

### A "New Age" or "Messianic Age":  
How to Bring It Into Being

### Eric Heubeck

Copyright © 2018 by Eric Heubeck. Some rights reserved.

Permission is freely granted to readers to reproduce and distribute this book or portions thereof, as well as to create and distribute derivative works, provided that you include attribution and a hyperlink directing persons to my book in its entirety, and that the book, book portion, or derivative work is not offered for sale and users are not otherwise charged to access the material. If you do make the book, a book portion, or a derivative work publicly available, please be sure to include with it a copy of this copyright and license notice, which also requires that all subsequent reproductions and derivative works carry the same copyright and license notice.

Permissions beyond the scope of this license can be requested by contacting me at https://AgainstTheLie.com/contact.

Smashwords edition. Last revised July 16, 2019.

Please note that if you are reading this book in the form of an ebook, it is best viewed on a device or application that is able to display colors other than only black and white. The book contains many passages from the Bible, and all of the text from the Bible contained in block quotations has been colored red, in order to create visual contrast between the Bible text and my own bracketed insertions (which have been colored black) within those block quotations. It is not strictly impossible to read the book in black and white only, but — as you will quickly discover for yourself once you start reading some of the block quotations in Part 3 of the book — the reading is made considerably more difficult.

### Contents

Part 1 of 12: The impossibility of any "New Age" or "Messianic Age" ever arriving before humanity has already defeated the Lie

Rational thought demands complete honesty in society

And the prophets of the traditional religions have predicted the eventual arrival of that very thing

Concerning predictions about a "resurrection of the dead"

Part 2 of 12: The evils of religious esotericism; and the "hidden anti-esotericist message" of the Bible

The fundamental moral defectiveness of the traditional religions

The great paradox of the Bible; and how that paradox points to the possibility of non-human influence in its writing

The Bible: Two "books," not just one

The importance of Christians accepting the non-historicity of Jesus

Why would the "anti-esotericist message" in the Bible be hidden?

Do the Lord of the Rings movies also contain a hidden "anti-esotericist message"?

Part 3 of 12: Getting started with anti-esotericist Bible interpretation: The crucially important symbol of "Babel" or "Babylon," and the crucially important theme of a primordial "confusing of language"

"Babel" or "Babylon": A symbol for "religious esotericism"

The "obscurity" and "darkness" of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon"; and the "clarity" and "brightness" of the symbolic "new Jerusalem"

Part 4 of 12: The recurring theme in the Bible of "two sides" or "two parts"; and its relation to "scripture" and "language"

Two "heavens" and two "earths" — and two "scrolls"

The two "sides": "here OR there" versus "here AND there"

The "fulfilling" of prophecy through the "hearing" of prophecy

Part 5 of 12: The recurring theme in the Bible of "two sides" or "two parts"; and its relation to "scripture" and "language" (cont'd)

"Parts" and "portions" and "shares": The use of the Greek word meros in the New Testament

The episode in the Book of Acts involving Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch

The "wholeness" of the "inner garment"

The "outer darkness"

The Parable of the Prodigal Son

The holy scriptures: A "book of divorce"?

Symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon": A "kingdom divided against itself"

Part 6 of 12: The symbolic image of "throwing stones into water": What does it mean?

Moses's "breaking" of the first two "stone tablets" from Mount Sinai — and its significance

Jeremiah's "message" to symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon"

Symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon": A "very large stone" to be "thrown into the sea"

"Mount Sinai": Yet another "very large stone" to be "thrown into the sea"

Part 7 of 12: The symbolic image of "throwing stones into water": What does it mean? (cont'd)

Throwing "stumbling blocks" into "the sea" or "the lake of the fire"

The symbol of the "large millstone" compared to the symbol of the "large round stone" covering the entrance to Jesus's "tomb"

Part 8 of 12: The "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ": The completion of the first "sabbath week" of creation, and the inauguration of a new "sabbath week" of creation

The "opening of the tomb" and the "opening of the scroll"

"From sabbath to sabbath"

Part 9 of 12: "Veiling" and "covering" — and "unveiling" and "uncovering"

The "veil" that now covers "all the earth"

A choice between two "high mountains": The "Tower of Babel" and "Mount Zion"

The recurring association in the Bible between the idea of "the Lie" and the idea of "death"

The "sweeping away of the Lie," and the "bringing of the mystery of God to an end"

The "darkness over all the earth" created by the "veil of the temple"; and this "darkness" being brought to an end by the "Crucifixion of Christ"

The "putting on" and "putting off" of symbolic "garments," symbolic "bodies," and symbolic "men"

The "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ" regarded as a symbol signifying the ending of "communicatory barriers" among human beings

Part 10 of 12: "Veiling" and "covering" — and "unveiling" and "uncovering" (cont'd)

"Not turning back to the things behind": The significance of symbolic "Sodom" and its relation to the idea of "the Apocalypse"

"Faces," "veils," "mirrors" — and "recognition"

The "Red Sea": The "veil of Jesus's flesh"?

What exactly is being "done away with" (Greek katargeō) by Christ?

Part 11 of 12: Jesus Christ: The "Final Prophet"

The role (or roles) of the figures of "John the Baptist" and "Elijah"

"Corpses," "birds," and "feeding upon flesh"

The "piercing" of the "prophets"

Correspondences between the figures of "Jesus Christ" and "Elijah"

The "Crucifixion of Christ" understood as signifying the "death of prophecy"

Part 12 of 12: So where do we go from here?

Where to find other writings of mine

# Part 1 of 12: The impossibility of any "New Age" or "Messianic Age" ever arriving _before_ humanity has _already_ defeated the Lie

In this series of articles, I will explain to you how — according to _both_ rational thought _and_ the Bible — our "present age" must come to an end, in order to make it possible for a "New Age" or "Messianic Age" to come into being.

The "present age" cannot end, and a "New Age" or "Messianic Age" cannot begin, until all people, around the world, learn to regard _honesty_ as the most important virtue, in which all other virtues, and all other good things in life, ultimately find their source. In other words, a "New Age" will come into being only if "the Lie" has been eliminated once and for all as an active force in the world — and _not_ before then. (Since the elimination of the Lie is not something that would occur overnight, we can expect that the transition from the "present age" to a "New Age" would be a _somewhat_ gradual one. But even so, I think that once it got underway, the transition would occur more quickly than some people might suppose.)

To put it as simply as possible, a "New Age" or "Messianic Age" cannot come into being unless a sufficient number of people agree to stop lying, to stop tolerating lying, and to stop tolerating people who tolerate lying (as I explain in more detail in my introduction to the "honesty culture" strategy). That's really all it boils down to. It's not especially complicated (that is, unless you wish to make it complicated). The word "intolerance" has gotten a bad name in recent times; but when it comes to promoting honesty, being "intolerant" is nothing to be ashamed of — since a society's very cohesion and survival depends upon it.

But if your reflexive response to my proposal that we all work together to eliminate the Lie was to frantically think to yourself, "But that's so... _unrealistic_ _!_ " — well then, you can say good-bye to any possibility of a "Messianic Age" or a "New Age" or a "Second Coming of Christ" or a "day of the Lord" (or whatever equivalent name you choose to give it) ever arriving. If saying good-bye to that possibility troubles you in the least, then you may want to start rethinking your assumptions about what is and is not truly "realistic" — since, if people are not genuinely willing to oppose dishonesty with all of their heart and might, then the simple fact is that all of the wishing and hoping and praying in the world won't bring that glorious "Messianic Age" or "New Age" into existence. It can't. You have free will, you've made your choice, and God and his angels are perfectly willing to respect that choice. Will human beings need yet another 2,000 years to finally figure that out? Or maybe 4,000? Or 6,000? God can wait.

So I wish to strongly emphasize that I am **NOT** announcing that any "New Age" or "Messianic Age" or "Golden Age" is _now upon us_. Whether or not we enter into such an age, and when, depends entirely upon the choices that individual persons freely make. I cannot predict _when_ this "New Age" will arrive — only that when it finally _does_ arrive, it will _only_ be because human beings around the world have collectively made the decision to thoroughly eliminate dishonesty from their lives and affairs.

## Rational thought demands complete honesty in society

Now, is my description of what would be required in order to bring a future "New Age" into existence solely a product on my own personal proclivities? In other words, do I just have a special "thing" for honesty that leads me to assign a higher importance to it than other values? Do I just happen to find honesty "more to my liking" than some other persons happen to find it? I say no. My insistence upon the _extreme importance and centrality_ of thoroughgoing honesty in any future "New Age" is demanded by rational thought and by the very nature of things.

It is a sign of the perversity of humanity's current collective thinking that it is even necessary for me to explain why thoroughgoing honesty is so essential to the successful functioning of a society — when it should really be quite obvious. The solving of problems in society — _any_ problems — requires that there be communication between persons. But for communication to be helpful and productive, instead of harmful and destructive, it must be honest and non-misleading. Dishonest communication cannot be effective at solving problems; it can only create additional problems. So _whatever_ you think is the biggest problem currently facing society, if you are thinking rationally, you should be _even more_ concerned about addressing the _more fundamental_ problem of dishonesty than you are about addressing that _other_ problem, whatever it may be. Honest communication is the _prerequisite_ to the solving of _any_ social problem.

The reason for the "perversity of humanity's current collective thinking" that I just mentioned is that humanity is currently caught in a kind of vicious circle, in that a general tolerance of dishonesty interferes with a society's collective ability to think rationally; and so humanity, taken as a whole, is currently _incapable of recognizing_ the sheer irrationality of continuing to tolerate dishonesty. There is simply _no reason_ why any clear-thinking person would wish for society to continue tolerating the existence of dishonesty. Collectively speaking, we _in no way_ benefit from doing so — and yet we do it anyway. It is because of the existence of the Lie that we are not able to "think straight," and so we are not able to make the best decisions to advance our own true welfare.

## And the prophets of the traditional religions have predicted the eventual arrival of that very thing

It is fortunate that the elimination of dishonesty in society is something not only called for by rational thought; the creation of completely honest human societies has also been predicted by many of the traditional world religions, including Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Hinduism, and Mahayana Buddhism. All of these religions profess belief in a future "New Age," or "Golden Age," or "Messianic Age," or "Age of Renewal," or "Age of Restoration," or "Age to Come," in which human beings would no longer lie to one another. So really, I am only _reminding_ members of these and other traditional religions how _their own_ conception of a "New Age" would have to be realized.

Since I mostly focus in this series of articles on examining writings from the Bible in particular, let me provide some evidence just from the Bible showing that the "Messianic Age" or "Age to Come" or "New Age" was understood by the authors of the Bible to be an age in which dishonesty and deception would no longer be practiced among human beings. There are many possible examples I could give, but I'll give just a few. Starting with the Old Testament, Zephaniah 3:8-10,13, speaking of "the day of the Lord," says,

Therefore wait for me, declares the Lord, until the day when I rise up to (seize) the prey. For my determination is to gather nations, to assemble kingdoms, to pour out upon them my rage, all my burning anger; for in the fire of my zeal all the earth will be consumed. For at that time I will return to the peoples a purified [or clarified, or brightened, or cleansed, or purged, or polished, or sincere: Hebrew _barar_ ] language, that all of them may call upon the name of the Lord and serve him with a single accord. From beyond the rivers of Cush [or Ethiopia, or Sudan] my worshipers, the daughter of my scattered ones, shall bring my offering.... [T]hey shall do no injustice and speak no lies, nor shall there be found in their mouth a deceitful speech.

And Zechariah 8:14-17,19, also speaking of the "Messianic Age" that would follow upon "the day of the Lord," says,

For thus says the Lord of hosts: As I purposed to bring disaster to you when your fathers provoked me to wrath, and I did not relent, says the Lord of hosts, so again have I purposed in these days to bring good to Jerusalem and to the house of Judah; fear not. These are the things that you shall do: Speak the truth to one another; render in your gates judgments that are true and make for peace; do not devise evil in your hearts against one another, and love no false oath, for all these things I hate, declares the Lord.... Therefore love truth and peace.

As for the New Testament, let's take a look at Revelation 21:7-8 — describing the appearance of the "new Jerusalem" or "heavenly Jerusalem" on earth, and the beginning of a "New Age" after the final defeat of "the Devil" — in which Jesus says,

The one who overcomes will inherit (all things), and I will be God to him and he will be a son to me. But to the cowardly, and the faithless [or untrustworthy: Greek _apistos_ ], and the detestable, and murderers, and the sexually immoral, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their share (will be) in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

Notice how the enumeration of types of sinful persons _ends_ with "and all liars," indicating that the word "liars" was being given special rhetorical emphasis by being set apart from all of the preceding words in the sentence — which may suggest that the author did not regard lying as merely one type of sin among many, but as the _primary_ type of sin (perhaps because all other types of sin find their ultimate source in it).

We see the same method of rhetorical emphasis being used in Revelation 22:15 to highlight the crucial importance of "falsehood":

Outside (of the new Jerusalem) (are) the dogs, and the sorcerers, and the sexually immoral, and the murderers, and the idolaters, and everyone loving and practicing falsehood.

And we again find the same focus on "falsehood" in Revelation 21:27, which says,

And nothing profane shall enter into (the new Jerusalem), nor those practicing abomination and falsehood; but only those having been written in the book of the life of the Lamb.

I think the Bible passages I've just quoted alone ought to be sufficient to satisfy Christians and Jews of the correctness of my claim that if any "Messianic Age" or "New Age" is to come into being at all, it will have to be an age in which, for all practical purposes, dishonesty and falsehood no longer exist.

I wish to make clear that I do not personally consider myself to be a Christian or a Jew or an adherent of any of the other traditional religions. But at the same time, I am not advocating the formation of any new "super-religion" (or "anti-religion") that would incorporate and replace all of the existing, traditional religions. As I explain in the next installment in this series of articles, I do believe that all of the traditional religions need to be radically reformed; but it will have to be the members of those religions who do the reforming.

But if I am not a member of any of the traditional religions, then why do I care what they have to say about some future "New Age"? The answer is that the kind of future "New Age" that I personally foresee is _substantially equivalent in its essence_ to the future "New Age" that religious prophets _from_ all around the world have predicted for thousands of years. If those prophets have all _defined_ that "New Age" as an age in which human beings would no longer lie to each other, and if the kind of society that I am envisioning _meets that definition_ , then it must be acknowledged that — whatever _name_ each of us chooses to give it — we are all actually talking about the same _thing_.

One of the primary arguments I wish to advance is that it is realistically possible for human beings to eliminate virtually all lying from human affairs — _entirely through intelligently directed human effort_. And that means I am also claiming that no "New Age" or "Messianic Age" _can ever arrive_ if human beings fail to _first_ eliminate the Lie — and eliminate it _entirely_ through intelligently directed human effort.

If you are a member of one of the traditional religions, I wish to emphasize that embracing a willingness to work on bringing a "New Age" or "Messianic Age" into being by _first_ eliminating the Lie _entirely through human effort_ , does not imply unbelief in the existence of a "supernatural realm," or a "spirit realm," or "divine providence." IF what I am saying is correct about the _realistic possibility_ of eliminating the Lie solely through human effort and through the _intelligent_ application of own native, God-given reason, then people can sit around and wait until the end of time for "supernatural beings" or "angelic beings" to bring the "Messianic Age" or "Second Coming" into existence _on our behalf_ — and it will never, ever happen. That is because "angelic beings" are never going to force us to do something that we human beings _could do ourselves_ — namely, eliminate the Lie — but simply _choose not to do_. In order for them to do that, they would have to completely override our free will — and if that were a live option for them, then they surely would have forced us to become their very well-behaved mind slaves a long, long time ago.

Members of traditional religions will need to make a very careful and thoughtful _decision_ about _whether or not I am correct_ when I claim that human beings have the realistic ability to eliminate virtually all lying among human beings even without the assistance (at least not the direct assistance) of any non-human "supernatural beings" — because whether or not "the day of the Lord" will _ever arrive_ depends upon whether or not my claim is correct. Christians and Jews and members of other traditional religions thus have _a very big personal stake_ in determining whether or not my claim is correct; because if they decide that my claim IS correct, and if they cannot think of any good reason why human beings could _not_ eliminate virtually all dishonesty from human affairs if enough people decided to do so — and no, the mere fact that they have never seen it done before does _not_ qualify as a "good reason" — then they would have to conclude that the only way in which the "the day of the Lord" or the "New Age" or the "Messianic Age" or the "Second Coming" could _possibly_ arrive would be if they and other human beings made active efforts to _make_ it arrive — specifically, by working to gradually eliminate the Lie from human affairs.

Those persons who are not actively trying to eliminate dishonesty in human society, but who at the same time accept their own religion's teachings about a future "New Age" or "Golden Age" or "Messianic Age" that will someday arrive in which there will be no dishonesty, are effectively assuming that it is _not possible_ for human beings to eliminate dishonesty without (direct) divine intervention. But I am arguing that that is simply not true — that human beings _can indeed_ eliminate dishonesty solely through intelligently directed human effort. What specifically is stopping us? Is there some _particular_ obstacle that stands in our way, one which only "mighty angels" supposedly have the ability to remove? If so, please identify it for me — since I can't imagine what it might be.

However, if it is indeed realistically possible for human beings to eliminate dishonesty, but many people simply choose not to do so because doing so would require too much time and effort on their part, then _those people are effectively_ _hoping_ _that God will make them honest against their will_ , since they are _hoping_ to continue lying and tolerating lying as long as they possibly can (given how "realistic" and "pragmatic" they think they are being). But, once again, if God and his angels were willing to do that, then they surely would have done it long before now. (And do people really _wish to believe_ that God and his angels would be willing to override our free will in that way?)

As I already indicated, Revelation 21:7-8 says that "all liars" would be kept out of the "new Jerusalem." Are Christians assuming that they will be able to continue lying and tolerating lying until the "new Jerusalem" comes into being — at which point they will all be offered the chance to suddenly stop all lying and all tolerating of lying and then be admitted into the "new Jerusalem"? But if that is something that they were all able to do all along, then why hadn't they done it sooner? Wouldn't every person just choose to wait until everyone else had stopped lying before he himself would do so? Do human beings have absolutely no role to play in the creation of a future "New Age" by the exercise of their own free will? Do they see themselves as nothing more than passive, helpless observers? Do they wish to think of the virtue of honesty, and the happiness that universal honesty would make possible, as some "gift" that will simply be bestowed upon us from the "supernatural realm" at some point in the future — while we sit idly by until then?

Again, my goal is only to inform people that the elimination of the Lie purely through human effort — thus leading to the future dawning of a "New Age" or "Messianic Age" — is only a _realistic possibility_. It is not a _certainty_ (at least not in the short run). People have their free will, and they can always choose (foolishly, in my view) not to defeat the Lie if that is their preference. And in practice, people do often make that choice, mainly by rushing — almost in a kind of panic — to insist upon the "impossibility" of eliminating lying even before they've given the matter any careful thought, because they feel so certain that human beings (when what they're really thinking about here is _themselves_ ) could simply never keep up in a dog-eat-dog world if they had to give up their lying ways and their willingness to tolerate the lying ways of others.

Such people are effectively "addicted to the Lie" in a manner comparable to someone with a gambling addiction. On average and over time, "the house always wins." And in the same way, the average person is not benefited by permitting _any_ unjustifiable lying to exist in his society. But those times when a particular lie, just like a particular gambling bet, does "pay off" for a person makes such a big impression on his unconscious memory that he loses sight of the big picture; and the result is that he is unable to realize that, on the whole and in the long run, permitting the practice of lying in his society actually makes him worse off. And when lots of people are thinking in this same way at the same time, it makes it considerably easier for those people to convince themselves, and each other, that "lying really does work" — when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

## Concerning predictions about a "resurrection of the dead"

It must be noted that some of the traditional religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and Zoroastrianism, claim that the advent of their conception of a future "New Age" would, in addition to the elimination of the Lie, also involve a "resurrection of the dead." And I must admit that I personally have a hard time believing that any literal "resurrection of the dead" will occur, at least while we are still in this particular mode of life or on this particular plane of existence. I suspect that talk about a "resurrection of the dead" was originally meant to be understood in a figurative or poetic or metaphorical sense, and gradually, as time went on, its meaning became misunderstood. And I think my suspicious attitude is forgivable, given the existence of passages in the Bible such as Matthew 8:21-22:

And another of (Jesus's) disciples said to him, "Lord, first allow me to go off and bury my father." And Jesus said to him, "Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead."

I think everyone can agree that literal dead people can't literally do things like literally burying other literal dead people. So this passage must be read figuratively — which leads me to be inclined to interpret the idea of a "resurrection of the dead" figuratively as well.

If I am wrong, however, and the advent of a future "New Age" would involve a very literal "resurrection of the dead" (in this mode of life, that is), then in that case it would of course be true that no "New Age" could be brought into existence _solely_ through human effort. But the fact still remains (according to my argument) that it is realistically possible to create a world virtually free of lying solely through intelligently directed human effort. So even if human effort alone is not _sufficient_ to bring a "New Age" (as some religious people might conceive of a "New Age") into existence, it will at least be a _necessary_ factor in bringing it into existence. Therefore we should _all_ begin by devoting ourselves to creating a world free of lying and dishonesty; and then we will be in a much better position to learn whether the "resurrection of the dead" spoken of by some of the traditional religions was meant to be understood literally or figuratively after all. In either case, we will all have made our world a much better place in which to live than it currently is.

Finally, some readers might be thinking: "If what you're saying about eliminating the Lie is actually realistically possible, then why didn't people just do it a long time ago?" The answer, I believe, is that the traditional religions — the very religions that predicted that the Lie would someday be eliminated — have themselves always been _standing in the way_ of that happening.

In the next installment in this series of articles, I will explain why I believe the world's traditional religions are the _ultimate source_ of the dishonesty in the world — but also why I believe they have provided us with a potentially _powerful solution_ to the very problem that they have created and been sustaining.

# Part 2 of 12: The evils of religious esotericism; and the "hidden anti-esotericist message" of the Bible

## The fundamental moral defectiveness of the traditional religions

In the previous installment in this series of articles, I mentioned that I was not a member of any of the world's traditional religions. You may be wondering why that is.

I oppose all traditional religions in their current forms because they are all esoteric. That means that the sacred and authoritative writings of these religions involve a "splitting of meaning" in the language that they use, into "inner meanings" (i.e., " _eso_ _teric_ meanings") and "outer meanings" (i.e., " _exo_ _teric_ meanings"). The "outer meanings" usually have the effect (and often the purpose as well) of deceiving or misleading the average reader of these writings by concealing the "true" "inner meanings" from them. And so, by the traditional religions having established writings of this kind as their "sacred scriptures," if any of these religions were to choose to _strenuously_ oppose the existence of dishonesty and insincerity among its own members, the end result would be the religion's own self-annihilation — which is why none of them has ever chosen to _strenuously_ oppose dishonesty and insincerity among its own members — and also why none of them ever will.

It is of course true that all of the traditional religions denounce dishonesty in their scriptures. But the problem is that none of them is _consistently_ opposed to it — partly due to their esoteric nature, and partly for other reasons. (As far as I have been able to determine, the religion that comes closest to consistent opposition to lying and dishonesty is Zoroastrianism. But alas, it too is an esoteric religion, which makes it fundamentally defective along with the others.) Honesty is seen by these religions as being just one positive value _among many_ — one which the other values can be "balanced" against whenever it is deemed to be "prudent" to do so. Honesty is not considered to be an _absolute_ value, one which can _never_ be compromised.

I explain my position with regard to the moral defectiveness of esoteric religion in somewhat more depth in my article "How religious esotericism is really just a form of lying." I cannot stress enough how important the argument is that I make in that article. It is the axiomatic starting point for all of the other arguments that I make and the positions that I take with regard to the Bible-based religions and all of the other traditional, esoteric religions. My entire thesis presented in this series of articles hinges on the validity of the argument that I make in that writing — so please take the time to read it carefully before going any further with reading the articles in this series. If you are at all inclined to doubt or disagree with my claim that religious esotericism is intrinsically deceptive and misleading (and therefore deserving of being opposed and rejected), then I strongly urge you to read that article as many times as you need to until you are convinced that I am correct about that claim; because I feel certain that the argument I make in that writing is _definitive_ and _irrefutable_ : The Bible (at the very least, the Christian Bible) _openly endorses_ the use of deceptive and misleading ways of communicating. That is simply a fact. The only question remaining to Christians (and others) is whether or not they will choose to find that fact objectionable.

Everyone assumes that it's "the job" of the traditional religions to fight against the Lie as part of their more general mission to fight against immorality — because they have worked so very hard to _convince_ people that it's "their" exclusive task, and so "they'll take care of it" — but it's a task that they, by their very nature, are simply not equipped to carry out. That is the reason why humanity has so far never been able to bring a full and final end to the Lie. It is not — as the leaders of the traditional religions would like people to believe — because of "original sin," or because there are just so many people in the world who viscerally "hate God," or who "refuse to submit to God's will." The leaders of those religions are just making excuses for their own failures by casting the blame for those failures on the very people they are supposed to be serving. (Cf. Jeremiah 50:6-7.) Esoteric religious discourse is not merely one kind of deceptive or misleading communication; it is _the most dangerous_ kind, because it is what _prevents_ humanity from eliminating all of the other kinds. So long as religions remain esoteric in nature, the Lie simply cannot be defeated.

It is my own personal belief that the existence of the Lie is ultimately what makes all human evil _possible_ (which is not to say that if the Lie ceased to exist tomorrow, all human evil would _immediately_ cease to exist along with it; it is only to say that so long as we have not yet solved the problem of the Lie, it will be impossible to find rational and effective solutions to other social problems). That is why it is imperative that we not continue to allow the traditional, esoteric religions to serve — as they have been allowed to serve since time immemorial — as " _wolves in sheep's clothing_ ," by their effectively being allowed to serve as the guardians and protectors of the Lie in human society. Unless the esotericism contained within the traditional religions is seriously confronted and eliminated, there is no reason for anyone to feel justified in being optimistic about the future of this world. And not only is the problem of religious esotericism something which has never been seriously confronted and vigorously criticized; it has virtually never been publicly _discussed_ as being even a _possible_ problem. To the extent that it is discussed at all, people are almost invariably enthralled by the idea that they might be able to gain access to some kind of "hidden wisdom" or "secret wisdom" to which "the vulgar multitude" has not and will not be granted equal access.

If it is in fact possible to create thoroughly honest societies, but none of the traditional religions are thoroughly honest themselves, then that necessarily means that all of the traditional religions are _standing as barriers_ between humanity and the achievement of the very same "New Age" that _the traditional religions themselves_ have promised us. For that reason, no one should necessarily feel any obligation to listen to anything those religions now have to tell us about _how_ that "New Age" would come into existence. We will have to bring that "New Age" into existence _in spite of_ their unwitting efforts to make it impossible. (Cf. Matthew 23:13.)

Humanity can no longer afford to be caught in our current cruel dilemma, in which we are forced to choose between, on the one hand, one of the existing, traditional, esoteric religions (which have already proven their inadequacy, and which do not appear to have a bright future, if one looks at membership statistics compared to general population statistics); and, on the other hand, no religious or moral framework at all (other than having a proper understanding of the great importance of selfishly "getting ahead" and "having fun" at all costs).

So I wish to make it clear that I'm not opposed to religion _per se_ , and I believe that everything good and worthy about the existing religious traditions ought to be preserved. I am only opposed to their willingness to promote dishonest (and confused, and confusing) ways of thinking and communicating, by choosing to retain esoteric writings as the most sacred and authoritative writings of their religions.

I also wish to make clear at this point that I'm not necessarily opposed to what is sometimes known as "esoteric philosophy" or "occult knowledge" — provided that a person writing about these subjects is trying his best to communicate his understanding of that particular "philosophy" or "knowledge" in a way that will not be misleading or unnecessarily obscure from the perspective of his readers. (So it could be said that I am opposed not to "occult knowledge" _per se_ , but rather to the _occulting_ of knowledge, _and of meaning_.) In other words, what I find objectionable about religious esotericism is not necessarily the _content_ of the _interpretations_ that have been given to esoteric religious writings over time, some of which interpretations are perfectly clear, straightforward, unambiguous, comprehensible, and logically consistent on their own terms. But when that is the case, the _non-esoteric_ interpretations — precisely _because of_ the fact that _they are_ more clear, straightforward, unambiguous, comprehensible, and logically consistent than the esoteric writings that supposedly played a role in inspiring them — ought to, taken as a whole, be regarded by all people as having greater _worth_ and _authority_ than those esoteric writings.

In the articles in this series, I will be devoting quite a lot of attention to an examination of the Bible in particular; but since I am not a Christian or a Jew, the reason why I do so is not because I view the Bible as having any greater _authority_ than the sacred scriptures of other religions. The reasons why I do so are several: first, the importance of Bible-based religions in my own American society means that I am somewhat more familiar with them than I am with others; second, I have found that there is a greater availability of online research material related to the Bible than to the sacred writings of other religions; and third — and most importantly — I believe that it is possible to discern a "hidden anti-esotericist message" in the Bible that is much less readily discerned in any other traditional religious writings with which I am familiar.

## The great paradox of the Bible; and how that paradox points to the possibility of non-human influence in its writing

In this series of articles, I am going to try to convince you that, by an utterly astounding paradox, _the true "inner meaning" of the Bible — which is indisputably an esoteric writing itself — is that the esoteric_ _type_ _of religion must be brought to an end_. In other words, the true "inner meaning" of the Bible is that distinctions between "inner meanings" and "outer meanings" in religious discourse should no longer be made. But even though I argue that the Bible contains a "hidden anti-esotericist message," that doesn't mean the Bible should be regarded as an entirely "good" book: Due to the fact that the Bible is esoteric, even that "hidden anti-esotericist message" has been presented in a deceptive and misleading way.

If the Bible contains lots of esoteric or "prophetical" religious writings, and if "prophetical" religious writings are intrinsically deceptive and misleading, then in a "New Age" completely free of dishonesty, we would expect that human beings would no longer read the Bible and comparable traditional sacred scriptures (or, at least, that they would no longer treat them as _authoritative_ religious writings). That means that if the Bible does agree with me that the "New Age" or "Messianic Age" would be an age involving universal honesty (and it does), and if the authors of the Bible were yearning for the arrival of just such a "New Age" or "Messianic Age" (and they were), then the Bible would necessarily have to be recommending — even if only implicitly — that people stop treating the Bible as an authoritative religious writing, in order to make it possible for humanity to enter into that "New Age" or "Messianic Age."

But I believe the matter goes even further than that. Not only is such a message necessarily logically implied by the premises contained in the Bible; that very same message can also be found being subtly _communicated_ by the Bible itself (that is, if you "read between the lines," by carefully cross-referencing various Bible passages, and by being attentive to the Bible's use of symbolism). In other words, at some level of their thinking, the authors of the Bible seem to have been _aware_ of this necessary implication.

So, to put it as simply as possible: **I believe that the Bible was** designed **to eventually** self-destruct **— so that, in going down, it would also take the Lie down with it.**

But wait — that sounds absurd. I can't really be claiming _that_ , can I?

Yes, that's precisely what I am claiming. But I do realize how absurdly self-contradictory it probably sounds, and I have struggled to figure out a way to explain it — to others, certainly, but first and foremost, to myself. For quite a while I was inclined to chalk up the existence of a "hidden anti-esotericist message" in the Bible entirely to unconscious conflict or ambivalence in the minds of the human authors of the Bible. And I am still inclined to believe that such dynamics were probably _partly_ responsible for the existence of a "hidden anti-esotericist message" in the Bible. But I've more recently come to believe that such a theory just can't explain enough. I find it extremely difficult to believe that _some_ sort of _conscious_ intelligence was not actively involved in the creation of the writings of the Bible — by which I mean, some sort of _non-human_ conscious intelligence — if I am correct in claiming that the Bible was "designed to eventually self-destruct." I just don't think the unconscious human mind, by itself, is capable of accomplishing a feat of such complexity and magnitude.

So even though I am not a Christian or Jew, I have come to believe, just as Christians and Jews do, that the Bible should indeed be regarded as a "revealed" writing; so that when I speak of "the authors of the Bible" in this series of articles, I am not _necessarily_ speaking of the Bible's _human_ authors, or _only_ of the Bible's human authors. Whether other persons prefer to think of these intelligent non-human beings as "spirits" (such as "angels" or "demons"), or as "aliens," is up to them. I personally find it sufficient just to regard them as "intelligent non-human life-forms." (However, in this series of articles I will generally _refer to them_ as "spirits" or "angels" or "demons.")

Even though I have my own ideas about the question of "angelic revelation" or "angelic inspiration," I have no problem letting readers decide for themselves whether they think that the "anti-esotericist message" or "anti-prophetical message" which I firmly believe can be found in the Bible was solely the product of the prophets' unconscious minds (and perhaps also their conscious minds, to a limited extent); or, that it was solely the product of "angelic communications" for which the prophets were acting as nothing more than unwitting, passive conduits; or, that it was the product of a kind of "cooperation" between the minds of the prophets and the minds of the "angelic messengers," so that both of them share responsibility for the existence of the "hidden anti-esotericist message." All of this is quite mysterious, so none of us should get too dogmatic about the explanations we offer.

But, for whatever reason, I do believe, based on the evidence I have found, that a hidden "anti-esotericist message" or "anti-prophetical message" can indeed be found in the Bible — as I will proceed to begin to demonstrate in the next article in this series.

## The Bible: Two "books," not just one

The "anti-esotericist message" in the Bible is not glaringly obvious (which is why I keep calling it "hidden") — especially if the notion of the existence of such a message is new to you. But it will be easier to discern that message if you begin thinking of the Bible as two "books," and not just one — and each of those "two books" contains messages that are _inconsistent_ with the messages contained in the other "book." (And no, I'm not referring to the Old Testament and the New Testament; the "two books" of which I speak can be found within _both_ the Old Testament _and_ the New Testament.) The reason why the Bible ought to be thought of as "two books" is that _the Bible is not a perfect book_ — because the men who wrote it were themselves not perfect.

Many people, including but not limited to traditional Christians and traditional Jews, believe that the "revelations" received by the authors of the Bible came from "angels." But we need to remember that, according to the Bible, there are _two types_ of angels: "angels of God" and "angels of Satan" (i.e., "demons"). And, as the apostle Paul reminds us in 2 Corinthians 11:14, "Satan himself transforms (himself) into an angel of light." In other words: Demons can always pretend to be angels. That crucial fact — the importance of which can never be overstated, but which is far too often overlooked — is what makes all of "revelation" and "prophecy" in general a very dangerous business. (Cf. 1 Kings 22:13-23, focusing especially on verses 19 through 23.)

Therefore, even persons who believe that the revelations contained in the Bible were delivered by "angels" must never forget that there were two types of "angels" _competing for the attention_ of the prophets and apostles who received those revelations and then passed them on to others through their writings. Each of those prophets had to _make a decision_ about whether he believed the message conveyed by a particular "voice" or "vision" had a "divine" source, or a "demonic" source, so that he could know whether he ought to pay attention to the contents of that particular "voice" or "vision," or whether he ought to ignore them. And the decision that the prophet ended up making was actually serving as a reflection on his own moral purity, since the decision that he made would have effectively been made in response to the question, "Is this the sort of message that I would _expect_ to receive from God, or is it one that I would _expect_ to receive from Satan?" A prophet's own _preexisting conceptions_ of "God" and "Satan," and of "good" and "evil," were necessarily involved in determining which "revelations" would be regarded as "divine" (and therefore worthy of being written down and passed on to others), and which ones would _not_ be regarded as "divine." And since those prophets and apostles were _fallible_ and _flawed_ human beings, we can assume that the "demons" or "angels of Satan" were, at least some of the time, able to _trick_ the prophets and apostles — probably by first gaining their trust by telling them exactly what they wanted to hear — into believing that a particular message came from an "angel of God," when that was not in fact true.

In other words, it is reasonable to suppose that in some cases the prophets had formed certain conceptions of "God's ways" that were actually _incorrect_ ; in _some_ cases, that is, what the prophets believed to be "God's ways" were actually "Satan's ways **."** (And for a religious person to say that "the Holy Spirit would never allow such a thing to happen" represents nothing more than wishful thinking.) That is why it is _irrational_ for a member of a traditional religion to believe that the sacred scriptures of that religion could possibly be "inerrant," or that they can be unfailingly relied upon to tell those who study them what "God's ways" are. That complacent belief effectively puts the cart before the horse. Ultimately, people have no choice but to rely upon their own moral reason and intuition to determine what they will consider to be "God's ways" and what they will consider to be "Satan's ways." It is only _after_ a person has already formed at least _some_ idea of what he believes "God's ways" to be that the person will be in a position to decide whether or not he believes a particular religious writing is in keeping with those "ways."

So, whether or not one believes in the existence of "angels" or "spirits," and whether one believes that the "revelations" of the Bible came at least partly from such "spirits," or solely from the prophets' own minds, I think _everyone_ should be able to agree that the Bible ought to be approached _warily_ , as a mixture of good and bad. And if a person additionally believes that _two different types_ of "spirits" exist — namely, "angels (of God)" and "demons" — then it is especially fitting for that person to think of the Bible as containing _two different "books_ _"_ within it — one of which needs to be _rejected_ as "demonic" in nature. I will refer to this "demonic book" or "demonic Bible" as the "first Bible." The "other book" — the "second Bible" — can therefore be thought of as referring to an "angelic Bible" or "godly Bible" or "divine Bible." But that "second Bible" is, at least with regard to certain matters, not as clearly "visible" as the "first Bible," and a person must work harder to discover its message, at least in its fullness.

I believe basic, self-evident morality demands that any endorsement (whether implicit or explicit) of religious esotericism be thought of as located within the "first Bible" or "demonic Bible"; and also that any repudiation or denunciation of religious esotericism be thought of as located within the "second Bible" or "angelic Bible." Of all of "Satan's ways" that the Bible's prophets mistakenly believed to be among "God's ways," the most important of them by far was the practice of religious esotericism. The likely reason why the evils of religious esotericism largely (though not entirely) escaped the conscious notice of the prophets and apostles was that they were immersed in a cultural environment in which an esoteric or "prophetical" manner of communication was assumed to be especially "holy" and "sacred," so that it would not have readily occurred to them to challenge that social arrangement, or even to seriously question it in their own minds.

But when we approach the Bible in a new and different way, no longer feeling afraid or unfit to use our own moral reason and intuition in evaluating the worthiness of the Bible's message or teachings, then it becomes possible to "sift out" the elements of the Bible that we believe better reflect "Satan's ways" than "God's ways." We can choose to operate on the assumption that the "spirits" ( _both_ "angels" _and_ "demons"; cf. Job 1:6, Job 2:3, and 2 Corinthians 12:7-9) meant for the Bible to _solely_ advance "God's ways" and _not_ "Satan's ways" — so that we will _disregard as human mistakes_ any messages or attitudes being conveyed in the Bible that we believe to be characteristic of "Satan's ways," allowing us to simply overlook them and move on to see if we can find _additional_ messages in those _same_ writings that _condemn_ "human mistakes" of that very kind. When we approach the Bible in that manner, we are amazed to discover that a subtle anti-esotericist message in the Bible (both in the Old Testament _and_ in the New Testament) actually begins to take shape before our eyes. And that is the message which — if heeded — would help to lead humanity into a "New Age" or "Messianic Age."

## The importance of Christians accepting the non-historicity of Jesus

Before I begin getting into Bible interpretation in the next installment in this series, it is necessary that I first make clear my firm belief that "Jesus Christ" was not an actual, historical, flesh-and-blood, individual human being. I wish to emphasize how important it is that Christian readers _also_ be willing to accept the non-historicity of Jesus — no matter how difficult that idea might be for you to initially accept. Otherwise, you will not be able to fully appreciate the Bible's symbolic nature, or what its symbols were likely meant to signify. The Bible — both the Old Testament and the New Testament — should not be regarded as a history book. I don't think the authors of the Gospels were trying to pull off any kind of "fraud" by depicting Jesus as a flesh-and-blood human being, since I don't think it was ever their intention that "Jesus Christ" be understood in that way (except on an imaginary "as if" basis). But they did create an enormous (and easily avoidable) _misunderstanding_ through the reckless and irresponsible way in which they used (or rather, misused) metaphor, symbol, allegory, figurative speech, punning, riddling, word play, and verbal ambiguity. I won't get too deeply into the question of what exactly I think the name "Jesus Christ" _was_ understood by those authors to refer to; but whatever it was, I will readily acknowledge that it obviously held a great deal of meaning and importance for the authors of the New Testament. (My best guess is that "Jesus Christ" was understood by the authors of the New Testament to be something akin to a Platonic Archetype or Idea or Form, in which various individual human beings could all "participate" at the same time.)

To be perfectly frank, I just don't think the question of Jesus's historicity is at all deserving of the amount of debate that it has given rise to. I can't definitively prove that someone closely resembling the flesh-and-blood human Jesus that is depicted in the Gospels never existed, just as I can't definitively prove that someone closely resembling the Superman depicted in the Superman comic books doesn't actually exist and isn't flying around somewhere in the world at this very moment — it's just that there is no good reason to believe that a flesh-and-blood human Jesus _did_ exist. We know nothing about the alleged historical life of Jesus apart from what we are told in the canonical Gospels (as well as some non-canonical Christian "Gospels"); there is no independent corroboration for his historical existence to be found in non-Christian writings from that period. So to believe in Jesus's historical existence based on the canonical Gospels alone, the Gospels would — at the very least — have to be _highly_ reliable works of journalism or historiography. But we know that the Gospels contain passages such as Matthew 4:8:

Again the Devil took (Jesus) to an exceedingly high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory.

Now, of course — assuming one believes that the earth is spherical and not flat — this is impossible. And I don't mean "impossible" given the present state of human knowledge and technology; I mean "impossible" in the sense of "inconceivable." Even as the mountain's height approached infinity, any persons standing on the peak would never have been able to see more than half of the earth's surface. So we must assume that this passage was never meant by the author to be taken literally; or else we must conclude that the author was a _grossly incompetent and unreliable_ journalist or historian. If we assume the former, then we can also assume that the rest of the Gospels were never meant by their authors to be read literally; and if we conclude the latter, then we are justified in concluding that the Gospels must be viewed as _extremely unreliable_ historical narratives or journalistic accounts. _Either way_ , belief in the historicity of Jesus is _irrational_ and _unjustified_.

I personally am far more inclined to assume that Matthew 4:8, and the Gospels as a whole, were never meant by their authors to be read literally. (In fact, I think the "exceedingly high mountain" was likely meant by the author to refer to the mythical and symbolic "Tower of Babel," as I discuss more in Part 9 of this series.) Passages such as Matthew 4:8 raise the question of what "genre" of writing the Gospels fall into. If we are being intellectually honest, the nature of those writings ought to lead us to the realization that they simply do not fall within the _genre_ of journalism or historiography. But I am amazed that even after reading a passage such as Matthew 4:8, Christians (and even non-Christian "Bible historians") feel perfectly free to just proceed as if the Gospels still have value as historical or journalistic _records_. (Even if the Gospels are more or less fictional, those writings may still have value as historical _documents_ — just as, say, an eighteenth-century novel may be of value to an social or cultural historian as an historical _document_ — but they cannot be regarded as valuable historical or journalistic _records_.) These persons find what they believe to be sound evidence of Jesus's historicity by arbitrarily choosing to overlook what they consider to be the more "symbolic" or "figurative" or "allegorical" passages in the Gospels, and focus instead on the verses that they personally feel more "comfortable" taking literally.

_But that's cheating_. Imagine if you were reading an historical biography of Napoleon Bonaparte, and then out of nowhere the author suddenly stated in a perfectly matter-of-fact manner that at some point during one of his military campaigns, Napoleon and one of his generals together climbed a mountain that was so high they could see all of the nations on the face of the earth. After getting over your momentary shock, I think you'd probably decide not to read any more of that book, or any other history book written by that author. By writing something like that he would have destroyed all of his credibility as an historian (even if you might still be willing to read his works of fiction or poetry). No sane reader would just "overlook" the inclusion of a passage like that on the grounds that, with the exception of that one little passage, for the most part it seemed like a pretty solid work of historical biography.

But even besides that, there is evidence from the New Testament that can be offered to show that Jesus's "Crucifixion" and "Resurrection" were meant to be understood as _symbolic prefigurations_ of the "ending of the present age" and the "dawning of a New Age." For example, consider 1 Corinthians 11:26, in which the apostle Paul, speaking of the Lord's Supper, writes,

For as often as you eat this bread, and drink the cup (of wine), you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

In other words, according to 1 Corinthians 11:26, the _symbolic_ "Crucifixion of Christ" is deemed to have already occurred or to still be in the process of occurring — but the _symbolic_ "Resurrection of Christ" is deemed not to have yet occurred — _unlike_ what a _literal_ reading of the Gospels would lead one to believe, since according to a literal reading of the Gospels, the "Resurrection of Christ" and the "Crucifixion of Christ" have _both_ already been completed.

I could offer additional evidence from the Bible demonstrating the non-historicity of Jesus, but I think that what I have already said should be sufficient to allow us to dispense with any further discussion about the matter at this point. The reason why it is so important that the notion of Jesus's historicity be laid to rest once and for all is that doing so enables us to approach the figure of "Jesus Christ" that we find depicted in the Gospels as it ought to be approached: _wholly symbolically_. As long as Jesus is still widely believed to have been an historical figure, it would show that people still haven't been able to let go of what I am calling the "first Bible" or "demonic Bible" — that is, _a pro-esotericist Bible_ which is, so to speak, _content with maintaining_ the existence of _separations_ between "inner meanings" and "outer meanings" within it — since a continuing belief in the historicity of Jesus represents _a refusal to surrender_ some of the most important and influential "outer meanings" of the Bible. Only by surrendering the "outer meanings" of the Bible can the Bible be made "single." As long as the Bible's "outer meanings" are not surrendered, the "ending of the present age" _simply cannot occur_ , because it would mean that the Lie was still active in the world, because it would mean that religious esotericism — the Lie's most powerful and effective guardian — was likewise still active in the world. However, when the figure of "Jesus" is considered solely for the purpose of discovering what _symbolic significance_ that figure was meant by the authors of the New Testament to have, we find that what Jesus actually signifies — or, at the very least, is quite _plausibly capable_ of signifying — is _opposition_ to religious esotericism (and the Lie more generally). And a "Jesus" understood in _that_ way truly does belong in the "second Bible" or "angelic Bible."

I realize that what I am saying may anger or upset many Christians. But if "angels of God" have in fact been trying to use the Bible as a means by which to convey a message to you that can only be comprehended by a person if that person has already accepted the non-historicity of Jesus, then shouldn't you want to do precisely that — _even if_ the process of moving to a new and currently unfamiliar way of understanding the Bible is a somewhat difficult and uncomfortable one? If there has in fact been a _misunderstanding_ or _miscommunication_ between the "angels of God" and yourself, then shouldn't you want to discover that? If you value the Bible as much as you claim, shouldn't you want to _genuinely understand_ what its authors (whether human or angelic) _actually meant to say_ by writing it, and not cling tightly to what you personally _wish_ that the authors meant to say?

It is my belief that the "Crucifixion of Christ" was meant to serve as a mythical symbol for certain _types of events_. At an individual level, those "events" would be ones that occurred in the process of individual transformation; but at a societal level, those "events" would take place mostly at some time in the future — at "the end of the present age," for the most part. Likewise, I believe the "Resurrection of Christ" was meant to serve as a mythical symbol for "the dawning of the New Age." The "Crucifixion of Christ" has not yet occurred — or, to be more precise, has not yet been _completed_ — at least not on a large, societal scale. We will know that it has finally been completed when people no longer _insist upon_ (as opposed to _allow_ ) the reading of dangerously misleading esoteric religious writings, whether from the Old Testament or from the New Testament, or from any other religious tradition.

How else can we know that the "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ" has not yet been completed? Well, for one thing, why does the Book of Revelation recycle the contents of the Old Testament prophetical writings? If an historical incarnation, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ on this earth was itself supposedly the "fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy," then why does the New Testament still need to speak about the very same things — _with regard to the future_ , not the past — that the Old Testament prophets _already_ spoke of?

The answer, I believe, is that the authors of the New Testament were really just saying essentially the same things that the authors of the Old Testament had been saying — at least with respect to "the ending of the present age" and "the dawning of a New Age," and what that transition would involve and require. The primary difference between the two groups of authors is that the authors of the Old Testament probably tended to view that process of transition more from the perspective of a collectivity (see Hosea 6:1-2), while the authors of the New Testament chose to describe the same process more from the perspective of a single individual — albeit a mythical and archetypal individual (and, moreover, that process of transition is described in a heavily symbolic manner). But even though this "individual" is a mythical and archetypal one, he was also understood by the authors of the New Testament to be _representing_ all _individual_ human beings — which would have led to a somewhat more "individualistic" perspective among those authors. However, even this difference can easily be overstated, since the authors of the New Testament speak of the Christians as a " _people_ of God," and emphasize the importance of building up "the church" into a _unified_ "body." And the authors of the Old Testament (and also of the New Testament) speak of a "holy remnant" being responsible for the redemption of "Israel" — which of course implies wide variations in the thinking of different individuals. Furthermore, the Old Testament prophets make clear that this redemption of "Israel" would be accompanied by the redemption of _all_ "nations."

## Why would the "anti-esotericist message" in the Bible be hidden?

Some readers may be wondering why this "anti-esotericist inner meaning" that I have been discussing would need to be "hidden" within the Bible, instead of just made perfectly obvious and explicit. And I can't answer that question with certainty; but one possible answer can be found just by asking yourself how receptive you think the average Christian is likely to be — at first, anyway — to the general argument that I am making in this series of articles. I am personally assuming that the initial reaction of the vast majority of Christians will be to reject it out of hand. After all, I'm claiming, for example, that by cross-referencing just a few Bible passages (see Part 11 of this series), one can make a very plausible argument that the Bible is itself implicitly describing Jesus Christ as "deceptive." I do not expect that very many Christians will enjoy being told that. They revere the Bible (at least, the more "outer" meanings of the Bible), and so will be highly resistant to any suggestion that the Bible was _intended_ — intended, that is, by the very "spirits" that inspired its writing — to eventually _lose_ the _authoritative_ status that it currently enjoys.

Let's say that "angels" do exist, and that they are at least partially responsible for the content of the "revelations" passed on by the Bible prophets. Let's furthermore suppose that these "angels" must respect human free will, at least to some extent. Finally, let's also suppose that these "angels" have long believed that religious esotericism is retarding human evolution (which it in fact is); and that they have additionally adopted the view that one of the methods that would be most likely to succeed at inducing human beings to _abandon_ religious esotericism would be to assign to one of humanity's most important authoritative esoteric religious writings (namely, the Bible) _itself_ part of the task of delivering the message to humanity that religious esotericism is something that needs to be abandoned.

What do you think the strategy of these "angels" would be for handling persons resembling present-day Christians, most of whom I think it is fair to assume will be initially resistant to the ideas I am presenting here? Recall what I wrote above about how demons can always pretend to be angels, so that it is ultimately up to each individual prophet to decide if he thinks that a particular "revelation" is more "demonic" or "angelic" in nature. "Spirits" are widely reputed to lie quite frequently, so how does a prophet determine whether a particular "spirit" that has contacted him is lying to him? It is actually impossible to know, but in practice I think the determination has usually come down to the prophet thinking to himself something like: "Is the spirit telling me what I want to hear? Then it must be a good spirit. Is it telling me what I don't want to hear? Then it must be an evil spirit." And if a genuine "angel of God" were to tell a prophet — one taken from any of the traditional religious cultures around the world — that that prophet's own religion was fundamentally morally defective due to its intrinsic dishonesty, so that it ought to be either abolished or else reformed at a very basic level, then that "angel of God" would probably be regarded as an "evil spirit" and its message therefore rejected. And even if the prophet personally regarded the communication as more "angelic" than "demonic," there's a very good chance that if he shared his revelations with other members of his religious community, and gave his sincere opinion about the value of those revelations, then in that case he wouldn't be recognized as a _genuine_ prophet (as opposed to a "false prophet") by the surrounding religious community — and so the revelations he received would not make their way into his religion's canon of writings or its oral tradition. There is, after all, only so much truth that people can handle at a time. (Cf. John 16:12-15.)

For that reason, an "angel of God" would, on the whole, have to have been quite _subtle_ in the way in which it transmitted any "anti-esotericist message" to the authors of the Bible. "Plausible deniability" would have to have been the name of the game. The angels would have to have been careful not to make their message too blatant and overt if there was to be any decent chance of it ever being accepted. If an interpreter _wanted_ to make out an "anti-esotericist message" in the Bible, then it would be reasonably possible to do so; but if an interpreter did _not_ want to make out such a message, then it would easily escape his notice. And to deliver a subtle message of this kind would require communicating largely in the form of _ambiguous symbols_. In that way, the "angelic beings" could bypass the "censorship" of the conscious human mind. In order to get around that restriction, these "angelic beings" would have been "planting" certain "seeds" in the form of the obscure metaphorical symbols and parables that they communicated to the prophets and apostles; and then they would patiently wait for those "seeds" to eventually "germinate" and "sprout" at the appropriate time — when enough people were finally emotionally ready to _accept_ the "inner meanings" of those "seeds." The "angels" would have been trying to convey a message which a person's _unconscious_ mind would perhaps _not_ find offensive (and to which it might even be receptive); but which his _conscious_ mind _would_ find offensive — that is, if he were able to consciously _understand_ what the intended message was — since it would go against the mores and conventions of that person's society, making it an unacceptably "naughty" message, one which the person would be unwilling to discuss openly with other members of his society.

In addition, if what I said above about esoteric religious discourse being intrinsically dishonest and misleading is indeed a _fact_ , then it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that that same fact occurred to at least some of the authors of the Bible, whether consciously or unconsciously. And I believe that fact must have _bothered_ the authors of the Bible at some level of their thinking; and their guilt at being less than straightforward with their readers may have ended up finding expression in what I am calling the "second Bible" or "angelic Bible" or "anti-esotericist Bible." It is this underlying _guilt_ that may have helped to make the prophets more _receptive_ to "revelations" of a more "angelic" nature than they otherwise would have been — even if the prophets didn't _fully_ understand the significance of the revelations that they received at the time they received them.

So it is in this way that the "angels of God" could have been using "ambiguity of meaning" as a weapon _against_ the "ambiguity of meaning" that lies at the heart of religious esotericism and that makes it so dangerous, by using the _lack of clarity_ of cryptic, enigmatic, and obscurely allusive symbols, parables, and allegories as the means by which to "slip past" the "censors" who for thousands of years have wished to _preserve_ deliberately ambiguous (and therefore deceptive and misleading) esoteric "prophetical" writings in their original, "outer" form. (And remember: Those "censors" would include both those who are doing the misleading, _and_ those who are being misled — and those are certainly not two distinct groups.)

The reason for communicating by way of ambiguous symbols might also pertain to the matter of respecting human free will. It may be that the "angels" are not allowed (or they refuse) to issue direct commands, and generally only communicate in an ambiguous way, leaving all or at least most of their communications "open to interpretation," so that a person would still always have the _freedom_ to make out a certain message in an "angelic" communication if he chose to see it — and also the freedom _not_ to see it if he was determined not to see it. Moreover, when communication comes by means of ambiguous symbols — rather than by the making of any definite _assertions_ — there is nothing to "trust" or "not trust," or to "believe" or "not believe." The "angels" that communicate in this way (unlike the "demons") would simply be tossing out "food for thought," so to speak, allowing people to "make of it what they will." The final moral _judgments_ would always be left to the persons who received the angelic communications; and those moral judgments would be expressed by the way in which the persons _chose to interpret_ the ambiguous and obscure communications they had received. (That is the reason why, whenever the apostle Paul excitedly announces in his epistles that he has some "mystery" to share with his readers, one is best advised not to take what he has to say too seriously — since he evidently made the mistake of _trusting_ something that the "spirits" had to tell him about the unfolding of future events — which, of course, he would have had no means by which to immediately verify for himself, or perhaps even to verify during his own lifetime. And remember: The "spirits" have explicitly _warned us against trusting them_. See, e.g., Mark 13:22-23.)

Also, consider what the foregoing would imply: that it would be sufficient for "anti-esotericist interpreters" of the Bible to show that the presence of a "hidden anti-esotericist message" in the Bible is merely _quite plausible_ and _not at all unlikely_. We would not have to show that it is _certain_ or _obvious_ , since if it were certain and obvious, then the meaning would not be a "hidden" one. In fact, according to our hypothesis, the "hidden meaning" _must_ be one that a person can freely choose to discern — or freely choose _not_ to discern.

## Do the _Lord of the Rings_ movies also contain a hidden "anti-esotericist message"?

An additional reason why I am inclined to believe that "angelic beings" have been involved with "planting" a hidden "anti-esotericist message" in the Bible is that I believe the very _same_ "anti-esotericist message" that can be found in the Bible can also quite plausibly be found in the _Lord of the Rings_ movies (and, I assume, in the books written by J.R.R. Tolkien as well; I have only read the first of the three books in its entirety, and that was so long ago that I've forgotten just about everything about it; and I unfortunately haven't had a chance to read the books more recently). If that hypothesis is correct, then it would indicate that the _same_ "angelic beings" have likely been responsible for at least some of the "creative inspiration" received by any number of religious prophets and artists — none of whom would themselves have fully understood the "inner meaning" of their own work product. There is no reason to assume that the "angelic beings" would deliver their "revelations" _solely_ to religious prophets; presumably, they would wish to deliver their "revelations" in all sorts of ways, _especially_ including through artists. The ancient Greeks believed that the "Muses" — which they thought to be actual, literal spirit beings — were responsible for creative and artistic inspiration; in other words, they believed that creative inspiration had an _external_ source. And I think that belief may have some merit. I don't know that _all_ creative inspiration has an external source; but I don't think it would be unreasonable to suppose that some of it might.

Now: What leads me to think that the _Lord of the Rings_ movies probably contain an "anti-esotericist message"? I believe that if "angelic beings" did in fact play some role in inspiring the content of and the symbolism used in those movies (whether directly, or indirectly by means of the books), they likely meant for the "One Ring" to be understood to represent the Lie in general — but also, and more specifically, religious esotericism. Consider that the Ring has "secret writing" or "hidden writing" on it (think: "an esoteric meaning") that does not become "visible" unless the Ring has been exposed to "fire" so that the "secret writing" can become "illuminated." (The symbol of "fire" is frequently used in the Bible to signify the Holy Spirit, and can also be found associated with the idea of a "clarification of speech" or "purification of speech" or "elucidation of speech"; see, e.g., Zephaniah 3:8-10,13 and Acts 2:1-12.) Also, the character Gollum is depicted in those movies as the paradigmatic pathological liar; and it is Gollum who is destroyed along with the Ring — thus emphasizing the connection between the concept of the Lie and the symbol of the Ring.

In addition, we find that the theme of "riddles" repeatedly appears — a theme which clearly pertains to the matter of religious esotericism. In the book _The_ _Hobbit_ , I seem to recall that in Gollum's Cave, Gollum (who has by then already been consumed by his love for the Ring) demands that Bilbo solve his "riddles." And in the movie _The Fellowship of the Ring_ , the characters gain entrance to the Mines of Moria only after Frodo figures out that the writing on the outer wall is a "riddle" that must be solved. And as Gandalf is initially trying to make sense of the true significance of the Ring at the beginning of _The Fellowship of the Ring_ , he mumbles to himself, "Riddles in the dark." The word "dark" sets off alarm bells in my mind, since the symbol of "darkness" permeates the Bible, and often seems to refer to the "obscurity" of esoteric religious discourse. (Think of the phrase "dark sayings," for example; and consider Matthew 10:27.) Also, what does the "secret writing" on the Ring say? "One Ring to bring them all, _and in the darkness bind them_." The ideas of "binding" (Greek _deō_ ) and "loosing" (Greek _lyō_ or _epi-lyō_ ) are quite important to keep in mind in any study of the theme of religious esotericism as it is found in the Bible. And the relevance of the movies' symbolism to the matter of religious esotericism will become even more evident after you have finished reading this series of articles, and have carefully studied the Bible passages that I quote and link to in them. After having done so, you will have become more familiar with the ways in which certain symbols are used in the Bible, and more sensitive to their presence when you encounter them elsewhere.

Another good reason to think that the Ring may have been meant to symbolize religious esotericism is that any person who puts it on becomes "invisible." This relates to the theme of "the desire to hide," which Genesis 3:7-10 tells us came into the world with the mythical "Fall of Man" in the "Garden of Eden," and which is also so central to the phenomenon of religious esotericism. (Incidentally, I believe the symbol of "caves" that one finds in the Bible also pertains to this same theme of "the desire to hide.")

I do realize that, with some imagination and just a little bit of forcing, it is often quite easy for a person to make the symbols contained in a work of art mean just about anything that he or she wants them to mean. Even so, however, I have tried to think of a better explanation for what the "One Ring" in the _Lord of the Rings_ movies was meant to symbolize than the one I just shared with you, but no other explanation has occurred to me that I find nearly as plausible, satisfying, or persuasive. So again, I do not think it is unreasonable to suppose that "angels" may have been "feeding" suggestions to Tolkien regarding which particular symbols to use as he was writing his books (whether or not he was aware that this was happening at the time he was writing) — without Tolkien necessarily himself understanding the meanings that the "angels" _hoped_ that readers would _eventually_ assign to those symbols. And the same goes for the _Lord of the Rings_ filmmakers. (And, in fact, the same is potentially true for other Hollywood movies as well.)

If the same "anti-esotericist message" that can be found in the Bible can also be found in the _Lord of the Rings_ movies and books, then we would be finding ourselves presented with another example of why "angelic beings" would prefer in such cases to communicate with human beings in the form of cryptic, ambiguous symbols — since it is inconceivable that Tolkien, being a devout Roman Catholic, would have ever _consciously_ desired to deliver a message that, if it were deciphered and accepted by a sufficiently large number of people, would have the effect of shaking the Roman Catholic Church to its very foundations. As I explained above, I believe that "angelic beings" have been trying to find a way to communicate _through_ persons like the authors of the Bible, as well as _through_ persons like Tolkien and the _Lord of the Rings_ filmmakers — even though I'm quite certain that none of those persons had any full conscious awareness or understanding of the anti-esotericist message that I believe they were actually delivering — which I think increases the likelihood that the source of at least some of their inspiration was external in origin. But even if those persons were not themselves the actual _sources_ of the ideas to use some of the particular symbols that they used, they would nevertheless have been _willing intermediaries_ for those symbols — which, if my hypothesis is correct, would likely be to their credit.

The reason why I have devoted as much consideration to the _Lord of the Rings_ movies as I have here is that, if my hypothesis is correct, it would show that "spirit entities" or "angelic beings" have been involved in trying to promote a "hidden anti-esotericist message" _in multiple ways_ , and not only through the Bible — thus _making it less likely that I am merely "reading things into" the Bible_ when I claim that it is reasonably possible to discern an "anti-esotericist message" in it.

In the next installment in this series, I will begin examining the evidence that can be found in the Bible pointing to the existence of a "hidden anti-esotericist message" — focusing in particular on the all-important symbol of "Babel" or "Babylon."

# Part 3 of 12: Getting started with anti-esotericist Bible interpretation: The crucially important symbol of "Babel" or "Babylon," and the crucially important theme of a primordial "confusing of language"

Unless you are some sort of prodigy, please be prepared to read the writings in Parts 3 through 11 of this series more than once, since these are the installments that get more deeply into Bible interpretation. This material is inherently difficult to get one's mind around; and unfortunately, there's no getting away from that fact. It just doesn't lend itself to a simple, quick, linear presentation. So don't worry if you don't understand everything the first time through; and even if you find yourself feeling frustrated, or irritated, or overwhelmed by the material, I ask you to please stick with it. If you do, you will eventually see your reward. Even if you do not find the material inherently _interesting_ , please keep in mind that the _only_ reason why I have personally taken as much time to research and write about this subject matter as I have is that I believe it to be of great _social importance_ — and so I believe my arguments are deserving of careful consideration for that reason alone. (But, if you do happen to find the subject matter interesting as well, then so much the better.)

And even if you don't find the subject matter _interesting_ exactly, I think that as you make your way through the material in these articles, you will discover that in order to have any success at genuinely making sense of the Bible, it is necessary that a person approach it with the attitude that it is a kind of "puzzle" or "riddle" in need of solving. The solving of the "puzzle" of the Bible is just as _mentally stimulating_ and _challenging_ as any game ever invented; but this particular "puzzle" is very different from any other puzzle or game, in that its solving offers the most _socially important_ mental challenge that any person can possibly take on. I believe that by writing the articles in this series, I have demonstrated that if just one person is curious enough and tenacious enough, it is possible for him or her to discover quite a bit of evidence indicating that the Bible is actually saying something far different from what might at first seem to be the case. My hope is that readers of these articles will try to _build upon_ the material with which I have provided them here. Not for a moment should anyone think that I believe that with these articles I've written the "last word" on how to interpret the Bible for the purpose of revealing its "anti-esotericist message." I know for a fact that there is more evidence of an "anti-esotericist message" contained in the Bible than what I have included in these articles; so I have every reason to believe that others would, if they chose to try to do so, be able to discover a great deal more evidence than I myself have yet noticed or considered.

Those persons who do stick with the material and who do eventually come to "see their reward" are encouraged to locate the portions of the writings in this series that they have personally found to be the most persuasive and compelling, and then "repackage" them in an "abridged version" of one kind or another that they think might most effectively _open other people's minds_ to the ideas that I am presenting here — even if that "abridged version" isn't necessarily able to _convince_ anyone that my arguments are entirely correct. The important thing is to expose these ideas to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible, so that their merits can at least begin to be seriously debated and assessed.

In this article, I will begin presenting evidence from the Bible in support of my claim that the Bible contains a "hidden anti-esotericist message" or "hidden anti-prophetical message." But for you to be able to discern that subtle "anti-esotericist message," you will need to start getting into the habit of reading the Bible in a way that is probably quite new to you.

By a very strange irony, it is necessary to learn to _think like an esotericist_ in order to discern the "anti-esotericist message" in the Bible. And "thinking like an esotericist" means getting into the habit of never assuming that _anything_ in the Bible can be taken at face value. You must learn to regard everything in the Bible as potentially being a symbol or metaphor for some _other_ idea. You must be constantly curious and always ready to have your suspicions aroused if anything feels the least bit "off" — as well as ready to pursue those suspicions. You must always be prepared to ask yourself questions such as: "Why did the author use this word instead of that word?"; or "Why did the author include this word here instead of simply including no word at all?" _You must_ actively and aggressively _cross-reference_ different Bible passages containing the same ideas or words (preferably the same words used in the original languages in which the Bible was written) to see if they might shed light on one another. You must take note of any recurring associations between particular symbols or ideas.

Above all, you must _never, ever,_ EVER _trust_ the accuracy of any English translation of the Bible (or, for that matter, of any other esoteric religious writing that was originally written in a foreign language). English translations can be very useful — but _only_ if something that you read in an English translation gives you cause to more carefully examine the original text. There are several reasons for that, but one very important reason is that words and phrases (in any language) can have multiple meanings and connotations. (As an example from the English language, imagine someone saying, "He's drinking a lot less than he used to." That could be interpreted in very different ways depending on whether the "he" was understood to refer to a reformed alcoholic or to a sick dog or cat.) Paying attention to the context in which the word or phrase is found sometimes enables one to resolve that ambiguity of meaning; but sometimes — and especially in the case of esoteric or allegorical writings — it does not, since the inclusion of ambiguity in esoteric and allegorical writings was very often quite intentional on the part of the author. And the possible existence of any such ambiguity of meaning will usually _not_ carry over into an English translation, so the average reader of the translation will be none the wiser. In fact, the goal of most translators of the Bible is to _eliminate_ as much ambiguity as possible, not _retain_ it, since their goal is usually to provide a _single_ meaning for their readers (partly for the sake of readability); and to do that requires "coming down on one side or the other" of any ambiguity of meaning of which they are aware. The fact that in my own Bible translations I try to retain much of the ambiguity of meaning that can be found in the original texts is precisely what makes my translations so cluttered with potential distractions, and hence perhaps sometimes rather unpleasant to read. (So hopefully, with that thought in mind, you'll be less impatient and more forgiving as you read my translations than you might otherwise have been.)

As I discuss passages from the Bible in this series of articles, always remember that because the Bible is an esoteric writing, it contains both "inner meanings" (or "eso **teric** meanings") and "outer meanings" (or "exo **teric** meanings"). The crucial theme of a split between " _the inner_ " and " _the outer_ " is one that recurs throughout the entire Bible. _A person cannot even hope to properly understand the Bible apart from a_ _constant_ _alertness to that theme_.

You'll get a better idea of what I mean as we examine some Bible passages together. If this is your first time reading these articles, please don't let yourself get bogged down with trying to make sense of my own bracketed insertions in the block quotations, such as the Greek and Hebrew words used in the original Bible texts. In many cases, my reasons for including this material will become clearer to you after you've already read all of the articles in the series at least once. So your first time through, I recommend that when you see me quoting a Bible passage in a block quotation, you focus mainly on just reading the red-colored text (unless I indicate otherwise in the main text).

During your first reading, I also strongly recommend that you skip over all bracketed paragraphs and all of the citations of Bible passages that I link to. (You can think of the bracketed paragraphs as "footnotes" that I have chosen to insert in the body of the main text.) However, please understand that the majority of the citations have been included not merely for the purpose of "backing up" the specific claims that I make in my own writings, but rather for the purpose of helping to advance my overall argument about what I think the authors of the Bible were actually trying to say. So the Bible passages that I link to should not be thought of as being less worthy of careful consideration than the Bible passages that I quote in my own writings. In other words, even if you skip over the linked citations during a first reading, I would encourage you to start taking a look at some of them during a second or third reading. Also, with many of these citations, I am allowing others to notice connections or associations between the contents of a cited Bible passage, and the contents of a quoted Bible passage or something from my own writing, which I do not explicitly point out myself. I don't insist that in each and every case the connection or association that occurred to me has any great significance; and sometimes you might not even understand what I thought it might be. I'm simply asking you to _consider_ whether you think there might be an interesting and important association present that would help to shed light on the meaning of the Bible as a whole.

As you read the Bible passages, please be aware that if the quoted passage is from the Old Testament, and I don't indicate otherwise, then an italicized foreign word within brackets is Hebrew, taken from the Hebrew Masoretic version of the Old Testament. If the quoted passage is from the Old Testament, and I precede an italicized foreign word within brackets with "LXX," then the word is Greek, taken from the ancient Greek Septuagint ("LXX") translation of the Old Testament. And if the quoted passage is from the New Testament, then all of the italicized foreign words are Greek.

[As an additional disclaimer for the benefit of persons who care about such things, Greek and Hebrew words will usually be given in their lemma form (that is, the form according to which they are listed in a Greek or Hebrew lexicon), while English translations of Greek verbs will often be given in the infinitive form (which is not the lemma form).]

## "Babel" or "Babylon": A symbol for "religious esotericism"

I would like to begin my examination of the Bible by first stating my thesis that the hugely important biblical symbol of " _Babel_ " or " _Babylon_ " was, generally speaking, understood by the authors of the Bible to symbolize _religious esotericism_ — which, I believe, would also help to explain why it was so detested by those authors. (The Hebrew word usually translated into English as "Babylon" is actually _babel_ ; the English word "Babylon" is of Greek derivation — so the names "Babel" and "Babylon" can be regarded as equivalent from the perspective of an author who spoke and read Hebrew — which I think would have almost certainly included all of the authors of the Christian Bible.)

_I believe that when the prophets of both the New Testament and the Old Testament spoke of "Babylon" or "Babel," what they chiefly had in mind was the episode from Genesis 11:1-9 describing the building of the "Tower of Babel" and the famous "_ _confusing of language_ _" that resulted therefrom_ ; and this idea of a "confusing of language" is strongly suggestive of the idea of _religious esotericism_ (among other things). The reasons why I make these claims will become more evident as I proceed in this series of articles with my discussion of various Bible passages.

Some persons familiar with the Bible might be inclined to assume that the hostility expressed in it toward "Babylon" or "Babel" was the result of the "Babylonian Captivity" that reputedly took place after the (historical) kingdom of Judah was conquered by the (historical) Babylonian Empire in the sixth century B.C. But as I have previously stated, the Bible should not be thought of as a history book, even when it sometimes refers to actual historical events. The authors were very concerned with ascribing _symbolic significance_ to events. And I view the symbolic significance of the "Babylonian Captivity" as _secondary_ , having been _derived from_ the _preexisting_ association between the symbol of "Babel" or "Babylon" and the episode narrated in Genesis 11:1-9 (which I quote below).

[Even if some Judahites/Jews were in fact, as an historical matter, literally taken captive by the Babylonian army and brought to Babylon, evidence that at least some "artistic license" must have been taken by the authors of the Old Testament in describing the event is provided by, for example, 2 Chronicles 36:20-21, which says that the exile of the Jews in Babylon lasted "until the land [of Judah] had been paid her sabbaths; all the days of her desolation she kept sabbath [or rested: _shabath_ ] , to fulfill seventy years." I don't think it's a coincidence that a "sabbath week" happens to consist of _seven_ days, while this passage is telling us that the "sabbath rest" of the land of Judah lasted _seventy_ years. This numerical figure of "seventy years" was clearly meant to be understood as symbolic.]

In accordance with the way of thinking about these matters that I am proposing, the "Babylonian Captivity" would have been understood to signify the idea that "Judah" had been "conquered," or was being "held captive" or "held in bondage," by the religious esotericist _system_. And I believe symbolic "Israel" or "Judah" or "Jerusalem" or "Zion" would have been understood to correspond to the "inner meaning" of the scriptures (or a person's "inner self") that needed to be liberated from its "captivity" or "bondage" within the "outer meaning" of the scriptures (or the person's "outer self") — corresponding to "Babel" or "Babylon."

