Thinking About Yohm

Yohm can equally express a point in time as well as a sphere of time. It is used to denote (i) the period of light (as opposed to darkness), (ii) a period of a full 24 hours, (iii) a general vague period of time or era, (iv) a specific point in time, (v) an entire year (as in in 1 Samuel 27:7; Exodus 13:10, etc), and (vi) a period of specified time measured by two extraordinary events.There is much material available on the etymological and cultural nuances of this one little word. As a serious introduction to study, I would suggest E.J. Young's Studies in Genesis One, Presbyterian and Reformed - although a publication nearly 40 years old now, it is still one of the best ever written.

The creative days of Genesis are conspicuously patterned, chronological, of indeterminable length, intended to show - at a very summary level view - how Yhwh changed the uninhabitable and unformed into the habitable and formed from 1:3 to 32.Genesis indicates the closer of all six creative days/periods, and closure of the group of all six as "one day" in itself. God's day of rest commenced with the beginning of the seventh creative day, and according to the author of Hebrews at 4:1-11 and Psalm 95:7-8, and 11, that 7th period was still open for entering into at the time of David and even Paul, and I would suggest even today.

Could God have created or formed the entirety of creation in 6 days? Probably. Maybe. 6 minutes I suppose would also be possible, or 6 seconds, or even in the twinkling of an eye.But if we are to believe that "The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and the work of his hands the expanse is telling" (Psalms 19:1), and if we are to believe "His invisible qualities are cleary seen from the world's creation onward .." (Psalms 104:24) - then we must also give adequate consideration that:

• Light from the Andromeda nebula can be seen on a clear night in the northern hemisphere, and that it takes about 2,000,000 years for that light to reach the earth - meaning that the light you now see is at least that old in our time - this alone indicates that the universe is at least millions of years old, if not older; and
• End products of radioactive decay in rocks in the earth testify that some rock formations have been undisturbed for billions of years.

If the expanse is then "telling", and the created world giving "testimony" to its creator and the creation, it might be of some benefit to listen to what the heavenly expanse and earth are testifying to - and then maybe reassess the validity of retaining tradition over truth (Matthew 15:3, Mark 7:13, Col 2:8, and so on).

Death of Immortality

For centuries, the fleeting and highly subjective world of feelings, emotion, and thought was the purview of philosophers and theologians. But during the past 30 years, Antonio R. Damasio has strived to show that feelings are what arise as the brain interprets emotions, which are themselves purely physical signals of the body reacting to external stimuli though use of small levels of electricity and chemical manipulation. Damasio’s efforts presented some obvious and significant questions for the aforementioned philosophers and theologians

For example, is there really a difference between ‘body’ and ‘mind? And if the suspicions turn proof that there is no difference, what exactly does that mean? Does it mean that we have no souls, no personal spirit, which can escape our death by separation from the body? It may very well be that science soon proves that our bodies and our “minds” are one in the same biological unit – functioning as a whole – even providing us with our own sense of self. And this ‘sense’ itself may prove to be rooted in pure biology rather than theosophy or philosophy. Man’s “consciousness” may simply prove to be no more than biological man himself. Christian de Duve states in his recent publication “Life Evolving: Molecules, Mind, and Meaning” from the Oxford University Press (2002, p.108) that:

"The proofs are there, indisputable, that no manifestation of consciousness is possible without the normal functioning of cerebral neurons. Let this functioning be impaired by lack of oxygen, or by a drug or trauma, and loss of consciousness inevitably follows."

According to the scientists – it is looking more and more like we are nothing more than the sum of our biological parts – and when these biological parts eventually quit functioning, we as a person - being a single biological entity, including our minds, thoughts, emotions, feelings, memories, and all the elements of who we are – cease to exist. Death, it appears, is not only inevitable, it appears it may also be final. It is a matter of debate whether animals have an awareness of mortality or not, but it is certain that man alone among all living creatures knows that he has to die. This we all seem to understand – yet – as Martin Heidegger shrewdly observed that the proposition, “all men are mortal” usually involves the deeply personal tacit reservation “but not I.

Even as Freud, and Schopenhauer before him pointed out, “deep down” even contemporary man does not “really” believe in his own death. This internal inconsistency is certainly not new – it is seen manifest in the earliest pages of the Hebrew Bereshit (Genesis) as Eve juggles between the two choices placed in front of her:

Genesis 3:3, “God has said, ‘YOU must not eat from it, no, YOU must not touch it that YOU do not die.’


Or -

Genesis 3:4, “You positively will not die.


The implication here is quite simple – in whom do you demonstrate faith by virtue of action - either God was lying and she was immortal and could not die by definition (i.e., continued existence did not necessarily depend on obeying God), or he was not lying, and death was very much “reality” (i.e., continued existence does necessarily depend on obeying God). Not long after choosing a mark for herself - her husband, Adam, was faced with a similar choice.

Outside of the writings in the Hebrew Scriptures, it cannot be determined with any degree of accuracy the time nor the historical sequence of mankind’s discovery of the two elements of death — its inevitability as well as its finality. But there was surely some point in time when someone first contemplated death as being inevitable and final (the natural observation) - and likewise there was also some point in time when someone imagined that what they observed was not reality – saying as suggested by Heidegger, “but not I.

