as especially efficacious as mnemonic symbols for communing with the Divine (e.g. witness Har Sinai and Har ha-Bayit), physical false doors were no longer needed into a holy mountain. A further product of this insight was that worship was no longer anchored to a holy mountain or physical blood-transference sacrifice (abstracted to mnemonic symbolism encapsulating the essentials of requiring reparation, a punitive gift and tәshuvâh), though the latter took centuries longer – and the catastrophes of both B.C.E. 586 and 70 C.E. – to realize. Sadly, many still fail to realize the implications of the mnemonic symbols, advocating the rebuilding of a physical Beit ha-Miqdâsh, reanchored to the holy mountain, bringing with it a reversion to dependence on supernatural blood sacrifices.
The advance enabled Moshëh to detach the Holy Place and Holy of Holies from any particular holy mountain, whether in Egypt or the Sinai, place the false door on its side and transform it into the cover over an improvement that superseded the holy mountains of the past: the box containing the physical evidence of ha-Sheim. Moshëh garnished this cover with a gold-leaf veneer crown surmounted by two mirrored sphinxes (kәruvim), placed it atop the Aron hâ-Eidut in the Holy of Holies of the transportable Mishkân and the rest is history. (For more about this, read The Mirrored Sphinxes.) Even in the Beit ha-Miqdâsh on Har ha-Bayit, the focal point remained this replacement box containing the evidence of ha-Sheim, not a false door into the holy mountain itself.
Ancient Egyptians also deemed it essential to provide their recently-died pharaoh-g*ods with gifts needed in the afterlife, ranging from animals to servants to elaborate royal barges and gold utensils. The "living gifts" among these were believed to be "supernaturally" transferred to the other life by means of a supernatural magic blood ritual utilizing supernatural magic incantations. Draining the blood from the victim facilitated the transference of that life from the corpse shell left behind, carried in the blood – the vehicle of transmission (because "the life of the flesh is in the blood," wa-Yiqrâ 17.11), to the altar of the g*od where it was burned, transferring the essence of the living-gift, carried in the blood, into the smoke where it ascended to the g*od whose essence was believed to commute into that altar. Some believed that one could also commune with the g*od more effectively by sharing in the consumption of the blood or flesh of the sacrifice. This belief was adopted by Christianity: "to drink his blood is to appropriate the saving expiatory sacrifice" (cf. Jn. 6.53 and "blood," Vine's Expository Dictionary). This is entirely unconnected and alien to the Pësakh Seidër that Ribi Yәhoshua and the Nәtzârim knew and practiced.
The process of transferring living beings to the spiritual realm was viewed somewhat like a fax; with blood, altar and fire paralleling the signal on a telephone wire, the satellite dish and radio transmission, respectively. The essences ("spirits") of the dead were believed to be transferred to the spiritual world through the devices of preserving their shells (mummies, to use when visiting their own tomb) and false doors permitting their essences (spirits) to depart the tomb and enter the adjoining holy mountain, where their g*ods, whom they believed visitied the holy mountain (causing a spring to flow with "living water," creating steam, smoke, lava, etc.), would show them how to journey with them to the stars. Their servants, flocks and pets were believed to be transferred through processing their life (blood) through the g*od's altar into the blood-smoke, ascending to the g*ods in the heavens. Certainly, symbolic transference is evident in the practice in the Beit ha-Miqdâsh of smearing or spattering ("sprinkling") of the blood of sacrifices on the Mizbeiakh. Thus, the gifts, including living beings, were thought to be actually transferred to the realm of their g*ods as real gifts. Only the physical shells were believed to be left behind, including the physical food, its "essence" having been consumed by the g*od, the "physical remains" of this holy food were usually eaten by the priests.
Modern transgressors can more readily relate to being fined by a court, say $250, for some violation of the law. That $250 penalty is a required punitive sacrifice by the transgressor. There is no medieval or superstitious redeeming magic in the $250. To get back in the good graces of society, two things are required: [1] cease violating the law and [2] make reparations and pay the punitive expiatory sacrifice. Other than injured victims, no one is particularly "wrathful" toward you. You simply have to learn to obey the law. If you're rich enough that the $250 doesn't dissuade you from ignoring the law, the sacrifice is made more severe. It is much more difficult to dissuade a rich man (especially, these days, a rich celebrity) from feeling above the law. Sound familiar? In ancient times, goats and bulls were assets of wealth paralleling cars and yachts today. Sacrificing a goat or bull was no different then than signing over (sacrificing) a car, yacht or home to a court today as a penalty for using it to produce or transport drugs. The import is in the punitive aspect; not magic, supernatural blood or incantations. This was no less true in ancient times as the aristocratic segment of Israeli society became brazenly hypocritical in ignoring Torâh then offering sacrifices – which, Torâh declared, are unacceptable when it isn't followed by cessation of violating the law (tәshuvâh).
