

" **Thorn Bushes and Thistles** ":

### The Rise of Prophecy,  
and the Fall of Man

### 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 August 13, 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 the reading is made considerably more difficult.

### Contents

Preface

Introduction

A brief overview of the argument I make in this book

How to read the Bible; and how to read this book

Chapter 1: Why all "prophets" are really "false prophets"

How all so-called "prophesying" is actually deceptive and misleading

"Relatively truthful prophets" compared to "relatively untruthful prophets" (i.e., so-called "false prophets")

Chapter 2: The "Fall of Man" understood as the mythical birth of the desire to "prophesy" and to listen to the deceptive and misleading words of "prophecy"

"Thorn-bushes," "thistles," "false prophets," and "the cursing of the earth"

New Testament authors on the association between the symbolic "serpent" (and "Satan") and "false prophets" (and "false teachers," and "false apostles")

A summing-up of what we've established so far

Chapter 3: More on the Biblical symbols of "thorn-bushes," "bramble-bushes," and "thistle plants"

The acceptance of "prophecy" and "prophesying" understood as the refusal to "drink" from the "rains" or "waters" of the Holy Spirit; and the "cursing" of the "ground" or "earth" that results from that refusal

Moses and the "burning bush"

Chapter 4: The pre-Crucifixion "Jesus Christ" understood as the "tree of knowledge of good and evil"; and the ascended "Jesus Christ" understood as the "tree of life"

Jesus as the "vine" consisting of a mixture of "good branches" and "worthless branches"

The "Messiah" seen as the "new plant" that replaces the "former plants"

The "crown of thorns" worn by the crucified "King of the Jews"

What does it mean to "recrucify the Son of God in oneself"?

Chapter 5: "Farmers" and "shepherds": The figures of Cain and Abel

A closer look at Genesis 4:1-5: The two different types of "offerings"

A closer look at Genesis 4:6-7: What does it mean for Cain to "rule over" sin?

A closer look at Genesis 4:8-12: What is the "voice" of Abel's "blood"?

A closer look at Genesis 4:13-16: The "sign of Cain"

A closer look at Genesis 4:17-22: Cain, builder of the world's first "city"

Chapter 6: How the writings of the prophet Zechariah link the story of the "Fall of Man," and the figures of Cain and Abel, with the story of the "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ"

Proof that metaphorical "shepherds" were meant to be understood as signifying "prophets"; and what that would imply

What Zechariah has to say about the figures of Cain and Abel

The symbols of the "thirty pieces of silver" and the "Field of Blood"

The conceptual interrelations between and among the figures of Jesus, Judas, and Zechariah; and the symbols of "shepherds" and "sheep"

The equivalence between the "Field of the Potter" and the "Field of Blood"

Chapter 7: The death of the "good shepherd"; and the final redemption of Cain through the workings of the "Son of God"

How to think about the conceptual interrelations between and among symbolic figures in the Bible

Zechariah chapters 11 through 13, and the archetype of the "good shepherd"

The initial contrast between Cain and Jesus

The new and improved, "Christ-like" Cain

The final outcome of the death of the "good shepherd"

Afterword

Where to find other writings of mine

# Preface

This book may be thought of as a continuation of another book I have written, entitled _A "New Age" or "Messianic Age": How to Bring It Into Being_. At the same time, I believe this book stands on its own, so that it is not necessary that my previous book have already been read for you to follow the arguments that I make in this one. In fact, you may even wish to regard this book as an introduction to my other book, since you may find that the material in this one is somewhat easier to get a handle on. This book is intended to advance the same primary thesis (or rather, _one_ of the primary theses) of my previous book, namely, that the Bible is a writing that is opposed to an esoteric or "prophetical" manner of religious discourse — and this even in spite of the fact that the Bible itself contains a great deal of religious discourse of that very kind. In both my previous book and in this one, virtually all of the evidence that I offer in support of that thesis comes from the Bible itself. In this second book, I am only trying to advance that same thesis using additional evidence from the Bible (but evidence that complements and to some extent overlaps with the evidence presented in the first book); and the two books really just represent two different ways of trying to persuade persons of the correctness of that basic thesis.

There are, however, a few important premises that I discuss toward the beginning of _A "New Age" or "Messianic Age": How to Bring It Into Being_ that I will here restate in summary form, since they underlie the positions I take in both books. If you wish to read some of the arguments that I offer in support of those premises, then you are advised to read the first two parts of _A "New Age."_ I restate the premises here not in order to convince anyone of their validity, but only so that readers will have a decent sense of where I am coming from as I make the arguments contained in this book.

The first premise is that no future "New Age" or "Messianic Age" (or "Golden Age," or whatever other equivalent name one wishes to give it) can ever arrive on this earth unless and until all dishonest, deceptive, and deliberately and recklessly misleading communication among human beings — in other words, "the Lie" — has, for all practical purposes, been eliminated. This belief is consistent both with pure rational thought and with predictions made by a great many of the world's traditional religions.

The second premise is that any such "New Age" or "Messianic Age" can never arrive so long as the world's traditional religions continue to exist in their current forms, because in their current forms they are all willing to accept and embrace an esoteric or "prophetical" manner of religious discourse — which is intrinsically deceptive and misleading (as I explain more extensively in Chapter 1 of this book). For that reason, it is the traditional religions that are _preventing_ the arrival of the very same "New Age" the arrival of which they themselves have been predicting for thousands of years.

As I stated above, I believe the Bible — even though it is a book containing many esoteric or "prophetical" writings — actually expresses subtle but strong opposition to the very same "prophetical" manner of communicating which the Bible itself often employs. In fact, in my book _A "New Age"_ I go so far as to assert the following claim: " **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**."

The third premise is that — because the claim that I just made seems so utterly self-contradictory and logically incoherent _from a human perspective_ — some sort of _non-human_ conscious intelligence was likely involved in influencing the writing of the Bible. As a result, when (in either of my books) I speak of the "authors" of the Bible, I am not _necessarily_ speaking of the Bible's _human_ authors, or _only_ of the Bible's human authors. (In my writings I refer to such consciously intelligent non-human beings as "spirits," either "angels" or "demons"; but I will raise no objection if other persons prefer to think of these intelligent beings as "aliens.")

The fourth premise is that both "angels" and "demons" would have been _competing for the attention_ of the human authors of the Bible. Such a state of affairs would entail that the Bible cannot be regarded as a morally "perfect" book, since the human authors of the Bible — not being morally perfect men — would have, in at least some cases, mistaken "demonic revelations" for "angelic revelations." As a result of the fundamentally different moral natures of these two different kinds of "revelation," there must be mutually inconsistent messages, moral presuppositions, and moral axioms contained within the Bible. Therefore, we human beings have no choice but to make active use of _our own_ moral reason and intuition in deciding which of those messages, presuppositions, and axioms have moral worth, and which of them do not.

The fifth premise is that the choice by the Bible's human authors to communicate using an "esoteric" or "prophetical" manner of religious discourse must have been the product of "demonic revelation," due to the fact that such a manner of religious discourse is intrinsically deceptive and misleading, and thus fundamentally immoral from a human perspective. It is by "sifting out" the products of "demonic revelation" contained within the Bible — and especially this one particular "product" of "demonic revelation" — that we help make it possible to usher in a "New Age" or "Messianic Age" for humanity.

The sixth premise is that Jesus Christ — and, for that matter, all of the other characters described in the Bible — were not historical individual persons. They are properly regarded as _symbolic figures_ ; and I firmly believe that they were _meant to be understood as such_ by the authors of the Bible (whether those "authors" be regarded as human or angelic). If a person is unwilling to accept this premise, it becomes far more difficult for him or her to make sense of the Bible, and to _notice important patterns and associations_ in the Bible, since much of what is discussed in the Bible will have been stripped of its full potential symbolic significance.

Finally, it should be noted by the reader that even though I discuss the Bible extensively both in my previous book and in this one, and even though I personally regard the Bible as a "revealed" writing and believe that it deserves to be taken _very_ seriously, I do not identify myself as either a Christian or Jew (or as a member of any other traditional religion).

# Introduction

##  A brief overview of the argument I make in this book

After having spent a great deal of time closely studying the Christian Bible, I have come to the conclusion that the Bible (both the Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible) is best characterized as a collection of writings that is actually — from beginning to end — more than anything else, a book about _communication_ , and about the various ways in which we human beings might choose — or not choose — to go about communicating our thoughts and meanings to each other.

More specifically, I believe the Bible should be regarded as the story of the initial approval and acceptance, and, by its end, the final rejection and elimination, of what the Bible generally refers to as "prophecy" and "prophesying" (and what in my own writings I often prefer to call "religious esotericism"). The prospect of the future elimination of all "prophetical discourse" in authoritative religious writings (of whatever religion) must be taken extremely seriously, since I believe its elimination would be tantamount to the eventual elimination of the Lie in human affairs; and, moreover, I believe that this larger implication has occurred to others as well, including the authors of the Bible. For that reason, the mostly _implicit_ debate that one finds in the Bible regarding the value (or danger) of "prophetical discourse" or "esoteric religious discourse" is not just one issue or question among many with which the authors of the Bible concerned themselves; I believe it is _the primary_ issue and question, around which all other issues and questions ultimately revolve (albeit some more closely than others).

In this book I offer what I believe to be compelling evidence that the famous "Fall of Man" in the Garden of Eden was meant by the authors of the Bible to be understood as signifying the mythical "birth" of a desire among human beings to accept and embrace the _necessarily_ deceptive and misleading ways of communicating that are practiced by esotericist religious "prophets." Not only have these ways of communicating been accepted as perfectly normal by the world's religious leaders (and, because of them, by much of the world's population as well), the religious leaders who have accepted them have also insulated them from criticism by labeling authoritative writings that employ such ways of communicating as "holy" and "sacred" — so that even to _question_ the morality of communicating in such ways has been made to seem "irreverent" or "offensive" (or at least "controversial"). Nevertheless, by their embrace of esoteric "prophecy" and "prophesying," these religious leaders have, in effect, been responsible for the _sanctifying of dishonesty_ in human affairs.

But given the fact that the unflattering name "Fall of Man" has been given to what I am claiming ought to be understood as a mythical event symbolizing the general acceptance and approval by mankind of "prophetical religious discourse" or "esoteric religious discourse," it would appear that — if my claim does indeed turn out to be correct — the Bible is, on the whole, actually _hostile_ to this manner of religious discourse. And in this book I will present a considerable amount of evidence from the Bible which supports that hypothesis, and which indicates that the way for mankind to _reverse_ the mythical "Fall of Man," and reenter the symbolic "Garden of Eden" and gain access to the symbolic "tree of life," is to _reject_ all "prophetical discourse" or "esoteric discourse" in authoritative religious writings.

## How to read the Bible; and how to read this book

As I also explain in my previous book, I have personally discovered that to have the most success at making sense of the Bible, it ought to be approached as a kind of "puzzle" or "riddle" in need of solving. In fact, I believe that the Bible was actually intended by its authors to be approached in that very way. The method by which one can most effectively "decode" or "decipher" the true meaning of the Bible is to focus on the use of particular symbols and words, and then cross-reference those symbols and words throughout the Bible to see how different passages can shed light on one another. And I will repeatedly illustrate the use of that method in this book.

It should be pointed out that I will be devoting at least as much attention to the Greek words used in the ancient, pre-Christian-Era Greek Septuagint ("LXX") translation of the Old Testament as to the Hebrew words used in the Hebrew Masoretic version of the Old Testament (which dates from the 9th century A.D.). That's because evidence from the New Testament indicates that the authors of the New Testament must have been quite familiar with the Greek Septuagint version of the Old Testament, and often (but _by no means always_ ) chose to follow it instead of one of the ancient Hebrew texts that would eventually develop into what became known as the Hebrew Masoretic version of the Old Testament (which is our primary, though not only, source of knowledge about the original Hebrew Old Testament text, and which is the text that is primarily followed by modern-day Christian translators of the Old Testament into English). The reason why the Greek Septuagint text is so important is that it can tell us a great deal about what the ancient Jewish translators of that text — and even more importantly, the authors of the New Testament — _understood the Old Testament to mean_. For that reason, in many cases the accuracy or possible inaccuracy of the Greek Septuagint's translation in regard to certain passages is, for our own purposes, simply beside the point.

Having said that, however, if this is your first time reading this book, 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 the book in its entirety. 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).

As you read this book, you will notice that the passages from the Old Testament that I focus on analyzing are mostly (though not entirely) limited to Genesis chapters 2 through 4 and Zechariah chapters 11 through 13; and, in addition to that analysis, I will be calling attention to connections between those passages and various passages from the New Testament. It is difficult to overstate the importance of Zechariah chapters 11 through 13, since those key chapters of the Old Testament enable us to create a kind of "bridge" or "link" between the opening story of the "Fall of Man" in the Garden of Eden, and the story of the "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ" in the New Testament, thereby making it easier, by examining only a relatively few number of Bible passages, to view the entire Christian Bible as a single, unified story — as well as helping us to understand the _meaning_ of that single, unified story.

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.

[By the way, I wish to note as a disclaimer that Hebrew and Greek words will usually be given in their lemma form (that is, the form according to which they are listed in a Hebrew or Greek lexicon), and not in the form in which they are found in the Hebrew or Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament. Also, my English translations of Greek verbs will often be given in the infinitive form (which is not the lemma form).]