Likely the two discoveries were closely associated. While the Hebrew Scriptures never assign “immortality” as a trait to earthly man or woman in any literal, figurative, or symbolic sense (except perhaps for the unrecorded thoughts which may have occurred to both Adam and Eve as they determined their choice)– the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh Epic does. It offers us the first written record of mankind’s thoughts regarding his immortality. It is in the Gilgamesh Epics (a written account reflecting in part long held Babylonian/Chaldean/Sumerian religious thoughts) that the realization of the inevitability of death as well as its possible finality seem to have occurred simultaneously. If this is so, it is pointless to ask which of the two produced the greater shock. But again on the basis of the Mesopotamian Gilgamesh legend, there can be no doubt about its severity. It may have been this very severity which eventually gave birth to the thought of immortality.

While King Gilgamesh strongly suspects that death may well be total extinction, or a state of nonexistence, the predominant view of death of his contemporaries was that the dead somehow continue to exist (i.e., immortality of man). But one cannot help but be impressed by the somber and frightening nature of the afterlife as it appears in the Babylonian and the later related early Greek mythologies. Typical is Achilles' complaint in the Odyssey that it is better to be a slave on earth than a king in the realm of phantoms – but nonetheless – the immortality of mortal man took firm root and began to grow.

The after-life existence eventually evolved into more pleasant concepts for the good (or those pleasing to the gods), and worse concepts for the bad (or those rejected by the gods). Undoubtedly, Adam and Eve, having chosen to believe their creator a liar, likely began to entertain similar thoughts much earlier in denial of the absolute reality of death, in the hope that life would continue in some form or other after the physical body has proven its mortality by falling into the article of death and corruption. It is, after-all, what the serpent was selling, and that product which they choose to invest.

Nevertheless, such entertaining thoughts of immortality easily and quickly spread outward from earliest Mesopotamia through later Egypt, India, China, and Europe – just as man spread out across the land – his pleasurable ideas of immorality went with him.

There was one notable exception.

The path of immortality was basically ignored, in fact rejected, by a lesser known, lesser prominent, ancient Semitic peoples – the Hebrew. Though being of the same Semitic roots as those so eagerly embracing thoughts of immortality – history records a clear philosophical and theological separation - distancing the ancient Hebrew from the Mesopotamians in regards to thoughts on life and man’s mortality. The only real difference between the two emerging cultures being their gods – the Hebrew god claiming origin over Adam and Eve (a god who we saw earlier told of death), and the Chaldeans and Sumerian gods, who offered comforting ideas of immortality.

As reflected in the Hebrew Scriptures, the God of the Hebrews further explained exactly what death was. The majority of the ancient Hebrew people denied thoughts that man was immortal. Such thoughts being based on what they were taught by their God – thoughts which were reflected ultimately in their historical religious texts. For the ancient Hebrew, death was a reality in every sense of the word. It is a condition or state in which the "breath of life" (ruach) the life giving force from God has been withdrawn, and the living-breathing creature (ne’phesh) dies as a result and no longer has any existence whatsoever. It means a complete and total cessation of life. For the ancient Hebrew it was clear, death was nothing more than the opposite of life – an absence of life. This is clearly reflected in a plethora of passages from Hebrew Scripture (e.g., “For dust you are and to dust you will return." (Genesis 3:19); "The dead know nothing . . . There is no pursuit, no plan, no knowledge or intelligence, within the grave." (Eccl 9:5, 10), The soul that sinneth, it shall die" (Ezek. 18:4). "his spirit (ruach – God life giving force) goes out, he goes back to his ground; in that day his thoughts do perish" (Psalm 146:4)). Two out of every three occurrences of ne’phesh (that which man is – a living breathing creature) in the Hebrew Scriptures refers soberly to the mortality of the ne’phesh and ultimate liability to death.

According to the ancient Hebrew, the dead no longer existed, knew nothing, had no thoughts, could not see, hear, or speak. The ne’phesh dies, and the ru’ach (what we call spirit today in English) was merely God’s unseen life giving force which enacted upon the ne’phesh, it itself returned to God – leaving the living breathing creature called man with nothing more.

He was dead.

The ancient Hebrew held these thoughts for hundred of years before being reintroduced to immortality in Mesopotamia likely as a result of the Babylonian exile, combined with eventual Hellenistic and Zoroastrism influences. Many diverted away from the mortality of man concept, but many also held fast – recognizing that although death was a state of nonexistence a hope for resurrection or being remembered by God was hinted at in their same Scriptures.

One of the most well written and famous proponents of the immortality of man was Plato - a thinker, who was strongly influenced himself by much earlier Babylonian religious traditions. Plato, who lived about 427-347BC, and has been regarded as one of the most important thinkers and writers in the history of Western culture, expanded on the concept of man’s immortality. He was a philosopher and an educator, but all his so -called "wisdom" was the product of his own mind, supported by ideas and philosophies adopted from the teachings of others. His influence on both religious and philosophical thought was considerable and widespread, even today. Plato's concept of the immortal soul built upon the earlier foundations established in Mesopotamia – he taught that the soul left the body and migrated to what he termed the "realm of the pure forms" from which, after a time, the soul may even return to the earth in another form.