To be more precise, I think symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" would have been understood to signify the _coexistence_ of an "inner meaning" with a _different_ "outer meaning" that had the effect of _concealing_ or _hiding_ the true "inner meaning." That would help to explain why, as is indicated by Galatians 4:22-26 and Revelation 11:8, for example, symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" was identified by the authors of the New Testament with the symbolic "present Jerusalem" — which would have been understood to correspond to what I have been calling the "first Bible" or "demonic Bible" — while the "new Jerusalem" or "Jerusalem above" or "heavenly Jerusalem" (see Revelation 21:2, Galatians 4:22-26, and Hebrews 12:22) would have been understood to correspond to what I have been calling the "second Bible" or "angelic Bible." (However, I am by no means claiming that the human authors of the New Testament had anything close to a perfect understanding of what that "angelic Bible" would have been calling for.)

By the way, I wish to stress at this point in the discussion that the "inner meaning" of the scriptures should not be regarded as being "better" than the "outer meaning" of the scriptures so long as both of those meanings _continue to coexist_ , since in that case both of those meanings are continuing to serve as "co-participants" in the same basic act of deception. An "inner meaning" _might_ be a "good" meaning — but _only after_ there is no longer any "outer meaning" still concealing it, or disguising it, or hiding it. That is in large part because _until_ the _separate_ "outer meaning" has been done away with, it cannot be known with certainty what the true "inner meaning" _even is_ — making it impossible to assess its merits with any certainty. (Incidentally, the idea that although the "inner meaning" and the "outer meaning" of the esoteric scriptures are "mixed" or "mingled" together, they yet remain separate, in the sense of not being completely "merged" together, is well expressed by the metaphorical image presented to us in [Daniel 2:43.)]

If I am correct in suggesting that "Babel" or "Babylon" was understood to serve as the general symbol in the Bible for religious esotericism, then the symbolic " _fall of Babylon_ " that is described throughout the New Testament's Book of Revelation would have been understood, at least at some level of the author's thinking, to signify _the future end of religious esotericism_. (Remember, _in historical terms_ , the Babylonian Empire had already "fallen" long before the Book of Revelation was ever written, so there was no longer any _literal_ "captivity" or "dominion" that was even _capable_ of being ended. So if "Babel" or "Babylon" had a purely symbolic significance for the author of the Book of Revelation, then it is not unreasonable to suppose that it likely had a _similar_ symbolic significance for the Old Testament prophets — and there is independent evidence to support that supposition, as I will demonstrate in the writings in this series of articles.)

One reason (and there are a number of them) why I believe that when the author of the Book of Revelation wrote about "Babylon," what he actually had in mind was the episode from Genesis 11:1-9 describing the building of the "Tower of Babel" and the resulting "confusing of language," is a parallelism that can be found between Genesis 11:1-9 and Revelation 18:4-6. This parallelism is particularly intriguing because, as I already mentioned, the Hebrew word usually translated into English as "Babylon" is actually _babel_. And Revelation 9:11, for example, indicates that the author of the Book of Revelation must almost certainly have been proficient in both Hebrew and Greek (in case there was any doubt about the matter); and so he would have been well aware that the (English) "Babylon" about which he was writing was actually _identical_ to the (English) "Babel" of Genesis 11:1-9, not to mention the (English) "Babylon" written about elsewhere in the Old Testament.

Let's first take a look at Genesis 11:1-9 (once again, the italicized Greek words used in the ancient Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament are indicated by "LXX"; otherwise, the italicized words are those used in the Hebrew Masoretic version of the Old Testament):

And all the earth was of a single or united: Hebrew _echad_ ] language [Hebrew _saphah_ ; Greek LXX _cheilos_ ] and of a single [or united: _echad_ ] speech [or, "a single discourse," or "a single account," or "a single message," or "words (that were) single": _dabarim_ , the plural of _dabar_ , which can mean "word"; LXX _phōné_ ]. And it came about in their moving from [some translations have "to" instead of "from"] the east that they discovered a valley [more literally, "a split," or "a cleaving," or "a division," or "an opening," or "a breach": _biqah_ , derived from _baqa_ , meaning "to split, to break open"] in the land [or earth: _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] of Shinar; and they settled there. And they said, (each) man to his neighbor, "Come, let us make bricks, and bake [or burn: _saraph_ ] them thoroughly." And brick was to them for stone [why didn't they just use stone?], and asphalt [LXX _asphaltos_ ; compare how the related Greek word _asphalizō_ is used in [Matthew 27:66 — which may suggest that the authors of both passages meant to evoke the same idea of the "sealing up" of "inner meanings"] was to them for clay [or mortar, or cement: _chomer_ ; LXX _pélos_ ] [why didn't they just use clay?]. And they said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower [or castle, or fortification: _migdal_ ] (with its) top [or head: _rosh_ ; LXX _kephalé_ ] in the heavens; and let us make for ourselves a name [ _shem_ ], lest we be scattered [or dispersed: _puwts_ ; LXX: _dia-speirō_ ] over the face of the whole earth." And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower that the sons of men [or of man, or of mankind, or of "the Adam": _ha-adam_ ] had built. And the Lord said, "Behold, the people [ _am_ ] (are) one [or single, or united: _echad_ ], and (there is) one [or a single, or a united: _echad_ ] language for all (people); and, beginning [ _chalal_ , which can also mean 'to pierce, to penetrate, to bore a hole'; LXX _archomai_ ] by doing this, now nothing will be hidden [or impossible, or inaccessible, or impenetrable, or walled off, or fenced off, or withheld, or held back, or secure: _batsar_ ; LXX _ek-leipō_ ] (from them), and everything that they intend, they will do. Let us go down there and confuse [or mix together, or mix up, or confound, or mingle, or pour together: _balal_ ; LXX _syg-cheō_ , which can have all those same meanings, but most literally means 'pour together **'** ] their language [ _saphah_ ; LXX _glōssan_ , a singular form of _glōssa_ , which more literally means 'tongue'], so that one man may not understand [or listen to, or hear: _shama_ (related to _shem_ , meaning 'name'); LXX _akouō_ ] the language [or speech: _saphah_ ; LXX _phōné_ , which can also mean 'voice'] of his neighbor [or companion, or 'one who is near': _rea_ ; LXX _plésion_ ]." And the Lord scattered them from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped [ _chadal_ ; LXX _pauō_ ] building the city. Therefore its name [ _shem_ ] was called Babel [ _babel_ ; LXX _syg-chysis_ , meaning "Confusion"], because there the Lord confused [or mixed together, or mixed up, or confounded, or mingled, or poured together: _balal_ ; LXX _syg-cheō_ , most literally meaning "poured together"] the language of the whole earth; and from there the Lord scattered [or dispersed: _puwts_ ; LXX _dia-speirō_ ] them over the face of the whole earth.

Notice certain themes in this passage: The language and speech of "all the earth" begins by being "single" or "united." Then the people of "Babel" discover a "split" or "division" in the "earth." Then they decide to construct a "tower" with its "top in the heavens," by making "bricks" and then "mortaring" or "cementing" them together. The end result of their activities is that their language becomes "confused" — or, more literally, "mixed together" or "poured together."

Now consider Revelation 18:4-6 (since it's from the New Testament, all of the italicized words here are Greek):

And I heard another [or a different: _allos_ ] voice [or speech, or language: _phōné_ ] (coming) out of heaven, saying, "Come out from (Babel/Babylon), my people, that you might not participate in [or be joined together with: _syg-koinōneō_ ] her sins, and that you might not receive her plagues; for her sins have been cemented together [or glued together, or joined together: _kollaō_ ] as high as heaven, and God has remembered her injustices. Render [or give back, or pay back: _apo-didōmi_ ] to her just as she has rendered [ _apo-didōmi_ ] — and make double [ _diploō_ ] the (things that are) double [ _ta dipla_ ], in keeping with her (own) works. In the cup that she has mixed [ _keraō_ or _kerannymi_ ], mix [ _keraō_ or _kerannymi_ ] double [or 'a double (portion)': _diplous_ or _diploos_ ] for her."

Notice how we find the same themes appearing again in this _later_ description of the _same_ symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon": The "sins" (presumably corresponding to "bricks") are "cemented together" to form a tower (or pyramid, or ziggurat) "as high as heaven." We also find the idea of a "pouring together" or "mixing together," such as of liquids. Notice also the anger being expressed by the author at the idea of "doubleness" (that is to say, "multiplicity" — perhaps in addition to "duplicity," suggestive of "treachery"), and how he refers to it repeatedly; and contrast that with the "singleness" or "unity" of language and speech that is repeatedly referred to in Genesis 11:1-9 — but which was lost when (whether directly or indirectly) the actions of the people of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" introduced "multiplicity" (and presumably also "duplicity") of language and speech into the world.

By the way, the association of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" with the idea of "multiplicity" in the specific context of "language" can also be seen by comparing [Revelation 17:1 with Revelation 17:15. And the association between symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" and the idea of "doubleness" can also be found in Jeremiah 50:21, in which the epithet _merathaim_ is applied to "Babel" or "Babylon." This Hebrew word means something like "double rebellion," or "double disobedience," or "double bitterness," or "double grief," or "double discontent," or "double provocation," or "double distress." Whatever exactly the author understood the word to mean, it's pretty clear that what made symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" so hateful in his mind somehow resulted from what he considered to be its characteristic "doubleness" or "duplicity."]

I believe the "confusing" of "language" and "speech" referred to in Genesis 11:1-9 is probably best thought of as primarily referring not to the creation of a multiplicity of ordinary, conventional, "natural" languages around the world (as is ordinarily supposed), but rather to the creation of a multiplicity of _meanings_ — even _within_ individual conventional languages. (However, there is of course overlap between my suggested way of reading the passage and the more familiar way of reading it.) Recall that the reason why "the Lord" confused the language of the people of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" was "so that one man may not understand [or listen to, or hear: _shama_ ; LXX _akouō_ ] the language [or speech: _saphah_ ; LXX _phōné_ , which can also mean 'the voice'] of his neighbor [or _companion_ , or ' _one who is near_ _'_ : _rea_ ; LXX _plésion_ ]." So this passage is clearly not concerned merely with the problems that persons have in communicating with other persons who only speak a different one of the various _conventional_ languages that are spoken in the various nations around the world; such persons could not have reasonably been considered persons who were "neighbors" or "companions" or "those who were near" to each other at the time of Babel's "confusing of speech." The multiplicity of conventional languages must have been thought to come later, or to come independently. _The passage is speaking of the much more fundamental breakdown in_ _interpersonal_ _communication that must result from a splitting or fragmenting of_ _meaning_ _._ The result of the mythical "confusing of language" was that persons would henceforth have difficulty fully _comprehending_ and _appreciating_ the truly intended _meanings_ that other persons were trying to convey when they made efforts to communicate. In short: The people of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" began to "tune each other out **."**

However, the authors of the New Testament seem to have wanted to change people's ideas about who qualified as a "neighbor" (Greek _plésion_ ) in the wake of the "scattering" caused by the "confusing of speech." See [Luke 10:29-37, which contains the "Parable of the Good Samaritan." In the parable, why do you think the "man" is described as having "gone down" (or "descended": Greek _kata-bainō_ ) from "Jerusalem" to "Jericho" in particular? Why do you think the man who was "robbed" (cf. Luke 19:46 and Mark 11:17) is specifically described as having been left " _half_ -dead" (Greek _hémi_ _-thanés_ )? Why do you think the "priest" and "Levite" in the parable, who are described as also having "gone down" (Greek _kata-bainō_ ) on the same "road" (or "way": Greek _hodos_ ) as the man, chose to pass by him " _on the other side_ " of the "road"? See Parts 4 and 5 of this series. I here offer the suggestion (for which I provide some evidence in Part 5) that "Jericho" was likely regarded by the authors of the New Testament as largely symbolically equivalent to "Babel" or "Babylon." I believe this parable is probably talking about _communication_ , and not just about an obligation to show ordinary compassion to someone who has been _physically_ attacked.]

I believe Genesis 11:1-9 — through the use of a mythical manner of discourse — is trying to point to the basic autism and lonely self-enclosure that must result from the fragmentation of meaning into something relatively individualistic and not wholly shared in common. I believe the passage is speaking of a _defectiveness of communication_ in human discourse generally, which makes communication less successful than we might imagine it someday becoming; and that defectiveness is the result of some unnecessary _restriction_ that exists which prevents a _free circulation of meaning_ among individual human beings. I believe this restriction is the result of a deep-seated tendency among human beings to be attracted to esoteric ways of communicating (both religious and non-religious in nature) and the creation of "secret languages" or "private languages" for self-styled "elites" — a tendency which, even though deep-seated and instinctive (partly due to a desire to feel superior to others, and partly due to a desire to shield one's "inner self" or "true self" from the potentially cruel or critical gaze of others), still needs to be _resisted_.

I furthermore suggest that the story of the Tower of Babel should perhaps be read as a _mythical_ account of the creation of the esotericist type of religion. (Which is _not_ to say that I think the esotericist type of religion was created at any single point in time as the result of a decision by any particular group of persons; but the general nature of myth is to treat whatever phenomenon it is describing _as if it had_ begun at a single point in time and at a particular place.) When the people of Babel say, "Let us make for ourselves a name [ _shem_ ] , lest we be scattered over the face of the whole earth," I suspect that this may have been meant to be read as saying that they _themselves_ had already developed a desire to break up the unity and singleness of meaning within language, with the intention of turning that "fragmenting of meaning" to their own advantage, through the use of "secret code-words" and "secret languages" and the like, along with the occulting of knowledge and plain old lying. It was "the Lord" — perhaps in this instance serving as a figurative symbol for the operation of the natural law of cause and effect (or, perhaps not) — that ensured that none of their attempts at promoting the "fragmenting of meaning" would ever enable them to achieve _total_ control over all those individuals not permitted to be "in the know" — that is to say, those persons considered to be the "profane" members of human society.

The fundamental logical problem with the way of thinking that I am attributing to the people of "Babel" is that _every_ person is in constant danger of being judged by _any other_ person as "profane" (or some functionally equivalent label). And if a "profane" person, precisely because of his being judged "profane," is deemed _not to be "deserving" of being told the truth_ , then anyone might be lying to anyone else at any time — and feel completely justified in doing so. The self-styled "holy" persons are not necessarily obliged to _announce_ to persons whom they consider "profane" that they even _do_ consider them to be "profane," so the "profane" persons won't even have been put "on notice" that they should not be _trusting_ anything that one of the self-styled "holy" persons tells them; and an awareness that this sort of thing could potentially be happening at any time leads to an increase in the general background level of distrust and suspicion within society (thus leading people to "scatter" or "disperse"). This basic situation can occur informally in everyday life, but it can also be institutionalized, complete with costumes and rituals and titles and so forth, such as one finds in religious organizations, and perhaps also military organizations, and intelligence agencies, and secret societies, so that the distinction between "insider" and "outsider" appears to be more clear. But the key word there is "appears" — since even "insiders" might _secretly_ decide to regard some of their fellow "insiders" as being relatively "profane" themselves, and therefore _also_ not "deserving" of being told the truth. (And, at the same time, some of those persons judged to be "relatively profane" might be secretly _judging their judges_ to be "relatively profane" in comparison _to them_ , and therefore not "deserving" of being told the truth _themselves_.) The end result of permitting this way of thinking to exist, in which _any_ persons are _ever_ allowed to decide for themselves whether certain other persons in their society are "deserving" of being told the truth, is rampant chaos and _confusion_ in human communications and in human relations.

[And the basic logical fallacy involved in a society ever allowing dishonesty to be used against any person as "punishment" for some alleged prior act of dishonesty (or any other act) by that person — so that honesty would be reserved only for those deemed to be "deserving" of it — has long been understood (even if often ignored in practice). For example, in the _Avesta_ , which contains the ancient sacred scriptures of the Zoroastrian religion, it is written,

A scoundrel who is false to the covenant (mithra-) destroys a whole country.... Never break a covenant, whether you make it with a false man or a just man of good conscience. The covenant holds for both, the false and the just.

[From the _Avesta_ , Yasht 10, verse 2, quoted in Mary Boyce, ed. and trans., _Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism_ (University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 28; the ellipsis is contained in Boyce's translation of the text; the emphases are mine.]

For purposes of Bible interpretation, however, the basic idea that I would ask readers to accept is that — as shown, for example, by a comparison of Genesis 11:1-9 with Revelation 18:4-6 — any mention of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" in the Bible often seems to evoke in the mind of any author who discusses it (whether consciously or unconsciously) the crucial question of whether meanings in language and speech will be "united" (or "single," or "simple," or "pure"), or whether language and speech will be "divided" (or "mixed," or "double," or "multiple," or "ambiguous," or "confounded," or "duplicitous").

For additional evidence that the authors of the Bible tended to associate the symbol of "Babel" or "Babylon" specifically with the episode narrated in Genesis 11:1-9 — and therefore with the idea of a primordial "confusing of language" — let's next look at Jeremiah 51:53. While keeping in mind the line from Genesis 11:1-9 in which the people of "Babel" say, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower [or fortification, or castle: _migdal_ ] (with its) top [or head] in the heavens," consider that Jeremiah 51:53 says,

Though Babylon [Hebrew _babel_ ] should ascend [ _alah_ ; LXX _ana-bainō_ ] to the heavens, and though she should fortify [or make inaccessible, or make impenetrable: _batsar_ ] her lofty stronghold [or strength: _oz_ ], yet destroyers will come from me against her, declares the Lord.

Also consider Isaiah 14:12-19, which, speaking of the "King of Babylon" or "King of Babel," says,

How you have fallen out of the heaven, shining one [or Lucifer: _helel_ ; LXX _heōs-phoros_ , meaning "morning star," or more literally, "limit-bringer" or "until-bringer"], son of the dawn [the LXX has "(you) the early-riser," or "(you) the one rising at dawn": _ho prōi anatellōn_ ]! How you have been cut down [ _gada_ ; LXX _syn-tribō_ , which can mean "broken," or "broken to pieces," or "shattered," or "ground up"] to the earth, the one who laid the nations low! And you said in your heart, "Into the heavens I will ascend [ _alah_ ; LXX _ana-bainō_ ], to the stars of God above I will rise, and I will sit on my throne on the mountain of assembly, in the recesses of the north. I will ascend [ _alah_ ; LXX _ana-bainō_ ] above the height of the clouds; I will be like the Most High." But you have descended [ _yarad_ ; LXX _kata-bainō_ ] to hell [ _sheol_ ] , to the recesses of the pit. Those who see you stare at you and marvel over you: "Is this the man who caused the earth to tremble, who shook kingdoms, who made the inhabited world like a wilderness and tore the cities down, who did not release [or 'open up': _pathach_ ; LXX _lyō_ ] prisoners to go home?" All kings of the nations, all of them lie in glory, each in his own tomb [more literally, "house": _bayith_ ]. But you are cast out of your sepulchre like a worthless branch, garment of those who are killed (by being) pierced [LXX _ek-kenteō_ ] with a sword, that falls to the stones of the pit like a trampled corpse.

[In verse 20, the LXX goes on to say, "In the way that an outer garment [or cloak: LXX _himation_ ] stained [LXX _phyrō_ , which can also mean "mixed," and, more figuratively, "jumbled together, confounded, confused"] in blood will not be clean [or pure, or unmixed: LXX _katharos_ ], neither will you be clean [or pure, or unmixed: LXX _katharos_ ], because you destroyed [LXX _apollymi_ ] my earth [LXX _gé_ ] and you had my people killed [LXX _apo-kteinō_ ]. You shall not remain into the time of the eon, evil seed.]

For still more evidence that the "Babel" or "Babylon" spoken of by the authors of the Bible was, generally speaking, meant to be thought of as specifically corresponding to the "Babel" spoken of in Genesis 11:1-9, first take another look at Genesis 11:1-2:

And all the earth was of a single language and of a single speech. And it came about in their moving from the east that they discovered a valley in the land of Shinar; and they settled there.

Now compare that to Daniel 1:1-2:

In the third year of the reign of Jehoiakim king of Judah, Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon [or Babel: _babel_ ] came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand, with some of the vessels [ _keli_ , derived from _kalah_ , meaning "to finish, to complete"] of the house of God. And he brought them to the land of Shinar, to the house of his god, and brought the vessels into the treasure house of his god.

So we see that even after the historical conquest of the kingdom of "Judah" by the "Babylonian Empire" (and even after the fall of the _historical_ "Babylonian Empire"; see Daniel 5:24-31), the Old Testament prophets were still inclined to think of "Babylon" or "Babel" in relation to its being in "the land of Shinar" — and therefore also in relation to the "Tower of Babel" and the "confusing of language" that purportedly took place there.

## The "obscurity" and "darkness" of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon"; and the "clarity" and "brightness" of the symbolic "new Jerusalem"

If one chooses to view the symbols found in the Book of Revelation as having psychological significance (as I believe they ought to be viewed), then I think it is highly unlikely to be coincidental that one finds in it symbols that strongly suggest the ideas of " _obscurity_ " and " _clarity_ " — both of which ideas are, of course, highly relevant to the subject of religious esotericism. For example, Revelation 9:1-2 — in a manner reminiscent of Isaiah 14:12-19 (which I quoted above) — says,

And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet, and I saw a star having fallen out of the heaven to the earth [which I think probably refers to "Lucifer," the "light-bearer," a "falling star" or "shooting star" or "meteor" that becomes "illuminated" as it "falls"], and the key of the pit of the (bottomless) abyss was given to him. And he opened the pit of the (bottomless) abyss, and smoke [ _kapnos_ ] went up out of the pit, like smoke of a great furnace [ _kaminos_ ], and the sun and the air were darkened [ _skotoō_ ] by the smoke of the pit.

The metaphorical symbols of "smoke" and "darkness" (think: "dark sayings") would seem most likely to signify the idea of semantic _obscurity_. And importantly, this "obscurity" is deemed to find its source in the "bottomless pit" of _hell_. This state of affairs is reversed in Revelation 20:1-3 (just prior to the emergence of the "new Jerusalem" described in Revelation chapter 21):

And I saw an angel coming down out of the heaven, holding the key to the (bottomless) abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound [ _deō_ ] him for a thousand years, and cast him into the (bottomless) abyss, and shut (it) and sealed [ _sphragizō_ ] (it) over him, so that he might not deceive [more literally, "lead astray," or "make to wander": _planaō_ ] the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed [ _teleō_ ]; after these things it is necessary for him to be released [ _lyō_ ] for a short time.

But then, after "the Devil who was deceiving them" is finally "cast into the lake of fire and brimstone" once and for all in Revelation 20:10, the paradise of the "new Jerusalem" can finally come into view. And significantly, the author envisions this paradise as a place _where there is no obscurity whatsoever, and where everything is perfectly clear_. Consider Revelation 21:10-11,18-19,21:

And (an angel) carried me away in spirit up to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, its radiance [or light: _phōster_ ] like a most precious [ _timiōtatō_ , a superlative form of _timios_ , meaning "precious, valuable"] (gem)stone [ _lithos_ ], like a jasper [ _iaspis_ ] stone, being clear as crystal [ _krystallizō_ ].... The material of its wall was jasper [ _iaspis_ : in other words, the wall "was clear as crystal"], and the city (was) clear [or pure, or unmixed, or clarified: _katharos_ ] gold, clear [ _katharos_ ] like glass. The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with every precious [ _timios_ ] (gem)stone.... And the twelve gates (were) twelve pearls, each of the gates (made) out of a single pearl, and the street of the city (was made out of) clear [ _katharos_ ] gold, transparent [ _diaugés_ , related to _di-augazō_ , meaning "to dawn, _to shine through (the darkness)_ "] as glass.

This idea that the "new Jerusalem" is someplace where everything would finally be "clear" is further emphasized in Revelation 22:1-2:

And (the angel) showed me a river of water of life, clear [or bright, or transparent, or shining, or brilliant: _lampros_ ] as crystal [ _krystallos_ ], going out from the throne of God and of the Lamb in the middle of the street of (the city)....

This same theme of a greater "clarity" coming into existence at some time in the future can also be found in the prophetical writings of the Old Testament. After Zephaniah 3:1 denounces the "oppressive city" (which I assume corresponds to the symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" — as well as the symbolic "Sodom," and the symbolic "Egypt," and the symbolic "present Jerusalem," and the symbolic "Ninevah," and so on, for reasons that I will explain later), Zephaniah 3:8-10,13, speaking of the coming "day of the Lord," says,

"Therefore wait for me," declares the Lord, "until the day when I rise up to (seize) the prey. For my determination is to gather nations, to assemble kingdoms, to pour out upon them my rage, all my burning anger; for in the fire of my zeal all the earth will be consumed. For at that time I will return to the peoples [ _ammim_ , the plural of _am_ ] a clarified [or purified, or brightened, or cleansed, or purged, or polished, or sincere: _barar_ ] language [or speech: _saphah_ ; LXX _glōssa_ ] , that all of them may call upon the name [ _shem_ ] of the Lord and serve him with a single [or united: _echad_ ] accord [or will; more literally, 'yoke': _shekem_ ; LXX _zygos_ ]. From beyond the rivers of Cush [or Ethiopia, or Sudan] my worshipers, the daughter of my scattered [or dispersed: _puwts_ ; LXX _dia-speirō_ ] ones, shall bring my offering.... [T]hey shall do no injustice and speak [ _dabar_ ] no lies, nor shall there be found in their mouth a deceitful language [or speech; more literally, 'tongue': _lashon_ ; LXX _glōssa_ ]."

Carefully compare this passage with Genesis 11:1-9, quoted above. Even better than Revelation 18:4-6, I think, it seems to be describing the _reversal_ of what is said to have originally taken place at "Babel."

In Genesis 11:1-9 the Lord says, "Behold, the people [ _am_ ] (are) one [or single, or united: _echad_ ] , and (there is) one [or a single, or a united: _echad_ ] language [ _saphah_ ; LXX _cheilos_ ] for all (people).... Let us go down there and confuse [or mix up, or pour together: _balal_ ; LXX _syg-cheō_ ] their language [ _saphah_ ; LXX _glōssa_ ]...."

But here in Zephaniah 3:8-10,13 the Lord says, "I will return to the peoples  _ammim_ , the plural of _am_ ] a clarified [or purified, or brightened, or cleansed, or purged, or polished, or sincere: _barar_ ] language [or speech: _saphah_ ; LXX _glōssa_ ]." Unlike in Genesis 11:1-9, here the "peoples" (Hebrew _ammim_ ) begin in the condition of _already_ being "multiple," rather than "single" or "united." All of the earth's "nations" or "kingdoms" or "peoples" are described in Zephaniah 3:8-10,13 as becoming "assembled" and "gathered" from out of their former state of being "scattered" (or "dispersed": _puwts_ ; LXX _dia-speirō_ ), and as now coming together to "call upon the name [ _shem_ ] of the Lord and serve him with a single [or united: _echad_ ] accord" — and no longer wishing, as in Genesis 11:1-9, to "make for ourselves a name [ _shem_ ] [which suggests that rampant egotism and clashing wills were seen to be to blame for their being "scattered"], lest we be scattered [or dispersed: _puwts_ ; LXX _dia-speirō_ ] over the face of the whole earth." It was by their failure to believe that "the name of the Lord" was the only "name" worth _giving their entire attention to_ (cf. [Revelation 22:4 and  Isaiah 65:16-17) that the people of symbolic "Babel" brought upon themselves the very fate that they most dreaded: that of being "scattered over the face of the whole earth" (and thereby _cut off_ from others — even their "close companions" — because of their inability to genuinely _communicate_ or _connect_ with each other, as a result of their inability to _trust_ each other).

And notice what exactly it is that brings about this turnaround: the Lord "consumes all the earth" with his "fire" — and this gives rise to a "purified (or cleansed, or purged, or clarified, or brightened) speech (or language)." The reader is led to imagine a kind of metaphorical "furnace" or "refinery" burning off all of the impurities and "slag" and "dross" of language (by means of the "fire" of the Holy Spirit), so that whenever a person henceforth tried to communicate, his or her intended meanings would be able to _shine through clearly_ (like refined "clear gold"; cf. Revelation 21:18 and 21:21), instead of being _obscured_ by the mental "cloudiness," and "shadowiness," and "darkness" of the kind of language created by indistinct ideas, mental confusion, excessive ambiguity, multiple meanings, mixed meanings, and hidden meanings. (Cf. Revelation 9:1-2, also quoted above.) So Zephaniah 3:8-10,13 is telling us that _the "unifying" of peoples is made possible by undoing what caused their "scattering" or "dispersal" in the first place: the "confusing of language_ _."_ When the meanings of language are better "unified," so that meaning in language becomes more clear, evident, distinct, precise, and sincere — _thus making genuine communication between persons possible_ , because their most deeply felt meanings can be better shared between them — so too can human peoples (and individuals) be better "unified" in their relations with one another.

But note that it seems that this "unifying" of peoples was not expected to lead to a complete loss of identity and diversity among different peoples, since, at least according to some manuscripts of the Christian Bible, in Revelation 21:3 a "great voice from the throne" says, "Behold, the tabernacle [or tent: _skéné_ ] of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they will be his peoples [ _laoi_ , a _plural_ form of _laos_ ] , and God himself will be with them as their God." And in addition to that, also see [Revelation 21:24, which speaks of "the nations" (Greek _ta ethné_ ) _in the plural_ with regard to how they would conduct themselves _after_ the advent of the "new Jerusalem."]

Also notice the connection made in Zephaniah 3:8-10,13 between the existence of what the author implicitly calls an "unpurified speech," or "unclarified speech," or "darkened speech," and the existence of "lies" and "deceit" in the speech of human beings (which of course constitutes another kind of mental "darkness" interfering with the ability of human beings to successfully communicate with one another). As I have said previously, in my article "How religious esotericism is really just a form of lying" I have made what I believe to be an _irrefutable_ argument that the Bible (at the very least, the Christian Bible) openly endorses dishonest, deceptive, and misleading ways of communicating because of its authors' practice and endorsement of an esoteric manner of religious discourse; the way I see it, that is simply a fact. But if I am correct in saying that it is a fact, then, as I previously discussed in Part 2, one must assume that that same fact must have sooner or later occurred — at some level of awareness, anyway — to the esotericist prophets who wrote the Bible (even if they quickly rejected the thought before it had a chance to settle into their consciousness). And given how often lying and deception are denounced in the Bible, that thought — even if it remained unconscious — must have nagged at them and left them with an unrelenting sense of guilt.

And I think the _realization_ that esoteric religious writings actually constitute a dishonest and misleading form of communication can be found reflected in the Book of Revelation. For one thing, if we choose to describe the esoteric symbolic imagery found in the Bible as "quasi-hallucinatory" or "dream-like" in nature, then it is significant that the author of Revelation 18:23, in exulting over the envisioned fall of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon," says of her that

your merchants or traders: _emporos_ ] were the great ones of the earth, and all the nations were deceived [more literally, "led astray," or "made to wander": _eplanéthésan_ , a form of _planaō_ in the passive voice] by your sorcery [more literally, "poisoning," or "drugging," or " _administering of hallucinogenic drugs_ ": _pharmakeia_ ]. [Recall that this is very similar to the language used in [Revelation 20:2-3 to describe "the Devil and Satan." That same language is also repeated in Revelation 20:7-8.]

So it seems that whatever it was that the authors of the Bible understood to be symbolized by "Babel" or "Babylon" was regarded by them as the source of all of mankind's woes, and as that which was preventing "the day of the Lord" from arriving. And what characterizes symbolic "Babel"? It is, of course, more than anything, the "confusing of language." Therefore they must have believed, at some level of awareness, that it was the "confusing of language" that was continuing to prevent the "day of the Lord" from arriving. And again, I am suggesting that the "confusing of language" is best thought of as referring to the "splitting of meaning" into "inner meanings" and "outer meanings" — especially including its occurrence in the specific form of religious esotericism, but also including any other instance of the workings of the Lie in general. (That is because a flat-out, deliberate lie actually just takes the "splitting of meaning" to its lonely logical conclusion. In the case of religious esotericism, the author intends that his "inner meaning" be understood by only a small minority of his readers, that is, those whom he considers to be among "the elect" or "the worthy." But in the case of flat-out, deliberate lying, the "inner meaning" of the liar's utterance is meant to be understood by only a single person: _himself_. Only _he_ is judged to be "worthy" of that knowledge — which would help to explain why there is such a consistent correlation between pathological narcissism and pathological lying.)

The existing multiplicity of conventional languages is not the _source_ of mankind's problems; but I do believe it is a _reflection_ or a _symptom_ of a deeper problem. If all persons in the world shared a general determination to avoid misleading _any other human being_ with regard to what their own intended meanings truly were — and to avoid even taking unreasonable _risks_ that they might mislead others and thereby create unnecessary misunderstandings — then there would be a _natural_ , _gradual_ tendency toward a unification of the conventional languages of the world in the course of people trying to minimize misunderstandings among different human beings. This is not something that would need to be — or that ought to be — forced or artificially accelerated; and I have absolutely no idea what such a "unified" language would end up looking like. But it is our acceptance of the Lie that has so far prevented this completely _natural_ process from taking place.

At a fundamental level, it is a _lack of care and concern_ about the possibility that one might mislead others when he or she communicates that is the ultimate source of the "splitting of meaning," which eventually results in the existence of a multiplicity of natural or conventional languages. For example, the "prophets" (of all traditional religions) did not necessarily _set out_ to deceive others; but they did seem, at the very least, to be "wantonly indifferent" with regard to whether most of the people who read their writings or listened to them speak would, in practice, be misled by their communications. They were probably expecting (or maybe just hoping) that a handful of persons would _not_ be misled, but _were_ at least vaguely aware that the majority likely _would_ be misled — and still, they prophesied anyway. (But passages in the Bible such as Zechariah 13:1-4 — which I discuss in Part 11 — do indicate at least _some_ concern about the existence of such an attitude among the prophets, perhaps suggesting that "prophesying" may have been thought to be a kind of "temporarily necessary evil" that the Bible prophets believed would someday be overcome when conditions in the world allowed it to be.)

In the next installment in this series, I will examine some more passages from the Bible, and offer even more proof that the subject of religious esotericism was of _great_ concern to the authors of the Bible.

# Part 4 of 12: The recurring theme in the Bible of "two sides" or "two parts"; and its relation to "scripture" and "language"

## Two "heavens" and two "earths" — and two "scrolls"

Let's continue our examination of the Bible as it relates to the matter of religious esotericism by taking a look at Revelation 20:11-12, which is describing "the end of the age" and the "Final Judgment":

And I saw a great white throne and him who was sitting on it, from whose presence more literally, "face": Greek _prosōpon_ ] the earth and the heaven fled away [ _pheugō_ ] [Why would they "flee away"? Are they "afraid" of something? Do they feel a need to "hide" from God's "face" or "presence"? Cf. [Genesis 3:8-10], and no place [ _topos_ ] was found [ _heuriskō_ ] for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and scrolls [or books: _biblion_ ] were opened up [ _anoigō_ ].

Notice how "the earth and the heaven fleeing away" is associated with the "opening up" of "scrolls."

Next, Revelation 21:1 says,

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth has passed away, and the sea is no more.

So we learn that the _first_ "heaven and earth" is to be replaced by a _second_ "heaven and earth." What exactly is this "heaven and earth"?

I propose that "heaven and earth" refers to _meanings_ ("heaven"), along with the tangible _symbols_ ("earth") — especially including word-symbols — by which human beings try to convey those meanings to others. Assuming that that hypothesis is correct, the _first_ "heaven and earth" would consist of a certain set of meanings (" _outer_ meanings"), and a certain way of communicating (one that involved cryptic and obscurely metaphorical and allusive "prophetical utterances"). The _second_ "heaven and earth" would consist of _a new set of meanings_ — what _were once_ "inner meanings," but which would have now _become_ "outer meanings" (due to the occurrence of a "revelation," or a "revealing," or an "uncovering," or an "unveiling," or a "making visible," or a "manifesting," or an "appearing") — as well as _a new way of communicating_ those meanings (one that no longer involved cryptic and obscurely allusive "prophetical utterances," and that would be more straightforward, direct, forthright, comprehensible, and clear to others).

To find support for that hypothesis, let's look at Revelation 6:12-14, which says,

When (Jesus) opened the sixth seal, I saw, and there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth (made) of hair [ _trichinos_ ] [Why "hair" in particular? Why not just "black as sackcloth"? Why not just "black"? Why "black" at all? See Part 11 to find out], and the full moon became like blood, and the stars of heaven fell to the earth as a fig tree drops its unripe figs when shaken [ _seiō_ ] by a great wind [ _anemos_ ]. And the heaven was put away [ _apo-chōrizō_ , derived from _chōris_ , meaning "apart from, separate from"] like a scroll [ _biblion_ ] being rolled up [ _helissō_ ], and every mountain and island was moved [or removed: _kineō_ ] from its place [ _topos_ ].

I think it's fair to assume that this "heaven" is the same "heaven" that "passes away" in Revelation 21:1, since according to Revelation 21:1 there is only one "heaven" that precedes the second, permanent "heaven." Consider that "a scroll being rolled up" essentially amounts to the "closing" of a "book." So, while some "books" are being "opened" (as in Revelation 20:11-12 and Revelation 21:1), other "books" are being "closed." (By the way, similar imagery can be found in Isaiah 34:4, which seems to have been the source for the imagery we find in Revelation 6:12-14.)

I submit that the "scrolls" or "books" being "opened" correspond to the "inner meanings" of the Old Testament scriptures. The "books" being "closed" correspond to the "outer meanings" of the Old Testament scriptures (and of the New Testament scriptures as well, I would argue, as well as those of the sacred scriptures of all other religious traditions). In other words, the "books" being "closed" refer to _a literal reading of the Bible_ — that is to say, a reading that refuses to go past "outer meanings" whenever possible, and that insists on taking those "outer meanings" at face value whenever possible. When the Bible is no longer read literally, _another type_ of "book" comes to be "opened."

And we can find evidence supporting that proposition in Revelation 5:1-5:

And I saw in the right hand of him who was sitting on the throne a scroll [ _biblion_ ] written on the inside [ _esōthen_ ] and on the back [ _opisthen_ ], sealed up with seven seals. And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open [ _anoigō_ ] the scroll and break [or unfasten: _lyō_ ] its seals?" And no one in the heaven or upon the earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, and I was weeping much because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. And one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered [or prevailed, or overcome, or been victorious: _nikaō_ ], (so that he can) open the scroll and its seven seals."

The writing " _on the inside_ " (Greek _esō_ _then_ ) of the "scroll" almost certainly refers to its "eso **teric** meaning" or "inner meaning," in which case the writing " _on the back_ " of the "scroll" would refer to its "exo **teric** meaning" or "outer meaning." When a "scroll" is "rolled up" and "sealed," only the "exoteric meaning" or "outer meaning" will be visible, since that is what is written "on the back" — that is, "on the outside" — of the "scroll."

[Incidentally, Revelation 5:1-5 alone ought to put to rest claims made by some Christians that Christianity is not an esoteric religion, or that the Bible does not consist of esoteric writings. The subject of esotericism positively _pervades_ both the Christian Bible and the Jewish Bible, and their authors were completely obsessed with it.]

So, according to Revelation 5:1-5, when a person — in that particular passage, Jesus — "conquers" (or "overcomes," or "prevails," or "is victorious": Greek _nikaō_ ), he becomes able to "unfasten" or "break" the "seals" and "open" the "rolled-up scroll." In Revelation 21:1-8, after a "new heaven" and a "new earth" and a "new Jerusalem" have come into being, Jesus says,

I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning [or Origin, or Source: _arché_ ] and the End [ _telos_ ]. To the one who thirsts I will give freely of the spring of the water of life. The one who conquers [or overcomes, or prevails, or is victorious: _nikaō_ ] will inherit (all things), and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to me. But to the cowardly, and the faithless, and the detestable, and murderers, and the sexually immoral, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their share [or portion: _meros_ ] (will be) in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

That tends to imply that someone's being admitted into the symbolic "new Jerusalem" comes about, at least in part, as a result of his being able, by following Jesus's example, to "open" the esoteric "scroll" by "unfastening" or "breaking" its "seals." (And that suggestion tends to be confirmed by Revelation 2:17. Also see Revelation 2:26-27, and then compare that to Psalm 2 — a comparison which tends to suggest that what were thought to be "broken" or "shattered" by the "rod of iron" or "staff of iron" were the "seals" of the esoteric "scroll" — in other words, the "outer meanings" of the "sacred scriptures" _of all nations_. Cf. Isaiah 30:12-14.)

## The two "sides": "here OR there" versus "here AND there"

With the idea in mind of a writing having "two sides," compare Revelation 5:1-5 (quoted above) with Ezekiel 2:9-10:

And I looked, and behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and behold, in it the roll [ _megillah_ ; LXX _kephalis_ ] of a book [or scroll: _sepher_ ; LXX _biblion_ ]. And (the Lord) spread it out [ _paras_ ] in front of me [or "before my face," or "in my sight": _paneh_ ; LXX _enōpion_ ], and it was written on the front [more literally in Hebrew, "on the face": _panim_ ; LXX _emprosthen_ ], and on the back [ _achor_ ; LXX _opisthen_ — the same word used in Revelation 5:1-5]....

So we find this same idea of a writing having "two sides" in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Let's next consider Exodus 32:15, which says,

And Moses turned away [or turned back, or returned, or turned his face: _panah_ , related to the noun _paneh_ , meaning "face"; LXX _apo-strephō_ ] and descended from (Mount Sinai), and the two tablets of the testimony (were) in his hand, tablets written from [the translation of "from," or "out of," is according to both the Masoretic version (Hebrew _mi-_ ) and the LXX version (Greek _ex_ ) of the text] both [LXX _amphoteroi_ ] of their sides [or parts, or divisions, or portions, or shares, or allotments: _eber_ ; LXX _meros_ ]; from this (side) and from that (side) [more literally, "from here and from here," or "from here and from there": _mizzeh ū-mizzeh_ ; LXX _enthen kai enthen_ ] they (were) written.

Next consider Ezekiel 47:6-7,12, which says,

And (the angel) led me, and caused me to turn back [ _shub_ ; LXX _epi-strephō_ ] on the edge [Hebrew _saphah_ and LXX _cheilos_ — both of which words can also mean "lip," and, more figuratively, "speech" or "language"] of the river. And in my turning back [or conversion: LXX _epistrophé_ , derived from _epi-strephō_ ], behold, (there were) very many trees from this (side) and from that (side) [more literally, "from here and from here" or "from here and from there": _mizzeh ū-mizzeh_ ; LXX _enthen kai enthen_ — the exact same phrases used in Exodus 32:15].... And on the river, on its edge [ _saphah_ ; LXX _cheilos_ ], from this (side) and from that (side) [ _mizzeh ū-mizzeh_ ; LXX _enthen kai enthen_ ], grows every kind of tree for food, whose leaf does not wither, neither does its fruit fail. [The LXX has "...ascends every kind of tree for food, (and) nothing shall become old [LXX _palaioō_ ] upon it, nor shall its fruit fail [LXX _ek-leipō_ ]; it will be preeminent from its newness [LXX _kainotés_ ], because its waters flow out from the sanctuary [LXX _hagion_ ]."] It brings forth new fruit according to its months, because its waters flow out from the sanctuary [ _miqdash_ ]. And the fruit is for food, and the leaf for healing.

The fact that the very same phrases that are used in Exodus 32:15 can also be found being used in Ezekiel 47:7 and 47:12 increases the likelihood that there was understood to be a connection between the two "sides" of the "scriptures" and the two "sides" of the symbolic "river"; and also that some kind of "speech" or "language" (Hebrew _saphah_ and Greek _cheilos_ ) may have been understood to have been spoken on _each_ of the two "sides," with the symbolic "river" in the middle "watering" _both_ of those types of "speech" or "language," by supplying them with a _shared_ "source of meaning." And also consider how those same words _saphah_ and _cheilos_ are used in Genesis 11:1: "And all the earth was of a single [or united] language [ _saphah_ ; LXX _cheilos_ ] and of a single [or united] speech [or, 'a single discourse,' or 'a single account,' or 'a single message,' or 'words (that were) single']." That presents us with an image of all people initially having been located _on the same "bank" or "edge_ _"_ of Ezekiel's symbolic "river."

[Incidentally, a similar image can be found in Genesis 22:17, in which the Lord says to Abraham,

For in blessing, I will bless you, and in multiplying, I will multiply your offspring like the stars of the heavens, and like the sand that is on the shore [or edge: _saphah_ ; LXX _cheilos_ ] of the sea. And your offspring [or "seed," in the singular] will inherit [LXX: _kléronomeō_ ] the gate [the LXX has "cities"] of your adversaries.

By noticing how the words _saphah_ and _cheilos_ are being used here, the idea of someone being a "child of Abraham" suddenly takes on a possible significance that is probably entirely new to most people. (Cf. [Matthew 3:9. Also see Hebrews 11:12, in which the same Greek word _cheilos_ is used in the same context.)

[It is interesting to compare Genesis 22:17 with Exodus 14:30, which, speaking of "the crossing of the Red Sea" by the Israelites, says,

And the Lord saved [or rescued: _yasha_ , from which is derived the Hebrew word/name _yeshua_ (probably meaning "he saves," and which is transliterated into English as the name "Jesus"); LXX _rhyomai_ ] Israel that day from the hand of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the Egyptians who died on the shore [or edge: _saphah_ ; LXX _cheilos_ ] of the sea.

[The significance of this verse is also worth reconsidering after reading my discussion of "the crossing of the Red Sea" in Part 10 of this series.]

Ezekiel 47:6-7,12 is an especially important passage because it appears to have been the primary source of inspiration for Revelation 22:1-2, which, describing the "new Jerusalem," says,

And (the angel) showed me a river of water of life [ _zōé_ ], clear as crystal, flowing out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle [ _mesos_ ] of its street, and on this (side) and on that (side) [more literally, "here and there": _enteuthen kai ekeithen_ ] of the river, (was) (the) tree of life [ _zōé_ ], producing twelve (kinds of) fruit according to month, each giving forth its fruit. And the leaves of the tree (were) for (the) healing of the nations.

So the _same_ " **tree of life** " could be found _both_ "on this (side) and on that (side)" ( _en_ _teuthen kai_ _ek_ _eithen_ ) of the "river of water of life" flowing through the symbolic "new Jerusalem." A plausible inference would seem to be that in the "new Jerusalem," there would no longer be any distinction made between what would be found on one "side," and what would be found on the other "side"; in other words, there would no longer be any distinction made between "the inner" and "the outer" in terms of meaning. (To make the relation of this passage to the matter of religious esotericism even more evident, consider that the Greek preposition _en_ means "in," while the Greek preposition _ek_ or _ex_ means "out.")

Furthermore, the idea that the _same_ "tree _of life_ " would be found on _both sides_ of the "river of water _of life_ " should be considered in the context of 2 Corinthians 3:2-3,5-7, in which the apostle Paul writes,

You are our letter [ _epistolé_ ], having been written on our [some manuscripts say "your"] hearts, known [ _ginōskō_ ] and read [ _ana-ginōskō_ ] by all persons, showing that you are a letter [ _epistolé_ ] of Christ ministered to by us, having been written not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living [ _zaō_ ] God, not on tablets of stone [ _lithinos_ ], but on tablets of fleshly [or fleshy: _sarkinos_ ] hearts.... Our sufficiency is from God, who also made us sufficient (to serve as) ministers of a new convenant, not of the letter [ _gramma_ ], but of the Spirit. For the letter [ _gramma_ ] kills, but the Spirit produces life [ _zōo_ _-poieō_ ]. [Paul then speaks of "the ministry of death" as having been "engraved in letters [ _gramma_ ] upon stone [ _lithos_ ]."]

By reading 2 Corinthians 3:2-3,5-7 in conjunction with Revelation 22:1-2, I think one can reasonably conclude that in the symbolic "new Jerusalem," it was expected that there would no longer be any "death-bringing" "outer meaning" that was "engraved upon stone," to be distinguished from some _other_ meaning — a "life-giving" "inner meaning" — that would be "written on fleshly hearts." There would be _only one_ meaning — the " _inner_ meaning," the " _living_ meaning" — which would, by the time of "the dawning of the Age to Come," have also _become_ the " _outer_ meaning" (" _known and read by all persons_ ").

This same idea is suggested by comparing the previously quoted passages with Isaiah 34:4, which says,

And all the forces or powers, or hosts: _tsaba_ ; LXX _dynamis_ , which, in addition to meaning "force" or "power," can also mean "meaning"; compare the use of the same Greek word _dynamis_ in [1 Corinthians 14:11] of the heavens will dissolve, and will be rolled up [ _galal_ ; LXX _helissō_ ] like a scroll [ _sepher_ ; LXX _biblion_ ], and all the heavens and their forces [or powers, or hosts: _tsaba_ ] [the LXX instead has "all the stars": _astron_ ] will fall, like leaves fall from the vine, and like leaves fall from the fig tree.

This leads me to suspect that the " _leaves_ " spoken of by Isaiah — and hence also by the author of Revelation 22:1-2 — may have been understood to signify either _parchment scrolls or the pages of books_. (For what it's worth, the Greek word _schedé_ can mean either "leaf" or "page"; and, of course, we sometimes use the expression "leafing through a book.") If that is correct, then the "dead leaves" spoken of in Isaiah 34:4 would symbolize a writing that had "dead meanings," while the "living leaves" spoken of in Ezekiel 47:6-12 and Revelation 22:1-2 would symbolize a writing that had "living meanings" — the kind that would also lead to "good works" (perhaps symbolized by "good fruit"; cf. Matthew 7:15-20). If that hypothesis is correct, then it would open up all sorts of new opportunities when one is trying to decipher the significance of symbolism in the Bible that involves "trees."

For example, with that hypothesis in mind, consider, just from the New Testament, Matthew 21:18-22, Mark 11:12-14,20-24, Luke 21:29-32, Matthew 24:32-34, and Mark 13:28-31. Since the Greek Septuagint version of Isaiah 34:4 compares "the falling of fig leaves" to "all the stars falling" (compare Matthew 24:29), that fact suggests that symbolic "winter" may have been understood to correspond to the time _after_ the _first_ generation of "leaves" had _already_ fallen from their "fig trees," but _before_ the _second_ generation of "leaves" had yet emerged. And that might help to shed light on the idea that the author of Matthew 24:20-21 meant to convey by having Jesus, speaking of the "end times," say,

And pray, so that your flight (from the present Jerusalem) might not happen in winter or on a Sabbath (day). For at that time there will be [ _eimi_ ] great distress such as has not come into being [ _ginomai_ ] from (the) beginning [ _arché_ ] of (the) world [ _kosmos_ ] until the present, nor shall it come into being [ _ginomai_ ] (again?).

Since "winter" is what separates one symbolic "summer" from the next, and since the "Sabbath day" is what separates one symbolic "week of divine creation" from the next, the author may have meant to suggest that one ought to wish to avoid departing from one set of religious meanings (symbolized by "the present Jerusalem") without having another set of religious meanings (symbolized by "the new Jerusalem") already prepared to replace them. By the way, notice the implicit distinction that the authors of [Matthew 24:32-34 and Mark 13:28-31 may be making between "leaves" that come from "tender branches" or "soft branches," and "leaves" that come from "hard branches" — which may have been alluding to a belief that some religious meanings and interpretations of scripture are the products of "hardness of heart," while others are not. (Cf. Isaiah 14:19, which is speaking of the "King of Babel" or "King of Babylon.")]

Also, while still bearing in mind that the Hebrew phrase _mizzeh ū-mizzeh_ means " **from here** and **from here** " or " **from here** and **from there** ," consider what implications that fact might have for the interpretation of Matthew 24:23, in which Jesus, speaking of the "end times," says,

At that time if anyone says to you, "Behold the Christ here OR here [Greek _hōde é hōde_ ]," do not believe (it) [or, "do not trust (him)"].

A possible implication is that the author is saying that when "the Christ" finally appeared, he (or it) would only be found " **here** AND **here** " or " **here** AND **there** " — in other words, "the Christ" would "appear" only to the extent that the division or breach between "inner meanings" and "outer meanings" in esoteric religious discourse (and also in human communications more generally) had been overcome.

Such a reading is also suggested by Luke 17:20-24, also concerning the "end times," which says,

And being asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God is coming, (Jesus) answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation  _para-térésis_ , derived from _téreō_ , meaning 'to watch' or 'to keep watch']. And they will not say, 'Look [ _horaō_ ] here OR there [ _hōde é_ _ekei_ ].' For [ _gar_ ] the kingdom of God is within [ _en_ _tos_ ] you." And (Jesus) said to (his) disciples, "Days will come when you will desire to see [ _horaō_ ] one of the days of the Son of Man, and you will not see [ _horaō_ ]. [Cf. [John 3:3.] And they will say to you, 'Look [ _horaō_ ] there [ _ekei_ ]' OR [ _é_ ] 'Look [ _horaō_ ] here [ _hōde_ ].' Do not go off or follow. For [ _gar_ ] just as the lightning [or shooting star, or meteor: _astrapé_ ] flashing out of the (one part or end) under the heaven shines to the (other part or end) under the heaven, even so will the Son of Man be in his day."

By the way, consider this passage in comparison with [Luke 16:25-31 (in which Jesus narrates the Parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus), which in verse 26 uses the Greek words _en_ _then_ and _ekei_ _then_ — which is also reminiscent of the use of the phrase _en_ _teuthen kai_ _ekei_ _then_ in Revelation 22:1-2 (quoted earlier in this section) to describe how the same "tree of life" would be found on both sides of the "river of water of life" in the "new Jerusalem." Incidentally, I don't like the translation of the Greek word _en_ in Luke 16:26 as "besides" (even if all of the popular translations seem to like it); I see no reason why it shouldn't instead read, "And in [ _en_ ] all this [or 'because of all this,' or 'resulting from all this']...." In other words, I believe the author's point was that it was the "rich man" himself who during his lifetime _created_ (and then proceeded to increasingly "fix," or "establish," or "confirm," or "strengthen," or "reinforce": Greek _stérizō_ ) the very "chasm" between " _here_ " (i.e., "himself") and " _there_ " (i.e., "everyone else," or "the outside world," or "the objective world," or "the other") that would become the source of his own torment in the afterlife.]

Notice that in Luke 17:20-24, the idea of the "kingdom of God" being _within_ (Greek _en_ _tos_ ) a person is here being associated with the idea of there being _no disjunctive "_ OR _" between "_ here _" and "_ there _."_ A very similar association of ideas is presented in John 19:23-24 (which I quote and discuss in the next installment in this series of articles), in which Jesus's "tunic" or " _inner_ garment" (symbolizing, I believe, the general idea of "the inner meaning") is associated with the idea of " _wholeness_ " or " _entirety_ ," while Jesus's " _outer_ garments" (symbolizing, I believe, the general idea of "the outer meaning") are associated with the idea of " _division_." Also, notice that the last sentence of Luke 17:20-24 (the passage I quoted just above) seems to be suggesting the idea that "the day of the Lord" would be characterized by a _reconciliation_ or _reunion_ or _reconnecting_ of opposing extremes or formerly distinct and divided "parts."

And, by the way, perhaps just such an idea is being prefigured in [Genesis 33:1-11, in which the _reconciliation_ of Jacob (who I think was probably generally associated with the idea of "the inner meaning") and Esau (who I think was probably generally associated with the idea of "the outer meaning") is compared to " _seeing the face of God_." (I'll be talking more about Jacob and Esau in Part 11 of this series.) Cf. Revelation 22:4.]

## The "fulfilling" of prophecy through the "hearing" of prophecy

Now let's compare the preceding material to Luke 4:16-21:

And (Jesus) came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was his custom, he went into or entered into: _eis-erchomai_ ] the synagogue on the day of the Sabbath, and he stood up [or rose up: _an-istémi_ ] to read [ _ana-ginōskō_ ]. [Cf. [Luke 24:44-47, focusing on the use of the Greek word _an-istémi_ , meaning "to rise, to rise up."] And the scroll  _biblion_ ] of the prophet Isaiah was given over [or surrendered: _epi-didōmi_ ; compare this to the previous talk of "conquering" or "prevailing" (Greek _nikaō_ )] to him; and, having unrolled [ _ana-ptyssō_ ] the scroll, he found [ _heuriskō_ ] the place [ _topos_ ; cf. [John 19:20] where it was written  _graphō_ ], "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because of which he anointed me to announce good news to the poor [or needy: _ptōchos_ ]. He has sent me forth to heal the broken [ _syn-tribō_ ] in heart, to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight [ _anablepsis_ , derived from the verb _ana-blepō_ , which literally means "to look up"; cf. [Mark 16:4] to the blind, to set free the crushed (in spirit), to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord." And, having rolled up  _ptyssō_ ] the scroll [oh no, but now how will we "find" ( _heuriskō_ ) the "place" ( _topos_ ) where the "prophetical writing" was located? — we _won't_ find it, because we will no longer _need_ to find it; recall [Revelation 6:14 and Revelation 20:11-12, both of which I also quoted toward the beginning of this article] , he returned it or restored it: _apo-didōmi_ ] to the attendant and sat down [ _kathizō_ ; cf. [Mark 16:19 and Hebrews 10:12] . And the eyes of all in the synagogue were fixed upon him. And he began Greek _archomai_ , related to _arché_ , meaning "a beginning"] to say to them, "TODAY this scripture [ _graphé_ ] has been fulfilled [or completed: _pléroō_ ] in your hearing [more literally, 'in your ears': _ous_ ]." [The quoted passage is taken from [Isaiah 61:1-2.]

This passage shows us that the symbol of the "scroll" is associated with the idea of "prophecy." Furthermore, I believe the "unrolling" of the "scroll" of "prophecy" was likely meant to be seen as corresponding to the "life" (and probably also the "Resurrection") of "Jesus," while the "rolling up" of the "scroll" of "prophecy" was meant to be seen as corresponding to the "Crucifixion" and "death" of "Jesus" (and of "prophecy" as a whole). I believe the "rolling up" of the "scroll" by Jesus was meant to signify that the "prophecy" that he was reading has been "fulfilled" (or "completed": Greek _pléroō_ ). Once "prophecy" has been completely "fulfilled," the prophetical writings no longer serve any purpose, so the "scrolls" or "books" of "prophecy" can be "closed up" once and for all, and Jesus Christ can then "sit down" (Greek _kathizō_ ) at the "right hand of God."

I'm guessing that many Christians would respond to this by saying that the scripture was "fulfilled" merely by the fact that Jesus had appeared on earth and was gracious enough to make a special appearance in the flesh at his local synagogue. But that's not what the passage says. Jesus doesn't say, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled _by my physically being in your presence_ ," or anything of that nature. The passage says that the scripture is fulfilled "in your HEARING," or "in your ears" — that is, by means of apprehending the "inner meaning" or "esoteric meaning" of Old Testament prophecy. And it need not be fulfilled at some definite point in time in the future; potentially, it can even be fulfilled "today" — that is, _to the extent that_ there are people who are _able to "hear" it_ "today." (Cf. 2 Corinthians 6:2, Hebrews 3:7-15, and Hebrews 4:7.)

If you're still reluctant to accept the way of reading the passage that I'm proposing, then let's also look at Matthew 10:27, in which Jesus says,

What I tell you in the darkness [think: "dark sayings"], speak in the light [in other words, make the meaning of what you have been "told in the darkness" clear and comprehensible to others]; and what you HEAR [ _akouō_ ] (whispered) IN THE EAR [ _ous_ ] [ **!!!** ], proclaim upon the housetops.

In other words, "Jesus" (by which I mean, that "little bit of Jesus" located within each person's "heart") will share the "inner meaning" or "esoteric meaning" of the scriptures with people; with this shared "inner meaning" being destined to _replace_ the currently existing "outer meaning" — by eventually becoming _a new "outer meaning" in its own right_ , the kind that would be "spoken in the light" and "proclaimed upon the housetops."

My reading of Luke 4:16-21 also seems to be confirmed by the many verses in the Gospels resembling Mark 4:23, in which, after telling a parable, Jesus says,

If anyone has EARS [ _ous_ ] to HEAR [ _akouō_ ], let him HEAR [ _akouō_ ].

It's pretty obvious that "having ears to hear" means that a person has the ability to discern some meaning in one of Jesus's parables _other than_ the "surface meaning."

And my suggested reading of Luke 4:16-21 receives additional support from Galatians 4:21-26, in which the apostle Paul writes,

Tell me, those wishing to be under the Law, do you not HEAR [ _akouō_ ] [ **!!!** ] the Law? For it is written [think of "two scrolls" or "two books"] that Abraham had two sons, one from the slave woman and one from the free woman. But the (son) of the slave woman has been born according to the flesh [think: "outer meanings"], but the (son) of the free woman (has been born) through promise. This is ALLEGORIZING [ _allégoreō_ ] [ **!!!** ], for these are two covenants, one from Mount Sinai, bearing (children) for slavery, which is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above [i.e., "Sarah"] is free, which is our mother.

Notice how, according to Paul, being able to "hear" (Greek _akouō_ ) is equivalent to being aware of the allegorical nature of the stories told in the Old Testament, and also being able to understand the "inner meaning," or "figurative meaning," or "esoteric meaning," of those allegories.

But what exactly IS this "inner meaning" or "esoteric meaning" of the Old Testament scriptures that I keep talking about? As I have previously stated, I believe it essentially boils down to this: that the whole practice of separating "esoteric meanings" from "exoteric meanings" needs to be ended entirely. Once again, in Luke 4:21 Jesus says, "Today this scripture has been fulfilled _in your hearing_ [or 'in your ears']." So if prophecy is "fulfilled" when its "inner meaning" has become understood by its being "heard" — and if the true "inner meaning" of prophecy is that the practice of separating "inner meanings" from "outer meanings" must be ended entirely — then that means that the prophetical writings of the Bible are "fulfilled" when the entire "prophetical" manner of communicating — as well as the prophetical writings themselves — are finally laid aside because they no longer serve any useful function.

I realize this must all sound pretty crazy to many readers, but that's where the evidence has been leading us. And I'll be presenting more of it in the next installment in this series of articles.

# Part 5 of 12: The recurring theme in the Bible of "two sides" or "two parts"; and its relation to "scripture" and "language" (cont'd)

## "Parts" and "portions" and "shares": The use of the Greek word _meros_ in the New Testament

You may recall from the last article in this series that in the Greek Septuagint translation of Exodus 32:15 it was said that the "two tablets" that Moses brought down with him from Mount Sinai were "written from both of their sides [or parts, or divisions, or portions: LXX Greek _meros_ ]." With that thought in mind, it is informative to examine some of the various instances in which this Greek word _meros_ is used in the New Testament. For example, consider 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, in which the apostle Paul writes,

And if (there be) prophecies, they will be done away with; if (there be) tongues, they will come to an end; if (there be) (esoteric) knowledge, it will be done away with. For we know [ _ginōskō_ ] in part [ _meros_ ], and we prophesy [ _prophéteuō_ ] in part [ _meros_ ]. But when we arrive at completion [or perfection: _teleios_ ], that which is in part [ _meros_ ] will be done away with. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For we now look into a mirror [or looking-glass: _esoptron_ ] in enigmas [or riddles, or puzzles, or "dark sayings," or obscurity: _ainigma_ ]; but then, face to face. Now I know [ _ginōskō_ ] in part [ _meros_ ]; but then I will know fully [or fully understand, or recognize: _epi-ginōskō_ ], just as I have also been fully known [or fully understood, or recognized: _epi-ginōskō_ ].

1 Corinthians 13:8-12 suggests the possibility that the "two parts" or "two sides" of the "scriptures" (or the "scroll"), and the "two sides" of the "river of water of life" (both of which symbols I discussed in the previous article in the series) may have been understood by the authors of the New Testament to refer to "knowing" (or "understanding"), and to "prophesying." These may have been thought by the authors of the New Testament to be the "two sides" or "two parts" or "two sources" of human mental experience _from which_ , or _out of which_ , what they regarded as "the scriptures" came to be written. If so, then this passage would seem to be suggesting that our "knowing" or "understanding" will remain "partial" only so long as there is still perceived to be a continuing need (for whatever reason) for cryptic and enigmatic and obscurely symbolic "prophesying." But the _final goal_ would appear to be to eventually _replace_ all "prophesying" with "fully knowing" or "fully understanding."

And this process of "replacement" might also have been understood by Paul and the other authors of the New Testament to be equivalent to a _uniting_ of one's "spirit" (Greek _pneuma_ ) with one's "mind" (Greek _nous_ ). (See [1 Corinthians 14:13-19. Also see Colossians 2:18, in which Paul associates a person's taking an inordinate interest and pride in seeing "visions of angels" with "the mind  _nous_ ] of his flesh [ _sarx_ ]" — as opposed, presumably, to "the mind of his spirit.") To state the idea using more modern terminology, Paul's belief may have been that the goal of Christians should be to raise the "spirit" (Greek _pneuma_ ) up from and out of the "dark" domain of relatively _unconscious_ thought — where the "spirit" would initially enter into the world in a state of being "trapped," or "imprisoned," or "frozen," or "sealed up," so to speak, in the form of cryptic "prophecy" — into the less "dark" domain of _conscious_ thought. And this might help to explain why, as shown in 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, Paul would happily look forward to a time when "prophecies" would be "done away with," while at the same time also, in [1 Corinthians 14:5, for example, actually _encouraging_ the practice of "prophesying." (The way of conceiving of these matters that I am proposing also seems to be supported by 2 Peter 1:19-21.)]

Similarly, in 2 Corinthians 1:13-14 Paul writes,

For we write to you no other things than what you read [ _ana-ginōskō_ ], or even understand [ _epi-ginōskō_ ]. And I hope that you will understand [ _epi-ginōskō_ ] (all the way) to the end [or "to the goal," or "to completion": _telos_ ] — even as you have also understood [ _epi-ginōskō_ ] us in part [ _meros_ ] — that in the day of our Lord Jesus, we are your boast, just as you (are) ours.

This may suggest that the goal of the earliest Christians was to reach a state of fully "understanding" (Greek _epi-ginōskō_ ) — presumably in place of "prophesying" — by the time "the day of our Lord Jesus" arrived. I suspect that the point Paul meant to convey here is that he thinks the Corinthian church members are still getting "tripped up" by the more "outer meanings" of the enigmatic and cryptically symbolic Christian "prophetical" writings, and so do not yet understand the _full and true import_ of those "prophetical" writings — which, if that occurred, is what would transform "prophecy" into "understanding" — thereby " _fulfilling_ prophecy" — so that the "understanding" (Greek _epi-gnōsis_ ) of the church members would be "complete" or "full."

## The episode in the Book of Acts involving Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch

I believe the suggested interpretations of 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 and 2 Corinthians 1:13-14 that I just offered receive support from Acts 8:30-39, which says,

And, having run to (the Ethiopian eunuch), Philip heard him reading [ _ana-ginōskō_ ] Isaiah the prophet, and said, "So, do you even understand [or know: _ginōskō_ ] what you're reading [ _ana-ginōskō_ ]?" And he said, "How could I, if no one will guide [or lead: _hodégeō_ , derived from _hodos_ , meaning 'road, way, path,' and _agō_ , meaning 'lead, bring, carry'] me?" And he invited Philip to go up [or ascend: _ana-bainō_ ] and sit with him. And the passage of the scripture that he was reading [ _ana-ginōskō_ ] was this:

"As a sheep was led  _agō_ ] to slaughter, and as a lamb (was) silent [ _a-phonos_ ; compare [1 Corinthians 14:9-11 and its use of the same Greek word] in the presence of the one who sheared it or 'cut off its hair': _keirō_ ], so too does he [that is, the so-called ' **suffering servant** ' of [Isaiah chapter 53] not open  _anoigō_ ] his mouth [ _stoma_ ]. In his humiliation, his justice [or 'separation,' or 'separating': _krisis_ ] was taken away [ _airō_ ] from him. Who will lead [or 'describe (his generation) in full': _di-égeomai_ , derived from _agō_ , meaning 'lead, bring, carry'] his generation (all the way to the end)? For his life [ _zōé_ ] is taken away [or lifted away: _airō_ ] from the earth." [The passage seems to be taken from [ Isaiah 53:7-8 (LXX). The Hebrew Masoretic version of that passage quite sensibly reverses the positions of the "sheep" and the "lamb."]

And the eunuch responded to Philip and said, "I beseech you, about whom is the prophet saying this? About himself, or about some or any: _tinos_ ] other (man)?" And Philip, having opened [ _anoigō_ ] his mouth [ _stoma_ ], and having begun [ _archomai_ , derived from _arché_ , meaning "beginning, origin, source"] from this scripture [perhaps referring to the _entire_ Old Testament "scripture," and not necessarily just the passage from Isaiah that was being read], proclaimed the good news [ _eu-aggelizō_ or _eu-angelizō_ ] to him: Jesus. And as they were going down the road [or way, or path: _hodos_ ; cf. [John 14:6], they came upon some water, and the eunuch said, "Look, water! What prevents me from being baptized?" And he commanded the chariot to stop, and they both went down or descended: _kata-bainō_ ] into the water, both Philip and the eunuch, and he baptized him. And when they came up [or ascended: _ana-bainō_ ] out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away, and the eunuch no longer saw him. For [ _gar_ ] he was going along his road [or way, or path: _hodos_ ], rejoicing. [Compare this to [Luke 24:25-35, especially verse 31.]

I believe that this passage — through the use of symbolic language — is essentially saying that _as a result_ of the _archetypal_ "sheep" (or "lamb") or "suffering servant" having been "led to slaughter," it was now possible for that _same_ archetypal "suffering servant" to "open his mouth"; and I believe the author intended that the reader regard _Philip_ as _an instance_ of that archetypal "suffering servant" — one who had "returned to life" after _his own_ symbolic "slaughter." Moreover, the "baptism" that the Ethiopian eunuch receives _after_ his having been "led" down the "road" by Philip is symbolically equivalent to his being "slaughtered" after the manner of Jesus (cf. Romans 6:3-7) — thus making the Ethiopian _yet another instance_ of the archetypal "suffering servant" who gains the ability to "open his mouth" by having first "died." So I think the answer to the Ethiopian's question — "About whom is the prophet saying this? About himself, or about any [or some: _tinos_ ] other (man)?" — is that the prophet was talking _about himself_ — _as well as about_ persons such as Philip and the Ethiopian; it's just that "the prophet" (and every other "prophet," for that matter) never made it as far down "the road" as the other two did, since the "prophets," by definition, have never allowed themselves to be completely "slaughtered" (or "pierced," or "torn apart," or "torn open") — which is why their own "mouths" still remain relatively "closed."

[By the way, the reason why I tend to prefer the translation of the Greek word _tinos_ as "any" rather than as "some," is the fact that the Ethiopian asks the rhetorical question, "What _prevents me_ from being baptized?" — with the correct answer obviously being, "Nothing." If _anyone_ could choose to be symbolically "slaughtered," then that would mean that _anyone_ could choose to assume the role of the "suffering servant."]

Also, notice how the "road" (Greek _hodos_ ) is first spoken of as "the road," but after the Ethiopian has been baptized, and after Philip "disappears from sight," it is spoken of as "his road." I think this change is related to the question asked by the prophet Isaiah: "Who will lead [or 'describe (his generation) in full': _di-égeomai_ , derived from _agō_ , meaning 'lead, bring, carry'] his generation (all the way to the end)?" I think _Philip_ was meant to be understood as filling the role of this "person," because of his having "led" the Ethiopian "all the way to the end" — with "the end" corresponding to the symbolic "slaughtering" or "crucifixion" represented by the rite of "baptism." After Philip brought him to that point, there was nothing more that he could do for him, and so Philip simply "disappeared from sight." Notice the use of the word " _for_ " (Greek _gar_ ) in the final sentence of the passage, which indicates that as soon as the Ethiopian had found _his own_ "road" to go down, he no longer needed an instructor or a "guide." Henceforth, the Ethiopian would join Philip in the role of that "guide" who would "lead (members of) his generation all the way to the end" — so that they would be able to find _their own_ "roads" to follow. [And by the way, I believe the word "generation" (Greek _genea_ ), at least as it is being used in this passage, was meant to apply to _all_ persons living in "the present age."]

It is interesting that Isaiah 53:6 (LXX), which immediately precedes the passage that the Ethiopian had been reading, says,

Like sheep we were all made to wander or "we were all led astray," or "we were all misled," or "we were all deceived": LXX _eplanéthémen_ , a form of _planaō_ in the passive voice]. A man was made to wander [or "a man was led astray," or "a man was misled," or "a man was deceived": LXX _eplanéthé_ , a form of _planaō_ in the passive voice] on his road [or path, or way: LXX _hodos_ ], and the Lord delivered him over [or gave him up: LXX _para-didōmi_ ] for our sins. [Cf. [Revelation 18:23, noticing its use of the same Greek word _planaō_ , also in the passive voice.]

I would suggest that the author of Acts 8:30-39 may have intended that the Ethiopian eunuch be understood by the reader to be the "man" who had been "made to wander" — due to the _obscurity_ of prophetical communications such as those of Isaiah (cf.  Isaiah 29:11-12) — as well as defectiveness in human communication more generally — causing him to deviate from _his own_ divinely intended "road." And that would mean the author also intended that the Ethiopian eunuch be understood by the reader to be the person who had been "delivered up for our sins" (cf. Matthew 26:2). Since "baptism" was understood to be equivalent to "crucifixion" in terms of its symbolic significance (again, see Romans 6:3-7), that would, once again, mean that the Ethiopian was likely meant to be seen as having _taken on the role_ of the "suffering servant," as well as that of "Jesus," when he chose to be "baptized." And that would give additional support to the position that the authors of the New Testament understood "Jesus Christ" to be, not an historical, flesh-and-blood individual, but _an archetype_ in which _anyone_ could choose to "participate."