# Chapter 1: Why _all_ "prophets" are really "false prophets"

##  How _all_ so-called "prophesying" is actually deceptive and misleading

In this book I am going to talk quite bit about how the idea of "prophecy" is treated in the Bible. But the Bible passages that I quote, and the overall message that they convey when read in conjunction with one another, will actually make a great deal more sense if readers can first accept that all prophets and prophecy are actually false prophets and prophecy. This fact is almost never stated explicitly in the Bible (possible exceptions might include Zechariah chapter 13 and Jeremiah chapter 23), but it remains a fact nonetheless; and, as with all facts, things make a great deal more sense when they are taken into account.

"Prophetical writing" — or, to put it another way, "esoteric religious writing" — can generally be defined as writing in which an author uses a word or phrase to mean one thing (namely, the "inner," or "secretly intended," or "esoteric" meaning) in his own mind and perhaps also in the minds of close associates, while the general reading public, being unaware of the author's secretly intended meaning, is left to assign a different meaning to that same word or phrase (namely, the "outer," or "ordinary," or "conventional," or "surface," or "superficial," or "exoteric" meaning). In other words, "prophetical communication," or "prophesying," or "prophecy," or "esoteric communication," or "esotericism," are terms that really just serve as polite and euphemistic names for the practice of lying and deception. Unfortunately, it is a practice that characterizes and provides the basis for all of the so-called "major world religions," including Christianity. And not only the "major" religions: I am not aware of a single traditional religion anywhere in the world, including among all of the so-called "shamanistic" or "primitive" religions, that does not, or did not, employ "secret languages" as a means by which to conceal knowledge or ideas from the "uninitiated" members of the religious community.

At the same time, I have also come to the conclusion that the prophetical and esotericist authors of both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible were actually, at least to some extent, opposed to the practice of "prophesying" and "prophetical communication," and through their writings, were subtly and surreptitiously expressing that opposition. That is to say — whether or not they were fully aware of it — they were providing later generations with means by which to slough off this age-old system of deliberate deception and obfuscation. I think that the "subversiveness" to be found in the Bible must have been largely the result of some sort of unconscious or non-conscious (or, if one prefers, "divinely providential") process at work, in conjunction with a limited amount of conscious awareness by those authors of the problems associated with religious esotericism and prophetical discourse. (And passages such as John 16:25 show that the authors of the Bible must have had at least some conscious awareness of the morally problematic nature of "prophetical" or "esoteric" discourse, and must have considered this type of religious discourse to be gravely defective and significantly short of ideal — which would have presumably given rise to a hope that it would someday be replaced by a new type of religious discourse that would more closely approximate what they regarded as ideal.)

However, it is often very difficult if not impossible to determine exactly how much of the anti-prophetical or anti-esotericist "subversiveness" that one might discern in a particular passage from the Bible was consciously intended by the author, and exactly how much was unconsciously intended (and I do consider an "unconscious intention" to be a genuine kind of intention), since the two types of thinking can easily blend together. And, to make matters even more complicated, there is the additional question of whether non-human mental influences may have sometimes played a role in (quite deliberately) "planting" an "anti-esotericist message" or "anti-prophetical message" in the Bible even in spite of the human authors' complete unawareness of the existence of that message in a given instance (and this would again raise the question of possible "divine providence" from the human standpoint); but that is a question I won't pursue here.

I'd like to demonstrate the basically deceptive nature of "prophetical" or "esotericist" religious discourse by telling you something about myself:

I worked for forty years in West Virginia as a coal miner. I now receive health benefits from the federal government because of the fact that I got black lung disease as a result of my job.

Now, by ordinary standards, what I just told you is a flat-out lie. I have never worked as a coal miner. I have never lived in West Virginia. But an esotericist prophet has a neat trick he can use to make a passage like that suddenly become "all true" in his own mind. He simply puts invisible quotation marks around various words or phrases and then supplies each of those words or phrases with his own private, secret definitions. Doing this serves basically the same function in his own mind as that served by a child crossing his fingers behind his back when he tells a lie. Practitioners of this trickery will often give their secret definitions a euphemistic name, such as "the spiritual meaning." Now watch and begin to perceive the deep "spirituality" contained within my own little fib story:

I "worked" "for forty years" "in West Virginia" as a "coal miner." I now "receive health benefits" from the "federal government" because of the fact that I got "black lung disease" as a result of "my job."

Because of the presence of these previously invisible quotation marks, I might — if I were an esotericist prophet — be able to convince myself that I had actually, in some sense, been "telling the truth" all along when I said that I worked as a coal miner in West Virginia (on the grounds that I was really only claiming to have "worked" as a "coal miner" in "West Virginia"). But ordinarily, an author who was writing esoterically or "prophetically" would not feel morally obligated to publicly reveal what his words and phrases actually meant in his own mind, or even that his words and phrases had concealed alternative meanings (in other words, he would not even indicate to the reader where the "invisible quotation marks" were located). That is because an esotericist prophet usually fancies himself to be among "the elect" or "the chosen" or "the worthy," while most of the persons into whose hands his prophetical writings could be expected to fall would be counted among "the profane." (From what I have been able to gather, those persons who write in an esoteric manner generally think of themselves as being of better spiritual quality than all those persons who make a point of not lying to others.) The reasoning seems to be that those persons who are "in the spirit" — that is, those who are counted among "the elect" — will already know what the "real" meanings of these words are. And those persons who are not "in the spirit" — that is, those who are counted among "the profane" — do not deserve to know. However, since my goal here is not to practice esotericist trickery, but to expose it, I am perfectly willing to publicly reveal the (itself fictional) "spiritual meaning" of my story:

I "engaged in meditative thought" "until I reached spiritual enlightenment" while "in an altered state of consciousness" by "plumbing the depths of my unconscious mind." I now "enjoy the ineffable bliss of a continuing stream of spiritual wisdom" imparted to me by "more advanced spiritual beings" as my reward for "the sacrifices incurred" in choosing to follow "the arduous spiritual path."

In other words, to obtain the "spiritual meaning," the words in the original text are redefined in such a way that the "exoteric" meanings are being made to serve as metaphorical symbols for the "esoteric" meanings that the author really has in mind — that is, the meanings he considers to be truly valuable. You might ask: Why would an author not simply provide the reader with that sort of "spiritual meaning" in the first place? Why would an author expect a reader to break his "secret code language" in order to arrive at his "real" meaning? As far as I have been able to determine, no rational and moral justification exists for the practice (although there are of course explanations, just as there are explanations for everything). None of the justifications that I have encountered — to the extent that esotericists have even felt any need to justify what on its face appears to be an immoral practice — have struck me as being the least bit satisfactory or persuasive.

But, in addition to my invented example, I will also provide a "real-life" example from the Bible demonstrating the use of the esotericist or "prophetical" technique that I just described, involving the "splitting off" of an "inner meaning" from an "outer meaning." In 1 Corinthians 9:9-10, the apostle Paul — in justifying his right to "reap fleshly things" from the Corinthian church members after having "sown spiritual things" among them (see 1 Corinthians 9:11) — writes,

For it is written in the law of Moses, "You shall not muzzle an ox when it is threshing out the grain." Is it with oxen that God is concerned? Does he not speak entirely for our sake? Paul is quoting Deuteronomy 25:4. Notice that there is nothing about the context in which [Deuteronomy 25:4 is found to indicate that it was meant to be read in the way that Paul advocates — or even to indicate that it was meant to be given any kind of "esoteric" reading at all. Of course, Paul's understanding of the "inner meaning" of Deuteronomy 25:4 may have been entirely consistent with what the original author had in mind when he wrote it; it's just that we have no evidence to prove it.]

So Paul here acknowledges that — in his view, at least — esotericist "splitting" of meaning can be found in the Old Testament scriptures (so that the words "ox" and "grain" do not correspond to the concepts "ox" and "grain"). Significantly, however, he does not consider the practice to be objectionable, and indeed seems to be endorsing it and trying to take personal advantage of it.

If Christians feel inclined to "overlook" the implications of Bible passages such as this one, then they will need to explain what principled basis they have for objecting when I falsely tell people that I worked as a coal miner in West Virginia — or whatever other falsehoods I or other persons decide that our "metaphorical imaginations" make it permissible for us to tell them. After giving the matter a moment or two of honest reflection, what they will unavoidably conclude is that no such principled basis exists. Many Christians would surely wish to "have it both ways," by hoping that exceptions will be made for the prophetical "double talk" contained in the Bible and in other authoritative religious writings; but a society that is sincerely dedicated to the promotion of truthfulness and honesty among its members simply cannot allow exceptions such as these to be made.

So, if we're all being intellectually honest, we should all be able to agree that what are known as "prophetical" religious writings are intrinsically deceptive and misleading by their very nature. (As I see it, if they weren't deceptive and misleading, then they couldn't fairly and properly be described as "prophetical" writings at all. Merely making predictions about the future doesn't necessarily make a writing "prophetical" as I am using the term, since an author always has the option of making predictions about the future using a non-esoteric manner of communicating.)

But, as I already indicated in the Introduction to this book, I am making a further claim that might not be nearly as obvious to many persons — even intellectually honest persons: that the existence and crucial importance of this profoundly dysfunctional state of affairs in human culture was _never lost_ on the authors of the Bible (whether those authors be thought of as "human" or "angelic"). I believe that the story of the (mythical) _introduction_ of esoteric "prophecy" and "prophesying" into human religious culture — followed eventually by the ultimate _fulfilling_ of the early-made promise of a future _elimination_ of "prophecy" and "prophesying" of that very kind — is _the_ core narrative running through the entire Bible. And, in the remainder of this book, I will offer proof in support of that claim.

##  " _Relatively truthful_ prophets" compared to " _relatively untruthful_ prophets" (i.e., so-called " _false_ prophets")

An objection might be raised at this point that in a number of places in the Bible, the language used does not seem to support my claim that _all_ prophesying is necessarily deceptive and misleading. After all, doesn't the Bible speak of "false prophets" — and doesn't that tend to imply that the authors of the Bible must have understood there to be at least some "true prophets" or "truthful prophets" existing alongside them?

Furthermore, we cannot simply ignore passages in the Bible which seem to be speaking of (non-"false") "prophets" in nothing but praiseworthy terms. For example, consider Revelation 10:7:

[I]n the days of the sound [or voice: _phōné_ ] of the seventh angel, when he is about to sound the trumpet, 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 [ _doulos_ ] the prophets [ _prophétés_ ].

And also Revelation 11:18:

And the nations were enraged [or infuriated: _orgizō_ ], and your [speaking of "the Lord God Almighty"] rage [ _orgé_ ] came, and the time of the dead to be judged, and to give the reward [ _misthos_ ] to your servants [ _doulos_ ] the prophets [ _prophétés_ ] and the saints and those fearing your name, the small and the great, and to despoil those who are despoiling the earth.

And also Revelation 18:20:

Rejoice over (Babylon), O heaven, and (you) the saints and the apostles and the prophets [ _prophétés_ ], for God has decided your judicial decision against her.

And also Revelation 22:6,8-9:

(6) And (the angel) said to me [John of Patmos], "These (are) the trustworthy [or reliable, or faithful: _pistos_ ] and true [ _aléthinos_ ] words [ _logos_ ] . And the Lord, the God of the spirits [ _pneuma_ ] of the prophets [ _prophétés_ ] , has sent his angel to show the things that must soon [or quickly: _en tachei_ ] come to pass."... (8) And I, John, (am) the one hearing and seeing these things. And when I heard and saw, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel showing me these things. (9) And he said to me, "See (that you) not (do that). I am a fellow servant of you and of your brothers the prophets [ _prophétés_ ] , and of those keeping [or observing, or preserving, or guarding, or taking care of: _téreō_ ] the words [ _logos_ ] of this book. Worship God."

In response to these potential objections, I would first say that I think it is possible to make a legitimate distinction between what the Bible _calls_ "false prophets" and what it (implicitly) _calls_ "true prophets" or "truthful prophets" — but only so long as we understand what is meant when such terms are used, and provided that this distinction be thought of as _relative_ in nature. A so-called "true prophet" or "truthful prophet" may be _more_ truthful than a so-called "false prophet"; but that doesn't mean that the so-called "true prophet" is ever _entirely_ truthful and non-misleading. The best that can be said about a so-called "true prophet" or "truthful prophet" is that he is _relatively_ truthful. (Later in this book, I will suggest that a distinction can be made between what I call "anti-prophetical prophets," and what I call "pro-prophetical prophets," which roughly corresponds to the distinction that I am here making between "true prophets" and "false prophets.") There is simply _no such thing_ as a _completely_ "true prophet" or "truthful prophet," if we agree to define a "prophecy" as a communication that involves the deliberate and knowing use of an esoteric manner of religious discourse.

Second, when reading the passages from the Book of Revelation that I quoted above, it must be kept in mind that the author of those passages _was a self-described prophet_. For example, in Revelation 22:18-19 the author writes,

(18) I testify [or bear witness: _martyreō_ ] to everyone who hears the words [or messages, or meanings: _logos_ ] of the prophecy [ _prophéteia_ ] of this book: If anyone should add to [ _epi-tithémi_ ] these (words), God will lay upon [ _epi-tithémi_ ] him the plagues recorded [or written: _graphō_ ] in this book. (19) And if anyone should take away [or cut away, or cut off: _ap-haireō_ ] from the words [or messages, or meanings: _logos_ ] of the book of this prophecy [ _prophéteia_ ] , God will take away his share from the tree of life and (take him) out of the holy city, (away) from the (things) recorded [or written: _graphō_ ] in this book.

Since the author was himself a "prophet," then it would have been logically impossible for him to be _fully_ opposed to _all_ "prophecy" and "prophesying." To the extent that he had any "anti-prophetical tendencies," they were necessarily offset by some countervailing "pro-prophetical tendencies." (In fact, _all_ of the human authors of the Bible _must_ have had at least _some_ "pro-prophetical tendencies." No prophet is ever going to be willing to be _entirely_ aware of the fundamentally immoral nature of his "prophesying.")