Shәmot 12.27, reads not skip "over my house" or over the houses of αλλογενης who "believed" in the lamb but "over the houses of Bәnei-Yisrâ·eil" who actually did what they were instructed – and הציל them (not αλλογενης). Further (12.43-46), Torâh requires one to be circumcised (halakhically – obviously, it would have to be according to Mosaic law) as a condition to partake of the Pësakh lamb – again excluding gentiles. Further still, pâsuq 47 specifies Yisrâ·eil, not gentiles. Pәsuqim 48-49 specify geirim, not gentiles – and that there is only one Torâh, which excludes the NT. See also commentary on Shәmot 34.25-26 requiring as a condition of partaking of the lamb that khâmeitz (symbolizing transgression of Torâh) be removed – i.e. (again, consistently) implying the requirement of tәshuvâh – and that the lamb was acceptable only from those who tithe and eat kâsheir. See also commentary to Shәmot 12.27.
The original, Hebrew, term in the Tana"kh from which "atonement" is rendered in English, is כפור, which comprises a reparation gift as a salve or balm "covering," (as a soothing cover on a surface or a wound – the blemish, which is the transgression of Torâh), accompanied by tәshuvâh. כפור derives from the root verb כפר. The Hebrew word for pitch or asphalt, כפר (kophër), a covering that is smeared-on, is a cognate.
Another cognate of כפר (kipeir) is כפורת, referring to the gold crown "cover" surmounted by two nose-to-nose and wing-to-wing kәruvim on the Aron hâ-Eidut.
The Torâh concept of כפורת was Hellenized to assimilate with the surrounding goyim, via LXX and the NT, to the Christian doctrine of a supernatural magic "saving power" of the blood of a man-g*od able to "cover" or "wash away" all "sin." This supernatural – idolatrous Hellenist – "power" depends upon the sacrifice being a g*od. Hence, the Christian dependence upon J*esus being divine – no divinity, no "saving power in the blood" salvation.
If one says תתפללו to an Orthodox Jew it doesn't mean the same thing as if one says "Pray!" to a Christian. The difference isn't merely the translation. The Orthodox Jew would go to Beit ha-Kәnësët on Shabât, bless ha-Sheim and eat kâsheir while the Christian would go to a Church on Firstday, pray to Yësh"u and eat pork. The difference in language is more than translation, it is a change to a different world, culture and frame of reference and that makes a world, literally, of difference. If you want to get an idea of how different Hellenist-assimilated Jews were from Pәrushim (Orthodox) Jews between the time of the LXX and the 4th century C.E., there is a strong parallel with modern Hellenist-assimilated (western hedonist) Reform Jews today. One need look no further than to read through a Reform "Siddur," read a Reform "Bible" or observe how the Reform services are very similar to Hellenist-Christian Churches (some are even held on Firstday instead of Shabât) but vastly different from Orthodox Shabât services. There is precious little difference today between a western-assimilated "Jew" and the goyim and there was precious little difference then between a Hellenist-assimilated "Jew" and the surrounding goyim. What Greek meant to Hellenist goyim it meant to Hellenist-assimilated "Jews" – and it continued, uninterrupted, to mean to Hellenist goyim Christians.
To sum up, the idolatrous Hellenist doctrine is the antithesis of the original Hebrew כפור, which derived from the verb כפר – the root from which כפורת derived.
Both LXX and the NT translated כפורת to ιλαστηριον. While LXX rendered כפור as εξιλαομαι / εξιλασκομαι, the NT toned it down to ιλασκομαι. Christian theologians assert that "conciliate" implies "naturally alienated" g*ods. (In fact, there is little difference between "conciliate" and "propitiate," neither of which implies an intrinsic or "natural alienation.") Based on their fabricated understanding of "conciliate," even while acknowledging that the NT (!) Hellenist Greek term ιλασκομαι always meant "conciliate… the g*ods" throughout the Hellenist world, giving no reason whatsoever they claim that it never meant "conciliate" in their NT concerning their own man-g*od, Christ – because, they offer, their man-g*od, loving the world, isn't alienated from man (Vine's, p. 734).