Lastly, let's take a close look at this one sentence in particular:

In his humiliation [or abasement, or vileness, or lowliness: _tapeinōsis_ ], his justice [or judgment, or "separation," or "separating": _krisis_ , derived from the verb _krinō_ , which can mean "to judge, to distinguish, to separate"] was taken away [ _airō_ ] from him.

I think this sentence does a good job of (implicitly) stating the "rationale" behind the existence of religious esotericism. Because of his sense of "humiliation" or "vileness," the esotericist "prophet" fears the public exposure of his emotional "insides," and would feel _ashamed_ to allow his "inner self" to be fully revealed to others — and always bear in mind that the esotericist prophet's "inner self" is _made known_ to others _through_ the "inner meanings" of his communications. As a result, he does not feel that he can _safely_ "separate" (Greek _krinō_ ) his "inner meanings" from his "outer meanings," since he would leave himself _vulnerable_ if he expressed any "inner meaning" that was "naked," and not "concealed" (or "covered," or "veiled," or "hidden") behind or beneath some accompanying "outer meaning." That would explain why the prototypical "prophet," the "suffering servant" (as his position is explained by Isaiah), would feel that his voice has been "silenced," and why he would feel that he cannot "open his mouth." And that would also explain why he feels that "his life (Greek _zōé_ ) is taken away from the earth" — since, for the most part, he does not feel able to transmit his own " _living_ " (or "life-giving") "inner meanings" to others — that is, those meanings which are _most important to him_ — and so he only feels able to present a relatively "dead" "outer self" to others. (But since this involuntary "silencing" would feel like an "injustice" to the person, I think "justice" is also an acceptable translation of the Greek word _krisis_ in the quoted sentence.)

[Also, by the way, the Greek word _syg-krisis_ can mean "interpretation." Since Greek prefixes such as _syn-_ and _syg-_ convey the idea of "joining together" or "bringing together," that tends to suggest that an " _interpretation_ " would have been thought of by ancient speakers of the Greek language as a "putting together," for the sake of a " _comparing_ " and " _relating_ ," of elements or components that have _first_ been conceptually " _separated_."]

In sum, I think the message of Acts 8:30-39 is quite consistent with the message that I have been suggesting can be found expressed in passages such as 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 and 2 Corinthians 1:13-14: namely, that the _purpose_ of "going _all the way to the end_ " of the symbolic "road" is to _transform_ the "mystery" of cryptic, enigmatic, and obscurely allusive and symbolic "prophecy" into full "understanding" or "knowledge" or "recognition" (Greek _epi-gnōsis_ ) of a prophet's most truly intended, important, and essential meanings. I believe _that_ is the way in which the authors of the New Testament (whether human or angelic) anticipated that the "fulfillment of prophecy" would eventually be achieved.

By the way, it should be noted that the episode described in Acts 8:30-39 is quite reminiscent of the episode described in [2 Kings 2:1-14 (which I discuss more extensively in Part 11), involving the "taking up" of "Elijah" into heaven — especially if one considers that the Greek name "Philip" is a shortened form of the name "Philippos," which literally means "lover of horses" or "one fond of horses." According to the analogy I am proposing, "Philip" would correspond to "Elijah," and the "Ethiopian eunuch" would correspond to "Elisha." Notice that the "dividing" of the "waters" described in 2 Kings 2:8 — suggestive of the idea of "cutting through" the confusion, obscurity, and mystery surrounding all "prophesying" — is made possible by the "rolling up" of the "outer garment" or "cloak" (Hebrew _addereth_ ) of the prophet Elijah; and the "ascension" of the prophet Elijah into "heaven" is, according to 2 Kings 2:13, accompanied by the "shedding" or "surrendering" of that same "outer garment" or "cloak." (I've already briefly touched on it, but the significance of that symbolism will become more evident as we proceed into the next section and beyond.) Also consider that the "double (measure) in spirit" that Elisha asks for from Elijah (the Hebrew Masoretic version literally reads "a double mouth [ _peh_ ] in your spirit [ _ruach_ ; LXX _pneuma_ ]") may have been meant by the author to signify an ability to be conversant in the "language" of "prophecy," with all of its "double meanings." So I believe the message that is generally being conveyed by this episode is consistent with what I believe to be the message being conveyed by Acts 8:30-39: that _every_ person's goal should be to eventually _transcend_ all "prophecy" and "prophesying," by extracting the truly intended "inner meanings" of "prophecy," and _leaving behind_ its "outer meanings." In other words, the complacent pseudo-reverence of _uncomprehended_ "sacred prophecy" should _never_ be regarded as "the end of the road" by _anyone_.]

## The "wholeness" of the "inner garment"

Returning to how the Greek word _meros_ is used in the New Testament, consider Luke 11:36, in which Jesus says,

So if your whole  _holos_ ] body [ _sōma_ ] is luminous [ _phōteinos_ ], not having any dark [ _skoteinos_ ] part [ _meros_ ], (the) whole [ _holos_ ] will be luminous as when the lamp enlightens [ _phōtizō_ , which can convey both the literal and the figurative sense of the word "enlighten"] with (its) brilliance [or brightness: _astrapé_ ; cf. [Luke 10:18, Luke 17:24, and Luke 17:30 — which, when these three verses are read together with the quoted verse, suggest that "enlightenment," and "the revealing [ _apo-kalyptō_ ] of the Son of Man," and the "fall of Satan," would all occur when the various "parts" of the "heaven" had been unified or joined together into a single "whole," so that no "darkness" still remained anywhere].

Consider that the "darkness" in this verse (and in many other verses in the Bible) was probably understood to correspond to the cryptic, obscure, enigmatic, and misleading "outer meaning" of the esoteric scriptures (and of all other deceptive and misleading human communications).

The idea that the human "body" was sometimes thought by the authors of the Bible to be comparable to the "body" of scripture, is suggested by, for example, John 19:23-24, which says,

Then the soldiers, when they crucified Jesus, took his outer garments, and made four parts  _meros_ ] [cf. [Matthew 24:31], a part [ _meros_ ] for each soldier, and (they) also (took) the tunic [that is, the "inner garment," probably corresponding to the idea of the "inner body" or "inner self" or "inner man," and also to the idea of the "inner meaning"] . But the tunic was seamless, woven from the top [or "from above": _anōthen_ ] throughout (the) whole [ _holos_ ] . Therefore they said to one another, "Let us not tear [ _schizō_ ] it, but let us cast lots for it (to see) whose it will be" — so that the scripture might be fulfilled that said, "They divided up [ _dia-merizō_ , derived from _meros_ ] my outer garments among them, and for my clothing they cast a lot [ _kléros_ ]." So the soldiers did these things.

This suggests that the "inner meaning" was understood to be "unitary" or "unifying" in nature. But for the "inner meaning" of a communication to be _truly_ "unitary" or "unifying," it _cannot abide_ the coexistence of some _different_ "outer" meaning or meanings capable of being conveyed by the _same_ communication. As long as it does abide that coexistence, the two different meanings act as "partners in crime," so to speak. In other words, an "inner meaning" that is _characterized_ by the idea of its _unitary nature_ can never _remain content_ being _just_ "the inner meaning," rather than being simply "the meaning" of a communication in its entirety. In order not to be completely incoherent, the message conveyed by a truly _unifying_ "inner meaning" would _necessarily_ have to be that any divisions made between "inner meanings" and "outer meanings" in human communications must be _entirely done away with_. But that can only happen when the "inner meaning" has attained enough "self-confidence" and "self-assurance," so to speak, to _do without_ the "concealment" or "cloak" or "veil" that is provided by the existence of a separate (but still "conjoined") "outer meaning."

Still another use of the word "share" or "portion" (Greek _meros_ ) can be found in Revelation 21:7-8:

The one who prevails [or conquers, or overcomes, or is victorious: _nikaō_ ] will inherit [or "receive as his allotment": _kléronomeō_ , derived from _kléros_ , meaning "lot"] (all things), and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to me. But to the cowardly, and the faithless [or untrustworthy: _a-pistos_ ], and the detestable, and murderers, and the sexually immoral, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their share [or portion: _meros_ ] (is) in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone [or sulphur: _theion_ ], which is the second death.

If we compare this passage to John 19:23-24 (quoted just above), it seems that the Roman soldier in John 19:23-24 who is described as having "cast a lot [Greek _kléros_ ]" for Jesus's "inner garment," and who " _prevailed_ " (Greek _nikaō_ ) by " _receiving it as his allotment_ " (Greek _kléronomeō_ ), paradoxically received as his "portion" or "share" (Greek _meros_ ) "all things" — because of the " _wholeness_ " of the "inner garment" (i.e., the "inner meaning") that he had won. Those persons who instead receive their "share" or "portion" (Greek _meros_ ) in "the lake that burns with fire and brimstone" (two symbols which suggest, incidentally, that such persons were deemed to be in need of " _purification_ ," and _not_ endless torment and agony as their rightful "punishment") do so only as a result of their _willingness to accept division_ — especially division _within themselves_.

To briefly go off on a bit of a tangent, when reading John 19:23-24, pay special attention to the sentence, "But the tunic was seamless, woven from the top [or "from above": _anōthen_ , derived from _anō_ , meaning "above"] throughout (the) whole [ _holos_ ] ." Next compare how the Greek word _anōthen_ is used in [John 3:3-8. In John 3:3 Jesus says,

Truly, truly, I saw to you, unless one is born  _gennaō_ ] from above [ _anōthen_ ], he is unable to see [ _horaō_ ] the kingdom of God. [Cf. [Luke 17:20-24.]

[Next consider Galatians 4:25-31, in which the apostle Paul writes,

Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above [ _anō_ ] is free, which is our mother [i.e., "Sarah"]. For it has been written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not give birth, break forth and cry aloud, O one who is not in labor. For the children of the desolate one [ _erémos_ , related to the verb _erémoō_ , meaning 'to lay waste, to make desolate, to ruin'] (will be) many more than those of the one who has the husband." And you, brothers, are children of promise corresponding to [or "in accordance with," or "after": _kata_ ] Isaac. But just as at that time, the one having been born [ _gennaō_ ] in accordance with [ _kata_ ] flesh [i.e., "Ishmael"] persecuted the one (born) in accordance with [ _kata_ ] Spirit [i.e., "Isaac"], so also it is now. But what does the scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not inherit [or 'receive as his allotment': _kléronomeō_ ] with the son of the free woman." So, brothers, we are not children of the slave woman, but of the free woman.

[Next consider Revelation 21:1-2,5-7:

And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth has passed away, and the sea is no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of the heaven from God, prepared like a bride who has been adorned for her husband.... And the one sitting upon the throne said, "Behold, I am making all things new." And (Jesus) said, "Write, for these are the trustworthy and true words [or meanings: _logos_ ]." And he said to me, "They are born [ _ginomai_ ]! [Or, "They have come into being!"] I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the one thirsting I will give freely from the spring of the water of life. The one who conquers will inherit [or 'receive as his allotment': _kléronomeō_ ] (all things), and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to me."

[When all of these passages are put together, it seems fair to conclude that an association existed in the minds of the authors of the New Testament among the following ideas: 1) the idea of the "inner meaning" (which I believe was understood to be symbolized by the "inner garment" or "tunic"); 2) the idea of a "child" or "son" being "born (or reborn) from above"; 3) the idea of a "new Jerusalem" coming down "from above"; 4) the idea of inheriting "all things," or of receiving "all things" as one's rightful "share"; 5) idea of "the Spirit"; and 6) the idea of "wholeness" or "unity."]

## The "outer darkness"

To return to the hypothesis that I offered above, that persons who received their "share" or "portion" (Greek _meros_ ) in "the lake that burns with fire and brimstone" would do so only as a result of their _willingness to accept division_ , additional support for that hypothesis can be found in Matthew 24:50-51, in which Jesus tells a parable that ends,

The master [or "the Lord"] of (the wicked) servant [or slave: _doulos_ ] will come in a day which he does not expect, and in an hour which he does not know, and he will cut him in two [ _dichotomeō_ ], and make his portion [or share: _meros_ ] with the hypocrites [ _hypokrités_ ]. In that place [or there: _ekei_ ] there will be the weeping [ _klauthmos_ , derived from _klaiō_ , meaning "to weep"] and the gnashing of teeth.

Notice that the fate of the "wicked servant" is to be "cut in two" (Greek _dichotomeō_ ) — which suggests the continued existence of some kind of "division" or "separation" _within himself_ — an idea also suggested by his being grouped with "the hypocrites" (Greek _hypokrités_ ).

Furthermore, compare Matthew 24:50-51 with Matthew 25:30, in which Jesus tells another parable that ends,

And cast out  _ek-ballō_ ] the useless servant [or slave: _doulos_ ] into the outer [ _exō_ _teros_ ] darkness [ _skotos_ ]. [Cf. [Galatians 4:30.] In that place [or there: _ekei_ ] there will be the weeping [ _klauthmos_ ] and the gnashing of teeth.

By reading these last two quoted passages in conjunction with each other, we can conclude that the authors of the New Testament must have understood there to be an association between " _being cut in two_ ," " _hypocrisy_ ," " _darkness_ ," and " _being on the outside_." And I think it can fairly be assumed that all of these ideas would have been associated by those authors with a person's insistence upon retaining the "outer" or "exo **teric** " meanings of the scriptures — even if those scriptures, considered _apart from_ a knowledge of their true "inner meanings," ended up appearing nonsensical or insipid to the person. By choosing to _pretend_ that the scriptures had great worth, even while not _sincerely_ understanding why that was so or believing it to be true (in other words, initial "darkness" would have then given rise to "hypocrisy"), the person would be helping to perpetuate a "splitting" — both within the scriptures and within his or her own self — since both the scriptures and the person's self would be lacking in "integrity."

The association between Jesus's labeling of a person as a "hypocrite" (Greek _hypokrités_ ), and the recurring theme of a "division" or "separation" between "the inner" and "the outer," is made quite explicit in Matthew 23:25-28, in which Jesus says,

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites [ _hypokrités_ ]! For you cleanse [or purify: _katharizō_ ] the outside [ _exō_ _then_ ] of the cup and the dish, but inside [ _esō_ _then_ ] they are full of robbery and intemperance. Blind Pharisee! FIRST [ _prōton_ ] cleanse [or purify: _katharizō_ ] the inside [ _en_ _tos_ ] of the cup and the dish, SO THAT their outside [ _ek_ _tos_ ] might ALSO BECOME clean [or pure: _katharos_ ; the author may have had in mind the sense of "unmixed"]. Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like plastered-over tombs, which on the outside [ _exō_ _then_ ] appear beautiful [or attractive: _hōraios_ , which can also mean "flourishing"], but on the inside [ _esō_ _then_ ] are full of bones and the dead and all impurity [ _a-katharsia_ ]. Thus you also outwardly [ _exō_ _then_ ] appear righteous to men, but on the inside [ _esō_ _then_ ] you are full of hypocrisy [ _hypokrisis_ ] and lawlessness.

[By the way, in connection with the use of the Greek words _exōthen_ and _esōthen_ in Matthew 23:25-28, I find it interesting that in Genesis 6:12, just before the Great Flood, the Lord says to Noah, "Make yourself an ark out of rectangular wood. You shall make compartments [or nests, or rooms, or cells: _qen_ ] in the ark, and you shall cover [ _kaphar_ ] it over, on the inside [LXX _esōthen_ ] and on the outside [LXX _exōthen_ ] , with a covering [ _kopher_ , derived from the verb _kaphar_ ; the LXX has 'pitch' or 'asphalt': _asphaltos_ , derived from _asphalizō_ , meaning 'to make secure, to hold fast, to shut up, to close']." I'm not exactly sure what to make of this, but I invite others to come up with their own theories.]

Notice the irony of Jesus himself speaking "esoterically" in the course of condemning the division between "the inner" and "the outer" that he perceives to exist in the Pharisees. We know that literal "cups" and "dishes" can't be guilty of "robbery and intemperance"; so we can also know that the "cups" and "dishes" being referred to must have been serving in the mind of the author as _symbols_ for _other_ things — _undisclosed_ things. And if you are tempted to _assume_ that the "cup" and "dish" were both meant to signify "people" in general, then why doesn't Jesus speak only of a "cup"? Your assumption may be correct, but the fact that Jesus speaks of _two different_ items, when speaking of only one would have served the author's presumed purpose equally well if not better, makes me considerably less willing to make that assumption along with you — especially given the fact that we know from passages such as [Luke 22:20 and Revelation 17:4 that the figure of the "cup" (Greek _potérion_ ) can have great symbolic significance in the New Testament. When you've spent as much time as I have trying to get a handle on these sorts of esoteric writings, you begin to get a good sense of when you at least ought to start getting suspicious — even if those suspicions ultimately turn out to have been misplaced.]

As an additional comment on the quoted passage, Matthew 23:25-28, I don't think the author was _wishing for_ "woe" to befall the "scribes and Pharisees" as "punishment" for their "hypocrisy"; I think he was instead trying to _explain the reason_ why "woe" would _necessarily_ befall them. If, as indicated in the final sentence of the passage, the "scribes and Pharisees" had already _fully internalized_ their "hypocrisy," so that it could also be found "on the inside" (Greek _esōthen_ ), then that would mean that, in their heart of hearts, they had learned to _become content_ with the existence of an ongoing split between "the inner" and "the outer" — both in the scriptures and in themselves. And so long as that was the case, there could be _no hope_ for them, even if they were blissfully unaware of the fact; and it is that lack of hope that would be the true cause of their "woe." As I just mentioned, Jesus was himself acting the part of a "hypocrite" in this passage by speaking to the Pharisees in an esoteric manner in the course of denouncing them for their "hypocrisy." But I do get the general sense that the figure of Jesus that is depicted in the Gospels, as well as the Bible prophets, were never entirely _content with_ , or _complacent about_ , the existence of their own "hypocrisy." In fact, that very same inner _discontent_ is precisely what makes it possible for a _pro-esotericist_ "first Bible" to exist alongside an _anti-esotericist_ "second Bible." Both the "inner self" and the (anti-esotericist) "inner meaning" of the scriptures must be constantly striving to _make themselves whole_ , by _externalizing_ themselves; otherwise, they will have condemned themselves to a kind of perpetual "death." (And I think that general notion of "externalizing" probably bears some relation to the reason why several of the traditional religions are so insistent that a "resurrection of the dead" in _bodily_ form would accompany the advent of any "New Age" — an event which I am claiming must involve an end being brought to religious esotericism, that is, the " _burying_ " of "inner meanings" within separate "outer meanings.")

Once again, in Matthew 25:30 Jesus says,

And cast out the useless servant into the outer [ _exō_ _teros_ ] darkness. In that place [or there: _ekei_ ] there will be the weeping [ _klauthmos_ , derived from _klaiō_ , meaning "to weep"] and the gnashing of teeth.

The hypothesis that this "outer darkness" is created by a division made between "inner meanings" and "outer meanings" receives support from a comparison between Matthew 25:30 and Revelation 5:1-5, which, once again, says,

And I saw in the right hand of him who was sitting on the throne a scroll [ _biblion_ ] written on the inside [ _esō_ _then_ ] and on the back [ _opisthen_ ], sealed up with seven seals. And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open up [ _anoigō_ ] the scroll and break [or unfasten: _lyō_ ] its seals?" And no one in the heaven or upon the earth or under the earth was able to open up the scroll or to look into it, and I was weeping [ _klaiō_ ] much because no one was found worthy to open up the scroll or to look into it. And one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep [ _klaiō_ ]; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has conquered [ _nikaō_ ], (so that he can) open up the scroll and its seven seals."

In other words, it seems quite possible that the reason for the author's "weeping" (Greek _klaiō_ ) was that, since he did not have access to the "inside" of the "scroll," he was still metaphorically located in the "outer darkness." That possibility is made even more likely by comparing Revelation 5:1-5 with Matthew 22:13, which also speaks of the symbolic "outer darkness" and the "weeping" found there, but additionally associates both of those with the state of being "bound" (or "tied up," or "locked up," or "imprisoned," or "restrained," or "fettered": Greek _deō_ ) — rather than "free." The Greek word _deō_ is an antonym of the Greek word _lyō_ (the word used in Revelation 5:1-5), which can mean "unbind, loose, loosen, untie, release, unlock, unfasten, set free." (The direct contrast between the two Greek words is made quite explicit in, for example, Matthew 16:19.) The use of the word _lyō_ in the specific context of the interpreting or "opening up" (Greek _anoigō_ ) of esoteric discourse is also (somewhat obliquely) indicated by Mark 7:35. The significance of the word _lyō_ in this context is made even clearer by considering the use in Mark 4:33-34 of the Greek verb _epi-lyō_ , which is derived from _lyō_ and can have literal meanings similar to those of _lyō_ ; but it can also have figurative meanings that include "interpret, explain, determine, resolve, solve." Mark 4:33-34 says,

And with many such parables (Jesus) communicated (his) meaning or message, or word: _logos_ ] to them, in the degree that they were able to hear [ _akouō_ ]. And apart from [or separate from: _chōris_ ] a parable he would not communicate with them; but in private he would explain [or interpret, or determine, or resolve, or solve; more literally, "loosen," or "untie," or "release," or "open," or "set free," or "unlock": _epi-lyō_ ] everything for his own disciples. [By the way, compare the use of the Greek word _chōris_ in this passage with its use in [Romans 3:21-22 — which, when those two passages are read in conjunction with each other, may implicitly be comparing a "parabolic" manner of communicating with a "prophetical" manner of communicating — both of which the authors of the New Testament may be telling us must eventually be "put aside."]

In addition, consider the use in 2 Peter 1:20 of the Greek noun _epilysis_ , which is the noun derived from the verb _epi-lyō_ that is being used here in Mark 4:33-34, and which in 2 Peter 1:20 is clearly being used with the meaning of "interpretation" or "explanation" with regard to the esoteric prophetical writings.

Also, given that the idea of "weeping" seems to have been associated with the idea of a person not being able to read the "inside" of the esoteric "scroll" — and, as a result, being metaphorically "cast out" into the "outer darkness" — consider what implications that would have for the interpretation of Revelation 21:4, which, describing the "new Jerusalem," says,

And (God) will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, nor will there be any more mourning or crying or pain, because the first (things) [prōtos] have passed away.

## The Parable of the Prodigal Son

To return to our investigation of the Greek word _meros_ in the New Testament, let's take a look at Luke 15:11-32, in which Jesus narrates the Parable of the Prodigal Son. It must be remembered that the Parable of the Prodigal Son is a _parable_ , which means that it is _indisputable_ that many of the words and figures that are found in it must have been chosen for their symbolic significance; and this fact must be admitted even by persons who would like to regard the Gospels (taken as a whole) as historical accounts. In the case of a parable, it is especially difficult to argue that similarities and parallels between the parable and other Bible passages can be breezily dismissed as "mere coincidences," because it can be assumed that the author probably chose the words he chose for very definite reasons, since there are any number of other words he could have chosen if he had wished to do so. At the same time, however, when trying to interpret this or any other parable, a considerable amount of speculation is unavoidable.

Consider how Jesus begins to tell the parable in Luke 15:11:

A certain man [ _anthrōpos_ ] had two sons [ _huios_ ].

I offer the suggestion that these "two Sons" of the "Man" (who also happens to be the "Father"), _when brought together_ , be thought of as forming the composite "Son of Man." (I do not feel _certain_ about this reading, however. In fact, I think it is dangerous to try to establish definite one-to-one correspondences between the symbolic figures used in this or any other parable and certain specific ideas, such that, for example, the "younger son" would "actually signify" A, and the "elder son" would "actually signify" B, and so on. But even so, I still think certain general themes can be discerned in the parable.)

In Luke 15:12-13 Jesus then goes on to say,

And the younger of (the two sons) said to (the) father, "Father, give to me the share [or portion: _meros_ ] of the property [or wealth, or substance, or essence, or nature, or immutable being, or reality: _ousia_ ] that I have coming to me [more literally, "that is falling upon me": _epi-ballō_ ]. And (the father) divided into two [ _di-aireō_ ] the resources [or wealth, or livelihood, or manner of living, or mode of life, or living, or life, or existence: _bios_ ] between them. And after not many days, having gathered everything [or all (things): _panta_ ] together [ _syn-agō_ ], the younger son went abroad into a far off [ _makran_ ] country [or land: _chōra_ ], and there [ _ek_ _ei_ , suggestive of the idea of his being "on the outside"] he squandered [more literally, "dispersed" or "scattered": _dia-skorpizō_ ] his property [or substance, or essence, or being: _ousia_ ], living wastefully [or dissolutely: _a-sōtōs_ , related to _sōzō_ , meaning "to save," and _sōtér_ , meaning "savior"].

After the younger son decides to return home, it is said in Luke 15:27 that he has been received back "sound" (or "whole": Greek _hygiainō_ ); so the members of the household begin to "celebrate" (or "make merry"; more literally, "have a good state of mind": Greek _eu-phrainō_ ). The "elder son" expresses resentment that the return of the "younger son" should be celebrated, saying to his father in Luke 15:30,

[W]hen this your son came, who consumed [or ate up: _kat-esthiō_ ] your wealth [or living, or life: _bios_ ] with harlots [ _porné_ ], you (sacrificially) slaughtered the fattened calf for him! [The specific reference to "harlots" strongly suggests that the "younger son" was meant to be understood as having traveled to symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" during his journey.]

In Luke 15:31-32, the "father" responds to the "elder son" by saying,

Son, you are always with me, and all (things)  _panta_ ] that are mine, (are) yours [ _sa_ , _in the plural_ , suggesting that the "all things" belong _equally_ to _both_ "sons"]. And it was fitting to celebrate and rejoice, for this your brother was dead, and has come back to life; and he was lost [ _apollymi_ ], and has been found. [So that may suggest that being located in symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" was associated with the ideas of "being dead" and "being lost." Consider that idea in conjunction with a reading of [2 Thessalonians 2:3, in which the "Man of Lawlessness" (or "Man of Sin," according to some manuscripts) is also called the "Son of Destruction" or "Son of Ruin" or "Son of Loss  _apōleia_ , the Greek noun derived from the verb _apollymi_ ]" — and then compare that to [2 Thessalonians 2:8, which tells us that this same "Son of Loss" would be made to "pass away" by the "becoming present" (Greek _par-ousia_ ) of "the Lord Jesus." (I will be further discussing that Greek word _par-ousia_ below in this section.)]

Luke 15:31 clearly suggests the idea of "inheritance" — which is reminiscent of Revelation 21:7:

The one who prevails will inherit (all things) [ _panta_ ], and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to me.

I propose that the big "homecoming celebration" that is held when the "younger son" in the parable returns home was probably meant to correspond to the idea of "the end of the present age," when people would begin to make the transition from symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" — equivalent to the symbolic "present Jerusalem" — to the symbolic "new Jerusalem" or "heavenly Jerusalem." If that is correct, then the parable would be evoking the association between the idea of "the end of the present age," and the idea of the two "portions" or "sides" of religious discourse (and of human communications more generally) — the "inner meaning" and the "outer meaning" — being "reunited," or "reunified," or "reconciled," or "reconnected," or "joined back together."

But which of those two "sons" is representing the "inner meaning"? I think _both_ of them are — and yet _neither_ of them is — because _either_ of them could be. Why was the "split" or "division" between the two "sons" created in the first place? Because the "younger son" was "apart" or "away" for a time, "outside in the fields," instead of "inside in the house." But I find it significant that _both_ of the two sons are described as having been "out in the field" (Greek _agros_ ) at one time or another (see Luke 15:15 and Luke 15:25); and the "elder son" at first refuses to "go inside" (Greek _eis-erchomai_ ) the family's "house" (Greek _oikia_ ) to join his brother after his return. So I don't necessarily think that the "younger son" (or the "elder son," for that matter) was specifically meant to symbolize the "inner meaning."

Rather, I think the author's more general point was that the _division_ that had been created in the "essence" (or "nature," or "substance," or "being," or "life," or "existence": Greek _ousia_ or _bios_ ) of the "Father" is what was preventing _both_ of the "sons" from being able to _together share_ in " _all things_ " (Greek _panta_ ), as a result of _the perception_ having been created that there existed a division within the "essence" (or "being": Greek _ousia_ ) or "life" (or "existence": Greek _bios_ ) of the "Father." As long as _either_ "son" was "lost," _neither_ "son" would be able to enjoy the "all things" of the "Father," and even after those "all things" had been "gathered together" (Greek _syn-agō_ ), they would inevitably end up getting "scattered" or "dispersed" (Greek _dia-skorpizō_ ). As I explained in Part 3, the "inner meaning" _should not be thought of as "better_ _"_ than the "outer meaning." As long as a separation remains between them while at the same time both meanings continue to coexist, _neither_ of those two meanings ought to be regarded as the "good" one. It is _the split itself_ that is harmful and inimical to human happiness. So I believe that what was probably thought to have been "lost" was, not " _the inner meaning_ " of the scriptures, but simply " _the meaning_ " of the scriptures (or, perhaps, " _meaningfulness_ " more generally). Once what was "lost" has been "found," there will no longer be any "split" — but, by the same measure, when the "split in meaning" has been successfully "healed," what has been "lost" will finally be "found."

Something else to look at in the parable is a possible double-meaning pun found in Luke 15:16, which takes place after we are told that a severe "famine" has occurred that made it necessary for the "younger son" to hire himself out to "feed pigs." This verse says,

And he was longing to fill his belly from the carob pods [or husks: _keration_ , which literally means "little horn" (a shape which the carob pods resemble), a diminutive form of _keras_ , meaning "horn"] that the pigs were eating, and no one gave him (anything).

First, I suspect that the "feeding" being spoken of was meant to refer to the _imparting_ of some kind of knowledge, or understanding, or information, or ways of thinking. (Cf.  Jeremiah 3:15,  Luke 12:42-43, and Amos 8:11.) Second, the fact that what the "younger son" was "feeding" to the "pigs" were "pods" or "husks" suggests that what the author had in mind were "outer meanings." Third, I suspect that the "pigs" were meant to refer to "thoughtless persons" (or "unreflective persons," or "unrefined persons," or "unspiritual persons") — in other words, the sort of persons who could "fill their bellies" with nothing more than "outer meanings" and still feel completely satisfied.

But also cross-reference Luke 15:16 with Matthew 5:18, in which Jesus says,

For truly I say to you, until the heaven and the earth should pass away, not one iota or one apostrophe or diacritical mark: _keraia_ , literally meaning "little horn," another diminutive form of _keras_ , meaning "horn"] shall pass away from the law, until all things [ _panta_ ] should come into being [or come to pass: _ginomai_ ] [cf. [ Revelation 21:5-6].

The references to an "iota" and an "apostrophe" (or "little horn": Greek _keraia_ ) suggest _only_ that the written "scriptures" or "law" would not be abandoned or even modified _until_ the coming into being of "a new heaven and a new earth," and _not_ that the written "law" or "scripture" would always retain its authority. In fact, I think it would be reasonable to suppose that the coming into being of "a new heaven and a new earth" was thought to be _equivalent to_ the written "scriptures" being allowed to "pass away"; and that would be because, unless and until there was some "new heaven and new earth" _already prepared_ (cf. Matthew 25:34,  Hebrews 10:5-7, and  Revelation 21:1-2) to _replace_ the written "scriptures" in their present form (which "scriptures" would be symbolized by "the first heaven and the first earth") — and until what had already been "prepared" became _accepted_ by a large number of people — it would not even be _possible_ for them to just "pass away."

But there may be a double meaning present here. The fact that an "iota" is the smallest letter in the Greek alphabet, and that an "apostrophe" (or a "diacritical mark") is an especially tiny mark in a writing, may suggest that these were meant to be thought of as "seeds," which would _make it possible_ for "all things" (Greek _panta_ ) to "come into being" (Greek _ginomai_ ) _through the growth_ of the "seeds" _already_ contained in germinal form within the written "scriptures." (Cf.  Mark 4:30-32.) But until those "seeds" have metaphorically "germinated" _from the perspective of a particular person_ , the "little horns" in the written scriptures would continue to signify _scrupulous adherence to the letter of the law_ — and so would continue to function as "husks" or "pods," thereby _concealing_ the "inner meanings" from that person.

Incidentally, Matthew 5:18 can also be compared with Ezekiel 29:21, which says,

In that day [the "day of the Lord"] I [the Lord] will cause a horn [ _qeren_ ; LXX _keras_ ] to sprout [or grow, or spring up: _tsamach_ ; LXX _ana-tellō_ , which can mean "rise up" or "spring up" or "grow," and is also used to refer to the rising of the sun] to the house of Israel, and I will give you an opening [ _pithchon_ , derived from _pathach_ , meaning "to open up" or "to expound"; LXX _anoigō_ ] of your mouth [ _peh_ ; LXX _stoma_ ] in their midst [or middle, or center: _tavek_ ; LXX _mesos_ ]; and they will know that I am the Lord.

Notice how this passage associates the symbol of the "horn" with the idea of "growth" or "sprouting" — and therefore also with "seeds" — and, moreover, notice how there is a possible suggestion that this "growth" would have been associated with the idea of the "inner meanings" of the scriptures eventually becoming _publicly proclaimed_ by means of a symbolic "horn" and the "opening of mouths" that would speak in "the center."

Also, while keeping the use of the Hebrew verb _tsamach_ in mind, consider the use of the related Hebrew noun _tsemach_ , meaning "a branch, a shoot, a sprout," in passages such as [Jeremiah 23:5, Jeremiah 33:15, Zechariah 3:8, and Zechariah 6:12 (all of which are speaking of "the Messiah") — which, when read in conjunction with Ezekiel 29:21, seem to be associating the idea of "the Messiah" with the idea of a loud "public proclamation" of the "inner meaning" of the scriptures. A similar connection between the ideas of "the Messiah," a "horn," and "sprouting" or "growing" can also be found in Psalm 132:17. In addition, consider the reference to "horns" (Hebrew _qeren_ ) in Joshua 6:5, with the thought in mind that the razing of the "walls" of "Jericho" described in that verse may have been understood by the authors of the Bible to be serving as a symbolic _prefiguring_ of the razing of the "walls" of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon." (See, e.g.,  Jeremiah 50:14-15,  Jeremiah 51:12,  Jeremiah 51:44, and  Jeremiah 51:58.) The idea of a symbolic equivalence between "Jericho" and "Babel" or "Babylon" receives additional support by noting the parallels between  Joshua 6:13-16,20 and Revelation 8:6, Revelation 10:7, Revelation 11:15, and  Revelation 16:17-19.]

Also consider the previous ideas in connection with Numbers 23:21-22, which says, "The Lord, the God (of Israel), is with him, and the shout of a king is among them. [Cf. [Luke 23:46.] God brought them out of Egypt, being to them as the point  _toaphah_ ] of (the horn of) a unicorn [or rhinoceros: _re'em_ , derived from _ra'am_ , meaning 'to rise']." The Greek Septuagint version of Numbers 23:22 has, "God brought them out of Egypt as the glory of his unicorn [or ' _one-horned one_ _'_ : LXX _mono-keras_ ] ." Does the "shout of a king" refer to that of "the Messiah"? Or to that of "Joshua" (even though, strictly speaking, Joshua was never a "king" of the Israelites)? Or to both of them at once (that is, if the figure of "Joshua" was meant to _prefigure_ the figure of "the Messiah")? In any event, we find an association between the ideas of "the shout of a king" and that of a "horn" — and more specifically, of a "horn" that is _single_ — which suggests the notion of "singleness of sound" or "singleness of voice" or "singleness of meaning." (Cf. [1 Corinthians 14:8.) And apparently, this "singleness" is what was understood to make possible the "salvation" of the "Israelites." (See, e.g., Exodus 14:30.) (By the way, for what it's worth, during the European Middle Ages the symbol of the "unicorn" was understood to signify "the incarnation of Christ.")]

As an additional point, notice the parallels between Exodus 32:19 and Luke 15:23-32. Exodus 32:19 (LXX) says,

And when (Moses) drew near [LXX _eggizō_ or _engizō_ ] to the camp, he saw the calf [LXX _moschos_ ] and the dancing [LXX _choros_ ]. And, having become angry [LXX _orgizō_ ] with rage, Moses threw the two tablets from his hands, and broke them below the mountain.

And Luke 15:25-28 says,

And (the father's) elder son was in the field, and as he came and drew near [ _eggizō_ or _engizō_ ] to the house, he heard music and dancing [ _choros_ ]. And, having summoned one of the servants, he was asking what these things might be. And (the servant) said to him, "Your brother has come, and your father has (sacrificially) slaughtered the fattened calf [ _moschos_ ], because he has recovered him sound and whole. But (the elder brother) became angry [ _orgizō_ ], and did not want to go in [ _eis-erchomai_ ]; and his father, having gone out [ _ex-erchomai_ ], called him to his side.

These parallels lead one to suspect that the author of the Parable of the Prodigal Son may have meant to compare the "angry Moses" to the "angry older son" in the parable. And any such comparison may have been made for the purpose of conveying the idea that when the original _reason_ for Moses's anger — namely, the "hardness of heart" shown by the "Israelites" — has disappeared, having been replaced by a spirit of contrition and remorse (which is exactly what we see displayed by the "younger son" in Luke 15:18-21), it is fitting that there be "celebration" over the fact that, _because of_ that contrition and remorse, the two "portions" (or "shares," or "divisions," or "partitions": _meros_ ) of _meaning_ can finally be _united_ , so that (in human perception) the "essence" or "being" (Greek _ousia_ ) of the "Father" can once again be made "whole" and "unified."

I think it is also possible to think about the "division" of the "being" (Greek _ousia_ ) of the "Father" in different, but still related, terms. First take a close look at Luke 15:22, in which, after the "younger son" in the parable returns home, the "father" says to his servants,

Quickly bring out or "carry away," or "carry out (a corpse for burial)": _ek-pherō_ ] the first [ _prōtos_ ] outer garment [or robe: _stolé_ ] [cf. [Revelation 21:4], and clothe  _en-dyō_ ] him [but _not necessarily_ "clothe him" with the "first outer garment"; it might be that the "first outer garment" was meant to be understood as being discarded, so that the "younger son" or "newer son" could be "clothed" with some new "garment"; cf. [Colossians 3:10], and give a ring [ _daktylios_ , derived from _daktylos_ , meaning "finger"] for his hand, and sandals [more literally, "something bound under": _hypo_ _-déma_ ] for (his) feet [ _pous_ ]."

I've already touched on what I think the significance of the "outer garment" might be (and I will also be discussing it further in later installments in this series of articles). But what is signified by the "younger son" being given "a ring for his hand" and "sandals for his feet"?

To better understand the use of these symbols, I believe it is informative to read the Parable of the Prodigal Son that Jesus narrates in Luke 15:11-32 — especially including the verse I just quoted, Luke 15:22 — in conjunction with a careful reading of 1 Corinthians 15:23-28, in which the apostle Paul writes,

But each in the proper or (its) own: _idios_ ] order [or class, or rank: _tagma_ , derived from _tassō_ , meaning " **to order** , to arrange, to place, to classify"]: Christ (the) first-fruit [or "leading fruit," or " **principal** fruit," or " **leading** off(spring)," or " **beginning** off(spring)," or "first off(spring)": _ap-_ _arché_ ], then, in his coming [or arrival, or "becoming present," or "coming near"; more literally, "being close," or "being near," or "being beside": _par-ousia_ ], those (who are) of Christ. After that (comes) the end [ _telos_ ], when (Christ) shall deliver over the kingdom to the God and Father, whensoever he shall have done away with [ _kat-argeō_ ] all [or every] rule [or rulership, or ruler, or command, or leader, or leadership, or leading element, or **leading** part, or **principality** , or beginning, or **principal** element: _arché_ ; compare [Revelation 21:6 and its use of the words "beginning" ( _arché_ ) and "end" ( _telos_ )] and all [or every] authority [or power; more literally, "being out," or "being away," or "being outside": _ex-ousia_ ] and power [ _dynamis_ ]. For it is necessary for him to reign until that (time when) he shall have laid all the enemies under [ _hypo_ ] his feet [ _pous_ ]. (The) final [ _eschatos_ ] enemy done away with [ _kat-argeō_ ] is death. For "God has sub-ordinated [or subjected, or subdued; more literally, 'placed under' or ' **ordered under** ': _hypo_ _-_ _tassō_ ] all things under [ _hypo_ ] his feet [ _pous_ ]." [Paul is quoting Psalm 8:6; apparently the word "his" is referring to "the Son."] Now when (the scripture) says that all things have been subordinated, (it is) evident that excepted [or excluded, or beyond, or outside: _ek_ _tos_ ] is the one [that is, "the God and Father"] who subordinated all things to (the Son). But [!] when all things [ _panta_ ] shall have been subordinated to (the Son), at that time the Son himself will also be subordinated to the one who had been subordinating all things [ _panta_ ] to (the Son), in order that God may be the all [or "the whole": _panta_ ] in [ _en_ ] (the) all [or "(the) whole": _pasin_ ].

This implies that there were understood to be _two types_ of "Christ": "Christ the first-fruit," and "Christ in his coming (or in his 'becoming present')." And I would suggest that these "two Christs" might correspond to the idea of the "two Sons of Man" that I proposed at the beginning of this section. Moreover, 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 raises the possibility that the "ring for the hand" of the "younger son" in the parable was meant to signify the "authority" that he would hold while he was still "reigning in his kingdom." And the "ring" might also signify that — for the duration of that "reign of the Son" — the practice of the "sealing" of meanings would continue. Cf. [Genesis 41:42, Esther 8:8, and Daniel 6:17 (and then compare Daniel 6:17 to Matthew 27:62-66).] And 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 might also be offering us a hint that the "sandals" for the "younger son" (that is, "the things bound under his feet") were meant to signify _the process_ of "his enemies being laid under his feet" (a process which — since the "younger son" is still "reigning" by himself, apart from the "father" — would presumably have not yet been completed).

The "end" (Greek _telos_ ) that Paul refers to in 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 would, I think, correspond to _the ending of the "division_ _"_ in the "being" (Greek _ousia_ ) of the "Father" that is spoken of in the parable. Furthermore, I believe that, by comparing what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 with the Parable of the Prodigal Son, it is possible to discern a very important pun that may help to shed light on the nature of this "division" as it was understood by the authors of the New Testament. Again, we know from Luke 15:12 that the "younger Son of Man" asked to receive the "share" or "portion" (Greek _meros_ ) of the "estate" (or "property"; more literally, "being": Greek _ousia_ ) of the "Father" that he had coming to him, and that the "Father" then "divided" (Greek _di-aireō_ ) his "resources" (or "wealth"; more literally, "living" or "existence" or "life": Greek _bios_ ) between the two "Sons." I think the authors of the New Testament may have understood this to mean that the " **being** " (Greek _ousia_ ) of the "Father" had been divided into _two kinds_ of " **being** ": "being beside" (or "being close," or " **being present** ," or "being at hand," or "being near": Greek _par-ousia_ , which can also mean "arrival" or "coming"), and "being outside" (Greek _ex-ousia_ , which ordinarily means " **authority** " or "power").

While the "younger (or 'newer') Son of Man" was "gone away" (or was "absent," or was "distant," or was "keeping away," or was "staying away," or was "holding off": Greek _ap-echō_ ; see Luke 15:20), off in a "far country," I think the archetypal (composite) "Son of Man" likely would have been meant to be associated with the idea of " **being** outside" (or " **authority** ": _ex-ousia_ ); but when the "younger Son of Man" had "returned," and was "at home," and had been "found," the archetypal (composite) "Son of Man" likely would have been meant to be associated with the idea of " **being** beside" (or " **being present** ," or " _being close_ ," or " _being near_ ," or " _arrival_ ": _par-ousia_ ). The breach in the " **being** " (Greek _ousia_ ) of the "Father" would have been overcome because God would no longer be viewed as being a distant " **authority** " (or as " **being outside** ": Greek _ex-ousia_ ), but would instead be viewed _solely_ in terms of his immediate and intimate " **presence** " (or his " **being beside** ," or his "being near," or his " **being close** ": Greek _par-ousia_ ) in the heart and conscience of each individual person. But for that to occur (according to the terms of the parable), the "elder Son of Man" would first have to _agree to join_ his brother, the "younger Son of Man," "inside the house" (with the "house" probably signifying the "heavenly temple"), so that they could together share in the "all things" of the "Father" — after which the "Father" could then _join both of them_ "inside the house" — so that _all_ "being outside" (and "authority": Greek _ex-ousia_ ) might be _done away with_ (Greek _kat-argeō_ ), to be _completely replaced_ by God's interior "presence" (Greek _par-ousia_ ) within each person, in order that, as Paul puts it, "God may be the all in [Greek _en_ ] the all."

Also, recall from Luke 15:12 that when the "Father" divided his "being" (Greek _ousia_ ) between his two "Sons," he at the same time made a division in his "life": "And (the father) divided into two [ _di-aireō_ ] the resources [or wealth, or livelihood, or manner of living, or mode of life, or living, or life, or existence: _bios_ ] between them." It is conceivable that this relates to Paul's saying in 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 that "(the) final enemy done away with is death." Perhaps Paul understood "death" to be the product of a division in the "being" and in the "life" of the "Father," due to the estrangement of the two "Sons of Man" from each other; so that when this "estrangement" came to an end, so too would "death."

Based on a comparison between 1 Corinthians 15:23-28 and the parable, the figure of the "elder Son of Man" — that is, the "first offspring" — seems, at least more than the "younger Son of Man," to be associated with the idea of the "beginning" (Greek _arché_ ) of the scriptures, and also with the ideas of "rule" (Greek _arché_ ), and "authority" (Greek _ex-ousia_ ), and "being on the outside" (Greek _ex-ousia_ ). I reach that conclusion for several reasons, but partly as a result of reading Luke 15:29, in which the "elder Son of Man" says to his "Father,"

Look, I have been serving you so many years, and I never disobeyed [or neglected, or disregarded; more literally, "passed by": _par-erchomai_ ] your commandment [ _entolé_ ].

But I think this verse may have been meant to have (yet another) double meaning, since it can also be translated,

Look, I have been serving you so many years, and I never came near [or "came to the side of," or "came close to": _par-erchomai_ ] your commandment [ _entolé_ ].

In other words, perhaps, the "elder Son of Man" never came to understand the "inner" significance of God's "commandment" (in other words, he never went "all the way _to the end_ " of understanding the scriptures; cf. 2 Corinthians 1:13), an understanding which can only ever be found _in one's own individual conscience_. He would have been viewing God's "commandment" or "law" as _ruling over him_ "from afar," as a cold, distant, and oppressive _authority_. If this double meaning was indeed intended by the author, then there would have been one sense in which the "elder Son of Man" had always remained "at the side" of the "Father"; but there would have been another sense in which he had always been "on the outside," or "far away," from the "Father." And there would have been a corresponding double meaning involving the "younger Son of Man," who, even while he was still "far away" from the "Father" in physical terms, would — after he had already "come (back) _to himself_ " (see Luke 15:17) — have signified the idea of "closeness" or "nearness" or "presence" — the kind of "closeness" that comes about with the full _interiorization_ of God's true "commandment" or "law" within each individual's conscience. (Cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34.)

[By the way, the suggestion that the author of the parable intended that the figure of the "Father" be understood by the reader to signify "God the Father" — or at least that the author intended that this be one permissible reading — is strongly supported by Luke 15:18, in which the "younger Son" says,

(After) I have risen up [ _an-istémi_ ], I will go to my Father and say to him, "Father, I sinned into the heaven and in your sight [or 'in your presence': _enōpios_ ]."

But in literal terms, the "younger son" obviously did _not_ sin "in the sight" or "in the presence" of his father — so we have to assume that the "father" in the parable was meant to be thought of as an "all-seeing _Father_ " (cf. [Hebrews 4:13). And this would also support the suggestion I just made that the "younger Son" — after his "resurrection" or "rising up" — was meant to signify the idea of the "closeness" or "nearness" or "presence" of God, even while, according to the terms of the parable, the "younger Son" was still physically "far away" from the "Father." It would also explain why it is said in Luke 15:20 that the "Father" was able to "see" the "younger Son" even while he was still "far away."]

I'd like to make a couple final points about the Parable of the Prodigal Son. First, notice that the "calf" or "young bull" (Greek _moschos_ ) is specifically described as "fattened" — or, more literally, "grain-fed" or "wheat-fed" (Greek _siteutos_ , derived from _sitos_ , meaning "grain" or "wheat"). Remember that this is a parable, so there was very likely some specific reason for including what may at first seem to be an unnecessary detail. And I think the probable reason for its inclusion is that the author intended to contrast the "pods" or "husks" (which I have previously suggested were likely meant to signify "outer meanings") that were metaphorically "fed" to the (ritually unclean) "pigs," with the "grain" or "wheat" that was metaphorically "fed" to the (ritually clean) "calf" or "young bull." We know from passages such as Matthew 3:12 and Luke 3:17 that the distinction between "wheat" (Greek _sitos_ ) and "chaff" (Greek _achyron_ ) was an important one in the minds of the authors of the New Testament — and the reason why is almost certainly that "chaff" is the _husk_ — the _outer_ , enclosing, concealing cover — of a kernel of "wheat" or "grain." So, in other words, by being able to metaphorically "feed upon" the slaughtered "calf" or "young bull" that had itself been "fed upon" "grain" or "wheat," the "younger Son" would finally be able to (indirectly) "feed upon" the "inner meanings" that had been denied him as long as he remained "in a far off country."

Second, notice that this motif of a "sacrificial slaughter" — combined with the idea of "the Son of the Father" first being described as "dead," and then as having "returned to life" by "rising up" — tends to suggest that the entire parable was meant to allude, at least to some extent, to the symbolic "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ." But in the parable, that "sacrificial slaughter" and "resurrection" do not occur until the arrival of what in the parable would seem to correspond to " _the end_ of the present age." By the way, notice that the "rising up" or "resurrecting" (Greek _an-istémi_ ) of the "younger Son" — which, according to the parable, is what brings him back from "death" to "life" — only occurs after he "comes (back) _to himself_." See [Luke 15:17-20.]

But I hope none of my readers react to the interpretations I have offered in this section by thinking, "Oh wow, neat! The Bible contains even greater depths of riches (in the form of 'hidden meanings' and 'disguised puns and word play') than I ever dared to dream! So let's all keep digging endlessly to find even more of those vast riches!" Because if that's your reaction — and if your reason for "digging" is anything other than to amass evidence of an "anti-esotericist message" hidden within the Bible — then I will have failed at what I am trying to accomplish with this series of articles. For example, if I am in fact correct to believe that the "being" (Greek _ousia_ ) of God was likely understood by the authors of the New Testament to have been divided into "being outside" (Greek _ex-ousia_ ) and "being beside" (Greek _par-ousia_ ), then what that would demonstrate is the _sheer lunacy_ of allowing, not just double-meaning esoteric writings (which is certainly bad enough), but double-meaning esoteric writings _written in an ancient foreign language_ not spoken by the present-day members of a religion, to be the authoritative writings of that religion. And that's because there should never be any "surprise meanings" in the authoritative writings of a religion, since these are the writings in accordance with which the members of a religion have consented to try to live their lives _based on their agreement with what they understand those writings to mean_. To make accommodation for "surprise meanings" in authoritative religious writings is to pointlessly introduce mayhem and confusion into ordinary people's mental lives. Doing so also constitutes a _betrayal_ of the persons who consented to try to live their lives in accordance with their very best attempts at understanding those writings. Apologists for religious esotericism can try to dress it up all they want, but ultimately it amounts to little more than a shady (and never-ending) "bait-and-switch" operation.

## The holy scriptures: A "book of divorce"?

In relation to my thesis that the Bible (subtly) advocates "an overcoming of separation" or "an overcoming of division" with regard to _meaning_ , consider Matthew 19:3-9, which says,

And Pharisees came to (Jesus), testing him, and saying, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce more literally, 'send away': _apo-lyō_ ] his wife [or woman: _gyné_ ] for any cause?" And answering, (Jesus) said, "Have you not read that the (One) who created from the beginning [or origin, or source: _arché_ ] made them male and female?" And he said, "Because of this, a man will leave behind his father and his mother, and will be joined with [ _kollaō_ ; cf. [1 Corinthians 6:16 and Revelation 18:5] his wife, and the two will become (merged) into one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united [more literally, 'yoked together': _sy-zeugnymi_ , derived from _zygos_ , meaning 'yoke'], let no man separate [ _chōrizō_ , related to _chōris_ , meaning 'apart from, separate from']." They said to him, "Why then did Moses give command to give a book [or scroll, or bill, or certificate: _biblion_ ] of divorce, and to send her away?" [Send _whom_ away? To whom is "her" referring? Did Moses ever give command that _all_ women be sent away?] (Jesus) said to them, "In view of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to send away your wives [or women]; but (the Law) did not come into being that way from the beginning [or origin, or source: _arché_ ]. And I say to you that anyone who sends away his wife [or woman] — except upon (the grounds of) sexual immorality [ _porneia_ ] — and marries another, commits adultery."

I strongly suspect that this passage was meant by the authors of the New Testament to be read both exoterically and esoterically. (And that suspicion receives a great deal of fuel from Ephesians 5:31-32. Also see Isaiah 54:6, Isaiah 50:1, Jeremiah 3:1-10, and Malachi 2:14-16.) The esoteric meaning would be that " _the Law of Moses_ ," as it was given to the Israelites in their holy scriptures, was itself " _a book of divorce_ "; in other words, it had been presented to them in such a way that the "inner meanings" and the "outer meanings" of the scriptures had been "separated" or "split apart." The "Bride of the Lamb" of Revelation 21:2 and 21:9-10 — in other words, the "new Jerusalem" or "Jerusalem above" or "heavenly Jerusalem" — would be the symbolic "woman" that one _ought to_ "marry," as well as the symbolic "woman" that had _already been_ "sent away" by the "book of divorce" that Moses gave command be given to the Israelites. The "Harlot Greek _porné_ ] of Babylon" — corresponding to the "present Jerusalem" — would be the symbolic "woman" that one _ought to_ "send away" because of her _metaphorical_ "sexual immorality" (Greek _porneia_ ). [See, e.g., [Revelation 17:1-4; also see 1 Corinthians 6:15-16; and also see Galatians 4:22-31, while keeping in mind that although Hagar is not depicted in Genesis chapter 16 as being exactly a "harlot," she is depicted as, in effect, having served as either a "concubine" or a "sex slave" for Abraham. (Cf. Hosea chapter 2, especially verse 16.) In addition, both Hagar and the "Harlot of Babylon" are depicted as being "haughty" (see Genesis 16:4 and Revelation 18:7, as well as the passages from the Old Testament prophets from which Revelation 18:7 is derived) — as opposed, for example, to the holy "submissiveness" of the Virgin Mary (see Luke 1:38), who I believe was probably thought in some ways to correspond to the "Bride of the Lamb" and the "new Jerusalem," since in Galatians 4:22-26 Paul compares the "Jerusalem above" to "Sarah," the mother of "Isaac"; and in Galatians 3:16, 3:29, and 4:28 Paul compares Jesus Christ (and Christians) to "Isaac." (Also see 1 Peter 3:1-6.)]

Also consider Mark 10:5 — in which a slightly different version of the same episode is being narrated — in which Jesus says to the Pharisees,

In view of your hardness of heart he wrote this commandment [ _entolé_ ] for you.

In Romans 7:8-13, the apostle Paul uses the word "commandment" (Greek _entolé_ ) _in the singular_ to refer to the "Law of Moses" as a whole, and not to any _particular_ commandment. So it is not unreasonable to suppose that the "esoteric meaning" of Mark 10:5 — as with Matthew 19:3-9 — is that the entire "Law of Moses" can be characterized as suffering from a fundamental "split" or "separation" within itself, between its "outer meanings" and its "inner meanings." And, if that reading is correct, then we can also conclude that this "split" or "separation" between meanings must have been believed by the authors of the New Testament to have _not_ existed "in the beginning" (or "at the source": Greek _arché_ ) of creation.

[However, I wish to reiterate my belief that the Christian scriptures have served to _perpetuate_ the same basic type of "split" or "separation" that existed in the "Law of Moses," albeit in a somewhat different manner. I do not share any belief that the (human) authors of the New Testament may have had that they were somehow, by means of their writings, doing very much to help solve the enormous problems created by religious esotericism. Their criticisms of religious esotericism were, quite frankly, too subtle and abstruse to have much of a chance of succeeding at eliminating it — largely because those authors themselves had still not resolved in their own minds to take their final leave of it. And that is one reason why I am inclined to think that "angelic beings" — which, presumably, _would_ have had a full appreciation of the true "inner meanings" of the New Testament writings — were, at least to some extent, likely involved in "revealing" the contents of those writings to their less cognizant human scribes.]

With this idea in mind of a "split" or "separation" in "the Law" of God _not_ having been believed to exist "in the beginning," or "at the source," of creation, consider John 1:1-5,9-10 — which, I would argue, implicitly expresses opposition to any "split" between "the inner" and "the outer":

In (the) beginning or, "in (the) origin," or "at (the) source": _en arché_ ] was the Meaning [or Word, or Reason, or Explanation, or Account: _logos_ ], and the Meaning was toward [ _pros_ ] God, and God was the Meaning. This (Meaning) was in (the) beginning [ _en arché_ ] toward [ _pros_ ] God. All things came into being through it [or him], and apart from [or separate from: _chōris_ ] it not even one (thing) came into being that has come into being. In it was life [ _zōé_ ], and the life was the light [ _phōs_ ] of men. And the light shines [ _phainō_ ] in the darkness [ _skotia_ ], and the darkness did not comprehend it [or grasp it, or apprehend it, or overcome it, or overtake it, or hold it down, or cover it, or keep it down, or keep it under control, or detect it, or bind it, or repress it, or suppress it: _kata-lambanō_ (Strong's number 2638); cf. [Exodus 15:9 (LXX), describing what the "Egyptians" were planning to do to the "Israelites" just after the "parting of the Rea Sea," but just before the "Egyptians" were "drowned" in the "waters" that came rushing back upon them].... The light [ _phōs_ ] was the true [or truthful: _aléthinos_ ] (light), that which enlightens [ _phōtizō_ ; as with the English word "enlighten," _phōtizō_ can be read either literally or figuratively] every person, coming into the world. (The light) was in the world [ _kosmos_ ], and the world came into being through it; (but) the world did not know [or understand, or recognize, or perceive: _ginōskō_ ] (the light). [Is that perhaps because "the world" had, so to speak, only "read" (Greek _ana-ginōskō_ ) the "Word" or "Account" (Greek _logos_ ) — but had not yet " _come to know_ ," or " _come to understand_ ," or " _come to realize_ " (Greek _ginōskō_ ) its true inner "Meaning" (Greek _logos_ )?]

Notice how John 1:1-5,9-10, while stressing the idea of the divine "unity," also implicitly expresses opposition to the "hiding" of any "inner meaning," and of _meaningfulness_ more generally ("meaningfulness" being "the light of men"), within symbolic "darkness" (which would signify semantic "obscurity" leading to a general state of _meaninglessness_ ). I believe that the "light that shines in the darkness" is best thought of as referring to the "inner meaning" that is always striving to be "set free" or "liberated" from its "captivity" — so that it can eventually "overcome" the " _darkness_ " that is created by the _coexistence_ of a _separate_ "outer meaning" — in order to itself _become_ the "outer meaning." (Also see  1 John 1:5-6 and  1 John 2:7-11.)

## Symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon": A "kingdom divided against itself"

The same theme of "division" that is found in, for example, Matthew 19:3-9 (the passage discussing a "book of divorce"), can be found being addressed elsewhere in the Gospels as well. Matthew 12:24-25 says,

But the Pharisees, having heard (about Jesus's healing of a man), said [ _legō_ ], "This (man) does not cast out the demons except by Beelzebul, prince of the demons." Knowing their thinking [or thoughts: _enthymésis_ ], (Jesus) said to (the Pharisees), "Every kingdom divided [ _merizō_ , derived from _meros_ , meaning "part"] against itself is laid waste [or made desolate: _erémoō_ ], and every city or house divided [ _merizō_ , derived from _meros_ ] against itself will not stand."

Incidentally, this passage tends to suggest that the " _thinking_ " of the Pharisees was _itself_ thought to be of a "divided" nature, which would tend to indicate that the idea of a "divided kingdom" was meant to refer to a particular _state of mind_ , not to any type of actual place. (Cf. [Luke 17:21.) Notice that the first sentence tell us that Jesus was here responding to what the Pharisees had " _said_ " (Greek _legō_ ) to Jesus _in his presence_ , not to anything that they had privately "thought." (So, in other words, Jesus didn't need to do any telepathic "mind-reading" here.) Therefore the "thinking" (Greek _enthymésis_ ) to which Matthew 12:24-25 is referring must have been something _other than_ anything that had been _explicitly_ stated in the first sentence — rather, some habitual manner of thinking or _attitude_ that had presumably been _implicitly revealed_ through what they had said to Jesus outright. In fact, the Greek word _enthymésis_ — which is derived from the Greek word _thymos_ , meaning "passion" — often seems to carry the connotation of the _underlying_ , axiomatic _presuppositions_ — the fundamental, emotion-dependent "world view," the "inner passion" — that _drives_ all of a person's more seemingly detached "conceptual" thinking and judgments. So I suspect that by speaking of the "thinking" of the "Pharisees," the author meant to refer to a general manner of thinking characterized by its "divided" and inconsistent and even self-contradictory nature — which would presumably also be why the authors of the Gospels elsewhere charged the "Pharisees" with being "hypocrites." (However, one could say the same about the thinking of the authors of the New Testament; perhaps their own "hypocrisy" can be explained by the fact that it is easier to see certain flaws in others than in oneself.) Also consider that in Hebrews 4:12, this same Greek word _enthymésis_ is again used in the context of the idea of "doubleness," by the author writing that the "word of God" is "sharper" than any "two-edged" (or "two-mouthed": Greek _di-stomos_ ) "sword."]

Similarly, Luke 11:17 says,

And (Jesus), knowing their thoughts [or intentions, or purposes: _dia-noéma_ ], said to (the Pharisees), "Every kingdom divided [ _dia-merizō_ , derived from _merizō_ , meaning 'to divide,' which is in turn derived from _meros_ , meaning 'part'] against itself is laid waste [or made desolate, or ruined: _erémoō_ ], and a house (divided) against (that same) house falls [ _piptō_ ]."

Do the authors of these two passages have a particular symbolic "kingdom" or "city" in mind? I think the answer is almost certainly "yes." Consider Revelation 18:2,15-19:

And (the angel) cried with a mighty [ _ischyros_ ] voice [ _phōné_ ], saying, "Fallen [ _piptō_ ], fallen [ _piptō_ ], is Babylon the Great! And she has become a dwelling place of demons, and a guarding place for every unclean spirit, and a guarding place for every unclean bird, and a guarding place for every unclean and detested beast."... The merchants of (her wares), who gained wealth from her, will stand far off, because of the fear of her torment, weeping [ _klaiō_ ] and mourning, saying, "Woe, woe, the Great City [i.e., 'Babylon **'** or 'Babel **'** ], the one arrayed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and adorned with gold, and precious gems, and pearls! For in a single hour such great wealth has been laid waste [or made desolate, or ruined: _erémoō_ ]." And every shipmaster and everyone sailing to a place [ _topos_ ], and sailors and all whose trade is on the sea, stood far off and cried out as they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, "What (city is) like the Great City?" And they threw dust on their heads and they were crying out, weeping [ _klaiō_ ] and mourning, saying, "Woe, woe, the Great City where all who had ships at sea were enriched from her wealth! For in a single hour she has been laid waste [or made desolate, or ruined: _erémoō_ ]."

So when we compare Revelation 18:2,15-19 to Matthew 12:24-25 and Luke 11:17, it seems that what was generally understood among the authors of the New Testament to _characterize_ the symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" was the quality of _internal division_. And that should not be surprising, since it was the "confusing of language" that is said to have been introduced at "Babel" that led to a loss of "unity" or "concord" or "harmony" in the communications of, and relations among, human beings. Furthermore, the symbolic image of a "house divided against itself" evokes the idea of "divorce" — which brings us back to what I believe to be Jesus's "esoteric" proclamation that the "Law of Moses" as it is found in "the scriptures" should be regarded as "a book _of divorce_."

I'd like to offer a couple of final thoughts before moving on to the next installment: First, as I already mentioned in Part 4 of this series, Exodus 32:15 indicates that two "parts" (or "shares," or "portions," or "allotments": LXX _meros_ ) "came together" to constitute the (original) "two tablets of the testimony. (I discuss the difference between the _original_ "two tablets" and the _second_ "two tablets" in the next installment in this series.) This same idea may, at least to some extent and in some cases, be related to the use in the Bible of the Hebrew word _shalowm_ (meaning "peace," but also "wholeness, completeness, completion") and of the Greek word _eiréné_ (also meaning "peace," as well as "oneness, connection, harmony, concord"; derived from _eirō_ , meaning "to join together, to string together, to connect"). Notice the way in which the Greek word _eiréné_ is used in Ephesians 2:12-22 (part of which I quote and discuss in Part 9 of this series) in the context of Paul's discussion of the general idea of "two becoming one."

Second, the etymologies of the English words "symbol" and "metaphor" are potentially quite illuminating when considered in the particular context of the ideas and figurative images which I have been discussing in the last two installments of this series (and which I also continue to discuss toward the beginning of the next installment, especially in the section entitled "Moses's 'breaking' of the first two 'stone tablets' from Mount Sinai — and its significance"). The English word "symbol" is derived from the Greek word _symbolon_. One of the definitions for the word _symbolon_ provided by the Liddell-Scott-Jones lexicon is "each of two halves or corresponding pieces of an _astragalos_ [which can mean 'one of the vertebrae' or a 'knucklebone'] or other object, which two _xenoi_ [i.e., 'foreigners' or 'strangers'], or any two contracting parties, broke between them, each party keeping one piece in order to have proof of the identity of the presenter of the other." (The word _symbolon_ can also have the more derivative meanings of "guarantee," or "token of goodwill," or "secret code.") The Greek noun _symbolon_ is in turn derived from the Greek verb _sym-ballō_ , which means "to put together, to join together, to unite." (It can also mean "to compare" and "to interpret.") This etymology serves to remind us of the fact that for a symbol to "work" or "do its job," some figurative "thing" must "be put together with," and "correspond to," and "match," the _idea_ being symbolized by that figurative "thing." When that happens — when a symbol actually _makes sense_ and _becomes meaningful_ to a person — the "two parts" of which I've been speaking in this book become _reunited_.

The English word "metaphor" is derived from the Greek noun _metaphora_ , which means "a transference," and which is in turn derived from the Greek verb _meta-pherō_ , meaning "to carry across." That brings to mind the figurative Bible imagery we've been examining that involves "two sides," especially the "two sides" of a symbolic "river." I believe these "two sides" are best understood as referring to, respectively, the realm of tangible and sensible "things," and the realm of abstract concepts. A _non-esoteric_ metaphor thus _unites_ both of these "two sides," making it possible for a person's mind to readily "travel back and forth" between those "two sides" — just as a _non-esoteric_ symbol _unites_ the "two parts" which in the Bible we so often find "broken apart" or "divided" or "split" from each other.

In the next installment in this series I will examine a very important symbolic image that we repeatedly encounter in the Bible: that of "throwing a stone away into the depths of a body of water"; and I will try to determine what this symbolic image was most likely understood to signify in the minds of the authors of the Bible.

# Part 6 of 12: The symbolic image of "throwing stones into water": What does it mean?

The image of throwing a stone of some kind (usually a large one) into the depths of a body of water is one that recurs throughout the Bible, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. What is this metaphorical "stone," and why was it viewed as needing to be "thrown into the depths"?

I propose that the symbol of the "stone" was _generally_ understood by the authors of the Bible to signify the uncomprehended "outer meanings" of the scriptures — partly because of the fact that "stone" is inorganic and "dead," and a communication that is _meaningless_ to a person — such as a book written in a language that he or she cannot read — likewise seems "dead" to the person. (That 1 Peter 2:4-5 speaks of Christ and Christians as being "living stones" actually just serves to remind us of the fact that "stones" would _ordinarily_ be thought of as "dead," in order to emphasize the point that there is something truly _exceptional_ about these particular "stones.") In addition to that, however, the fact that the "Law of Moses" (and the "Ten Commandments" in particular) is described in the Bible as having been written on "stone tablets" would undoubtedly have also played a role in creating that particular association in the minds of the authors of the Bible.

Furthermore, I think the symbol of the "stone" would have sometimes been understood to signify or be associated with the character trait of "callousness" or "insensitivity" (as is indicated by the familar metaphor of "a heart of stone"). But this significance is not unrelated to the one I just proposed, since I believe it was the esotericist prophets' perception of the existence of widespread "callousness and insensitivity" among human beings that _gave rise_ to a desire among those prophets to create divisions between their "inner meanings" and "outer meanings," as a way of keeping both their vulnerable emotional selves and their true (inner) messages or meanings "safe."

Recall the passage that I included toward the end of the previous article, concerning the meaning of the Greek word _symbolon_ : A _symbolon_ was one half of some object "which two _xenoi_ [i.e., 'foreigners' or 'strangers'], or any two contracting parties, broke between them, each party keeping one piece in order to have proof of the identity [my emphasis] of the presenter of the other." (Cf. [Ephesians 2:12-22, noticing the use of the Greek word _xenos_ , meaning "stranger" or "foreigner.") I think it is reasonable to suppose that the prophets may have generally believed that their use of cryptically symbolic language in their writings would always ensure that any person who sought to understand the "true" meanings of those writings would have to provide some "proof" or "guarantee" of the person's "worthiness" (or "trustworthiness") in order that the prophets' emotional selves and the meanings that they thought most valuable would both be kept "safe." And that goal would (in theory, anyway) be accomplished by the prophets supplying only the _signifiers_ , while leaving it up to "the other party," at least to some extent, to try to discern the ideas _being signified_ — which, if "the other party" succeeded, would make the "two halves" into a single "whole." (Alternatively, one might think of the "two contracting parties" as being "God" and "Noah," or "God" and "Abraham," or "God" and "Moses," because of the "covenants" formed between them — in which case, the "person" or "persons" demanding "proof" of "worthiness" or "trustworthiness" would instead be "God" and the "angels" who were delivering divine revelations _through_ the prophets.)]

I think it is likely that the generally implicit and unstated belief of the prophets was that the ending of the making of divisions between "inner meanings" and "outer meanings" in religious discourse would have to somehow _coincide with_ the ending of widespread "callousness and insensitivity" — since the existence of each of those states of affairs seems to support and perpetuate the existence of the other. (I should note, however, that I personally don't exactly agree with the way of thinking that I am here supposing to have been adopted by the esotericist prophets. I believe religious esotericism, and the Lie in general, need to be ended _first_ — as a result of which the level of "callousness and insensitivity" could be expected to wane over time.)

## Moses's "breaking" of the first two "stone tablets" from Mount Sinai — and its significance

When discussing these "stone tablets," it is very important to be aware that a comparison between Exodus 32:16 and Exodus 32:19 and Exodus 34:1-4 indicates that there were _two_ pairs of "stone tablets" that Moses received from the Lord upon Mount Sinai — but the _original_ pair was made by the Lord, while the _second_ pair — the pair that Moses ended up giving to the Israelites — was made by Moses. Only the "writing" (probably understood to correspond to the true "inner meaning" or "essence" of "the scriptures") is said to have been the same with both pairs of tablets, in both cases coming from the Lord. Consider [Revelation 5:9, Revelation 15:3, and Revelation 14:1-5, with the thought in mind that the "song" (Greek _ōdé_ ) of a writing may have been understood to be equivalent to the _meaning_ that a reader _perceived to exist_ in the writing. In connection with this same idea, also consider Daniel 3:4-7 and Revelation 18:21-22.]

This suggests that, as compared to "the Law" that Moses _originally_ received from the Lord, there must have been perceived to be an _inferiority_ in the "Law of Moses" as it was delivered to the Israelites — not necessarily in terms of its "inner meaning" or "essence," but in terms of the _man-made_ "material" (i.e., the "outer meanings") that were being used as _the vehicle for conveying_ that "inner meaning." And importantly, the perception of that inferiority would have existed, not only among the authors of the New Testament, but also among the authors of the Old Testament — especially including the author or authors of the Book of Exodus itself.

I will repeat Exodus 32:15, which I already quoted in Part 4:

And Moses turned away and descended from (Mount Sinai), and the two tablets of the testimony (were) in his hand, tablets written from both of their sides; from this (side) and from that (side) [more literally, "from here and from here," or "from here and from there": _mizzeh ū-mizzeh_ ; LXX _enthen kai enthen_ ] they (were) written.

But Exodus 32:16-19 then continues,

And the tablets were a work  _ma'aseh_ ; LXX _ergon_ ] of God, just as the writing was a writing of God, (which) he engraved on the tablets. And Joshua heard the sound [or noise, or voice: _qol_ ; LXX _phōné_ ] of the (Israelites) in their shouting, and he said to Moses, "There is a sound of battle in the camp." And (Moses) said, "It is not a sound of singing triumph [or strength, or might: _geburah_ ], nor a sound of singing defeat [or weakness: _chalushah_ ]; (but) I do hear a sound of singing." And it happened that as he entered into the camp and saw the calf and the dancing, Moses burned with anger, and he threw the tablets from out of his hands and broke [ _shabar_ ; LXX _syn-tribō_ ] them below [or under: _tachath_ ; LXX _hypo_ ] the mountain [LXX _oros_ ]. [Compare this with [Isaiah 14:12-15 (LXX), noting the use of the Greek words _syn-tribō_ (Strong's number 4937), meaning "to break," and _oros_ (Strong's number 3735), meaning "mountain" — a comparison which may suggest that the author or translator meant to depict the "King of Babel" or "King of Babylon" — which I believe may been thought of as the _personification_ of the phenomenon of the "breaking up" of meaning — as ironically ending up himself being "broken below the mountain."]