By now, nearly all the world’s religious organizations subscribed to the concept of an immortal man – something which transcends the death of the man. It was these Hellenistic, Zoroastrism, and Platonic concepts which were adopted by the greater majority of the world’s religious organizations. They, like Adam and Eve, choose to believe that they “would positively not die”. By this point, there was no longer a single religious system which had not been infiltrated with the idea of man’s immortality. But the immortality doctrine monopoly was short lived.

Shortly following Plato, came Epicurus. According to Epicurus the fear of death is one of the two major afflictions of mankind, the other being the fear of the gods. Accordingly, he did away with both, and is proven to have given birth to the more modern secular movements (Rationalists, Freethinkers, Agnostics, Atheists, Secularists, Humanists, et al). According to Epicurus, man fears death because he erroneously believes that he will experience pain and suffer after he has died (the concept originating in Mesopotamia). But, says Epicurus, death is deprivation of sensation. As to the soul it too does not survive death because, as Democritus has taught, like all things, it too consists of atoms (albeit particularly fine ones) which will disperse at death. Consequently “Death, the most terrifying of all ills, is nothing to us, since as long as we exist, death is not with us, and when death comes, then we do not exist".

God was dismissed, and immortality executed.

The period spanning the time from Gassendi to Jefferson is called "the Enlightenment", an appropriate title for the era where political authoritarianism, faith-mongering and claims of a divinely-ordered cosmos, and the mystical doctrines of astrology and alchemy, were abandoned in favor of modern science and intellectual and political freedom. With the exception of Jefferson, Epicurus's role in providing the philosophical foundations for the Enlightenment was largely unacknowledged, as there was still considerable prejudice against non-Christians that kept Epicurus in the closet, or at least dressed up with suitably Christianized or Deistic doctrines – but it cannot be denied today, that much of our secular, scientific based communities are established in part due to Epicurus.

Though adequate recognition is given to the various shades of grey from a former art student, our world today consists largely of two groups - .those descendents of Mesopotamia who hold man to be immortal in one sense or another, and those descendants of Epicurus, who typically do not. And it is to that end, that, as quoted above, that Christian de Duve in his recent publication states, “The proofs are there, indisputable, that no manifestation of consciousness is possible without the normal functioning of cerebral neurons. Let this functioning be impaired by lack of oxygen, or by a drug or trauma, and loss of consciousness inevitably follows” becomes most significant.

It appears as though the Epicurean children may win out after all.

Man is not immortal, and probably is nothing more than flesh, blood, and bone, just as the ancient Hebrew once believed. It appears it may very well be quite true as modern neurologists are empirically proving - . What we “are” is “us” – a living breathing creature fully contained in flesh, and blood, and bone (i.e., ne’phesh). There is life, and there is death, and death itself may simply be just as the earliest Hebrews informed us by the Word of their God - the dead no longer exist, know nothing, have no thoughts, cannot see, hear, or speak.

But what I personally find so irresistibly ironic in all of this (or perhaps it is poetic justice of some sort), as a proclaimed follower of Jehovah and his son, Jesus, is that those secular and scientific communities - the offspring in part of the Epicureans - who would now be the first to deny the existence of Jehovah (or any god or gods) are the very ones who are now providing evidence in support of the truth of His original statement “You must not eat from it, no, you must not touch it that You do not die” and that man is not immortal.

While on the other hand – Those religious systems which on the whole include the majority of Christendom, Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, the Great Mystery Religions, et al, who would be the first to proclaim the existence of an eternal superior being or force, are in fact the ones being proved false through their own acceptance of the words of the serpent – “You shall not positively die” – those who to this day imply by their very thought Jehovah to be a liar.

The godless are ultimately proving the truth spoken by a god they do not believe exists, while those claiming to be god-fearing have chosen to believe the lie made against the very god they claim to believe.

Let There Be Light - Bara or ha'yah

"Gen 1:3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light."In this passage, was God creating light or was he giving it permission?”


My answer would be, given the two choices presented, was that “he gave it permission”, in the sense of being the cause of the what was to be the effect. Here is why.

In Genesis 1:3, which you present in English above, reads in the Hebrew as, “Vayomer Elohim yah-owr ha’yah-owr” The phrase used here is ‘yah (or ha’yah, or vayehi) ‘owr (‘or). – “let there be (hayah) light (‘owr).

Ha’yah (hwh, or hyh) is a word of “cause”, as in cause “to be”, cause “to become”, cause to “come to pass”, cause to “exist”, cause to “happen”, and so. In its numerous uses in the Hebrew text, it is rarely used in the sense to denote simple “existence” or the identification of a thing or person. It is in fact, a portion of the tetragrammaton (the name of the true Hebrew god), Yhwh, (meaning he causes to be). This is also emphasized in the context, wherein the root alone (‘yah) is used first, and the definitive ha’yah is used last (cause, and effect – God saying let there be light (cause –yah’owr) and then light occurs (effect – definitive, ha’yah-owr).

In the context of Genesis 1:3, its use is preceded by a “command” Vayomer Elohim – “God said” – commanded (yah-owr)– and the light was caused to be (ha’yah-owr). God was the “cause” of light being brought into existence. A command was given, carried out, and returned the exact results as commanded (there is more in this area if you are ever interested, having to do with God’s master worker, and the employment of “us” later on in Genesis, and claims made by Jesus, and John).

This is quite different than had it been written “Vayomer Elohim bara owr, ha’bara owr” or “God said I create light, and light was created” - the sense of “cause” being absent.