Third, am I saying that none of the "prophets" spoken of in the Bible deserve to be considered to be genuine "servants of God"? Not at all; what I am saying is that those persons would have been _better servants_ of God if they had chosen to refuse the role of "prophet" entirely. There is simply no such thing as a _perfect_ "servant of God." As finite and fallible beings, we all make mistakes; and I am claiming that the "prophets" were _mistaken_ to believe that they could serve God better by "prophesying" than by serving him in other ways — and more specifically, in ways that would _not_ have involved employing a deceptive and misleading manner of communicating. The "prophets" need to be looked at from two different perspectives: while the anti-prophetical and anti-deception tendencies found in some of them were products of their righteous selves, their pro-prophetical tendencies and their willingness to overlook the immorality of the deceptive and misleading ways of communicating that they were employing were products of their unrighteous selves.

Similarly, am I arguing that the esoteric writings of the Bible prophets should be completely disregarded due to their deceptive and misleading nature? No, for the reason that God always has the ability to take even the moral failings of human beings and still put them to good use. (Cf. Luke 22:22, in which Jesus says, "For the Son of Man proceeds in accordance with what is determined; but woe to that man by means of whom he is delivered over.") Divine providence can operate _through_ the actions of individual human beings even _in spite of_ the fact that those individual's own intentions may not have been entirely consistent with the _ultimate_ "intention" of that divine providence.

# Chapter 2: The "Fall of Man" understood as the mythical birth of the desire to "prophesy" and to listen to the deceptive and misleading words of "prophecy"

In this chapter and in the remainder of this book, I'm going to present quite a bit of evidence to you which indicates that the Bible is actually telling us that the mythical "Fall of Man" in the Garden of Eden was meant to be understood as signifying a decision collectively made by all of mankind to speak in, and listen to, the deceptive and misleading discourse of "false prophets" (which, as I explained in the previous chapter, is a category that actually includes _all_ "prophets").

But it's important to emphasize that because the story of the "Fall of Man" is _a myth_ , it is actually depicting an _ongoing_ phenomenon _as if_ it had begun at a particular place and at some definite moment in the past. In fact, the "Fall of Man" is most properly thought of as an event which is being _reenacted each and every day_ , as a result of humanity's _continuing_ willingness to embrace religious discourse of a "prophetical" or "esoteric" nature.

##  "Thorn-bushes," "thistles," "false prophets," and "the cursing of the earth"

Let's start our analysis of the Bible by looking at Matthew 7:15-20, in which Jesus says,

(15) Beware of the false prophets [ _pseudo-prophétés_ ] , all of whom come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly [ _esōthen_ ] are ravenous wolves. (16) From their fruits [ _karpos_ ] you will recognize [or fully understand, or fully know: _epi-ginōskō_ ] them. Do (people) collect grapes from thorn-bushes [or thorns, or briers, or prickly plants, or bramble-bushes: _akantha_ ] , and figs from thistles [or briers, or prickly plants: _tribolos_ ] ?

(17) So every good [ _agathos_ ] tree [ _dendron_ ] produces [ _poieō_ ] good [ _kalos_ ] fruits, but the bad [or rotten, or worthless, or useless, or corrupt: _sapros_ ] tree produces [ _poieō_ ] evil [or wicked, or toilsome: _ponéros_ ] fruits. (18) No good [ _agathos_ ] tree can produce [ _poieō_ ] evil [or wicked, or toilsome: _ponéros_ ] fruits, nor a bad [or rotten, or worthless, or useless, or corrupt: _sapros_ ] tree produce [ _poieō_ ] good [ _kalos_ ] fruits. (19) Every tree not producing [ _poieō_ ] a good [ _kalos_ ] fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. (20) So from their fruits you will recognize [or fully understand, or fully know: _epi-ginōskō_ ] them.

So here we find the making of an association between the idea of "prophets" (and more specifically, "false prophets": Greek _pseudo-prophétés_ ) and the symbols of "thorn-bushes" (Greek _akantha_ ) and "thistles" (Greek _tribolos_ ). More generally, certain _kinds of persons_ are being compared to certain _kinds of trees_ (or plants, or bushes).

We're also being presented with the image of two different kinds of "trees" (Greek _dendron_ ), and two different kinds of "fruits" (Greek _karpos_ ), each of which kind of "fruit" is produced by one of those two different kinds of "trees." (And a "fruit" presumably symbolizes a "work" or "deed," whether in the form of "speech" or "behavior.") Where else in the Bible do we find such imagery?

For starters, there is Genesis 2:9, describing the "Garden of Eden," which says,

And from the ground [or land: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ , which can also mean "earth"] the Lord God caused to sprout up [or grow up: _tsamach_ ; LXX _ex-anatellō_ ] every tree that is attractive [or desirable: _chamad_ ; LXX _hōraios_ ] to the sight [ _mareh_ ; LXX _horasis_ ], and good [ _towb_ ; LXX _kalos_ ] for food [ _maakal_ ; LXX _brōsis_ ]. And the tree of the living (ones) [ _chay_ ; the LXX has "tree of life": _zoé_ , meaning "life"] (was) in the middle of the garden, and (also) the tree [ _ets_ ; LXX _xylon_ ] of the knowing [or knowledge: _da'ath_ , derived from the verb _yada_ , meaning "to know"; LXX _ginōskō_ ] of good [ _towb_ ; LXX _kalos_ ] and evil [ _ra_ ; LXX _ponéros_ ].

The Hebrew word _daath_ , by the way, can refer to "prophetic knowledge" or "oracular knowledge" in particular. As an example, see [Numbers 24:15-19, specifically verse 16.]

Not only is the imagery similar, the Greek words used in the ancient Septuagint translation of the Old Testament are the same as those used in Jesus's parable in Matthew 7:15-20: _kalos_ , meaning "good," and _ponéros_ , meaning "evil."

Along similar lines, Genesis 2:15-17 says,

(15) And the Lord God took the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _ho anthrōpos_ ] and placed him in the Garden [ _gan_ ] of Eden, to work [or till, or cultivate: _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] it and to keep [or preserve, or guard: _shamar_ ; LXX _phylassō_ ] it.

(16) And the Lord God gave charge to the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _Adam_ ] , saying, "From every tree [ _ets_ ; LXX _xylon_ ] of the garden you may surely eat [ _akal_ ] , (17) but from the tree [ _ets_ ; LXX _xylon_ ] of the knowing [ _daath_ ; LXX _ginōskō_ ] of good [ _towb_ ; LXX _kalos_ ] and evil [ _ra_ ; LXX _ponéros_ ] , you shall not eat from it, for in the day that you eat from it, you will surely die."

But then the famous "serpent" makes his appearance. Genesis 3:1-6 says,

(1) Now the serpent was more crafty [or clever, or cunning, or shrewd: _arum_ ; LXX _phronimos_ ] than any beast [or living (creature): _chay_ ; LXX _thérion_ ] of the field [ _sadeh_ ; LXX _gé_ , meaning "earth" or "land"] that the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God really said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"

(2) And the woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the tree of the garden we may eat, (3) but from the fruit [ _peri_ ; LXX _karpos_ ] of the tree [ _ets_ ; LXX _xylon_ ] that (is) in the middle of the garden, God has said, 'You shall not eat from it, nor shall you touch [ _naga_ ; LXX _haptomai_ or _haptō_ ] it, lest you die.'"

(4) And the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. (5) For God knows [or sees, or perceives: _yada_ ; LXX _eidō_ ] that in the day you eat from it, your eyes [ _ayin_ ; LXX _ophthalmos_ ] will be opened [or opened wide: _paqach_ ; LXX _di-anoigō_ ] , and you will become as gods [or God: _elohim_ ; LXX _theoi_ , a plural form of _theos_ ] , knowing [ _yada_ ; LXX _ginōskō_ ] good [ _towb_ ; LXX _kalos_ ] and evil [ _ra_ ; LXX _ponéros_ ] ."

(6) And when the woman saw [ _raah_ ; LXX _eidō_ ] that the tree was good [ _towb_ ; LXX _kalos_ ] for food [ _maakal_ ; LXX _brōsis_ ] , and that it (was) pleasing [ _taavah_ ; LXX _arestos_ ] to the eyes [ _ayin_ ; LXX _ophthalmos_ ] , and the tree was desirable [ _chamad_ ; the LXX has _hōraios_ , which can also mean "attractive" or "beautiful"] for making one wise [or clever, or intelligent, or insightful, or skillful, or discerning, or perceptive, or understanding, or comprehending: _sakal_ ; LXX _kata-noeō_ ] , then she took from its fruit [ _peri_ ; LXX _karpos_ ] and she ate [ _akal_ ] , and she also gave to her husband [or man: _ish_ ; LXX _anér_ ], and he ate [ _akal_ ] with her.

And what happens as a result of this eating of "fruit" from the wrong kind of "tree"? According to Genesis 3:17-18, the Lord says to Adam,

(17) Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and ate from the tree (with regard to) which I gave you charge, saying, "You shall not eat from it," cursed [ _arar_ ; LXX _epi-kataratos_ ] (is) the ground [or land: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ , which can also mean "earth"] because of you. In toil [or pain, or sorrow, or grief, or affliction: _itstsabon_ ; LXX _lypé_ ] shall you eat of it all the days of your life; (18) and thorn-bushes [ _qots_ ; LXX _akantha_ ] and thistles [ _dardar_ ; LXX _tribolos_ ] will sprout up [or grow up, or spring up: _tsamach_ ; LXX _anatellō_ , meaning "rise up, spring up"] to you, and you shall eat the plants of the field [ _sadeh_ ; LXX _agros_ ] .

So we once more encounter symbolic imagery specifically involving "thorn-bushes" (LXX Greek _akantha_ ) and "thistles" (LXX Greek _tribolos_ ) — two symbols which, you will recall, Jesus in Matthew 7:15-20 associates with the idea of "false prophets." So I tentatively propose the hypothesis that when it is said that Adam and Eve ate from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil," what this really means is that _they made the choice to begin "prophesying," and to begin listening to the deceptive and misleading words of "prophecy_ _"_ (all of which I am arguing should actually be considered to be "false prophecy," at least in part).

But again, the "Fall of Man" is a myth, so I recommend that you not think of "the Lord" as having "cursed the ground" on a _single occasion_ as a result of the disobedience of "the man"; I suggest that you instead think of _mankind itself_ as collectively "cursing the ground" _anew_ each time human beings make the choice either to communicate "esoterically" or "prophetically," or else to _follow after_ "false prophets," by _tolerating_ and even _admiring_ their deceptive and misleading way of communicating. After their eating of the "fruit" from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil," _both_ Adam and Eve apparently came to the conclusion that "prophecy" and "prophesying" was something wonderfully amazing and fascinating, and at that point neither of those two figures had any intention whatsoever of rejecting it.

I realize that many readers might balk at that suggestion, given the way in which most of us are generally in the habit of thinking about what is being described in the story of the "Fall of Man." But again, _due to the fact that the story is a myth_ , it would be a serious mistake to assume that because of the "curse" generated by their disobedience, and the stern lecture they receive from the Lord God, Adam and Eve must have "learned their lesson." _They didn't_. They were never plagued with some "curse" from which they _wished_ to escape but _couldn't_. Needless to say, they didn't like the harmful _results_ of their choice to embrace "prophecy" and "prophesying"; but because they _failed to associate_ their embrace of "prophecy" and "prophesying" with those harmful results, they never felt any desire to revisit their original choice. And that is why the "curse" still stands.

In fact, I think it would be more helpful to think of the characters of Adam and Eve as _never having come to realize_ that any "curse" _even exists_ as a result of what they did. By having the Lord speak first to the serpent (yes, a serpent), and then to Eve, and then to Adam, the author of the story of the "Fall of Man" is _employing a literary device_ in order to convey certain thoughts and ideas _to certain members of the reading audience_ (and _not_ to Adam, or to Eve, or to the serpent) that the author may have not wished to try to convey by using other methods. As such, I believe one ought to approach the description of the episode of the "Fall of Man" in the Garden of Eden no more factually than one ought to think about the presence of an "omniscient narrator" in a novel.

I just stated my belief that _both_ Adam and Eve decided to accept "prophecy" and "prophesying" after eating from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." More specifically, however, I believe Genesis 3:16 may be suggesting that the fallen "Adam" in particular was meant to represent the archetypal " _false prophet_ ," or " _false teacher_ ," and the fallen "Eve" in particular was meant to represent the archetypal individual who chooses to _listen to_ the communications of such "false prophets" and "false teachers," and to try to follow their teachings (to the extent they are able to make some sort of sense of their teachings). I make that suggestion partly due to the fact that in Genesis 3:16, the Lord tells Eve that in the wake of the "Fall of Man," Adam will henceforth "rule over" (Hebrew _mashal_ ) her:

(16) And (the Lord God) said to the woman, "I will greatly multiply [ _rabah_ ; LXX _pléthynō_ ] your labor [or toil, or pain, or sorrow, or grief: _itstsabon_ ; LXX _lypé_ ] and your pregnancy [or conception: _heron_ ; LXX _stenagmos_ , meaning 'groanings'] . In pain [or sorrow, or grief: _etseb_ ; LXX _lypé_ ] you will bring forth [ _yalad_ ; LXX _tiktō_ ] children, and your desire [or longing: _teshuqah_ ; LXX _apostrophé_ , meaning 'turning (away from all others to one)'] (will be) for [or toward: _el_ ; LXX _pros_ ] your husband [or man: _ish_ ; LXX _anér_ ], he will rule over [or dominate, or be lord of, or be master of: _mashal_ ; LXX _kyrieuō_ , related to the Greek word _kyrios_ , meaning 'lord' or 'master'] you."