This idea that the first two stone tablets had been "broken" by Moses is repeated in Exodus 34:1, which says,

And the Lord said to Moses, "Carve yourself two stone tablets like the first, and I will write on the tablets the words [or discourse, or account, or message: _dabarim_ , the plural of _dabar_ ; LXX _rhéma_ ] that were on the first tablets, which YOU broke [ _shabar_ ; LXX _syn-tribō_ ]."

I suspect that the author of Exodus 34:1 intended that this verse be understood by the reader as conveying an ambiguous meaning. Is the Lord saying that Moses broke _only_ the tablets themselves? Or is he saying that Moses _also_ "broke" the " _words_ " (or "discourse," or "account," or "message": Hebrew _dabarim_ ) written _upon_ the tablets? In other words, is the author telling us that "Moses" decided to introduce _ambiguity of meaning_ into the scriptures? — because if this second meaning was also intended, then that would lend support to the hypothesis that I offered in Part 5 that the author of Matthew 19:3-9 may have meant to describe the entire "Law of Moses" contained in "the scriptures" as a "book of divorce." It would mean that the "Law of Moses" that was delivered to the Israelites was _intentionally_ written in such a way that it would contain both "inner meanings" and "outer meanings" — that is, in such a way that there would be a "breach," or a "split," or a "cleavage," between those two sets of meanings. The fact that when "the Law" was _first_ given to Moses by the Lord, there was no "break" in it, would be consistent with what Jesus says in Matthew 19:3-9: "In view of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to send away your wives; but (the Law) did not come into being that way from the beginning [or origin, or source: _arché_ ]."

By the way, compare how the Greek word _syn-tribō_ is used in John 19:36, which says, "For these things [referring to the 'Crucifixion of Christ'] happened so that the scripture might be fulfilled [or completed, or made perfect, or consummated: _pléroō_ ] : 'Not a bone will be broken [ _syn-tribō_ ] .'" The scriptural reference is probably to [Exodus 12:43-49, in which case Jesus is being compared to the "Passover lamb." (It might also be a reference to Psalm 34:20; but that would be far less interesting in terms of symbolic significance, and so I find it difficult to believe that the author of John 19:36 would have not only bothered to mention it in the first place, but even to go so far as to describe the Crucifixion as the "fulfillment" of that verse, if that was in fact the reference he primarily had in mind.) Notice the insistence in Exodus 12:43-49 that all males who eat of the Passover lamb be "circumcised." I suspect that the authors of the New Testament (and probably those of the Old Testament as well) understood that requirement to have an esoteric significance, with "circumcision" symbolizing the removal of the "outer covering" from one's _reading_ of the scriptures. In support of that hypothesis, consider 2 Corinthians 3:14-15, in which Paul writes,

But the minds [or attitudes, or dispositions: _noéma_ ] of (the sons of Israel) were hardened, for (even) until the present day, the same veil remains (lying) over the reading [ _ana-gnōsis_ , derived from _ana-ginōskō_ , meaning "to read"] of the old covenant, not being uncovered [or unveiled, or revealed: _ana-kalyptō_ ] — which (veil) is passing away in Christ — but up until today, whenever Moses is read [ _ana-ginōskō_ ], a veil lies over their heart [ _kardia_ ]. But whenever (a person) shall have turned [or returned, or converted: _epi-strephō_ ] to (the) Lord, the veil is stripped away [ _peri-aireō_ ].

[The Greek word _peri-aireō_ can mean "to strip away," but it more literally means "to take away that which surrounds," being derived from _peri_ , meaning "all around," and _haireō_ , meaning "to take away." With that in mind, compare 2 Corinthians 3:14-15 with Romans 2:28-29, in which Paul writes,

For one is not a Jew by appearances, nor is circumcision [ _peri-tomé_ ] the (kind that is) apparent in flesh. But a Jew is one who is so in secrecy [ _en tō kryptō_ ], and circumcision [ _peri-tomé_ , derived from _peri-temnō_ , meaning "to cut around"] is of heart, in spirit, not in letter.

[So when Paul in 2 Corinthians 3:14-15 says that whenever a person "shall have turned to the Lord," "the (surrounding) veil (around the heart) is stripped away [ _peri-aireō_ ]," it seems that what he was likely envisioning was a "circumcision of the heart" — which would _also_ correspond to the removal of the "outer covering" from one's " _reading_ " of the scriptures.]

A reasonable inference would be that after Moses "broke" the first two stone tablets, the second two stone tablets were "written _on both_ of their sides" — but they were no longer "written _from both_ of their sides," as it is put in Exodus 32:15. In other words, "the inner" and "the outer" no longer _came together_ to form a _single_ meaning or message, in the way that ordinary, commonly used, generally understood, _non-esoteric metaphors_ do that necessarily make reference to tangible and sensible outer "things" in the physical world as a means by which to convey more abstract conceptual thoughts. Instead, a _division_ or _separation_ had been made — and the apparent reason why that division or separation was _intentionally_ made was the sort of "hardness of heart" that Moses saw the Israelites displaying in their camp at the time of his return from the mountaintop, presumably thought to make them _incapable of accepting_ the true "inner meanings" of the scriptures if anyone were to try to communicate those meanings to them openly and plainly. As a result, the primordial and mythical state of " _unity_ " — when "the scriptures" had been written _both_ "from here _and_ from here" or "from here _and_ from there" — had been lost.

And that fact wouldn't be forgotten by the authors of the Bible.

## Jeremiah's "message" to symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon"

Now let's examine Jeremiah 51:59-64. But while doing so, please keep in mind my thesis that the symbol of " _Babylon_ " or " _Babel_ " (like the symbolic "Sodom," and the symbolic "Egypt," and the symbolic "present Jerusalem": cf. Revelation 11:8) was understood, at some level of the prophet's thinking, to signify _the esotericist type of religion_. Jeremiah 51:59-64 sums up the vehement condemnation of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" that precedes it in Jeremiah chapters 50 and 51 as

t]he message [or word: _dabar_ ; LXX _logos_ , in the singular] (with) which Jeremiah the prophet charged Seraiah... when he went with Zedekiah king of Judah to Babylon [Hebrew _babel_ ], in the fourth year of his reign. And Seraiah was a prince [ _sar_ ] of peace [ _menuchah_ ]. And Jeremiah wrote in a single [or united: _echad_ ] book [ _sepher_ ; LXX _biblion_ ] all the harm that would come upon Babylon [ _babel_ ], all these words [ _dabarim_ , the plural of _dabar_ ; LXX _logous_ , a plural form of _logos_ ] that are written against Babylon [ _babel_ ] . And Jeremiah said to Seraiah [a name that literally means "God prevails" or "God rules"]: "When you come to Babylon [ _babel_ ], and understand [or perceive, or consider; more literally, 'see': _ra'ah_ ; LXX _horaō_ ] , and read out [or read, or proclaim, or cry out: _qara_ ; LXX _ana-ginōskō_ , which can mean 'to read,' or 'to read aloud,' or 'to publish'] all these words [ _dabarim_ , the plural of _dabar_ ; LXX _logous_ , a plural form of _logos_ ], then you will say, 'O Lord [ _yahweh_ ], you have spoken against this place [LXX _topos_ ], to cut it off, that nothing shall remain in it, neither man nor beast, for it shall be a ruin [the LXX has "a vanishing away, a disappearance, an obliteration": _a-phanismos_ ; note the use of the same word in [Hebrews 8:13, especially considering the fact that the quoted material that immediately precedes that verse is taken from Jeremiah 31:31-34] forever [or "into the age" or "into the eon" or "unto the age": _olam_ ; LXX _eis ton aiōna_ ] .' And it will come to pass that when you have finished [or completed: _kalah_ ; LXX _pauō_ , meaning "to stop, to cease"] reading out this book, you will bind [or 'join together': _qasher_ ; LXX _epi-deō_ ] a stone [ _eben_ ; LXX _lithos_ ] to it [or 'upon it,' or 'over it': LXX _epi_ ] and throw [ _shalak_ ; LXX _rhipteō_ or _rhiptō_ ] it into the middle [ _tavek_ ; LXX _mesos_ ] of the Euphrates. And you [ **Seraiah** ] will say, 'So will Babylon [ _babel_ ] sink [ _shaqa_ ; LXX _kata-dyō_ ], to rise no more from the calamity that I am bringing upon her; and (her people) will be exhausted [or worn out: _yaeph_ ] [the LXX has "and she will cease to exist"; or, "and she will fail"; or, "and she will give out"; or, "and she will be eclipsed": _ek-leipō_ ].'" (Even) as far as this (goes) the message [or account, or word, or discourse, or narrative: _dabar_ ; LXX _rhéma_ ] of Jeremiah.

The more attentive reader might now be thinking, "What? Isn't the author talking about chapters 50 and 51 of the Book of Jeremiah? But that's _Holy Scripture_ that he is saying must eventually be thrown away and allowed to sink out of sight forever!!!"

Right.

Notice how Jeremiah's "book" (apparently referring to at least chapters 50 and 51 of the Book of Jeremiah, if not the entire Book of Jeremiah, if not the entire Bible, if not all esoteric religious writing) is _compared to_ "Babylon" (by the use of the phrase "So will Babylon sink"); and also how both the "book" (i.e., the prophetical writings _denouncing_ "Babylon") and "Babylon" itself are to share the same final fate: _to be eliminated_. In other words, once the true import of the prophecies contained in the sacred scriptures has been grasped, those prophecies and scriptures will have served their purpose, and they can (and should) then be dispensed with. Both esoteric religious writings _and the prophetical writings which denounce esoteric religious writings_ are equally esoteric — so both must be eliminated in the end.

Pay special attention to the sentence in which it is written,

And Jeremiah wrote in a single [or united: _echad_ ] [ **!!!** ] book [ _sepher_ ; LXX _biblion_ ] all the harm that would come upon Babylon [ _babel_ ], all these words that are written against Babylon [ _babel_ ].

Now, I have been arguing in this series of articles that all "prophecy," including the prophecy of Jeremiah, is _esoteric_ , so that it is, by its very nature, _not_ "single" or "united." So what does it mean for Jeremiah to say that he has written about "the harm that would come upon Babylon" in a " _single_ book" or " _united_ book"? I think what this means is that _in order for_ that eagerly anticipated "harm" to "come upon Babel," Jeremiah's message would first need to be _made_ "single" and "united" — through its _interpretation_ (or, to use the language used in the passage, its "reading out"); and _until_ that "uniting" or "making single" had been accomplished, all of Jeremiah's "words written against Babylon" would remain completely _harmless_ against symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon."

As an additional point of interest, there is good reason to think that the figure of "Seraiah" mentioned in Jeremiah 51:59-64 may have been understood to correspond to the figure of "the Messiah"; in other words, it would be the archetypal figure of "the Messiah" (which, incidentally, I do not believe was meant to be understood as corresponding to any single, individual, historical person, but rather, a new _type_ of human being), who, when the proper time had come, would loudly "proclaim" the message that the prophets had previously been "whispering." (Cf. Luke 23:46.) This is indicated by a comparison of Jeremiah 51:59, which describes "Seraiah" as a "prince of peace" (Hebrew _sar_ _menuchah_ ), with Isaiah 9:6-7, in which "the Messiah" is described as a "prince of peace" (Hebrew _sar shalowm_ ) — which is the source of Jesus Christ's famous appellation "Prince of Peace." (The Hebrew words _menuchah_ and _shalowm_ both have similar meanings of "peace, quiet, rest, comfort, contentment, safety, stillness, tranquility.") A probable identification between the figures of "Seraiah" and "the Messiah" is also indicated by the fact that the passage says that it is the figure of _Seraiah_ who, as a result of his "reading out" of "the book," would be responsible for bringing about the downfall of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon," and not "the Lord" (Hebrew _yahweh_ ) — not directly, anyway. So that would seem to indicate that the function of the collective "Messiah" would have been understood to be to bring about the ending of the esotericist (or "prophetical") _type_ of religion, represented by symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon."

That the interpretation of Jeremiah 51:59-64 which I am suggesting does not constitute a misreading of the author's position is indicated by what the same author also writes in Jeremiah 31:31-34:

Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, and I will form a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant that I formed with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant that they broke [or annulled: _parar_ ], though I was a husband to them, declares the Lord. [Consider that this language may be alluding to the same idea that I believe Matthew 19:3-9 may be suggesting: that the "first covenant" — the "Law of Moses" contained in the "scriptures" that were delivered to the Israelites — ought to be thought of as a kind of "book of divorce."] For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord: I will put my Law [ _torah_ ] in their inner parts [ _qereb_ ; the LXX has "minds" or "thinking": _dianoia_ ], and write [LXX _graphō_ ] it upon their hearts. And I will be God to them, and they will be a people to me. And no longer will each man teach his neighbor, and each man his brother, saying, "Know the Lord," for they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. For I will forgive their iniquity and remember their sin no more.

This passage increases the likelihood that the "stone" of which the same author speaks in Jeremiah 51:59-64 was indeed understood to refer to the " _man-made_ stone tablets" on which "the Law" (i.e., "the Torah") had been written or engraved — in addition to the "outer meanings" of esoteric prophecy such as that written by Jeremiah himself.

Also compare Jeremiah 31:31-34 with Revelation 21:3,5-7:

And I heard a loud voice out of the heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle or tent: _skéné_ ] of God is with men, and he will dwell with them [compare this to [Genesis 11:2 and what next transpires], and they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them (as) their God."... And the one sitting upon the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And (Jesus) said, "Write [ _graphō_ ], for THESE are the trustworthy [or reliable, or faithful: _pistos_ ] and true [or truthful, or genuine: _aléthinos_ ] words [or meanings: _logos_ ]." And he said to me, "They are born!" [Or, "They have come into being!"] I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the one thirsting I will give freely from the spring of the water of life. The one who conquers will inherit (all things), and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to me.

A comparison of these two passages suggests that the "writing" being spoken of in Revelation 21:3,5-7 was actually understood to be a "writing" of God's "Law" _upon the "hearts" of the inhabitants of the "new Jerusalem_ _."_ But significantly, the "writing upon _hearts_ " — suggestive of the idea of arriving at an understanding of the " _inner_ meaning" — is said to be characterized by the fact that those particular "words" (or "meanings") are the "trustworthy and true" ones. That tends to imply that "writing upon stone" — associated with the idea of the "outer meaning" — must have been understood by the authors of the New Testament to be something _less than_ entirely "trustworthy and true," due to the intrinsically misleading nature of publicly promulgating writing of a type that is capable of conveying some plausible meaning that is not _the only_ plausible meaning. Furthermore, it appears that when "the writing of God's Law upon a person's heart" is accomplished, that person was understood to be "born" (or "reborn") as a "son of God."

## Symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon": A "very large stone" to be "thrown into the sea"

The author of the Book of Revelation must have devoted special attention to Jeremiah 51:59-64 in particular, since he incorporates similar symbolic imagery into his own writing, in Revelation 18:21:

Then a mighty [ _ischyros_ ] angel [reminiscent of the figure of "Seraiah"] took up [ _airō_ ] a stone [ _lithos_ ] like a large millstone and threw [ _ballō_ ] it into the sea [ _eis tén thalassan_ ] [reminiscent of "the Euphrates"], saying, "So will Babylon the Great City [in other words: 'Babel'] be thrown (down) [ _ballō_ ] with violence, and will be found [ _heuriskō_ ] no more."

Now compare that with Mark 11:23, in which Jesus says,

Truly, I say to you that whoever says to THIS mountain [ _tō_ _orei_ _toutō_ ], "Be taken up [ _airō_ ] and thrown [ _ballō_ ] into the sea [ _eis tén thalassan_ ]," and not hesitate [or, "(not) be at variance with himself"; more literally, "(not) be separated": _dia-_ _krinō_ ] in his heart [in other words, perhaps, there has been a "circumcision of the heart," so there is no longer any _distinction_ to be made between the person's "inner self" and "outer self"], but be confident [or trust, or believe, or have faith: _pisteuō_ ] that what he speaks is coming to pass, it will be (so) for him.

Why does Jesus say " _this_ mountain" rather than simply " _a_ mountain"? Which specific "mountain" did the author have in mind? The comparison between Revelation 18:21 and Mark 11:23 makes it likely that the "mountain" was in some way associated with symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon." And I think the most likely explanation would be that the authors of the New Testament had in mind the "Tower of Babel" — especially if those authors were envisioning that "Tower" as being in the shape of a pyramid or ziggurat, which would give it a "mountain-like" appearance.

The probability that, in speaking of a "mountain," the author of Mark 11:23 meant to refer to (at least) the "Tower of Babel" is increased if we first notice the basic similarity between Mark 11:23 (just quoted) and Matthew 17:20, in which Jesus says,

For truly, I say to you, if you have confidence [or faith, or assurance, or belief, or trust: _pistis_ ] like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to THIS mountain [ _tō orei_ _toutō_ ], "Change places [ _meta-bainō_ , which can also mean 'change from one state to another'] from here [ _enthen_ ] to there [ _ekei_ ]," and it will change places [ _meta-bainō_ ]; and nothing will be impossible for you [ _a-dynateō_ , related to _dynamis_ , which can mean "power" or "force"].

Now compare Mark 11:23 and Matthew 17:20 with Genesis 11:6-8, describing the "confusing of language" episode at "Babel," which says,

And the Lord said, "Behold, the people (are) one, and (there is) one language for all (people); and, beginning by doing this, now nothing will be impossible [or hidden, or inaccessible, or impenetrable, or walled off, or fenced off, or withheld, or held back, or secure: _batsar_ ] (for them), and everything that they intend, they will do. Let us go down [ _yarad_ ; LXX _kata-bainō_ ] there [ _sham_ ] and confuse their language, so that one man may not understand the language of his neighbor." And the Lord scattered them from there [ _sham_ ; LXX _ekei_ _then_ ] over the face of the whole earth....

Notice, incidentally, that the Lord "goes down" or "descends" (Hebrew _yarad_ ; Greek _kata-bainō_ ) to "there" (or "out there," or "without") — which may imply that the Lord was thought to "go up" or "ascend" to "here" (or "within"; cf. [Colossians 3:1-4 and Luke 17:21). In connection with that idea, also consider that "Jerusalem" is routinely spoken of in the Bible as a "place" to which one "goes up" or "ascends" (Hebrew _alah_ ; Greek _ana-bainō_ or _an-erchomai_ ); and, with the thought in mind of "Jerusalem" (or "the new Jerusalem") perhaps having been understood to be a "place" that is, from the perspective of human beings, located "within," read Revelation 22:1-2 in conjunction with John 7:38.]

What can we conclude based on this comparison of Mark 11:23 and Matthew 17:20 with Genesis 11:6-8? I would suggest that the authors of Mark 11:23 and Matthew 17:20 were trying to tell their readers that so long as people attempt to gain "power" by using the methods that we are supposing the people of mythical "Babel" were understood by the authors of the Bible to have chosen to use, whatever "power" they do attain will mostly just slip from their grasp in the end. With regard to the idea of meaning, the people of mythical "Babel" apparently _wished for_ a division to exist between "here" (Greek _enthen_ ) and "there" (Greek _ekei_ ). That was their _mistake_ , and what led to their "scattering" — precisely the fate that they so desperately wanted to avoid. I believe the message being conveyed in Matthew 17:20 and Mark 11:23 is that for a society to achieve its goals, it must choose to _reject_ the sort of methods that the people of "Babel" chose to use, and work to _overcome_ the "splitting of meaning" (including deceptive and misleading communication) and the resulting "scattering," instead of working to _perpetuate_ it. If everyone in society chose to make their "inner meanings" their "outer meanings" as well, so that there could be a "free circulation of meaning" throughout all of society, people would be amazed by all of the new things that would suddenly become "possible" for them to accomplish.

As additional evidence that the " _this_ mountain" of which Jesus speaks in Mark 11:23 and Matthew 17:20 was almost certainly meant to refer to (at least) symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon," and more specifically, the "Tower of Babel," let's first take a look at Revelation 8:8:

And the second angel sounded the trumpet, and (something) like a large mountain burning [ _kaiō_ ] with fire [ _pyr_ ] was thrown [ _ballō_ ] into the sea [ _eis tén thalassan_ ], and the third (part) of the sea became blood.

Similar imagery can be found in Jeremiah 51:25-26, which, referring to "Babel" or "Babylon," says,

Behold, I am against you, destroying or corrupting, or ruining: _mashchith_ ; LXX _dia-phtheirō_ ] mountain, declares the Lord, that corrupts the whole earth. And I will stretch out my hand against you, and roll you out [or roll you down: _galal_ ; LXX _kata-kyliō_ ] [Why would the elimination of "Babel" or "Babylon" involve its being "unrolled"? _Is it perhaps being compared to a "scroll" or "book" of some kind?_ ] from the rocks [or stones; or, possibly, a fortress or stronghold in the craggy rocks: _sela_ ; LXX _petra_ ], and deliver you up as a burning [ _serephah_ ; the LXX has "set on fire": _em-pyreuō_ ] mountain, and not take from you a stone [LXX _lithos_ ] for a corner [or pinnacle: _pinnah_ ], nor a stone [LXX _lithos_ ] for a foundation, for you will be a desolate waste [ _shimamah_ ; the LXX has "a vanishing away, a disappearance, an obliteration": _a-phanismos_ ; again, note the use of the same word in [Hebrews 8:13] forever, declares the Lord.

So it seems evident that the "large stone" that the authors of the Bible had in mind was sometimes envisioned as being in the form of a "millstone," as in Revelation 18:21; but that very _same_ "large stone" was apparently also sometimes envisioned as being in the form of a "mountain." But whatever specific symbolic form the "large stone" might take, it seems clear that it was often if not always understood by the authors of the New Testament to represent (at least) symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon."

## "Mount Sinai": Yet another "very large stone" to be "thrown into the sea"

But was the symbol of the "mountain" or "large stone" understood to represent _only_ symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" (and more specifically, the "Tower of Babel")? The image of "a stone being thrown into the depths" can also be found in Exodus 15:4-5,10, in the "Song of Moses" that the Israelites sing after they successfully cross the parted Red Sea and their Egyptian pursuers are drowned in the waters that rush back upon them:

(The Lord) cast [or threw, or tossed: _yarah_ ; LXX _rhipteō_ or _rhiptō_ ] Pharaoh's chariots and his army [ _chel_ ; the LXX has _dynamis_ , which can mean "force, power, strength" — as well as "meaning"] into the sea, and his chosen officers were sunk [ _taba_ ; LXX _kata-pontizō_ ] in the Red Sea. The depths covered [or concealed, or hid, or veiled: _kasah_ ; LXX _kalyptō_ ; consider that the author and/or translator may have been using these words ironically] them; they went down [or sank, or descended: _yarad_ ; LXX _kata-dyō_ ] into the depths like a stone [LXX _lithos_ ].... You blew with [the LXX has _apo-stellō_ , meaning "sent out"] your wind [or Spirit: _ruach_ ; LXX _pneuma_ ]; the sea covered [or concealed, or hid, or veiled: _kasah_ ; LXX _kalyptō_ ] them; they sank [ _tsalal_ ; LXX _dynō_ or _dyō_ ] like lead in the mighty waters.

So we find the same symbolic image of "a stone being thrown into the deep" that is elsewhere in the Bible applied to symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" also applied to symbolic "Egypt" as well. And that should not be surprising, given the fact that Revelation 11:8 says,

And the corpse (of the two witnesses) cf. [ Romans 3:21] (will lie) upon the street of the Great City [i.e., "Babylon" or "Babel"], which is spiritually [or symbolically, or figuratively, or allegorically: _pneumatikōs_ ] called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was also crucified.

That seems to indicate that the authors of the New Testament at least sometimes regarded the symbol of "Egypt" (and "Sodom"), and that of "Babel" or "Babylon," as functionally equivalent.

But Revelation 11:8 is _an absolutely crucial verse_ , because of the fact that it _also_ identifies symbolic " _Babel_ " or " _Babylon_ " with the symbolic " _present Jerusalem_ ," since that is where the "Lord" is said in the New Testament Gospels to have been "crucified." And it seems that that same idea can also be found expressed in Galatians 4:22-26, in which the apostle Paul writes,

For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one from the slave woman and one from the free woman. But the (son) of the slave woman has been born according to the flesh think: "outer meanings"], but the (son) of the free woman (has been born) through promise [which should perhaps be understood to refer to a "promise" that the "inner meaning" would someday _become_ the "outer meaning" as well — which would be equivalent to a "promise" that the "light" would someday "overcome the darkness": cf. [John 1:1-5]. This is allegorizing, for these are two covenants, one from Mount Sinai, bearing (children) for slavery, which is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above [i.e., "Sarah"] is free, which is our mother.

So Galatians 4:21-31, read in conjunction with Revelation 11:8, seem to be implicitly identifying the symbolic " _present_ Jerusalem" with symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon."

But the comparison also suggests that the " _this_ mountain" spoken of by Jesus in his parables may have been meant to be represent — _in addition to_ the "Tower of Babel" — " _Mount Sinai_."

And there is additional evidence that can be found in the Bible to support the hypothesis that the symbolic "mountain" or "large stone" was at least sometimes intended by the authors of the Bible to signify "Mount Sinai" — which would in turn represent the symbolic "present Jerusalem" — in addition to signifying symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon."

Exodus 19:18 says,

And the whole of Mount Sinai smoked [LXX _kapnizō_ ] on its surface [or "on its face": _paneh_ ] because of God having descended [LXX _kata-bainō_ ] upon it in fire [LXX _pyr_ ]; and the smoke [LXX _kapnos_ ] was ascending [LXX _ana-bainō_ ] like smoke [LXX _kapnos_ ] from a furnace [LXX _kaminos_ ], and the whole mountain shook greatly [the LXX instead has "and all the people were exceedingly astounded"; or, more literally, "and all the people were entirely beside themselves": _ex-istémi_ , which literally means "to stand outside (of oneself)," derived from _histémi_ , meaning "to stand"] .

Compare this to Revelation 9:1-2, which says,

And the fifth angel sounded the trumpet [ _salpizō_ ], and I saw a star having fallen out of the heaven to the earth, and the key of the pit of the (bottomless) abyss was given to him. And he opened the pit of the (bottomless) abyss, and smoke [ _kapnos_ ] ascended [ _ana-bainō_ ] from the pit, like smoke [ _kapnos_ ] from a great furnace [ _kaminos_ ], and the sun and the air were darkened [ _skotoō_ ] by the smoke [ _kapnos_ ] of the pit.

Now back to Exodus. Exodus 20:18 says,

All the people perceived [or saw: LXX _horaō_ ] the sound [or thunder, or voice: LXX _phōné_ ], and the torches [or lightning, or lamps: _lappid_ ; LXX _lampas_ ], and the sound [LXX _phōné_ ] of the trumpet [ _salpigx_ ], and the mountain [i.e., Mount Sinai] smoking [LXX _kapnizō_ ]. And, being afraid [LXX _phobeō_ ], all the people stood [LXX _estésan_ , a form of _histémi_ ] far off [LXX _makrothen_ ].

Now back to Revelation. Revelation 18:8-10 says,

[I]n one day (Babylon's) plagues will come, death and mourning and famine, and she will be burned up [ _kata-_ _kaiō_ ] in fire [ _pyr_ ], for powerful (is the) Lord God who has judged [or separated: _krinō_ ] her. And the kings of the earth who committed sexual immorality and lived sensuously with her will weep [ _klaiō_ ] and lament over her when they see the smoke [ _kapnos_ ] of her burning [or refining, or testing by fire, or smelting: _pyrōsis_ ], standing [ _hestékotes_ , a form of _histémi_ ] far off [ _apo_ _makrothen_ ] because of the fear [ _phobos_ ] of her torment, saying, "Woe, woe, Babylon, the Great City, the powerful city! For in one hour your judgment [or separation: _krisis_ ] has come!"

Revelation 18:15-18 says,

The merchants of (her wares), who gained wealth from (Babylon), will stand  _stésontai_ , a form of _histémi_ ] far off [ _apo_ _makrothen_ ], because of the fear [ _phobos_ ] of her torment, weeping [ _klaiō_ ] and mourning, saying, "Woe, woe, the Great City [i.e., 'Babylon' or 'Babel'], the one arrayed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and adorned with gold, and precious gems, and pearls  and [ Revelation 21:18-21 — which together show that the author must not have meant to indicate that there was anything wrong _per se_ with a symbolic 'City' or 'Woman' being 'arrayed in fine linen' or being 'adorned with gold, and precious gems, and pearls,' but rather that symbolic 'Babel' or 'Babylon' in particular was _undeserving_ of these things. The author may have meant to convey the idea that 'she' was engaged in a kind of 'fraud' or 'deceit,' by _pretending_ to be the 'Bride of the Lamb,' when 'she' was in fact _not_ the 'Bride of the Lamb.'] For in a single hour such great wealth has been laid waste." And every shipmaster and everyone sailing somewhere, and sailors and all whose trade is on the sea, stood [ _estésan_ , a form of _histémi_ ] far off [ _apo_ _makrothen_ ] and cried out as they saw the smoke [ _kapnos_ ] of her burning [or refining, or testing by fire, or smelting: _pyrōsis_ ], saying, "What (city is) like the Great City?"

Revelation 19:1-3 says,

And (the large multitude [or crowd: _ochlos_ ] in heaven) said a second time, "Hallelujah! And (Babylon's) smoke [ _kapnos_ ] ascends [ _ana-bainō_ ] into [or unto: _eis_ ] the ages [ _aiōn_ ] of the ages [ _aiōn_ ]!"

And observe the _direct contrast_ between "Mount Sinai" and "Mount Zion" (along with the "heavenly Jerusalem") that is presented to us in Hebrews 12:18-22:

For you have NOT come forth  _proselélythate_ , a form of _pros-erchomai_ , from which is derived the English word "proselyte," literally meaning "one who has come forth" or "one who has drawn near"] to (a mountain) that is touched [ _psélaphaō_ , suggestive of the more concrete and tangible "outer meanings"] and that has been burned [ _kaiō_ ] with fire [ _pyr_ ], and to murkiness [ _gnophos_ ], and to deep darkness [ _zophos_ ], and to storm [ _thyella_ ], and to the sound of a trumpet [ _salpigx_ ], and to a sound [or voice: _phōné_ ] of words [or utterances, or sayings: _rhéma_ ] which those who heard [ _akouō_ ] rejected [or declined: _par-aiteomai_ ], (so as) not to have an additional message [or meaning, or word: _logos_ ] given [ _pros-tithémi_ ] to them. [Compare the use of this Greek word _pros-tithémi_ (Strong's number 4369), which can mean "to add, to give in addition, to give more, to proceed further, to increase, to improve," with the use of the same word in [the Septuagint version of Genesis 4:2 and 4:12 — a comparison which tends to suggest that the figure of "Abel" may have been meant to be identified with the "inner meaning" or "second meaning" of "the scriptures," whose "living voice" had — from a human perspective, anyway — been "silenced" by the figure of "Cain."] For they would not uphold that which was being ordered: "And if a beast [perhaps signifying a person incapable of comprehending the 'inner meanings'] should touch [ _thigganō_ ] the mountain [i.e., Mount Sinai], it [or he] will be stoned [ _lithoboleō_ , derived from _lithos_ , meaning 'stone,' and _ballō_ , meaning 'to throw, to cast' — perhaps signifying that 'beastly' persons either would or should be left with nothing more than the largely meaningless 'stony' 'outer meanings']." And so fearful [ _phoberos_ ] was that which became visible [ _phantazō_ ] (that) Moses said, "I am terrified [more literally, 'frightened out of (my wits)': _ek-phobos_ ] and trembling." But rather [ _alla_ ], you have come forth [ _proselélythate_ , a form of _pros-erchomai_ ] to Mount Zion and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels....

One of the Old Testament passages that the author of Hebrews 12:18-22 seems to be alluding to is Deuteronomy 4:11, which says,

And you DID come forth [LXX _prosélthete_ , a form of _pros-erchomai_ ] and you DID stand below the mountain [i.e., Mount Sinai], and the mountain burned [LXX _kaiō_ ] with fire [LXX _pyr_ ] even to the (very) heart of the heavens; (and there was) deep darkness [or obscurity: _choshek_ ; LXX: _skotos_ ], (and) murkiness [or dark cloud: _anan_ ; LXX _gnophos_ ] , and storm [or thick cloud: _araphel_ ; LXX _thyella_ ].

Based on a comparison of all of the preceding Bible passages in this section, I think it can be fairly concluded that all of the authors of the New Testament, as well as some (if not all) of the authors of the Old Testament, identified the symbol of "Babel" or "Babylon" with the symbol of "Mount Sinai," and also with that of the "present Jerusalem." Evidence for the making of such an identification by the authors of the Old Testament can be found by reading, for example, the Book of Zephaniah, in which it is not clear if the author's condemnation of "the oppressive city" in Zephaniah 3:1 is meant to apply to "Jerusalem," or to "Ninevah," or to one or more other symbolic "places." In addition, a comparison between Zephaniah 2:15 (speaking of "Ninevah") and Isaiah 47:8,10 (speaking of "Babel" or "Babylon") tends to indicate that _all_ of the "places" being denounced by Zephaniah — _including_ the "present Jerusalem" — were likely thought by the Old Testament prophets to be, at least in their current, "earthly" state, symbolically equivalent to "Babel" or "Babylon."

In the next installment in this series, I will continue with my discussion of the significance of the symbolic image of "throwing stones into the deep."

# Part 7 of 12: The symbolic image of "throwing stones into water": What does it mean? (cont'd)

## Throwing "stumbling blocks" into "the sea" or "the lake of the fire"

In the previous installment in this series, I showed how the "smoke" coming from the symbolic "burning" of both "Babel" (or "Babylon") and "Mount Sinai" is compared in the Bible to the "smoke" coming from the "fire" of a "furnace." Related to these ideas of "burning" and "fire" and "furnaces," consider Matthew 13:40-43, in which Jesus says,

So just as the weeds are gathered and burned up [ _kata-kaiō_ ] in fire [ _pyr_ ], so will it be in the consummation [or culmination, or completion, or end: _syn-teleia_ ] of the age. The Son of Man will send out [ _apo-stellō_ , from which is derived the Greek word _apostolos_ , meaning "apostle" or "one sent out"] his angels [or messengers: _aggelos_ or _angelos_ ], and they will gather out of his kingdom all the stumbling blocks [or snares: _skandalon_ ] and all those who practice lawlessness, and they will cast [or throw: _ballō_ ] them into the furnace [ _kaminos_ ] of the fire [ _pyr_ ]. In that place [or there: _ekei_ ] there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine out [ _ek-lampō_ ] like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

In Part 5 of this series I previously expressed my view that by reading Matthew 24:50-51 and Matthew 25:30 in conjunction with each other, it can be fairly concluded that the authors of the New Testament must have understood there to be an association between the ideas of " _being divided in two_ ," " _hypocrisy_ ," " _darkness_ ," and " _being on the outside_." And by reading both of those passages in conjunction with Matthew 13:40-43 (the passage I just quoted), while noting the use in all three passages of the same sentence "In that place there will be the weeping and the gnashing of teeth," I believe we can additionally conclude that the authors of the New Testament associated the idea of the existence of "stumbling blocks" (or "snares": Greek _skandalon_ ) with those other four ideas. And as I wrote previously, I think it can be fairly assumed that the authors of the New Testament would have associated _all_ of these ideas with a person's insistence upon retaining the "outer" or "exoteric" meanings of the scriptures even _in spite of the fact_ that those same scriptures _also_ contained "inner meanings" that _differed from_ the "outer meanings." The thinking of those authors seems to have been that the symbolic "fire" (Greek _pyr_ ) or "furnace" (Greek _kaminos_ ) would be used to _separate_ the "righteous" from the "unrighteous" by means of a kind of " _refining_ " process. And I think that that process of "separating" or "refining" would probably have also been understood to _correspond to_ the process of "separating" the "inner meanings" from the "outer meanings" of the scriptures, so that no metaphorical " _darkness_ " would be left remaining within what would eventually become the _final_ and _total_ "meaning" of the scriptures — making it possible for everyone who _hearkened to_ that " _final and total meaning_ " to "shine out like the sun."

With these ideas of "burning" and "fire" and "furnaces" still in mind, consider Revelation 20:13-15 through Revelation 21:1,8, which says,

And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them; and they were judged [or separated, or distinguished: _krinō_ ], each one of them, according to their works. And death and Hades were thrown [ _ballō_ ] into the lake of the fire [ _pyr_ ]. This is the second death, the lake of the fire [ _pyr_ ]. And if anyone was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown [ _ballō_ ] into the lake of the fire [ _pyr_ ]. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth have passed away; and the sea is no more.... [T]o the cowardly, and the faithless, and the detestable, and murderers, and the sexually immoral, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their share (will be) in the lake that burns [ _kaiō_ ] with fire [ _pyr_ ] and brimstone, which is the second death.

I believe the fact that it is said in this passage that "the sea is no more" tends to imply that it was understood by the authors of the New Testament that "the lake of the fire" would come to _replace_ that "sea" as the symbolic "body of water" into which symbolic "stones" (or persons) would thenceforth be "thrown" (or "cast": Greek _ballō_ or _rhiptō_ ). (Cf. 2 Peter 3:5-7.) But I also believe it would be mistake to assume that this was necessarily considered to be a more "onerous" punishment than the "first death"; I think the "second death," perhaps unlike the "first death," may have been thought to be the sort of "death" _that would ultimately lead to "life_ _"_ — because it would involve the " _purifying_ " of a person or of a communication — by means of a " _separating_ " or a " _refining_ " within a kind of metaphorical "furnace." (Cf. Genesis 9:8-17.)

But while the symbolic "sea" still does exist, recall from Revelation 18:21 the connection that we encountered between it and the symbolic "millstone":

Then a mighty [or powerful: _ischyros_ ] angel took up a stone [ _lithos_ ] like a large millstone [ _mylos_ ] and threw [ _ballō_ ] it into the sea [ _eis tén thalassan_ ], saying, "So will Babylon the Great City [in other words, 'Babel **'** ] be thrown (down) [ _ballō_ ] with violence, and will be found no more."

This same connection between the "sea" and the "millstone" can be found in other passages from the New Testament — passages which additionally speak of symbolic "stumbling blocks."

In Matthew 18:6-7 Jesus says,

And whoever receives one such little child  _paidion_ ] in my name, receives me. But whoever causes one of these little ones [ _mikros_ ] who believe in me to stumble [or "get tripped up": _skandalizō_ ], it is better for him that a heavy millstone [ _mylos_ ] be hung around his neck and it [or he] be sunk [ _kata-pontizō_ ; compare [Exodus 15:4-5 (LXX) and its use of _kata-pontizō_ (Strong's number 2670)] in the depths [ _pelagos_ ] of the sea. Woe to the world because of the stumbling blocks [or snares, or temptations to sin, or causes for error, or causes for offense, or hindrances, or obstacles: _skandalon_ ] ! For it is a necessity that the stumbling blocks [ _skandalon_ ] come; but woe to the man by [or through, or by means of: _dia_ ] whom the stumbling block [ _skandalon_ ] comes.

By the way, please don't make the mistake of assuming that the term "little child" or "young child" (Greek _paidion_ ) was meant to be understood literally, since adults who were considered to be "spiritually immature" are repeatedly addressed as "children" and even "infants" in the epistles of the New Testament. For example, consider 1 John 2:18: "Little children [ _paidion_ ] , it is (the) final hour, and just as you have heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have emerged, which is how we know that it is (the) final hour." (Also see, for example, [1 Corinthians 3:1-2.)]

Notice that, as in Jeremiah 51:59-64, which I discussed previously in Part 6, we are presented with the image of a "stone" being "bound" or "tied" or "attached" to something — but here in Matthew 18:6-7, unlike in Jeremiah 51:59-64, the "stone" is being "bound" or "tied" or "attached" to a _type of person_ , rather than to a " _book_." It would not be unreasonable to suppose that the author of this passage considered Jeremiah's "book" and "those who caused little ones to stumble" to be objectionable or harmful or dangerous _for precisely the same reasons_. I think it is likely that what the "stone" was understood to be "tied to" or "joined to" in both cases is _religious esotericism considered as a system_ , including the esoteric writings ("the book") that are produced by it; but also including the esotericists who insist upon maintaining the system — even as their system unfailingly causes the "little ones" (i.e., unsophisticated persons) to "stumble" or "get tripped up" by the obscure esoteric symbolism. It seems that in their heart of hearts, the authors of the Bible wished that everything associated with this esotericist type of religious system would simply disappear; and they expressed their desire to _make_ it disappear by means of the image of "stoning" (Greek _lithoboleō_ , derived from _lithos_ , meaning "stone," and _ballō_ , meaning "to throw, to cast"). But they weren't imagining the "stoning" of persons; rather, they were imagining the "stoning" of the symbolic "sea" _itself_ , which may have been thought to signify all of the "murkiness" and "confusing" of meaning associated with religious esotericism. This recurring image of "stoning the sea itself" would be expressing a strong desire to finally _dispense with_ all of the "stony" and "dead" "outer meanings" in the scriptures that the authors of the Bible seem to have associated with symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" — before then also doing away with the symbolic "sea" of murkiness and confusion that those "stony outer meanings" had given rise to, as a result of people struggling to _guess_ what possible "inner meanings" might be lurking within them.

Similar to Matthew 18:6-7 is is Luke 17:1-2:

And (Jesus) said to his disciples, "It is impossible for stumbling blocks [or snares: _skandalon_ ] not to come, but woe (to him) by [ _dia_ ] whom they come. It is better for him if a stone [ _lithos_ ], a millstone [ _mylos_ ], is hung around his neck, and it [or he] is thrown [ _rhiptō_ ] into the sea [ _eis tén thalassan_ ], than that he might cause one of these little ones [ _mikros_ ] to stumble [or 'get tripped up': _skandalizō_ ]."

Also similar is Mark 9:42, in which Jesus says,

And whoever causes one of these little ones [ _mikros_ ] who believe in me to stumble [or "get tripped up": _skandalizō_ ], it is better for him if a heavy millstone [ _mylos_ ] is put around his neck, and it [or he] is thrown [ _ballō_ ] into the sea [ _eis tén thalassan_ ].

One is led to suspect that the "heavy millstone" may have been meant to be understood as being symbolically equivalent to the "stumbling block" or "stone of stumbling" that would _cause_ the "little ones" to "stumble." (By the way, it is quite reasonable to think that the authors of these passages were envisioning the _skandalon_ in these parables as a "stone of stumbling" rather than as a "snare," given passages such as Romans 9:33, in which Paul speaks of a "stone [or rock: _lithos_ ] of stumbling [ _proskomma_ ] and a rock [or stone: _petra_ ] of stumbling [ _skandalon_ ].") In other words, the parables may be presenting us with the image of a "large stone" that would, by a kind of "poetic justice," become _the means of punishing_ the type of person who had theretofore been happily, or at least indifferently, using that _very same_ symbolic "stone of stumbling" in a way that caused confusion and misdirection among "little ones" — that is, "uninitiated" or unsophisticated persons. And the purpose of attaching the "stone of stumbling" to the type of person who had been causing others to "stumble," and then "throwing them both into the sea," would seem to be to _alert_ that sort of person to the _harm_ that the esotericist type of religious system does and is capable of doing, both to others _and to himself_ — so that he would _renounce_ it. I believe that that is the reason why in all three of the Gospel passages I just quoted, Jesus says " _it (would be) better for him_ " if this were done to him. I have already tentatively proposed that the symbol of "the sea" may have been understood to signify a state of "mental confusion and uncertainty." If that is correct, then the symbolic image of "a person being thrown into the sea with a heavy millstone around his neck" would seem to signify the intentional _exacerbating_ of that mental confusion and uncertainty — in order to lead the person to see the error of his ways — by making it impossible for the person to ever "swim back to the surface" _unless he first made the choice to finally abandon_ the "heavy millstone" that had been "placed around his neck" — along with all that that symbolic "heavy millstone" was understood to represent. (Remember, all of the language being used here and elsewhere in the Bible is heavily _symbolic_ ; and if a _particular_ symbol is being used, it was probably chosen for a _particular_ reason.)

Let's again review Matthew 13:40-42, in which Jesus says,

So just as the weeds are gathered and burned up  _kata-kaiō_ ] in fire [ _pyr_ ], so will it be in the consummation [or culmination, or completion, or end: _syn-teleia_ ; compare the use of the related Greek verb _syn-teleō_ (Strong's number 4931) in [Genesis 2:1-2 (LXX)] of the age. The Son of Man will send out [ _apo-stellō_ , from which is derived the Greek word _apostolos_ , meaning "apostle" or "one sent out"] his angels [or messengers: _aggelos_ or _angelos_ ], and they will gather out of his kingdom all the stumbling blocks [or snares: _skandalon_ ] and all those who practice lawlessness, and they will throw [ _ballō_ ] them into the furnace [ _kaminos_ ] of the fire [ _pyr_ ].

Reading this passage in conjunction with the previous passages tends to support my hypothesis that the authors of the New Testament meant for the symbolic "lake of the fire" to be understood as eventually _replacing_ the symbolic "sea" — especially if my suggestion is correct that the "millstone" and the "stumbling block" or "stone of stumbling" were understood to be equivalent in terms of their symbolic significance. After "the end of the age," any "stones" (Greek _lithos_ ) that were "thrown" (or "cast": Greek _ballō_ or _rhiptō_ ) would thenceforth be "thrown" into the "lake of the fire [Greek _pyr_ ]" rather than into the "sea" (Greek _thalassa_ ). And that "lake of the fire" would function as a kind of metaphorical "furnace" (Greek _kaminos_ ) used to "refine" or "purify" whatever or whoever was "thrown" into it.

I explained previously in Part 6 that, as compared to the "Law" that Moses _originally_ received from the Lord, there was apparently perceived to be an _inferiority_ in the "Law of Moses" _as it was delivered to the Israelites_ — a perception that would have been found not only among the authors of the New Testament, but among the authors of the Old Testament as well, even including the author or authors of the Book of Exodus. And the reason for that perception of inferiority would have been the fact that the "Law of Moses" that was delivered to the Israelites was written upon a _second_ pair of "stone tablets" that had been made by Moses, unlike the _first_ pair that had been made by the Lord himself. In other words, while the "inner meaning" or "essence" of the "Law of Moses" was still "heavenly" and "divine," the "material" — i.e., the "outer meanings" — that were being used as _the vehicle for conveying_ that "heavenly meaning" had become "earthly" and "merely human," due to the fact that that "material" had become "man-made." Because of that, I think it is certainly reasonable to entertain the possibility that the perceived inferiority of those " _man-made_ stone tablets" may have led the authors of the New Testament to compare them in their minds to metaphorical "heavy millstones" that had been hung around the necks of the religious faithful.

Such a possibility is made more likely if we consider Matthew 23:4, in which Jesus, speaking of the "scribes and Pharisees," says,

And they bind or bind up, or tie up: _desmeuō_ , derived from the noun _desmos_ , meaning "a bond, a binding," in turn derived from the verb _deō_ , meaning "to tie, to bind"; compare the use of the related word _epi-deō_ (Strong's number 1926.1) in [Jeremiah 51:63 (LXX)] burdens (that are) heavy and difficult to bear, and place them on men's shoulders. But they themselves are not willing to remove [or move: _kineō_ ] them with their finger [ _daktylos_ ].

The notion of a person being able to "remove" (or "move": Greek _kineō_ ; cf. Revelation 6:14) a "heavy burden" with nothing more than his "finger" (Greek _daktylos_ ) suggests — because of the association of a "finger" with "writing" (and perhaps "reading" as well) — the idea of a religious leader or scholar or teacher _changing the interpretation_ _of the holy scriptures that he would communicate to others_ ; or, alternatively, the idea of a person changing the way in which he would attempt to " _transcribe_ " for others the "true" and "eternal," but _never capable of being fully written_ , Law of God. (We can be quite certain that the authors of the New Testament would have associated the symbol of a "finger" with the idea of "writing" based on John 8:3-8. Incidentally, I think a better translation of John 8:6 than the one I have linked to here would be that Jesus was writing "with his finger _into the earth_ ," rather than that he was writing "with his finger _on the ground_." I think the author's point was probably that Jesus was "writing into the earth" what he had _already seen_ "written in the heavens"; cf. Matthew 6:10 and Luke 10:20.)

With that thought in mind, let's take another look at Matthew 17:20, in which Jesus says,

For truly, I say to you, if you have confidence [or faith, or assurance, or belief, or trust: _pistis_ ] like a grain of mustard seed, you will say to THIS mountain, "Change places [ _meta-bainō_ , which can also mean 'change from one state to another'] from here [ _enthen_ ] to there [ _ekei_ ]," and it will change places [or change states: _meta-bainō_ ]; and nothing will be impossible for you [ _a-dynateō_ , related to _dynamis_ , meaning "power" or "force"].

It is conceivable that the idea the author meant to convey in this passage is that by "changing the place" of the " _this_ mountain," a person would be _transforming_ either the symbolic "Tower of Babel" or "Mount Sinai" — _including_ the "stone tablets made by Moses" that issued forth from "Mount Sinai" — _into_ the symbolic "Mount Zion."

Alternatively, a reasonable (and I think better) argument could be made that the author meant to suggest that by changing the "place" of the "mountain" from "here" ( _en_ _then_ ) to "there" ( _ek_ _ei_ ), one would be changing _meanings_ that were _currently_ only found hidden "within" or "inside" (Greek _en_ ) the scriptures into meanings that would thenceforth _also_ be found "without" or "outside" (Greek _ek_ ) the scriptures. But in that case, the " _this_ mountain" spoken of by Jesus would probably be best thought of as referring, not to the symbolic "Mount Sinai," but to the symbolic "Mount Zion," as it became " _externalized_ ," moving in an "outward" direction — at the same time that it was moving "downward," from "heaven" toward "earth." (Cf. Luke 17:21, Matthew 13:33, Matthew 13:44, Ephesians 3:16-20, and Colossians 3:2-4.) This idea of the "externalizing" and "expansion" of the "Mount Zion" that is found _within_ a person (i.e., " _here_ ") would also help to explain why the author would speak of the "this mountain" in the context of "a grain of mustard seed."

Also, notice the involvement of the idea of "power" or "force" in Matthew 17:20. Recall that in Revelation 18:21 the "angel" that "took up a stone like a large millstone and threw it into the sea" is specifically described as being "mighty" or "powerful" (Greek _ischyros_ ). So the author of Matthew 17:20 may have meant to suggest the idea that "power," or "strength," or "force" (Greek _dynamis_ or _ischys_ ) — understood in an "esoteric" sense — is what would give a person the ability to make a symbolic "mountain" "change places" (or "change states": Greek _meta-bainō_ ). It is this same "power" or "strength" that would give a person the ability to "overcome" the "restraints" (or "barriers," or "bonds," or "bindings," or "fetters," or "seals," or "locked gates") that have been _preventing_ some particular "inner meaning" from _emerging from_ its "concealment" (or "hiding place," or "captivity," or "confinement," or "bondage," or "imprisonment," or "entombment") within or beneath some corresponding "outer meaning." So the "changing of places" or "changing of states" (Greek _meta-bainō_ ) from "here" to "here," or from "here" to "there," may have been meant to refer to (among other things, perhaps) the idea of a person _changing his interpretation_ of the scriptures from one "reading" to another "reading"; and there is reason to believe that the authors of the New Testament thought of the ability to make such a change in interpretation as involving a special kind of "power" (or "strength," or "force": Greek _dynamis_ or _ischys_ ). (And, with that thought in mind, notice how the apostle Paul uses the Greek word _dynamis_ in 1 Corinthians 14:9-11, specifically verse 11, in the context of his speaking about the ideas of "language" and "meaning.")

## The symbol of the "large millstone" compared to the symbol of the "large round stone" covering the entrance to Jesus's "tomb"

In Part 11 of this series of articles I advance the thesis that Jesus was meant by the authors of the New Testament to be thought of as the archetypal "Last Prophet" or "Final Prophet," and that his "Resurrection" was meant to symbolize the emergence of a world in which religious esotericism (and the Lie) would no longer exist. If I am correct in believing that, and if I am also correct about the symbol of the "fall of Babel" or "fall of Babylon" having been associated with the idea of "the end of prophecy" or "the end of religious esotericism," then the symbolic image that I discussed above of a "mighty angel throwing a stone like a large millstone" may have been meant to convey _essentially the same idea_ that the symbolic image of "an angel rolling away the large stone from the entrance to Jesus's tomb" was meant to convey. First recall what Revelation 11:8 says:

And the corpse (of the two witnesses) (will lie) upon the street of the Great City [i.e., "Babylon" or "Babel"], which is spiritually [or symbolically, or figuratively, or allegorically: _pneumatikōs_ ] called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was also crucified.

So if Jesus was " _crucified_ " in symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon," then presumably he was _also_ "buried" or "entombed" there.

Next recall Revelation 18:21, which says,

Then a mighty [or powerful: _ischyros_ ] angel [ _aggelos_ or _angelos_ ] took up a stone [ _lithos_ ] like a large [ _megas_ ] millstone [ _mylos_ ] and threw [ _ballō_ ] it into the sea, saying, "So will Babylon the Great City [in other words: 'Babel'] be thrown (down) [ _ballō_ ] with force, and will be found no more."

Now compare that to Mark 16:3-4, which says,

And (the visitors to Jesus's tomb) said among themselves, "Who will roll away  _apo-_ _kyliō_ ] for us the stone [ _lithos_ ] from the door of the tomb?" And, having looked up [ _ana-blepō_ ], they saw that the stone [ _lithos_ ] was rolled away [ _apo-_ _kyliō_ ] — and it was exceedingly large [ _megas_ ] [even as _symbolically_ large as a symbolic "large millstone" or a symbolic "mountain," perhaps?]. [Cf. [Joshua 5:9.]

And Matthew 28:1-2 says,

And after [ _opse_ ] the (previous) sabbath week, as it was dawning [ _epi-phōskō_ ] into (the) first (day) of a (new) sabbath week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel [ _aggelos_ or _angelos_ ] of the Lord, having descended from heaven, and having drawn near, rolled away [ _apo-_ _kyliō_ ] the stone [ _lithos_ ], and was sitting upon it.

By the way, recall Jeremiah 51:25-26, which, referring to "Babel" or "Babylon," says,

Behold, I am against you, destroying mountain, declares the Lord, that corrupts the whole earth. And I will stretch out my hand against you, and roll you out [or roll you down: _galal_ ; LXX _kata-_ _kyliō_ ] from the rocks [ _sela_ ; LXX _petra_ ], and deliver you up as a burning mountain, and not take from you a stone [LXX _lithos_ ] for a corner, nor a stone [LXX _lithos_ ] for a foundation, for you will be an obliteration forever, declares the Lord.

I think it is reasonable to suppose that the authors of the New Testament may have been envisioning the "large round stone" that covered the entrance to Jesus's tomb as resembling a "large millstone" (and perhaps even a kind of "mountain" as well). And if that is correct, then I think it is also reasonable to suppose that the authors meant to convey the idea that with the "fall of Babel" or "fall of Babylon," a "powerful angel" would be removing and disposing of the very _same_ symbolic "large round stone" that would have been _preventing_ the symbolic "Resurrection of Christ" from occurring; and in both cases, the "large round stone" would symbolize the "outer meanings" of scripture, which had been serving as a " _barrier_ " that prevented the "inner meanings" from emerging into "the light of day." The way in which the same basic imagery is being used in both of these symbolic schemes tends to validate the hypothesis that the "Crucifixion of Christ" and the "fall of Babel or Babylon" were understood to refer to essentially the same idea, and that the "Resurrection of Christ" and the "emergence of the new Jerusalem" were also understood to refer to essentially the same idea. The first of the two ideas would be the "death of prophecy," or "death of religious esotericism"; and the second idea would be the coming into existence of religions (followed by societies) whose members would strive to be thoroughly honest, sincere, non-deceptive, and non-misleading in _all_ of their communications (yes, _even_ communications of a religious nature).

In the next installment in this series, I will talk more about what I believe to be the symbolic significance of the "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ."

# Part 8 of 12: The "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ": The completion of the first "sabbath week" of creation, and the inauguration of a new "sabbath week" of creation

## The "opening of the tomb" and the "opening of the scroll"

In the last installment in this series, I ended by discussing how the "rolling away" of a "large round stone" by a "mighty angel" or "powerful angel" made it possible for the "Resurrection of Christ" to occur. Let's take another look at one of the passages that I was discussing in that article — Matthew 28:1 — while paying special attention to the way in which the Greek word _opse_ (meaning "after") is being used:

And after [ _opse_ ] the (previous) sabbath week [ _sabbatōn_ , a plural form of _sabbaton_ ], as it was dawning [ _epi-_ _phōs_ _kō_ , derived from _phōs_ , meaning "light"] into (the) first (day) of a (new) sabbath week [ _sabbatōn_ , a plural form of _sabbaton_ ] , Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.

The Greek word _opse_ , meaning "after," is related to the Greek word _opisthen_ , meaning "on the back," or "at the back," or "behind," which you may recall from Revelation 5:1-5 (which I previously discussed in Parts 4 and 5):

And I saw in the right hand of him who was sitting on the throne a scroll  _biblion_ ] written on the inside [ _esōthen_ ] and on the back [ _opisthen_ ], sealed [or sealed up: _kata-sphragizō_ , derived from _sphragizō_ , both of which words have basically the same meaning of "to seal"] with seven seals [ _sphragis_ ]. And I saw a mighty [or powerful, or strong: _ischyros_ ] angel [ _aggelos_ or _angelos_ ] proclaiming with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open [or open up: _anoigō_ ] the scroll and break [or unfasten: _lyō_ ] its seals [ _sphragis_ ]?" And no one in the heaven or upon the earth or under the earth was able to open the scroll or to look into it, and I was weeping much because no one was found worthy to open the scroll or to look into it. And one of the elders said to me, "Do not weep [ _klaiō_ ; cf. [John 20:11-18]; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed [or overcome, or conquered, or been victorious: _nikaō_ ], (so that he can) open [ _anoigō_ ] the scroll [ _biblion_ ] and its seven seals [ _sphragis_ ]."

I think it would be reasonable to infer that the "Resurrection of Christ" was likely meant to be understood as corresponding to a "revealing" of the "inner contents" of the esoterically written "scroll" (or "book": Greek _biblion_ ) that, up until then, had been unreadable because of its having been "sealed" (Greek _sphragizō_ or _kata-sphragizō_ ). And the "revealing" would be accomplished by taking the "writings" that had been written "on the front of" or "inside" the metaphorical "scroll" and then writing those _same_ contents "on the back" (Greek _opisthen_ ) of the metaphorical "scroll" as well. If that is correct, then it is also quite possible that the entire previous symbolic "sabbath week" was understood to be symbolically associated with those "inner contents" _before_ they had been _openly_ and _publicly_ "revealed." Such an inference seems more likely to be correct if one considers the possibility that the "rolling away" of the "large round stone" covering the entrance to Jesus's "tomb" may have additionally been understood to correspond to the symbolic image of the "rolling up of a scroll," or to that of the "unrolling of a scroll" — or to both images simultaneously.

The correctness of that inference is made even more likely if we recall Revelation 6:12-14:

When (Jesus) opened  _anoigō_ ] the sixth seal [ _sphragis_ ], I saw, and there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth (made) of hair, and the full moon became like blood, and the stars of heaven fell to the earth as a fig tree drops its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. And the (first) heaven was put away [ _apo-_ _chōrizō_ , derived from _chōris_ , meaning "apart from" or "separate from"] like a scroll [or book: _biblion_ ] being rolled up [ _helissō_ ], and every mountain and island was moved [or removed: _kineō_ ] from its place [ _topos_ ]. [Incidentally, consider that "opening the sixth seal" may have been understood to correspond to the "Crucifixion of Christ," which occurs on the "sixth day" of the week, and is also accompanied by an "earthquake," and a "darkening of the sun." See, e.g., [Matthew 27:51 and Luke 23:44-45.]

So in Revelation 6:12-14 we find a clear comparison between the image of "a scroll being rolled up" (as well as that of "the [first] heaven being put away") and the image of "a mountain being moved from one place to another" — both of which images I have previously suggested were meant to symbolize the process of one "reading" or "interpretation" of the scriptures being replaced by another.

But with Revelation 6:12-14 still in mind, also consider what is written in John 20:6-7, describing what is found in the "empty tomb" after Jesus's "Resurrection":

(Simon Peter) saw the fine linen cloths lying (there), and the (burial) face cloth or (burial) head cloth: _soudarion_ ] that had been upon (Jesus's) head [ _kephalé_ ], not lying with the fine linen cloths [ _othonion_ ; compare this to [Revelation 19:7-8, bearing in mind the association between the symbol of the "Bride of the Lamb" found both there and in Revelation 21:1-2 and 21:9, and the symbolic "second heaven and second earth"], but rather separate from or apart from: _chōris_ ] (them) [cf. [Mark 4:34], having been rolled up  _en-tylissō_ ] in [or into: _eis_ ] a single place [ _topos_ ]." [Compare this to [Isaiah 25:7-8, which I discuss in Parts 9 and 10 of this series. Also compare it to 1 Kings 19:9-13, especially verse 13, as well as to 2 Kings 2:8, in light of what I have to say about the figure of "Elijah" in Part 11 of this series.]

A comparison of these two passages tends to imply that Jesus's symbolic "burial face cloth" or "burial head cloth" was meant to signify the symbolic "first heaven," which, with the completion of the "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ," would have become "separate from" (Greek _chōris_ ) the "second heaven," symbolized by the "fine linen cloths" — so that the "first heaven" could finally be "put away" (Greek _apo-_ _chōrizō_ ). (To put it another way, the "first Bible" or "satanic Bible" or "pro-esotericist Bible" would have been made "separate from" or "distinct from" the "second Bible" or "godly Bible" or "anti-esotericist Bible.") Bearing in mind the idea that the symbolic "first heaven and first earth" seems (as a result of the mythical "Fall of Man") to have been associated in the minds of the authors of the Bible with symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon," next recall Genesis 11:4,8, which begins with the people of "Babel" saying,

"Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower (with its) top or head: _rosh_ ; LXX _kephalé_ ] in the heavens; and let us make for ourselves a name, lest we be scattered over the face of the whole earth."... And the Lord scattered them from there over the face [ _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] [thereby creating a kind of "burial face cloth," perhaps? — again, consider [Isaiah 25:7-8] of the whole earth; and they stopped building the city.

If Jesus's "burial face cloth" or "burial head cloth" was meant to signify "the first heaven," then a possible reason is that it may have been thought that when the people of mythical "Babel" made their attempt to ascend into "the heavens," those metaphorical "heavens" became profoundly "corrupted" and thenceforth "death-bringing." One gets the sense that with the completion of Jesus's symbolic "Crucifixion and Resurrection," the previous "scattering" of the "people" of symbolic "Babel" has perhaps been reversed, by bringing them all back to " _a single place_ " — but _not_ so that they could complete "building the city" of "Babel." (Cf. Revelation 20:7-9 and Zephaniah 3:8-10.)

Now compare the previous three quoted passages with Hebrews 10:5-7 (which is quoting Psalm 40:6-8):

Therefore, (in) coming or entering: _eiserchomenos_ , a present participle of _eis-erchomai_ ] into the world, (Christ) IS saying [ _legei_ , a form of _legō_ in the present tense], "Sacrifice and offering you [God] did not desire, but you did prepare [or make ready, or complete, or fit together, or mend, or restore, or repair, or join together: _kat-artizō_ ] a body [ _sōma_ ; cf. [Ephesians 1:22-23, 2:14-22, 3:6, 4:11-12, 4:16, 4:25, and 5:29-30] for me. Whole burnt offerings  _holokautōma_ ] and (offerings for) sin did not please you. [The reference to "preparing a body" is consistent with the Greek Septuagint translation of Psalm 40:6, but the Hebrew Masoretic text of that verse instead has, "Sacrifice and offering you do not desire; you have carved out openings in my ears to (understand that) you are not asking for whole burnt offerings [Hebrew _olah_ ] and sin offerings."] Then I said, 'Behold, I AM ARRIVING [or coming: _hékō_ ] IN A ROLL [more literally, "little head": _kephalis_ , a diminutive form of _kephalé_ ; the knobs at the ends of the wooden rod around which parchments were rolled were called "little heads," and this name came to be used to refer to the entire roll of parchment itself] OF A BOOK [or scroll: _biblion_ ] written about me, to do your will, O God.'" [Cf. [Hebrews 11:17-19, noticing especially the use of the Greek word _parabolé_ , meaning "parable, simile, figure," in verse 19, and how that idea is being implicitly contrasted with the idea of "sacrificial offerings" that is found in the same passage — just like we find here in Hebrews 10:5-7. Also consider John 5:39 and Luke 25:27.]

Again, the author of Hebrews 10:5-7 is quoting [Psalm 40:6-8. In the Hebrew version of that passage, the word translated into English as "a roll" is _megillah_ , which is derived from the Hebrew verb _galal_ , meaning "to roll, to roll up, to roll away." From that same verb _galal_ is also derived the noun _galil_ , which can mean "cylinder, rod, circuit, circle, district" — but which is also sometimes translated into English as the proper place name " _Galilee_." That fact might help to explain why the authors of the Gospels and the Book of Acts were so emphatic that both Jesus and his disciples were _from Galilee_. (See, e.g., Mark 1:9, Matthew 28:7, Mark 16:6-7, Luke 24:6-8, John 7:41, John 7:52, and Acts 1:11.)]

I personally can't imagine why the author of John 20:6-7 would have bothered even to mention what at first seem to be the painfully trivial details that he is writing about in that passage, such as the fact that in Jesus's "empty tomb" the "face cloth" or "head cloth" was lying "apart from" the "fine linen cloths" — unless the author was expecting the reader to discern in that passage an esoteric significance more or less along the lines that I have been proposing.

In further support of this hypothesis that the "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ" was meant to be symbolically equated with the idea of the "rolling up" of one metaphorical "scroll" (containing the "outer meanings" of the esoteric scriptures) and the "unrolling" of another metaphorical "scroll" (containing the "inner meanings" of the esoteric scriptures), let's consider Matthew 27:62-66, which immediately precedes Matthew 28:1 (quoted at the beginning of this article). In this passage, the now-dead Jesus is spoken of as an "impostor" or "deceiver," and the ministry that the Gospels depict him as having conducted _prior to_ the "Crucifixion" is spoken of as a "fraud" or "deception" — which I think may be alluding (whether knowingly or not) to the fact that esoteric religious discourse is inherently deceptive and misleading:

And (on) the next day after the Crucifixion — in other words, Saturday, the Sabbath day], which is (the day) after (the day of) the Preparation [that is, preparation for the Sabbath day], the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered together before Pilate, saying, "Sir, we remember how that impostor [or deceiver; more literally, 'wanderer': _planos_ ] said, while he was still living, 'With three days I rise [or wake: _egeirō_ ].' Therefore order the tomb to be secured [ _asphalizō_ ] until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him away, and say to the people, 'He has been raised [or woken: _egeirō_ ] from the dead'; and the last [ _eschatos_ ] fraud [or deception; more literally, 'wandering': _plané_ ] will be worse than the first [ _prōtos_ ]." [Notice the use of the same Greek words _prōtos_ and _eschatos_ in [1 Corinthians 15:45, Revelation 1:17-18, and Revelation 22:13.] Pilate said to them, "You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it (as) secure [ _asphalizō_ ] as you know (how)." So they went (and) made the tomb secure [ _asphalizō_ ] (by) SEALING [ _sphragizō_ ] the stone [ _lithos_ ] and (setting) the guard of soldiers.

So it would seem that in order for the "Resurrection of Christ" to be able to occur, it would be necessary that one or more "seals" (Greek _sphragis_ ) first be "broken" — which is precisely what it is said in Revelation 5:1-5 that Jesus is capable of doing because of his having "prevailed" (or "conquered," or "overcome," or "been victorious": Greek _nikaō_ ). (Compare Daniel 12:4 and 12:9 with Revelation 22:10. And again, also compare John 20:11-18 with Revelation 5:5, observing that in John 20:11-18 Jesus's "Resurrection" is associated with his being _recognized_ as a _"_ _teacher_ _"_ — but now one in a new "form." Because of Mary Magdalene's use of the initially untranslated Hebrew word _rabboni_ (meaning "my teacher") when addressing the resurrected Jesus, that passage might also be subtly suggesting that Jesus's symbolic "Resurrection" would be associated with a knowledge of the Hebrew language and of the Old Testament; or else it might be serving as a more general reminder that the symbolic "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ" would be associated with the overcoming of language barriers and other communicatory barriers — not the least of which would be those created by an esoteric manner of religious discourse.)

## "From sabbath to sabbath"

I think Matthew 27:62-66 (which I quoted just above) might also reasonably be read to imply that the "Crucifixion of Christ" was itself meant to be regarded as the "Preparation" for the "Sabbath day" (which is associated with the idea of "wholeness," or "fullness," or "completion"). And with the conclusion of that "Sabbath day," a new "sabbath week" would begin. I believe that the first "sabbath week" was likely meant to be understood as corresponding to the symbolic "week of creation" described in Genesis chapter 1 — in which case, the _second_ "sabbath week" inaugurated by the symbolic "Resurrection of Christ" would correspond to a _second_ symbolic "week of creation." And there is evidence from the Bible that lends support to that suggestion.

Describing the culmination of the Crucifixion — which is described in the Gospels as taking place on the "sixth day" of the "sabbath week" (that is, Friday) — John 19:30 says,

Jesus said, "It is finished [or completed, or fulfilled: _teleō_ ]." And, having bowed his head, he gave up [or delivered over: _para-didōmi_ ] his Spirit.

Compare that to Genesis 2:1-3, which says,

And the heaven and the earth and all their ordering [or arrangement: LXX _kosmos_ ] [the Hebrew Masoretic version has _tsaba_ , which can mean "array," or "force," or "power," or "army," or "host"] were completed [or finished: _kalah_ ; LXX _syn-teleō_ , which is derived from _teleō_ and has a similar meaning, but has the additional sense of "bringing everything together"]. And on the sixth day God completed [or finished: _kalah_ ; LXX _syn-teleō_ , derived from _teleō_ ] his works [LXX _ergon_ ] which he made [LXX _poieō_ ]. And (on) the seventh day he rested [ _shabath_ ; LXX _kata-pauō_ , derived from _pauō_ ] from all his works [LXX _ergon_ ] which he made [LXX _poieō_ ]. And God praised [or blessed] the seventh day, and consecrated it, for on it he rested [LXX _kata-pauō_ , derived from _pauō_ ] from all his works [LXX _ergon_ ] which God began [LXX _archomai_ , derived from _arché_ , meaning "a beginning"] to make [ _asah_ ; LXX _poieō_ ]. [The Hebrew Masoretic version instead has "which God made by forming [ _bara_ ]."]

[In the next verse, Genesis 2:4, the LXX has

This is the book [LXX _biblos_ ] of (the) generating [or origin, or source, or beginning, or forming, or creating: LXX _genesis_ , derived from _ginomai_ , meaning "to become, to come into being"] of heaven and earth when it came into being [LXX _ginomai_ ] (on) the day (that) God made [LXX _poieō_ ] the heaven and the earth.

[When the author or translator of Genesis 2:4 (LXX) writes "when it came into being," is he referring to the (first) "heaven and earth"; or to "the book"; or to the "generating (of heaven and earth)" — or, perhaps, to all of them at once?

[Incidentally, compare Genesis 2:1-4 to Jeremiah 51:63-64 (which I quoted and discussed in Part 6), focusing on the use in the latter passage of the Hebrew word _kalah_ , and the Greek words _biblion_ and _pauō_ :

"And it will come to pass that when you have finished [or completed, or stopped: _kalah_ ; LXX _pauō_ ] reading out THIS book [ _sepher_ ; LXX _biblion_ ], you will bind a stone to it [or 'upon it,' or 'over it': LXX _epi_ ] and throw it into the middle of the Euphrates. And you will say, 'So will Babylon [ _babel_ ] sink, to rise no more from the calamity that I am bringing upon her; and (her people) will be exhausted [or worn out: _yaeph_ ] [the LXX has "and she will cease to exist"; or, "and she will fail"; or, "and she will give out"; or, "and she will be eclipsed": _ek-leipō_ ].'" As far as this (goes) the message of Jeremiah.

And, in connection with the material in these last few passages, again recall the comparison made between "the first heaven" and a metaphorical "book" or "scroll" in, for example, [Isaiah 34:4 and Revelation 6:14.]

With the previous several quoted passages in mind, now recall what Revelation 21:1-7 says:

And I saw a new [ _kainos_ ] heaven and a new [ _kainos_ ] earth, for the first [ _prōtos_ ] heaven and the first [ _prōtos_ ] earth has passed away, and the sea is no more. And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of the heaven from God, prepared like a bride who has been adorned [ _kosmeō_ , related to _kosmos_ , which can mean "world," as well as "ordering," or "order," or "arrangement"] for her husband. And I heard a loud voice out of the heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle [or tent: _skéné_ ] of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them as their God. And he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, nor will there be any more mourning or crying or pain, because the first (things) [ _prōtos_ ] have passed away." And the one sitting upon the throne said, "Behold, I am making [ _poieō_ ] all things new [ _kainos_ ]." And (Jesus) said, "Write, for these are the trustworthy and true words [or meanings: _logos_ ]." [This seems to suggest that a " _second_ book" is now beginning to be written, corresponding to the creation of "a _second_ heaven and a _second_ earth."] And he said to me, "They are born [ _ginomai_ ]! [Or, "They have come into being!"] I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning [ _arché_ ] and [ **!** ] the End [ _telos_ , related to the verbs _teleō_ and _syn-teleō_ ]. To the one thirsting I will give freely from the spring of the water of life. The one who overcomes will inherit (all things), and I will be God to him, and he will be a son to me."