If this sounds confusing, that's because it is – a total Christian obfuscation. The only difference between εξιλαομαι / εξιλασκομαι in LXX and ιλασκομαι in NT is mere degree of emphasis (LXX being more emphatic). What these words meant in LXX Greek they meant in NT Greek. This is nothing more than a fabricated Hellenist-Christian obfuscation designed to deny (or obfuscate) the Hellenist origins of their Hellenist-Christian supernatural blood-transference doctrine – which claims that the sins of "believers" are transferred to Yësh"u by the supernatural power of its divine blood.
Kipur "covering," by means of a symbolic ritual involving blood, as described earlier, rather than supernatural power "in" the blood per se, is exemplified in the following instances of כפר and its cognates:
Unlike Hellenist, and its offspring Christian, dependence upon supernatural blood transferral, Torâh kipur could be achieved by tәshuvâh without blood (Shәmot 30.15; 16.10; bә-Midbar 17.11-12; 31.50; Dәvârim 32.43), but never by blood without tәshuvâh. Unlike the Christian concept of vicarious blood atonement, Torâh is clear and explicit that one cannot be reinstated "in spite of our sin" (i.e. while continuing to "sin") but, exactly the opposite, because of tәshuvâh – turning away from transgressing Torâh – enabling kipur.
Whether the development was primarily linguistic, cultural or philosophical, the Avrâhâmic concept of sacrifice differed fundamentally from the sacrifice doctrines of the surrounding goyim. The LXX (Greek) translation, ιλαστηριον, referred to the Hellenist doctrine of placating or appeasing the wrath of deities, effecting reconciliation. This placation-reconciliation was the idolatrous Hellenist counterpart of the Hebrew כפורת, which required making amends for transgression (the salve or balm – especially extra-virgin olive-oil of the first pressing – healing the wound) – implying a preceding tәshuvâh.
Lacking the connotation of "covering-over" inherent in כפורת, ιλαστηριον was complemented in LXX by επιθημα. Rather than describing a propitiatory-salving as conveyed by Torâh, however, the Hellenists, and later the Christians, transformed this to a "mercy-seat" like the mercy-seats they were accustomed to seeing – upon which their greatest Hellenist idols sat. Thus, Hellenists and Christians blasphemously equate the covering of the Aron hâ-Eidut with, lә-havdil, the mercy-seat of Z*eus. Having thereby constructed a "mercy-seat," they could then position their man-g*od upon it. This lends further credibility to the likelihood that the name Ιησους derives from Z*eus.
The LXX terms, εξιλαομαι / εξιλασκομαι, were then further Hellenized in the NT to the cognate ιλασκομαι. – which "was used amongst the Greeks [i.e., Hellenists] with the significance to make the g*ods propitious, to appease, propitiate, inasmuch as their good will was not conceived as their natural attitude, but something to be earned first" (Vine's Expository Dictionary). In other words, the Hellenists, perceiving ill will of their g*ods as their natural and expected state except as their favor was repeatedly earned, could not have comprehended a connection to transgression of some divine instruction as an imperfection that caused their alienation due to a Havdâlâh between the imperfect (ordinary = profane = unholy) and the Perfect (Holy) Creator. The translation transformed a Biblical doctrine of Israeli perspective into an idolatrous doctrine of Hellenist perspective.
Contrary to Vine's assertion that "This use of the word is foreign to the Greek Bible [i.e. LXX], with respect to G*od, whether in the Sept. [LXX] or in the NT," the Hellenist meaning of the term is exactly how the Hellenists, including Hellenist (Greek-speaking) Jews, understood and used it. Assimilated Jews, by definition, have adopted the language and varying degrees of the culture around them. Hellenist Jews, paralleling today's Reform Jews, developed numerous misconceptions of Torâh; first in their translations and second in their interpretations of those translations, which they perceived within their frame of reference: their contra-Judaic cultural perspective.
The now-twice-over Hellenized – twice removed from Torâh – doctrine of ιλασκομαι in the NT, probably because it lacked the connotation of tәshuvâh present in Torâh, was associated with an unrelated term, καταλλαγη. The core of its root verb, καταλλασσω, is αλλος, which, in turn, forms the core of the better-known term used to warn gentiles to approach no closer to the Beit ha-Miqdâsh: αλλογενης.