The use of the Hebrew verb _mashal_ in this context is extremely interesting, since the word can have an important and unexpected double meaning. As I indicated in the passage, it can mean "to rule, to reign, to have dominion, (to be) lord, (to be) ruler, (to be) prince." But it 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, closely related to those meanings, it 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, to engage in a "prophetical" or "esotericist" manner of discourse. (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.) A possible implicit message meant to be conveyed by the author of Genesis 3:16 is that persons who _pay attention_ to the esoteric speech of "prophets" will inevitably find themselves "ruled over" by them.

As a closing thought for this section, I would like to emphasize that Matthew 7:15-20 seems to suggest by analogy that, with the "Fall of Man," the "thorn-bushes" and "thistle plants" that would henceforth grow up from the "ground" or "earth" after its "cursing" should be thought of as symbolizing _kinds of persons_.

## New Testament authors on the association between the symbolic "serpent" (and "Satan") and "false prophets" (and "false teachers," and "false apostles")

The association that we discover by cross-referencing Matthew 7:15-20 with Genesis chapter 3 — an association between the symbolic "serpent" of the Garden of Eden (a symbolic figure which is equivalent to "Satan," according to Revelation 20:2), and "false prophets" (or "false teachers"; cf. 2 Peter 2:1) — apparently did not go unnoticed by the authors of the New Testament, and the apostle Paul especially. For example, in 2 Timothy 3:1-7 Paul writes,

(1) But know this, that in the last days there will be difficult times. (2) For people will be selfish, avaricious, pretentious, arrogant, abusive, disobedient toward their parents, ungrateful, profane, unloving, (3) unforgiving, slanderous, without self-restraint, savage, hostile to goodness, (4) treacherous, headstrong, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, (5) possessing a form [or formula: _morphōsis_ ] of pious devotion, but rejecting its power [ _dynamis_ ]. And avoid (persons such as) these.

(6) For from (persons such as) these are those creeping [or sneaking, or slipping, or insinuating themselves: _en-dynō_ or _en-dyō_ ] into households and captivating [or taking captive: _aichmalōtizō_ ] (silly) little women [ _gynaikarion_ , which is a diminutive form of _gyné_ , meaning "woman," and often used in a derisive sense] loaded up with sins (and) carried away [ _agō_ ] by various desires [or passions: _epithymia_ ] , (7) always studying [or learning: _manthanō_ ] , and never being able to arrive at a knowledge [or recognition: _epi-gnōsis_ ] of the truth [ _alétheia_ ] .

Notice how in this passage Paul speaks of persons whom he describes as "creeping" (or "sneaking") — which is reminiscent of the figure of the "serpent" in the Garden of Eden. He also describes these "creeping" or "sneaking" persons as "captivating" other persons whom he describes as "silly little women" — which, given the context, is presumably a reference to the figure of "Eve." Notice also how it is implied that the "creeping" persons are engaged in the " _teaching_ " of the "silly little women," who are "studying with" or "learning from" (Greek _manthanō_ ) them as their "disciples" (Greek _mathétés_ , derived from the verb _manthanō_ ), which suggests that these "creeping persons" are best thought of as "false teachers."

That this is indeed what Paul had in mind tends to be confirmed by 1 Timothy 2:12-15, in which Paul writes,

(12) And I do not permit a woman to teach (in church), nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence [or quietness: _hésychia_ ] . (13) For Adam was formed [or molded: _plassō_ ] first, then Eve. (14) And Adam was not deceived [ _apataō_ ] ; but the woman [ _gyné_ ] , having been wholly beguiled [or wholly deceived, or wholly seduced: _ex-apataō_ ] , has come into transgression [ _parabasis_ ] . (15) But she will be saved [ _sōzō_ ] through childbearing [ _teknogonia_ ] , if they abide [or remain, or continue: _menō_ ] in faith and love and holiness, with self-restraint.

Compare this passage to [Revelation chapter 12, especially verses 1 through 6. The fact that Paul speaks of "she" in the first part of verse 15 tends to indicate that he was still thinking of "the woman" _as an archetype_ , and did not intend to be understood as referring to individual women. That fact, especially when considered in conjunction with Revelation chapter 12, would in turn tend to suggest that when Paul speaks of "childbearing" in this particular context, what he actually had in mind was the _symbolic_ "bearing" of the _archetypal_ "male child" — in other words, "Jesus" — because it would be the "male child" or "seed" of "the woman" (i.e., of "Eve") who would overcome "the serpent," that is, "the dragon," "the devil," and "Satan" — which would thus, according to 1 Timothy 2:12-15, bring about the "salvation" of the archetypal "woman." (I will readily acknowledge, however, that in Paul's own mind an "archetypal" and "symbolic" way of understanding "the woman" was likely getting confused and confounded with his beliefs about how actual, literal woman ought to conduct themselves. Also, I suppose it's conceivable that the word "they" was meant to refer to "Adam and Eve," rather than individual "women" in general; but given the context, I consider that possibility to be quite unlikely.)]

I think it's worth mentioning that — at least according to my interpretation of what the "Fall of Man" in the Garden of Eden actually represents — when the last two block quotations are read in conjunction with each other, Paul's assessment of the respective moral faults of the figures of Adam and Eve strikes me as unfair and excessively harsh toward Eve. Even if, according to the story of the "Fall of Man," Eve was deceived first and Adam second, the figure of Adam nevertheless chose, by his becoming someone who would henceforth "prophesy," to _adopt_ the "creeping" and "sneaking" ways of "the serpent." After all, Adam was to be the one doing the "ruling over" (Hebrew _mashal_ ) as a "prophet"; Eve would just follow after him and obey him, out of her such strong and single-minded "desire" and "longing" for her "man." So after the "Fall of Man," shouldn't _Adam_ perhaps be thought of as having agreed to _become_ the "human incarnation" of "the serpent"? And isn't that more odious than merely being someone who has a tendency to be "beguiled" by "the serpent"?

Paul also refers to the figures of "the serpent" and "Eve" in 2 Corinthians 11:2-5,12-15. As with all passages in which these two figures make an appearance, Paul either hints at or speaks plainly about the theme or metaphor of "sexuality" (including "virginity" and "sexual desire"). And that same theme or metaphor also tends to occur in the context of discussion of the subject of "false prophets," or "false teachers," or "false apostles." In 2 Corinthians 11:2-5,12-15 Paul writes,

(2) For I am jealous [ _zéloō_ ] (over) you with a jealousy [or zeal: _zélos_ ] of God. For I have betrothed [or joined: _harmozō_ ] you to one man [or husband: _anér_ ] , a holy [or immaculate: _hagnos_ ] virgin to present to [or place beside: _par-istémi_ ] the Christ. (3) But I am fearful, lest, as the serpent wholly deceived [or wholly beguiled, or wholly seduced: _ex-apataō_ ] Eve by his cunning [or cleverness, or craftiness: _panourgia_ ] , your minds [or intentions: _noéma_ ] might be somehow corrupted [ _phtheirō_ ] away from the simplicity [or sincerity; more literally, "singleness": _haplotés_ ] and the purity [ _hagnotés_ ] in the Christ.

(4) For if (someone else) comes (along) (who) proclaims another [or a different: _allos_ ] Jesus, whom we did not proclaim, or you receive a different [ _heteros_ ] spirit [ _pneuma_ ] which you did not receive (from us), or a different [ _heteros_ ] gospel [or good news, or good announcement: _euaggelion_ or _euangelion_ ] which you did not receive (from us), you put up with (it) beautifully. (5) For I deem (myself) to have been in no way inferior to those "superlative" apostles....

(12) And what I am (already) doing I will (continue to) do, so that I might cut off the opportunity of those wanting an opportunity, so that in what they are boasting (about), they might be found just as we also. (13) For such men (are) false apostles [ _pseud-apostolos_ ] , guileful [or deceitful, or treacherous, or tricky: _dolios_ , derived from the noun _dolos_ , meaning "guile, deceit, treachery, trickery"] workers [ _ergatés_ , related to the verb _ergazomai_ , meaning "to work"] , disguising (themselves) [ _meta-schématizō_ ] as apostles of Christ.

(14) And no wonder, for Satan himself disguises (himself) [ _meta-schématizō_ ] as an angel [or messenger: _aggelos_ or _angelos_ ] of light. (15) So (it is) no great (surprise) if his servants [or ministers: _diakonos_ ] also disguise (themselves) [ _meta-schématizō_ ] as servants of righteousness, whose end [ _telos_ ] will be in keeping with their works [or deeds: _ergon_ , also related to the verb _ergazomai_ , meaning "to work"; recall that "fruits" presumably symbolize "works" of one kind or another] .

We can find another example of the association between the symbols of "fruit," and "the woman," and her "desire" (or "passion": Greek _epithymia_ ), in Revelation 18:14, in which an angel, speaking to the "Harlot of Babylon," says,

And the ripe fruit [or, more figuratively, "ripe virginity": _opōra_ ] of the desire [or passion: _epithymia_ ; compare this to the use of the same word _epithymia_ in 2 Timothy 3:6, quoted above in this section] of your soul [ _psyché_ ] has gone away [or passed away: _ap-erchomai_ ] from you, and all the luxurious things [or sumptuous things, or rich things, or smooth things; more literally, 'fat things,' or 'oily things': _liparos_ ] and splendid things [or bright things, or radiant things, or clear things, or transparent things, or distinct things, or manifest things: _lampros_ ] have been put away [or cut off: _apollymi_ ] from you, and (men) [or (merchants)] will find [or discover: _heuriskō_ ] them no more.

A possible suggestion to be derived from this passage may be that by the time that the symbolic "fall of Babylon" takes place, this "ripe fruit" has finally been discovered not to be quite so delectable as it had first appeared to be in the eyes of "the woman" (and of "the man" as well), according to Genesis 3:6:

And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it (was) pleasing to the eyes, and the tree was desirable [ _chamad_ ; the LXX has _hōraios_ , which can also mean "attractive" or "beautiful"] for making one wise [or clever, or intelligent, or insightful, or skillful, or discerning, or perceptive, or comprehending: _sakal_ ; LXX _kata-noeō_ ], then she took from its fruit [ _peri_ ; LXX _karpos_ ] and she ate [ _akal_ ], and she also gave to her husband [or man: _ish_ ; LXX _anér_ ], and he ate [ _akal_ ] with her.

## A summing-up of what we've established so far

After reading Bible passages such as the ones I've quoted in this chapter, I think that many Christians will be willing to agree with me that the authors of the New Testament understood there to be some sort of conceptual equivalence or close relation between the symbolic event of the "Fall of Man" and the acceptance by mankind of "false prophecy" and "false prophesying." The only possible remaining difference of opinion between such Christians and myself must be characterized as a difference of opinion regarding whether or not _all_ "prophecy" and "prophesying" is in fact " _false_ prophecy" and " _false_ prophesying." I believe that — if any disagreement between us does still exist — that is now the _entire_ extent of our disagreement.

However, I already explained in Chapter 1 through the use of rational argument (quite decisively, I believe) why all "prophetical" or "esoteric" religious discourse is intrinsically deceptive and misleading — or, in other words, "false." In the rest of this book, I will proceed to demonstrate that _the Bible is actually saying the same thing_. And those persons who agree with me that the Bible is (in part, anyway) a "divinely inspired" collection of writings should be in no way surprised to learn that the most central and essential message contained in the Bible is one that is _completely in accord with_ the dictates of our own native, God-given reason.

I certainly don't claim that the Bible prophets, or the Christian apostles, or any of the other human authors or editors of the Bible were entirely aware of this fact; indeed, they could not have been. But the Bible is able to communicate more meaning than only what is stated explicitly or at the surface level. It is _through the use of symbolism_ that the Bible is _itself_ able to let us know that _all_ "prophecy" is actually "false prophecy" — a crucial principle that the human authors of the Bible themselves admittedly failed to understand, or believe, or teach. It is by _cross-referencing_ the symbols used in passages found throughout the Bible that we gain the ability to gradually discover the existence of a very important message in the Bible that is in full harmony with the intellectually honest conclusions of rational thought and argument.

# Chapter 3: More on the Biblical symbols of "thorn-bushes," "bramble-bushes," and "thistle plants"

## The acceptance of "prophecy" and "prophesying" understood as the refusal to "drink" from the "rains" or "waters" of the Holy Spirit; and the "cursing" of the "ground" or "earth" that results from that refusal

There is one other passage in the New Testament in which we encounter the now-familiar pair of symbols of "thorn-bushes" (Greek _akantha_ ) and "thistles" (Greek _tribolos_ ). Hebrews 6:4-8 says,

(4) For (it is) impossible (with regard to) those who have already both been enlightened and tasted [ _geuomai_ ] of the heavenly gift, and who have become fellow partakers [ _metachos_ , derived from the verb _met-echō_ ] of the Holy Spirit, (5) and who have tasted [ _geuomai_ ] both the goodness of God's word and the power of the Coming Age, (6) and who have then fallen away [ _para-piptō_ ] , to again renew [or restore: _ana-kainizō_ ] them unto repentance [ _metanoia_ ] , (even as they are) recrucifying [ _ana-stauroō_ ] the Son of God in themselves and making a public show (of it) [ _para-deigmatizō_ ].

(7) For the land [or ground, or earth: _gé_ ] that has drunk the rain [ _hyetos_ ] that often comes upon it, and that produces [or brings forth: _tiktō_ ] vegetation [ _botané_ ] useful [more literally, "well-placed": _eu-thetos_ , partly derived from _tithémi_ , meaning "to place, to set, to establish"] for those (persons) because of whom it is also tilled [or cultivated: _geōrgeō_ ] , partakes [ _meta-lambanō_ ] of a blessing from God.