It is also informative to compare Matthew 28:1 with Genesis 1:3 (LXX). Recall that Matthew 28:1, describing what happens on what I am supposing to be the "first day" of the _new_ or _second_ symbolic "sabbath week" of creation, says,

And after [ _opse_ ] the (previous) sabbath week [ _sabbatōn_ , a plural form of _sabbaton_ ], as it was dawning [ _epi-_ _phōs_ _kō_ , derived from _phōs_ , meaning "light"] into (the) first (day) of a (new) sabbath week [ _sabbatōn_ , a plural form of _sabbaton_ ] , Mary Magdalene and the other Mary came to see the tomb.

Now compare that to Genesis 1:3, which is describing what happens on the "first day" of the _first_ symbolic "sabbath week" of creation:

And God said, "Let there be [LXX _ginomai_ ] light [LXX _phōs_ ]!" And light [LXX _phōs_ ] came into being [LXX _ginomai_ ] .

All of the parallels that can be seen between the passages I have quoted from the Book of Genesis and the passages I have quoted from the New Testament suggest that the symbolic "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ" was meant to be understood as a sort of " _inversion_ " (or "undoing" — followed by a subsequent "redoing" or "reforming") of the _original_ Creation of mankind, inasmuch as Adam (which means "Man") is described as having been _created_ on the "sixth day" of the "sabbath week" (see Genesis 1:26-31), while Jesus (i.e., the "Son of Man") — who would become the " _new_ Adam," or " _second_ Adam," or " _last_ Greek _eschatos_ ] Adam" with his "death" and subsequent "rising" (see [Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinithians 15:45-49) — is described as having been _killed_ on the "sixth day" of that _same_ first symbolic "sabbath week." Also consider that both Jesus and Adam are referred to in the New Testament as the "Son of God" (see Luke 3:21-38).

So the author of Matthew 28:1 may have meant to suggest that with the symbolic "Resurrection of Christ," a _new_ symbolic "sabbath week" of creation would come into being — during which all of the "first creation" would be, not simply annihilated and then replaced with something entirely different, but _redeemed_ , and given the opportunity to finally _become_ what it was originally _meant to be_ by God. A symbolic "sacrificial death" would thus somehow lead to the "redemption" of all that had been brought into being during the _previous_ symbolic "sabbath week" of creation. It was apparently thought that the mythical "Fall of Man" that is said to have taken place in the "Garden of Eden," and the "confusing of language" that took place at "Babel" — and I believe that those two mythical episodes should be regarded as being merely two different ways of expressing the same basic idea — made it necessary that all of the _existing_ creation "start all over again from the beginning (Greek _arché_ )," so to speak, by returning to "first principles" (Greek _arché_ ). Mankind had so thoroughly corrupted, spoiled, and mucked up God's original Creation that half-measures on our part could never be enough to solve the problems that we had introduced, or to salvage God's original vision for our human world.

Revelation 21:1 tells us that the "first heaven and first earth" — associated with "the work of the first week" — is destined to "pass away." And again, I would argue that this "passing away" or "undoing" of the "first heaven and first earth" was understood to be symbolized by the "Crucifixion of Christ." According to the Gospel narratives, it was on the "Sabbath day" (i.e., Saturday) that (the Lord) Jesus "rested" in his "tomb" — corresponding to the "rest" that the Lord enjoyed after having created the "first heaven and first earth." That tends to suggest that with Jesus's "rising" (or "awakening": Greek _egeirō_ ) at dawn on the following "day" — marking the beginning of a new symbolic "week" of creation — a _new_ "heaven and earth" would be brought into being, which would involve a "reforming" (or a "re- _forming_ ") of the previous "heaven and earth." It is this symbol of the "Resurrection of Christ" that provides a source of hope, offering assurance that the "passing away" of the "first heaven and first earth" would be a passing away only of certain outer "forms," and not of the _essential substance_ of this world. (Cf. Matthew 24:35.) And again, I am suggesting that the symbols of "heaven" and "earth" were, at least in part, actually understood to pertain to the realm of _meanings_ and the ways in which we human beings _communicate_ those meanings to each other through our use of symbols.

But if the symbolic "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ" was associated in the minds of the authors of the New Testament with the "passing away of the first heaven and the first earth," in order that a new symbolic "sabbath week" of creation could begin and a symbolic "new heaven and new earth" could come into being, then they must have thought of that "Crucifixion and Resurrection" as occurring at _the end_ (Greek _telos_ ) of the "present age," at the same time that symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" fell and the symbolic "new Jerusalem" came into being (and a "New Age" or "Messianic Age" came into being along with it) — since we know from Revelation 21:1 that the coming into being of "a new heaven and a new earth" would occur at _the end_ of the "present age."

That conclusion is supported by 1 Corinthians 11:26, which I previously quoted in Part 2, and in which the apostle Paul, speaking of the Lord's Supper, writes,

For as often as you eat this bread, and drink the cup (of wine), you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes.

I also mentioned in Part 2 that I believe this verse demonstrates that Paul thought of the _symbolic_ "Crucifixion of Christ" as having already occurred — or, more likely (at least on a societal scale), as still being _in the process of_ occurring — while thinking of the _symbolic_ "Resurrection of Christ" as definitely not having yet occurred on a societal scale. And I think that hypothesis is strengthened by comparing 1 Corinthians 11:26 with 1 Corinthians 7:26, in which Paul speaks of "the present [or appointed: _en-istémi_ ] duress"; and 1 Corinthians 7:29, in which he says that "the time is cut short"; and 1 Corinthians 7:31, in which he says, "For the (current) form [ _schéma_ ] of this world [ _kosmos_ ] IS passing away [ _paragei_ , a form of _par-agō_ in the present tense]." It seems clear to me that Paul (erroneously) believed that "the ending of the age" was not only imminent, but already well underway — but that erroneous belief would nevertheless be consistent with the hypothesis I have been offering that the authors of the New Testament understood the symbolic "Crucifixion of Christ" to correspond to the "passing away" (Greek _ap-erchomai_ ) of "the first heaven and the first earth" spoken of in Revelation 21:1 — or, to put it another way, _the current "form" of "this world_ _."_

And that same idea can also be found implicitly contained in Isaiah 66:22-23:

For as the new heavens and the new earth that I myself [the Lord] am making [LXX _poieō_ ] remains established in my presence [or "before my face": _paneh_ ], said the Lord, so will your offspring and your name remain established. And it will come to pass (that) from new moon to new moon [or "from month to month"], and from sabbath to sabbath, all flesh will come to bow down in my presence [or "before my face": _paneh_ ], said the Lord.

This passage associates the manifesting of "the new heaven and the new earth" — which, again, Revelation 21:1 tells us would occur at _the end_ of the "present age" — with the symbolic scheme of one "sabbath week" of creation being succeeded by another "sabbath week" of creation, as well as with the symbolic scheme of one "new moon" (or "month") being succeeded by another "new moon" (or "month") — which, since "three days" is what separates one "old moon" from the next "new moon," would implicitly be evoking the symbolic "three days" that the authors of the New Testament would have associated with the symbolic "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ." And so that symbolic "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ" would _also_ have been understood by them to occur at _the end_ of the "present age."

In Exodus 31:15-17, the Lord tells Moses to tell the Israelites the following:

Six days you will do works LXX _ergon_ ], but the seventh day (will be) a Sabbath [ _shabbath_ ] of rest [ _shabbathon_ ; LXX _ana-pausis_ , derived from _pauō_ ] holy to the Lord. Anyone who does a work [LXX _ergon_ ] on the Sabbath day will surely be made to die. [Cf. [John 5:16-17 and John 9:16. I think the "division" among the Jews spoken of in John 9:16 regarding whether it was permissible for Jesus to "work" (or "do [signs]," or "perform [signs]": Greek _ergazomai_ ) on the Sabbath day may have been meant by the author to be understood as the expression of a more fundamental disagreement over the question of whether the first symbolic "sabbath week" of creation _had indeed been completed_ , or if, because of the "Fall of Man," more "works" would need to be performed before it _could_ be completed. (That would help to explain why in John 5:17 Jesus says that his "Father" is continuing to "work," which is why the "Son" continues to "work" as well — even though Genesis 2:1-3 tells us that God already "completed his works" and "rested from all his works.") In other words, the "division" or "schism" would reflect a divergence of belief with regard to the question of whether or not one ought to be _content_ with how the "world" was and is currently "arranged" or "ordered."] And the sons of Israel will keep the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath an age-long [or eternal: _olam_ ; LXX _aiōnios_ , which can also mean either "age-long" or "eternal"] covenant throughout their generations. Between me and the sons of Israel, it is an age-long [or eternal: _olam_ ; LXX _aiōnios_ ] pledge [or sign: _owth_ ; LXX _sémeion_ ]. [I believe the authors of the New Testament would have likely regarded the "Sabbath day" as a "pledge" or a "sign" meant to serve as a continual reminder of _how things ought to be_ — and _not_ how things were and are.] For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested [or ceased: _shabath_ ; LXX _pauō_ ] and was refreshed [ _naphash_ ; LXX _kata-pauō_ , which, like _pauō_ , can also mean "rested" or "ceased"].

Again recall Jeremiah 51:63-64, which says,

"And it will come to pass that when you have finished [or completed, or ceased: _kalah_ ; LXX _pauō_ ] reading out THIS book [LXX _biblion_ ], you will bind a stone to it [or 'upon it,' or 'over it': LXX _epi_ ] and throw it into the middle of the Euphrates. And you will say, 'So will Babylon [ _babel_ ] sink, to rise no more from the calamity that I am bringing upon her; and (her people) will be exhausted [or worn out: _yaeph_ ] [the LXX has "and she will cease to exist"; or, "and she will fail"; or, "and she will give out"; or, "and she will be eclipsed": _ek-_ _leipō_ ].'" As far as this (goes) the message of Jeremiah.

I believe this idea of people becoming " _exhausted_ " (Hebrew _yaeph_ ) that is spoken of in Jeremiah 51:63-64 (as well as in Jeremiah 51:58) was meant to be understood as alluding to the " _rest_ " that is associated with the "Sabbath day." The thinking of the authors of the Bible seems to have been that the original Creation as it was given to mankind by God was already "complete" or "finished" (cf. Hebrews 4:3); but with the mythical "Fall of Man" in the "Garden of Eden" — as well as with the mythical "confusing of language" associated with "Babel" or "Babylon" — that same creation suddenly became profoundly "corrupted" and "defective" at its very core, and therefore intrinsically " _incomplete_ " and " _unfinished_ ," making it impossible for mankind to _ever leave off_ from the symbolic "work" or "labor" or "toil" of the "first six days" of the _first_ symbolic "sabbath week" of creation (cf. Genesis 3:17) — unless a very dramatic change in human affairs occurred.

So it seems that the symbolic "fall of Babel" or "fall of Babylon" would thus signify what would make possible the _completion_ of the "work" or "labor" or "toil" of the _first_ symbolic "sabbath week" of creation. (Also see Isaiah 14:3-7 and Jeremiah 50:34. And, with the idea of "escaping from endless toil" in mind, it is also interesting to compare Genesis 11:3 with Exodus chapter 5.) If that understanding is correct, it would once again demonstrate that the "fall of Babel or Babylon" was probably understood by the authors of the New Testament to be essentially equivalent to the "Crucifixion of Christ" in terms of their symbolic significance, since again, we know from John 19:30 that just as Jesus dies on the Cross, he says,

It is finished [or completed, or fulfilled, or brought to an end: _teleō_ ].

In other words, the "works" (Greek _ergon_ ) of the "first six days" of the _first_ symbolic "sabbath week" of creation have finally been "completed" or "fulfilled" — but, paradoxically, what _makes possible_ that "completion" or "fulfillment" of God's _creation_ is Jesus's own symbolic _destruction_ upon the Cross. (Cf. Revelation 14:13 and Romans 6:6.) [And, since the _destruction_ of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" achieves that same goal, we see (as I discuss more in later installments in this series) how Jesus's symbolic " _outer body_ " or " _fleshly body_ " was likely regarded by the authors of the New Testament as being essentially equivalent to symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" — which, you will recall, we are supposing was understood to represent all religious esotericism and all misleading and duplicitous "prophecy" — as well as the Lie in general.]

With the "Crucifixion," it is as if Jesus "goes back in time" to the _precise moment_ of the mythical "Fall of Man" in the "Garden of Eden," and Jesus actually _becomes_ Adam — so that this time, Adam can make a different choice than he made the first time, by choosing a _voluntary death_ , instead of the _involuntary death_ that was unintentionally introduced into the world as a result of Adam's original disobedience of God's command. (Incidentally, with the ideas of a "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and a "tree of life" in mind, consider Galatians 3:13.) But by making that different choice, this time around Adam would not be disobeying God, and so he would be allowed to remain in the "Garden of Eden," and therefore continue to have access to the "tree of life" — meaning that his "voluntary death" would only be a _temporary_ one.

Jeremiah 51:63-64 (the block quotation before the last one) should also be compared with Hebrews 3:7-19 through Hebrews 4:1-13, and the author's discussion in those two chapters of the idea of "God's rest." For example, consider Hebrews 4:9-10:

So there remains  _apo-_ _leipō_ ] a Sabbath (rest) [ _sabbatismos_ ] for the people of God [as opposed, I am guessing, to the people of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon"; cf. [Revelation 18:4]. For he who has entered [ _eis-erchomai_ ] into (God's) rest [ _kata-pausis_ , derived from the verb _kata-_ _pauō_ , derived from the verb _pauō_ ] has also rested [ _kata-_ _pauō_ , derived from _pauō_ ] from his works [ _ergon_ ], just as God (rested) from his own (works).

Passages such as this again tend to show that the authors of the New Testament likely thought of the symbolic "Crucifixion of Christ" as being that which would _make possible_ the _ending_ , at the same time as the _fulfilling_ , of the "works" of the "first six days" of the first symbolic "sabbath week" — by _undoing_ those "works" by means of a symbolic "death" — so that "the people of God" could finally enjoy the "rest" (Greek _kata-pausis_ ) of the symbolic "Sabbath day" — _in addition to_ enjoying the "works" (Greek _ergon_ ) that they would be able to perform during the _following_ symbolic "sabbath week" of creation. In other words, the authors of the New Testament seem to have believed that the symbolic "Crucifixion of Christ" is what would make it possible for humanity to escape from some great cosmic "rut" in which we are all currently caught. (Cf. Mark 13:19-20.)

Jeremiah 51:63-64 (LXX) should also be compared with Genesis 11:6-8 — especially since both passages are speaking of the ultimate fate of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon." Genesis 11:6-8 says,

And the Lord said, "Behold, the people (are) one, and (there is) one language for all (people); and, beginning [LXX _archomai_ , derived from _arché_ , meaning 'a beginning'] by doing this, now nothing will be hidden [or impossible, or withheld, or held back, or 'eclipsed': LXX _ek-_ _leipō_ — perhaps with the implication that there would never be any "ending" or "stop" to the type of "work" that they were "beginning"] (from them), and everything that they intend, they will do. Let us go down there and confuse their language, so that one man may not understand the language of his neighbor." And the Lord scattered them from there over the face of the whole earth; and they stopped [or ceased: LXX _pauō_ ] building the city (of Babel).

By comparing Jeremiah 51:63-64 (LXX), Genesis 1:1 (LXX), Genesis 2:1-4 (LXX), Genesis 11:6-8 (LXX), Exodus 31:15-17 (LXX), and Hebrews 4:9-10, and noticing the recurrence in them of Greek words such as _archomai_ , and _arché_ , and _pauō_ , and _kata-pauō_ , and _kata-pausis_ , and _ana-pausis_ , and _ek-leipō_ , and _apo-leipō_ , and _ergon_ , one is led to suspect that the building of the city and tower of mythical "Babel" or "Babylon" was meant to be compared to God's original "creation of the heaven and the earth" narrated in Genesis chapter 1. The difference between them is that in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 God pronounces his own creation and "works" (LXX _ergon_ ) to be "good" or "very good," while it is clear that according to Genesis 11:1-9 the kind of "creating" and the "works" done by the people of "Babel" were deemed by God to be anything _but_ "good." And also see [Revelation 18:6, which specifically speaks of the evil "works" (Greek _ergon_ ) of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon."] Perhaps that's because God's creation was thought of as "natural," while the "creating" done by the people of "Babel" was thought of as an "artificial imitation" — and perhaps even as a deliberate "perversion" — of God's original creation. In any event, as a result of what they did, it was necessary that a sort of _partial_ "rest" (Greek _ana-pausis_ or _kata-pausis_ ) be _imposed upon_ the symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" of Genesis 11:1-9 in order to prevent its people from _continuing_ their evil "works" (Greek _ergon_ ) — with this perhaps serving as a prefiguration of what I believe to be Jeremiah's implicit prediction that a more _full and enduring_ "Sabbath rest" would be _imposed upon_ the symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" of which _he_ speaks, at the time of the _concluding_ of the "reading out" of Jeremiah's "book," and the "sinking away" of "Babel" or "Babylon" into the depths, "never to rise again."

Also, it seems that the "book" (Greek _biblion_ ) of which the author speaks in Jeremiah 51:63-64 — which was perhaps also thought by some authors or translators of the Bible to itself be equivalent to the "book" (Greek _biblos_ ) that the Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament says in Genesis 2:4 came into existence at the time that "the first heaven and the first earth" came into existence — was meant to be understood to be symbolically equivalent to "Babel" or "Babylon." And that would be because, just as "the first heaven and the first earth" had become irreparably "corrupted" or "tarnished" or "spoiled" as a result of the "Fall of Man," and also as a result of the "confusing of language" at "Babel" — both events meant, I believe, to be understood as representing the mythical introduction of religious esotericism and the Lie into human affairs — so too would the accompanying "first book" have become irreparably "corrupted" or "tarnished" or "spoiled," so that a "second book" of religion would need to be "written." But this time, the "book" would be _"_ _written" upon people's very own "hearts_ _"_ — because that would _make it impossible_ for any religious "scriptures" of a _deceptive_ or _misleading_ or _duplicitous_ nature to _ever again_ be "written."

In the next installment in this series, I will continue discussing esoteric symbolism in the Bible by examining the theme of "veiling" or "covering" (Greek _kalyptō_ ) — as well as that of "unveiling" or "uncovering" or "revealing" (Greek _ana-kalyptō_ or _apo-kalyptō_ ).

# Part 9 of 12: "Veiling" and "covering" — and "unveiling" and "uncovering"

## The "veil" that now covers "all the earth"

In Parts 6 and 7 of this series we examined the symbolic significance of various kinds of "stones," especially the significance of their being "thrown into the depths of a body of water." And one of the kinds of (very large) "stones" that I focused on was the "mountain."

But as I indicated in Part 7, it needs to be remembered that the symbol of the "mountain" is a potentially ambiguous one. And we can see an example of that in Isaiah 25:7, which says,

And with [or by, or on] THIS [ _zeh_ ; LXX _toutō_ ] mountain (the Lord) will swallow up [or consume, or destroy, or bring to an end: _bala_ ] the face of the covering [ _lowt_ ] [possibly with the connotation that "the face of the covering" is a kind of "burial shroud"] that covers [ _luwt_ ] all the peoples, and the veil [or covering, or mask: _massekah_ or _maccekah_ ] that has been spread [or woven, or cast: _nasak_ or _nacak_ ] over all the nations.

I'll ask the same question that I asked in Part 6 with regard to the references that Jesus makes to " _this_ mountain": Which _specific_ mountain does the author have in mind? In this case, the phrase "this mountain" was apparently meant by the author to refer to "Mount Zion," along with the "new Jerusalem." (See Isaiah 24:23 and Isaiah 25:5-6 (LXX).) And that also seems to have been the understanding of the authors of the New Testament. (Compare Isaiah 25:8 with Revelation 21:4, both of which I quote and discuss below.)

In other words, the prophet Isaiah is depicting "all the peoples" and "all the nations" of the world — in other words, "all the earth" — as currently living in a state of " _darkness_ " or " _shadow_ " or " _obscurity_ " caused by " _covering_ " or " _concealing_ " or " _veiling_." The prophet recognized that human beings' communications with each other were and are excessively "dark" in nature, instead of being anywhere near as "clear" and "transparent" as they could possibly be. And — even if the prophet himself was not entirely willing to consciously confront the fact — those "dark" communications especially include communications of a _religious_ nature, because of their being (historically, anyway) so cryptically figurative and obscurely allusive. But of course, the problem of the use of an esoteric manner of religious discourse is actually only part (albeit a crucially important part) of the more general problem of _deceptive and misleading communication_. That is the great "veil" or "darkness" or "shadow" or "thick cloud" that — even to the present day — covers "all the earth."

It is quite interesting that the same Hebrew word used in Isaiah 25:7, _bala_ , meaning "to swallow up, to consume," is also used in _the very next verse_ , Isaiah 25:8:

He will swallow up [ _bala_ ; LXX _kata-pinō_ ] death perpetually [or "in victory," or "in power": _netsach_ ; LXX _ischyō_ ], and the Lord God will wipe away tears from all faces, and he will take away the disgrace of his people from all the earth — for the Lord has spoken.

That seems to suggest that the symbol of the "veil" or "covering" — as well, presumably, as the semantic "darkness" and "shadow" and "obscurity" _created by_ that "veil" or "covering" — were all understood by the author of Isaiah 25:7-8 to be associated with the idea of "death." In other words, the understanding of that author — and, in all likelihood, of the other authors of the Bible as well — seems to have been that when the Lie was eliminated, so too would "death" be eliminated. (But whether this "death" was understood literally, or figuratively, or both, I just don't know.)

And Isaiah 25:8 can then be compared with Revelation 21:4, which, describing the "new Jerusalem," says,

And (God) will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, nor will there be any more mourning or crying or pain, because the first (things) have passed away.

So when we put the previous three quotations together, it seems that the authors of the Bible believed that in order for the "first things" to "pass away," so that a "new Jerusalem" can come into being, it is necessary that human beings first put an end to their practice of "concealing" or "covering" or "veiling" _themselves_ through the use of deception, disguise, and dishonesty.

## A choice between two "high mountains": The "Tower of Babel" and "Mount Zion"

I would suggest that essentially the same point is being made in Matthew 5:14, in which Jesus says,

You are the light [ _phōs_ ] of the world. A city [ _polis_ ] set upon a mountain [ _oros_ ] cannot be hidden [or be concealed, or be kept secret: _kryptō_ ].

Compare this to Revelation 21:10-11:

And (the angel) carried me away in spirit to a large and high [ _hypsélos_ ] mountain [ _oros_ ], and showed me the holy city [ _polis_ ] Jerusalem, coming down out of the heaven from God, having the glory [ _doxa_ ] of God. Its radiance [ _phōster_ , derived from _phōs_ , meaning "light"] was like a most precious stone, like a jasper stone, clear as crystal.

Recall Matthew 4:8, which I quoted in Part 2:

T]he Devil took (Jesus) to an exceedingly high [ _hypsélos_ ] mountain [ _oros_ ], and showed him all the kingdoms [ _basileia_ ] of the world and their glory [ _doxa_ ]. [While bearing in mind this word "kingdoms," _in the plural_ , compare both of these last two quoted passages with [ Daniel 2:44.]

I already mentioned in Part 2 that I thought that the author of Matthew 4:8 probably meant for this "exceedingly high mountain" to be understood to refer to the "Tower of Babel." So it seems that in the Bible we are being presented with two symbolic "high mountains" (namely, the "Tower of Babel," and "Mount Zion") with two symbolic "cities" set upon them (namely, "Babel" or "Babylon," and the "new Jerusalem," respectively). One obvious difference between the two "mountains" is that the "Tower of Babel" is an _artificial_ and _man-made_ "mountain," while "Mount Zion" is not. (And, incidentally, that might help to explain why Genesis 11:3 goes to the trouble of telling us that the builders of the Tower of Babel "used bricks for stone.")

Another important difference is that, as we saw in Part 3, the symbolic "new Jerusalem" is depicted as being full of "light" and "radiance," while the symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" was envisioned as being full of "darkness" and "shadow" and "obscurity." And that may explain why the builders of the "Tower of Babel" never successfully completed their building job: because they wished to build a "city" on top of an "exceedingly high mountain," _while at the same time_ refusing to relinquish what we are supposing to be their practice of concealment, secrecy, disguise, deception, and duplicity — especially in the form of religious esotericism. But what does Jesus tell us in Matthew 5:14? "A city set upon a mountain CANNOT be hidden or be concealed, or be kept secret: _kryptō_ ]." In other words: The sort of "building project" undertaken by the people of "Babel" was _doomed to fail_. (Now compare that idea with what we find in [Revelation 21:11 and Revelation 21:18, which when read together indicate that nothing in the "new Jerusalem" would be "hidden" or "concealed" from outsiders, since its "walls" would be "clear as crystal.")

So we here find additional confirmation of what I wrote above: that the understanding of the authors of the Bible seems to have been that in order for the symbolic "new Jerusalem" to come into being, it is necessary that human beings first put an end to their practice of "concealing" or "covering" or "veiling" themselves through the use of deception, dishonesty, and duplicity.

## The recurring association in the Bible between the idea of "the Lie" and the idea of "death"

As I already indicated in the first section of this article, the Bible contains a number of passages associating the idea of "death" with the idea of "the Lie." Returning to Isaiah 25:8, that verse can be found quoted in 1 Corinthians 15:51-56, in which the apostle Paul writes,

Behold, I tell you a mystery  _mystérion_ ]. We will not all be put to sleep [or made to die: _koimaō_ ], but we will all be changed [or exchanged, or transformed: _allassō_ ], in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, in the last trumpet. For he will sound the trumpet, and the dead will be woken [or raised: _egeirō_ ] imperishable, and we will be changed [ _allassō_ ]. For it is necessary that this perishable (body) put on [ _en-dyō_ ] imperishability, and that this mortal (body) put on [ _en-dyō_ ] immortality. And when this perishable (body) shall have put on [ _en-dyō_ ] imperishability, and this mortal (body) shall have put on [ _en-dyō_ ] immortality, at that time will the word [or saying, or message: _logos_ ] that is written come to pass: "Death has been swallowed up [ _kata-pinō_ ] in victory [ _nikos_ , related to _nikaō_ , meaning 'to be victorious, to conquer, to overcome, to prevail'; cf. [Revelation 5:5]." "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your piercing tip?" The piercing tip [ _kentron_ , related to _ek-kenteō_ , which means "to pierce"] of death is sin, and the power [or force, or strength: _dynamis_ ] of sin is the law.

[The second of the two scriptural references appears to be to some variant of Hosea 13:14.]

We know from Isaiah 25:7-8 that the symbol of the "veil" or "covering" or "mask" that is "covering all the peoples" was apparently being equated by the prophet with the idea of "death." If that was also Paul's understanding (which is not a complete certainty, since that identification is not made in the Septuagint's version of the passage), then, since he associated "death" with both "sin" and "the law," he must have also associated "sin" and "the law" with the idea of the "concealing" or "disguising" or "hiding" or "masking" that was presumably being symbolized by "the veil." In other words, even if he didn't fully realize it, Paul would have been implicitly saying that the _deceptive and misleading tendencies_ inherent in "the law" — due to the _esoteric nature_ of the "scriptures" in which that "law" is set forth — help to give "fuel" to "sin," which in turn produces "death" (and more specifically, "death" by "piercing").

The suggestion that "death" and "the Lie" would have often been understood by the authors of the Bible to be a sort of "joined pair" is additionally supported by, for example, Isaiah 28:14-18, which says,

Therefore hear the word or message: _dabar_ ; LXX _logos_ ] of the Lord, you scornful men who rule this people that is in Jerusalem! For you have said, "We have made a covenant with death, and with hell [ _sheol_ ; LXX _hades_ ] we have made a pact. For the lashing scourge will pass through and not come to us, for we have made (the) Lie [LXX _pseudos_ ] our refuge [or shelter: _machaseh_ ; the LXX has "hope": _elpis_ ], and in falsehood [LXX _pseudos_ ] we have hidden [or concealed, or covered, or disguised: _sathar_ or _cathar_ ] ourselves." Therefore, thus says the Lord God, behold, in Zion I lay for a foundation a stone, a well-tested stone, a precious corner (stone), for a firmly established foundation. The one that endures [or is secure, or is reliable, or is well-established: _aman_ ] is not hasty. And I will make justice the measuring line [the LXX instead has "hope": _elpis_ ], and righteousness the level. And hail will sweep away the refuge of (the) Lie, and waters will wash away the hiding place [or covering, or disguise, or concealment, or secret place: _sether_ or _cether_ ] (of falsehood). And your covenant with death will be atoned for, and your pact with hell [ _sheol_ ; LXX _hades_ ] [the LXX has "your hope in hell" or "your trust in hell": _elpis_ ] will not stand. For the washing scourge will pass through, and you will be trampled down by it. [Cf. [Amos 5:24 and  Luke 6:47-49.]

So we can deduce that making a "covenant with _death_ " must have been understood to involve a decision to seek one's basic sense of "ontological security" and "hope" in the world, not from God and the practice of justice and righteousness, but from the practice of _lying, deceit, and falsehood_.

## The "sweeping away of the Lie," and the "bringing of the mystery of God to an end"

Isaiah 28:14-18 (the block quotation just above) is also interesting because it can be cross-referenced with several passages from the Book of Revelation. First, take a look at Revelation 10:5-7:

And the angel that I saw standing on the sea and on the land raised his right hand up into the heaven, and swore by the One living into the ages of the ages... that there will no longer be delay [more literally, "time": _chronos_ ], but (that) in the days of the sound [or voice: _phōné_ ] of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound the trumpet [ _salpizō_ ], the mystery [or secret things: _mystérion_ ] of God will have been brought to an end [or "brought to a close," or "brought to its completion," or "brought to its fulfillment": _teleō_ ], (which is) the good news he announced [or proclaimed, or declared: _eu-aggelizō_ or _eu-angelizō_ ] to his own servants the prophets.

Now compare that passage to Revelation 11:15,19, which describes what happens when the "seventh angel" finally does "sound the trumpet":

And the seventh angel sounded the trumpet [ _salpizō_ ], and there were loud voices in the heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become that of our Lord and of his Christ, and he will reign into the ages of the ages."... And the temple of God in heaven was opened up [ _anoigō_ ], and the ark of his covenant was seen within [ _en_ ] his temple [indicating that it was now possible for everyone to gain access to the "inner tent" or "inner tabernacle" of the "heavenly temple"]. And there were flashes of lightning [or meteors: _astrapé_ ], and rumblings [or sounds, or voices: _phōné_ ], and peals of thunder, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Next, compare Revelation 11:15,19 to Revelation 16:17-21, noticing the fact that _both_ of these passages — both describing the work of "the seventh angel" — refer specifically to "flashes of lightning," "rumblings," "peals of thunder," "an earthquake," _and_ "great hail":

And the seventh (angel) poured out [ _ek-cheō_ ] his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came out of the temple, from the throne, saying, "It is done" [or, "It has come into being," or "It has come to pass," or "He is born": _ginomai_ ]. And there were flashes of lightning [or meteors: _astrapé_ ], and rumblings [or sounds, or voices: _phōné_ ], and peals of thunder; and there was a great earthquake such as there never was since mankind came into being upon the earth, so great (was the) earthquake, (and) so mighty. And the Great City became (split) into three parts [ _meros_ ], and the cities of the nations fell, and Babylon the Great was remembered before God, to give to her the cup of the wine of the fury of his anger. And every island fled away [ _pheugō_ ], and mountains were not found. And great hail(stones), as if a hundred pounds (each), came down out of the heaven onto the people; and the people cursed God because of the plague of the hail, because its plague was so exceedingly great.

And now cross-reference the previous passage with Revelation 6:12-14, focusing in particular on what happens to the "islands" and "mountains":

When (Jesus) opened the sixth seal, I saw, and there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth (made) of hair, and the full moon became like blood, and the stars of heaven fell to the earth as a fig tree drops its unripe figs when shaken by a great wind. And the (first) heaven was put away like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed [or moved: _kineō_ ] from its place [ _topos_ ].

Finally, cross-reference the four passages from the Book of Revelation that I just quoted with Isaiah 28:17 (the passage I quoted in the previous section), focusing on the symbol of "hail":

And hail will sweep away the refuge of (the) Lie, and waters will wash away the hiding place [or covering, or disguise, or concealment, or secret place: _sether_ or _cether_ ] (of falsehood).

So, putting all five of these passages together, it seems reasonable to deduce that the author of the Book of Revelation probably associated all of the following ideas with each other: 1) the " _opening up_ " of the " _inner_ tabernacle" of the heavenly temple; 2) the " _rolling up_ " of the "first scroll," corresponding to the "putting away" of the " _first heaven_ "; 3) the "fall of Babylon" or " _fall of Babel_ "; 4) the " _sweeping away of the refuge of the Lie_ " and the "washing away of the hiding place of falsehood"; and 5) _the "bringing of the mystery of God to an end_ _"_ — which, we learn, _is actually the "good news" that God has been "announcing" through the prophets all along_.

I hasten to mention that I personally don't see how "the mystery of God" (in the sense of "the _mysteriousness_ of God") could ever be "brought to an end"; and I find it impossible to believe that any of the authors of the Bible believed that such a thing could ever be done either. Rather, I think what the author of the Book of Revelation actually meant was that _unnecessary_ "mystery" would eventually be eliminated — not from the _being_ or _essence_ of God, since that kind of "mystery" is inevitable from the standpoint of finite creatures like us — but rather, from the ways in which we human beings _talk about_ God. In other words, religion would no longer involve "secret teachings" about God (or about anything else, for that matter). Some popular translations of the Bible translate the Greek word _mystérion_ in Revelation 10:5-7 as "mysterious plan" or "secret plan" or "secret purposes," although the Greek text never says or indicates that explicitly. And such a reading may actually be fairly consistent with what the author had in mind. (Cf. Romans 16:25, 1 Corinthians 2:7, Ephesians 3:2-12, and Colossians 1:26.) But if that's correct, then any such "mysterious plan" would necessarily _also_ include a plan to bring an end to the mysteriousness _of the plan itself_ (otherwise we wouldn't be able to know that the plan had in fact been "completed" [Greek _teleō_ ], or even know with any certainty that there had actually been such a plan at all). In other words, the _ending_ of the mysteriousness of the "mysterious plan" would be _an intrinsic component_ of the "mysterious plan" — which strongly suggests that the purpose of any such plan would be to bring an end to the gratuitous mysteriousness of religious esotericism in general.

[By the way, notice how both Revelation 6:14 and Revelation 16:20 refer to the disappearance of "islands" (Greek _nésos_ ). Revelation 6:14 says, "And the (first) heaven was put away like a scroll being rolled up, and every mountain and island [ _nésos_ ] was removed [or moved: _kineō_ ] from their places [ _topos_ ]"; and Revelation 16:20 says, "And every island [ _nésos_ ] fled away [ _pheugō_ ] , and mountains were not found."

[I think that to appreciate the possible significance of this, it would be useful to recall the pun that the authors of the Bible often seem to be taking advantage of, which I pointed out in Part 4, involving the Hebrew word _saphah_ and the Greek word _cheilos_. Both of these words can mean "(sea) shore" or "(river) bank," but they more literally mean "edge," as well as "lip" — thus also giving rise to the more figurative meanings of "speech" and "language." So an "island" would symbolize the communicatory and psychological _isolation_ caused by the "fragmenting or splitting up of meaning" in speech and language; and the "disappearance" or "moving" of those "islands" would thus signify the _ending_ of that isolation.

[In fact, the connection between the symbol of the "island" and the idea of "language" is made explicit in Genesis 10:5, which says that after the Great Flood, "From out of (the sons of Japheth) islands [LXX _nésos_ ] of the nations were set apart [or separated, or divided, or severed: _parad_ ; LXX _ap-horizō_ ] on their land [or earth: _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , each according to language [or tongue: _lashon_ ; LXX _glōssa_ ], in their tribes and in their nations."]

## The "darkness over all the earth" created by the "veil of the temple"; and this "darkness" being brought to an end by the "Crucifixion of Christ"

Now let's take another look at Isaiah 25:7, which says,

And with this mountain (the Lord) will swallow up [or consume, or destroy, or bring to an end: _bala_ ] the face of the covering [ _lowt_ ] [possibly with the connotation that "the face of the covering" is a kind of "burial shroud"] that covers [ _luwt_ ] all the peoples, and the veil [or covering, or mask: _massekah_ or _maccekah_ ] that has been spread [or woven, or cast: _nasak_ or _nacak_ ] over all the nations.

So again, the prophet Isaiah is depicting "all the earth" as currently living in a state of "darkness" or "shadow" or "obscurity," caused by a widespread "covering" or "concealing" or "masking" or "veiling."

With that thought in mind, consider Luke 23:44-46, which, describing Jesus's Crucifixion, says,

And it was now about (the) sixth hour, and darkness [ _skotos_ ] came to be over all the earth [ _gé_ ] until (the) ninth hour, the sun having failed [or having been eclipsed: _ek-leipō_ ]. And the veil [or curtain: _kata-petasma_ ] of the temple was torn [or split: _schizō_ ] (down the) middle [or center: _mesos_ ]. Then Jesus, shouting with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands I commit my Spirit [ _pneuma_ ]!" And having said this, he expired [or let out his breath, or gave forth his Spirit: _ek-pneō_ ].

I believe it is reasonable to suppose that the metaphorical "darkness covering all the earth" because of the "failing of the sun" or "eclipsing of the sun" that we find described in Luke 23:44-46 was likely understood by the authors of the New Testament to have been caused by the symbolic "veil covering all the earth" that is spoken of in Isaiah 25:7-8. And I believe this _same_ symbolic "veil" was meant to be understood as corresponding to the "veil of the temple" that is spoken of in Luke 23:44-46. It is the " _tearing_ " or " _splitting_ " (Greek _schizō_ ) of this "veil" that would allow the sun's _life-giving_ "light" to pass through. (Cf. John 1:4-5.)

[And, by the way, this once again shows why I believe it is so important that the "Crucifixion of Christ" be understood _symbolically_ if we are to appreciate the significance that the authors of the New Testament actually intended it to have. It signifies a process that all of humanity is actually _still going through_ (or at least headed towards), and that has not yet been completed.]

Recall John 19:23-24, which says,

Then the soldiers, when they crucified Jesus, took his outer garments, and made four parts [ _meros_ ], a part for each soldier, and (they) also (took) the tunic [that is, the "inner garment," probably signifying the idea of the "inner body" or "inner self," as well as the idea of the "inner meaning" of the scriptures]. But the tunic was seamless, woven FROM THE TOP [or "from above": _anōthen_ ] throughout (the) whole [ _holos_ ]. Therefore they said to one another, "Let us NOT tear [ _schizō_ ] it, but let us cast lots for it (to see) whose it will be" — so that the scripture might be fulfilled that said, "They divided up [ _dia-merizō_ , derived from _meros_ , meaning 'part'] my outer garments among them, and for my clothing they cast a lot." So the soldiers did these things.

While paying special attention to how the Greek words _anōthen_ and _schizō_ are being used in John 19:23-24, now consider the description of the Crucifixion given in Mark 15:37-38:

And Jesus, having let out a loud shout, expired [or let out his breath, or gave forth his Spirit: _ek-pneō_ ]. And the veil [or curtain: _kata-petasma_ ] of the temple WAS torn [or split: _schizō_ ] into two, FROM (THE) TOP [ _anōthen_ ] to (the) bottom.

And also the description of the Crucifixion given in Matthew 27:50-51:

And Jesus, having again shouted with a loud voice, let go of  _aphiémi_ ] (his) Spirit [ _pneuma_ ]. [Cf. [2 Corinthians 3:17.] And behold, the veil [or curtain: _kata-petasma_ ] of the temple WAS torn [or split: _schizō_ ] FROM (THE) TOP [ _anōthen_ ] to (the) bottom into two, and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were split [ _schizō_ ].

It therefore seems likely that the authors of the New Testament meant for two symbolic "weavings" or "pieces of cloth" — both of them associated with the symbolic episode of the "Crucifixion of Christ" — to be contrasted: first, the symbolic "veil" or "curtain" (corresponding to the symbolic "outer garment") that "covers" and "conceals" for the purpose of _hiding_ , and _disguising_ , and _masking_ , and _misleading others_ ; and second, the symbolic "inner garment," which would presumably "cover" only for the purpose of preserving a reasonable amount of (psychological) modesty, privacy, and self-esteem. Furthermore, the " _veil_ " or " _outer garment_ " would be characterized by its state of intrinsic _division_ and _inconsistency_ and _duplicity_ , while the " _inner garment_ " would be characterized by its state of intrinsic _wholeness_ and _unity_ and _integrity_. The "tearing" or "splitting" of the symbolic "veil" at the moment of Christ's symbolic "death" would therefore not be _creating_ a "division" where it did not previously exist; it would instead be publicly _revealing_ and _exposing_ the intrinsic "dividedness" that had _always_ existed in the "veil." In addition, notice that in the Gospel narratives the "veil" or "curtain" (Greek _kata-petasma_ ) is specifically said to be _that of the "temple_ _"_ — which indicates that the authors of the New Testament were thinking especially about the type of "hiding" or "concealing" or "veiling" that one finds _in religious esotericism_.

So I think it is fair to conclude that the symbol of the " _inner garment_ " — which we are supposing signifies or corresponds to the "inner meaning" of the "scriptures" — was regarded by the authors of the Bible as being _the very opposite_ of the symbol of the concealing " _veil_ " or " _curtain_." _By means of this juxtaposition of symbols, the Bible is thus subtly indicating to us that the true "inner meaning" of the "scriptures" is in fact completely_ _opposed to_ _all religious esotericism._

Furthermore, if the symbol of Jesus's "outer garment" or "outer body" (corresponding to the symbolic "veil" or "curtain") is characterized by its state of intrinsic " _division_ " into " _parts_ " (Greek _meros_ ), as suggested by John 19:23-24, then it would also seem to correspond to symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" — since, as I explained in Part 5, there is strong evidence that "Babel" or "Babylon" was also thought by the authors of the New Testament to be characterized by a state of intrinsic "division" into "parts." And, as additional evidence in support of that proposition, recall Revelation 16:19, which says,

And the Great City [i.e., "Babel" or "Babylon"] became [ _ginomai_ ] (split) into [ _eis_ ] three parts [ _meros_ ], and the cities of the nations fell, and Babylon the Great was remembered before God, to give to her the cup of the wine of the fury of his anger.

Similar to what I was just saying about the symbolic "Crucifixion of Christ" achieving the _overt_ and _public_ "splitting" of what was and is an _already-divided_ "veil," the reference in this verse to "Babel" or "Babylon" being " _remembered_ _before God_ " may have been meant to indicate that by "Babel" or "Babylon" being split into three parts, there would merely be _an_ _overt_ _dividing of that which has_ _always_ _been divided_ ; the "splitting" would only make symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" finally _appear_ as "she" _has really always been_ by her nature.

[By the way, contrast Revelation 16:19 with Matthew 19:5-6, in which Jesus says,

Because of this, a man will leave behind his father and his mother, and will be joined with his wife, and the two will become [ _ginomai_ ] (merged) into [ _eis_ ] one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh.

[And then compare both of those passages with Zechariah 13:8:

And it will come to pass that on all the earth, says the Lord, the two parts [LXX _meros_ ; the Hebrew Masoretic text has "two mouths": _peh_ ] on it will be cut off and will cease to exist [LXX _ek-leipō_ ], and the third on it will remain.

So we get the overall impression that "in the day of the Lord," any "dichotomy" existing between the "two parts" (or "two mouths") would come to an end, leaving behind only a _single_ "part" (or "mouth"), which would thenceforth constitute "the whole." (Also see [Matthew 13:33 and Matthew 17:4-8.)]

A symbolic equivalence between Jesus's "outer garment" (or "outer body") and "Babel" (or "Babylon") would make sense, if we are supposing that the symbolic "outer garment" corresponds to the symbolic "veil," which would represent the general idea of religious esotericism; and if we are additionally supposing that symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" was _also_ understood to represent the general idea of religious esotericism.

## The "putting on" and "putting off" of symbolic "garments," symbolic "bodies," and symbolic "men"

In 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 Paul writes,

For we know that if the earthly house of our tent [or tabernacle: _skénos_ ] is dissolved [or destroyed, or torn down: _kata-lyō_ ], we have a dwelling from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this (earthly house) we groan, longing to be further clothed [ _ep-en-dyomai_ ] with our dwelling from heaven. And if we have truly been clothed [ _en-dyō_ ], we will not be found naked. For while we are in the tent, we groan (because of) being weighed down; not that we wish to be unclothed [ _ek-dyō_ ], but to be further clothed [ _ep-en-dyomai_ ], so that that which is mortal might be swallowed up [ _kata-pinō_ ] by life.

Notice the association that Paul makes between the idea of "clothing," and the idea of "the body," and the idea of the "tent" or "tabernacle" — which, at least when that "tent" or "tabernacle" is "earthly" and not "heavenly," brings to mind the idea of the "temple" and its "veil." And that gives additional strength to the hypothesis that the "veil of the temple," and Jesus's "outer garments," and Jesus's "outer body" or "flesh" or "fleshly body," were all understood by the authors of the New Testament to be essentially equivalent in terms of their symbolic significance. Furthermore, the "swallowing up" (Greek _kata-pinō_ ) of "that which is mortal" spoken of by Paul here in 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 brings to mind the association made in Isaiah 25:7-8 between the "swallowing up" (or "consuming": Hebrew _bala_ ; Greek _kata-pinō_ ) of "death" and the "swallowing up" (or "consuming": Hebrew _bala_ ) of the "covering" or "veil." And so there is good reason to believe that that symbolic "veil" may have been felt by Paul and the other authors of the New Testament to be something that was "weighing them down" or "burdening" them, and thus causing them to "groan" under its weight.

In Colossians 3:2-3 Paul writes,

Set your mind on the things above [ _anō_ ], not the things on the earth. For you have died, and your life has been hidden [ _kryptō_ ] together with the Christ within [ _en_ ] God. When the Christ, (which is) your life, is made manifest [or made visible: _phaneroō_ ], then you will also be made manifest [ _phaneroō_ ] along with him in glory.

Notice the association between the idea of "that which is above" or "that which is heavenly," and the idea of "the inner" or "the hidden" — an association which we have already seen elsewhere, such as in John 19:23-24 (speaking of the "seamless tunic or 'inner garment'] woven from above throughout the whole") — but also, importantly, we see the expression of a desire to _transform_ "the inner" or "the hidden" _into_ "the outer" or "the manifest." (Cf. [Revelation 19:11-16.)

In Colossians 3:9-11 Paul writes,

Do not lie [ _pseudomai_ ] to one another, (as) you have put off [or taken off, as with clothing: _ap-ek-dyomai_ ] the old [ _palaios_ ] man [ _anthrōpos_ ], along with his practices, and put on [ _en-dyō_ ] the new [ _neos_ ] (man), the one being renewed [ _ana-kainoō_ ] unto full knowledge [or recognition: _epi-gnōsis_ , derived from _epi-ginōskō_ ] after [ _kata_ ] the image [ _eikōn_ ] of the One who created him, where [ _hopou_ ] [ **sic!** ] there is no Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free (man) — but rather all (things) [or "the entirety," or "the whole": _ta panta_ ]; and within [ _en_ ] all (things) (is) Christ.

Notice that Paul is implicitly envisioning two different "garments," each one corresponding to a different kind of "man," or "body." Also notice the association between the idea of "putting on" the " _new garment_ " (presumably corresponding to the symbolic "inner garment," and "inner body," and "inner self," and "inner meaning"), and the idea of " _wholeness_ " or " _all things_ " (Greek _panta_ ) — which, incidentally, also brings to mind the " _new Jerusalem_." It tends to follow from this that, once again, the " _old garment_ " (presumably corresponding to the symbolic "outer garment" and the "veil" or "curtain," as well as the "outer body," and "outer self," and "outer meaning") would have been associated with the idea of " _division_."

[And that is additionally suggested by what Paul writes just below that in Colossians 3:14, in which he says, "But above all these (other virtues), (put on) love, which is a binding together [ _syn-desmos_ ] of perfection [or completeness: _teleiotés_ ]." Incidentally, the Greek word _syn-desmos_ is derived from _desmos_ , which means "a binding," and which is in turn derived from _deō_ , meaning "to bind, to tie, to fetter, to restrain, to restrict" — a word which frequently carries a negative connotation in the New Testament — which may suggest that Paul meant to contrast _two different ways_ in which people might become "bound"; and also that he considered the first of those "two ways" to be "imperfect" or "incomplete" or "defective" in nature.]

My suggestion that the authors of the New Testament would have thought of the "old man" as corresponding to an "outer man" or "outer body," and the "new man" as corresponding to an "inner man" or "inner body," is additionally confirmed by Romans 7:22:23, in which Paul writes,

For I delight in the Law of God that corresponds to the inner man  _esō_ _anthrōpon_ ], but I see another law in my members warring against the law of my mind [ _nous_ ], and making me captive in the law of sin, the one existing in my members. [For further confirmation, see [2 Corinthians 4:16 and  1 Peter 3:3-4. In addition, notice how in  Ephesians 3:16-20 the "strengthening" (Greek _krataioō_ ) of the " _inner_ man" (Greek _esō_ _anthrōpon_ ) with "power" (Greek _dynamis_ ) is said to be what enables a person "to have enough strength" (Greek _ex-ischyō_ ) to "lay hold of" (or "comprehend": Greek _kata-lambanō_ ) the " _fullness_ " (Greek _plérōma_ ) of the _outer_ world in all of its physical magnitude, diversity, variety, and complexity.]

Also, observe that in Colossians 3:9-11 (the block quotation located just before the previous one) "the image of the Creator" is implicitly being depicted as a kind of "place," by the author's use of the Greek word _hopou_ , meaning "where." That in turn seems to suggest that the " _new Jerusalem_ " — that is _,_ _an ideal vision of human society_ — may have itself been understood to be " _the image_ " (Greek _eikōn_ ) of the Creator. And that shouldn't necessarily be surprising, if we consider what Genesis 1:26 says: "And God said, 'Let us make man or mankind: _adam_ ; LXX _anthrōpos_ ] after our image [LXX _eikōn_ ] and after our likeness [LXX _homoiōsis_ ] .'" The figure of "Adam" has always been understood to have all human beings contained within himself, so if "Adam" was originally made "after the image" of God, then the "fallen" state of "Adam" — that is, of humanity — would indicate that that original "image" of God had, from the point of view of human beings, become "blurred" and "distorted," because of the existence of _division_ and _strife_ and _discord_ and _contention_ — rather than of _harmony_ — within human society. (Cf. [1 John 4:12.) As a result of the "Fall of Man," "Adam" — the "collective Man" — could no longer be at peace _with himself_. The way to make that original "image" as "clear" and "distinct" from the perspective of human beings as it was thought to have once been would therefore seem to be to bring human society into ever-closer approximation to that ideal vision of human society, by overcoming the strife and discord currently found within it. And I would argue that the only way in which we can do that is by working to gradually eliminate the Lie entirely from human relations.

We can find something similar to Colossians 3:9-11, with its talk of "putting off" and "putting on," in Ephesians 4:20-24:

But you did not learn Christ in that way — if you have truly heard [ _akouō_ ] (Jesus) [and _not_ "heard about," as some translations have it] and been taught in [ _en_ ] him — even as in [ _en_ ] Jesus is truth [ _alétheia_ ] — to have put off [ _apo-tithémi_ ], concerning the former [or first: _proteron_ ] way of life, the old [ _palaios_ ] man, which is perishing [or withering, or being ruined, or rotting, or being corrupted, or decaying: _phtheirō_ ] in accordance with the desires of deceit [ _apaté_ ] , and to be renewed [ _ana-neoō_ ] in the spirit [ _pneuma_ ] of your mind [ _nous_ ], and to have put on [ _en-dyō_ ] the new [ _kainos_ ] man, the one according to God, having been created in righteousness and in the holiness of truth [ _alétheia_ ]. Therefore, having put off [ _apo-tithémi_ ] falsehood [ _pseudos_ ], let each one speak truth [ _alétheia_ ] with his neighbor [ _plésion_ ], because we are members of one another.

Notice how in Ephesians 4:20-24 we once again find an association between the idea of "death" (or "perishing") and the idea of "lying" or "deceit" or "falsehood."

By the way, a comparison between the use in Ephesians 4:20-24 of the Greek verb _phtheirō_ , and the use in [Acts 2:31 of the related noun _diaphthora_ , derived from the verb _dia-phtheirō_ (which has meanings similar to those of _phtheirō_ ) suggests that the " _post-Crucifixion_ Jesus" — even _prior to_ his "Resurrection" — was understood by the authors of the New Testament to have already "put off" the "old man," and to have "put on" the "new man" not subject to "corruption" and "decay."]

We find another reference to the "old man" in Romans 6:6:

We know this, that our old [ _palaios_ ] man was crucified with (Jesus), in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing [ _kat-argeō_ ], (with) us no longer being enslaved to sin.

And I submit once again that the "old man" or "body of sin" of which Paul is speaking was understood to correspond to the symbolic "outer body" and "outer garment," both of which would have been associated with the idea of the "outer meaning" — and the _removal_ of that "outer meaning" would be symbolized by the "Crucifixion of Christ."

I believe that the episodes of the "Crucifixion of Christ" and the "Resurrection of Christ" that are narrated in the Gospels were meant to _symbolically describe_ this process of, respectively, "taking off an old garment," and "putting on a new garment." The Jesus being " _crucified_ " would have been meant to signify the " _outer_ garment (and the "outer body," and the "outer self," and the "outer meaning"), characterized by its intrinsic _division_ and _discord_ ; while the Jesus being " _resurrected_ " would have been meant to signify the " _inner_ garment" (and the "inner body," and the "inner self," and the "inner meaning"), which — _after its emergence from_ its "cave" or "tomb" into "the light of day" — would be characterized by its intrinsic _unity_ and _wholeness_ and _harmony_ and _integrity_.

Furthermore, it is reasonable to believe that this idea of "exchanging one garment for another" was understood by the authors of the Bible to be symbolically equivalent to the idea of "exchanging one scroll or book for another" — in other words, "exchanging one reading or interpretation of the scriptures for another" — based on a comparison of passages such as Isaiah 34:4, Revelation 6:14, and Hebrews 1:10-12, focusing on their use of the Greek word _helissō_ , meaning "to roll up." Let's first look at Hebrews 1:10-12 (which is quoting Psalm 102:25-27):

And you Lord, after (the) beginnings or "in accordance with first principles": _kata_ and _archas_ , a plural form of _arché_ ] laid the earth as a foundation, and the heavens are the works [ _ergon_ ] of your hands [ _cheir_ ]. They will perish [or be destroyed, or be put away, or be lost: _apollymi_ ; cf. [Matthew 9:17, Matthew 27:20, Luke 13:33, Luke 15:32, and Luke 19:47, all of which use the Greek word _apollymi_ ], but you remain [or continue: _dia-menō_ ] through (it all). And like an outer garment [ _himation_ ], all (things) [ _pantes_ ] will become old [or become obsolete: _palaioō_ ], and you will roll them up [ _helissō_ ] like a mantle [or covering, or veil, or cloak: _peri-bolaion_ ], like an outer garment [ _himation_ ], and they will be exchanged [or changed: _allassō_ ]. But you are the same, and your years will never come to an end [or fail, or "be eclipsed": _ek-leipō_ ].

Next, Revelation 6:14 says,

And the (first) heaven was put away like a scroll [ _biblion_ ] being rolled up [ _helissō_ ], and every mountain and island was moved from their places [ _topos_ ].

And finally, Isaiah 34:4 says,

And all the forces or powers, or hosts: _tsaba_ ; LXX _dynamis_ , which, in addition to meaning "force" or "power," can also mean "meaning"; compare the use of the same Greek word _dynamis_ in [1 Corinthians 14:11] of the heavens will dissolve, and will be rolled up [ _galal_ ; LXX _helissō_ ] like a scroll [ _sepher_ ; LXX _biblion_ ], and all the heavens and their forces [ _tsaba_ ] [the LXX instead has "all the stars": _astron_ ] will fall, like leaves fall from the vine, and like leaves fall from the fig tree.

By the way, I believe this verse may provide the solution to the "riddle" found in [John 1:45-51. It seems that the message the author wished to convey in that passage is that Nathanael perceives Jesus to be the "Son of God" and "King of Israel" because Jesus is able to see the _existing_ "heavens" and their "forces" or "powers" as _already_ having "dissolved" or "been rolled up" or "fallen" (cf. Luke 10:18) — since, in Jesus's eyes, the metaphorical "leaves" of the metaphorical "fig tree" have _already_ "fallen," making it possible for him to see Nathanael "under the fig tree." (Also see Zechariah 3:10.)]

## The "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ" regarded as a symbol signifying the ending of "communicatory barriers" among human beings

But if, as I have been suggesting, the symbol of the "outer garment" was likely understood by the authors of the New Testament to be characterized by its "divided" nature — and if "division" was understood to be something bad — then doesn't that tend to imply that there was perceived to be something "wrong" with the "Jesus" that is depicted _prior to_ his "Crucifixion"? Well, to be blunt — yes.

First, let's look at Ephesians 2:13-19, in which Paul writes,

But now in Christ, you who were once far away [ _makran_ ] have become near [ _eggys_ or _engys_ ] in the blood of the Christ. For he himself is our peace [or concord, or harmony: _eiréné_ ], having made the both (into) one, and having torn down [or broken up, or destroyed, or dismantled: _lyō_ ] the dividing wall [more literally, "middle wall," or "wall (in our) midst": _meso_ _-toichon_ ] of the barrier, the hostility in HIS [ **!!!!!!!** ] flesh [ _sarx_ — which I believe was associated with the symbol of the "outer body" or "outer garment"], having done away with [ _kat-argeō_ ] the law of commandments in ordinances, so that he might transform the two IN HIMSELF [ **!!!!!!!** ] into a single new [ _kainos_ ] man, making peace [ _eiréné_ ], and he might reconcile the both in one body to God, because of the Cross having killed the hostility [or enmity: _echthra_ ] within it [that is, the hostility within Jesus's "flesh" or "body **"** ]. And, having come, he proclaimed the good news, peace [ _eiréné_ ] to you who (were) far away [ _makran_ ], and peace [ _eiréné_ ] to those near [ _eggys_ or _engys_ ]. For through him we both have access to the Father in one Spirit. So then you are no longer foreigners [ _xenos_ ] and strangers [more literally, "those who dwell next to the house": _par-oikos_ ], but are fellow-citizens of the holy ones [or saints: _hagios_ ] and of the household of God.

I believe that the word "hostility" (or "enmity": Greek _echthra_ ) as it is being used in this passage is referring to — among other things — the _division_ that is made between "inner meanings" and "outer meanings," both in the scriptures and in human communications generally. But this first type of "hostility" and "division" inevitably gives rise to "hostility" and "division" _within persons_ , as well as _between persons_.

This passage says that Jesus "tore down [or broke up, or destroyed, or dismantled: _lyō_ ] the dividing wall [more literally, "middle wall": _meso_ _-toichon_ ] of the barrier, the hostility in HIS FLESH." That sounds quite similar to what we find in Luke 23:45, which, describing the _culmination_ of the Crucifixion, says,

And THE VEIL [or curtain: _kata-petasma_ ] of the temple [ _naos_ ] was torn [or split: _schizō_ ] (down the) middle [or center: _mesos_ ].

Compare the use of these two Greek words _lyō_ , meaning "to tear down, to destroy," and _naos_ , meaning "temple," in [John 2:19-21.]

And if you're still not convinced that Jesus's symbolic "outer body" or "outer garment" or "fleshly body" was likely seen by the authors of the New Testament as _itself_ serving as a concealing "veil" or "curtain" or "barrier" that _required_ being "torn apart" or "torn open," then please take a careful look at Hebrews 10:19-20:

Therefore, brothers, having (the) forthrightness of speech or "boldness of speech," or "frankness of speech," or "openness of speech," or "plainness of speech": _parrésia_ , derived from _rhésis_ , meaning "saying," and _pas_ , meaning "everything"] (that makes possible) [or "(that leads) unto": _eis_ ] the entering of the Holy Places [referring to the "inner tent" or "second tent": see [Hebrews 9:6-10] in the blood of Jesus, which he inaugurated for us — a freshly slain and living way through THE VEIL [or curtain: _kata-petasma_ ] THAT IS HIS FLESH [ _sarx_ ]....

Notice how the development of "forthrightness of speech" (or "boldness of speech," or "frankness of speech," or "openness of speech," or "plainness of speech," or "confidence in speaking," or "freedom in speaking," or "unreservedness in speaking": Greek _parrésia_ ) — _the very opposite_ of the "reticence of speech" or "guardedness in speaking" that one would associate with an esoteric manner of religious discourse — is said to be _the very thing_ that would make it possible for persons to enter into the "inner tent" or "inner tabernacle" of the "temple." (Incidentally, consider the context in which this same Greek word _parrésia_ is being used by Jesus in John 16:25.) And the development of this "forthrightness of speech" is associated with the symbol of "blood" — which may suggest that there was perceived to be a connection between the development of "forthrightness of speech" and the idea of "suffering," as well as that of "sacrifice."

Also notice the connection between the symbol of the " _death_ of Jesus" — suggested by the reference to the "blood of Jesus" and to Jesus's being "freshly slain" or "newly slain" — and the idea of speech becoming "forthright, plain, straightforward, unreserved, open, frank." The description of "the shedding of blood" as creating a " _living_ way through the veil" suggests that only by a person " _dying_ " to the familiar but still largely _meaningless_ "exoteric meanings" or "outer meanings," signified by the symbol of "the veil" — that is to say, the kind of meanings that are "engraved in letters _upon stone_ ," as Paul elsewhere puts it, thus emphasizing their "deadness" — can the person find a " _living_ " — because _meaningful_ — "way" through the "barrier" of "the veil."

It is the _barrier_ between persons that is created by this symbolic "veil" or "curtain" — which is also symbolized by Jesus's _pre-Crucifixion_ "flesh" or "body" — that gives rise to _hostility_ between those persons. I believe the symbol of the "flesh" or the "body" may have been generally understood by the authors of the New Testament to signify the principle of _particularization_ or _differentiation_ — which, though not something bad in itself, becomes something bad when the various differentiated members of some larger whole have wills and desires that cannot be harmonized. And the reason why there is discord between the wills and desires of different individuals is that there exist _communicatory barriers_ between them that prevent a free and open circulation of meaning among them, with the chief causes of such communicatory barriers being _dishonesty_ and _confusion_. (And, incidentally, I believe that ideal of "a free and open circulation of meaning" may have been thought by the authors of the Bible to correspond to "the presence of the Spirit," which is sometimes symbolized in the Bible by the image of "a flow of water," and more specifically, a flow of "clear water." See, e.g., John 7:38-39, Isaiah 44:3, and Revelation 22:1.) When _honest and clear meanings_ are unable to flow without impediment within a society of people, it becomes difficult for individuals to "think on the same wavelength" or have a "meeting of minds"; so they also find it difficult to arrive at mutually advantageous solutions to their problems. And in the specific context of religious esotericism, we find that the existence of a secretive, misleading, and confusing allegorical or figurative "veil" or "curtain" functions as just such a restrictive communicatory barrier.

It seems clear to me that this is the reason why the authors of the New Testament were so adamant that Jesus's symbolic "outer body" or "fleshly body" _needed_ to be "killed" or "destroyed" — so that a better, _more unified_ type of _collective_ "body" could be created in its stead. Before the symbolic "Crucifixion," the "body of Christ" is a collective "body" within which _communicatory barriers_ are plentiful; and so, it is a _divided_ "body." The figure of "Jesus Christ," like that of "Adam," was understood to be the representative of _all human beings_ ; and so the internal division and conflict depicted as existing within him would have been meant to signify the fundamental tendency toward division and conflict currently existing within all of human society.

I think Ephesians 2:13-19 (the passage I quoted above which speaks of "the hostility in **HIS** flesh" — that is to say, in _Jesus's_ flesh) proves beyond any doubt that "Jesus Christ" — at the very least, the kind of "Jesus Christ" of which Paul is speaking in that passage — was understood by the authors of the New Testament to be serving as a _symbol_ for humanity as a whole, or, alternatively, for each member of humanity taken individually. (Or, to be somewhat more precise — and to repeat what I wrote in Part 2 — I think "Jesus Christ" was likely understood by the authors of the New Testament to be something akin to a Platonic Archetype or Idea or Form.) "The both" or "the two" said to have been found "in Christ" apparently refers to "the self" and "the other" (i.e., "the stranger," or "the foreigner," or "the alien"), the division between which the authors of the New Testament obviously believed needed to be overcome. (In addition to Ephesians 2:13-19, see, e.g., James 2:8 and Luke 10:25-37.) Again, Christ is depicted as having originally been in an internally divided state, for the simple reason that _humanity_ was and continues to be in a divided and strife-ridden state. And it was the symbolic "veil" or "curtain" — corresponding to Jesus's "flesh" or "fleshly body," according to Hebrews 10:20 — that was apparently believed to be responsible for having divided humanity, and for having generated the internal "hostility" found in Jesus's symbolic _pre-Crucifixion_ "flesh" or "body" — which, again, is also _humanity's_ collective "flesh" or "body" (containing all of the individual "bodies" as its "members").

In sum, it appears that the "flesh of Jesus" was understood to correspond to the symbolic "veil" (or "curtain": Greek _kata-petasma_ ) that _prevents_ the "truly intended" meanings of speech of an obscurely figurative or symbolic nature from being understood by others, by "concealing it" or "covering it," and "blocking the light," and "casting shadows upon it" — thus turning speech of that kind into a collection of "dark sayings." And so, with Jesus's "slaying" — that is, the "tearing apart" or "tearing open" of Jesus's "fleshly body" — there would be a concomitant "tearing apart" or "tearing open" of the "veil" that had previously prevented religious discourse from being _accessible_ — in other words, "straightforward," or "plain," or "forthright," or "clear," or "open" — from the perspective of the ordinary, "uninitiated" person. With this " _opening up_ " (Greek _anoigō_ or _di-anoigō_ ) of communication and of _meaning_ (Greek _logos_ ), it would then become possible for _all_ persons to _together_ "enter the Holy Places."

And, incidentally, a prefiguring of that process of "opening up" can be found in [Mark 7:31-37, in which Jesus "heals" a man who is "deaf" and "mute." (And after reading that passage, you may wish to compare it with Luke 4:23.)]

In the next installment in this series, I will continue with my discussion of the themes of "veiling" and "covering," and of "unveiling" and "uncovering," as they are found in the Bible.

# Part 10 of 12: "Veiling" and "covering" — and "unveiling" and "uncovering" (cont'd)

In this installment, I will continue my examination of what the Bible has to say about the themes of "veiling" and "covering," and of "unveiling" and "uncovering." These themes actually occur considerably more often than it might at first appear, so it is sometimes necessary to read passages from the Bible very carefully in order to become aware of their presence.

## "Not turning back to the things behind": The significance of symbolic "Sodom" and its relation to the idea of "the Apocalypse"

In Luke 17:28-32 Jesus says,

[J]ust as it happened in the days of Lot, they were eating, they were drinking, they were buying, they were selling, they were planting, they were building. But in that day (when) Lot went out [ _ex-erchomai_ ] from Sodom, it rained fire and brimstone [or sulphur] from heaven and destroyed [ _apollymi_ ] all things [ _pantas_ ]. In the same way will it be in that day (when) the Son of Man is revealed [ _apo-kalyptō_ ]. In that day, a man will be on the housetop, and his goods (will be) in the house. Let him not go down to take them away. And the man in the field [ _agros_ ], likewise, let him not turn back [or return, or turn around, or convert (back): _epi-strephō_ , derived from _strephō_ , which can have essentially the same meanings] to the things behind [ _eis ta opisō_ ]. Remember the wife of Lot.

With regard to "Sodom" and one's reading of Genesis 19:15-29 (the passage that describes the destruction of "Sodom," most of which I quote just below), it is very important to be aware that the Hebrew word/name "Lot," or _lowt_ , literally means "covering" or "veil." As you read the passage, also consider that the English word "Apocalypse" is derived from the Greek noun _apokalypsis_ , which means "an uncovering, a revealing, an unveiling, a revelation," and which is in turn derived from the Greek verb _apo-kalyptō_ , meaning "to take the covering away, to uncover, to reveal, to unveil, to disclose."

Genesis 19:20-28 begins with Lot saying to the two angels that are planning to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah,

"Behold now, that city there is near (enough) to flee to, and it is a little one LXX _mikron_ , derived from _mikros_ , which can also mean "a little one"]. Please let me escape there — is it not a little one [LXX _mikron_ ]? — and my soul [ _nephesh_ ; LXX _psyché_ ] will live." [Cf. [Matthew 18:14.] And (one of the angels) said to him, "Behold, I will also favor you more literally, favor "your face" or "your presence": _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] (with regard to) this request [more literally, "word" or "saying": _dabar_ ; LXX _rhéma_ ], (so) I will not overthrow the city of which you have spoken [ _dabar_ ; LXX _laleō_ ]. Hurry, escape there, for I am unable to act upon (my) word [ _dabar_ ] until you go there." Thereupon the name of the city was called Zoar [or Tsoar, a Hebrew word meaning "insignificant" or "little"]. The sun came out [LXX _ex-erchomai_ ] upon the earth (when) Lot entered into [LXX _eis-erchomai_ ] Zoar. The Lord rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens. And he overthrew [or overturned: _haphak_ ; LXX _kata-strephō_ ] those cities, and all the plain around, and all inhabitants of the cities, and whatever sprouted [ _tsemach_ ; LXX _ana-tellō_ ] from the earth. But (Lot's) wife looked behind [or "to the back": _achar_ ; the LXX has "gazed (or looked wistfully, or looked favorably: _epi-blepō_ ) to the things behind," or "gazed to the things to the back": _eis ta opisō_ ], and she became a pillar of salt. And Abraham rose early in the morning (and went) to the place where he had stood before [or "in the presence of," or "in front of": _paneh_ ; LXX _enantion_ ] the Lord. And (Abraham) looked down [or gazed: _shaqaph_ ; the LXX has "gazed" or "looked favorably": _epi-blepō_ ] upon the face [or front: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] of Sodom and Gomorrah, and upon the face [ _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] of all the earth of the plain, and he saw, and behold, the smoke [ _qitor_ ; the LXX has "flame": _phlox_ ] of the earth ascended [ _alah_ ; LXX _ana-bainō_ ] like the smoke [ _qitor_ ; LXX _atmis_ , which means "vapor" or "steam"] from a furnace [ _kibshan_ ; LXX _kaminos_ ; cf. [Revelation 9:2, Revelation 19:3, Deuteronomy 4:20, Jeremiah 11:4, Daniel chapter 3, especially verses 17 and 26, and Isaiah chapter 48, especially verses 10, 14, and 20].

Next consider Genesis 19:29, which goes on to describe God's "ruining" of "Sodom and Gomorrah":

And it came to pass, in God's ruining the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent Lot away, out of the midst [or middle: _tavek_ ; LXX _mesos_ ] of the catastrophe [or the overthrowing, or the overturning: _haphekah_ , derived from _haphak_ ; LXX _katastrophé_ , derived from _kata-strephō_ ], in overthrowing [or overturning, or turning over, or turning around: _haphak_ ; LXX _kata-strephō_ ] the cities in which Lot had dwelt.

Now let's read that same verse again — but this time while thinking of the Hebrew word _lowt_ , meaning "covering, veil," as an ordinary, translatable noun, rather than as the proper name "Lot":

And it came to pass, in God's ruining the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent the covering [or veil: _lowt_ ] away, out of the midst [or middle: _tavek_ ; LXX _mesos_ ] of the catastrophe [or the overthrowing, or the overturning: _haphekah_ , derived from _haphak_ ; LXX _katastrophé_ , derived from _kata-strephō_ ], in overthrowing [or overturning, or turning over, or turning around: _haphak_ ; LXX _kata-strephō_ ] the cities in which the covering [or veil: _lowt_ ] had dwelt.

So, upon the "covering" or "veil" being removed, "Sodom" is destroyed; and according to Genesis 19:22, "Sodom" could not be destroyed (or "overthrown," or "overturned," or "turned over," or "turned around") _until_ that "covering" or "veil" had _already_ been removed. We thus seem to have here a _prefiguring_ of the "ruining" of traditional, esoteric religion — or, to put it another way, a prefiguring of "the Apocalypse."

You may recall that we found that same Hebrew noun _lowt_ , and the related Hebrew verb _luwt_ , being used in Isaiah 25:7, which says,

And with this mountain that is, "Mount Zion"] (the Lord) will swallow up [or consume, or destroy, or bring to an end: _bala_ ] the face of the covering [ _lowt_ ] [possibly with the connotation that "the face of the covering" is a kind of "burial shroud"] that covers [ _luwt_ ] all the peoples, and the veil that has been spread over all the nations. [Cf. [Isaiah 13:19, in which it is said that symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" would be subject to an "overthrow" (Hebrew _mahpekah_ , a noun derived from the verb _haphak_ ; LXX Greek _kata-strephō_ ) like that of "Sodom and Gomorrah."]

Furthermore, I suspect that when in Luke 17:28-32 the author has Jesus warn against "returning" (or "turning back," or "converting back": Greek _epi-strephō_ ) " _to the things behind_ " or " _to the things to the back_ " (Greek _eis ta_ _opisō_ ) after the "covering" or "veil" (i.e., "Lot") has been removed, he is referring to what would by then have become the _former_ "outer meanings" of the scriptures. With the Greek word _opisō_ in mind, recall Revelation 5:1-2 and its use of the related Greek word _opisthen_ , meaning "on the back, at the back, behind":

And I saw in the right hand of him who was sitting on the throne a scroll written on the inside [ _esōthen_ ] and on the back [ _opisthen_ ], sealed with seven seals. And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming with a loud voice, "Who is worthy to open the scroll and break its seals?"

