26 January 2024
In yesterday's post I left off with the implication that the Hebrew mystical outlook is as close to the eternal outlook as we can get. To follow Christ is to become more Hebraic in your mental organization.
If you want to make Christian religion a body of teaching, then that body of teaching must include the operation of convictions. In western church history, the emphasis has been on uniformity of thought and action. You may find lip service for convictions, but insufficient room for them in practice. Every major leader and thinker keeps trying to assert their own convictions as binding on others. We do not have a body of teaching in the West that gives proper place to individual convictions and how they are supposed to work.
Thus, we are unable to point to any contemporary teaching that gives convictions their due place in Christian religion. We do have a fairly substantial understanding of clinical knowledge about how they work in isolation. However, we have no experience at all making best use of them in a community setting. We do not have a Hebraic understanding of it. Old Testament religion depended on the presence of individual conviction. Instead of learning how to moderate between conflicting convictions, we have only a long tradition of squelching everything.
We truly do not comprehend how God designed things to work in a church body. A cultural hostility to feudalism, to the Two Witnesses, and to individual convictions has left us without the means to claim the full provision of blessings and miracles.
Pageau's The Language of Creation points out that the Two Witness structure shows up in the very basic assumptions of Hebrew language in Genesis. There is a proper role for both offices. The conflict between Cain and Abel was rooted in Cain's rejection of his role; Cain represented the earthly elder and Abel the spiritual priest. Abel was the priestly shepherd, and Cain was the kingly farmer. In Hebrew thinking, had Cain passed his offering through his brother, it would been more likely accepted. It wasn't the offering that was flawed, but that Cain didn't also offer himself in obedience to the system God designed.
Cain represented the earthly establishment responding to the heavenly word, the breath and light from above. He didn't respond appropriately; he did not provide the proper fruit that should have been harvested from the divine provision from above mixing with the soil below. Instead, he abused his earthly authority and shed blood unjustly.
The symbolism shouldn't be that hard. From heaven comes light (enlightenment), the breath of God (symbolized in part by weather), the divine order of things (the Word of revelation) that should give shape to the earth's response. The ground responds to divine input and produces whatever is needed to feed the divine order in human lives. This is reflected in the Two Witnesses. The priestly figure is the conduit of divine provision, and the kingly figure organizes the response, and then feeds it back up to God through the priest.
Both are essential to the whole picture. This is why it shows up in Revelation. Both are anointed by God to make it work for His glory. The two roles must work together, must find a way to remain at peace in order to give God His just due. Neither is superior, but each has their assigned role, both must stand on conviction. God chose to divide the larger task of ministry in this way. It is inherently feudal, as is all of Creation.
But these two figures are presumed driven by conviction. Their individual choices and how they arrive at them is not regulated directly by the Word, but that they must work together is mandated. The task of cooperation is the first order of business; it is the most basic law for community in faith, and leadership in particular. It is necessary to avoid any one person becoming the focus of attention except in terms of episodes in context. No one can hog the microphone.
You would not get this kind of explanation from an ancient Hebrew scholar unless they knew they were talking to a foreign audience. The symbols were taught in Hebrew culture from youth. Those who first encountered the Genesis narrative delivered from Mount Sinai would have brought the meaning with them. They would have understood the symbolism and the story would fit into their worldview, with all the expansive meaning included. Had you been able to ask, most of them could have told you the symbolism of Cain and Abel and what Cain's sin was. The murder was a symptom, not the cause of the tragedy. The whole story gave shape to the meaning of the Fall.
It should be obvious that Seth is the Messianic figure setting things to right. From the very beginning, the Hebrew people knew to expect a Redeemer. It was built into the culture; the pagan nations in and around Mesopotamia all carried the expectation of a Messiah. It shows up on Zoroastrianism, as well (with three Messiahs). Thus, the Magi came looking for Jesus at His birth.
We need to learn the Hebrew mystical symbolism just to understand the Bible. Learning that mystical outlook is part of the whole teaching Jesus commanded His followers to share with the world.
Comments
Robust1
I just picked up a book by Kenneth Bailey, Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes. Figured I'd throw it out there, seems like he may be a great resource. Dug out my falling apart copy of The Language of Creation and have been reading a couple chapters a day, while enjoying your occasional posts about the book.
CatRez
Apparently Bailey wrote more than one such study before he died in 2016. I'll have to save up and buy one of them to see if his approach matches what I've learned.
Jay DiNitto
The title reminded me of a book I have on my list: Misreading Scripture with Western Eyes: Removing Cultural Blinders to Better Understand the Bible. Bailey's book is added to my list now... the title alone is interesting enough.
CatRez
I ordered that one today along with the suggested Bailey book.
Robust1
There are you tube videos online from some video courses he made. I'm not big on watching videos myself, but I did watch a few to get the feel of where he is coming from in his teaching. I found his series on 1 Cor 13 interesting enough to check out something a little more thorough from him. Maybe check him out on youtube before you spend the money.
This document is public domain; spread the message.