(8) But (the land which) brings forth [ _ek-pherō_ ] thorns [or thorn-bushes: _akantha_ ] and thistles [ _tribolos_ ] (is) not genuine [or (is) counterfeit, or discredited, or unacceptable, or worthless, or rejected: _a-dokimos_ ] and near to (becoming) a curse [ _katara_ ] , of which the end [or conclusion: _telos_ ] (is) unto burning [ _kausis_ , derived from _kaiō_ , meaning "to burn"].

I think it can be safely assumed that as the author wrote this passage, he had in mind the "Garden of Eden," based on a comparison between this passage and Genesis 2:5-8, which says,

(5) (The day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth was) before any shrub [ _siach_ ; LXX _chlōros_ , meaning "green thing"] of the field [ _sadeh_ ; LXX _agros_ ] came into being in the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , and before any plant [ _eseb_ ; LXX _chortos_ ] of the field [ _sadeh_ ; LXX _agros_ ] grew up [or sprouted up: _tsamach_ ; LXX _anatellō_ ] , for the Lord God had not caused it to rain [ _matar_ ; LXX _brechō_ ] on the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , and no man [ _adam_ ; LXX _anthrōpos_ ] (existed) to work [or till, or cultivate: _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ] .

(6) And a mist [ _ed_ ; LXX _pégé_ , meaning "a spring, a fountain"] ascended [ _alah_ ; LXX _ana-bainō_ ] from the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , and watered [ _shaqah_ ; LXX _potizō_ ] the whole face [or surface: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] of the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] .

(7) And the Lord God formed [or fashioned, or molded (as a potter would mold a clay vessel): _yatsar_ ; LXX _plassō_ ] the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _ho anthrōpos_ ] from the (wet) mud [or clay, or dust, or dirt, or ashes: _aphar_ ; LXX _choos_ or _chous_ ] of the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , and blew [ _naphach_ ; LXX _em-physaō_ ] into his nostrils [or his face, or his anger: _aph_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ , meaning "face"] the breath [ _neshamah_ ; LXX _pnoé_ , derived from _pneō_ , meaning "to blow, to breathe," which is related to the Greek word _pneuma_ , meaning "spirit"] of life [ _chay_ ; LXX _zōé_ ] , and the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _ho anthrōpos_ ] became a living [ _chay_ ; LXX _zaō_ ] soul [ _nephesh_ ; LXX _psyché_ ] .

(8) And the Lord God planted [ _nata_ ; LXX _phyteuō_ ] a garden in Eden from the east, and there he placed the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _ho anthrōpos_ ] whom he had formed [or fashioned, or molded: _yatsar_ ; LXX _plassō_ ] .

Notice that in both passages we find the idea of either "rain (or water) coming from heaven to the earth," or else "rain (or water) coming from God to the earth." We also find the idea of "a man" or "men" or "persons" being needed to "till" or "cultivate" the "ground" or "earth" in order to produce "useful vegetation."

Let's take another look at Hebrews 6:4-8:

(4) For (it is) impossible (with regard to) those who have already both been enlightened and tasted [ _geuomai_ ] of the heavenly gift, and who have become fellow partakers [ _metachos_ , derived from the verb _met-echō_ ] of the Holy Spirit, (5) and who have tasted [ _geuomai_ ] both the goodness of God's word and the power of the Coming Age, (6) and who have then fallen away, to again renew [or restore: _ana-kainizō_ ] them unto repentance, (even as they are) recrucifying [ _ana-stauroō_ ] the Son of God in themselves and making a public show (of it) [ _para-deigmatizō_ ]. (7) For the land [or ground, or earth: _gé_ ] that has drunk the rain [ _hyetos_ ] that often comes upon it, and that produces [or brings forth: _tiktō_ ] vegetation useful for those (persons) because of whom it is also tilled [or cultivated: _geōrgeō_ ], partakes [ _meta-lambanō_ ] of a blessing from God. (8) But (the land which) brings forth [ _ek-pherō_ ] thorns [or thorn-bushes: _akantha_ ] and thistles [ _tribolos_ ] (is) not genuine [or (is) counterfeit, or discredited, or unacceptable, or worthless, or rejected: _a-dokimos_ ] and near to (becoming) a curse [ _katara_ ], of which the end [or conclusion: _telos_ ] (is) unto burning [ _kausis_ , derived from _kaiō_ , meaning "to burn"].

What can we deduce from a close study of this passage? First, it seems fair to conclude that the "heavenly gift" was meant to be understood as being equivalent to the "Holy Spirit," which would have in turn been meant to be understood as being equivalent to "the rain" (in which case, the "tasting" of which the author speaks would be equivalent to "drinking"). Second, it seems reasonable to infer that according to the author's mental scheme, the "ground" or "earth" (Greek _gé_ ) would "bring forth" (Greek _ek-pherō_ ) nothing better than "thorn-bushes" (Greek _akantha_ ) and "thistles" (Greek _tribolos_ ) if it failed to fully "drink the rain" that "came upon it."

But if "rain" symbolizes the "Holy Spirit," then it would seem that the "bringing forth" of "thorn-bushes" and "thistles" must be the result of _a refusal to accept the Holy Spirit_. So if we then cross-reference this passage with Genesis chapter 3, it would appear that the "thorn-bushes" (LXX Greek _akantha_ ) and "thistles" (LXX Greek _tribolos_ ) that begin to "rise up" from the "ground" or "earth" (LXX Greek _gé_ ) after the "Fall of Man" must have been thought of by the author of Hebrews 6:4-8 as being the result of a refusal to accept the Holy Spirit. But we have also determined that the acceptance of "prophecy" and "prophesying" (or, at the very least, "false prophecy" and "false prophesying") is what is responsible for the "ground" or "earth" bringing forth "thorn-bushes" and "thistles." And that would seem to imply that the _acceptance_ of "prophecy" and "prophesying" (or, at the very least, "false prophecy" and "false prophesying") must be equivalent to _a refusal to accept the Holy Spirit_.

I would also offer the proposal that the symbolic figure of "Eve" be regarded as corresponding in many respects to the symbolic "ground" or "land" or "earth" spoken of in Hebrews 6:4-8. (However, the authors of the Bible were not always consistent in their use of symbols, so this proposed correspondence between symbols should not be thought of as ironclad.) As a preliminary background thought, simply consider our common use of the phrase "Mother Earth." But I also offer this proposal partly as a result of a cross-reference that can be made between Hebrews 6:4-8 and Genesis 3:16, if one focuses in particular on the use in those two passages of the Greek word _tiktō_ , meaning "to bear (a child), to bring forth, to produce." Once again, Hebrews 6:4-8 says,

(4) For (it is) impossible (with regard to) those who have already both been enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and who have become fellow partakers [ _metachos_ , derived from the verb _met-echō_ ] of the Holy Spirit, (5) and who have tasted both the goodness of God's word and the power of the Coming Age, (6) and who have then fallen away, to again renew them unto repentance, (even as they are) recrucifying the Son of God in themselves and making a public show (of it). (7) For the land [or ground, or earth: _gé_ ] that has drunk the rain that often comes upon it, and that produces [or brings forth: _tiktō_ ] vegetation [ _botané_ ] useful [more literally, "well-placed": _eu-thetos_ , partly derived from _tithémi_ , meaning "to place, to set, to establish"] for those (persons) because of whom it is also tilled [or cultivated: _geōrgeō_ ], partakes [ _meta-lambanō_ ] of a blessing from God. (8) But (the land which) brings forth [ _ek-pherō_ ] thorns [or thorn-bushes: _akantha_ ] and thistles [ _tribolos_ ] (is) not genuine [or (is) counterfeit, or discredited, or unacceptable, or worthless, or rejected: _a-dokimos_ ] and near to (becoming) a curse [ _katara_ ], of which the end [or conclusion: _telos_ ] (is) unto burning [ _kausis_ , derived from _kaiō_ , meaning "to burn"].

And now recall Genesis 3:16:

And (the Lord God) said to the woman, "I will greatly multiply your labor [or toil, or pain, or sorrow, or grief: _itstsabon_ ; LXX _lypé_ ] and your pregnancy [or conception: _heron_ ; LXX _stenagmos_ , meaning 'groanings'] . In pain you will bring forth [ _yalad_ ; LXX _tiktō_ ] children, and your desire (will be) for your husband, and he will rule over you."

Especially given the fact that the comparison between Hebrews 6:4-8 and Genesis 2:5-8 that I made above tends to indicate that the author of the former passage had the "Garden of Eden" in mind, it seems reasonable to suppose that he likely had Genesis 3:16 in mind as well. In that case, what the author of Hebrews 6:4-8 would have likely envisioned "the ground" or "Eve" as "bringing forth" when she produced "children" after the "Fall of Man" would be "thorn-bushes" and "thistles." (So, if that supposition is correct, it's little wonder that Eve's "bringing forth" of children was predicted to be so "painful" after the "Fall of Man.") Remember, the symbolic "thorn-bushes" and "thistles" spoken of in the Bible appear to have been understood to signify _types of persons_.

Furthermore — and related to the (at least partial) correspondence that I just proposed between the figure of "Eve" and the symbol of the "ground" — the symbol of the "ground" (or "earth," or "land," or "soil") spoken of in Genesis chapters 2 and 3, and in Hebrews 6:4-8, was, I believe, likely understood by the authors of the Bible to signify _the human soul_ considered in its "receptive" capacity, so that the kind of "vegetation" that a particular patch of "ground" (or "earth," or "land," or "soil") "produced" (or "brought forth," or "yielded") would be determined by the manner in which a particular human soul _responded to_ the "rains" (presumably symbolizing the "Holy Spirit") that "came upon it" from "the heavens." Would a particular soul tend to _want_ to "drink" those "rains," or would it tend to _avoid_ doing so? In connection with this idea, consider that "the soul" has traditionally often been associated with the more "feminine" aspect of human nature; and, in fact, the Hebrew and Greek words meaning "soul" — _nephesh_ and _psyché_ , respectively — are both grammatically feminine nouns. So when it is said that the "ground" has been "cursed," this may have been meant to indicate that the _soul_ of a particular person (or type of person) has been "cursed." And, if this proposal is correct, then the symbolic figure of "Eve" would, at least in certain respects, seem to have been meant to be understood as signifying a sort of "collective human soul," such that the perceived condition of the symbolic figure "Eve" would serve as a kind of "summation" and "reflection" of the perceived conditions of _all_ of the various individual human souls.

So it does not seem unreasonable to hypothesize that those particular parcels of the "ground" or "land" or "earth" — each of which would signify an individual human soul — which chose not to "drink the rain" of the Holy Spirit, is what were understood by the authors of the New Testament to "bring forth" symbolic "thorn-bushes" and "thistles." And, moreover, given what we know about the symbolic significance of "thorn-bushes" and "thistles," it seems fair to infer that the continual and ongoing acceptance of "prophecy" (or, at the very least, "false prophecy") over the generations and centuries and millennia was perceived by the authors of the New Testament to have been the result of a _refusal_ by human souls to "drink the rain" of the Holy Spirit; and this refusal to "drink the rain" of the Holy Spirit would be what led to the original mythical "cursing" of the "ground" or "earth" (again, signifying the collective human soul). And that would in turn imply that the decision by a human soul either to engage in or to approve of "prophesying" (or, at the very least, "false prophesying") must be _inconsistent with_ and _incompatible with_ the presence of the Holy Spirit in any particular _human soul_ which makes that decision.

Such a conclusion seems to be supported by the fact that Hebrews 6:4-8 speaks of "fellow partakers [ _metachos_ , derived from the verb _met-echō_ ] of the Holy Spirit," as well as "land" or "ground" or "earth" that "partakes [ _meta-lambanō_ ] of a blessing from God." It would appear to follow from this that any parcel of symbolic "land" or "ground" or "earth" which brings forth symbolic "thorn-bushes" and "thistles," and is thus "near to becoming a curse" — instead of "partaking of a blessing" — must _not_ be "partaking of the Holy Spirit."

## Moses and the "burning bush"

Although Luke 6:43-45 — unlike Matthew 7:15-20 — does not contain _both_ the words "thorn-bushes" (Greek _akantha_ ) and "thistles" (Greek _tribolos_ ), there is still a strong resemblance between these two Gospel passages. In Luke 6:43-45 Jesus says,

(43) For there is no good [ _kalos_ ] tree [ _dendron_ ] producing [ _poieō_ ] bad [or rotten, or worthless, or useless, or corrupt: _sapros_ ] fruit [ _karpos_ ] , nor a bad [or rotten, or worthless, or useless, or corrupt: _sapros_ ] tree [ _dendron_ ] producing [ _poieō_ ] good [ _kalos_ ] fruit [ _karpos_ ] .

(44) For every tree is known [ _ginōskō_ ] from its own fruit. For they do not collect [ _syl-legō_ , derived from the verb _legō_ , which can mean "to say, to speak, to tell," and from which is also derived the noun _logos_ , meaning "word, meaning, message"] figs from thorn-bushes [or brier-bushes, or prickly plants: _akantha_ ] , nor do they harvest a cluster of grapes from a bramble-bush [or brier-bush, or thorn-bush: _batos_ ] .