Also recall Ezekiel 2:9-10 (LXX) and its use of the same Greek word _opisthen_ :

And I looked, and behold, a hand was stretched out to me, and behold, in it the roll of a book [or scroll: _sepher_ ; LXX _biblion_ ]. And (the Lord) spread it in front of me [or "before my face," or "in my sight": Hebrew _paneh_ ; LXX Greek _enōpion_ ], and it was written on the front [more literally in Hebrew, "on the face": _panim_ ; LXX _emprosthen_ ], and on the back [ _achor_ ; LXX _opisthen_ ]....

The interpretation I am proposing also seems to be supported by a comparison between Genesis 19:26 and Genesis 19:28. First recall that Genesis 19:26 says,

But (Lot's) wife looked behind [or "to the back": _achar_ ; the LXX has "looked (or gazed, or looked wistfully, or looked favorably: _epi-blepō_ ) to the things behind," or "looked to the things to the back": _eis ta_ _opisō_ ], and she became a pillar of salt.

And next recall that Genesis 19:28 says,

And (Abraham) looked down [or gazed: _shaqaph_ ; the LXX has "gazed" or "looked favorably": _epi-blepō_ ] upon the face [or front: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] of Sodom and Gomorrah, and upon the face [ _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] of all the earth of the plain....

So notice that _both_ Lot's wife and Abraham are said to have "looked" or "gazed" or (possibly) "looked favorably" (LXX _epi-blepō_ , derived from _blepō_ , meaning "to look") upon "Sodom"; but Lot's wife ends up getting turned into "a pillar of salt" as a result, while Abraham does not. And the only difference between them is that Lot's wife _looks at_ _the back_ _of "Sodom,"_ while Abraham _looks at_ _the front_ (or " _the face_ ": Hebrew _paneh_ or _panim_ ; Greek _prosōpon_ ) _of "Sodom."_ And again, I am arguing that symbolic "Sodom," just like symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon," was understood to signify _esoteric religion_.

Again recall Revelation 11:8, which says,

And the corpse (of the two witnesses) (will lie) upon the street of the Great City [i.e., "Babylon" or "Babel"], which is spiritually [or symbolically, or figuratively, or allegorically: _pneumatikōs_ ] called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was also crucified.

What does it mean to say that the "Lord" Jesus Christ was "crucified" in "Sodom"? I think the best explanation would be to assume that the figure of "Christ" was probably understood to represent (among other things) the idea of "Truth" or "Truthfulness" (which I believe also happens to be the most important and essential "inner meaning" of the Bible). Cf. [John 14:6,  Ephesians 4:21, and Revelation 14:1-5. Revelation 14:5 in particular says, "And in their mouth no lie was found; they are unblemished or spotless, or faultless, or blameless: _amōmos_ ]." This association between the idea of "not lying" and being "unblemished" (Greek _amōmos_ ) increases the likelihood that the ("glorified") "Christ," symbolized by the "Lamb," would have also been associated with "not lying" and "truthfulness," if one examines how the Greek word _amōmos_ is used in [1 Peter 1:19, Hebrews 9:14, and Colossians 1:22. (Also see  Revelation 21:27.)]

That would help to explain why passages such as John 8:44, John 8:58, Revelation 13:1-10 (especially verse 8), Revelation 17:8, Revelation 20:2-3, Ephesians 1:3-14, Ephesians 3:8-9, Romans 16:25-27, 1 Peter 1:17-23, Matthew 13:35, Luke 11:50, and John 17:24, when they are read together, stress that the existence of "Christ" _preceded_ "the foundation of the world"; in other words, these passages may be saying that "Truth" has existed _in potential_ for all eternity. On the other hand, these same passages may also contain an implicit message that "the Lie," as it manifests itself in the traditional, esoteric religions (whose "inner potential for good" may have been symbolized by the figure of "Abraham"; cf. Genesis 19:29), has held the dominant position _ever since_ "the foundation of the world" — that is, as long as human culture and religion have existed _in actuality_. One might suppose that the "evil aspect" of traditional, esoteric religion is symbolized by the "Beast" (Greek _thérion_ ), which has been given authority by the "Dragon" (see Revelation 13:2), which signifies "the Devil and Satan" (see Revelation 20:2-3) — that is to say, the "Father of the Lie" (see John 8:44). And, if that is correct, then ever since "the foundation of the world," the "Beast" — perhaps also understood by the authors of the New Testament to symbolize "the Lie" itself — has been responsible for a _continuous_ and _ongoing_ "slaughtering" (or "slaying": Greek _sphazō_ ) of the innocent "Lamb" — which, again, I am suggesting may have been understood to symbolize the idea of "Truth" or "Truthfulness." This would explain why Revelation 13:8 describes Jesus Christ as "the Lamb slain or slaughtered: _sphazō_ ] from the foundation of the world." (Also see [Romans 8:36.) (In addition, the direct contrast between the symbol of the "Beast" and the symbol of the "Lamb" in the mind of the author of the Book of Revelation is indicated by taking note of the parallels between Revelation 17:1-3 and Revelation 21:9-10.)

According to Revelation 11:8, this mythical and archetypal "slaughtering" or "slaying" or "crucifying" of "Truth" (symbolized by the innocent "Lamb") would be taking place in symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon," _and_ in symbolic "Sodom," _and_ in symbolic "Egypt," _and_ in the symbolic "present Jerusalem" — all of which, I believe, would have been understood to signify esoteric religion. And I find it highly significant that in the Bible, _all four_ of these symbolic "places" are associated with an "exodus" or "flight" or "sudden departure" of some kind. (See Revelation 18:1-8, Jeremiah 50:8, Jeremiah 50:28, Jeremiah 50:40, Jeremiah 51:45, Genesis 19:15-29, Exodus chapter 14, Matthew 24:15-20, Mark 13:14-15, and Luke 21:20-24.) In other words, in all four cases, the "movement" of "the people of God" is in the direction of " _going out_ " (Greek _ex-erchomai_ ) of the symbolic "places" where Revelation 11:8 says that the "Lord" Jesus was "crucified," rather than in the direction of "going into" or "entering into" (Greek _eis-erchomai_ ) those "places"; and I do not think it is a coincidence that "outward" is the _same_ metaphorical "direction" in which the "inner meaning" of esoteric religious discourse must travel if the breach between an "inner meaning" and an "outer meaning" in the Bible (and in religious discourse generally) is to be _overcome_ , so that religious esotericism can finally be brought to an end. I also believe that in all four cases, the "exodus" was meant to be understood as a "flight" of "the people of God" from the "concealing cover" or "hiding place" that _every_ esoteric religion is perfectly happy to provide for its members and their proclivities toward insincerity, deceptiveness, and self-deception.

To return to the use in the Bible of the Greek phrase _eis ta opisō_ , meaning "to the things behind," that same phrase can also be found in John 20:14, which, taking place after Jesus's Resurrection, says,

Having said these things (to the two angels in Jesus's empty tomb), (Mary Magdalene) was turned (back) [ _strephō_ ] to the things behind (her) [ _eis ta opisō_ ], and she saw Jesus standing (there); and she did not know that it was Jesus. [Perhaps because Jesus's "face" had been "covered up" or "veiled" or "cloaked" as a result of Mary Magdalene having been "turned (back) to the things behind (her)"? Compare how the Greek word _opisō_ — as well as the Greek word _himation_ , meaning "outer garment" or "cloak" — are used in Matthew 24:15-18, which I quote below in this section.]

It's interesting that there are "two angels" involved in this scene, just as it is said that "two angels" were sent by the Lord to destroy "Sodom." (See Genesis 19:1 and Genesis 19:13.) Is "Mary Magdalene" being compared here to "Lot's wife"? Did the author intend to compare the "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ" to the destruction (or "overthrowing," or "turning over," or "turning around") of "Sodom"? Revelation 11:8 gives us additional reason to think that that might just be the case.

An additional instance of the use of the Greek phrase _eis ta opisō_ can be found in Luke 9:61-62, which says,

And another (prospective follower) said, "I will follow you, Lord, but first allow me to bid farewell to those in my household [or house: _oikos_ ]." But Jesus said to him, "No one who has laid (his) hand upon (the) plow [ _arotron_ ] and is looking [ _blepō_ ] to the things behind (him) [ _eis ta opisō_ ] is fit for the kingdom of God."

What characterizes a "plow"? It is used to "split" or "cleave" the earth in two — which at least suggests the idea of a "separating" or "splitting" or "cleaving" of the "outer meanings" of the esoteric scriptures from their "inner meanings." (Cf. Judges 14:18.) So if someone who was "plowing the earth" was _also_ still "looking" (Greek _blepō_ ) "to the things behind," then that might have been understood to mean that he was still regarding the concealing and misleading "outer meanings" of the scriptures as somehow _valuable_ — _even after_ he had already accomplished a "separation" between the two types of meaning in his own mind. (I believe such an interpretation is also suggested by reading Luke 9:61-62 in the context of the immediately preceding two verses, Luke 9:59-60, which when read together with Luke 9:61-62 might reasonably be understood to imply that the persons in the "household" of the prospective follower in Luke 9:61-62 were metaphorical "dead persons" — a term which was perhaps meant to refer to persons who were still only able to grasp the "outer meanings" of the scriptures.)

[By the way, contrast Luke 9:61-62 with what happens in 1 Kings 19:19-21, which says,

And (Elijah) went from there and found Elisha the son of Shaphat a Hebrew name which literally means "a judge"; recall that the Greek verb _krinō_ can mean either "to judge" or "to separate, to distinguish"], and he was plowing [ _charash_ , which can also mean "to engrave"; LXX _arotriaō_ ] (with) twelve yoked pairs [or teams, or couples: _tsemed_ ; LXX _zeugos_ , related to _zygos_ , meaning "a yoke"] (of oxen) before him [more literally, "before his face" or "in his sight": _paneh_ ; LXX _enōpion_ ], and (Elisha) (was) with the twelfth [or the twelve]. [The LXX has, "and (Elisha) (was) among [ _en_ ] the twelve"; cf. [Matthew 11:28.] And Elijah passed over [or crossed over: _abar_ ] to him and tossed [ _shalak_ ; LXX _rhipteō_ ] his cloak [or outer garment, or mantle: _addereth_ ; LXX _mélōté_ , literally meaning "sheepskin"] over [or toward: _el_ ; LXX _epi_ ] (Elisha). And (Elisha) left [LXX _kata-leipō_ ] the oxen, and ran after [ _achar_ ; LXX _opisō_ ] Elijah, and said, "I pray that I might (first) kiss [ _nashaq_ ] my father and my mother (good-bye), and (then) I shall go after [or behind: _achar_ ; LXX _opisō_ ] you." And (Elijah) said to him, "Go turn back [or return: _shub_ ; LXX _ana-strephō_ ] for [or because of: _ki_ ; LXX _hoti_ ] what I have done [ _asah_ ; LXX _poieō_ ] (to) [or (for)] (you)." And (Elisha) turned back [ _shub_ ; LXX _ana-strephō_ ] from (following) after [ _me-achar_ ; LXX _ex-opisthen_ ] (him), and took a pair [or team, or couple: _tsemed_ ; LXX _zeugos_ , related to _zygos_ , meaning "a yoke"] of oxen and slew [or sacrificially slaughtered: _zabach_ ; LXX _thyō_ ] them, and with the oxen's yoke he boiled [or cooked: _bashal_ ; LXX _hepsō_ ] their flesh, and gave (it) to the people, and they ate. And then he arose and went after [ _achar_ ; LXX _opisō_ ] Elijah, and served him.

[Most popular translations of this passage translate the sentence, "And (Elijah) said to him, 'Go turn back for [or because of] what I have done (to) [or (for)] (you)," as something like, "And (Elijah) said to him, 'Go turn back, for what have I done to you?'" However, what this second, more popular translation has Elijah say strikes me as awkward and inappropriate in the situation being described — which leads me to doubt its accuracy and to prefer my own translation.

But assuming my own translation is correct, then what exactly did Elijah "do" _to_ Elisha, or _for_ Elisha? The only thing he "did" was to toss his "cloak" (or "mantle," or "outer garment": Hebrew _addereth_ ) over Elisha — which I think was probably meant to signify that Elisha had been made the "disciple" and eventual successor of Elijah in the role of "prophet." (See [1 Kings 19:16.) There is little doubt in my mind that the author of Luke 9:61-62 meant for readers to recognize that passage as an allusion to 1 Kings 19:19-21, and intended to _contrast_ Jesus's response with Elijah's response to the request made by each one's prospective disciple or follower that he first be allowed to "go back" or "turn back," even if only temporarily; and I believe this difference in response was likely meant to be understood as reflecting a difference in attitude with regard to how one ought to view the symbolic "cloak" or "mantle" or "outer garment" that Elijah would wear in his role as "prophet." If _Elijah_ tells his prospective disciple to " _turn back_ ," and _Jesus_ tells _his_ prospective disciple _not_ to " _turn back_ " — and Elijah's _only_ apparent reason for telling _his_ prospective disciple to "turn back" is that he had "tossed the (symbolic) outer garment" over him — then it seems reasonable to deduce that the figure of Jesus was meant to be understood as having chosen _not_ to "toss the (symbolic) outer garment" over anyone. So there is a possible suggestion that the figure of Elijah — at least at the particular point in the narrative which I am discussing — may have been regarded by the authors of the New Testament as being overly willing to prepare his "disciple" to become a "prophet," while the figure of Jesus would have been regarded as being more opposed to the idea of any of his "disciples" becoming "prophets" in their own right. (I will be discussing the figures of Elijah and Elisha, and the significance of Elijah's "cloak" [or "outer garment": Hebrew _addereth_ ], more extensively in Part 11.)

[One last thought about 1 Kings 19:19-21: Elisha asks that he be allowed to "turn back" so that he could "kiss his father and mother (good-bye)" — but notice that he is never described as _actually doing that_. _All that he is described as doing_ is "slaying a pair of oxen" that had been "yoked together," and then "boiling" or "cooking" their "flesh," and then distributing that "boiled flesh" or "cooked flesh" to "the people" to "eat." Was _this_ meant to be understood as Elisha "kissing his father and mother (good-bye)"? In connection with that possibility, consider that the Hebrew verb _nashaq_ , which as used in the Old Testament usually means "to kiss," appears to have more originally meant "to touch," and is closely related to the Hebrew verb _nasaq_ , which perhaps also originally meant "to touch" — thus giving rise to its more common meaning of "to kindle (a flame)," which in turn gave rise to the additional meaning of "to make a fire burn, to burn." (The Hebrew verbs _nashaq_ and _nasaq_ seem to be largely analogous to the Greek verb _haptō_ , which can mean both "to touch" and "to kindle [a flame], to set on fire.") So it is conceivable that the verb _nashaq_ as it is used in 1 Kings 19:19-21 was intended to be read ambiguously, so that it could mean either "to kiss" or "to cook," depending on how one chose to pronounce the word. (The Hebrew consonantal letters are the same in both words.)

[In apparent support of that very strange notion, recall Matthew 19:4-6, in which Jesus, speaking on the subject of "divorce," says,

Have you not read that the (One) who created from the beginning [or origin, or source: _arché_ ] made them male and female?... Because of this, a man will leave [ _kata-leipō_ ] his father and his mother, and will be joined with his wife, and the two will become (merged) into one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has united [more literally, "yoked together': _sy-zeugnymi_ , derived from _zygos_ , meaning 'a yoke'], let no man separate.

First notice how 1 Kings 19:19-21 speaks of Elisha "leaving" (LXX Greek _kata-leipō_ ) his "oxen," while Matthew 19:4-6 speaks of a man "leaving" (Greek _kata-leipō_ ) his "father and mother." Next notice how a "married couple" is spoken of in Matthew 19:4-6 as being "yoked together" — which is of course reminiscent of a pair of "oxen" being "yoked together." So were the pair of "oxen" that Elisha was using to "plow" meant to be understood as referring to the same "father and mother" of which Elisha speaks? And if that's correct, then what were the "father and mother" and the "yoked oxen" meant to symbolize in 1 Kings 19:19-21? — since it is obviously impossible to read that passage at all literally. The only possible explanation that occurs to me is that it may have been meant to be seen as a kind of _reversal_ of the symbolic motif of "Abraham sacrificially slaughtering his son Isaac" (see [Genesis 22:1-10), so that the "son" would be sacrificially slaughtering and cooking his "parents," instead of the "parent" or "parents" sacrificially slaughtering and cooking their "son." But since, as I argue in Part 11, I believe that the symbolic motif of "the sacrificial offering up of Isaac" (corresponding to the "Crucifixion of Christ") was meant to signify or be associated with the idea of the final _elimination_ of all "prophesying," the _reversal_ of that symbolic motif would then seem to signify or be associated with the idea of the _preservation_ and _retention_ of the practice of "prophesying."]

If the kind of symbolic significance that I am proposing in regard to the idea of "plowing" was indeed intended by the author of Luke 9:61-62, it would seem to be reminiscent of Genesis 11:1-2,4, describing the building of "Babel":

And all the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] was of a single language and of a single speech. And it came about in their moving from the east [or to the east] that they discovered a valley [more literally, "a split," or "a cleaving," or "a division," or "an opening," or "a breach": _biqah_ , derived from _baqa_ , meaning "to split, to break open"] in the land [or earth: _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] of Shinar; and they settled there.... And they said, "Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower (with its) top in the heavens...."

The reference by the author of Luke 9:61-62 to a metaphorical "plow" might be significant for another (but still related) reason. Recall that Genesis 19:24-25, describing the destruction of "Sodom and Gomorrah," says,

The Lord rained fire and brimstone upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens. And he overthrew [or overturned: _haphak_ ; LXX _kata-strephō_ ] those cities, and all the plain around, and all inhabitants of the cities, and whatever sprouted from the earth.

And also recall Genesis 19:29:

And it came to pass, in God's ruining the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent the covering [or veil: _lowt_ ] away, out of the midst [or middle: _tavek_ ; LXX _mesos_ ] of the catastrophe [or the overthrowing, or the overturning: _haphekah_ , derived from the verb _haphak_ ; LXX _katastrophé_ , derived from the verb _kata-strephō_ ], in overthrowing [or overturning: _haphak_ ; LXX _kata-strephō_ ] the cities in which the covering [or veil: _lowt_ ] had dwelt.

The reason why the use of the Greek word _kata-strephō_ is especially interesting is that the word can also mean "to turn over (the soil with a plow)." This, combined with the fact that Luke 9:61-62, just like Genesis 19:20-29 (LXX), also uses the Greek phrase _eis ta opisō_ , meaning "to the things behind," leads one to surmise that the metaphorical "plowing" that Jesus was calling on his "disciples" to do was understood to be equivalent to the " _destroying_ of Sodom" — by means of the systematic _separating_ of symbolic "Sodom" from its "covering" or "veil" (i.e., "Lot"). So again, the "catastrophe" (LXX _katastrophé_ ) that symbolic "Sodom" was (and is) facing would be its " _uncovering_ " or " _unveiling_ " — or, in Greek, its _apokalypsis_ — or "Apocalypse."

In addition, the fact that "Lot's wife" is said in Genesis 19:26 to have specifically become "a pillar _of salt_ " because of her having "looked LXX _epi-blepō_ , derived from _blepō_ ] to the things behind [LXX _eis ta opisō_ ]" might relate to this same theme of "plowing." The significance would be that all of this "freshly plowed earth" that had just been made available by "the Lord" as a result of his "turning over" or "plowing" (Greek _kata-strephō_ ) of "all the earth of the plain" would, _from the perspective_ of "Lot's wife," be "barren land" — reminiscent of the way in which a _literal_ "salting of the earth" would make _literal_ croplands "barren." And, as long as that metaphorical "cropland" continues to be "barren," it is impossible for any "Branch," or "Shoot," or "Sprout," or "Rising" (Hebrew _tsemach_ ; Greek _anatolé_ or _blastos_ ) — signifying "the Messiah **"** — to "grow up" (or "sprout," or "rise up": Hebrew _tsamach_ ; Greek _ana-tellō_ or _blastanō_ ) from that "earth." (See, e.g., [Jeremiah 23:5, Jeremiah 33:15, Zechariah 3:8, and Zechariah 6:12. Also see James 5:17-18.) And as long as that "growth" is prevented from occurring — as a result of people's continuing devotion to "the things behind" — the true "voice" and "message" of "the Messiah" _must remain silenced_. (Cf. Ezekiel 29:21 and Genesis 4:8-10.)

By the way, also consider the use of the Greek word _kata-strephō_ in [Mark 11:15, which speaks of the "overturning" of the tables of the money-changers in the Jerusalem temple — which may suggest that the author of that passage meant to associate the symbolic "present Jerusalem" with symbolic "Sodom" (in addition to symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon").]

One last instance of the use of the Greek word _opisō_ that I believe deserves close attention can be found in Matthew 24:15-18, in which Jesus, speaking of the "end times," says,

So when you see the abomination  _bdelygma_ ; cf. [Revelation 17:4] of desolation  _erémōsis_ , derived from the verb _erémoō_ ; cf. [Revelation 17:16, Revelation 18:17, and Revelation 18:19] that was spoken of through the prophet Daniel, standing in the holy place  _topos_ ] — let the one who reads [ _ana-ginōskō_ ] understand [ _noeō_ ] — then let those in Judea flee [ _pheugō_ ] into the mountains. The one upon the housetop [ _dōma_ ], let him not go down [or descend: _kata-bainō_ ] to take things out of his house. [Cf. [Matthew 10:27.] And the one in the field  _agros_ ], let him not turn [or return, or convert: _epi-strephō_ ] back [ _opisō_ ] to take away [or take up: _airō_ ] his outer garment [or cloak: _himation_ ]. [Incidentally, compare how the Greek word _airō_ , meaning "to take away, to take up," is used in [John 20:15 — a comparison which suggests an intended identification between the symbolic "outer garment" or "cloak," and Jesus's dead "corpse" — which would presumably be equivalent to the symbolic "outer body" or "outer man." John 20:15 seems to suggest that the reader was meant to be thinking of Jesus as having previously possessed two "bodies" prior to the "Crucifixion": one which is now no longer to be considered of any use or value, and so is best simply forgotten; and _another_ body which has now become his new "real" body — a "body" which had once been _only_ his symbolic " _inner_ body," but which has now _also become_ his symbolic " _outer_ body" as well.]

Matthew 24:15-18 (the passage I just quoted) should be compared with Luke 21:20-22, also speaking of the "end times," in which Jesus says,

And when you see JERUSALEM encircled  _kykloō_ ] by army encampments [compare this to [Jeremiah 50:14, Jeremiah 50:29, and Jeremiah 51:2, all speaking of "BABEL" or "BABYLON"; the Greek adverb _kyklōthen_ , meaning "in a circle all around," is used in the LXX versions of all of those verses], then know  _ginōskō_ ] that (JERUSALEM's) desolation [ _erémōsis_ ] has come near [ _eggizō_ or _engizō_ ]. [Cf. [Matthew 23:37-39.] Then let those in Judea flee  _pheugō_ ] into the mountains, and let those in the midst [or middle: _mesos_ ] of her depart [ _ek-chōreō_ ] (from her), and let those in the country fields [ _chōra_ ] not enter into [ _eis-erchomai_ ] her. [Cf. [Revelation 18:4, Jeremiah 50:8, Jeremiah 50:28, and Jeremiah 51:6.] For these are days of vengeance  _ekdikésis_ ; compare this to [Jeremiah 50:15, Jeremiah 50:28, Jeremiah 51:6, and Jeremiah 51:11, which all speak of "BABEL" or "BABYLON"; the same Greek word _ekdikésis_ is used in the LXX versions of all of those verses], of fulfilling [ _pléthō_ ] all the things that are written.

I realize that that's quite a bit to take in, but if one carefully compares Matthew 24:15-18 with Luke 21:20-22 (along with the other passages that I link to in those two block quotations), I think it can be reasonably concluded that "the abomination of desolation standing in the holy place" was meant by the authors of the New Testament to signify _the symbolic_ "present Jerusalem" _having become_ revealed _or_ exposed _before the eyes of the multitude as_ actually _being symbolic_ "Babel" _or_ "Babylon" — once the "Harlot of Babylon" has been " _stripped_ " of her concealing "garb." (See Revelation 17:16.) And this symbolic event would coincide with the ending of "prophecy," and of all religious esotericism — now that the "the one who reads (prophecy)" is finally able to "understand" (Greek _noeō_ ) what he has been "reading" (Greek _ana-ginōskō_ ) all along. Religious discourse would thenceforth be free of distinctions between symbolic "inner garments" and symbolic "outer garments" (or "cloaks") used to _conceal the existence_ of the symbolic "inner garments." There would never be any going back to "whispering in the dark"; from then on, there would only be "proclaiming from the housetops."

Incidentally, compare the use of the Greek words _ana-ginōskō_ and _noeō_ in Matthew 24:15-18 with the use of those same words in [Ephesians 3:4 — which may suggest that the "depiction in brief" or "condensed depiction" ( _pro-graphō_ _en oligō_ ) that Paul refers to in the previous verse, Ephesians 3:3, was actually some sort of cryptic allegorical writing resembling the canonical Gospels. To find additional support for this hypothesis, compare the use in Ephesians 3:3 and in Galatians 3:1 of the same Greek word _pro-graphō_ , which can mean "to write before, to write previously," but which can also mean — and, in both of those verses, I believe _ought to_ be read to mean — "to set forth publicly, to (publicly) portray, to (publicly) depict."]

Finally, a connection between the symbolic episode of the "destruction of Sodom" and the idea of an end being brought to the esoteric manner of religious discourse can be established in yet another way. First recall Genesis 19:24-25, which says,

The Lord rained fire [LXX _pyr_ ] and brimstone upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah, from the Lord out of the heavens. And he overthrew [or overturned: _haphak_ ; LXX _kata-strephō_ ] those cities, and all the plain around, and all inhabitants of the cities, and whatever sprouted [ _tsemach_ ; LXX _ana-tellō_ ] from the earth.

And also recall Genesis 19:29:

And it came to pass, in God's ruining the cities of the plain, that God remembered Abraham, and sent the covering [or veil: _lowt_ ] away, out of the midst [or middle: _tavek_ ; LXX _mesos_ ] of the catastrophe [or the overthrowing, or the overturning: _haphekah_ , derived from _haphak_ ; LXX _katastrophé_ , derived from _kata-strephō_ ], in overthrowing [or overturning, or turning over, or turning around: _haphak_ ; LXX _kata-strephō_ ] the cities in which the covering [or veil: _lowt_ ] had dwelt.

Now compare the use of the Hebrew word _haphak_ in those two passages with its use in Zephaniah 3:8-10,13, which, speaking of "the day of the Lord," says,

Therefore wait for me, declares the Lord, until the day of my rising up LXX _anastasis_ , which can also mean " _resurrection_ "; cf. [John 11:25 and Acts 2:31] to (seize) the prey the LXX has "for a testimony"]. For my determination [or judgment: _mishpat_ ; LXX _krima_ ] is to gather nations, to assemble kingdoms, to pour out [LXX _ek-cheō_ ; cf. [Luke 22:20 and Matthew 26:39] upon them my anger LXX _orgé_ ], all the burning fury [LXX _orgé_ ] of my wrath [LXX _thymos_ ; cf. [Revelation 16:19]; for in the fire [LXX _pyr_ ] of my zeal [LXX _zélos_ , which more literally means "heat"] all the earth will be consumed [LXX _kat-analiskō_ ].

By the way, in connection with this passage, consider [ John 2:15-21, which, by the author having Jesus compare his own "body" to the very "temple" in which the detested "trading" is taking place, seems to be implicitly comparing Jesus's "outer body" not only to the "outer tabernacle of the temple" (see Hebrews 9:1-9), but also to symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" (and all of the "trading" associated with it; see Revelation chapter 18), and also, by extension, to symbolic "Sodom" — all of which would be "overthrown" or "thrown down," as well as "burned up" or "consumed" by "fire." Even though the New Testament usually only makes explicit use of the symbolic imagery of "crucifixion" or "slaughtering" with regard to Jesus, it also implicitly, by its comparison of the figure of Jesus with the figure of Isaac, evokes the symbolic imagery of a "whole burnt offering" (in which the sacrificial victim is _first_ subject to a "piercing" or a "slaughtering"; see Genesis 22:10) that is entirely consumed in flames. (See Galatians 3:16 and Genesis 22:1-10; also see  Hebrews 13:11-12 and  1 Corinthians 13:3.) Moreover, something resembling this theme of "self-immolation" in the course of "bringing down a building" can also be found in  Judges 16:27-30 — which should then be compared with  Acts 2:36-41, focusing especially on the use of the same numerical figure of " _about three thousand_." Finally, consider that the Hebrew word meaning "burnt offering" or "whole burnt offering" is _olah_ (see how it is used in Genesis 22:2), which is derived from the Hebrew verb _alah_ , meaning "to ascend." So it would be reasonable to suppose that the "Ascension of Christ" described in Acts 1:9 may have actually been meant to be understood as Jesus being "consumed in (invisible) flames" in a kind of "sacrificial offering" that would enable his "pleasing aroma" or "sweet fragrance" to ascend into "the heavens." (Cf.  2 Corinthians 2:14-16.) This hypothesis receives additional support from John 20:17, in which the resurrected Jesus says to Mary Magdalene, "Do not touch me [or kindle me, or set me on fire: _haptō_ ] , for I have not yet ascended [ _ana-bainō_ ] to the Father."]

But let's continue on with looking at Zephaniah 3:8-10,13 and its use of the Hebrew word _haphak_ :

For at that time the time of the symbolic "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ," perhaps?] I will return [or turn, or turn over, or turn around: _haphak_ ] to the peoples a purified [or clarified, or brightened, or cleansed, or purged, or polished, or sincere: _barar_ ] language, that all of them may call upon the name of the Lord and serve him with a single accord. From beyond the rivers of Cush [or Ethiopia, or Sudan — which the same author had just denounced in [Zephaniah 2:12] my worshipers, the daughter of my scattered ones, shall bring my offering.... [T]hey shall do no injustice and speak no lies, nor shall there be found in their mouth a deceitful speech.

With that passage in mind, it is interesting to consider how that same Hebrew word _haphak_ is used in Genesis 3:24, which is describing the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden:

And (the Lord) cast out the Man; and at the east of the Garden of Eden he stationed the angels [or cherubs] and the flaming sword which turned [ _haphak_ ; LXX _strephō_ ] this way and that to guard the way [ _derek_ ; LXX _hodos_ ] to the tree of life.

Because of the way in which the Hebrew word _haphak_ is used in Zephaniah 3:8-10,13, Genesis 3:24 might reasonably be read to suggest a relation between mankind's mythical "expulsion" from the "Garden of Eden," and the subject matter of language and communication. (An additional reason why I offer that suggestion is that Genesis 3:24 is speaking of a "sword" — and there is a recurring pun in the Bible involving the Hebrew word _peh_ and the Greek word _stoma_ , both of which mean "mouth," but both of which can also mean "edge" — as with a "sword blade." Incidentally, that double meaning should be kept in mind when reading Bible passages such as Joshua 6:21 and Luke 21:24 that speak of "the edge of the sword" — a double meaning which tends to indicate that passages such as those were never meant to be read literally.)

More specifically, I propose that Genesis 3:24 might be read to suggest that _verbal and symbolic ambiguity_ and _double meanings_ would be the means by which the "path" or "way" to the "tree of life" would be "guarded" (cf. Matthew 3:3, Isaiah 40:3-5, and John 14:6). If one is willing to accept my own view that the deliberate (mythical) introduction of gratuitous ambiguity and double meanings into human communication is what gave rise to the "expulsion" of mankind from the "Garden of Eden" in the first place, that may at first seem to be ironic. But actually, I'm not sure that it's an example of "irony" so much as an example of mankind simply being "hoisted by its own petard" as a result of the widespread desire among people to appear "clever" (whether in the eyes of others or in their own). (Cf. Genesis 3:6.) If the introduction of gratuitous ambiguity and double meanings into human communication, and especially traditional religious discourse, is what led to the mythical "expulsion" from the "Garden of Eden," then if mankind is to regain access to the "tree of life," it will have to "retrace its steps," so to speak, and _directly confront_ and _wrestle with_ the gratuitous ambiguity and double meanings that _already_ exist within traditional religious discourse, before it will be possible to finally _move past_ all that nonsense.

## "Faces," "veils," "mirrors" — and "recognition"

The symbol of "the veil" can also be found in 2 Corinthians 3:7-8,12-18:

And if the ministry of death, engraved in letters upon stones [ _lithos_ ], came into being in glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look fixedly into the face [ _prosōpon_ ] of Moses because of the glory of his face [ _prosōpon_ ] — which (ministry) is passing away [or ceasing to exist, or being rendered inoperative, or being rendered inactive: _kat-argeō_ ] — how shall the ministry of the Spirit not be greater in glory?...

So having such a hope, we deal (with others) with great forthrightness of speech or boldness of speech, or openness of speech, or frankness of speech, or plainness of speech: _parrésia_ ], and not as Moses. He would put a veil [or covering: _kalymma_ , derived from _kalyptō_ , meaning "to cover, to veil," a word from which is also derived _apo-kalyptō_ , which means "to uncover, to unveil, to reveal, to disclose"] over his face [ _prosōpon_ ], so that the sons of Israel could not look fixedly toward the final conclusion [or the end: _telos_ ] of that passing away [ _kat-argeō_ ]. But their minds [or attitudes, or dispositions: _noéma_ ] were hardened, for (even) until the present day, the same veil remains (lying) upon the reading [ _ana-gnōsis_ , derived from _ana-ginōskō_ ] of the old [ _palaios_ ] covenant, not being uncovered [or unveiled, or revealed: _ana-kalyptō_ ] — which (veil) is passing away [ _kat-argeō_ ] in Christ — but up until today, whenever Moses is read [ _ana-ginōskō_ ], a veil lies upon their heart [ _kardia_ ]. But whenever (a person) shall have turned [or returned, or converted: _epi-strephō_ , derived from _strephō_ , which can have the same meanings] to (the) Lord, the veil is stripped away [ _peri-aireō_ ]. [Compare this to [John 20:16, which uses the word _strephō_ , and which associates Mary Magdalene's _literal_ "turning toward the Lord" with her suddenly being able to "recognize" Jesus's "face."] And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of (the) Lord (is), (there is) freedom. And we all, unveiled [or uncovered: _ana-kalyptō_ ] in face [ _prosōpon_ ], reflecting the glory of (the) Lord as a mirror [ _katoptrizō_ ], are transforming [ _meta-morphoō_ ] into the same image [ _eikōn_ ], from [ _apo_ ] glory unto glory, just as from [ _apo_ ] (the) Lord, (the) Spirit.

Notice certain themes in 2 Corinthians 3:7-8,12-18: The "Spirit" is regarded as the source of _unity_ among different persons (hence the reference to "the _same_ image" — which is also the "image" of "the Lord"); and this unity is made possible by the "stripping away" of "the veil" which is accomplished by "the Lord, the Spirit." The Christians' unity exists only to the extent that not only some of them, but _all of them_ , are "unveiled in face" — a figure of speech which I suggest means that members of the Church would not try to conceal their true meanings and intentions from each other when they communicated with each other; in other words, they would aim to be "genuine" or "authentic" persons. Also notice how the "veil" of Moses is contrasted with the "forthrightness of speech" or "frankness of speech" (Greek _parrésia_ ) that Paul claims _characterizes_ the "new approach" of the Christians — and so the symbol of the "veil" is thus again shown to pertain to matters of _communication between persons_.

That same idea is also indicated by Paul's speaking about the notion of a "veil" still lying upon the (non-Christian) Jews' "reading" of the "old covenant," which suggests that a "communicatory barrier" was believed to exist between the authors of the writings attributed to Moses, and the (non-Christian) Jewish readers of those writings, so that the _most important and truly intended_ meanings of the Mosaic writings were not being successfully apprehended and received by those readers. It is also implied that this "communicatory barrier" was due _partly_ to the "veil" that was deliberately spread over the writings by their authors (i.e., the "veil" that "Moses would put over his face"), and due _partly_ to the "veil" covering the "hearts" and "minds" of the persons reading those writings — and the passage explicitly states that both of those "veils" should be regarded as ultimately being "the _same_ veil." In other words, both the authors and the readers must have been thought to share responsibility for the existence of the "communicatory barrier," because the "minds" and "hearts" of _neither_ "side" involved in this process of transmitting thoughts and ideas were being "moved" by the workings of the "Spirit" — not in its fullness, anyway. The readers did not wholly desire to _understand_ the authors' intended meanings; and the authors did not wholly desire to have their intended meanings _be understood_ by their readers. Each "side" wished to maintain a certain mental or emotional "distance" from the other — each wished to maintain its own particular kind of " _hardness_ ," or "coolness," or "rigidity" — and when that is the case, genuine, meaningful communication cannot occur.

Again recall 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, in which Paul writes,

And if (there be) prophecies, they will be done away with; if (there be) tongues, they will come to an end; if (there be) (esoteric) knowledge, it will be done away with. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when we arrive at completion [or perfection: _teleios_ ], that which is in part will be done away with. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child; when I became a man, I did away with childish things. For we now look into a mirror [or looking-glass: _es-optron_ ] in enigmas [or riddles, or puzzles, or "dark sayings," or obscurity: _ainigma_ ]; but then, face to face [ _prosōpon_ _pros_ _prosōpon_ ]. Now I know [ _ginōskō_ ] in part [ _meros_ ]; but then I will recognize [or know fully, or fully understand: _epi-ginōskō_ ], just as I have also been recognized [or fully known, or fully understood: _epi-ginōskō_ ].

And again consider 2 Corinthians 3:18, in which Paul writes,

And we all, unveiled [or uncovered: _ana-kalyptō_ ] in face [ _prosōpon_ ], reflecting the glory of (the) Lord as a mirror [ _kat-optrizō_ ], are transforming [ _meta-morphoō_ ] into the same image [ _eikōn_ ], from [ _apo_ ] glory unto glory, just as from [ _apo_ ] (the) Lord, (the) Spirit.

I conclude from a comparison of these two passages that Paul was thinking of the "veiling" of the Christians' "faces" as being associated with the existence of the "enigmas" that necessarily accompany all "prophesying." By the way, consider the use in [Mark 14:65 and Luke 22:64 of the Greek word _peri-kalyptō_ , meaning "to cover all around." In Mark 14:65 it is said that Jesus's "face" (Greek _prosōpon_ ) in particular was "covered all around" — and significantly, in both verses, this act of " _covering_ " is associated with the idea of " _prophesying_." That same association can also be found in 1 Kings 19:9-13. The Greek Septuagint translation of 1 Kings 19:13 uses the word _epi-kalyptō_ , which means "to cover over, to cover up, to conceal, to obscure, to veil, to shroud."]

By moving away from "prophesying" and all of its "enigmas," it would become increasingly possible for the Christians' "faces" to become "unveiled," in the sense that they would be disclosing their true _selves_ to others, by disclosing their true _meanings_ to others. Paul implicitly looks forward to a gradual "transforming" (Greek _meta-morphoō_ ) of "obscured knowing" into "clear recognition." He seems to be saying that the less that Christians (and all human beings) _hid themselves from one another_ , the more clearly they would become able to see "the face of God" — and that increasingly clear vision of "the face of God" would then in turn _reflect back upon them_ , and give even greater strength to their resolve to avoid hiding themselves from one another (and from themselves). And so a kind of "virtuous cycle" would be set in motion as a result of the bi-directional "reflecting" that would be taking place.

However, it needs to be pointed out that Paul's thinking seems to be inconsistent here, since he is implicitly saying that the "enigmas" arising from "prophecy" create the "veils" covering persons' "faces"; but he is also saying that the Christians whom he is addressing were _already_ "unveiled in face" — which seems more like an aspiration than a fact, since these same Christians were still being encouraged to "prophesy." (See, e.g., [1 Corinthians 14:1.) _How_ exactly did he plan to _bridge the gap_ between aspiration and reality, if simply "stop prophesying" was never given serious consideration as an option? How does one "gradually" move away from "prophesying"? I don't think Paul and the other Christian apostles ever _did_ have any well thought-out plan — which would explain why Christianity ended up perpetuating religious esotericism instead of ending it.]

Consider Genesis 3:7-10, describing what happened just after the "Fall of Man" in the "Garden of Eden":

And the eyes of the two Adam and Eve] were fully opened [ _paqach_ ; LXX _di-anoigō_ ], and they knew [ _yada_ ; LXX _ginōskō_ ] that they were naked. And they stitched together leaves of a fig tree [why "leaves of a fig tree"?; cf. [Isaiah 34:4] , and made loincloths [or aprons] for themselves. And they heard [ _shama_ ; LXX _akouō_ ] the voice [or sound: _qol_ ; LXX _phōné_ ] of the Lord God going about the garden in the wind [or Spirit: _ruach_ ] of the day, and the man [ _ha-adam_ ] and his wife hid themselves [or withdrew, or concealed themselves: _chaba_ ; LXX _kryptō_ ] from the presence [more literally, "face": _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] of the Lord God among [or "in the middle of": _tavek_ ; LXX _mesos_ ] the trees of the garden. And the Lord God called to the man and said to him, "Where (are you)?" And (the man) said, "I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid [LXX _phobeō_ ], because I was naked, and I hid myself [or withdrew, or concealed myself: LXX _kryptō_ ]."

The last two sentences can also be translated, "And the Lord God calls to the man and says to him, 'Where (are you)?' And (the man) says, 'I hear your voice in the garden, and I am afraid, because I am naked, and I hide myself [or withdraw, or conceal myself: LXX _kryptō_ ] .'"] [Cf. [ Hebrews 4:13. Also consider Mark 14:49-52, bearing in mind that the events being described take place in the "Garden of Gethsemane."]

The symbols of "two faces," and "a mirror," and "a veil" appear to have been fairly important in Paul's thinking, given that they appear in two different epistles of his — and that is likely related to the fact that the authors of the Old Testament repeatedly lament that we are currently unable to see "the face of God" because God has "hidden" it from us. But Genesis 3:7-10 makes clear that Adam and Eve chose to begin "hiding" (Greek _kryptō_ ) _themselves_ from the "face" or "presence" (Hebrew _paneh_ ; Greek _prosōpon_ ) of God before God ever began to hide his "face" or "presence" _from them_. (Cf. Malachi 3:7.) Isaiah 59:2, for example, similarly tells us that it is our own moral "fault" and "sin" that has caused God to "hide" or "conceal" (Hebrew _sathar_ ) his "face" from us. And that decision by Adam and Eve to begin "hiding themselves" from God is really at the heart of the phenomenon of religious esotericism — which, I believe, is largely a product of _fear_ and _shame_ among those who practice it — and, more specifically, _fear of self-exposure_. Moreover, that _fear_ is intimately associated with _the Lie_ (cf. Genesis 18:15), since people lie out of fear of revealing their true selves to others; but they then feel additional fear that the lies that they have already told to others will be discovered by others (or else they are afraid of discovering lies that they have already told to themselves) — which leads to still more lying — which leads to still more fear.

[As a brief aside, it is interesting that there is a myth in the Zoroastrian religious tradition that roughly corresponds to the Bible's myth of the "Fall of Man" in the "Garden of Eden" — one which also involves a "primordial Man," named Yima; and in this myth, the association between the "Fall of Man" and humanity's embrace of the Lie is made even more explicit. In one of the liturgical writings contained in the _Avesta_ (the sacred scriptures of the Zoroastrian religion), it is recited,

(3) We worship mighty... Khvarenah..., (31) who for a long time accompanied shining Yima, possessed of good herds, so that he ruled over this earth of seven regions...; (33) in whose kingdom there was neither cold nor heat, neither old age nor death, nor demon-created sickness, before he lied, before he brought the lying untrue word into his mind. (34) Then when he brought the lying untrue word into his mind, Khvarenah was seen to depart from him in the shape of a bird.... Yima wandered sad, cast into dejection he hid upon the earth. (35)... Khvarenah went from shining Yima... in the shape of a hawk.

From the _Avesta_ , Yasht 19, in Mary Boyce, ed. and trans., _Textual Sources for the Study of Zoroastrianism_ (University of Chicago Press, 1984), p. 30; all ellipses are contained in Boyce's translation of the text; the emphases are mine. (By the way, compare the quoted passage to what Cain says in [Genesis 4:12-14 — which once again points to a possible association in the minds of the authors of the Bible between the idea of the introduction of "the Lie" into human affairs, and the idea of the introduction of "death" or "killing.")

[Zoroastrianism scholar Mary Boyce provides some background information on this material:

Khvarenah is the hypostasis of the "glory" or divine grace which accompanies kings and great men who are just, _ashavan_. It leaves Yima when he lies (according to one source by claiming to be himself divine), and passes into the protection first of Mithra, then of Varuna..., with their elements of fire and water.... A man accused of breaking an oath might have his truthfulness tested through an ordeal by water, if a covenant through one by fire. Cf. [Luke 3:16, 1 Peter 3:20-22, and 2 Peter 3:5-7.] The fire ordeal was to be of great symbolic and practical importance in Zoroastrianism.

[Ibid., pp. 29-30; the bracketed content, emboldening, underlining, and ellipses are mine.]

To return to Genesis 3:7-10, I believe that the "the Apocalypse" can legitimately be thought of as the accomplishing of _the reversal_ of what is mythically described in that passage, by means of overcoming _the fear_ , and _the shame_ , and _the desire to hide_ that is said to have come into being with the "Fall of Man." Consider Romans 8:15, in which Paul writes,

For you did not receive again a spirit of slavery [or bondage: _douleia_ ] (leading) unto fear [ _phobos_ ], but rather [ _alla_ ], you received a spirit of adoption as sons, in which we cry, "Abba! Father!"

Compare Romans 8:15 to what Paul writes just after that in Romans 8:19:

For the anxious longing of the creation eagerly awaits the revealing or uncovering, or unveiling: _apokalypsis_ ] of the sons of God. [Cf. [Malachi 3:16-18, noticing how an initial "fear of the Lord" gives way to a position of "sonship."]

Also consider [Hebrews 10:37-39, 1 Peter 3:3-6, 1 John 2:28, 1 John 3:18-21, and 1 John 4:17-18.]

As I discussed in Part 9, I believe the understanding of the authors of the Bible was that we would see "the face of God" — which, I believe, was probably understood to be equivalent to "the image of God" — when human beings were reconciled _to one another_ , and were at peace _with one another_ , so that "Adam" (i.e., "the Man," representing all of "mankind") could finally be at peace _with himself_. But that can only ever happen once human beings are finally able to reach agreement that they will no longer regard the _deceiving of one another_ as an acceptable means by which to _hide from one another_. (And that idea would be consistent with Paul's insistence in 2 Corinthians 3:12 on the need to deal with others with "great forthrightness of speech.") As I mentioned previously, I believe "the image (Greek _eikōn_ ) of God" was likely understood by the authors of the New Testament to correspond to "an ideal vision of human society," so that by bringing social reality into ever-closer approximation to that "ideal vision," our view of the "image of God" or "face of God" would become increasingly clear and distinct. (And as I also mentioned in Part 4, I believe this may have been the message that was meant to be conveyed by Genesis 33:10, in which Jacob, upon being reconciled to and reunited with his formerly estranged brother Esau, compares seeing Esau's face to "seeing the face of God" — which is especially interesting given what I believe to be the symbolic significance of the figures of "Jacob" and "Esau" — as I discuss more in Part 11 of this series.)

## The "Red Sea": The "veil of Jesus's flesh"?

To return once more to the theme of "the tearing of the veil," next consider Nehemiah 9:11, which says,

And you [the Lord] rent (the Red Sea) in two [or "tore (the Red Sea) apart": _baqa_ ; LXX _rhégnymi_ ] before (the Israelites), and they passed over [ _abar_ ; LXX _par-erchomai_ ] in the middle [LXX _mesos_ ] of the sea on dry (land), and you threw [or cast off, or cast away: LXX _rhiptō_ or _rhipteō_ ] the ones persecuting [or pursuing, or harassing: LXX _kata-_ _diōkō_ , an intensified version of _diōkō_ , which has essentially the same meaning] them into the deep, like a stone [LXX _lithos_ ] into churning waters.

With that passage in mind, consider Galatians 4:28-30, in which Paul writes,

And you, brothers, are children of promise corresponding to or "in accordance with," or "after": _kata_ ] Isaac. But just as at that time, the one having been born in accordance with [ _kata_ ] flesh [i.e., "Ishmael"] persecuted [or pursued: _diōkō_ , a word also used in the Septuagint translation of [Exodus 15:9] the one (born) in accordance with [ _kata_ ] Spirit [i.e., "Isaac"], so also it is now. But what does the scripture say? "Cast out [or throw out: _ek-ballō_ ] the slave woman [i.e., 'Hagar'] and her son, for the son of the slave woman will not inherit [or 'receive as his allotment': _kléronomeō_ ] with the son of the free woman [i.e., 'Sarah']."

I don't think it would be at all unreasonable to suppose that the apostle Paul was thinking of "the one born after the flesh" (i.e., "Ishmael") as being symbolically equivalent to the "Egyptians," and of "the one born after the Spirit" (i.e., "Isaac") as being symbolically equivalent to the "Israelites" who were being " _persecuted_ " or " _pursued_ " (Greek _diōkō_ or _kata-diōkō_ ) by them. (This supposition is supported by the fact that Genesis 25:12 tells us that "Hagar" was an "Egyptian," and also by the fact that Genesis 21:17-21 tells us that Hagar's son "Ishmael" married a woman from "the land of Egypt.")

If that is correct, then I believe the symbol of the "Red Sea" would have probably been understood by the authors of the New Testament to correspond to the symbolic " _veil of flesh_ " (in other words, the symbolic "fleshly body" or "outer body") which _separates_ the "realm of the flesh" (i.e., "Egypt") from the "realm of the Spirit" (i.e., "Israel"), and which _serves as a barrier_ between them. Cf. [Ephesians 2:14, Isaiah 31:3, Isaiah 19:19-25, Isaiah 27:12-13, and Micah 7:12. Also consider Isaiah 11:15-16, noticing in particular the use of the word "tongue" (Hebrew _lashon_ or _lashown_ ) in connection with the symbol of "the sea."]

In support of that hypothesis, recall Hebrews 10:19-20:

Therefore, brothers, having (the) forthrightness of speech [or "boldness of speech," or "frankness of speech," or "openness of speech," or "plainness of speech": _parrésia_ ] (that makes possible) the entering of the Holy Places [referring to the "inner tent" or "second tent," perhaps understood to correspond to the _spiritual_ "land of Israel"] in the blood of Jesus, which he inaugurated for us — a freshly slain and living WAY [or path: _hodos_ ] THROUGH the veil that is his flesh....

It sounds something like Moses's "parting of the Red Sea," doesn't it? And the likelihood that the authors of the New Testament intended that their readers identify the symbolic events of the "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ" with the symbolic events of the "Exodus" (including the "parting of the Red Sea" and the "crossing of the Red Sea") is increased by the the fact that the author of Revelation 11:8 tells us that Jesus was "crucified" in symbolic "Egypt." So it seems reasonable to suppose that the "Red Sea" would have been understood by the authors of the New Testament to be symbolically equivalent to Jesus's "outer body" (or "fleshly body"), as well as to the "veil" of the "temple"; and each of those three would have been seen as functioning as a kind of "barrier" that would need to be "split," or "parted," or "torn apart," or "torn open," before a person's "inner self" could be " _liberated_ " from its " _captivity_ " within that _same person's_ "outer self" or "fleshly self" (symbolized by "Egypt") — and, closely related to that idea, also before the "inner meanings" of the scriptures could be "liberated" from _their own_ "captivity" within the "outer meanings" of those same scriptures.

So, according to what I think was probably the understanding of the authors of the New Testament, only the true "Israelites" (cf. John 1:47), following in the footsteps of "Isaac," would be allowed to "inherit" (Greek _kléronomeō_ ) the _spiritual_ "Holy Land" or "Promised Land" of "Israel." (Compare 1 Corinthians 10:18, for example, in which Paul speaks specifically of "Israel _according to flesh_ " — which tends to imply that he understood there to be some _other_ kind of "Israel.") And these "true Israelites" would reach this "spiritual Israel" by following the "way" (or "road," or "path": Greek _hodos_ ) through the symbolic "Red Sea" that is made possible by the symbolic "tearing apart" or "splitting apart" or "rending asunder" (Greek _rhégnymi_ or _schizō_ ) of the symbolic "body of flesh" and the symbolic "veil of the temple." Remember: The _literal_ "Mount Zion" and "Jerusalem" (corresponding to the figures of "Sarah" and "Isaac") are located in the _literal_ "Holy Land" or "Promised Land"; but the _literal_ "Mount Sinai" (corresponding to the figures of "Hagar" and "Ishmael") is not. (Cf. Galatians 4:22-26.)

In additional support of this hypothesis, see [Hebrews 4:8, while bearing in mind that the figure of "Joshua" is described in the Old Testament as having led the conquest by the "Israelites" of the "Promised Land" of Canaan. Also consider that "Joshua" and "Jesus" are probably just two different English transliterations of the same Hebrew word/name — something along the lines of _yeshua_.]

Also, carefully examine the use in [Matthew 9:17 of the Greek words _rhégnymi_ (Strong's number 4486), meaning "to tear apart, to burst, to rend in two" — the same word used in Nehemiah 9:11 (LXX) — and _ek-cheō_ (Strong's number 1632), meaning "to pour out, to spill"; and then compare the use of that same Greek word _ek-cheō_ in Matthew 26:28, with the thought in mind that the "wine" in Matthew 9:17 was almost certainly meant to be understood as corresponding to Jesus's "blood" in Matthew 26:28 — which leads to the inference that the authors of the New Testament probably meant for their readers to think of Jesus's own "skin" (Greek _askos_ : Strong's number 779; cf. Psalm 78:13 (LXX)) as being "torn apart" or "burst" (Greek _rhégnymi_ ) so that his "blood" could be "poured out" (Greek _ek-cheō_ ). By the way, note that, as with Nehemiah 9:11 (LXX), the Greek word _rhégnymi_ (or _rhéssō_ , which is another version of the same word: Strong's number 4486) can be found in the Septuagint version of Exodus 14:16 also being used to describe the "tearing apart" of the "Red Sea."]

In addition, consider Paul's use in Galatians 4:28-30 (the passage I quoted toward the beginning of this section) of the word _kléronomeō_ , meaning "to inherit, to receive as one's allotment"; and then compare that to the use of the Greek words _kléronomeō_ (Strong's number 2816) and _kléros_ (Strong's number 2819), meaning "lot," in [Deuteronomy 4:21-22 (LXX), which is speaking about the "inheriting" or the "coming into possession" of the "Promised Land" by the "Israelites."]

Furthermore, consider 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, in which Paul writes,

For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. And all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they were drinking from the spiritual rock [ _petra_ ] following (them). And the rock was Christ.

The symbols of "the cloud" and "the sea" seem to correspond to the symbol of "the veil," since they both suggest the idea of a "barrier" or a "covering" of some kind. For example, consider the use of the Greek word _kalyptō_ (Strong's number 1428), meaning "to cover, to veil," in [Exodus 14:28 (LXX), in connection with the "water" of "the sea."] And, significantly, both of these symbols are here associated with the figure of "Moses" (cf. 2 Corinthians 3:12-13). So Paul may have meant to indicate here that by first " _passing through_ the sea" (i.e., the "veil of Jesus's flesh") — by being metaphorically "crucified" _with_ "Christ" (cf. Judges 16:25-30) — the "spiritual" aspect of "Christ," as opposed to his "fleshly" aspect (cf. Romans 9:5), would then _follow_ that.

To find additional support for the hypothesis I am offering, compare Mark 15:37-38, Matthew 27:50-51, and Luke 23:44-46 — all describing the moment of Jesus's death — with Exodus 14:19-22, which describes "the parting of the Red Sea" and the Israelites' "Exodus" out of Egypt. First recall Mark 15:37-38, which says,

And Jesus, having let out a loud shout cf. [Numbers 23:21 and Joshua chapter 6], expired [or let out his breath, or gave forth his Spirit: _ek-pneō_ ]. And the veil [or curtain: _kata-petasma_ ] of the temple was torn [or split, or divided: _schizō_ ] into two, from (the) top to (the) bottom.

Next recall the description of the Crucifixion given in Matthew 27:50-51:

And Jesus, having again shouted with a loud voice, let go of  _aphiémi_ ] (his) Spirit [ _pneuma_ ]. And behold, the veil [or curtain: _kata-petasma_ ] of the temple was torn [or split, or divided: _schizō_ ] from (the) top to (the) bottom into two, and the earth was shaken, and the rocks were split [ _schizō_ ]. [Cf. [Exodus 17:6 and 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, the block quotation located prior to the last one. Also see Psalm 78:15, Psalm 105:41, and  Isaiah 48:20-21, whose Septuagint versions, in speaking of the "splitting" or "cleaving" of the "rock," all use either the Greek word _schizō_ or the word _dia-rrhégnymi_ (or _dia-rréssō_ , another version of the same word), which is derived from the Greek words _dia_ and _rhégnymi_ , and which has much the same meaning as _rhégnymi_ (namely, "to tear apart, to rend asunder, to split in two"), only somewhat intensified. [And that same Greek word _diarréssō_ is also used in Psalm 78:13 (LXX) to describe how the Lord "tore apart" the "Red Sea"; its Hebrew equivalent is, as with Nehemiah 9:11, _baqa_.] By the way, it is interesting that Psalm 78:15 and Psalm 105:41 both speak of the symbolic image of the "splitting of the rock" in its original context of the Israelites' "Exodus" out of symbolic "Egypt" and their subsequent "wandering" in the Sinai desert; but Isaiah 48:20-21 evokes that same symbolic image in the context of calling for _another_ "exodus" — only this time, out of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" (or is it really just the _same_ "exodus"?).]

And also recall Luke 23:44-46, which says,

And it was now about (the) sixth hour, and darkness [ _skotos_ ] came to be over all the earth until (the) ninth hour, the sun having failed [or having been eclipsed: _ek-leipō_ ]. And the veil [or curtain: _kata-petasma_ ] of the temple was torn [or split, or divided: _schizō_ ] (down the) middle [or center: _mesos_ ]. Then Jesus, shouting with a loud voice, said, "Father, into your hands [ _cheir_ ] I commit [or entrust: _para-tithémi_ ] my Spirit [ _pneuma_ ]!" And having said this, he expired [or let out his breath, or gave forth his Spirit: _ek-pneō_ ].

Now compare the last three quoted passages with Exodus 14:19-22, noticing the number of parallels between them:

And the angel of God who went before or "to the face of": _paneh_ ] the camp of Israel moved, and he went from their back [or rear, or behind: _achar_ ; LXX _opisthen_ ]; and the pillar of the cloud moved from their front [or "face": _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ], and rose up from their back [ _achar_ ; LXX _opisō_ ]. And it came between the camp of Egypt and the camp of Israel. And it was the cloud [ _anah_ ; the LXX has "blackness" or "darkness" or "gloom": _gnophos_ ] and the darkness [or obscurity: _choshek_ ; LXX _skotos_ ]; but it gave light in the night. And neither (camp) came near the other [more literally, " _here_ did not come near _there_ ": _zeh_ and _zeh_ ] all night. [The LXX has, "And they did not mix together [ _sym-mignymi_ ] with each other all night."] And Moses stretched out his hand [ _yad_ ; LXX _cheir_ ] over the sea, and the Lord caused the sea to go (back) by a strong east wind [or Spirit: _ruach_ ] [also see [Exodus 15:6-12, which associates the "right hand" of God with his "wind" or "breath" or "Spirit": _ruach_ ; LXX _pneuma_ ] all night, and made the sea into dry ground, and the waters were divided or split: _baqa_ ; LXX _dia-_ _schizō_ , derived from _schizō_ , and having much the same meaning]. And the sons of Israel went in the middle [ _tavek_ ; LXX _mesos_ ] of the sea on dry ground; and the waters were to them a wall on their right, and on their left. [Cf. [Judges 16:25-30.]

Notice in particular how the Septuagint translators of Nehemiah 9:11 and Exodus 14:19-22 are effectively using the Greek words _rhégnymi_ and _dia-schizō_ interchangeably, both words understood to have a meaning corresponding to that of the Hebrew word _baqa_. Again, Nehemiah 9:11 says,

And you [the Lord] rent (the Red Sea) in two [or "tore (the Red Sea) apart": _baqa_ ; LXX _rhégnymi_ ] before (the Israelites)....

And again, Exodus 14:21 says,

(The Lord) made the sea into dry ground, and the waters were divided [or split: _baqa_ ; LXX _dia-schizō_ , derived from _schizō_ , and having much the same meaning].

That increases the likelihood that the "splitting" or "tearing" or "dividing" (Greek _schizō_ ) of the "veil of the temple" that is said in the Gospels to have occurred at the moment of Jesus's death was understood by the authors of the New Testament to correspond _both_ to the "tearing apart" or "rending asunder" (Greek _rhégnymi_ ) of Jesus's symbolic "fleshly body" (again, consider the cross-reference between Matthew 9:17 and Matthew 26:28 that I discussed above), _and_ to the "tearing apart" or "rending asunder" or "splitting" or "dividing" (Greek _rhégnymi_ or _dia-schizō_ ) of the symbolic "Red Sea."

## What exactly is being "done away with" (Greek _katargeō_ ) by Christ?

The Greek verb _kat-argeō_ can mean "to do away with, to put an end to, to render useless, to render inoperative, to render inactive, to render idle, to abolish, to bring to nothing, to (make) cease to exist, to pass away, to make void, to become void." It is an intensified version of the verb _argeō_ , which means "to be idle, to be inactive" and is also related to the corresponding adjective _argos_ , meaning "idle, inactive." The word _argos_ is in turn related to the Greek noun _ergon_ , meaning "a work," as _argos_ is a contraction of the word _aergos_ , meaning "not working." (Think of _aergos_ as _a-ergos_ , with the first Greek letter alpha serving as a negating prefix.)

With that in mind, let's take another look at Ephesians 2:13-19, carefully noting the way in which the Greek word _kat-argeō_ is being used:

But now in Christ, you who were once far away have become near in the blood of the Christ. For he himself is our peace [or concord, or harmony: _eiréné_ ], having made the both (into) one, and having torn apart [or dismantled, or broken down: _lyō_ ] the dividing wall [more literally, "middle wall," or "wall (in our) midst": _meso-toichon_ ] of the barrier, the hostility in his flesh [ _sarx_ — which I believe was understood to correspond to the symbol of the "outer body" or "outer garment"], having done away with [or "rendered useless": _kat-argeō_ ] the law of commandments in ordinances, so that he might transform the two in himself into one new man, making peace, and he might reconcile the both in one body to God, because of the Cross having killed the hostility within it [that is, the hostility within Jesus's "fleshly body"]. And, having come, he proclaimed the good news, peace to you who (were) far away, and peace to those near. For through him we both have access to the Father in one Spirit. So then you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but are fellow-citizens of the holy ones and of the household of God.

And also recall 2 Corinthians 3:7-8,12-18, once again noting how the Greek word _kat-argeō_ is being used:

And if the ministry of death, engraved in letters upon stones, came into being in glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look fixedly into the face of Moses because of the glory of his face — which (ministry) is passing away [or ceasing to exist, or being rendered inoperative, or being rendered inactive: _kat-argeō_ ] — how shall the ministry of the Spirit not be greater in glory?...

So having such a hope, we deal (with others) with great forthrightness of speech [ _parrésia_ ], and not as Moses. He would put a veil over his face, so that the sons of Israel could not look fixedly toward the final conclusion [or the end: _telos_ ] of that passing away [ _kat-argeō_ ]. But their minds were hardened, for (even) until the present day, the same veil remains (lying) upon the reading of the old covenant, not being uncovered — which (veil) is passing away [ _kat-argeō_ ] in Christ — but up until today, whenever Moses is read, a veil lies upon their heart. But whenever (a person) shall have turned to (the) Lord, the veil is stripped away. And the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of (the) Lord (is), (there is) freedom. And we all, unveiled in face, reflecting the glory of (the) Lord as a mirror, are transforming into the same image, from glory unto glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.

The use of the same Greek word _kat-argeō_ — again, meaning "to do away with, to pass away, to (make) cease to exist, to render inoperative, to render inactive, to make void" — in this passage as well as in Ephesians 2:13-19 (the passage quoted immediately above it), tends to suggest that "the law of commandments in ordinances" was _itself_ understood to be equivalent to the "veil" that is said to cover the "face" of "Moses" and also to lie upon (or around) the "hearts" of the "sons of Israel." That would in turn seem to imply that "the law of commandments in ordinances" was believed to function as a kind of "communicatory barrier" preventing "forthrightness of speech" (or "openness of speech," or "plainness of speech": Greek _parrésia_ ) — perhaps between individual human beings, or perhaps between God and humankind; or, more likely, both at once. It would also seem to imply that "the law of commandments in ordinances" was understood to be symbolically equivalent to Jesus's _pre-Crucifixion_ "flesh," which needed to be "torn apart" or "split apart," since it was simultaneously playing host to "two different men" — or "two different meanings" — instead of only one; and it would be impossible to bring those metaphorical "two men" found within "Jesus's flesh" into unity so long as two _different_ meanings were allowed to continue to exist within "the body" of "the scriptures" — in other words, what Paul is referring to here as "the law of commandments in ordinances."

[Incidentally, observe that by referring to the scriptures as "the law of commandments in ordinances," _Paul is_ _implicitly_ _expressing opposition to the_ _esotericism_ _of the scriptures_ (even though I doubt he ever consciously thought about the matter in those precise terms), since the "commandments in ordinances" — that is to say, _exoteric_ "ordinances" — are essentially just "outer meanings" contained in the Old Testament scriptures; and, _apart from_ "outer meanings" such as those, the scriptures would become "single" instead of "double." But I think that instead of choosing to _directly_ challenge religious esotericism, Paul in effect "flinched," and chose only to _indirectly_ attack it by making the "commandments in ordinances" _serve as a proxy_ in his mind for religious esotericism in general. He wrongly viewed the "commandments in ordinances" of the "Law of Moses" as being the true underlying problem, and as being the true underlying source of _division_ in the world — a problem _which he believed had been_ _solved_ _by "Christ"_ (since it seems he believed that knowledge of "the Lord Jesus" brought with it the unifying "Spirit" that was able to triumph over the divisive "letter"). But this ( _esoteric_ ) religious "Law of Moses" that consists of "commandments in ( _exoteric_ ) ordinances" is only _one specific manifestation_ of the true underlying problem — which is the entire phenomenon of religious esotericism. In my opinion, Paul — being a Jew — was _overly fixated_ on the problems that he perceived to exist within _his own_ Jewish religion, leading him to lose sight of the fact that those problems were by no means _restricted to_ the Jewish religion (and also leading him to believe that by a thorough _reformation_ of the Jewish religion — in accordance, that is, with his own view of the world and his own preferred way of interpreting the scriptures — the salvation of the entire world could be achieved). And that is the reason why Paul and the other Christian apostles ended up making the disastrous decision to allow religious esotericism to be perpetuated by the Christian religion, as I discuss more in Part 12.]

Next notice the way in which the same Greek word _kat-argeō_ is being used by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13:8-12:

And if (there be) prophecies, they will be done away with [or "rendered useless": _kat-argeō_ ]; if (there be) tongues [ _glōssa_ ], they will come to an end [ _pauō_ ]; if (there be) (esoteric) knowledge [ _gnōsis_ ], it will be done away with [ _kat-argeō_ ] . For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when we arrive at completion [or perfection: _teleios_ ], that which is in part will be done away with [ _kat-argeō_ ]. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child; when I became a man, I did away with [ _kat-argeō_ ] childish things. For we now look into a mirror in enigmas; but then, face to face. Now I know in part; but then I will know fully [or recognize: _epi-ginōskō_ ], just as I have also been fully known [or recognized: _epi-ginōskō_ ].

Same with 1 Corinthians 2:6:

But among the fully-grown [or mature, or perfect, or complete: _teleios_ ] we do communicate a wisdom, but not a wisdom of this age [ _aiōn_ ], nor of the rulers [ _archōn_ — human, non-human, or both?] of this age, which are being done away with [ _kat-argeō_ ].

Same with 1 Corinthians 15:26:

(The) last [ _eschatos_ ] enemy (that) is done away with [ _kat-argeō_ ] (is) death.

Same with 2 Thessalonians 2:8:

And then will be revealed [ _apo-kalyptō_ ] the Lawless One, which the Lord Jesus will slay [or abolish, or take away: _an-aireō_ ] with the breath [ _pneuma_ ] of this mouth [ _stoma_ ] [or, "with the Spirit [ _pneuma_ ] of his (sword) blade [ _stoma_ ]"] , and do away with [ _kat-argeō_ ] by the manifesting of his presence.

Notice, by the way, how [2 Thessalonians 2:9-12 then continues by emphasizing that the "coming to be present" of "the Lord Jesus" would be preceded by "falsehood," "deception," "delusion," and disbelief in "truth."]

Same with Hebrews 2:14:

So since the little children [or young children: _paidion_ ] have partaken of [ _koinōneō_ ] blood and flesh, (Jesus) likewise partook of [or participated in, or shared in: _metechō_ ] the same (things), so that through death, he might do away with [ _kat-argeō_ ] the one having the power of death, that is, the Devil.

Incidentally, this verse helps to show that the idea of a personal "incarnation" of Jesus Christ "in the flesh" as an individual human being was never meant to be taken literally. For one thing, the Greek words _koinōneō_ and _metechō_ were both part of the "jargon" of ancient Platonic philosophy, used to describe the ways in which it was thought that the Platonic Archetypes or Forms would "interact with" or relate to one another. For another thing, do only (literal) "little children" have bodies composed of (literal) "blood and flesh"? Do (literal) "adults" have more "ethereal" bodily forms than that? Of course they don't. (In fact, if one compares [Hebrews 2:13-14 with the passage from which Hebrews 2:13 is quoting, Isaiah 8:16-18, it seems clear that the "little children" Greek _paidion_ ] were meant to be understood as referring to the " _disciples_ " of the prophet Isaiah.) So I believe that the author of this verse likely meant to convey the idea — an idea with which I _strongly_ disagree — that "spiritually immature" persons or "spiritual novices" _benefit from_ having "Jesus Christ" be depicted _as if_ he _had been_ an actual, "flesh-and-blood" human being just like them. (And that interpretation tends to be supported by [Hebrews 5:11-14.)]

And finally, notice how the Greek word _kat-argeō_ is used in Romans 6:6:

We know this, that our old [ _palaios_ ] man was crucified with (Jesus), in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing [ _kat-argeō_ ], (with) us no longer being enslaved to sin.

So when we put all of these passages together, what do we find? We find that the authors of the New Testament would have likely associated the following ideas, in so far as they are all described as "passing away," or "being done away with," or "being brought to nothing," or "being rendered useless," or "being rendered inactive," or "being abolished," or "becoming void" (Greek _kat-argeō_ ): 1) "the _ministry of death_ ," which _prevented people from seeing_ "the glory of Moses's face"; 2) the " _veil_ " that "Moses" would put over his "face"; 3) the " _veil_ " that lies upon "the reading of the old covenant"; 4) the " _veil_ " that lies upon the "hearts" of the "sons of Israel"; 5) " _prophecies_ "; 6) " _(esoteric) knowledge_ "; 7) that which is only " _partial_ " and not "whole" or "complete"; 8) " _childish things_ "; 9) the "law of _commandments in ordinances_ "; 10) the " _old man_ "; 11) the " _body of sin_ "; 12) "the one having the power of death, that is, _the Devil_ "; 13) " _death_ " itself; 14) the " _rulers of this age_ "; 15) the archetypal " _Lawless One_ " (or "Man of Lawlessness," or " Man of Sin," or "Son of Destruction," or "Son of Loss," all of which were apparently thought of as equivalent to "the Antichrist"); and 16) the internal _division_ or _hostility_ within Jesus's collective "body" — that is, " _the two in himself_ " (which, incidentally, suggests the notion of a hostile _collective_ "antichrist" _still existing_ somewhere in the collective "body of Christ"; cf. 1 Corinthians 11:18-19).

And I would argue that what most of these items have in common is that they appear to have been understood to be somehow involved in " _covering_ " or " _covering up_ " something else — something _more valuable_ — that has been _hidden within or beneath_ the "cover." And that leads me to assume that the remaining items were likely understood in much the same way. So once again, it appears to be this "covering" or "covering up" that the authors of the New Testament believed needed to be "done away with," or "brought to an end," or "brought to nothing" — because it is the _elimination_ of this "covering" that would make it possible for humanity to enter into a "New Age" or "Messianic Age."

But when I use the word "covering," I am using it as a verb, and not as a noun. It is the very _practice_ of "covering" and "veiling" in religious discourse that must come to an end at the time of the great "uncovering" or "unveiling" or "revealing" (Greek _ana-kalyptō_ or _apo-kalyptō_ or _apokalypsis_ ) — sometimes known as "the Apocalypse" — that Christian religious tradition has told us would occur at "the end of the present age." (Cf. John 16:25.)

In the next installment in this series, I will conclude my interpretation of the Bible — by discussing what I believe to be some of the most compelling and overtly anti-esotericist Bible passages of all.

# Part 11 of 12: Jesus Christ: The "Final Prophet"

In this series of articles I have been advancing the claim that the mysterious "esoteric meaning" or "inner meaning" of the Bible is actually that the entire practice of separating "exoteric meanings" or "outer meanings" from "esoteric meanings" or "inner meanings" (or "hidden meanings") in religious writings — and in all other human communication, for that matter — ought to be ended entirely. And if you _still_ find it difficult to believe that the most important and essential "inner meaning" of the Jewish and Christian prophetical writings could possibly be that the practice of all religious esotericism — including that which appears in the form of "prophecy" — must eventually be eliminated, consider the fact that one can even find "prophesying" and "prophecy" _overtly_ denigrated in the Bible.