Vine's notes that there is no valid basis for the translation of καταλλαγη as "atonement"; stating that it "signifies not 'atonement,' but 'reconciliation.' " Despite having no valid basis for even rendering it as "atonement," modern Christians derive from it their popular doctrine of "at-one-ment," dreamed up in Easton's 1897 Bible Dictionary and which Vine's correctly describes as "entirely fanciful" (cf. atonement, ibid.) since it has no connection even to the NT, much less to LXX or the Bible – Tana"kh. Yet, Christians insist that "atonement refers to the act by which G*od reconciles… through purging or washing away of sin and satisfaction of the law." This contrasts sharply to the Biblical definition. Kipur requires making amends and reparations – demonstrating tәshuvâh – in order to qualify for ha-Sheim's graciousness; not a "reconciliation" (much less in the person of a third-party man-g*od) independent of one's conduct.
When Hellenist Jews, the ancient equivalent of today's Reform Jews, translated Tana"kh into their native Greek, they rendered כפור as εξιλαομαι / εξιλασκομαι. This translation represented a paradigm shift in concept; from Judaic to Hellenist. The Judaic concept of kipur comprised two main elements focusing on life practice and ha-Sheim: [1] making amends and reparations, including a sacrifice-gift, and [2] tәshuvâh. Whereas a supernatural transferal of gifts by means of blood was central to the surrounding pagan religions, Torâh relegated blood to a minor symbol subordinate to making amends and reparations, making tәshuvâh and life practice.
The Hellenist concept of εξιλαομαι / εξιλασκομαι, by contrast, focused on pagan notions of transferal of gifts, including living gifts, to their g*ods, believed to reside in the "other world," by means of supernatural magic blood ritual and incantation. Unlike the developing Torâh concept, the Hellenist supernatural transferal required no amends, reparations, repentance or undertaking of a life practice that accords with divine instruction. This Torâh concept, codified in Tana"kh, was Hellenized in translation to LXX, becoming mere superstitious belief in supernatural magic of a blood ritual.
Καταλλαγη derived from the Hellenist (Greek) verb καταλλασσω, neither of which has any viable meaning tradition in Tana"kh. The meaning of both plainly stressed the primary element and prerequisite inherent in kipur: change, i.e. making tәshuvâh – changing from transgressing Torâh to doing one's utmost to keep Torâh. However, there is only one instance of each in Tana"kh:
Thus, the Christian concept of "at-one-ment" derived from a wordplay in English that has nothing to do even with NT Greek, much less the LXX Greek, which, in turn, was a perversion of Torâh Hebrew.
Vine's Expository Dictionary documents the Christian remolding of καταλλασσω – even from its native Hellenized (idolatrous) Greek meaning – to "reconcile": "hence, of persons, to change from enmity to friendship, to reconcile." From "reconcile," it's a short step from the corruption of "atonement" (which means expiating or appeasing) to "reconcile" to the play on words: "at-one-ment." Having Hellenized the original – Hebrew – concept of kipur, first to καταλλασσω and then to "reconcilement," Christians then remold the meaning by assuming the authority of the NT (see commentary at bә-Reishit 15.6) to imply – non sequitur – reconciliation to G*od "through the death of his S*on" (J*esus).
For resurrection to be the proof demonstrating the power of divine blood of a man-g*od, as the "firstborn son" of g*od, in order to be transferred to the Presence of ha-Sheim in the afterlife implies that, in human form, he lacked the Presence of ha-Sheim while on earth. However, since ha-Sheim is Omnipresent, this is impossible – implying that there is no need for any transferal, by supernatural blood power or otherwise. (The need is for tәshuvâh and appeasing reparation gift enabling the Graciousness of ha-Sheim to restore us to the holy side of the Havdâlâh between ha-Sheim and the ordinary / profane (unholy).
Christians argue that the report of an earthquake – breaking the lintel stones of the Beit ha-Miqdâsh, tearing the Pârokhët and breaking open many tombs (NHM 27.51-54) – proves the divinity and resurrection of J*esus and ended the "separation between G*od and man." If this were so, the 10 plagues would be far greater proof that Moshëh was divine and son of g*od. That this was never held in the community of Yisrâ·eil exposes the faulty reasoning of Christians. Similarly, only Moshëh, not Ribi Yәhoshua, spoke to ha-Sheim "face to face." Using the Christian reasoning, this would "prove" that Moshëh, not the torn Pârokhët, ended the "separation between G*od and man." If the single phenomenon of the earthquake and its effects "proves" the divinity of Yësh"u, then the 10 plagues "proves" the divinity of Moshëh 10 times more. Invalidating this Christian doctrine invalidates the "power" of J*esus' blood to "wash away sins" (since that would require divine, supernatural, blood).