(45) The good [ _agathos_ ] man [ _anthrōpos_ ] brings forth [or presents, or proclaims, or displays: _pro-pherō_ ] out of the good [ _agathos_ ] treasure [ _thésauros_ ] of his heart that which (is) good [ _agathos_ ] ; and the evil (man) [ _ponéros_ ] brings forth [or presents, or proclaims, or displays: _pro-pherō_ ] that which (is) evil [ _ponéros_ ] out of the evil [ _ponéros_ ] (treasure of his heart). For out of the overflow [ _perisseuma_ ] of his heart (a man's) mouth [ _stoma_ ] SPEAKS [or communicates: _laleō_ ] .

First notice how the author of Luke 6:43-45 meant for the "fruit" produced by the "thorn-bushes" and "bramble-bushes" to be understood as corresponding, not just to "works" in general, but to _speech_ in particular.

Second, notice how, even though Luke 6:43-45 never _explicitly_ refers to "false prophets" (or "prophets" of any kind), if we cross-reference Luke 6:43-45 (which uses the Greek word _akantha_ , meaning "thorn-bush, brier-bush, bramble-bush, prickly plant," and the Greek word _batos_ , meaning "bramble-bush, brier-bush, thorn-bush") with Matthew 7:15-20 (which uses the Greek word _akantha_ and the Greek word _tribolos_ , meaning "thistle, thistle plant, brier-bush, prickly plant"; and which _does_ explicitly refer to "false prophets"), it seems fair to conclude that the author of Luke 6:43-45 meant to use the Greek word _batos_ (again, meaning "bramble-bush" or "thorn-bush") in a way that it is _functionally symbolically equivalent_ to the "thistles" (or "thistle plants": Greek _tribolos_ ) of which Jesus speaks in his parable in Matthew 7:15-20.

We find this same Greek word _batos_ in Exodus 3:2-6 (LXX), the famous scene in which the Lord first _speaks_ to Moses from a "burning bush." Exodus 3:2-6 says,

(2) And an angel of the Lord appeared [ _raah_ ; LXX _horaō_ ] to (Moses) in a flame of fire, from the midst [or middle, or center: _tavek_ ] of the bush [or bramble-bush, or brier-bush, or thorn-bush: _seneh_ ; LXX _batos_ ]. And he looked [ _raah_ ; LXX _horaō_ ], and behold, the bush was burning [ _ba'ar_ ; LXX _kaiō_ ] in fire, and the bush was not consumed [or "eaten": _akal_ ; LXX _kata-kaiō_ , meaning "consumed, burned up, burned completely, incinerated"].

(3) And Moses said, "I will now turn toward [ _sur_ ; LXX _par-erchomai_ , meaning 'come near'] and see [ _raah_ ; LXX _horaō_ ] this great sight [or vision: _mareh_ ; LXX _horama_ ] . Why does the bush not burn [ _ba'ar_ ; LXX _kata-kaiō_ , meaning 'burn up, burn completely']?"

(4) And as the Lord [ _yahweh_ ; LXX _kyrios_ ] saw [or perceived: _raah_ ; LXX _eidō_ ] that (Moses) had turned toward [ _sur_ ; LXX _pros-agō_ , meaning "approached"] to see [ _raah_ ; LXX _eidō_ ] , God [ _elohim_ ; the LXX instead has "the Lord," _kyrios_ ] CALLED to him from the midst of the bush and SAID, "Moses! Moses!" And (Moses) said, "Here I am!"

(5) And (God) SAID, "Do not come near [ _qarab_ ; LXX _eggizō_ or _engizō_ ] here. Remove [LXX _lyō_ , which can also mean 'unbind' or 'untie'] your sandals [LXX _hypo-déma_ ] from your feet [LXX _pous_ ] , for the place [LXX _topos_ ] upon which you stand, it (is) holy [or sacred: _qodesh_ ; LXX _hagion_ ] ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ , which can also mean 'earth']."

(6) And (God) SAID (to him), "I (am) the God of your father [or Father]: the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." And Moses hid [or concealed: _sathar_ ; LXX _apo-strephō_ , meaning "turned away"] his face [ _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] , for he was afraid [ _yare'_ ; LXX _eu-labeomai_ , meaning "he was cautious" or "he was wary"] to look upon [ _nabat_ ; LXX _kata-blepō_ , which can also mean "to contemplate"] God [ _elohim_ ; LXX _theos_ ] .

Because of the way in which this same Greek word _batos_ is used in Luke 6:43-45 (combined with a cross-reference between Luke 6:43-45 and Matthew 7:15-20), I think it is reasonable to hypothesize that the "bush" or "bramble-bush" through which the voice of the Lord "speaks" to Moses in Exodus 3:2-6 was understood by the authors of the New Testament to symbolize "prophecy" and "prophets" _in general_ — since I find it impossible to believe that those authors would have understood it to symbolize so-called "false prophecy" or "false prophets" exclusively, as Matthew 7:15-20 might at first seem to indicate. If that hypothesis is correct, then it would seem reasonable to interpret the meaning of this episode as signifying the idea (among other ideas) that at the point in time at which the "burning bush" episode is depicted as taking place, the institution and vocation of "prophecy" and "prophesying" has not yet been "consumed" (in the sense of being "completed" or "finished"), presumably because members of the culture of that time generally believed that "the Lord" was still able to successfully "speak" _through_ the prophets — and therefore they would have seen little or no reason to make any changes to that social arrangement.

But if the symbols of "thorn-bushes" and "bramble-bushes" and "thistle plants" are associated in Matthew 7:15-20 with "false prophecy," then how could the Lord "speak" to Moses by means of one of these "bushes"? I think the answer is, as I have already explained in Chapter 1 of this book, that there is no such thing as _perfectly_ "false prophecy" or "false prophets," just as there is no such thing as _perfectly_ "true prophecy" or "true prophets." The "truthfulness" of _all_ prophecy must be thought of in _relative_ terms. And so I think what this passage was likely understood by the authors of the New Testament to be indicating is that the figure of "Moses" (perhaps in this particular instance meant to represent a certain _type_ of human "prophet") was able to perceive whatever truth _could_ be found within communications of a "prophetical" nature, so that such communications had the power to "speak to him." (And the "prophetical communications" to which I am referring here may be thought of as coming from "spirit beings" inhabiting what might be called the "supernatural realm.") The fact that the symbolic "burning bush" is not "consumed" in its own "flame" may have been meant to convey the idea that in the era of Moses, prophecy was still thought to be a valuable source of "illumination" or "enlightenment" (symbolized by the "flame"), which is why there would not yet have been any pressing desire to bring the prophetical institution and vocation to its final end. In other words, the ability of "prophetical communications" to _convey truth_ would have still been thought to _outweigh_ its tendency to mislead and confuse.

However, the fact that Luke 6:43-45 and Exodus 3:2-6 both describe this symbolic "bramble-bush" or "thorn-bush" as something that would " _speak_ " to a person indicates that the authors of the New Testament likely understood the symbolic "bush" that spoke to Moses to be the _same_ symbolic "bramble-bush" or "thorn-bush" from which so-called "false prophets" (whether human or demonic) might _also_ "speak" — which is what would have made the continued existence of this symbolic "bush" so dangerous. So it seems clear to me that the authors of the New Testament (whether human or angelic) must have believed that this state of affairs, in which "the Lord God" would sometimes reveal himself through the "voice" coming from one of these symbolic "bushes," was an untenable one, and therefore could only be a temporary one; and they must have believed that at some time in the future the best way for such symbolic "bramble-bushes" or "thorn-bushes" to "illuminate" or "enlighten" persons would be by finally _incinerating_ all of them down to ashes. Consider that whenever the New Testament speaks of "worthless branches" or "worthless plants" (such as "thorn-bushes" or "bramble-bushes" or "thistle plants"), it is invariably indicated or implied that their ultimate fate — at "the end of the age" — is to be not only "burned," but also _consumed_ for good and all. See, e.g., [Hebrews 6:4-8 (especially verse 8), John 15:6, Matthew 13:30, and Matthew 13:40.]

The conceptual association between the " _incinerating_ " (or "burning up," or "complete burning," or "consuming": Greek _kata-kaiō_ ) of worthless (symbolic) "plant matter," and the _final conclusion_ of the institution and vocation of "prophecy" and "prophesying," is also indicated by cross-referencing Jeremiah 23:25-32 with Matthew 3:10-12 and Luke 3:16-17. First, in Jeremiah 23:25-32, the prophet Jeremiah, speaking in the voice of the Lord, writes,

(25) "I have heard what the prophets [ _nabi_ ; LXX _prophétés_ ] have said, who prophesy [ _naba_ ; LXX _prophéteuō_ ] lies [ _sheqer_ ; LXX _pseudés_ ] in my name, saying, 'I have dreamed [ _chalam_ ; LXX _en-ypniazomai_ ] , I have dreamed!' (26) How long will it be in the heart of the prophets [ _nabi_ ; LXX _prophétés_ ] who prophesy [ _naba_ ; LXX _prophéteuō_ ] the lies [ _sheqer_ ; LXX _pseudés_ ] and (are) prophets [ _nabi_ ] of the deceitfulness [ _tormah_ ; the LXX has _theléma_ , meaning 'desires'] of their (own) heart, (27) those who mean [or purpose: _chashab_ ; LXX _logizomai_ ] to make my people forget my name with their dreams [ _chalom_ ; LXX _en-ypnion_ , derived from _en_ , meaning 'in,' and _hypnos_ , meaning 'sleep'] which each one recounts to his neighbor — just as their fathers forgot my name by (worshiping) Baal.

(28) "The prophet [ _nabi_ ; LXX _prophétés_ ] who is with a dream [ _chalom_ ; LXX _en-ypnion_ ] , let him recount [ _saphar_ ; LXX _di-égeomai_ , meaning 'fully relate'] his dream. And he who is with [or near, or toward: _eth_ ; LXX _pros_ ] my word [or message, or meaning: _dabar_ ; LXX _logos_ ] , let him speak [ _dabar_ ; LXX _di-égeomai_ ] my word [or message, or meaning: _dabar_ ; LXX _logos_ ] in truth [ _emeth_ ; LXX _alétheia_ ] . WHAT DOES THE CHAFF [or straw: _teben_ ; LXX _achyros_ ] (HAVE TO DO) WITH THE GRAIN [or wheat: _bar_ ; LXX _sitos_ ] ?" says the Lord. (29) "IS MY WORD [or message, or meaning: _dabar_ ; LXX _logos_ ] NOT LIKE A FIRE [ _esh_ ; LXX _pyr_ ] ," says the Lord, "and like a hammer that disperses [or scatters: _puwts_ ; the LXX has _koptō_ , meaning 'cuts'] the rock [ _sela_ ; LXX _petra_ ] (in pieces)?

(30) "In like manner, behold, I am against the prophets [ _nabi_ ; LXX _prophétés_ ] ," says the Lord, "who steal [ _ganab_ ; LXX _kleptō_ ] my words [or messages, or meanings: _dabar_ ; LXX _logos_ ] , each one from his neighbor.

(31) "Behold, I am against the prophets [ _nabi_ ; LXX _prophétés_ ] ," says the Lord, "who take their tongues [ _lashon_ , which can also mean 'language'; LXX _glōssa_ , which can likewise also mean 'language'] and utter [ _naam_ ] a (prophetic) utterance [or revelation, or oracle: _neum_ ] . [The LXX instead has, '...who toss out [ _ek-ballō_ ] prophecies of the tongue and are drowsy from their own drowsiness.']

(32) "Behold, I am against those who prophesy [ _naba_ ; LXX _prophéteuō_ ] false [or deceptive: _sheqer_ ; LXX _pseudés_ ] dreams [ _chalom_ ; LXX _en-ypnion_ ] ," says the Lord, "and who recount [ _saphar_ ; LXX _di-égeomai_ ] them, and mislead [or lead astray, or cause to wander: _taah_ ; LXX _planaō_ ] my people with their lies [or falsehood: _sheqer_ ; LXX _pseudos_ ] and with their recklessness [or carelessness, or frivolity: _pachazuth_ ; LXX _planos_ , which can mean 'deceptions,' or 'wanderings (of mind),' or 'roamings (of mind),' or 'madness,' or 'errors']. And I did not send them, nor give them charge to do good. They will do no good for this people," says the Lord.

Now compare Jeremiah 23:25-32 to Matthew 3:10-12, in which John the Baptist is depicted as saying,

(10) And even now the ax is positioned [ _keimai_ ] toward the root of the trees [ _dendron_ ] . Therefore every tree [ _dendron_ ] not producing [ _poieō_ ] good [ _kalos_ ] fruit [ _karpos_ ] is cut down [ _ek-koptō_ ] and thrown [ _ballō_ ] into FIRE [ _pyr_ ] .

(11) I baptize you in water unto repentance [ _metanoia_ ] . But the one coming after me is more powerful [ _ischyroteros_ , a comparative from of _ischyros_ ] than I, whose sandals [ _hypo-déma_ ] I am not fit to carry. (It is) he (who) will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in FIRE [ _pyr_ ] , (12) whose winnowing fan (is) in his hand. And he will completely clear [ _dia-katharizō_ ] his threshing floor, and will gather together [ _syn-agō_ ] his GRAIN [or wheat: _sitos_ ] into the storehouse. But he will burn up [or burn completely, or consume, or incinerate: _kata-kaiō_ ] the CHAFF [or straw: _achyros_ ] in inextinguishable [or unquenchable: _asbestos_ ] FIRE [ _pyr_ ] .