From the New Testament, recall one last time 1 Corinthians 13:8-12, in which we can find discontent with esoteric religious discourse (i.e., "prophesying") being overtly expressed by the apostle Paul:

And if (there be) prophecies, they will be done away with or "rendered useless": _kat-argeō_ ]; if (there be) tongues [ _glōssa_ (Strong's number 1100)], they will come to an end [or cease, or stop: _pauō_ (Strong's number 3973); cf. [Genesis 11:7-8 (LXX) and Jeremiah 51:63 (LXX)]; if (there be) (esoteric) knowledge [ _gnōsis_ ], it will be done away with [ _kat-argeō_ ]. For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when we arrive at completion [or perfection: _teleios_ ], that which is in part will be done away with [ _kat-argeō_ ]. When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I thought as a child, I reasoned as a child; when I became a man, I did away with [ _kat-argeō_ ] childish things. For we now look into a mirror [or looking-glass: _esoptron_ ] in enigmas [or riddles, or puzzles, or "dark sayings," or obscurity: _ainigma_ ]; but then, face to face. Now I know in part; but then I will know fully, just as I have also been fully known.

If "prophecies," and "tongues," and "(esoteric) knowledge," and "mysteries" (Greek _mystérion_ : see 1 Corinthians 13:2), and "enigmas" (or "riddles," or "puzzles," or "dark sayings," or "obscurity") were thought to be completely good things, then why would Paul be happily looking forward to a time when they would be "done away with" or "rendered useless"? Why would he view these things as "partial" or "incomplete" or "imperfect" or "transitional" or "provisional" in nature? If one is happily looking forward to the _ending_ of something, then there must be at least some _dissatisfaction_ with that thing.

So why _don't_ modern-day Christians view these same things as merely "partial" or "incomplete" or "imperfect" or "transitional" or "provisional" in nature? Why are they so perfectly _content_ and _satisfied_ with them — even as it's quite evident that the apostle Paul must _not_ have been? (And I say that even in spite of what Paul writes in 1 Corinthians chapter 14. I certainly make no claim that Paul was _completely opposed to_ "prophetical communication" — in fact, I regard his failure to be so as his greatest mistake. I claim only that he was _not completely satisfied with_ the existence of that form of communication.)

## The role (or roles) of the figures of "John the Baptist" and "Elijah"

The idea that the authors of the New Testament (and of the Old Testament as well) were expecting that all "prophesying" would come to an end with "the end of the present age" is also — though somewhat more implicitly — suggested by Matthew 11:7-15 when it is read in conjunction with Malachi 4:5-6. Malachi 4:5-6 says,

Behold, I the Lord] will send forth [LXX _apo-stellō_ ] to you Elijah the prophet before [!] the coming of the great and tremendous day of the Lord. And he will turn [or return: _shub_ ] the heart of fathers to their children, and the heart of children to their fathers, lest I smite the earth with a decree of utter destruction [or a curse: _cherem_ ]. [For the second sentence, the LXX instead has, "(He) will restore [LXX _apokatastései_ , a form of _apo-kathistémi_ ] the heart of a father toward his son, and the heart of a man toward his neighbor [LXX _plésion_ ], lest in coming I smite the earth utterly."] [Incidentally, I think this idea of "turning or restoring the hearts of fathers and children toward each other" may relate to what is being spoken of in [Zechariah 12:10 and Zechariah 13:1-4, both of which passages I quote and discuss below in this article. And those passages may in turn relate to Joshua 6:26 — a verse which, interestingly enough, just happens to be found in the context of the pronouncing of "a decree of utter destruction" (Hebrew _cherem_ ) upon the city of "Jericho" (see Joshua 6:17-18).]

In Matthew 11:7-15 Jesus, speaking to the "crowds" (or "multitudes": Greek _ochlos_ ) about John the Baptist, says,

What did you that is, the members of the "crowds": _ochlos_ ] go out [ _ex-erchomai_ ] into the wilderness [or desolate (region), or wasteland, or desert: _erémos_ ] to behold? A reed [or reed-pen, or pen: _kalamos_ ] being shaken [ _saleuō_ ] by wind [ _anemos_ ]? [Cf. [Matthew 24:29, Revelation 6:13-14, and Isaiah 34:4. With those passages in mind, the possible reference to a "pen" (Greek _kalamos_ ) in this specific context seems to increase the likelihood of the correctness of the hypothesis that I offered previously in Part 4, that the "leaves" of the symbolic "fig tree" may have been meant to be compared to "parchment scrolls" or "pages of a book" — which would in turn have been meant to signify a particular kind of _interpretation_ given to "the scriptures." (Also consider how the Greek word _anemos_ , meaning "wind," is used in Ephesians 4:14.)]

But what did you go out  _ex-erchomai_ ] to see? A man clothed [ _amphiennymi_ , derived from _hennymi_ , meaning "to clothe," and _amphoteroi_ , meaning "both, both of two, on both sides, around"] in soft (clothing)? Look (and see), those wearing soft (clothing) are in the houses of the kings. [Cf. [Matthew 12:25 and Revelation 18:9. Might "soft" have been meant to be understood in the sense of "flexible" or " _malleable_ " with respect to _meaning_? Might the "making desolate" or "being laid waste" (Greek _erémoō_ ) that was predicted to eventually befall symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" have been understood to signify the loss of one of its " _two sides_ " — that is to say, of its "ambiguity"?] But why did you go out [ _ex-erchomai_ ]? To see a prophet? Yes, I say to you, and superior to a prophet. For this is the one about whom it is written,

"Behold, before your face  _prosōpon_ ] I am sending forth [ _apo-stellō_ ] my messenger [or angel: _aggelos_ or _angelos_ ], who will prepare your way [or path: _hodos_ ] before [ _emprosthen_ ] you." [The scriptural reference is to [Malachi 3:1.] Cf. [Genesis 3:24.]

Truly, I say to you, among those born of women has arisen  _egeirō_ ] no one greater [or larger: _meizōn_ , the comparative form of _megas_ ] than John the Baptist. [Compare [John 3:3-8, especially verses 5 and 6, which might be read to imply that the figure of "John the Baptist" was meant to be understood as having been "born of water" and "born of flesh," but _not_ "born of the Spirit" — which would explain why he couldn't enter the "kingdom of the heavens" himself. (Cf. Acts 1:5.)] But the smaller one  _mikroteros_ , the comparative form of _mikros_ , which can mean "a little one, a small one"; cf. [Matthew 18:10 and Genesis 19:20] in the kingdom of the heavens is greater [or larger: _meizōn_ ] than he. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of the heavens is taken by force, and forceful (men) seize it. [Might those "forceful men" have been thought to be equivalent to the so-called "kings of the earth"?] FOR [ _gar_ ] all the Prophets and the Law PROPHESIED until (and including?) John. And if you are willing to accept (it), he is Elijah, the one who is going to come. The one who has ears, let him hear.

What does it mean to say that "John the Baptist" is not only "a prophet," but also " _superior to_ a prophet"? I offer the suggestion that the figure of "John the Baptist" may have been meant to be understood as the first "prophet" who would begin to turn openly " _anti-prophet_ ," so to speak. And that "turning openly anti-prophet" is, I believe, also the same "role" or "function" that the authors of the New Testament likely thought of the figure of "Elijah" as performing "at the end of the age" — which is why the two figures would be equated both here and elsewhere in the Gospels.

However, it is difficult to neatly separate the "role" or "function" of "John the Baptist" — or of "Elijah" — from that of "Jesus Christ," since in the Gospel narratives they often seem to merge together; and I think that that "merging" of roles was probably deliberate. (See, e.g., Mark 8:27-30, focusing especially on verse 30.) For example, Jesus and John the Baptist are both described as "baptizing" people (see John 3:22-23); and they are both referred to as "prophets" (see Luke 24:19 and Matthew 11:9); and they are also both described as being "killed." But I think the "killing" of John the Baptist was probably meant to be seen as the "first stage," so to speak, of Jesus's own "death," based on passages such as Matthew 14:1-2 (which hints that "John the Baptist" becomes metaphorically "reincarnated" as "Jesus" with John's death), and Matthew 14:12-13 (focusing in particular on the use in that passage of the Greek words _erémos_ , meaning "desolate," and _ochlos_ , meaning "crowd" or "multitude," and then comparing that to the use of the same words in Matthew 11:7-15, the block quotation above). Matthew 14:1-2 and Matthew 14:12-13 both seem to suggest that "Jesus" was meant to be seen as the " _successor_ " of "John the Baptist" after John's "death."

In fact, we _know_ that the authors of the New Testament _couldn't_ have identified the figure of "Elijah" _only_ with the figure of "John the Baptist," since even though Matthew 17:11-13 identifies "Elijah" with "John the Baptist," in Matthew 17:11 Jesus says to his disciples, "Elijah is indeed coming and will restore  _apokatastései_ , a form of _apo-kathistémi_ in the future tense] all things" — but we also know that by that point in the narrative the character of "John the Baptist" has _already been killed_ (see [Matthew 14:10). The apparent implication is that _either_ "John the Baptist" _or_ "Jesus" could serve in the role of "Elijah" — for the reason, I would suggest, that the figure of "Elijah" was thought of as the _archetypal_ "Prophet."

Since we know that Matthew 11:7-15 cannot be equating "John the Baptist" — that is, the "John the Baptist" considered in his _original_ position as the figure _known as_ "John the Baptist" — with the "Elijah who is _going to come_ ," it seems reasonable to suppose that the " _coming_ " of "Elijah" was understood to occur _with the succession_ of Jesus as John the Baptist's "replacement" (cf. John 1:15 and John 3:30), so that, in a sense, _Jesus would himself become_ "Elijah," _the archetypal "Prophet_ _._ _"_ To put it another way, I believe "John the Baptist" and "Jesus" may have been understood to represent _different stages_ in the very long "career journey" of the archetypal "Prophet." It is conceivable that the authors' view was that _only after_ "John the Baptist" had been metaphorically "reincarnated" as "Jesus" that "John the Baptist" would become, not just a prophet, but " _superior to_ a prophet." And this "succession" would occur in order to make possible the final _repudiation_ of "prophecy" by the archetypal "Prophet" — necessarily amounting to a kind of "suicide" or "self-annihilation" by that archetypal "Prophet" — an event which I believe would have been understood by the authors of the New Testament to be symbolized by the "Crucifixion of Christ." The "John the Baptist" depicted in the Gospels would signify the archetypal "Prophet" — that is, "Elijah" — _at the stage_ when the archetypal "Prophet" is still serving merely as a "witness" giving "testimony" about "the Lord" (cf. Matthew 14:10, Revelation 20:4, Romans 3:21, and John 1:6-8), before "the Lord Jesus" himself "assumes the role" of the archetypal "Prophet" — _for the purpose of bringing that "role" to an end forever_.

It should be noted that Matthew 3:4 specifically indicates that John the Baptist wears a "garment (made) from camel's hair  _trichōn_ , a form of _thrix_ ]" and a belt (or girdle) "of leather" (or "of skin": _dermatinos_ ) — which, as will become clearer after reading the rest of this article, was probably meant by the author to indicate that, since the "John the Baptist" being depicted at that point in the narrative is still wearing the characteristic "uniform" of a "prophet" (cf. [2 Kings 1:8), he is _still not prepared to fully repudiate prophecy and prophesying_. And I believe that, more than anything, it was that _unwillingness_ to fully repudiate _all_ prophecy and prophesying that would have been understood by the authors of the Gospels to distinguish the figure of "John the Baptist" from the figure of "Jesus."

[Incidentally, also consider Matthew 23:23-24, which says,

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you tithe mint and dill and cumin, and you let go of [or disregarded: _aphiémi_ ] the weightier (matters) of the law: justice and mercy and faithfulness [or trustworthiness, or honesty: _pistis_ ]. And it was obligatory to do these things, and not to let go of [or disregard: _aphiémi_ ] the others. Blind guides, straining out [ _di-ulizō_ ] the gnat [or mosquito: _kōnōps_ ] and swallowing [ _kata-pinō_ ] the camel!

It is conceivable that the "camel" spoken of in this passage may have been meant to allude to the "garment" made of "camel hair" that John the Baptist is described as having worn. (Otherwise, why bother to mention that John's garment was made of "camel hair" in particular, instead of just "hair"?) And that would tend to suggest that the symbol of the "camel" may have been associated with the "outer meanings" of the "prophetical communications" of prophets such as John the Baptist. Also, you may recall how I previously described the "outer meanings" of the Old Testament scriptures (or of any other esoteric communications) as "vehicles" used to convey "inner meanings"; and that same thought may have been in the mind of the author, since a "camel" is obviously a kind of "vehicle" used to convey or transmit things from one "place" to another. If that supposition is correct, then the "gnat" (or "mosquito": Greek _kōnōps_ , partly derived from the Greek word _kentron_ , which means "piercing tip" and is turn related to _ek-kenteō_ , meaning "to pierce, to prick") spoken of in the parable may have been meant to symbolize the true "inner meanings" of "the Law and the Prophets" — which, presumably, the "scribes and Pharisees" would have been staunchly refusing to allow to "pierce" or "prick" them or their consciences (cf. [Acts 2:36-37, 1 Corinthians 14:24-25, and especially Jeremiah 46:20) — even as they had no objection at all to "swallowing" the "outer meanings" of those same writings in their entirety. (And I think the word "swallowing" as it is used here may have been meant to convey the same figurative sense that it can also convey in English today — namely, that of "accepting without question or suspicion.") (Also, by the way, consider how in Plato's Socratic dialogues, Socrates would compare the function he performed to that of a stinging "gadfly," trying to rouse other persons from out of their lazy acquiescence in various conventional beliefs and assumptions.)

So I think this passage may have been meant by the author to convey the idea that the "scribes and Pharisees" weren't doing a very good job of "separating" or "straining out" the "inner meanings" of "the Law and the Prophets" from their "outer meanings" for the purpose of _discarding_ the "outer meanings" and _retaining_ and _hearkening to_ the "inner meanings." It is worth noting that the Mosaic law forbade the eating of camels (see, e.g., [Leviticus 11:4); so the passage may have been meant to imply that the "scribes and Pharisees" were so focused on avoiding any possibility of being "pierced" or "pricked" that they were failing to notice how, in the course of doing so, they were violating their own supposedly revered religious law in really quite blatant and egregious ways.

[In connection with the possible symbolic significance of a "camel," also consider Matthew 19:23-24, which says,

And Jesus said to his disciples, "Truly, I say to you that a rich (man) [ _plousios_ ] will enter into the kingdom of the heavens with difficulty. And again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than (for) a rich (man) [ _plousios_ ] to enter into the kingdom of God."

How does a "camel" pass through the "eye of a needle"? It must _become smaller_. Recall Matthew 11:7-15, the passage I quoted above, in which Jesus speaks of the "size" of John the Baptist as compared to the "size" of those in the "kingdom of the heavens." In addition, consider John 3:30, in which John the Baptist says, "It is necessary for (Jesus) to increase, but for me to decrease [or become smaller: _elattoō_ ]." Related to this, I should mention my belief that the Greek word _plousios_ used in this passage, which ordinarily means "rich (man)," was probably meant to be read in the sense of "someone _lacking in humility_ ," and not so much in the sense of someone merely possessing material wealth. (Cf. [ James 1:9-10.) I think the meaning of the Greek word _plousios_ as it is used here would have been understood to correspond to that of the related Greek word _plouteō_ , which ordinarily means "to be rich, to become rich, to grow rich," as it is used in, for example, Revelation 18:3, in describing the "fall of Babylon" and the acquisition of "riches" that symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" had made possible for all of her "traders" or "merchants." In other words, I believe the author's meaning may have been that it would be easier for someone like "John the Baptist" (representing a _certain kind_ of "prophet") to _develop into_ the sort of person who could enter the "kingdom of God" than it would be for someone like a symbolic "trader of Babylon" (perhaps representing a different kind of "prophet").]

Next consider Matthew 17:1-13, which describes the episode of the Transfiguration. In that passage, the disciples are depicted as seeing a vision in which Jesus is talking with Moses and Elijah. Then, after hearing a "voice" speaking from a "cloud," the disciples fall on their faces in terror. Matthew 17:7-8 next says,

And Jesus came to them and touched them, and said, "Rise [ _egeirō_ ], and do not be afraid." And, having lifted up their eyes, they saw no one except Jesus himself alone.

Matthew 17:1-13 strongly suggests the possibility that the figure of "Moses" was meant to represent "the Law," while the figure of "Elijah" was meant to represent "the Prophets" (since "the Law and the Prophets" are so often spoken of in the New Testament as a joined pair) — and also that both of those "roles" were meant to be understood as _finding their fulfillment_ by becoming somehow "incorporated" or "absorbed" into the figure of "Jesus Christ" — so that they could pass through _their own_ "Crucifixion and Resurrection" at the same time that he passed through his.

Why do I say that? Take a look at the next verse, Matthew 17:9, which says,

And as (the disciples) were coming down from the mountain, Jesus commanded them, saying, "Tell the vision to no one until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead."

That means that both "Elijah" and "Moses" would continue to be thought of as _independent_ figures, _separate from_ the figure of "Jesus Christ," _until Christ had_ _already_ _been "resurrected"_ — which means that the figures of "Elijah" and "Moses" would both be "along for the ride," so to speak, as the figure of Jesus was "crucified" and then "resurrected."

If the "vision" of which Jesus is speaking was in fact meant by the author to refer to the "incorporation" or "absorption" of certain aspects of "Moses" and "Elijah" (considered as "independent entities") _into_ "Jesus" — with certain other aspects being left behind — that would help to explain why in the next verse, Matthew 17:10, the disciples ask Jesus,

Then why do the scribes say that it is necessary that Elijah come first  _prōton_ ]? [Cf. [Revelation 22:13 and Revelation 21:1. Also compare Revelation 1:17 with Matthew 17:7-12.]

In other words, I think what the disciples are essentially asking Jesus is something like: "Since we know from the 'vision' that we all just saw that 'Elijah' is eventually going to 'pass away' or 'disappear' as a separate and distinct figure anyway, why is his role in bringing about the arrival of 'the day of the Lord' regarded as being such a 'necessary' one? _Aren't_ you _enough_ _?_ " (By the way, notice how the author is _especially_ interested in the figure of "Elijah," more so than the figure of "Moses.")

And in Matthew 17:11-12 Jesus responds to the disciples by saying,

Elijah is indeed coming, and he will restore  _apokatastései_ , a form of _apo-kathistémi_ ] all things [ _panta_ ]. [Notice that _apokatastései_ is the same Greek word used in the Septuagint translation of Malachi 4:6, quoted at the beginning of this section.] But I say to you that Elijah already came, and they did not RECOGNIZE [ _epi-ginōskō_ ; cf. [Genesis 27:23, which I also quote and discuss later in this article] him, but in him did [or made, or produced: _poieō_ ] whatever they wished. [In other words — perhaps — "they" _made_ (or forced) the cryptic and obscure language of prophecy to _"_ _say" whatever they wanted it to "say_ _"_ — even if the result was _the validating and justifying of their own moral faults_ — contrary to what the prophets were _actually_ trying to say through their prophetical writings. And that might in fact be more or less the same idea that the author of Matthew 11:7-15 had in mind when he wrote that "the kingdom of the heavens is taken by force, and forceful (men) seize it."] In the same way the Son of Man is also going to suffer from them.

And Matthew 17:13 next says,

Then the disciples understood that (Jesus) was speaking to them about John the Baptist.

There seems to be a riddle here. Jesus says that "Elijah" " _already_ came" (in the past tense); but he also says that "Elijah" " _is_ coming" (in the present tense); and he also says that "Elijah" " _will_ restore all things" (in the future tense). I think the most plausible way of making sense of this would be to once again suppose that the figure of "Elijah" was meant to be understood as representing _all_ "prophets" and "prophesying" and "prophecy," at _all_ of their various stages of development. Once one adopts that perspective, it becomes possible to see that there is one sense in which "prophecy" has already "come," inasmuch as it has already been written. But it is still capable of "acting" in different ways at different points in time depending on what is _done with it_ — that is, how it is _interpreted_ — at different points in time. An interpretation of "prophecy" that would be capable of "restoring all things" _now and in the future_ must therefore be some interpretation or "reading" of "prophecy" that people _have heretofore failed to "recognize_ _."_

Again, Matthew 17:13 says, "Then the disciples understood that (Jesus) was speaking to them about John the Baptist." But was Jesus "speaking to them about John the Baptist" when he was speaking of "Elijah," or when he was speaking of the "Son of Man" — or both? (Consider that in the Book of Ezekiel, the _prophet_ Ezekiel repeatedly refers to himself as " _son of man_.") Also, just because Jesus was speaking to them about John the Baptist doesn't necessarily mean that Jesus was speaking to them _only_ about John the Baptist — a possibility which is made more likely by what Jesus says in the previous verse, Matthew 17:12: "In the same way the Son of Man is also going to [ _mellō_ ] suffer from them." (Compare that with Matthew 11:14, quoted above, in which Jesus describes "Elijah" as "the one who is going to [ _mellō_ ] come.") In other words, I think the author likely meant for his readers to understand that "Jesus" is talking about _both_ "John the Baptist" and "Jesus" himself _at the same time_ , since both figures would be taking on the "role" of "Elijah" at one stage or another in the "development" or "evolution" of the figure of "Elijah" (which, again, would be the archetypal "Prophet," representing _all_ "prophets" and "prophesying").

That would also explain why in Matthew 17:9 Jesus says to his disciples, "Tell the vision to no one UNTIL the Son of Man has been raised from the dead." As I indicated above, this tells us that the "Resurrection of Christ" must have been associated in the minds of the authors of the New Testament with the "disappearance of Elijah" as a figure independent of and separate from the figure of "Jesus Christ" — and that tends to imply that the idea of _the "Resurrection of Christ_ _"_ must also have been associated with, and perhaps even understood to be equivalent to, the idea of _the final "disappearance of prophecy_ " — and its replacement by something _better_.

And, by the way, it seems to be implied by Matthew 17:1-13 that the symbolic "Resurrection of Christ" would also have been similarly associated with, or understood to be equivalent to, the "disappearance of Moses" — signifying the "disappearance of the Law (of Moses)." Compare [Hebrews 9:8-10 (bearing in mind that the Greek word for "a washing" is _baptism_ _os_ ) with Hebrews 6:1-2, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16, and 1 Corinthians 11:26-34 (especially verse 26). The implication seems to be that the "time of reformation" mentioned in Hebrews 9:10 has not yet fully arrived — not even for Christians — and so not _all_ of the regulations of "the Law" could yet be dispensed with. Notice that in Revelation 21:22 it is said that in the "new Jerusalem," there would be no "temples" to be seen; but that is describing a _future_ and _ideal_ state of affairs, and _not_ a state of affairs that had already come into being at the time of the writing of that passage.]

Notice what is implied by the foregoing. We know from Malachi 4:5 that "Elijah" would need to be "sent forth" (LXX _apo-stellō_ ) before the "day of the Lord" could arrive. We also know from Matthew 17:9-11 that "Elijah" wouldn't be able to "disappear" as a separate and individual figure until the "Resurrection" had already occurred (or, to use the language of Matthew 17:9, "until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead"). Has the "Resurrection of Christ" already occurred? Most Christians would say yes. But Acts 1:6-7, taking place _after_ what most Christians would regard as the true "Resurrection of Christ" — but which I believe was meant by the authors of the New Testament to be understood as merely _prefigurative_ of the _true_ "Resurrection of Christ" — says,

So after (the disciples) came together, they were questioning (Jesus), saying, "Lord, are you restoring [ _apo-kathistémi_ ] the kingdom to Israel in this time?" And he said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons which the Father established by his own authority."

The very fact that the disciples are asking Jesus this question clearly implies that "all things" must have _not_ been "restored" by that point in the narrative. Recall that in Matthew 17:11 Jesus says to his disciples, "Elijah is indeed coming and will restore  _apo-kathistémi_ ] all things." So even after the "Resurrection of Christ" that is described in the Gospels has already taken place, "all things" have _not_ yet been "restored" — which necessarily implies that at that point "Elijah" could not yet have "come," at least not in full — which in turn necessarily implies that "the Son of Man" could _not_ have yet been "raised from the dead." (Cf. [Mark 9:10.) And that demonstrates that the authors of the New Testament _must_ have understood the "Resurrection of Christ" to be an event occurring _in the future_ , with the depiction of that event that we find in the Gospels _serving as nothing more than a literary and symbolic prefiguration_ of it. In other words: _What most people think of as the "Resurrection of Christ"_ COULDN'T _have ever actually happened —_ _according to the premises set forth in the Bible itself_ _._ (Cf. 2 Timothy 2:17-18.)

Here's what I believe the "coming of Elijah" was understood to mean: I believe it was understood to mean that once "prophecy" had been successful at "restoring all things" — _by teaching people the necessity of_ _transcending_ _all esoteric "prophecy" and "prophesying"_ — then, with the occurrence of the _symbolic_ "Resurrection of Christ," "prophecy" could be allowed to "pass away." Everything that is good in the "essence" of the prophetical writings (symbolized, perhaps, by the "ascended Elijah") would be figuratively "incorporated" into "Jesus Christ," so that with Christ's "rising," the "inner spirit" of (worthy) prophetical communications would be preserved and "given a new life," while the prophetical _manner_ of communicating would be cast aside forever. And that would also be equivalent to the arrival of "the day of the Lord."

If I am correct in supposing that the figure of "Elijah" was meant to represent all of "the prophets" in general, then that might help to explain what is going on in, for example, Matthew 27:46-50:

And about the ninth hour Jesus shouted with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani," that is, "O my God, my God, why did you forsake me or leave me, or abandon me, or desert me: _eg-kata-leipō_ ]?" And some of those standing there who heard said, "This (man) is calling Elijah." And at once one of them ran and grabbed a sponge, and having made it full [ _pléthō_ ] of vinegar [or sour wine: _oxos_ ], and having placed it around a reed [ _kalamos_ , which can also mean "reed-pen" or "pen"], was giving it to him to drink. [Cf. [Amos 8:9-13, Isaiah 5:13, John 19:28, and Psalm 69:20-21.] But the rest said, "Let him be [or, 'Forsake him': _aphiémi_ ]; we shall see if Elijah comes to save him." But Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and let go of [or released: _aphiémi_ ] his Spirit.

In this passage, it seems that at least some of the people depicted as being at the scene of the Crucifixion were expecting that the archetypal "Prophet," "Elijah," would _surely_ come to "rescue" or "save" Jesus from his Crucifixion, presumably in order to allow Jesus to carry on with the "prophesying" that he had been doing prior to that. But if I am correct in believing that, by that point in the narrative, Jesus was meant to be understood as having himself "taken on the role" of "Elijah," then what they would really have been waiting to find out is if Jesus could "save himself" — the very same idea that we find expressed in Matthew 27:39-44, Mark 15:29-32, and Luke 23:35-39. The people in the crowd apparently do not realize that the figure of "Elijah" — which has now _also become_ the figure of "Jesus" — can only finally _fulfill_ his role as archetypal "Prophet" precisely by _not_ saving himself from his own symbolic "death" (as I discuss more later in this article) — no matter how much some part of him might _wish_ to do so.

But in addition to that, I think the author may have also meant to indicate that the archetypal "Prophet" was _no longer able_ to save "Jesus," since I think the _very occurrence_ of the symbolic "Crucifixion" was likely understood to _necessarily_ signify that the _meaningfulness_ of all "prophecy" had by that point already been almost completely "used up" or "spent" or "exhausted" — which would explain Jesus's "thirst," representing the "thirst for meaning" of humanity as a whole. (Cf. Luke 23:31 and Amos 8:9-13.) In other words, "prophecy" would by that point have become almost totally devoid of "the Spirit," making it necessary that "Jesus Christ" — again, now having come to represent all prophets and all prophecy — be "crucified" and "pierced" and " _torn open_ " so that "the Spirit" (which is often symbolized in the Bible by "water") could issue forth perpetually from the dead "fleshly body" of the sacrificed "Lamb." (Cf. Revelation 22:1, John 7:37-39, John 19:34, Zechariah 12:10, Zechariah 13:1, Revelation 21:6, and Revelation 22:17.)

## "Corpses," "birds," and "feeding upon flesh"

This idea of "the Spirit" issuing forth from Jesus's dead "body" leads me to think of a Greek word that I believe to be of especial interest in this context: _ptōma_ , which is often used to mean "dead body" or "carcass" or "corpse" — but which can also mean "sudden calamitous fall" or "downfall" (being related to the Greek word _piptō_ , meaning "to fall"). The way in which this word _ptōma_ is used in the Bible is elucidating, as I believe it helps us to gain a better understanding of how "prophecy" was viewed by the authors of the Bible. First consider the possibility that "Moses" and "Elijah" were meant to be understood as the "two witnesses" of Revelation 11:1-13.

In support of that hypothesis, first take a look at [Romans 3:21. Also, in Revelation 11:1-13, notice in particular the symbol of "three and a half days," the symbol of "forty-two months" (i.e., "three and a half years"), the idea of "having the power to stop the rain," and the symbolic number of "seven thousand"; and then compare that passage with James 5:17-18 and Romans 11:2-4. Finally, notice the similarity between what is described in Revelation 11:12 and the description of the "ascension of Elijah" found in 2 Kings chapter 2 (which I discuss later in this article); and, also in connection with Revelation 11:12, consider Jude 1:9, which at least raises the possibility that there may have been a traditional Jewish belief, with which (if the belief did in fact exist) the authors of the New Testament would have been familiar, that "Moses" also "ascended into the heavens" in a manner similar to that of "Elijah."]

Next, notice how Revelation 11:6-7 in particular indicates that the "finishing" or "completing" (Greek _teleō_ ) of these witnesses' "testimony" would coincide both with _the end_ of "the days of their prophecy" and with their "being killed" — all of which is highly reminiscent of the theme of the "Crucifixion of Christ" (cf. John 16:25 and John 19:30). In addition, recall that Revelation 11:8 says,

And the corpse  _ptōma_ , in the singular] (of the two witnesses) (will lie) upon the street of the Great City, which is spiritually [or symbolically, or figuratively, or allegorically: _pneumatikōs_ ] called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was also crucified. [Was that meant to imply that the "two witnesses" would be "killed" by _also_ being "crucified"? Notice that [Revelation 11:7 says that they would be "killed," but never tells us _how_ they would be "killed."]

This seems to be associating the "killing" of the "two witnesses" with the "Crucifixion of Christ." The use of the Greek word _ptōma_ , in the singular, might also be read to relate to the idea I was discussing above, that at "the end of the present age" the figures of "Moses" and "Elijah" would become somehow "attached to" the figure of "Jesus Christ," in which case the _single_ "corpse" of the "two witnesses" would _also be_ the "corpse" of "Jesus Christ." (However, I should note that I am not entirely certain about how much significance should be ascribed to the use of the word _ptōma_ in the singular number here, since in the next verse, Revelation 11:9, the word _ptōma_ is used once more in the singular, but then also once in the plural.)

The Greek word _ptōma_ is also used in Matthew 24:28, in which Jesus, speaking of the "end times," says,

Wherever the corpse [ _ptōma_ ] might be, there [ _ekei_ ] the vultures [or eagles: _aetos_ ] will be gathered together [ _syn-agō_ ] .

I think it is reasonable to suppose that Jesus is referring to _his own_ "corpse" here, especially since in Mark 15:45 the Greek word _ptōma_ is used in reference to Jesus's dead body. Matthew 24:28 should then be compared with Matthew 23:37-39, in which Jesus says,

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those sent forth  _apo-stellō_ ] to her [recall that _apo-stellō_ is the same Greek word used in Malachi 4:5-6 (LXX) in reference to "Elijah" and the coming of "the day of the Lord"]! How often I wished to gather together [ _epi-syn-agō_ , derived from _syn-agō_ and having a similar meaning; the word _epi-syn-agō_ is also used in [Luke 17:37, which is largely equivalent to Matthew 24:28, the passage quoted immediately above] your children in the way [ _tropos_ , derived from _trepō_ , meaning "to turn, to direct, to turn in a certain direction"] a hen [or female bird: _ornis_ ] gathers together [ _epi-syn-agō_ ] her chicks under (her) wings — and you wished it not! Behold, your house is left [ _aphiémi_ ] to you desolate [ _erémos_ ]. For I say to you, you shall by no means see me from now until you say, "Blessed (is) the one who comes in the name of the Lord." [Might "the one who _comes_ in the name of the Lord" have been understood to be "Elijah"?]

Notice that we are being presented with _two_ different possible _ways_ (Greek _tropos_ ) of "gathering together" a group of metaphorical "birds." The _first way_ , described immediately above in Matthew 23:37-39, would be by " _prophesying_ ," which was apparently deemed to be the more "gentle" and "coaxing" and "maternal" (as well as sometimes "chiding") way — but also the more " _subtle_ " and " _indirect_ " way — of "gathering together" the "children of Jerusalem." The problem, however, was presumably that precisely because of the prophets' subtlety and obscurity, the people (especially including the leaders) of the symbolic "present Jerusalem" were failing to understand what the prophets were actually trying to tell them, leaving them all in a state of spiritual "desolation."

So it seems that a "decision" of sorts must have been made that a _second way_ of "gathering together" the "children of Jerusalem" or "children of Israel" would need to be pursued (as indicated by Matthew 24:28): that of _killing off prophecy_ , and then _extracting_ the "inner meaning" or "spiritual meaning" of prophecy (as well as the "inner meaning" or "spiritual meaning" of _all_ human communication) from its dead "outer body" or "corpse," by "feeding upon" its "flesh" and "picking it clean" (cf. John 6:51-63) — and then "starting all over again," in a sense, by developing some new, _non-prophetical_ , _non-esoteric_ means by which all of "God's servants" might more effectively and truthfully communicate their most essential and deeply felt messages and meanings to other persons in the future.

In addition, consider [Revelation 19:17-21, focusing in particular on the use in verses 17 and 19 of the Greek word _syn-agō_ , meaning "to gather together, to assemble" — which, as in Matthew 24:28, occurs in the specific context of the symbol of "birds" and the idea of "feeding upon the flesh of corpses." (And notice, by the way, that according to verses 18 and 21, the symbolic "flesh" of _all persons_ would be "eaten" in this manner, after they had been "pierced" by the "sword" coming out of Jesus's "mouth." Cf. [Luke 2:35.])

Also see [John 11:49-53, noticing the use in verse 52 of that same Greek word _syn-agō_ , this time in the specific context of the idea of the "gathering together" of "scattered children." You may also wish to ponder the irony of the "death of prophesying" possibly being foreseen and announced _by means of_ "prophesying" — an idea which I believe can be found throughout the Bible as a whole, but appears in especially concentrated form in this particular passage.]

## The "piercing" of the "prophets"

At the beginning of this article I was discussing how in 1 Corinthians 13:8-12 one can find the apostle Paul expressing dissatisfaction with "prophesying." But even more compelling than that passage, in the Old Testament we can find religious esotericism (i.e., "prophesying") being _flatly condemned_ in Zechariah 13:1-4, which says,

In that day that is, "in the day of the Lord"] it will come to pass that a fountain [the LXX instead has "every place"] will be opened [ _pathach_ ; LXX _di-anoigō_ ] to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for (their) sin and for (their) impurity. And it will come to pass in that day, declares the Lord of powers [or forces, or battle, or order, or armies, or hosts: _tsaba_ ], that I will cut off the names of the idols from the earth, and they will be remembered no more. And also, moreover, the prophets [Hebrew _nabi_ ; LXX Greek _pseudo-prophétés_ , meaning "false prophets"] and the unclean spirit will pass away from the earth. And it will come to pass that if a man should still prophesy [ _naba_ ; LXX _prophéteuō_ ], his father and mother who engendered him will say to him, "You shall not live, for you speak lies in the name of the Lord"; and his father and mother who engendered him will pierce him [or pierce him through: _daqar_ ; the LXX instead has "bind him hand and foot," Greek _sym-podizō_ ] whenever he might prophesy [ _naba_ ; LXX _prophéteuō_ ]. And it will come to pass in that day that every one [ _ish_ ; LXX _hekastos_ ] of the prophets [ _nabi_ ; LXX _prophétés_ ] will be ashamed of his vision whenever he might prophesy [ _naba_ ; LXX _prophéteuō_ ], and they will not put on [the LXX instead has "they will put on": Greek _en-dyō_ ] an outer garment [or cloak: _addereth_ ; LXX _derris_ , meaning "a skin"] of hair [ _sear_ ; LXX _trichinos_ — by the way, does that word ring a bell?; see [Revelation 6:12] in order to deceive [Hebrew _ma'an_ and _kachash_ ] [the LXX instead has "in exchange for having deceived": Greek _anti_ and _pseudomai_ ].

It needs to be pointed out that the Greek Septuagint (LXX) version of this passage introduces some doubt about whether the author of this passage meant to denounce "prophets" in general, or only "false prophets." The average Christian would probably like to believe that this passage must _surely_ be denouncing only "false prophets," because it's generally taken for granted by Christians that there's _nothing at all_ wrong with "prophecy" _per se_ — just so long as it's "done right." But according to the Hebrew Masoretic version of the passage, the author at no point either states or implies that the "prophets" he has in mind are "false prophets" (to be distinguished from some separate class of "authentic prophets," or "truthful prophets"); any such assumption would be a gratuitous one.

And there are good reasons to think that the Hebrew Masoretic text is to be preferred to the Greek Septuagint text, in this particular instance anyway. One reason is that after the Septuagint's first and only use of the Greek word _pseudo-prophétés_ , meaning "false prophet," none of the remaining instances of the word "prophet" or "prophesy" distinguish between "false prophets" (or prophesying) and "truthful prophets" or "authentic prophets" (or prophesying) — which, combined with the fact that the Hebrew Masoretic text never mentions _any_ "false prophets" _at all_ , leads me to think that the notion that the "prophets" being discussed were meant to be thought of as "false prophets" (that is, except in so far as _every_ "prophet" is actually a "false prophet" in some sense) may have been introduced by the Septuagint translator as a supposedly "helpful clarification" that in fact departed from the intended meaning of the original Hebrew text. It certainly wouldn't be the only time that a translator of the Bible did such a thing.

Another, even more important reason to prefer the Hebrew Masoretic version is that I believe the Septuagint translator of this passage failed to correctly understand the intended significance of the "hairy outer garment" that is referred to in the passage, which I believe was meant to be understood as an allusion to the symbolic motif of "impersonating Esau"; in which case, "putting on the hairy outer garment" would be something that, "in the day of the Lord," the archetypal "Prophet" would need to _stop_ doing, and not _start_ doing (as the Greek Septuagint version seems to imply).

My reason for thinking that the author meant to evoke the motif of "impersonating Esau" in particular is based on the description of the birth of Esau in Genesis 25:25:

The first (child) came forth wholly red [or, possibly, "earthy": _admoni_ ], like an outer garment [or cloak: _addereth_ ; LXX _dora_ , meaning "a skin" or "a hide"] (made) of hair [ _sear_ ; LXX _dasys_ ]; and they called his name Esau.

Notice that the exact same Hebrew words that are used in Zechariah 13:1-4, _addereth_ and _sear_ , are also being used in this verse. So it seems reasonable to tentatively infer, based on a comparison of Genesis 25:25 with Zechariah 13:1-4, that _every_ prophet was thought to be operating beneath the guise of an outer "covering" — equivalent to an "outer meaning," or "literal meaning," or "fleshly meaning," or "carnal meaning," or "natural meaning" — which, I believe, was figuratively represented by "Esau." Moreover, it would have been _understood_ that this "outer meaning" would be intrinsically misleading and deceptive in the way in which it functioned — at least so long as there was also some _other_ "inner meaning" _hidden beneath or within_ the corresponding "outer meaning" (with that "outer meaning" being symbolized by the figurative image of a hairy "cloak" or "hide" — puns most definitely intended). In other words, the figure of speech of "putting on the hairy outer garment" that is used in Zechariah 13:4 seems to be referring to the idea of "impersonating Esau" by means of wearing a "mask" or "disguise" — that is, _pretending to intend_ one meaning (namely, the "outer meaning," or "literal meaning," or "carnal meaning") when addressing "the vulgar multitude," while _secretly intending_ that some other meaning (namely, the "inner meaning," or "figurative meaning," or "sacred meaning," or "spiritual meaning") be discovered by the elect few readers who will have demonstrated their "worthiness" by having done so.

Such an inference receives strong support from Genesis 27:1-38, in which an episode is narrated in which _Jacob impersonates his brother Esau_. Rebekah encourages her son Jacob to "steal" his blind father Isaac's "blessing" from Esau before Isaac dies, by pretending to be Esau; but in Genesis 27:11 Jacob, worried that the ruse won't succeed, warns her,

Behold, my brother Esau is a hairy [ _sa'iyr_ , an adjective related to the noun _sear_ ; LXX _dasys_ ] man, and I am a smooth man.

The association between the symbolic figure of "Esau" and the idea of "hair" or "hairiness" is also indicated by Numbers 24:17-18, in which Balaam delivers an oracle in which he says, "A star will proceed out of Jacob, and a scepter will arise out of Israel, and shatter the border of Moab, and break down all the sons of Seth. And Edom will become a possession [or inheritance: _yereshah_ ], and (Mount) Seir will become a possession [ _yereshah_ ] of its enemies, while Israel is triumphant." Notice how the land of "Edom" (symbolically equivalent to the figure of "Esau"; see [Genesis 25:30) is being coupled with "Mount Seir." The word "Seir" (Hebrew _se'iyr_ , meaning "hairy" or "shaggy" or "rough" or "rugged (terrain)") is related to the Hebrew noun _sear_ , meaning "hair" — which again demonstrates that the connection between the figure of "Esau" and the figurative symbol of the "hairy cloak" must have been deeply embedded in the thinking of the authors of the Old Testament.

In addition, consider [Ezekiel chapter 35, in which the Lord tells the prophet Ezekiel that he must "prophesy" against "Mount Seir" — which in that passage is apparently serving as a symbol or "totem" for the entire land of "Edom." Just like in Numbers 24:18, Ezekiel 35:15 associates "Mount Seir" with "all of Edom": "As you rejoiced over the inheritance of the house of Israel that had been desolated, so will I act toward you. You will be a desolation, Mount Seir, and all Edom, all of it; and they will know that I am the Lord." So we again see evidence of a strong and enduring mental association between the symbol of the "hairy outer garment" or "hairy cloak," and the symbolic figure of "Esau."]

So, in response to Jacob's concern about the possibility of getting "found out," in Genesis 27:16 Rebekah puts animal "skins" (Hebrew _owr_ ; LXX _derma_ ) belonging to Esau on Jacob's hands and neck to make him feel more "hairy" when his blind father touched him.

Incidentally, compare Genesis 27:16 to [Genesis 3:21, in which Adam and Eve are described as being clothed by the Lord in garments "of skin" (or "of leather," or "of hide": Hebrew _owr_ ; LXX _dermatinos_ ) just before they are expelled from the "Garden of Eden." (However, it should be noted that the Septuagint translation of this verse uses the Greek word _chitōn_ , meaning "tunic, inner garment," to describe these particular "garments.") This may suggest that the myth of the "Fall of Man" in the "Garden of Eden" was understood to relate in some way to the idea of the introduction of a split between "the inner" and "the outer" in human psychology, social affairs, and communications — a mythical event which would include the origination of religious esotericism and "prophetical communication." According to the myth, it seems that human beings were now wanting to "hide themselves" or "conceal themselves" from God, from each other, and from themselves. As I have indicated previously, I believe that many of the episodes narrated in the Bible were actually intended to express that same basic idea; only they do so in different ways. So, in other words, I think the same basic "split between the inner and the outer" that was likely thought to have been introduced by the "Fall of Man" would have likely _also_ been thought to have been introduced by the "confusing of language" and the resulting "scattering" that is said to have taken place at symbolic "Babel" — and the same could also be said of a number of other episodes narrated in the Bible.]

There is another important reason why I believe it would be a mistake to assume that Zechariah 13:1-4 is speaking only of "false prophets," rather than of "prophets" as a whole. We have been supposing that the figure of "Elijah" was understood, _at least_ by the authors of the New Testament and also by the Old Testament prophet Malachi — if not _all_ of the Old Testament prophets — to be the archetypal "Prophet." And Elijah is _never_ depicted in the Old Testament as being a so-called "false prophet," not even for a moment — but he _is_ nevertheless depicted in the Old Testament as "wearing a hairy outer garment." For example, 1 Kings 19:13 says,

And when Elijah heard (the little whispering voice), he covered or wrapped, or veiled: _luwt_ , related to the Hebrew noun _lowt_ , or "Lot" — remember him?; LXX _epi-_ _kalyptō_ ] his face [ _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] in his outer garment [or cloak, or mantle, or outer robe: _addereth_ ; LXX _mélōté_ , literally meaning "sheepskin" (cf. [Matthew 7:15 and Matthew 10:16)] and went out [LXX _ex-erchomai_ ] and stood at the entrance [or opening: _pethach_ , derived from the verb _pathach_ , which can mean "to open up (a riddle), to expound"] of the cave. And behold, a voice (came) to him and said, "Why are you here, Elijah?"

And 2 Kings 1:7-8 says,

And (Azahiah, the king of Israel) said to (the messengers), "What kind of man (was it) that came up to meet you and told you these words"? And they said to him, "A lordly man (wearing a garment) of hair  _sear_ ; LXX _dasys_ ] and a girdle [or belt, or waistcloth: _ezor_ ; LXX _zōné_ ] of leather [or skin, or hide: _owr_ ; LXX _dermatinos_ ] girt [or bound: _azar_ ; LXX _peri-zōnnymi_ ] about his loins [or waist: _mothen_ ; LXX _osphys_ ]." And he said, "It is Elijah the Tishbite." [Cf. [Matthew 3:4.]

And 2 Kings 2:8 says,

And Elijah took his outer garment [or cloak, or mantle, or outer robe: _addereth_ ; LXX _mélōté_ ] and rolled it up [or wrapped it up: _galam_ ; LXX _eilyō_ ] and struck the waters, and they were divided [ _chatsah_ ; LXX _di-aireō_ ] (into) here and there [or "here and here": _hennah wa-hennah_ ; LXX _entha kai entha_ ], and the two [Elijah and Elisha] passed over [or crossed over: _abar_ ; LXX _dia-bainō_ ] on dry ground.

So we again find those same two Hebrew words that we already encountered both in Zechariah 13:1-4 and in Genesis 25:25 — _addereth_ and _sear_ — but this time, in connection with "Elijah," the archetypal "Prophet" that Malachi 4:5, Matthew 17:11, and Mark 9:12 say would have to "come" before the "day of the Lord" could arrive. But recall that Zechariah 13:1-4 associates the putting on of this "hairy outer garment" that "Elijah" is described as wearing with _the intent to deceive_. Even if some individual "prophets" were trying to communicate "more truth" by means of their "prophesying" than other individual "prophets" were, the _whole system_ generally lent itself to the deceiving of others — so that whatever truth _was_ being conveyed by the use of this manner of communicating would, on the whole, tend to "get lost in the mix." Therefore if one seriously intended to create the kind of world in which the deception of others no longer occurred, it would be necessary to make sure that _no one_ was any longer allowed to "put on the hairy outer garment" — regardless of whether the individual person was _relatively_ truthful, or _relatively_ untruthful.

To return to the story of "Jacob impersonating Esau," Genesis 27:22-23 says,

So Jacob went near to Isaac his father, who felt him and said, "The voice is the voice of Jacob, but the hands are the hands of Esau." Cf. [Exodus 34:1, bearing in mind that the name "Esau" is likely derived from the Hebrew verb _asah_ , which can mean "to work, to make, to produce by labor, to manufacture, to fabricate"; and then compare that to the use in Exodus 32:15-16 of the related Hebrew noun _ma'aseh_ , which means "a work, a product." Also compare the use of the word "hands" in Psalm 102:25, Hebrews 1:10, and Hebrews 2:7 with its use in Mark 14:58, 2 Corinthians 5:1, Hebrews 9:11, and Hebrews 9:24 — a comparison which suggests the idea of _two different kinds_ of "works" — which may have been understood to correspond to the two different kinds of "works" described in Exodus 32:15-16 and in Exodus 34:1, respectively.] And he did not RECOGNIZE LXX _epi-ginōskō_ (Strong's number 1921); cf. [1 Corinthians 13:12, Matthew 17:12, Luke 24:15-16, and Luke 24:31] him, because his hands were hairy [ _sa'iyr_ ] like his brother Esau's hands.

Consider, by the way, that given the probable derivation of Esau's name, and its association with the idea of " _work_ ," the "passing away" of "Esau" considered as a figurative entity still _separated from_ and _at enmity with_ "Jacob" — which "passing away" would enable the figurative entity of "Jacob" to finally "come into his own," so to speak (cf. [Romans 9:13 and Isaiah 48:20) — may have been understood by the authors of the New Testament to be related to the "passing away" (or "doing away," or "bringing to nothing," or "being rendered useless," or "being rendered idle," or "being rendered inactive": _kat-argeō_ ) of the various things specified in the New Testament passages that I quoted in Part 10, in the last section dealing with the use of the Greek word _kat-argeō_. Recall that the Greek verb _kat-argeō_ is related to the Greek noun _ergon_ (meaning " _a work_ "), by its _negation_ of the idea of "work" ( _ergon_ to _a-ergos_ to _argos_ to _argeō_ to _kat-argeō_ ).]

But after Isaac has already given his sole "blessing" to Jacob, Jacob's trickery is discovered by Isaac and Esau. Genesis 27:35-36 says,

And (Isaac) said (to Esau), "Your brother  **Jacob** ] came with guile [or deceitfully, or treacherously: _mirmah_ , an adverb derived from the verb _ramah_ , meaning 'to beguile, to deal treacherously with, to deceive, to trick' (compare this with [Jeremiah 31:15-17 and Matthew 2:16-21, noticing the use in both of those passages of the word 'Ramah,' while bearing in mind that 'Rachel' would become the wife of 'Jacob' — later to become 'Israel' — which would make all of 'Rachel's children' the 'Israelites'); LXX _dolos_ ] and took your blessing." And (Esau) said, "Well, he is called by the name of Jacob [Hebrew _ya'aqob_ , a name derived from the Hebrew verb _aqab_ ], isn't he? For he has tricked me [or cheated me; more literally, "tripped me up" or "grabbed me by the heel": _aqab_ — reminiscent of "stumbling blocks" or "snares," perhaps?] these two times. He took my birthright, and behold, now he has taken my blessing.

Bearing in mind that Jacob is later given the new name "Israel" by an angel of God (see [Genesis 32:28), compare Genesis 27:35-36 with John 1:47, in which Jesus says of Nathanael as he approaches him, "Behold, an Israelite in truth  _aléthōs_ ] , in whom there is no guile [or deceit, or treachery, or trickery: _dolos_ ] !" You may recall from Part 9 how I explained that the author of the passage in which John 1:47 is found, [ John 1:45-51, probably meant to convey the idea that Nathanael perceives Jesus to be the "Son of God" and "King of Israel" because Jesus is able to see the _existing_ "heavens" and their "forces" or "powers" or "stars" as _already_ having "dissolved" or "been rolled up" or "fallen," since, in Jesus's eyes, the metaphorical "leaves" of the metaphorical "fig tree" have _already_ "fallen," making it possible for him to see Nathanael "under the fig tree." (See  Isaiah 34:4.) In other words, it seems that in this passage Jesus is being depicted as "peering into the future," and envisioning the state of affairs that would exist after the "first heaven" and "first earth" had _already_ "passed away." But that also tends to imply that "an Israelite lacking guile" — considered as a _standard type_ of person — would _likewise_ be something that wouldn't come into being until the "first heaven" and "first earth" had _already_ passed away, and a "New Age" or "Messianic Age" had already begun to come into being. (Cf.  Isaiah 48:20.)]

The sort of "impersonating" and "pretense" and "trickery" and "deceit" in which we see Jacob engaged in Genesis chapter 27 is precisely what I believe _Zechariah 13:1-4 is saying would come to an end_ "in the day of the Lord" — because "in the day of the Lord," _all religious esotericism_ (including all "prophesying") _would come to an end_.

That reading is additionally supported by Genesis 3:13-15 — taking place just after Adam and Eve have eaten from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" — which says,

And the Lord God said to the woman, "What is this you have done?" And the woman said, "The serpent deceived me or tricked me, or beguiled me, or led me astray: _nasha_ ; LXX _apataō_ ], and I ate." And the Lord God said to the serpent, "Because you have done this, you of all beasts [or animals: _behemah_ ; LXX _kténos_ ], and of all living (creatures) [ _chay_ ; LXX _thérion_ , meaning "beast" or "wild beast"] of the field [ _sadeh_ (cf. [Genesis 27:27); the LXX has "upon the earth," Greek _epi tés gés_ ], are cursed  _arar_ ; LXX _epi-kataratos_ ]. On your belly you shall go about, and dust [the LXX has "earth," Greek _gé_ ] you shall eat, all of the days of your life [ _chay_ ; LXX _zōé_ ]. And I will put enmity between you and the woman [that is, "Eve," Hebrew _chavvah_ , meaning "life-giver"; Greek _zōé_ , meaning "life"], between your offspring [more literally, "seed": _zera_ ; LXX _sperma_ ] and her offspring [ _zera_ ; LXX _sperma_ ]. (The woman's offspring) will strike at [ _shuph_ ; LXX _téreō_ , meaning "attend to"] your head [possibly meant to be suggestive of "shrewdness" and "cunning"], and you [ **the serpent** ] will snap at [ _shuph_ ; LXX _téreō_ ] his heel [ _aqeb_ ; LXX _pterna_ ]. [Cf. [Psalm 89:51, which uses the Hebrew word _aqeb_ in connection with the figure of the "Messiah" or "Anointed One."]

The Hebrew noun _aqeb_ , meaning "heel," is closely related to the Hebrew verb _aqab_ , which, again, literally means "to grab by the heel, to trip up," and which figuratively means "to trick, to cheat" — and from which is derived the name "Jacob" (Hebrew _ya'aqob_ ). So it certainly seems quite likely that the authors of the Bible meant for the "trickiness" of "the serpent" to be compared to the "trickiness" of "Jacob."

With that thought in mind, next consider Isaiah 48:20, which says,

Come out  _yatsa_ ; LXX _ex-erchomai_ ] from Babylon [or Babel: _babel_ ], flee [ _barach_ ; LXX _pheugō_ ] from the Chaldeans [i.e., Babylonians], with a shouting [or singing, or joyful: _rinnah_ ; LXX _euphrosyné_ , meaning "joy, gladness"] voice [ _qol_ ; LXX _phōné_ ] declare [or proclaim, or tell plainly, or expose, or disclose, or make public, or make conspicuous, or make manifest, or make apparent, or make known: _nagad_ ; LXX _an-aggellō_ or _an-angellō_ ] this, make (it) heard [ _shama_ ; LXX _akoustos_ ], send (it) forth [or go forth: _yatsa_ ; LXX _ap-aggellō_ or _ap-angellō_ ] as far as [or even to, or unto, or until: _ad_ ; LXX _heōs_ ] the end [ _qatseh_ (cf. [Jeremiah 51:31); LXX _eschatos_ , which can also mean "last (parts)" or "outermost (parts)"] of the earth cf. [Acts 1:8 and Acts 13:47 (both of which passages also use the same Greek words _heōs_ and _eschatos_ ), and Revelation 21:1 and Revelation 22:13]; say, "The Lord has redeemed [or rescued, or ransomed: _ga'al_ ; LXX _rhyomai_ ] his servant Jacob!"

Incidentally, by comparing how the Greek words _ex-erchomai_ , _heōs_ , _eschatos_ , and _apo-didōmi_ (meaning "to pay, to pay back, to give up, to give back, to render") are used here in Isaiah 48:20 (LXX), as well as in [Revelation 18:2-6, Matthew 5:25-26, and Luke 12:58-59, it seems fair to conclude that the authors of the New Testament were likely thinking of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" as being a metaphorical "prison" whose "prisoners" or "captives" or "hostages" would be "redeemed" by means of a kind of "ransom payment." (By the way, in connection with Matthew 5:25-26 and Luke 12:58-59, it's interesting to consider the similarity between the image that one finds in those passages of "giving up" or "giving back" one's very last "farthing" or "small coin" in order to be released from "prison" or "captivity," and the image found in the _Lord of the Rings_ of "giving up" or "giving back" the Ring into the fires of Mount Doom so that Middle-Earth (as well as Frodo) could be free of their own "captivity" to the "Dark Lord." We know that the "farthing" or "small coin" spoken of in the Gospel parables must have been meant to be understood symbolically, so it would not be absurd to wonder if the "small coin" and the small "Ring" may have both been meant to carry similar symbolic significance.)

Furthermore, in connection with Matthew 5:26 and Luke 12:59, take a look at [Luke 21:2 and Mark 12:42. Why would the author of Mark 12:42 bother to have Jesus mention that a "farthing" (Greek _kodrantés_ ) is equivalent to exactly _two_ "mites" (or "small coins": Greek _lepton_ ; the word _lepton_ can also mean "fine, light, thin, small")? The probable answer, I believe, can be found by considering the Greek word _lepton_ or _leptos_ (Strong's number 3016) as it is used in 1 Kings 19:12 (LXX) — the verse which is the source of the famous reference to the "still small voice" of the Lord that speaks to Elijah — but which, at least in the case of the Greek Septuagint version of that verse, probably ought to be translated as the "voice LXX _phōné_ ] of a light [LXX _lepton_ ] breeze [LXX _aura_ ]." This provides good reason to think that the authors of the New Testament would have likely understood a _lepton_ to signify a kind of "voice," so that _two_ _lepta_ (together making a _kodrantés_ ) would signify the symbolic " _two_ mouths" or " _two_ voices" spoken of elsewhere in the Bible (both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament), which in this series of articles I have been arguing would have been understood to "speak" the "inner meaning" of the scriptures and the "outer meaning" of the scriptures, respectively. So I think the point that the authors of Mark 12:42, Luke 21:2, Matthew 5:26, and Luke 12:59 likely intended to make was that whether one "cast (away)" (Greek _ballō_ ) or "rendered" (or "paid off [in discharge of a debt]," or "delivered up," or "gave up": Greek _apo-didōmi_ ) the "very last" or "uttermost" or "outermost" (Greek _eschatos_ ) _kodrantés_ (representing _both of_ the "two voices"), as in Matthew 5:26, or only the "very last" or "uttermost" or "outermost" (Greek _eschatos_ ) _lepton_ (representing _only_ the "outer voice" or "outer meaning," thus leaving the "inner voice" or "inner meaning" still remaining), as in Luke 12:59, one would _either way_ be "casting away" or "giving up" the "two mouths" or "two voices" considered as a functioning, cooperating _pair_. (By the way, also note how the same Greek word _leptos_ or _lepton_ [Strong's number 3016] is used in the [Septuagint translation of Exodus 16:14-15, in reference to "manna.")]

If the authors of the Bible did in fact mean for the "trickiness" (or "heel-biting") of "the serpent" to be compared to the "trickiness" (or "heel-grabbing") of "Jacob," then that would help to explain more precisely _why_ "Jacob" would require "redemption." What exactly would "Jacob" need to be "redeemed" _from_? I think the correct answer probably is: _the curse that "the Lord" places on "the serpent" in Genesis 3:13-15._ (Remember, Jacob _stole_ his "blessing" from Esau by using "guile"; and that "stolen blessing" may have been what enabled him to at least partly "cover up for," or "compensate for," the "curse" that he had in effect _taken upon himself_ by acting in a crafty, guileful, deceitful, shrewd, and cunning — that is to say, "serpent-like" — manner. Cf. [Genesis 3:1 and Genesis 27:29. But see Genesis 27:13; and also see Malachi 2:2.]) And Isaiah 48:20 additionally tells us _how_ "Jacob's" redemption would be achieved: namely, by his "children," the "Israelites," finally making the decision to " _come out from (symbolic) Babel or Babylon_ " — which would imply a resolve to thenceforth only ever "declare plainly in a loud voice" or "disclose in a loud voice," so as to "make their _true_ message or meaning _heard_."

[Incidentally, one can find additional evidence that the prediction found in Zechariah 13:1-4 — namely, that "in the day of the Lord" an end would be brought to all religious esotericism and "prophesying" — would have likely been associated by the authors of the New Testament with the idea of a "coming out from Babel or Babylon" coupled with the "fall of Babel or Babylon." That is because Zechariah 13:6 (LXX), taking place after all "prophesying" has been done away with, says,

And I will say to (a former prophet), "What are these stripes or wounds, or blows: LXX _plégé_ ] between your hands?" And he will say, "Those (with which) I was wounded [or struck: LXX _eplégén_ , a form of _pléssō_ ] in the house of my beloved (friend) [ _aheb_ ; LXX _agapétos_ ]." [I merely offer the suggestion that the "beloved friend" being spoken of may have been either meant or understood to refer to "God," or "the Lord," or "the Messiah," or "Christ." (Cf. [James 2:23, Exodus 33:11, 2 Chronicles 20:7 which also uses the Hebrew word _aheb_ to describe the Lord God's relationship with Abraham], [John 15:14-15, and Luke 14:10.) Note, however, that the Hebrew Masoretic version has " _beloved_ ( _friends_ )" or " _lovers_ ," in the plural number, which may affect the interpretation.]

I'll just quickly mention in passing that I'm not at all sure what the phrase "between your hands" means in this context. (And most other translators and interpreters of the verse seem to be quite puzzled by it as well — whether or not they're willing to admit the fact.) I assume it's either a common ancient Hebrew idiom whose meaning has been lost to us, or else it was meant to be understood as having symbolic significance. If the latter, then one possible explanation that occurs to me is that the "wounds" or "blows" spoken of in the passage would have been received by the prototypical "former prophet" in the course of his having _moved_ from the symbolic "left hand" to the symbolic "right hand" (cf. [Matthew 25:31-46) — or perhaps as a result of his having been _stuck_ between two different "positions" or "sides." Also consider the possible relevance of Exodus 14:29 and Judges 16:25-30, and any other passages in the Old Testament that refer to the "left (hand)" and the "right (hand)."

[The more important point I wish to focus on here is that the Greek word _plégé_ is the same word used throughout the Book of Revelation, where one often finds it translated into English as "plague," but is probably better and more literally translated as "blow" or "wound" or "stripe" (i.e., "lash"). For example, Revelation 18:8-10 says,

[I]n one day (Babylon's or Babel's) plagues [or blows, or wounds: _plégé_ ] will come, death and mourning and famine, and she will be burned up in fire, for powerful (is the) Lord God who has judged her.

[And Revelation 18:4-6 says,

And I heard another voice (coming) out of heaven, saying, "Come out from (Babel or Babylon), my people, that you might not participate in [or be joined together with: _syg-koinōneō_ ] her sins, and that you might not receive her plagues [or blows, or wounds: _plégé_ ]; for her sins have been joined together as high as heaven, and God has remembered her injustices.

In addition, be aware that when you read, say, [chapter 15 and chapter 16 of the Book of Revelation, the Greek word translated into English as "plague" or "plagues" is always _plégé_. So there is good reason to think that the authors of the New Testament would have associated the series of "blows" (or "wounds": Greek _plégé_ ) that they envisioned would be visited upon symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" just prior to its downfall, with the "blows" (or "wounds": LXX Greek _plégé_ ) that every "prophet" would have to have received by the time the entire practice of "prophesying" was brought to an end.

Also, consider the use of the Greek word _plégé_ in [Luke 12:47-48. I think it is at least conceivable that the different types of "servants" (or "bondservants": Greek _doulos_ ) spoken of by Jesus in that passage may have been meant by the author to be understood as corresponding to different types of "prophets" (among other persons), especially given that in Luke 12:42-43 Jesus says that the responsibility of any "servant" of the "lord" (or "master": Greek _kyrios_ ) who would also seek to take on the role of "steward" or "household manager" (Greek _oikonomos_ ) would be to give to the other "servants" their "measure of grain" (or "measure of wheat": Greek _sito-metrion_ , partly derived from _sitos_ , meaning "grain" or "wheat") at the proper time. As I already indicated in Part 5, in my discussion of the Parable of the Prodigal Son, I believe "wheat" (or "grain": Greek _sitos_ ) — as opposed to "husks" or "chaff" — was probably understood to signify the "inner meaning" of the scriptures. So the intended message of Luke 12:42-48 may have been that a "faithful and prudent steward" who was genuinely serving "the Lord" would be willing to first _realize_ and then _disclose_ the true "inner meaning" of the scriptures when the proper time came to do so, instead of _stubbornly refusing to see_ that "inner meaning," and working to keep it _concealed_ , in order that the person might better protect his or her own _private_ interests.]

[Next, to return to considering the interpretation I offered above concerning the relation between the figure of "Jacob" and the figure of "the serpent," that interpretation might in turn help to shed light on the intended meaning of John 3:14, in which Jesus says,

And just as Moses lifted up or exalted: _hypsoō_ ] the serpent in the wasteland [or desert, or wilderness: _erémos_ ], even so must the Son of Man be lifted up [or exalted: _hypsoō_ ]. [The scriptural reference is to [Numbers 21:6-9.] Cf. [Matthew 10:16.]

I think the Greek word _hypsoō_ , meaning "to lift up (high), to raise up (high), to exalt," was probably meant to be understood as having a double meaning in this verse. I believe the author meant to convey the idea that even as the figure of "Jacob" would be "redeemed" from the "serpent-like" or "trickster" aspect of his nature by his being "lifted up high" and "exalted" (Greek _hypsoō_ ) out of his previous position of "abasement" or "lowliness" (cf. [Genesis 3:14), that "redemption" could only be achieved by the "Son of Man" being "lifted up" (Greek _hypsoō_ ) in order to be _hung_ from the Cross. (Cf. John 19:15, bearing in mind that the Greek verb _airō_ can mean "to take away"; but it can also mean "to kill, to slay," as well as "to lift up, to raise up.") The notion that the "Crucifixion of Christ" or "death of Christ," achieved by means of "lifting up" and "hanging," is what would finally enable the "curse" to be "lifted" or "taken away" from "the serpent" — as well as from any figure or person who had partaken of the "serpent nature" in any way — is also indicated by passages such as Galatians 3:13, in which the apostle Paul writes,

Christ redeemed [ _ex-agorazō_ ] us from the curse [ _katara_ ] of the law, having become a curse [ _katara_ ] on our behalf, for it is written, "Cursed [ _epi-kataratos_ ] (is) every one hanging from a tree."

A cross-referencing of the last two quoted passages with the other passages quoted in this section would again seem to point to a symbolic equivalence between the "Crucifixion of Christ" and the "fall of Babel" or "fall of Babylon" (after its having been " _laid waste_ ": Greek _erémoō_ ; see, e.g., [Revelation 18:17-19; and compare that to the use of the word _erémos_ in John 3:14, quoted just before the last block quotation). In other words, it is only by means of a _destruction_ that a subsequent "exaltation" would be able to occur. And I think that what specifically the authors of the Bible (whether human or angelic) believed would need to be "destroyed" is most accurately thought of as the _current forms_ of the traditional, esoteric religions.]

**If the suggested reading of Zechariah 13:1-4 that I offered above is correct — if the passage is indeed saying that "in the day of the Lord," all prophesying and religious esotericism would come to an end — it would have** enormous implications **for the interpretation of the New Testament.**

That is because John 19:34,36-37, describing the episode of the Crucifixion, says,

O]ne of the soldiers pierced [ _nyssō_ ] (Jesus's) side with a spear, and at once blood and water came out.... [T]hese things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled [or completed: _pléroō_ ]: "Not one of his bones will be broken." And again another scripture says, "They will look to him whom they have pierced [ _ek-kenteō_ ]." [By the way, compare the use of the same Greek word _ek-kenteō_ (Strong's number 1574) in [ Isaiah 14:19 (LXX), which is speaking of the "fall" of the "King of Babel" or "King of Babylon" — while recalling that according to Revelation 11:8, Jesus is said to have been "crucified" in the "Great City" — in other words, "Babel" or "Babylon." As I have previously suggested, I think Jesus's "outer body" (also symbolized by the "outer garment" or "cloak": Greek _himation_ ) was likely understood by the authors of the New Testament to have a symbolic significance similar to that of "Babel" or "Babylon"; by which I mean, the "sacrifice" that those authors understood the figure of "Jesus" to have made was to have temporarily taken on the role of the figure of the "King of Babel," and to receive the punishment that the "King of Babel" deserved, by Jesus's allowing his "fleshly body" to be "crucified" or "torn open" or "pierced."]

The second of the two scriptural references in John 19:34,36-37 — the one that we are now concerned with — is to Zechariah 12:10. That verse says,

I the Lord] will pour out [LXX _ek-cheō_ ; cf. [Mark 14:24 and Acts 2:16-20] upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a Spirit LXX _pneuma_ ; cf. [Acts 2:16-17] of grace and of supplication, and they will look upon me whom they have pierced or pierced through: Hebrew _daqar_ ] [the LXX instead has "over whom they danced triumphantly": Greek _kat-orcheomai_ ]; and they will lament [or loudly mourn: LXX _koptō_ ] over him, as one laments over an only (son or child) [ _yachid_ ], and will be in bitterness over him, as one that is in bitterness over a firstborn. [Cf. [Joshua 6:26 and Amos 8:9-13.]

Now recall what Zechariah 13:1-4 says would happen "in the day of the Lord":

In that day it will come to pass that a fountain will be opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for (their) sin and for (their) impurity. And it will come to pass in that day, declares the Lord of powers or forces, or hosts: _tsaba_ ], that I will cut off the names of the idols from the earth, and they will be remembered no more. And also, moreover, the prophets and the unclean spirit will pass away from the earth. And it will come to pass that if a man should still prophesy, his father and mother who engendered him [cf. [Galatians 4:22-26, Romans 4:16, and 1 Peter 3:6] will say to him, "You shall not live, for you speak lies in the name of the Lord" cf. [Revelation 21:6-8]; and his father and mother who engendered him will pierce him or pierce him through: Hebrew _daqar_ ; the LXX instead has "bind him hand and foot," Greek _sym-podizō_ ] [cf. [James 2:21] whenever he might prophesy. And it will come to pass in that day that every one of the prophets will be ashamed of his vision whenever he might prophesy, and they will not put on an outer garment of hair in order to deceive.

[Incidentally, a comparison between John 19:34,36-37 and Zechariah 12:10 provides yet another reason to prefer the Hebrew Masoretic version of both Zechariah 12:10 and Zechariah 13:1-4 to the Greek Septuagint version of those passages. That is because it appears that the author of John 19:34,36-37 was choosing not to follow the Septuagint's translation of Zechariah 12:10 (since the Septuagint version fails to say anything about "piercing," and speaks instead of "dancing triumphantly"), but rather was following some other text that was closer to what would eventually become the Hebrew Masoretic text.

Even in spite of that, however, it should be noted that the fact that the Septuagint translation of Zechariah 13:1-4 has "bind hand and foot" (Greek _sym-podizō_ ) in place of "pierce" (Hebrew _daqar_ ) is still potentially significant because, by cross-referencing that text with [Matthew 22:13, which also speaks of "binding hand and foot," one might reasonably infer that the author of the latter passage may have associated the idea of persisting in "prophesying" with the idea of being "cast out" into the "outer darkness" — which is apparently equivalent to the "second death" of Revelation 21:8. (Also consider the association between the idea of "being bound hand and foot" and the idea of "death" that is found in  John 11:44 — although that passage seems to involve "inner darkness" rather than "outer darkness.") Furthermore,  the Septuagint translation of Genesis 22:9 (describing the "sacrifice of Isaac") also uses that same Greek word _sym-podizō_ (Strong's number 4846.1), which tends to reinforce the notion that the "father," "mother," and "child" spoken of in Zechariah 13:1-4 were likely understood by the Septuagint translator to correspond to the symbolic figures of "Abraham," "Sarah," and "Isaac," and that the idea of "killing one's own child" presented to us in Zechariah 13:1-4 was meant to be understood as an allusion to the symbolic motif of "the sacrificial offering up of Isaac" that is described in Genesis 22:1-18 — an allusion that I believe was probably meant to be recognized both in the Hebrew Masoretic version _and_ in the Greek Septuagint version of Zechariah 13:1-4. Also see Galatians 3:16, which firmly establishes an identification between the figures of "Isaac" and "Jesus Christ" (and also see Galatians 4:28, which extends that identification to all Christians as well).]

First notice how close to each other the two passages that I quoted from the Book of Zechariah — Zechariah 12:10 and Zechariah 13:1-4 — are located in the biblical text. Also notice that the same Hebrew word, _daqar_ (meaning "to pierce, to pierce through"), is used in both passages; and also that both passages speak about the idea of a "child" or "offspring" being "pierced" and "killed."

Since "being pierced and killed by one's parents" is said in Zechariah 13:1-4 to be the penalty for "prophesying" — also described as "speaking lies in the name of the Lord" — and since the "Crucifixion of Christ" is said in John 19:34,36-37 to have been the "fulfillment" or "completion" of the "piercing" of the "firstborn child" or "only son or child" described in Zechariah 12:10 (cf. Genesis 22:2, 22:12, and 22:16; and John 3:16), I think it is reasonable to deduce that Jesus was understood by the authors of the New Testament to have been symbolically "crucified" or "pierced" as the necessary penalty for his having "prophesied **."** See [Matthew 21:11 and Luke 24:19, both of which show that Jesus was understood to be a "prophet." In addition, an especially important passage to look at is Luke 13:32-33, in which not only does Jesus _refer to himself_ as a "prophet," it is also strongly suggested that it is _in his specific role as "Prophet_ _"_ that Jesus is _seeking to "perish_ _"_ (or "be destroyed": Greek _apollymi_ ), in order to become "completed" or "finished" or "perfected" or "fulfilled" (Greek _teleioō_ ). Notice in particular the use of the phrase "outside of Greek _exō_ ] Jerusalem" in verse 33; and then compare that to [Revelation 22:14-15 and its use of the same Greek word _exō_ , meaning "outside." If one can accept that "prophesying" is inherently deceptive and misleading in nature, then how could the archetypal "Prophet" ever "perish" once and for all _outside of_ (the _new_ ) "Jerusalem" if "outside" is where "everyone who loves and practices falsehood" is located?]