The first use of “bara” occurs in Genesis 1:1, “Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.” - In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Here the word used is created – “bara’ – a word used in the Qal only of God’s activity – a distinct use of the word appropriate to the concept of creation by divine fiat. The root bara denotes the concept of personally “initiating something new” versus causing something to occur, or come to be, or cause to happen. In Isaiah 41:20 it is used of the changes which will take place in the restoration when God “affects” that which is new and different. It is used in the creation of “new things” (hadashot) in Isaiah 48:6-7 and the “creation” of the “new earth and new heaven”. Marvels never seen before are described by use of “bara” as in Exodus 34:10. The word also possesses the meaning of bringing into existence, almost exclusively, in a personal manner directly by God himself, rather than God being the underlying initial cause of the events which took place to bring his command, or word, to full and complete fruition (cause to be sense of ha’yah).

In the sense that God was the cause “to be” (’yah) of light, he gave a command, or “permission”, and his instructions were complied with, and light came to be (ha’yah).

The Bible claims that is it because (cause) of God’s “will” that ALL things “existed and were created” – Re 4:11, and while this is quite true, being the cause of will does not require one to actually be the workman who carried it out – this is confirmed Proverbs 8:12, and 8:22-31. Identification of this “masterworker” came later, as according to the Christian Greek, Jehovah’s first creation “in the beginning” was his only-begotten (only directly created) son (John 3:16) “the beginning of the creation by God” (Rev 3:14). This one, “the firstborn of all creation” was used by Jehovah in creating all things in heaven and earth (ha’yah) – the “things visible and the things invisible” (Col 1:15-17).

Bara’ is used to identify the creator of the created heavens and earth, in the first verse of Genesis, and is not used again for anything “created”, until man is created, and again, bara is used, but only after reference is made to the agency employed in Genesis 1:26 – in which the word used in ‘asar, meaning to do or make, bringing forth through “forming” (‘asar) something new “bara” – as man was the something new formed from the earth itself. And again, the act of agency is invoked, in “let us”.

Jesus "saves" from .... what ?

If a court of law were to put a son in prison because his father had stolen a car, the son could rightly complain: "That is not just! I did not do anything wrong." - Deuteronomy 24:16. Yet it is stated, "Through one man [Adam] sin entered into the world and death through sin, and thus death spread to all mankind because they had all sinned." (Romans 5:12 – a process of procreation). The children or offspring of Adam that were supposed to be born perfect with endless life ahead of them were brought forth with sickness, old age, and death as their prospect simply because they were procreated from an original ancestor after said ancestor had willfully departed from the protective covering from his creator that would have allowed him life everlasting (not the same as immortality, but rather an emulation, or shadowing of immortality provided by God assuming one stayed on the path established by the creator in order o enjoy this privilege). The solution that the true God provided to the problem created by Adam's departure away from God allows for each person eventually being presented an opportunity equal to that of Adam to obtain everlasting life on a paradise earth. That cannot be done in the manner under which we were procreated – it must die, we will die. But in death mankind in unable to raise himself back to life – and the law put in place requires a life for a life – so a ransom or covering was needed.

A ransom is a price paid to buy back or to bring about release from some obligation or undesirable circumstance. The basic idea of ransom is a price which covers (as in payment for damages or to satisfy justice), while redemption emphasizes the releasing accomplished as a result of the ransom paid. According to the Christian Greek Scriptures, the most significant ransom price is the shed blood (or life) of Jesus – who was not an offspring of Adam, but Jehovah’s only firstborn, directly created, “son”. John refers to Jesus as monogenes theos. Not only did Jesus give up his own chance at a human life, he gave up his right to perfect offspring as well. A life for a life, an untold number or lives available to ransom the son of men (ben’adam) – making possible under the existing laws put in place by God the deliverance from death for the offspring of Adam who have been paying for sin through death because of who their father was.

In the various Hebrew and Greek terms translated “ransom” and “redeem”, the inherent similarities lie in the idea of a price, or thing of value, given, to effect the ransom, or redemption. The thought of “exchange” as well as that of correspondency, equivalence, or substitution, in common in all the original language words rendered.

That is, one thing is given for another, satisfying the demands of justice, and resulting in a balance of matters, as occurs in ALL things comprising the creation. It is how the creation operates, by design, a design which came into existence through the spoken word of God, which we are told never fails to come to full fruition.

The Hebrew noun ko’pher comes from the verb kaphar, meaning, basically, to “cover” as in Noah’s “covering” of the ark with tar (Genesis 6:14). Kaphar, however, is used almost entirely to describe the satisfying of justice through the covering or atonement of departures from the path established for mankind by his creator (i.e., sin).

The noun ko’pher refers to the thing given to accomplish this, the ransom price (Psalms 65:3, 78:38; and 79:8-9 for example). A covering corresponds to the thing ot covers, either in its form (as in a material lid, such as the covering [kappo’reth] of the ark or the covenant (Ex 25:17-25), or in its value (as in payment to cover the damages caused by an injury).

At the time of Adam's sin and his being sentenced to death, his offspring or race were all unborn in his loins and so all died with him. (Compare Hebrews 7:4-10; Romans 7:9) Jesus as a perfect man, "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45), had a race or offspring unborn in his loins, and when he died innocently as a perfect human this potential human race died with him. He had willingly abstained from producing a family of his own by natural procreation. Instead, Jesus uses the authority granted by Jehovah on the basis of his ransom to give life to all those who accept this provision. - 1Cor. 15:45; compare Romans 5:15-17.