And also compare Jeremiah 23:25-32 to Luke 3:16-17, in which John the Baptist is similarly depicted as saying,

(16) I baptize you in water; but the one is coming (who is) more powerful than I, the strap of whose sandals [ _hypo-déma_ ] I am not fit to unbind [ _lyō_ ] . (It is) he (who) will baptize you in the Holy Spirit and in FIRE [ _pyr_ ] , (17) whose winnowing fan (is) in his hand to completely clear [ _dia-katharizō_ ] his threshing floor, and to gather together [ _syn-agō_ ] the GRAIN [or wheat: _sitos_ ] into his storehouse. But he will burn up [or burn completely, or consume, or incinerate: _kata-kaiō_ ] the CHAFF [or straw: _achyros_ ] in inextinguishable [or unquenchable: _asbestos_ ] FIRE [ _pyr_ ] .

Notice that the same three Greek words — _achyros_ (meaning "chaff" or "straw"), _sitos_ (meaning "grain" or "wheat"), and _pyr_ (meaning "fire") — are used in Jeremiah 23:25-32 (LXX), Matthew 3:10-12, and Luke 3:16-17. Notice also how when these passages are cross-referenced, it seems reasonable to infer that the authors of the New Testament meant for the "end of the age" or "day of the Lord" to be understood as _coinciding with_ the "burning up" of the symbolic "chaff" or "straw" (cf. Matthew 13:30, Matthew 13:40, 2 Peter 3:10, and 1 Corinthians 3:12-15), which would in turn have been meant to be understood as _coinciding with_ the passing away of all of the "false prophets" — which, I believe, would be just another way of speaking of the passing away of _all_ of "the prophets" in general, since Jeremiah 23:25-32 repeatedly states that the Lord is opposed to "the prophets," and not only to some subcategory of "false prophets." The reason why the Lord is said to be opposed to "the prophets" _as a whole_ would be because that group of persons has been found to be "false" and "deceitful" and "deceptive" and "misleading" when their conduct is considered _as a whole_.

Such an interpretation is strongly supported by the fact that in verses 30 and 31 (in both the Hebrew and Greek versions), the phrase "says the Lord" is twice used to _separate_ the phrase "Behold, I am against the prophets" from whatever language follows it — which strongly tends to indicate that whatever language follows the phrase "Behold, I am against the prophets" was meant to _describe_ the "prophets," and not restrict or delimit the scope of that category of persons. [And, moreover, notice that in verse 31 the Lord is depicted as denouncing "the prophets" for merely doing what _all_ prophets _necessarily_ do by definition: namely, "taking their tongues and uttering a (prophetic) utterance (or revelation, or oracle)."]

Consider also that if the "burning up of the chaff" spoken of in the Gospels was indeed meant to be understood as signifying the elimination of all "prophecy" and "prophesying" — and given that the "fire" responsible for this "burning up" is associated in Matthew 3:10-12 and Luke 3:16-17 with the "Holy Spirit" — then the interpretation I am proposing here would tend to confirm the suggestion I offered in the previous section of this chapter, that the authors of the New Testament seem to have meant for it to be understood that the acceptance and approval of "prophecy" and "prophesying" was fundamentally _inconsistent_ and _incompatible_ with the acceptance of, and the presence of, the Holy Spirit.

Let's now return to Exodus 3:2-6 (the passage in which the voice of the Lord is described speaking to Moses through the "burning bush"), which should also be considered for another reason. First recall what Exodus 3:6 says:

(6) And Moses hid [or concealed: _sathar_ ; LXX _apo-strephō_ , meaning "turned away"] his face [ _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] , for he was afraid [ _yare'_ ] to look upon God.

Now compare that to Genesis 3:7-10, describing what happens just after the "Fall of Man" in the Garden of Eden:

(7) 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, and made loincloths [or aprons] for themselves. (8) 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_ ; LXX _Adam_ ] and his wife [or woman: _ishshah_ ; LXX _gyné_ ] 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. (9) And the Lord God called to the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _Adam_ ] and said to him, "Where (are you)?" (10) And (the man) said, "I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid [ _yare'_ ; LXX _phobeō_ ] , because I was naked, and I hid myself [or withdrew, or concealed myself: _chaba_ ; LXX _kryptō_ ]."

Bible passages such as Isaiah 59:2 and Malachi 3:7 indicate that the desire of Moses (and other figures) to "hide" their "faces" from "God," and the desire of Adam and Eve (and other figures) to hide themselves from the "face" or "presence" of "the Lord God," were seen by the authors of the Bible as being mutually dependent. In other words, the "fear to see" and the "fear to be seen" can be thought of as being essentially just "two sides of the same coin." So the fact that Moses is described as still exhibiting fear in the presence of the Lord that prevents him from "looking upon" the Lord strikes me as quite significant, since Moses's "fear" is presumably a product of the continuing legacy of the "Fall of Man." Such an idea is made especially evident when we contrast the description of Moses's "fear" and the "hiding" of his "face" with the description of the "new Jerusalem" found at the end of the Book of Revelation. Revelation 22:1-5 says,

(1) And (the angel) showed me [John of Patmos] a river of water of life, clear as crystal, going out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. (2) In the middle of (the city's) street, and on this side and on that side of the river, (there was) a tree [ _xylon_ ] of life, producing twelve fruits [ _karpos_ ] , according to month, each yielding its fruit [ _karpos_ ] . And the leaves of the tree [ _xylon_ ] (were) for (the) healing of the nations.

(3) And there will no longer be any curse. And the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in (the city), and his servants will serve him. (4) And they will see his face, and his name (will be) upon their foreheads. (5) And night will not be there, and they (will) not have need of (the) light of a lamp and (the) light) of (the) sun, because (the) Lord God will bestow light upon them; and they will reign into the ages of the ages.

So in this passage we find the presence of a "tree of life" being associated with a person's ability to look upon "the face of God." Based on that, as well as what we've found in the other Bible passages which we've been considering, I think it is reasonable to suppose that the "burning bramble-bush" or "burning thorn-bush" that speaks to Moses was meant to be understood as being equivalent to the "tree of knowledge of good _and_ evil" (as opposed to the "tree of life"). This "tree" would be capable of transmitting knowledge of "good" — which would correspond to a knowledge of God — but it would also be capable of transmitting knowledge of "evil" and sin, which is what would lead a person to want to hide himself or his "face" from God out of _fear caused by shame_. Furthermore, we have seen evidence that the symbol of the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" was meant by the authors of the Bible to signify, or correspond to, or be associated with, the idea of "prophecy" and "prophesying." Therefore, since, in the time of the "New Age" envisioned in Revelation 22:1-5, there would no longer be any "tree of knowledge of good and evil," and there would only be a "tree of life," it is reasonable to suppose that the author (whether human or angelic) of the Book of Revelation meant to convey the idea that in the time of the "New Age," there would no longer be any "prophecy" or "prophesying."

# Chapter 4: The pre-Crucifixion "Jesus Christ" understood as the "tree of knowledge of good and evil"; and the ascended "Jesus Christ" understood as the "tree of life"

In this chapter, I will provide evidence that the figure of "Jesus Christ," before he was crucified and resurrected, and before he ascended into heaven, was meant by the authors of the New Testament to be understood as being symbolically equivalent to the "tree of knowledge of good and evil"; and the primary reason why that would be is that I believe Jesus, before his ascension into heaven, was meant to be regarded as the archetypal and universal "Prophet." In fact, this hypothesis would be consistent with the claim I just made in the previous chapter, that the "burning bush" that spoke to Moses _also_ seems to have been meant to be understood as being symbolically equivalent to the "tree of knowledge of good and evil," since the traditional Christian belief is that when "the Lord" spoke to Moses through the "burning bush," it was actually "the Lord Jesus Christ" who was doing so. (For example, compare [Exodus 3:13-14 with John 8:58.)] Then, after his ascension to the heavenly throne located at the center of the "new Jerusalem," Jesus Christ — the "Lamb" — would be largely symbolically equivalent to the "tree of life."

Before I proceed with my argument, I wish to stress the extreme importance of readers accepting that the "Fall of Man" and the "Crucifixion of Christ" must _both_ be regarded as _myths_ in order to understand their true meaning and significance. Neither one of these "events" occurred at a particular place or at a particular point in time in the historical past. My saying this should not be understood to mean that I believe that the descriptions we find in the Bible of either one of these mythical events is unimportant or unworthy of careful examination. On the contrary: I believe that to regard _either one_ of these mythical events as an historical event is to _trivialize_ it. If a person does not understand the thoroughly _symbolic_ nature of these two "events," then he or she will not be able to fully appreciate the symmetries and correspondences to be found between the respective symbolic schemes that are involved in the two mythical events.

## Jesus as the "vine" consisting of a _mixture_ of "good branches" and "worthless branches"

Let's start our Bible analysis in this chapter by looking at John 15:1-6, in which Jesus says,

(1) I am the true [or truthful, or sincere: _aléthinos_ ] vine, and my Father is the vinedresser [or cultivator: _geōrgos_ ] . (2) Every branch [ _kléma_ ] in me not bearing fruit [ _karpos_ ] , he takes it away [ _airō_ ] ; and every (branch) bearing fruit, he prunes [or "purifies," or "refines," or "purges," or "winnows," or "cleanses," in the sense of "making unmixed": _kathairō_ ] it, so that it might bear more abundant fruit.

(3) Already you are clean [or pure, or "unmixed": _katharos_ ] through the WORD [or message, or meaning: _logos_ ] that I have SPOKEN [ _laleō_ ] to you.

(4) Abide [or remain, or continue, or stay: _menō_ ] in me, and I (will abide) in you. Even as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, if it abide not in the vine, so neither (can) you, if you abide not in me. (5) I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who is abiding in me, and I in him, he bears much fruit. For apart from [or separate from: _chōris_ ] me you can produce [or do: _poieō_ ] nothing.

(6) If anyone abide not in me, he is cast [or thrown: _ballō_ ] out [or outside: _exō_ ] like the branch, and is dried up [or withered: _xérainō_ ] , and (the angels?) gather them together [ _syn-agō_ ] and cast [ _ballō_ ] (the bundle) into the fire [ _pyr_ ] , and it is burned [ _kaiō_ ] .

First notice that if Jesus is to be compared to the "vine," and if "the Father" is to be compared to the "vinedresser," then _in its current state_ , the "vine" — that is, _Jesus_ — _is not flawless_ , since that "vine" is still putting forth some "branches" that do not "bear fruit" (or at least not "good fruit"), and therefore must eventually be " _cut off_ " from the "vine." I think the fact that in verse 1 Jesus describes himself as the " _true_ vine" was meant to indicate _what he is potentially_ — in other words, what he is _supposed to be_ — and what he will someday become.

It is passages such as John 15:1-6 that lead me to believe that, as I already stated, _prior to the Crucifixion_ , Jesus was meant to be regarded as corresponding to the "tree of knowledge of good _and evil_ ," for the reason that Jesus was meant to be viewed as the _archetypal_ and _universal_ "Prophet" who is still a _mixture_ of "truthful prophet" _and_ "untruthful prophet" (or, to state the same idea in another way, a mixture of "anti-prophetical prophet" and "pro-prophetical prophet"). Notice how, just as in Luke 6:43-45, in John 15:1-6 Jesus again associates figurative imagery involving "plants" and "trees" and "branches" and "fruit" with _different_ kinds of " _speech_ " (or "words," or "messages," or "communications"). So presumably the _same_ "vine" speaks _different_ messages to _different_ persons; and what makes Jesus's genuine disciples "pure" or "clean" (Greek _katharos_ ) is that they have been able to discern the "good message" or "good word" or "good meaning" to be found in the _mixed_ "speech" coming forth from that "vine of knowledge of good and evil."

Does it sound at all shocking to you that I would suggest that the figure of Jesus Christ be characterized as a "vine of knowledge of good _and evil_ "? If so, then listen to what Jesus has to say about himself in Mark 10:17-18:

(17) And (as Jesus was) going forth to (his) path [or road, or way: _hodos_ ] , (some)one ran up and knelt down before him, and was asking him, "Good [ _agathos_ ] teacher [ _didaskalos_ ] , what shall I do so that I might inhererit eternal [or age-long: _aiōnios_ ] life?" [Compare this to Genesis 3:22, which I quote and discuss just below in this section.] (18) And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good [ _agathos_ ] ? No one is good [ _agathos_ ] except God alone."

Recall that in Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus compares _persons_ (or rather, types of persons) to types of _trees_ or _plants_. So it would not be unreasonable to suppose that the "tree of life" may have been understood to be symbolically equivalent to the "vine" or the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" _once it had been stripped_ of all of its "evil branches" or "worthless branches" — all of which would then be thrown into the symbolic "fire."

Such a supposition is also supported by a comparison between Genesis 3:22-23 and Isaiah 14:12-20. Genesis 3:22-23, describing the aftermath of the "Fall of Man," says,

(22) And the Lord God said, "Behold, the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _Adam_ ] has become like one [ _echad_ ] of us [or, 'from out of us'], knowing [ _yada_ ; LXX _ginōskō_ ] good [ _towb_ ; LXX _kalos_ ] and evil [ _ra_ ; LXX _ponéros_ ] . And now, lest he stretch out [or extend, or 'send out': _shalach_ ; LXX _ek-teinō_ ] his hand, and take also from the tree [ _esh_ ; LXX _xylon_ ] of the living (ones) [or tree of life: _chay_ ; LXX _zōé_ , meaning 'life'], and eat and live [ _chayay_ ; LXX _zaō_ ] forever [or 'into the age,' or 'into the eon': _lo-olam_ or _lo-owlam_ ; LXX _eis ton aiōna_ ] " — (23) and the Lord God sent [ _shalach_ ; LXX _ex-apo-stellō_ ] him out from the Garden of Eden, to work [ _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] from which he was taken.