Why do Christians persist in maintaining that "Christ fulfilled the law" despite the explicit declaration of Ribi Yәhoshua himself that he came to "reconcile Halâkhâh to Torâh shë-bikhtâv," not to "uproot" Torâh (NHM 5.17-20)? It is because the entire validity of the Christian claim that their NT superseded Torâh and the validity of Christianity as a Displacement Theology dangle from the thread that "Christ paid the penalty for sin," superseding and annulling Torâh, Judaism and Jews. J*esus didn't "fulfill the law," thereby "ending the rule of the law of sin and death" or produce "victory over sin and death." Torâh remains valid – exactly as Ribi Yәhoshua confirmed (NHM 5.17-20). That Torâh and Jews are still valid implies that the Torâh prohibition against adding to, or deleting from, Torâh (Dәvârim 13.1-6) remains valid – invalidating and disproving the NT and Christianity! Thus, the entire viability of Christianity depends upon invalidating Torâh and Jews. That's the crux of Christian misojudaism.
In all of these Christian claims, no change from Torâh can be valid (cf. Dәvârim 13.1-6) unless they can be logically derived from Torâh. Christians have never produced any compelling arguments from Torâh for their claims. Rather, they argue that Torâh was "fulfilled" in order to circumvent that prohibition.
Additionally, Torâh specifically precludes a vicarious transferal of sin to any innocent person. Yәkhëzqeil 18.20-22 (see commentary there) makes it explicit that transgressions of fathers are not visited on children. Both Yәkhëzqeil 18.2-4 and Yirmәyâhu 31.28-29 reconfirm that ha-Sheim is Tzadiq (e.g., Shәmueil Beit 22.31; Tәhilim 11.7; 18.31; 19.8; 23.3; 116.5; 119.137; 129.4; 145.17 and 92.16). This is the path to salvation (Mishlei Shlomoh 28.18). To transfer sin to an innocent person is blatantly unjust and contradictory to the Way of the Immutable (Malâkhi 3.6 & Tәhilim 89.35) ha-Sheim described in Torâh. Thus, J*esus cannot have "secured remission of sins" and – no surprise – the Way of kipur is unchanged from Torâh: tәshuvâh accompanied by reparations and a gift of appeasement.
It has already been demonstrated, above, that the pәsuqim cited in support of the Christian doctrines of vicarious atonement for many cannot involve supernatural divine blood power (indeed, "divine blood" is an oxymoron) or transferal of sin to an innocent party. It remains, then, to explain Yәshayâhu 53.6, and even NHM 20.28, within the constraints of Halâkhâh.
Wa-Yiqrâ 1:4; 4:20, 31, 35; 5:10, 16; 6:7 and 17:11 all confirm that every personal sacrifice and communal sacrifice derived from the flocks of the Yisrâ·eil (the communal sacrifices having been given by the community to the Kohanim). Not one of these sacrifices was from the heavens; not even the goat that was substituted for Yitzkhâq at the Aqeidâh.
The relevant clause of Yәshayâhu 53.6 reads:
Until the 20th century, all Orthodox rabbis agreed that Yәshayâhu 53 refers to the Mâshiakh. Subsequent innovations have no validity. Thus, we must find a solution that not only resides within the constraints of Halâkhâh, but also refers to the Mâshiakh.
With the Christian doctrines having been ruled out by Torâh, it would appear that the only way this passage can refer to the Mâshiakh, as Talmud and the Sages have agreed it does (before recent and invalid reforms), is in the sense of the goyim venting their wrath for Yisrâ·eil as a whole to "alight upon" a Jew who represents Yisrâ·eil. Indeed, this was exactly the case, at that moment in time, with Ribi Yәhoshua.
It then becomes redundant to explain NHM 20.28 in exactly the same way as Yәshayâhu 53.6: "[Ribi Yәhoshua] came to serve others, and for his allowing his nëphësh to be a פדיון for many."
Finally, one must ask, "What atonement of J*esus? Paul's?" It certainly isn't compatible with Torâh or the teachings of Ribi Yәhoshua (which is perfectly compatible with Torâh). What expiation (amends or reparation) or salvation is in Paul? Few Christians realize that Paul wrote almost all of the NT. Almost no Christians are aware that their earliest Church historian, Eusebius, recorded that the Nәtzârim excised the apostate Hellenist Turkish-Jew, Paul as an apostate. Paul and post-135 C.E. idolatrous Hellenist Roman gentiles, not Ribi Yәhoshua, is who Christians follow.
|
|
|