Thus, Jesus was a "corresponding ransom," not for the redemption of the one sinner, Adam, but for the redemption of all mankind descended from Adam. He repurchased them so that they could become his family, his offspring, doing this by presenting the full value of his ransom sacrifice to the God of absolute justice in heaven. (Heb. 9:24). His ransom embraces more than those of his "Bride." (his anointed). In addition to those "bought from among mankind as a first fruits" to form the heavenly congregation of 144,000, others are to benefit from his ransom sacrifice and gain everlasting life through the removal of their sins (removal of the effects of being an offspring of Adam) - such other recipients of the ransom (Acts 24:15) benefits are earthly subjects of Christ's kingdom, and as children of an "Eternal Father" (Christ versus Adam) they attain everlasting life. (Rev. 5:10; 20:6; 21:2-4, 9 10; 22:17; compare Psalm 103: 2-5)

The entire arrangement manifests Jehovah's wisdom and his righteousness in perfectly balancing the scales of justice while showing underserved kindness and forgiving sins. Rom. 3:21-26.

In short -

Jesus saves from death.

The Mystery Detail of the Tahash

From The Book of Numbers Blog - "The mystery detail: The most precious objects were wrapped up in dolphin skin. Two questions: 1) They were in the desert—where did they get dolphin skin? 2) Why wrap in dolphin skin, which is famously delicate?"

_____________________________________________________

Case in point - they [Hebrew] did not originate "in the desert", they came from Goshen (there has been a long debate over the precise location of the Egyptian Goshen – though it is often agreed to that it lies in the eastern part of the Nile Delta; perhaps Wadi Tumilat). – if you recall your own posts regarding Genesis and Exodus).

It does not seem a large leap of speculation to assume the Hebrew left with supplies and possessions - hides and skins would certainly be on the top ten list at that time. What you are reading as "dolphin" in the Tanakh is the Hebrew word tahash - which is unfortunately rendered as "badger" in the very inept King James Version (KJV babies have further wandered into "goat", "leather", "porpoise", and even "seal").

Except in Numbers 4:25 and Ezekiel 16:10, tahash is always governed by "or" (ot) which is "skins", and is therefore doubtless the name of an animal of some sorts. In Ezekiel 16:10, it is used in reference to the coverings of a woman's sandals – while its other occurrences all refer to the skins used in covering the tabernacle and its accessories.

As far as I know, the "badger" is rarely, if ever seen meandering through Sinai or Goshen even. Though "goat" is not impossible, it, like "badger" lacks cognate language support.Your TNK presents "dolphin" likely because (i) it is similar to a "dugong" [www.hsi.org.au] (Dugong dugong), but let's face it, how many common reader's would know what a dugong is exactly, and (ii) the Hebrew word tahash is quite cognate to the Arabic tuhas "dugong or dolphin".The bottle-nosed dolphin is found in the eastern Mediterranean, while the dugong is plentiful in the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba [www.uaeinteract.com], as well as higher-level deep tributaries in in the northern Nile delta.

Unlike its cousin the bottle-nosed dolphin, the dugong's skin is very thick and durable. The skin of the dugong is still used to this day by Sinai Bedouin to make sandals [www.tesag.jcu.edu.au] - see page 33, subsection "Indigenous Use and Hunting".

If the dugong skin is tough enough to wear on your feet, rest assured Plotz, it is adequate as a covering for the tabernacle and its accessories.

.

Mystery solved ...

Save Me or Remember Me

At Luke 23:42 one reads the words spoken by a criminal – one of two criminals who were hung along with Jesus – one on each side of him. Following a noble public declaration of his own guilt and a standing up in defense of the innocence of Jesus, this one criminal spoke the last words that we are made aware of being simply, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom” (NIV).

For this particular post, I am not concerned with Jesus response – though for added emphasis of the point I wish to make, it is worth noting that this portion of Luke is often called on to demonstrate the ultimate mercy and forgiveness offered by God through his son. In fact, in nearly all discussions of this verse, it is Jesus response to the thief’s which is the subject of discussion; often serving as a classic example of “forgiveness of sin”, or more commonly the position of many in Christendom that perhaps wish to support that it is faith alone which “saves” - not works (certainly not a Biblical concept, but better a later discussion).

All worthy subjects for discussion for sure – forgiveness, salvation, faith, works, but:

But the criminal never asked for forgiveness of his sin from Jesus. No, what he requested was of Jesus was to “Remember” him; he did not request “Forgive me …”; nor “Do not forget to forgive me …”; not even the standard. “Jesus please come into my heart and save me …”. None of these was said or implied. His words were quite literal and eloquently simple … “Remember me …”

These two simple words spoken and the cultural meaning behind them are all too often covered over by the culture of the Western world rooted so deeply in Greek theology and philosophy. But this thief was not Greek, no, he was Hebrew as Jesus was Hebrew – and it is within this Hebrew culture reflected so well by the Hebrew Scriptures and oral traditions where the thief’s request is fully comprehended.