And, according to [Isaiah 13:15 — which also uses the Hebrew word _daqar_ — "in the day of the Lord" all of the inhabitants of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" (which I think the authors of the Bible probably believed included all of the people living in "the present age") would share that same fate of being metaphorically "pierced" by a "spear" or "sword" or "dagger." Also see Acts 2:37, Hebrews 4:12, Revelation 19:17-21, and Luke 2:35, noticing in particular the use in Luke 2:35 of the Greek word _apo-kalyptō_ , meaning "to uncover, to unveil, to reveal."]

To put it another way, I think "Jesus Christ" would have been meant by the authors of the New Testament — whether those "authors" be thought of as "human beings" or "angelic beings" — to be regarded as the archetypal "Last Prophet" or "Final Prophet." (Cf. Mark 6:15, Luke 9:7-9, and Luke 9:18-20, which may have been meant to imply that Jesus should be thought of as a "prophet" who was, or who would at some point become, somehow fundamentally _different from_ all of the "prophets" who had preceded him.)

## Correspondences between the figures of "Jesus Christ" and "Elijah"

There is a significant amount of overlap between the symbolism pertaining to "Jesus Christ" and the symbolism pertaining to "Elijah" — enough to lead me to think that the figure of "Elijah" would _also_ have likely been meant by the authors of the New Testament to be regarded as, not only the archetypal " _Prophet_ ," but _also_ the archetypal " _Final Prophet_ " — in the sense that the episode of the "ascension of Elijah" described in 2 Kings chapter 2, and the events leading up to it in the Bible narrative, were likely seen by those authors as _prefiguring_ and _corresponding to_ the symbolic events of the "Crucifixion," "Resurrection," and "Ascension" of "Jesus Christ" ( _symbolic_ events which I believe were themselves meant to be understood primarily as prefigurations of future _non-symbolic_ events).

Consider 2 Kings 2:7-8, which says,

And fifty men from the sons of the prophets stood facing them Elijah and Elisha] at a distance [LXX _makrothen_ ], and they both stood above [or over: _el_ ; LXX _epi_ ] the Jordan [ _yarden_ , derived from _yarad_ , meaning "to go down, to descend"]. And Elijah took his outer garment [or cloak, or mantle, or outer robe: _addereth_ ; LXX _mélōté_ ] and rolled it up [or wrapped it up: _galam_ ; LXX _eilyō_ ] [cf. [1 Kings 19:9-13, John 20:6-7, Hebrews 1:10-12, Isaiah 34:4, and Luke 4:20-21] and struck the waters, and they were divided [ _chatsah_ ; LXX _di-aireō_ ] (into) here and there [or "here and here": _hennah wa-hennah_ ; LXX _entha kai entha_ ], and the two [Elijah and Elisha] passed over [ _abar_ ; LXX _dia-bainō_ ] on dry ground.

Recall how in Part 10 we saw striking parallels between the "dividing or splitting of the Red Sea," and both the "tearing or splitting of the veil of the temple" and the "Crucifixion of Christ" — in other words, the tearing of "the veil _that is (Jesus's) flesh_." (Also see Luke 9:31 and its use of the Greek word _exodos_.) So I don't think it would be unreasonable to suppose that the "Crucifixion of Christ" was understood by the authors of the New Testament to correspond to the "dividing of the waters" described in 2 Kings 2:7-8, along with Elijah's and Elisha's "descent" into the Jordan river valley from the surrounding heights; and that the "Resurrection of Christ" was meant to correspond to the image of "successfully passing over to 'the other side' on dry ground." (Cf. Psalm 23:4-6.)

But what I find especially interesting is that after Elijah and Elisha "descend" into the parted waters of the Jordan and "pass over to the other side," Elijah is described as being "taken up" or "lifted up" or "made to ascend" (Hebrew _alah_ ; see 2 Kings 2:1 and 2:11) into "the heavens" — which is reminiscent of the "Ascension of Christ" described in Acts 1:9. So it seems that Elijah (and Elisha) would need to first "go down" or "descend" before Elijah would be able to "ascend." (Cf. Ephesians 4:8-10.)

Furthermore, according to 2 Kings 2:13, in this experience of "ascension," Elijah finally leaves his "outer garment" or "cloak" (Hebrew _addereth_ ) behind — just as I have been arguing that "Jesus Christ" was meant by the authors of the New Testament to be understood as "shedding" his _own_ symbolic "outer body" (i.e., "outer garment"), and leaving _that_ behind, in the course of passing through his own "Crucifixion and Resurrection (and Ascension)."

As additional evidence that the authors of the New Testament likely meant for their readers to identify the figure of "Elijah" with the figure of "Jesus Christ" (at least to some extent), consider the Greek Septuagint translation of 2 Kings chapter 2. For example, 2 Kings 2:3 (LXX) says,

And the sons of the prophets in Bethel came out LXX _ex-erchomai_ ] to Elisha and said to him, "Did you know that the Lord [ _yahweh_ ; LXX _kyrios_ ] is today taking (up) your Lord [or master: _adon_ ; LXX _kyrios_ ] above [LXX _ep-anōthen_ ] your head [ _rosh_ ; LXX _kephalé_ ]?" And he said, "I have also known; keep silent [LXX _siōpaō_ ; cf. [Matthew 26:63-65, Mark 14:61-63, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 9:33-36, Matthew 17:8-9, and Romans 16:25]."

[By the way, with regard to Matthew 26:63-65 and Mark 14:61-63 in particular, I honestly have no idea whether the "tearing apart" (Greek _diarréssō_ , Strong's number 1284) of the high priest's "garments" described in those passages would have been meant to correspond in any way to the "tearing apart" (LXX _diarréssō_ ) of Elisha's "outer garments" (LXX _himation_ ) described in 2 Kings 2:12 (LXX), which takes place immediately after Elijah is "taken up into the heavens." (I provide a translation of 2 Kings 2:12 just below.) One reason to be wary about ascribing too much symbolic significance to the "tearing" that takes place in the first two passages is that Matthew 26:65 tells us that the high priest tears his "outer garments" (Greek _himation_ ), while Mark 14:63 tells us that he tears his "inner garments" (Greek _chitōn_ ).

[Having said that, however, I _do_ believe that the use in 2 Kings 2:12 (LXX), and then just after that again in 2 Kings 2:14 (LXX), of the same Greek word _diarréssō_ — the first time in reference to the "tearing apart" of Elisha's "outer garments" (Greek _himation_ ) and the second time in reference to the "tearing apart" of "the waters" so that Elisha could "pass over" from one "side" to the other "side" — is almost certainly quite significant. Immediately after we are told that Elijah has passed out of the sight of Elisha, 2 Kings 2:12-14 then says,

And (Elisha) took firm hold of his robe or outer garment: _beged_ ; LXX _himation_ ] and tore it apart [ _qara_ ; LXX _diarréssō_ ] into two pieces [or rags: _qera_ , derived from the verb _qara_ ]. And he raised high [ _rum_ ; LXX _hypsoō_ ] Elijah's cloak [or outer garment: _addereth_ ; LXX _mélōté_ , literally meaning "sheepskin"] which had fallen [ _naphal_ ; LXX _piptō_ ] from above him [or on top of him: _me-alaw_ ; LXX _ep-anōthen_ ]. And Elisha turned back [or turned around, or returned: _shub_ ; LXX _epi-strephō_ , which can also mean "converted"] and stood on the bank [or edge; or "language," or "speech": _saphah_ ; LXX _cheilos_ ] of the Jordan. [Cf. [Ezekiel 47:6-7.] And he took Elijah's cloak  _addereth_ ; LXX _mélōté_ ] which had fallen [ _naphal_ ; LXX _piptō_ ] from above him [or on top of him: _me-alaw_ ; LXX _ep-anōthen_ ], and he struck the waters, and said, "Where is the God of Elijah?" And he struck the waters indeed, and they tore apart [or divided, or split in two: _chatsah_ ; LXX _diarréssō_ ] (into) here and there [or "here and here": _henneh wa-henneh_ ; LXX _entha kai entha_ ], and Elisha passed over [or crossed over: _abar_ ; LXX _dia-bainō_ ]. [In connection with this Hebrew word _abar_ , consider the use in [Exodus 32:15 of the Hebrew noun _eber_ , which can mean "side," or "area on the other side," or "area across," and which is derived from the verb _abar_ that is being used here. (Incidentally, the Hebrew word _eber_ is considered to be a likely source of the English word "Hebrew.")]

One thing I find particularly interesting about this passage is its use of the Hebrew word _beged_ , which can mean "a robe," and more literally, "a covering" — but can also mean "treachery" because of that word's relation to the idea of "concealment." (See, e.g., [Isaiah 24:16.) The noun _beged_ is derived from the verb _bagad_ , which originally meant "to cover," but in the Old Testament is _invariably_ used to mean "to act treacherously, to act deceitfully, to betray," based on the idea of "acting covertly." So perhaps the author of 2 Kings 2:12-14 meant to convey the idea that possessing Elijah's symbolic "hairy cloak" or "hairy outer garment" is what _enables_ Elisha to "cut through" the "concealment" found in _his own_ "outer garment," so that he could finally _understand_ the "double meanings" found therein as a result of his having "split them in two." But that doesn't necessarily mean that Elisha would have been prepared to let others _also learn_ what that "splitting in two" may have enabled _him_ to understand; after all, he still has a "hairy outer garment" to wear.]

To return to 2 Kings 2:3 (LXX) (the block quotation located just above the last one), the particular language it uses, with its references to both " _the_ Lord" and " _my_ Lord," is clearly reminiscent of Psalm 110:1 and the New Testament passages that quote it, such as Acts 2:29-36, in which Peter is portrayed as saying to his fellow Jews,

Men, brothers, it is permissible (for me) to speak to you with frankness  _parrésia_ ] about the patriarch DAVID, that he both came to an end [ _teleutaō_ ] and was buried, and his tomb is in (our midst) until this day. [Cf. [2 Kings 13:20.] So, BEING A PROPHET, and knowing that God promised to him with an oath to seat (one) of the fruit  _karpos_ ] of his loins [ _osphys_ ] upon his throne [cf. [James 5:17-18, 2 Kings 1:8, and Matthew 3:4, which when read together may suggest that the symbolic "girdle" characteristically worn by the archetypal "Prophet" would first need to be "ungirded" before his "loins" would be able to yield any "fruit"; also, bear in mind as you read James 5:18 that the Greek word _blastanō_ (Strong's number 985), meaning "to sprout, to spring up, to bud, to cause to grow," is related to the Greek word _blastos_ (Strong's number 986), meaning "a sprout, a bud" — which is also an appellation used to refer to "the Messiah" in Jeremiah 33:15 (LXX), a verse which contains both of those Greek words], (and) having foreseen, he spoke about the Resurrection  _anastasis_ , derived from _an-istémi_ ] of the Christ, that neither was he left [or forsaken: _eg-kata-leipō_ ] (to go) into Hades, nor did his flesh see decay. [By the way, notice the author's use of _the past tense_ even when writing about things that are said to have been "foreseen" at the time they were originally spoken about. That might make it easier for you to accept the notion that the authors of the Gospels would have _also_ chosen to use the past tense when writing about Jesus's adventures on earth — even as I have been arguing that what they primarily meant to write about in the Gospels were _future_ events that they were somehow able to "foresee."] God raised up [ _an-istémi_ ] this Jesus, of which WE are ALL witnesses [ _martys_ ]. [Compare [Revelation 19:10, noticing its use of the Greek word _martyria_ , meaning "testimony"; and also noticing how the " _testimony_ of Jesus" is there identified with the "Spirit [ _pneuma_ ] _of prophecy_."] So, having been exalted at the right (side) of God, and having received the promise of the Holy Spirit [ _pneuma_ ] at the side of the Father, he poured out [ _ek-cheō_ ] this which YOU are both seeing and hearing. [In other words, they received the "Spirit _of prophecy_ " that made all of them into _so-called_ "witnesses." I don't believe the author ever meant to convey the idea that some large crowd of persons existed who had been _literal_ witnesses of a literally resurrected Jesus.] For David DID NOT ASCEND [ _ana-bainō_ ] into the heavens, but he himself says,

"The Lord [ _kyrios_ ] said to my Lord [ _kyrios_ ], 'Be seated on my right (side) until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet.'"

Therefore let all the house of Israel know with certainty that God has made him both Lord [ _kyrios_ ] and Christ [or Messiah: _christos_ ], this Jesus whom you crucified.

This passage illustrates how the use of the phrase " _my_ Lord" (as opposed to " _the_ Lord") in Psalm 110:1 has always been understood by Christians to refer to "Jesus Christ" — so it would not be unreasonable to suppose that the use of the very same sort of language in 2 Kings chapter 2 (LXX) would have led the authors of the New Testament to identify the figure of "Elijah" with the figure of "the Messiah." (Incidentally, the Hebrew Masoretic version of Psalm 110:1 uses the Hebrew words _yahweh_ and _adon_ in exactly the same way in which they are used in 2 Kings 2:3.)

Also, notice the use of the same Greek word _ana-lambanō_ (Strong's number 353), meaning "to take up," both in reference to "Elijah" in 2 Kings 2:9-11 (LXX), and in reference to "Jesus Christ" in Mark 16:19, Acts 1:2, Acts 1:11, and Acts 1:22.

Furthermore, consider 2 Kings 2:9, which says that while Elijah and Elisha are "passing over" from one side of the Jordan river to the other, Elisha asks of Elijah that "a double (measure) in your spirit (come) upon me." The Hebrew Masoretic version literally says "a double mouth  _peh_ ] in your spirit [ _ruach_ ; LXX _pneuma_ ]" — which strongly suggests that what the author meant for Elisha to be understood to be requesting was an ability to be conversant in the "language" of "prophecy," with all of its "double meanings." And I think the material found in [Acts chapter 2 (which takes place after the "Ascension of Christ") was meant by its author to be alluding to the episode of the "ascension of Elijah" that is described in 2 Kings chapter 2.

The similarities between the "ascension of Elijah" and the "Ascension of Christ" may not appear to be very striking until one begins to think of the events surrounding the "ascension of Elijah" as happening practically all at once, and the corresponding events surrounding the "Ascension of Christ" as occurring in a more gradual and drawn-out manner. For example, even though the "Ascension of Christ" is described as having taken place on a different day than the day of Pentecost, I believe that the "violent rushing wind" spoken of in Acts 2:1-4 (a passage depicting events said to have occurred on the day of Pentecost) was probably meant to be understood as corresponding to the "whirlwind" or "tempest" (Hebrew _ca'ar_ ; Greek _sys-seismos_ , derived from _seiō_ , meaning "to shake") that is said to have carried Elijah into the heavens (see 2 Kings 2:11); and I also believe that the "tongues as of fire" spoken of in Acts 2:1-4 were probably meant to be understood as corresponding to the "chariot of fire" and "horses of fire" (see 2 Kings 2:11; and also consider Isaiah 31:3 and  Isaiah 21:6-9) which Elisha is said to have seen just before Elijah is taken out of his sight, and which are said to have "divided" or "separated" (Hebrew _parad_ ; Greek _dia-stellō_ ) in the space between Elisha and Elijah — just as the "tongues as of fire" are said in Acts 2:1-4 to have "divided into parts" (Greek _dia-merizō_ ) before each one of those "parts" came to "sit" or "rest" (Greek _kathizō_ ) upon one of Jesus's disciples. And this is equated with the disciples' receiving of "the Holy Spirit [ _pneuma_ ]" — which is what enables each of the disciples to "speak with different [or other: _heteros_ ] tongues [or languages: _glōssa_ ]." That certainly does sound as if the very same "double mouth in the Spirit" "came upon" _the disciples of_ "Jesus Christ" that had _also_ "come upon" Elisha — that is to say, _the disciple of_ "Elijah" — at the time that Elisha came into possession of Elijah's "hairy outer garment."

So it appears that in 2 Kings 2:13-14 the "double mouth in the Spirit" of "Elijah" is being symbolized by or equated with Elijah's hairy "outer garment" or "cloak" (Hebrew _addereth_ ), since that is what is said to "fall upon" Elisha after Elijah is "taken up into the heavens." It is important to emphasize that I am _not_ suggesting that the authors of the Bible meant for the "Spirit" _itself_ to be symbolized by the "hairy outer garment" or "hairy cloak"; I'm suggesting only that they meant for the _"_ _double mouth_ _"_ IN the "Spirit" to be symbolized by the "hairy outer garment" or "hairy cloak." The two are not the same, since the "Spirit" is _also_ capable of "speaking" with only a "single mouth" — and indeed, I think the authors of the Bible believed that the latter way of "speaking" would be vastly preferable in the long run. (See, e.g., Romans 15:6.)

The episode of the "ascension of Elijah" described in 2 Kings chapter 2 should be compared with Acts 2:17-20, in which Peter is described as quoting a passage from the prophet Joel after having claimed that the "speaking in tongues" that Jesus's disciples were doing was happening in fulfillment of that particular prophetical writing. Acts 2:17-20 (quoting Joel 2:28-31) says,

And it will be in the last days, says God, (that) I will pour out [ _ek-cheō_ ] from my Spirit [ _pneuma_ ] upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters will prophesy, and your young men will see visions, and your elders will dream dreams. And yes, in those days I will pour out [ _ek-cheō_ ] from my Spirit [ _pneuma_ ] upon my male servants and upon my female servants, and they will prophesy. And I will do wonders in the heaven above, and signs upon the earth below, blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun will be turned [or changed, or turned around, or corrupted, or perverted: _meta-strephō_ ] into darkness [ _skotos_ ], and the moon into blood, BEFORE [ _prin_ ] [ **!!!** ] the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.

That doesn't exactly sound to me like a ringing endorsement of "prophesying," inasmuch as widespread "prophesying" is here being associated with "the turning of the sun into darkness," and "the turning of the moon into blood." (But also consider 1 Kings 17:1 and 1 Kings 18:41-45, focusing on verse 45.) Moreover, the fact that it is said that all of this "prophesying" would take place "before" the "coming of the day of the Lord" makes it sound as if humanity would first have to collectively "get all of its prophesying out of its system," so to speak, before any "day of the Lord" could possibly arrive. I get the sense that the authors of the Bible viewed this "time of prophesying" in the "last days" as something like a _necessary phase_ that they believed humanity would sooner or later have to pass through; but _by no means_ would they have regarded it as _the desired final destination_.

Also, it seems reasonable to suppose that the "hairy outer garment" or "hairy cloak" that "falls upon" Elisha after Elijah's ascension was understood by the authors of the New Testament to correspond to the certain _type_ of "Spirit" that Acts chapter 2 says would be "poured out upon _all flesh_ " — and not just "Jesus's disciples" — and cause "all flesh" to begin "prophesying." But if that's correct, then what Acts chapter 2 is telling us would be "poured out" upon "all flesh" is " _a double mouth_ in the Spirit" — which, again, I do not think the authors of the Bible believed to be any kind of ideal permanent situation. I think the authors of the Bible must have considered such a state of affairs to be _transitional_ , and nothing more, based partly on passages such as Zechariah 13:1-4 that clearly _denounce_ the "putting on of the hairy outer garment" on the grounds that there is something morally wrong about doing so. Also recall what Zechariah 13:8 says would happen "in the day of the Lord":

And it will come to pass that on all the earth, says the Lord, the two mouths [ _peh_ ] on it will be cut off and will cease to exist, and the third on it will remain.

But it certainly wasn't only Zechariah who thought there was at least _something_ morally wrong with "prophesying." Who do you think the author of 2 Kings chapter 2 believed ought to be emulated more: the figure of _Elijah_ or the figure of _Elisha_? I think the correct answer is clearly "Elijah." It is Elijah who "ascends," and it is Elisha who does _not_ "ascend." And to repeat what I wrote above, it is as a result of Elijah's "ascension" and Elisha's simultaneous "non-ascension" that Elijah finally _surrenders_ his hairy "outer garment" or "cloak" (Hebrew _addereth_ ), while Elisha _takes possession_ of it (along with Elijah's "double mouth" — which Elijah presumably also "leaves behind" as he "ascends").

In fact, in [2 Kings 2:23 some boys actually appear to be ridiculing Elisha for his inability to "ascend" (Hebrew _alah_ ; Greek _ana-bainō_ ) in the way that Elijah did. (And we are told that this ridiculing is in some way related to Elisha's either being or not being "baldheaded" — which I believe was almost certainly meant to be understood as an allusion to the "hairy outer garment" that Elisha acquires from Elijah after — as it is put in, say, 2 Kings 2:3 — Elijah is taken up "above the head Hebrew _rosh_ ; Greek _kephalé_ ]" of Elisha, whereupon the hairy "cloak" or "outer garment" [Hebrew _addereth_ ] "falls upon" Elisha, and Elisha then "raises it up.") In response to the boys' ridicule, Elisha curses them, and two bears (why "two" in particular?) suddenly come charging out of the woods and "tear apart" (or "cleave in two," or "split in two": Hebrew _baqa_ — a word which should be familiar to you by now) exactly forty-two of these "boys." (See [2 Kings 2:24.) As I pointed out earlier in this article in connection with discussing the figure of "Elijah," the symbolic numerical figure of "forty-two months" is equivalent to "three and a half years." If you are at all inclined to assume that it is probably just coincidental that the number of "boys" who are "cloven in two" is said to be exactly "forty-two," please take a look at James 5:17-18, which, when read in conjunction with Revelation 11:9-12, makes it appear likely that the author of James 5:17-18 meant to convey the idea of a "doubling" of the figure of "three and a half years" — resulting in the familiar biblical symbolic number of "seven," associated with the idea of "completion."]

The prediction made by the prophet Joel that is quoted in Acts 2:17-20, regarding the eventual arrival of a "time of universal prophesying," might relate to an idea that I suggested in Part 10, that the Bible may be implicitly telling us that humanity will sooner or later need to "retrace its steps" with regard to all "prophecy" and all religious esotericism, and "come to terms" with it, if it hopes to ever finally _move past_ it. (And in fact, my own writings about the Bible have been written with just such an attitude in mind.) In other words, the authors of the Bible — whether human or angelic — may have believed that religious esotericism could never be defeated until the knowledge of its existence, and of its workings, had already _become widely familiar_ , so that religious esotericism would _lose its aura of "mystery_ _."_ When ordinary people were no longer _intimidated_ by "prophecy" and religious esotericism, and instead began to greet it with the contempt and ridicule it deserves, it would finally become possible for humanity as a whole to gladly _cast it aside_ as something loathesome, useless, and detrimental to human welfare.

As I have already indicated, it seems to me that the attitude of the author of 2 Kings chapter 2 toward "prophesying" could not have been entirely favorable. When, in 2 Kings 2:9-10, Elisha asks Elijah for "a double mouth in your spirit," Elijah responds, according to many of the popular English translations of the Bible, by saying something like, "You have asked [ _sha'al_ ] a hard thing [ _qashah_ ]," or "You have requested a difficult thing" — which unfortunately leaves the author's intended meaning ambiguous, since the reader can't be sure whether the author meant that Elisha's request would be difficult for Elijah to grant, or that what Elisha was requesting would be a difficult burden for Elisha to bear if his wish were in fact granted. (Or, perhaps, the author intended both meanings at once.) Most of the translators and commentators seem to assume that the first of those two meanings was intended by the author; and that way of reading the passage is made more explicit by, for example, the Good News Translation, which translates the same sentence as "That is a difficult request to grant," or the New English Translation, which translates the sentence as "That's a difficult request!"

But I believe the sentence was meant to convey _at least_ the second meaning that I just proposed — and, if that reading is correct, then the author would have been expressing a certain measure of "anti-prophetical" sentiment, or at least some _ambivalence_ about the whole business of "prophesying." If my own attempts at translating the line are reasonably accurate (which shouldn't necessarily be assumed), I think the Hebrew Masoretic version of the passage may be saying either something like, "You have hardened [or stiffened: _qashah_ ] (yourself) by asking [ _sha'al_ ]," or else something like, "You have made (your life) more difficult [ _qashah_ ] by asking [ _sha'al_ ]."

I don't claim to be anything close to a Hebrew scholar, so I'm somewhat reluctant to offer these alternative translations, since they diverge by a fair amount from the consensus view regarding how to translate the sentence. But for evidence that tends to validate the reasonableness of the translations I suggested, see how the same forms of the Hebrew verbs [sha'al (qal, infinitive) and qashah (hiphil, perfect) that are used in 2 Kings 2:10 are used elsewhere in the Old Testament. Notice that one of the other passages using the verb _qashah_ (hiphil, perfect), Job 9:4, is using it reflexively — even though other passages using that same verb form are using it in a way that would correspond to the "active voice" in Greek. (Also, by the way, compare the use of the Hebrew word _qashah_ — which can mean "to be hard, to become hard, to make hard, to be stiff, to become stiff, to make stiff, to be severe, to be harsh, to be cruel, to be difficult, to make difficult, to be stubborn, to be obstinate, to be heavy" — in 1 Kings 12:4; and then compare that with 2 Corinthians 5:4 and Matthew 11:30.)]

Incidentally, the same Hebrew word that is used in 2 Kings 2:10, _qashah_ , is also used in [Deuteronomy 10:16, which implicitly equates a refusal to "circumcise one's heart" with the "stiffening" (Hebrew _qashah_ ) of one's "neck." A comparison of these two passages leads one to suspect that the author of 2 Kings 2:10 may have meant for Elisha to be understood as asking Elijah to give him what would essentially be equivalent to a partial " _uncircumcision_ of the heart," in which case the symbolic "outer garment" or "cloak" (Hebrew _addereth_ ) that Elisha receives from Elijah would have been meant to correspond to the symbolic "foreskin" (representing the symbolic "covering" or "curtain" — or, as it is elsewhere put in the New Testament, the "veil of flesh").]

Also, as for how the Greek Septuagint version of 2 Kings 2:10 ought to be translated, I'll admit that I'm not entirely sure about that one either. As with the Hebrew Masoretic version, the popular translations don't seem correct to me, but I'm not sure whether to attribute that to my own ignorance of the language, or to a lack of interest by the other translators in being as accurate as possible. In the Septuagint version of the passage, Elijah responds to Elisha's request by saying either something like, "You have hardened (yourself) [LXX _sklérynō_ ] (by) asking," or else something like, "You have hardened [or made difficult: LXX _sklérynō_ ] (the thing) being requested." The translation provided [here has "You hardened to ask" — which, by itself, makes no sense to me, since the Greek verb _sklérynō_ is used in the active voice in this verse, which begs the question of _what_ exactly Elijah is telling Elisha that he "hardened." I'm not sure if a Greek verb in the active voice would have ever been used reflexively at the time the Septuagint was translated; as far as I know, a Greek verb used reflexively will usually be in the middle or passive voice if no object is explicitly mentioned. But, as I indicated above, one of the passages in the Hebrew Masoretic text using the verb _qashah_ (in the hiphil, perfect form) is using it reflexively, even though other passages using that same verb form are using it in a way that would correspond to the "active voice" in Greek — and so this "reflexive" use of the "active voice" may have been carried over into the Greek translation of the original Hebrew text. At any rate, if the first translation I offered is _not_ correct, and the second translation is more accurate, then we would be left with the same potential ambiguity that one finds in the Hebrew Masoretic version. But if the first translation _is_ correct, it would remove the ambiguity, and show that at least the translator, and probably also the original author, intended to convey at least some of the "anti-prophetical" meaning that I was arguing for just above. Also, if the first translation is correct (and even if the second translation is correct), then consider that _not once_ in the New Testament are the Greek words _sklérynō_ , meaning "to harden, to become hardened," or _skléros_ , meaning "hard, difficult, harsh," or _sklérotés_ , meaning "hardness, stubbornness, callousness," or _sklérokardia_ , meaning "hardness of heart," used in a positive sense.]

In any event, if I were to rephrase what I think is going on in the scene using more colloquial language, I think Elijah may essentially be saying to Elisha something like, "With my ascent into the heavens, I'm looking forward to finally _being done_ once and for all with that crazy-making esoteric prophesying that I've spent my life doing — and just as I'm about to do that, you're telling me that you still actually want to _become_ a prophet? Well, if that's what you want, then so be it — but you at least ought to know that the life of a prophet is full of problems, and will require the making of a great many moral compromises." [Or, to restate Elisha's wish to receive "a double mouth in the Spirit" using more modern (and blunt) terminology, I think it would be comparable to a person expressing a desire to learn how to become more schizophrenic or psychotic than he or she currently is.] The message that I believe the author wanted to convey is that, as a result of the "ascension of Elijah," Elisha becomes able to advance beyond the stage of "disciple of a prophet" to the stage of full-fledged "prophet"; but Elijah, meanwhile, becomes able to move beyond the _transitory_ stage of "prophet" to something _better than that_.

Finally, compare 2 Kings 2:7 with Revelation 18:9-10. Notice how in both passages one finds some group of persons "standing at a distance" or "standing far off" (Greek _makrothen_ ). I think this increases the likelihood that the authors of the Bible would have associated the symbolic event of the "ascending" (Hebrew _alah_ ) of "Elijah" — along with the "falling" (Greek _piptō_ ) of the hairy "outer garment" (perhaps analogized to a kind of "corpse," Greek _ptōma_ ) — with the symbolic event of the "falling" (Greek _piptō_ ) of symbolic "Babel or Babylon" (see, e.g., Revelation 18:2), and the "ascending" (Greek _ana-bainō_ ) of the "smoke" from Babylon's perpetual "burning" (or "refining": Greek _pyrōsis_ ) (see Revelation 18:9 and Revelation 19:3). And I believe the authors of the Bible would have associated both of those two symbolic events — the "ascending of Elijah," and the "falling of Babel or Babylon" — with the idea of an end being brought to all esoteric "prophesying." (By the way, I think the phrase "the sons of the prophets" used in 2 Kings 2:7 was probably understood to mean "the disciples of the prophets." That might also explain why, in 2 Kings 2:12, Elisha would call Elijah "my father.")

Consider that the _continual_ or _perpetual_ "burning" of symbolic "Babel or Babylon" that is spoken of in Revelation 19:3 may have been understood to be the only remaining " _continual_ sacrificial burnt offering" that God would thenceforth require from humanity — which would help to explain why in Revelation 21:22 the author says that in his vision of the "new Jerusalem," he "saw no temple." (You may recall from Part 10 that I mentioned that the Hebrew noun _olah_ , meaning "burnt offering" or "whole burnt offering," is derived from the Hebrew verb _alah_ , meaning "to ascend," because of the fact that the smoke that came from the burning of the offering would "ascend" into the sky.) In connection with that idea, consider Daniel 11:31 and Daniel 8:11-14, which both speak of a temporary suspension of the "continual (burnt offering)" or "continual (sacrificial offering)" offered in the temple. Daniel 8:11-14 says,

(The goat's horn) became great, (even as great as) the Prince [ _sar_ ] of the army [or powers, or forces, or host: _tsaba_ ] (of heaven). And the continual (burnt offering) [ _tamid_ ; LXX _thysia_ ] was taken away from him, and the place of his sanctuary [or holy place: _miqdash_ , related to _qodesh_ ; LXX _hagion_ ] was thrown down [the LXX has "desolated, laid waste": _erémoō_ ]. And the army [ _tsaba_ ] was set against the continual (burnt offering) because of transgression, and truth [ _emeth_ ; LXX _dikaiosyné_ , meaning "righteousness"] was thrown down to the ground [or earth: _erets_ ], and (the goat's horn) worked and advanced. And I heard one holy one [ _qadosh_ ; LXX _hagios_ ] speaking, and another holy one said to the one speaking, "How long does the vision (last) (concerning) the continual (burnt offering), and the transgression of desolation [ _shamem_ ; LXX _erémōsis_ ], to give the sanctuary [or holy place: _qodesh_ ; LXX _hagion_ ] and the army [ _tsaba_ ; LXX _dynamis_ , which can mean "force" or "power"] (of heaven) to be a trampling place?" And (one of the holy ones) said to me [the LXX has "to him"], "Two thousand and three hundred evenings and mornings (will pass), and the sanctuary [or holy place: _qodesh_ ; LXX _hagion_ ] will be made right [or justified: _tsadeq_ ; the LXX has _katharizō_ , which means 'to cleanse, to purify, to make clear']."

Many popular translations of the last sentence of this passage say that the "sanctuary" would be " _restored_ " or "made right _again_." But neither the Masoretic text nor the Septuagint text indicates that precise notion. In fact, I think it's likely that the author meant for the "sanctuary" — once it had been "justified" or "cleansed" or "purified" — to be understood as having become _better than_ the "sanctuary" in its initial state, because the _kind_ of "continual burnt offering" that would come to replace the former one would be better.

In support of that suggestion, compare Daniel 8:11-14 with Ezekiel 47:12, which you may recall from Part 4:

And on the river, on its edge, from this (side) and from that (side), grows every kind of tree for food, whose leaf does not wither, neither does its fruit fail. It brings forth new fruit according to its months, because its waters flow out from the sanctuary [or holy place: _miqdash_ ; LXX _hagion_ ]. And the fruit is for food, and the leaf for healing.

And you may also recall how Ezekiel 47:12 apparently influenced the writing of Revelation 22:1-2, which, describing the "new Jerusalem," says,

And (the angel) showed me a river of water of life, clear as crystal, flowing out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. In the middle of its street, and on this (side) and on that (side) of the river, (was) (the) tree of life, producing twelve (kinds of) fruit according to month, each giving forth its fruit. And the leaves of the tree (were) for (the) healing of the nations.

A comparison of these passages indicates that the author of the Book of Revelation was likely thinking of the "sanctuary" (i.e., "the throne of God and of the Lamb") as having become "purified" or "cleansed" or "clarified" (Greek _katharizō_ ). In addition, while bearing in mind the use in Daniel 8:11-14 (LXX) of the Greek word _katharizō_ , recall how the "new Jerusalem" is described in Revelation 21:18 as being "clear [or pure, or unmixed, or clarified: _katharos_ ] gold, clear [ _katharos_ ] like glass." All of this evidence strongly suggests to me that the authors of the New Testament meant for the symbolic "new Jerusalem" or "heavenly Jerusalem" to be understood to be the "sanctuary" or "holy place" of which Daniel speaks, _after_ it had been "purified" or "clarified" or "cleansed." And, because of the antithesis between the symbolic "new Jerusalem" and the symbolic "Babel or Babylon," the only way in which the "sanctuary" could _be_ "purified" would be by reinstituting the "continual burnt offering" — but with "Babel or Babylon" — the symbolic "home" of the Lie — now being made the eternal "sacrificial victim," for which the animal and cereal (and human) sacrifices of ancient times had always served as mere (confused) _prefigurations_ and psychological _displacements_. (And again, I believe the symbolic " _outer_ body" of the crucified Jesus would have been understood by the authors of the New Testament to be largely equivalent to "Babel or Babylon" in terms of its symbolic significance — hence the perceived _need_ for the symbolic "Crucifixion" to occur.)

By the way, I would very hesitantly suggest that the "kings of the earth" spoken of in Revelation 18:9 — who are among the persons described as "standing at a distance" from the "burning" of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" — may have been understood by the authors of the New Testament to be a kind of "code phrase" meant to refer, not to all "prophets," but perhaps to _a certain type_ of "prophet" (as opposed, perhaps, to "prophets" or other persons whom the authors regarded as "kings of the heavens"; cf. [1 Corinthians 4:8, and also Revelation 22:5 when read in conjunction with Revelation 21:10). I don't feel especially confident that I am correct about that; but I toss out the suggestion partly because of the existence of the Hebrew verb _mashal_ , which can mean "to rule, to reign, to have dominion, lord, ruler, prince" — but, interestingly enough, can also mean "to make like, to liken, to assimilate, to make similar, to be like, to become like, to compare, to be compared, to resemble"; and, related to those meanings, can also mean "to put forth a parable, to use a proverb, to use parables, to use figurative language, to use allegorical language" — in other words, precisely the sort of activities that get religious esotericists highly excited. (Cf.  Mark 8:30 and  Luke 13:18.)

Perhaps the reason why the same Hebrew word would be able to refer to both of these two basic groups of meanings is that they were both derived from some commonly shared idea of "judging" or "discerning," whether as part of the practice of political governance or as part of esoteric religious discourse; or perhaps it was because many religious esotericists (i.e., "prophets") thought of themselves as being mentally or spiritually superior to the members of the "stupid herd" who they believed were only ever capable of understanding "exoteric" or "surface" meanings — no matter how ridiculous they might be. (See, e.g., [Numbers 22:27-30.) Incidentally, the Hebrew verb _mashal_ is related to the Hebrew noun _mashal_ , which can mean "parable, proverb, byword, similitude, simile, aphorism" — "usually of metaphorical nature," according to Strong's Concordance.]

## The "Crucifixion of Christ" understood as signifying the "death of prophecy"

So, we know that Zechariah 13:1-4 characterizes "prophesying" as " _speaking lies_ in the name of the Lord," and also associates "prophesying" with the figurative image of "putting on an outer garment (Hebrew _addereth_ ) of hair (Hebrew _sear_ ) _in order to deceive_." If I am correct in reaching the conclusion that the figure of "Jesus Christ" — as well as the figure of "Elijah" — were thought of by the authors of the New Testament as the archetypal "Final Prophet," then the "Crucifixion of Christ" would have been meant to symbolize the death of "prophecy **"** ; in which case, the "Resurrection of Christ" would have been meant to symbolize the living "inner meaning" of "prophecy" finally _emerging_ from its dead "outer meaning" (or its "shell," or its "outer covering," or its "cloak" — or its "cave," or its "tomb"), so that it could _additionally become_ the new "outer meaning." The _split_ between an "inner meaning" and an "outer meaning" in the scriptures would have thus been _healed_ — leaving us with only a single, _comprehensible_ meaning or message:

DON'T LIE.

And that's it. Any other "inner meanings" in the Bible that are worth paying attention to are already implicitly contained within that one particular "inner meaning." (And, by the way, in connection with that idea, you may be interested in reading Matthew 13:45-46, and then comparing that with Revelation 21:21.)

What, are you disappointed? Were you hoping that the "inner meaning" of the Bible would consist of some new, super-complicated set of teachings — or, at the very least, something more than what you had probably already been taught and instinctively understood before you entered kindergarten? (Cf. Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, Matthew 18:3, and Luke 18:17.) Were you expecting "arcane wisdom" that would enable you to unlock all of the secrets of nature? ("And ye shall be as gods...." Isn't that how we got into this mess in the first place?) Sorry, Dr. Faust, it doesn't work that way. It can't. If the prophet Zechariah and I are both correct about "prophetical communication" being intrinsically deceptive and misleading by its very nature, then the "inner meaning" of the " _final_ prophecy" of the "Final Prophet" cannot be anything _other than_ or _more than_ the simple message that all misleading and confusing "prophesying" — along with all other forms of unjustifiable deception, duplicity, dishonesty, obscuration, and obfuscation in communication — must henceforth be brought to an end. The "prophetical communications" attributed to "the Messiah" could have no "inner meaning" beyond that — if he is indeed to be thought of as a "Final Prophet." Otherwise, "prophesying" and "prophecy" would "still have some life left in it," since it would still be regarded as a useful and legitimate and even honorable means by which thoughts and ideas might be (surreptitiously) transmitted. As long as "prophecy" continues to be believed to contain some supposedly valuable "hidden wisdom" _in addition to_ that simple anti-prophetical and anti-esotericist message, "prophecy" has not yet been _exhausted_. And both the Bible and our God-given reason concur in telling us that "in the day of the Lord," all deceptive and misleading "prophetical communication" will necessarily have been _exhausted_ — because, "in the day of the Lord," the Lie will — by definition — have been _eliminated_.

And if you do feel at all disappointed by what I have just told you, consider that the ancient prophets may — in their own frustratingly recondite way — have been trying to warn us that this is the very realization that we would all eventually arrive at. As Jeremiah 51:58 says,

Thus says the Lord of forces or powers, or hosts, or battle, or order, or armies: _tsaba_ ; LXX _panto-kratōr_ , meaning "all-ruling"]: "The broad walls of Babel [or Babylon: _babel_ ] will be completely razed [or stripped, or made bare: _arar_ ; LXX _kata-skaptō_ , which literally means 'undermined' (as a result of 'digging down underneath'; cf. [Luke 6:47-49)], and her high [or lofty, or haughty, or proud, or exalted: _gaboah_ ; LXX _hypsélos_ ] gates will be burned with fire. And the peoples toil to no purpose, and the nations (toil) for fire; and they will be exhausted [or worn out: _yaeph_ ]."

By the way, compare this verse with [ Isaiah 30:12-14 while bearing in mind that the word "collapse" in verses 13 and 14 of that passage is translated into Greek in the Septuagint as _ptōma_ — which, as I mentioned in a previous section of this article, can mean "sudden calamitous fall" or "downfall" — but can also mean "dead body" or "carcass" or "corpse." This serves as a reminder of the close connection between the symbolic "fall of Babel" or "fall of Babylon," and the symbolic "Crucifixion of Christ."]

In the next and final installment, I will offer my concluding thoughts on the subject matter that I have been discussing in this series of articles.

# Part 12 of 12: So where do we go from here?

In this series of articles, I have endeavored to persuade Christians and Jews that the " _completion_ " or " _fulfillment_ " of the Christian and Jewish religions can only be found in the _elimination_ of both of those religions — their elimination, that is, _in their current forms_. I have provided copious evidence _from the Bible itself_ showing that the authors of the Bible were themselves eagerly looking forward to a time when writings like the Bible would no longer be read (or, at least, a time when people would no longer build their lives around such writings by regarding them as authoritative).

I realize that the basic position I have advanced in this series of articles will seem backwards to many religious persons — just as I believe that those persons' own expectations are backwards. The members of the traditional religions (at the very least, members of the Christian and Jewish religions) and I can probably agree that the "ending of prophecy" and the "ending of the present age" would somehow be associated with each other — but we probably disagree about the logical and temporal priority of those two "endings." Most Christians and Jews probably believe that, sure, prophetical writings can pass away... someday... but only after some dramatically wonderful change had occurred _first_ that would thenceforth make any further concern with prophetical writings unnecessary. (In fact, I think it is quite likely that the apostle Paul, along with the other authors of the Bible, believed exactly that.) And I am saying: **NO** — the "prophetical" manner of discourse must be repudiated _before_ it will even be _possible_ for any kind of "dramatically wonderful change" to occur.

Members of traditional religions such as Christianity and Judaism ought to feel a sense of assurance that they would _not_ be "bad Christians" or "bad Jews" if they stopped reading and studying the prophetical writings contained in the Bible, and if they took their leave of those religions in their current forms. (And, by the way, when I speak of "prophetical writings," I have in mind any book in the Bible that is concerned with discussing the "end times" or "the end of the age" — so I am thinking of not only the Old Testament prophetical writings, but also of all of the books contained in the New Testament.) On the contrary, such persons would be " _good_ Christians" and " _good_ Jews," because they would be hearkening to what the Bible's prophets were _actually_ trying to say to them all along. The transcending or superseding of traditional, esoteric religions such as Christianity and Judaism should be thought of as the _fulfillment_ of those religions, and not as the _repudiation_ of them — in much the same way that the founders of Christianity thought of their religion (incorrectly, in my view) as the fulfillment, rather than as the repudiation, of Judaism. Again, as strange and surprising and paradoxical as it will undoubtedly sound to many people, _Bible_ _prophecy will be fulfilled_ _only_ _when both Christians and Jews finally find the strength and courage to_ _dispense with_ _the Bible's prophetical writings_. So it is in no way "impious" or "irreverent" to do that — but only if it is being done for the right reasons.

When I say "the right reasons," what I mean is that if persons choose to depart from traditional Christianity or traditional Judaism because they consider the moral rules or standards of their religion to be _too strict_ , or because they "just don't like being told what to do," then those persons are probably leaving their religion for the _wrong_ reasons. I am suggesting that persons should take their leave of traditional Christianity and traditional Judaism (as well as the other traditional religions), not because such religions are _too_ morally scrupulous, but because they have not been morally scrupulous _enough_. I am advocating that humanity advance to a _higher_ level of morality — and not regress to a lower one.

And it is possible for us to do that by forming religions in which their members would agree to actively oppose all manifestations of dishonesty — _especially_ including the basic deceptiveness intrinsic to the esoteric manner of religious discourse. People would be allowed and even encouraged to retain anything in the teachings and writings of their own traditional religion that was _not incompatible_ with a thoroughgoing and comprehensive "no dishonesty" policy. But if some persons found even that generous and welcoming prospect to be too frightening, or even just too "disagreeable," then that would provide all the more reason why the esotericist elements of the traditional religions must be vigorously opposed. It would show that such persons have become far too comfortable with, and perhaps even "addicted to," the existence of dishonesty — just so long as the dishonesty takes a familiar and accustomed form to which they feel a sentimental (or perhaps merely selfish) attachment.

As I already indicated to some extent in Part 2, my own attitude regarding symbolic and verbal ambiguity and multiple meanings in communication is _not_ one of total opposition to it. What I am opposed to is the inclusion of symbolic and verbal ambiguity, multiple meanings, cryptic language, allegory, riddles, puns, inside jokes, and hidden and obscurely allusive metaphors in a religion's _authoritative_ writings. I have never taken the position that symbolic ambiguity is necessarily evil in all circumstances and situations. People can, and often do, derive inspiration and new creative insights from works of art and literature that contain symbolic ambiguity. But in the case of religion, where members are seeking (or ought to be seeking) clear and definite mental direction regarding how to make sense of their world and how to go about successfully and peaceably living their lives in a society composed of other persons, the authoritative writings should strive to avoid as much ambiguity as possible. I wouldn't even object if a religion were to _recommend_ that its members read a particular cryptic, obscure, enigmatic, ambiguous, esoteric writing for the sheer fun of it — whether it be a book of modern poetry, or the _I Ching_ , or even the Bible, if that's the sort of thing the members tended to enjoy reading — just so long as the religion didn't _require_ its members to _claim_ that their religious _beliefs_ found their source and justification in a writing of that nature — since the ambiguity and obscurity of that type of communication _necessarily_ makes any such claim insincere and disingenuous. And _everyone_ in society ought to be opposed to the systematic _habituation_ of other members of their own society to engage in insincere and disingenuous ways of thinking — no matter _who_ is doing the habituating, and no matter how much "respectability" they currently enjoy — because _everyone_ in society is _harmed_ when it is allowed to take place.

The way I see it, having the authoritative writings of a religion consist mostly of stories and poetry (such as the Bible does) is about as nonsensical as if a legislature were to decide to no longer draft statutes consisting of relatively direct, clear, and prosaic language, and to henceforth only pass legislation consisting of cryptically figurative and obscurely allusive allegorical stories and poetry (preferably written in some ancient foreign language that no one can honestly be sure that they fully understand) — and then set the courts loose to try to figure out some way to use the stories and poetry in the solving of real-world problems and disputes. (And yes, the courts would of course be expected to give citations of the stories and poetry, chapter and verse, in their judicial opinions — just as theologians do with the Bible.) To have the most cryptic, ambiguous, and unclear writings of a religion be the _most_ authoritative writings of that religion, instead of the _least_ authoritative writings — so that relatively prosaic religious writings (e.g., Aquinas's _Summa Theologica_ or the Roman Catholic Catechism) actually have _less_ authority than the cryptically symbolic scriptures from which they are supposedly derived (e.g., the Bible), instead of _more_ authority — is completely _upside-down_. The purpose of a religion is (or ought to be) to give people proper _guidance_ , which requires a reasonable degree of _certainty_ on the part of a religion's membership with regard to what the religion's authoritative writings _actually mean_.

The fact of the matter is that the Bible has come to serve as a kind of "security blanket" (or "security cloak"?) for many religious persons. Religious discourse taking the form of esoteric "prophecy" ought to be thought of as something akin to the training wheels on a bicycle. It is — at best — what has been preparing humanity to accept the idea that we must finally _move past_ it. At some point, it is necessary that a person let go of "childish things" such as security blankets and training wheels. The "New Age" or "Messianic Age," when it finally arrives, will be an age analogous to the _adulthood_ of mankind.

I would like to ask Christians the following questions: Assuming you weren't hoping that the "present age" would end in a catastrophic nuclear holocaust or something closely resembling it, what exactly did you expect that the "Second Coming of Christ" or "Messianic Age" or "New Age" or "Day of the Lord" would look like? What did you think it would involve? How did you think it would arrive? How would you know that it _had_ arrived? Who would announce it and how would it be announced? Were you expecting that the cable news channels would provide live television coverage of an army of persons flying down from the heavens riding white horses, with Jesus leading the way, wearing a blood-soaked robe and with a sword popping out of his mouth? (See  Revelation 19:11-16.) Would we finally find out whether Jesus Christ was a Republican or a Democrat by seeing whether he chose to give his first live interview on Fox News or MSNBC? (And for that matter: How many self-described Christians have even given the matter any serious thought?)

The "Day of the Lord" is described in the Bible as bringing about enormous changes to the world. Did Christians think that Christianity would remain untouched? Did they assume that there would be no radical reforms of the religion? Why? If Christianity is so flawless in its current form(s), then why should there even be a need for a "Second Coming" of Christ? Why didn't the Christian religion just keep growing and growing until it spread over the entire earth, making everything into a marvelous paradise? Some Christians might respond: "Because human nature is depraved; people are wicked and they love wickedness." Okay, let's say that's true. How is that going to change as a result of the "Day of the Lord" arriving? Are the "angels of God" going to force people to stop being wicked when being wicked is what they'd really like to be? Doesn't that violate their free will? And if God and his angels don't have any problem with forcing people to stop being wicked against their will, then why didn't they just do that a long, long time ago, and spare human beings a lot of grief and misery?

Or Christians might respond: "We need the help of God's angels to keep the bad people away from us." Why? Why can't you just associate with the persons you consider "good people" and avoid the persons you consider to be "bad people"? They might respond: "We don't know how. Only God is able to judge a person's heart." Well, in that case, why are you complaining about people's "wickedness"? Apparently you don't deem yourself to be competent to make such judgments. Maybe all of those persons you have secretly judged to be "wicked" only _seem_ to be wicked "on the outside," but they actually have pure hearts that are visible only to God, and that's why God doesn't do anything to interfere. In other words: I say that any Christians who claim — at least in this particular context — that they are incompetent to judge other people's moral character are being disingenuous. They are _already_ doing that, since their assessments of human beings' moral failings provide _the entire basis_ for their hoping for the arrival of a "Day of the Lord" when they will be protected from the effects of those moral failings. So I don't believe it is really only _other people's_ moral failings that they want to be protected from; _it's also their own_. What I believe they are actually hoping for is that they will someday be _forced_ to stop being immoral _at exactly the same moment_ that everyone else is _forced_ to stop being immoral; but until that happens, they wish to continue being immoral (and especially, to continue lying and tolerating other persons' lying) as long as they can possibly get away with doing so.

Or were Christians and other religious persons expecting that "angels of God" would have to be involved in some way in the "dawning of a New Age"? But as I have already indicated in this series of articles, I think there is good reason to believe that they _have_ been involved — perhaps just not in the way that many of those persons were expecting. Were you waiting for angels to literally come swooping down from out of the literal sky and then suddenly seize control of all of the social and political institutions of human society in a massive angelic "putsch," so that they could force all of their inferior human "subjects" to start acting in a more "holy" manner against their will? It would be the kind of world that someone like Stalin could only _fantasize about_ creating. And let me get this straight: _That's_ the kind of world that you have been expectantly waiting for, and _hoping_ would come into existence? As I have said previously, _angels are_ _never_ _going to do for human beings what we are perfectly capable of doing for ourselves, but simply choose not to do._ They _can't_ , since all evidence indicates that they are required to respect human free will (at least up to a point). And again, even if they _could_ override our free will "for our own good," and wished to do so, then why haven't they already done it? _What have they been waiting for_ _?_

And there can be no doubt that there has been _plenty_ of "waiting." The plain fact is that if "angels" do indeed exist (and I believe they do), then they have allowed roughly _two thousand years_ to pass since Paul and the other authors of the New Testament were announcing to their followers that "the end of the present age" had already arrived, or else were predicting that it soon would arrive. (See 1 Corinthians 7:26 and 7:29 and 7:31; 1 Corinthians 10:11;  Philippians 4:5; Hebrews 1:2; Hebrews 9:26; Hebrews 10:25;  James 5:7-8; 1 Peter 1:20; 1 Peter 4:7; 1 John 2:18;  Jude 1:17-18; Revelation 1:1; Revelation 1:3; Revelation 3:11; Revelation 22:6; Revelation 22:7; Revelation 22:10; Revelation 22:12; and Revelation 22:20.) I don't suppose it needs pointing out that "the end of the present age" has in fact _not_ yet arrived. And that means that the authors of the New Testament must have been _profoundly wrong_ in their understanding of _the manner in which_ the promised "New Age" or "Messianic Age" would come into being, and of what measures would need to be taken in order to _make it possible_ for it to come into being. (I am, of course, assuming that those authors were not mistaken even to believe that some kind of "New Age" or "Messianic Age" would ever arrive at all — but my own personal belief is that they were in fact _not_ mistaken about that.) The error in their thinking must have been of crucial significance for them to be so terribly wrong about the time when the "Day of the Lord" would arrive — and _Christians cannot deny this_ or pretend that it's merely some "harmless error" that they can cheerfully overlook, no matter how much they might like to. _And I believe that the fundamental error in the thinking of the Christian apostles was rooted in their willingness to continue to encourage and promote inherently misleading "allegorical readings" of the Bible_ (or, for that matter, of any other religious writings that they would have had their followers recognize as authoritative).

[By the way, the English word "allegory" is derived from the Greek word _allégoreō_ , meaning "to allegorize," which is in turn derived from the Greek words _allos_ , meaning "other" or "different," and _agoreō_ , which can mean "to speak in an assembly, to tell a tale, to declare." In other words, to "allegorize" literally means to speak or to tell a story using language that would lead _ordinary_ listeners to believe that the meaning the speaker wished to convey was something _other than_ the meaning that the speaker _actually_ wished to convey to the "right" sort of listener. In short: "Allegory" is a word with an ugly pedigree.]

Some Christians might wish to respond to the Bible passages that I cited above by pointing to 2 Peter 3:1-13, especially verse 8, which says,

[W]ith the Lord, a single day is as a thousand years; and a thousand years are as a single day.

But that is, quite frankly, irrelevant. The relevant question is not how the events of human history appear from a "God-like" perspective; rather, the relevant question is what events the Christian apostles were expecting to occur — as well as _when_ they were expecting them to occur — and also what they were teaching the members of their "flock" to expect to occur. And that's because the answers to questions such as these tell us a great deal about the extent of the Christian apostles' _understanding_ of "God's ways" and of his "divine plan." So the real issue at hand is the _credibility_ of the Christian apostles. Verse 9 of that same passage says, "The Lord does not delay (his) promise"; but even if _the Lord_ does not "delay his promise," _human beings_ — including Christians — may, over the centuries, have very well been unwittingly responsible for doing exactly that. And even 2 Peter 3:1-13, especially verse 3, still implies that its author believed that the world was _already_ in the "last days," and that Christians should expect the "coming of the Lord" to happen at any time. So if even 2 Peter 3:1-13 cannot be relied upon by modern-day Christians to explain away such a _massive_ error in judgment on the part of the early Christian apostles and the authors of the New Testament, then what possible justification or excuse _can_ they offer? There is none that I am aware of.

And how else can we know that the authors of the New Testament were profoundly mistaken about how "the ending of the present age" would occur? One way is by comparing Daniel 12:4 and Daniel 12:9 with Revelation 22:10. In Daniel 12:4, an angel says to the prophet Daniel,

And you, Daniel, shut up [or stop up: _satham_ ; LXX _emphrassō_ ; or LXX _kalyptō_ , meaning "to cover, to veil"] the words [or message, or meaning: _dabar_ ; LXX _logos_ ], and seal [ _chatham_ ; LXX _sphragizō_ ] the book [ _sepher_ ; LXX _biblion_ ] until the time [ _eth_ ; LXX _kairos_ ] of the end [or completion, or consummation: _qets_ ; LXX _syn-teleia_ ]. And multitudes [ _rab_ ; LXX _polys_ ] will roam about [ _shuwt_ ; the LXX has "shall be instructed": _didaskō_ ], and the knowledge [ _daath_ ; LXX _gnōsis_ ] will be multiplied [or increased: _rabah_ ; LXX _pléthynō_ ].

Similarly, in Daniel 12:8-9 the prophet Daniel says,

And I heard [ _shama_ ; LXX _akouō_ ], but I did not understand [or comprehend: _bin_ ; LXX _syn-iémi_ ]. And I said, "My lord, what will be the outcome [or "after-parts": _acharith_ , derived from _achar_ ] of these (things)?" [The LXX has, "And I said, 'Lord, what of these last [ _eschatos_ ] things?'"] And (the angel) said, "Go, Daniel, for the words [or message, or meaning: _dabar_ ; LXX _logos_ ] are shut up [ _satham_ ; LXX _emphrassō_ ] and sealed [ _chatham_ ; LXX _sphragizō_ ] until the time [ _eth_ ; LXX _kairos_ ] of the end [or limit, or border: _qets_ ; LXX _peras_ ]."

But Revelation 22:10 says,

And (the angel) said to me, "Do NOT seal [ _sphragizō_ ] the words [or message, or meaning: _logos_ ] of the prophecy of this book [ _biblion_ ], for the time [ _kairos_ ] is near [or at hand: _eggys_ or _engys_ ]."

So the author of the Book of Revelation clearly didn't believe that "a single day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years are as a single day" — at least if that is taken to mean that all references in the Bible to _time_ should be regarded as utterly _meaningless_ , so that there is no difference at all between the ideas of "soon" and "not soon" whenever such ideas are spoken about.

But what led to the change in thinking between the time at which the Book of Daniel was written and the time at which the Book of Revelation was written? What had happened to make the authors of the New Testament so _certain_ that "the ending of the present age" had either already arrived, or else was "near" or "at hand"? My own theory is that those authors were probably being actively encouraged by "spirit entities" to believe that the dawning of the "New Age" or "Messianic Age" was imminent (an "age" which, you will recall, would — by definition — be an age in which dishonesty would no longer exist). Meanwhile, those "spirit entities" (more specifically, "demonic entities") would undoubtedly have been _making a deliberate point_ of _neglecting_ to call to the attention of the Christian apostles and the authors of the New Testament what should have been _obvious_ to them based solely on the exercise of their own reason: that no matter how long one waits, the practice of dishonesty will never, and can never, spontaneously "evolve" into the practice of honesty on its own. The practice of dishonesty in a particular situation must be first recognized and then _decisively repudiated_ ; and the brute fact is that the Christian apostles _never were_ willing to repudiate the practice of dishonesty in its entirety — not really. In other words, I believe "demonic entities" were probably — as they went about "probing for weaknesses" in the Christian apostles — actively encouraging them to believe _exactly what some (less noble) part of them was already inclined to believe_ : namely, that they would very soon be able to enjoy living in a world in which dishonesty would no longer exist, _but without needing to first become completely honest themselves_.

And I believe that Bible passages such as Galatians 4:21-26 prove beyond any doubt that the Christian apostles were _not_ willing to decisively repudiate the practice of dishonesty, inasmuch as they were unwilling to decisively repudiate the practice of religious esotericism. Recall that in Galatians 4:21-26 Paul writes,

Tell me, those wishing to be under the Law, do you not hear the Law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one from the slave woman and one from the free woman. But the (son) of the slave woman has been born according to the flesh, but the (son) of the free woman (has been born) through promise. This is ALLEGORIZING [ _allégoreō_ ], for these are two covenants, one from Mount Sinai, bearing (children) for slavery, which is Hagar. Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia, and corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem above [i.e., "Sarah"] is free, which is our mother.

Now, if it is necessary for Paul to explain to the readers of his epistle that the scriptures — that is, according to Paul's own way of understanding the scriptures — do not _actually mean_ what they _appear to his readers to mean_ , and therefore require Paul's "deciphering" for them to be correctly understood, then that necessarily implies that prior to their reading of the epistle that Paul wrote to them, at least some members of the Galatian church congregation were being _misled_ by those scriptures (and not due to the members' own fault or ineptitude). But, significantly, _Paul does not object to_ the promulgation and endorsement of writings that _he knows for a fact_ must have caused people to be misled, and that require "deciphering" in order for their "true" meaning to be known — just so long as Paul, and other persons who think more or less as he does, are the ones doing the "deciphering." (In fact, he even seems to be expressing _annoyance_ that the church members weren't able to arrive at that same "secret meaning" on their own.) Paul refused to adopt what I consider to be the morally self-evident position that even though a religious writing (as with any other writing) will always require a certain amount of interpretation, _no_ religious writing should _ever_ require "deciphering" — because unlike, say, a novel, people are _relying upon_ the _truthfulness_ of religious writings in living their lives.

I think what this ultimately shows is that Paul did not especially _care_ whether the scriptures — both the Old Testament and the New Testament scriptures — were read relatively literally or relatively allegorically. (Cf. 1 Corinthians 9:19-22 and 1 Corinthians 10:32.) And, if Paul believed that an allegorical reading of those writings was in fact the _correct_ reading, then that would once again show that he did not especially _care_ whether or not people ended up being misled by them. And when, in Galatians 4:21-26, Paul _does_ insist upon an allegorical reading of the scriptures, he does so only in order to dissuade his readers from making themselves subject to, as he elsewhere puts it, "the law of commandments in ordinances" — toward which he seems to have developed a near-obsessive hatred that, in my opinion, interfered with his ability to view these sorts of matters objectively.

But if Paul and the other Christian apostles did not especially _care_ whether or not people ended up being misled by the writings that they were either promoting or producing, then they could not have been completely _committed_ to the cause of honesty. And because of that refusal to be fully committed to the cause of honesty, the arrival of a "New Age" or "Messianic Age" has been, and will continue to be, _prevented_ by the basic _logical incoherence_ contained in their thinking and in the thinking of the other authors of the Bible. Until that logical incoherence is sincerely and courageously acknowledged, confronted, and eliminated, no "New Age" or "Messianic Age" _can ever_ arrive.

And I realize that finding the courage to do that can be very difficult, especially for persons who have been life-long members of the Christian or Jewish religions, or of some other traditional religion. But I believe that that difficulty could be somewhat alleviated if we made a point of encouraging _both_ "secular rationalists" and "traditional religionists" to admit that _each of the two groups has been mistaken in its own way_ — because if each "side" has been mistaken in its own way, it would provide some basis for _compromise_. As we all know from common experience, it is easier to admit that you were wrong to some extent about something when your former "adversary" is equally willing to do the same. Part of the basis for reaching such a compromise could be found if "secular rationalists" were willing to acknowledge that all of the prophecies found in the traditional religions that speak of the eventual advent of a "New Age" in which the Lie would cease to exist, actually turn out to have been _correct_.

But at the same time — and this is extremely important — you will also notice that if, for example, you read  my exposition of the "honesty culture" strategy (in which I discuss some _practical_ measures that we might take to actually _begin creating_ a world free of dishonesty), at no point do I ever ask the reader to accept any of my arguments based on any appeal to his or her religious "faith," or based on any appeal to the contents of the sacred scriptures of any traditional religion. (There is a single arguable exception: when, toward the end of that exposition, I approvingly quote Jesus's saying that "the truth will set you free" — although I don't cite the Bible as the source of the saying.) The only appeal I make in that exposition is to the reader's own reason, logic, and moral intuition. In other words, it was never really _necessary_ that the idea of a future "New Age" free of dishonesty have been "revealed" by "angels" in order for that idea to occur to human beings; it is an idea that we have always had the ability to discover on our own. (But it is at least conceivable that people's full and genuine acceptance of that idea in the future will have occurred _sooner_ because of the "revelations" received by religious prophets than it otherwise would have.)

This is happily _fortuitous_ , to say the least. It means that it would be possible for _all of_ humanity to arrive at the dawning of a "New Age" _together_ , if we made a deliberate point of envisioning and characterizing it in such a manner that neither the adherents of the traditional religions, nor persons whose orientation was more purely "rational," or "philosophical," or "logical," or "secular," would find the prospect of entering upon such a "New Age" objectionable out of a fear of feeling "left out" or "proven wrong" by its arrival. Members of both of those two basic groups of people would be able to find their own accustomed way of viewing the world largely _vindicated_ in the end, because each group would realize that the other had actually been looking toward more or less _the same mental object_ ; it's just that the two groups had been looking at that same object from _two different mental vantage points_. Each group could thus mentally approach this _same_ idea of a "New Age" in its own unique way: either as a fulfillment of "divine prophecy," or as a fulfillment of human reason and enlightened collective human self-interest. It would not be necessary to show that either of those two basic groups had been entirely "in the wrong" in its thinking. (But again, those two basic groups would also come to realize that neither of them had been entirely "in the right" either.) _Reason and revelation would thus show themselves to be in harmony_ — at least in this one particular (but exceedingly _important_ ) context. That is _very_ good news for all persons who wish to see the advent of a "New Age" in which all of humanity would finally be rid of the Lie and all of its attendant evils.

And that is precisely what I personally believe would characterize any "New Age" or "Messianic Age" worthy of the name. It would — at the very least — be an age in which human beings no longer deliberately, or (eventually) even negligently, lied to or misled one another. This "New Age" would be an ideal which humanity would constantly approach, but which it would never be able to entirely attain. Think of it as something like a mathematical asymptote. Even after the more flagrant types of lying had been eliminated, persons would still sometimes (either out of negligence or out of non-culpable ignorance) mislead other persons. The amount of communication that had the effect of misleading other persons could be continuously reduced, but we can safely assume that some misunderstandings would always exist so long as individual persons still had independently operating minds (which I believe is something that all of us should strongly desire). However, the ultimate goal would be to _minimize_ the amount of misunderstandings in the world, by our _constantly striving_ to reduce that amount.

Flat-out lying is only the most blatant and obvious way of creating misunderstandings, since a lie is deliberately intended to create a misunderstanding. The number of misunderstandings caused by negligence and simple ignorance and sincere error is actually far greater. But the fact that we human beings do not think it especially important or urgent to put an end _even to deliberately created misunderstandings_ does not reflect well upon our species. I can imagine more advanced alien life-forms observing us and scornfully looking down on us as an astoundingly pathetic and wretched species for not feeling any desire to, or even bothering to try to understand why it is necessary to, tackle the most flagrant and obvious causes of misunderstandings and confusion among the members of _our own_ species. All of us have the misfortune of being members of a species that has, in effect, freely and happily decided to _make itself into a collective moron_ — even though it was never necessary that any such thing happen.

When looked at in those terms, it becomes easier to see why I insist that honesty should be regarded as the most crucially important of all values and virtues — even more important than "love," "compassion," "kindness," "peace," and so on. To avoid misleading other persons and to avoid causing misunderstandings _necessarily requires the cultivation of empathy_ as a matter of course, since a person can only know whether his or her communications will likely mislead another person by first "putting himself in the shoes" of that other person in order to gain a better understanding of how he or she thinks and views the world. But if you decide to regard "love" or "kindness" or some other value as being at least as important as honesty, so that it becomes acceptable to "balance it against" honesty whenever it "seems right" to you, then it suddenly becomes permissible to lie to others "for their own good" — and people are very, very good at _lying to themselves_ about whether their actions are really meant to advance the welfare of another person, or their own. It is not uncommon to find narrow selfishness or even hatred masquerading as "love." My own position is that _the most compassionate and caring thing that one person can do for another person is never to try to mislead that other person — for_ ANY _reason_. It is _never_ morally acceptable to lie to other persons "for their own good." (And if the reason why that is true is not already intuitively obvious to you, then I'll spell out for you the _very simple_ moral reason why it is true: It's a violation of the "Golden Rule." Would you appreciate being lied to "for your own good" — for _any_ reason? No? _Then don't do it to others_.)

In Ephesians 4:15-16 Paul writes,

But speaking the truth in love [ _agapé_ ], we shall in all things grow up into him who is the head, Christ, from whom all the body, being fitted together and held together by every joint (contained in the body) according to the energy in the measure of every single part, produces growth of the body unto the building up of itself in love [ _agapé_ ].

And I don't disagree with the statement that Paul makes here that we should all be "speaking the truth in love" — just so long as the phrase "in love" as being treated as a _qualification_ of the phrase "speaking the truth." In other words, when a person chooses to speak, he should _only_ speak truthfully; but even when he speaks truthfully, he should _only_ do so in a spirit of kindness and constructiveness — otherwise, it would be better if nothing were spoken at all. Likewise, however, no matter how loving and kind a person believes his motives are, if he is not speaking the truth, or is misleading others by his speech, then it would once again be better if nothing were spoken at all.

So if some people have a different notion of what the "New Age" or "Messianic Age" would look like than I do — thinking that it would be more of an "age of universal love and peace" than an "age of universal honesty" — please understand that I don't exactly disagree with you. I'm just saying that the only way in which we could ever arrive at a state of "universal love and peace" in the world would be by _first_ making it our goal to create a state of "universal honesty" — and also by making it a point _never_ to compromise with regard to the realization of that particular goal.

I believe the greatest mistake made by Paul and the other Christian apostles was their failure to recognize the correctness of what I just said. It was because they failed to be _consistently_ opposed to all dishonesty, and to make dishonesty their _chief_ concern, that they were unable to recognize the fact that esoteric religious writings are fundamentally morally defective due to their intrinsically deceptive and misleading nature, so that one should never encourage others to regard any writings of that kind as authoritative (which is, unfortunately, precisely what Paul does in, for example, 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and Romans 15:4). And they failed to be consistently opposed to all dishonesty because, in my view, they didn't "keep their eye on the ball," in so far as they allowed themselves to be excessively focused on the importance of "love" (or "loving-kindness," or "charity," or "benevolence": Greek _agapé_ ). (See, for example, Paul's famous "love chapter," 1 Corinthians 13, as well as Romans 13:8-10.) Even if love is the final end of our existence, honesty is the necessary means to that end — so that's where the primary focus of our attention should lie.

The reason why the virtue of honesty is so essential to a society is that a society can only function successfully if all members of the society are attending to their own enlightened self-interest. But for that self-interest to be genuinely _enlightened_ , and not stupidly narrow (which actually detracts from the ability of a person to achieve his own greatest good — no matter how things might appear to that unenlightened and narrowly selfish person), it is necessary that all communications be as honest and transparent as possible. Rational thought _requires_ honest communication (not the least of which, honest communication _with oneself_ ); and it is impossible to know how to most effectively advance _one's own personal_ enlightened self-interest, and _one's own society's_ enlightened self-interest — and yes, the two are the same — in the absence of rational thought.

It is not enough to have a free flow of information in society without more; it is necessary to have a free flow of _truthful_ information. It of course cannot be disputed that digital technology and the internet have created the ability to spread information with much greater efficiency than in the past; but society will not benefit if what is being spread with greater efficiency than ever before is _untruthful_ information. Honesty is the "gateway" or "entryway" to all other good things in life. Honesty is obviously not the only good thing in life; but it is what makes all other good things _possible_. I get the sense that many people have a kind of desperate "faith" that technological advances, if only they come fast enough, will somehow be able to compensate for a basic lack of morality (and more specifically, honesty) in society, by always keeping us "one step ahead" of the harmful social repercussions of our individual moral "shortcuts." Any such "faith" is badly misplaced. If the _extreme_ and _fundamental_ importance of honesty to any society's well-being is disregarded, then all of the technological advances in the world, no matter how feverishly they are pursued, will not be enough to save us.

But — assuming our species does not exterminate itself first — I am willing to _predict with certainty_ the very thing that the prophets of the Bible and of other traditional religions predicted: that humanity will defeat the Lie — eventually, anyway. And that is because we _must_ — because anything even resembling our modern way of life simply cannot continue if we do not. It is _necessary_ that humanity solve the problem of the Lie once and for all; and  this passage written by the sociologist Georg Simmel helps to explain why. A world of unchecked technological development (including military technological development), coupled with the rampant deception and loss of accountability facilitated by bureaucratization, compartmentalization, a widespread attitude of meek submission to rule by unnamed and unseen "experts," routine online anonymity, and ever-increasing complexity, will in time become a world in which few will enjoy living. In the "Information Age," dishonesty is something that we simply do not have the luxury of tolerating indefinitely. Sooner or later, people _will_ figure that out.

Of course, in the meantime, there will be many persons who will undoubtedly try very hard to selfishly _pretend_ — as long as they possibly can — that defeating the Lie "just can't be done." But even in spite of that stubborn resistance, there are and always will be certain intrinsic and immutable social forces and dynamics, rooted in the very nature of things, that ceaselessly urge humanity toward its final arrival at the _tremendous realization_ that defeating the Lie actually _can_ , _should_ , and _must_ be done. I believe that the ancient prophets who predicted the eventual defeat of the Lie were gifted with an insight that allowed them to _recognize the existence_ of that natural, intrinsic tendency that is always, even when imperceptibly, moving humanity in the direction of complete truthfulness and honesty — no matter how bad and corrupt and hopeless the world might _appear_ to any of us to be at any particular time.

# Where to find other writings of mine

AgainstTheLie.com

HonestyCulture.com

My second and newest ebook, _"Thorn Bushes and Thistles": The Rise of Prophecy, and the Fall of Man_ , is now available at your favorite ebook retailer.

Thank you for your time, interest, and devotion to honesty!

Eric Heubeck