Archeology as well as Biblical accounts has sufficiently demonstrated that Jewish burial tombs were customarily built outside of the cities, a major exception being those of the kings. Such tombs outside the cities might be an excavated grave in the ground (taphos) or, as was often the case among the Hebrews, might be a natural cave or rock-cut vault (compare Acts 7:16 and Genesis 23:19, 20). The references to such tombs in the Christian Greek Scriptures would all appear to place them outside of the cities, except reference David’s tomb at Acts 2:29.

The Koine Greek word “taphos” presents the notion of burial (from thapto, to bury) as in Matthew 23:27, while mnemeion (from mnaomai, mimnesko, to remind) is a memorial (or sepulcher as a monument). Related to mnemeion is the word mnema, which has a corresponding meaning referring also to a memorial or record of a thing or dead person. Unlike taphos, these later words reflect a greater idea of permanence than taphos – they are in fact the ancestors of the later Latin word monumentum.

Although it was the custom of the pagan peoples around them to make their tombs as lavish as their circumstances would allow, the early Jewish tombs that have been found are notable for their simplicity. This was because the Jews’ worship allowed no veneration of the dead, and did not foster any ideas of a conscious existence after death in a spiritual world, ideas such as those held by their contemporaries – the Egyptians, Canaanites, and Babylonians. The only belief held by the ancient Hebrew even resembling thoughts of “after-life” were limited to a physical resurrection to earth to a restored Garden of Eden (a paradise) at the appointed time.

In view of the underlying thought of remembrance associated with mnemeion, the use of this word (rather than taphos) at John 5:28 with regard to the resurrection of “all those in the memorial tombs” seems particularly appropriate and contrast sharply with the prevailing ancient Hebrew thought of complete repudiation and effacement from all memory as represented by the fate of those tossed away as trash in the Valley of Geh Hinnom (Gehenna) (Matthew 10:28, 23:33, Mr 9:43).

The importance attached to burial by the Hebrews is indicative of their that they be “remembered”, primarily by YHWH (commonly vocalized in English as Jehovah) in whom they had faith who would set a time limit and remember them, and would not leave them forever in sheol (gravedom) – See Job 14:13, Ps 16:10.

How Jehovah God “remembered” them was of vital importance to the ancient Hebrew (Psalms 25:7, Jer 31:34, Psalms 137:6, Psalms 109:15, Proverbs 10:7, Eccl 9:5, Eccl 1:11, Isaiah 43:25, and so on).

Throughout the Hebrew and Christian Greek Scriptures, whether one was to be remembered or passed over for remembrance at the appointed time by Jehovah was the direct result of whether one’s name was or was not recorded in Jehovah’s “book or remembrance” – the book he started keeping as first mentioned in Mal 3:16.

Of interest in this regard in Jesus words recorded at John 5:28, “Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will here his voice [Jesus – emphasis mine] and come out.”

The Koine Greek word translated as memorial tombs is not the plural of “taphos (grave) or haides (gravedom, the equivalent of Hebrew sheol), nor gehenna (the Valley), - but it is the word mnemeion (remembrance, memorial tomb).

It lays stress on preserving memory of the deceased person. Not those whose memory was “blotted out” in Gehenna because of unforgivable sins but persons remembered by God will be resurrected with the opportunity to live forever (Matthew 10:28, Mark 3:29, Hebrews 10:26, and of course Mal 3:16).

In Acts 24:15 it states “I have hope toward God … that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” Both those who lived in harmony with God’s righteous ways and people, who out of ignorance, did unrighteous things will be resurrected.

Anastasis is the Koine Greek word translated “resurrection”, literally meaning “a standing up again” and it refers to a rising up from death. The fuller expression “resurrection from the dead” is used repeatedly in the Scriptures, and the Hebrew word is techiyath hammethim, which means “revival of the dead”.

The basic idea of “remembrance” involved in the original Koine Greek words for “tomb” or “memorial”, the cultural significance to the ancient Hebrew of how God would “remember” one, and how one was either recorded into to or erased from God’s book or remembrance, is what influence the words of Thief being executed next to Jesus.

He was asking just as he said, to be “remembered”, not forgotten in sheol (gravedom) – to be resurrected from death at Jehovah’s appointed time. The Hebrew word zakar means more than simply “not to forget”, it means to mark, to recall – first used in Genesis of Noah, later of Abraham, it relates to promises made by God, and acted upon by God to fulfill them, and the appointed time – he recalls.

And now also, maybe Jesus response to him makes a bit more sense as well.

The Phrase "Jehovah God"

An examination of Genesis Chapters 2 and 3 alone show that the phrase "Jehovah God" is in fact used over 20 times (understanding that "Jehovah" is the common English vocalization for YHWH (the tetragrammaton). The first occurrence of the phrase appears in Genesis 2:4 as follows:

אלה תולדות השמים והארץ בהבראם ביום עשות יהוה אלהים ארץ ושמים

יהוה is YHWH
עשות is Elohim
(remember, Hebrew is read right to left)


Various translations read -

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven" – ASV

"These are the histories of the heavens and the earth, when they were created, in the day that Jehovah Elohim made earth and heavens" – Darby

"This is the history of the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that Yahweh God made the earth and the heavens" – WEB

"These 'are' births of the heavens and of the earth in their being prepared, in the day of Jehovah God's making earth and heavens" – Young's Literal

"These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens" – KJV

(If you recall, the KJV replaces every occurrence of "יהוה" or the common English vocalization "Jehovah" with "LORD" to hide the name.)

"This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time of their being created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven" – NWT

In Chapters 2 and 3 alone, this exact phrase does exist in the original language (20 times), and is rendered so in many translations.

Command and Directive

Is there a difference in concept between a command and a directive? Perhaps to us English speaking person there is, albeit quite subtle. We often use the words interchangeably; after all, how much difference is there in commanding your children to be inside the home prior to sunset, or directing them of the same.

But inside the word directive, is direct – which we also recognize within direction. Now direction, and command, have a wider gap in meaning to us than does directive and command.

Everyone is familiar with the word command; we often see the word commandment used quite often; especially we are most familiar with its use to translate the Hebrew word mits'vah into English - but it really does not wholly convey the underlying concrete meaning of mits'vah.

The word command implies words of force or power as a General commands his troops. The word mits'vah is better understood in English as a directive. To grasp better the picture painted by this word it is helpful to look at a related word, “tsiyon” – its concrete meaning being that of a desert or a landmark.

The Ancient Hebrews were a nomadic people who wandered the deserts searching for pastures to feed and care for their flocks.

Nomads were quite accustomed to using the various rivers, mountains, rock outcroppings, stars, etc as landmarks to give them their direction. The verb form of mits'vah is tsavah meaning to direct one on a journey. The mits'vah of the Bible were not commands, or rules and regulations, to the Hebrew (as we might understand that today). The Hebrew understanding of mits’vah went much deeper - and often more personal.

They were directives - or landmarks that one looked for guidance in order that one should not veer from the path provided; turning neither to the right, or to the left (Deuteronomy 5:32, 28:14, Joshua 1:7, Proverbs 4:27, Isaiah 30:21).

Interestingly, the word “tsiyon” meaning landmark is also the word translated as Zion, the mountain of God but, not just a mountain, it is the very landmark.

hele ben shachar Part I

The rendering "Lucifer" (AV,Da) is derived from the Latin Vulgate. Lucifer comes from a root meaning "to shine" and is a descriptive designation applied to the king of Babylon." Isa. 14:4,12

This shining one is represented as saying in his heart: "Above the stars of God I shall lift up my throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting." (Isa. 14:13)

Biblical evidence points to Mount Zion as the mountain of meeting." Since stars can refer to kings (Numbers 24:17; Rev. 22:16), the stars of God must be the kings of the Davidic line who ruled from Mount Zion.

In fact the metaphor of a star is specifically used in referring prophetically to the Davidic kings of Judah and Bible history shows that the Babylonian dynasty for a time did rise above these Judean kings by the conquest of Jerusalem in 607 B.C.E. They did therefore, shine brightly in the ancient world and could be termed "shining one" (Lucifer)

The king of Babylon (or, the dynasty of Babylonian kings) indicated his ambition to lift up his throne above the stars of God by desiring to make the kings of the line of David mere vassals and then finally dethroning them.

Stars are used in the Bible in a figurative sense and in metaphors or similes to represent persons, as in Joseph's dream in which his parents were represented by the sun and moon, and his eleven brothers by eleven stars.(Gen. 37:9,10)

Job 38:7 parallels the morning stars that joyfully cried out at earth's founding with the angelic sons of God.

The resurrected and exalted Jesus spoke of himself as the bright morning star and promised to give the morning star to his conquering followers, this evidently indicating a sharing with him in his heavenly position and glory. (Rev. 22:16; 2:26,28; compare 2 Timothy 2:12; Revelation 20:6)

The seven angels of the congregations, to whom written messages are delivered, are symbolized by seven stars in the right hand of Christ. (Rev. 1:16,20; 2:1; 3:1)

The angel of the abyss called Abaddon is also represented by a star. Rev. 9:1,11

Literally, Isaiah uses the term Helel Ben Shachar (הילל בן־שׁחר), light bearer (or shining one), son of the dawn, to refer to the fall of the Babylonian king.
Strong, Briggs, Robinson, and others tell us that the term, הילל, helel, can be translated "shining one".

The King James Version renders vs. 12 as follows: "How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! How art though cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations."

In spite of this rendering, the proper name "Lucifer" is NOT in the original Hebrew text. In Hebrew "Lucifer, son of the morning" is helel ben shachar. It could be translated "Shining one, son of the dawn." It is NOT a proper name, but an epithet for the king of Babylon.

In the fourth century C.E., Jerome (340 AD – 419 AD) had risen to prominence within the Roman Catholic Church and began work on a Latin translation of the Bible. After 20 years the translation known as the Vulgate was completed (405 C.E.)

Church historian Schaff says of the Vulgate: "From the present stage of biblical philology and exegesis the Vulgate can be charged, indeed, with innumerable faults, inaccuracies, inconsistencies, and arbitrary dealing, in particulars…"

When he (Jerome) translated Isaiah 14:12, he did not strictly translate the Hebrew helel ben shachar, neither did he use the Greek (LXX) Heosphoros. He instead translated as though the original word had been lukophos. Lukophos, which by Jerome's time, had become an epithet for the gods Apollo and Pan.

Many think that Jerome's selection of words may have been influenced by the theology of the earlier Catholic theologians Tertullian and Origen, who had begun to read Satan into the story of the King of Babylon.

Dr. Roy Blizzard, a well-known Hebrew roots scholar, offers some insightful background, "The history of the origin of a being called Lucifer is interesting. The word Lucifer comes from the Latin verb, luceo, lucere, luxi, which means to shine, to glow, glitter, to be clear. It is light, day dawning. The adjective, lucidus-a-um, means shining, bright, clear, lucid. The noun, lucifer-eri, means the morning star, the planet Venus, or a day. It comes from the adjective lucifer-era-erum, shiny."

The Bible includes no character named Lucifer. Isaiah had never heard of such a being. Nor had the apostles of Jesus' day. Lucifer, as a manifestation of the devil, is a later invention. We find no association between helel ben shachar of Isaiah 14:12 and Satan until the time of Tertullian (c. 160-230 C.E.) and Origen (c. 185-254 C.E.). The proper name "Lucifer" does not find its way into a translation until Jerome's time, some 150 years later.

Dr. Watts summarizes, "The apparent reflection of a 'Lucifer myth' in v. 12 is just that. It is a simile to picture the fall and disgrace of the tyrant." We learn nothing of the origins of Satan from this story.

helel ben shachar - Part II

Question:

"Do you think that the "Shining One, Son of the Morning" may be a reference to the Morning Star (i.e. Venus as it appears in the morning sky)? Or do you think there is another significance (though I doubt that the Afroasiatic peoples with the exception of the Egyptians made much use of helical rising stars in time-keeping measurements)?

If it is a reference to the Morning Star, then the translation of Lucifer is quite apt. If it is a reference to another astronolical phenominon, then it is not."

Response:

If I had a nickel for every individual (scholar and layman) who have attempted association of the Hebrew "helel" to various Canaanite, Ugaritic, Sumerian, Chaldean, Akkadian, and other ancient near east astral myths – I would have been able to retire decades ago in the south of France. There is an entire section within the CUL dedicated to the various thesis, studies, and papers issued in this regard – the majority of course peaking between the 15th and 17th centuries before interest was quashed as Jerome's erroneous theological blunder became quite apparent.

The Hebrew word "helel" is not a proper name, but is rather an epithet. Assigning "Lucifer", or "Bob", or "Mary", or any other proper name to helel is a wide divergence from Hebrew grammar, and simply cannot be supported in the underlying text, nor context. That is problem number one. A larger problem has to do with the fact that "helel ben-shachar" is a "hapax legomenon", appearing only once in the entire Hebrew Scriptures.

Many sources (such as Herder and Gunkel, McKay, Pritchard, Winckler, Day, et al ) are often drawn upon to argue that the Hebrew phrase rendered helel ben shachar is the product of myth, or at least similar in reference to other mystical accounts. These sources reference the astral myths, the mythology from various ancient near east cultures, and alleged mythological phrases that supposedly parallel Isaiah 14:12. The greater majority of these theses dried-up long before the end of the 18th century as more information regarding B-Hebrew became known and available.

You propose the "comparison to Venus" endeavors.

As many have claimed an association with Venus, so have they claimed association with Jupiter, Marduk, Enlil, Arabic (Sahr – the moon god), Hil (Ugaritic god), Nergal, Shahar, even Halley's comet.

As many have proposed the association with astral myth, twice have adequately shown all the approaches problematic for numerous reasons.

An examination of the various existing myths from the Sumerian, Akkadian, Hittite, Chaldean, Canaanite, Greek, and Ugaritic et al regions (yes, and even the Nordic) and cultures has demonstrated that any similarities between these myths and the Helel account are typically outweighed by vast differences. In those situations when a cited myth seems to be on point, a careful investigation demonstrates that the historicity of such a myth is in doubt. In essence, there is an absence of any single myth reflecting the totality of the context presented in Isaiah 14:12. This absence of association has been recognized by a number of scholars (my favorite in this regard is Chisholm).

Despite enormous interest in this aspect of Isaiah and innumerable attempts, nobody has yet been able to reconstruct a convincing mythological torso or to determine its precise origin. No known literature matches the details provided in Isaiah, nor has Isaiah been shown to have depended on any mythical source.

It is most probable however, that the prophet simply drew upon existing Hebrew culture and prior biblical material rather than from the mythology of the surrounding culture (compare Job 38:32 and the known Mazzaroth and Ash constellations, and the association with established earthly authority or rulership). The context alone in Isaiah is fairly convincing that it is a Babylonian ruler who is being addressed (and most convincingly, the associated whole of Babylonian rulership/political system).

Rendering "Lucifer" or any other proper name to Isaiah 14:12 is not supported by the Hebrew text and grammatical construct. There is simply nothing with the context of Isaiah 14, or within the entire Hebrew Scriptures, to presume an association to Venus (McKay), as the "morning star". The rendering therefore, and implied association with Lucifer of other origin, is somewhat impotent. There is however, strong evidence that such refers to titles often assigned to themselves by Babylonian Kings (Sayce touches on this, as well as the more contemporary Joan Oates in her and her husbands latest revision of Babylon – just a few suggestions if you are looking for more info).

Does this mean you personally cannot ascribe a higher mystical association with certain Hebrew biblical accounts and other cultural antiquity accounts and literature? Nah. People have been doing such for eons, and I suspect as long as people are more excited about a perceived mystical explanation hidden in the kosmos, the section in the CUL will certainly grow larger over time.