I have translated the Hebrew word _lo-olam_ and the Greek phrase _eis ton aiōna_ as "forever" in accordance with the vast majority of popular English translations of the Bible. However, I think a translation of these words as " _into the age_ " or " _into the eon_ " would be preferable, since I think the point that the author of the passage actually meant to convey was that the _continued_ metaphorical "eating" from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" is what has been _preventing_ mankind from entering into a "New Age" or "Messianic Age." I think the passage is telling us that "eating" from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" and "eating" from the "tree of life" are _simply not compatible_. To say that a person is "eating from the tree of life" is actually nothing more than a different way of saying that the person is _already_ living in the "New Age" or "Messianic Age." The two ideas are perfectly synonymous, so that to understand one idea is to understand the other. It therefore seems to follow, based on a consideration of the material that we have been examining thus far, that the authors of the New Testament must have believed that it is the acceptance of "false prophecy" by human beings that makes it impossible for mankind, considered as a whole, to "live (on) into the (new) eon." Moreover, if I am indeed correct to believe that _all_ "prophecy" is actually "false prophecy," then the only way for a "New Age" or "Messianic Age" to come into being would be if mankind as a whole chose to reject and repudicate all discourse of a "prophetical" or "esoteric" nature in the authoritative writings of each person's own religion.

The reference in Genesis 3:22-23 to the idea of "not living into the eon" finds a correspondence in the Septuagint translation of Isaiah 14:12-20, which is speaking of the "fall of the King of Babel" or "fall of the King of Babylon." Isaiah 14:12-19 says,

(12) How you have fallen out of the heaven, shining one [or "morning star," or "Lucifer": _helel_ ; LXX _heōs-phoros_ ] , son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the earth, the one who laid the nations low! (13) And you said in your heart, "Into the heavens I will ascend, 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. (14) I will ascend above the height of the clouds; I will be like the Most High." (15) But you have descended to hell, to the recesses of the pit. (16) Those who see you stare at you and marvel over you: "Is this the man who caused the earth to tremble, who shook kingdoms, (17) 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?"

(18) All kings of the nations, all of them lie in glory, each in his own tomb [more literally, "house": _bayith_ ] . (19) But you are cast out [ _shalak_ ; LXX _rhipteō_ ] of your grave [or sepulchre: _qeber_ ] LIKE A WORTHLESS [or abhorrent, or detested, or loathed: _taab_ ; LXX _bdelyssomai_ ] BRANCH [ _netser_ ] , garment of those who are killed (by being) pierced through [LXX _ek-kenteō_ ] with a sword [ _chereb_ ; LXX _machaira_ ] , that falls to the stones of the pit like a trampled corpse. [By the way, notice how this is reminiscent of the symbolism involved in the "Crucifixion of Christ," for reasons that I explain more extensively in my previous book.]

In verse 20, the Septuagint translation goes on to say,

(20) 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 [or abide, or endure, or continue: LXX _menō_ ] into the time of the eon [LXX _eis ton aiōna_ _chronon_ ], evil [LXX _ponéros_ ] seed [LXX _sperma_ ].

Incidentally, the Hebrew word _netser_ , meaning "a branch, a shoot, a sprout" (more specifically, the type of "branch" that one would be likely to find in a cultivated vineyard), can also be found in [Isaiah 11:1 and Isaiah 60:21 — in Isaiah 11:1 apparently referring to the figure of "the Messiah."]

First notice how, as with other Bible passages that we have already looked at, we again encounter the theme of symbolic "vegetation" or "plant matter" in Isaiah 14:12-20, with its references to a "worthless branch" and an "evil seed." Moreover, the fact that the passage refers to the "King of Babel" or "King of Babylon" as a "worthless branch" suggests that this figure may have been meant to _collectively represent_ all of the various _individual_ "worthless branches" or "evil branches" of which Jesus speaks in John 15:6:

(6) If anyone abide not in me, he is cast out like the branch [ _kléma_ ], and is dried up [or withered: _xérainō_ ] , and (the angels?) gather them together [ _syn-agō_ ] and cast [ _ballō_ ] (the bundle) into the fire [ _pyr_ ], and it is burned [ _kaiō_ ].

I believe the thinking of the authors of the New Testament may have been that once the "King of Babel" or "King of Babylon" (that is, the generic symbolic "worthless branch" or "loathed branch" or "detested branch," representing all of the individual symbolic "worthless branches") had been "cut off" from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil," the "tree" that would then remain could be regarded as the "tree of life." That would in turn tend to suggest that the symbolic figure of the "King of Babel" or "King of Babylon" may have been understood to have _come into being_ , in a sense, at the _precise moment_ of the mythical "Fall of Man," with mankind's _acceptance_ of the kind of "fruits" that are produced by the "tree of knowledge of good and evil."

[In my previous book I argue that there is good reason to believe that the symbolic figure of the "King of Babel" or "King of Babylon" ought to be viewed as being essentially equivalent to Jesus's symbolic "outer body" or "outer garment" — which would in turn be equivalent to the "outer meaning" of "esoteric" or "prophetical" religious discourse, as well as "esoteric" or "prophetical" religious discourse in general — which is finally eliminated or "shed" with the symbolic "Crucifixion of Christ." And that would be consistent with the suggestion I just offered that the symbolic figure of the "King of Babel" or "King of Babylon" may have been understood to have "come into being" with the "Fall of Man," if the "Fall of Man" was in fact meant to symbolize the _acceptance_ of a "prophetical" or "esoteric" type of religious discourse, and if the figure of the "King of Babel" or "King of Babylon" was in fact meant to represent that type of religious discourse, as well as all persons who choose to participate in that type of religious discourse.]

For more evidence that the authors of the New Testament meant for Jesus (prior to his ascension into heaven) to be regarded as the symbolic "tree of knowledge of good and evil," consider Genesis 3:1-3, which says,

(1)... And (the serpent) said to the woman, "Has God really said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?" (2) And the woman said to the serpent, "From the fruit of the tree of the garden we may eat, (3) but from the fruit of the tree that (is) in the middle of the garden [that is, the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil'], God has said, 'You shall not eat from it, nor shall you touch [LXX _haptomai_ or _haptō_ ] it, lest you die.'"

Then compare that to John 20:17, which takes place after Jesus's Resurrection, but before his Ascension, and which says,

Jesus said to (Mary Magdalene), "Do not touch [ _haptomai_ or _haptō_ ] me! For I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go to my brothers and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, and my God and your God."

Also, there are several passages in the New Testament in which it is said that Jesus was put to death by "hanging him upon a tree." I think there is reason to believe that this "tree" was meant to be understood as referring to the "tree of knowledge of good and evil."

First, in Acts 5:30-31 Peter and the apostles are depicted as saying to the members of the Jewish Sanhedrin,

(30) The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you killed, having hung [or hanged: _kremannymi_ ] him upon a tree [or wood: _xylon_ ] . (31) God lifted him up (to be) Chief Leader [or Pioneer, or Founder, or Author: _archégos_ ] and Savior at his right (hand), to give repentance [ _metanoia_ ] to Israel and forgiveness [ _aphesis_ ] of sins.

Next, in Acts 10:39-40 Peter is depicted as saying to the Gentiles,

(39) And we are witnesses [ _martys_ ] of all the things that (Jesus) did, both in the region of the Jews and in Jerusalem, whom they also put to death, having hung [or hanged: _kremannymi_ ] him upon a tree [or wood: _xylon_ ] . (40) This (Jesus) God raised up in the third day, and granted that he become visible [or manifest: _em-phanés_ ]....

Finally, in Galatians 3:13-14 Paul writes,

(13) 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 [ _kremannymi_ ] upon a tree [or wood: _xylon_ ] ," (14) so that to the Gentiles the blessing of Abraham might come into being through Jesus Christ, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith [or trust, or belief: _pistis_ ] .

The Greek word that I have translated in these three passages as "tree" is _xylon_ , which can mean either "tree" or "wood." **The Greek word** _xylon_ **is also the same word used in the Septuagint translation of Genesis chapters 2 and 3 when the text speaks of the "tree of life" and the "tree of knowledge of good and evil."** None of these three New Testament passages use the Greek word _stauros_ , which can mean either "cross" or "stake," and which is the word generally used elsewhere in the New Testament to refer to Jesus's Cross. So I think it is quite possible that the authors of these passages made a deliberate choice to use the Greek word _xylon_ precisely because of its semantic ambiguity, so that, according to the more "outer" narrative of the Gospels, the word could be thought of as having the meaning of "wood," but according to the more "inner" narrative of the Bible, it would lead more "sophisticated" readers to think of the story of the "Fall of Man" in the Garden of Eden. If that is correct, then the symbolic "tree of knowledge of good and evil" would not only correspond to the figure of the pre-Crucifixion Jesus, it would also signify the _means_ by which that very same "tree of knowledge of good and evil" would be _destroyed_.

This idea of Jesus having been meant to be understood as being symbolically equivalent to the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" also receives some support from Matthew 10:16, in which Jesus says,

Behold, I am sending you out [ _apo-stellō_ ] as sheep in (the) midst [or middle: _mesos_ ] of wolves. Therefore become shrewd [or clever, or prudent, or practically wise, or sensible: _phronimos_ ] as the serpents and simple [or sincere, or guileless, or unsophisticated, or innocent, or pure; literally, "unmixed": _a-keraios_ ] as the doves.

And recall what Genesis 3:1 says:

Now the serpent was more shrewd [or clever, or cunning, or crafty: LXX _phronimos_ ] than any beast [LXX _thérion_ ] of the earth [LXX _gé_ ] that the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, "Has God really said, 'You shall not eat from any tree of the garden'?"

This comparison gives reason to think that not only was Jesus meant to be thought of as being equivalent to the "tree of knowledge of good and evil"; the authors of the New Testament may have also been recommending that Jesus's "disciples" become "trees of knowledge of good and evil" _in their own right_. Presumably the reason for doing this was not so that they could work mischief in the world, but so that they would not be naïve with regard to the ways of metaphorical "serpents" and "wolves." (However, since the Christian religion never chose to repudiate all "prophetical discourse" in its authoritative writings, I don't believe things ever actually worked out that way in practice.) I think the author may have meant for it to be inferred that the "wolves" spoken of in Matthew 10:16 would be _dressed as_ "sheep," so that one would need to be "shrewd as serpents" in order to know how to detect and recognize them even in spite of their disguises. (Cf. Romans 16:17-20.) Recall that in Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus compares "false prophets" to "wolves in sheep's clothing."

In connection with this idea, consider that the _sole characteristic_ that distinguishes the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" from all of the other "trees" in the Garden of Eden — especially if we assume that the only kind of "tree" other than the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" is the "tree of life" (or "tree of the living (ones)") — is that the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" is desired to make a person "wise" or "intelligent" or "shrewd" or "prudent" or "clever." First consider Genesis 2:9, describing the "Garden of Eden," which says,

And from the ground the Lord God caused to sprout up every tree that is attractive to the sight, and good for food. And the tree of the living (ones) [or "tree of life"] (was) in the middle of the garden, and (also) the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Next consider Genesis 3:6, which says,

And when the woman saw that the tree [that is, the "tree of knowledge of good and evil"] was good for food, and that it (was) pleasing to the eyes, and [ **!** ] the tree was desirable for making one wise [or clever, or intelligent, or insightful, or skillful, or discerning, or perceptive: _sakal_ ; LXX _kata-noeō_ ], then she took from its fruit and she ate [ _akal_ ] , and she also gave to her husband, and he ate [ _akal_ ] with her.

But also consider what Jesus says in Matthew 18:3:

Truly I say to you, if you are not turned [or converted: _strephō_ ] and become as the little children [ _paidion_ ] , you shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens.

Based on Gospel passages such as Matthew 18:3, it seems reasonable to suppose that the authors of the New Testament may have meant for it to be understood that at some point a "disciple" would have to shed his "serpent-like wisdom" and become "simple as the doves" if he wished to finally enter the "kingdom of God" or "kingdom of the heavens." If that is correct, it would suggest that even though Jesus may be advising his "disciples" to follow in his path by _also_ (temporarily) becoming "trees of knowledge of good and evil," that state of affairs would be expected to last _only_ until the time when those "disciples" _also_ followed in Jesus's path by being metaphorically "crucified" just as he was.

##  The "Messiah" seen as the "new plant" that replaces the "former plants"

Recall that Genesis 2:9, describing the "Garden of Eden," says,

And from the ground [or land, or earth: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] the Lord God caused to sprout up [or grow up, or rise up: _tsamach_ ; LXX _ex-anatellō_ ] every tree that is attractive to the sight, and good for food.

And also recall that in Genesis 3:17-18 the Lord says to Adam,

(17) Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and ate from the tree (with regard to) which I gave you charge, saying, "You shall not eat from it," cursed [ _arar_ ; LXX _epi-kataratos_ ] (is) the ground [or land, or earth: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] because of you. In toil [or pain, or sorrow, or grief, or affliction: _itstsabon_ ; LXX _lypé_ ] shall you eat of it all the days of your life; (18) and thorn-bushes [ _qots_ ; LXX _akantha_ ] and thistles [ _dardar_ ; LXX _tribolos_ ] will sprout up [or grow up, or rise up: _tsamach_ ; LXX _anatellō_ ] to you, and you shall eat the plants of the field [ _sadeh_ ; LXX _agros_ ] .

The use in this context of the Hebrew word _tsamach_ and the Greek words _anatellō_ or _ex-anatellō_ (both of which Greek words have essentially the same meaning) is highly significant, because these same words are used elsewhere in the Bible in reference to the figure of "the Messiah."

For example, Ezekiel 29:21 says,

In that day [that is, the "day of the Lord"] I [the Lord] will cause a horn [ _qeren_ ; LXX _keras_ ] to sprout [or grow up, or spring up: _tsamach_ ; LXX _anatellō_ , which can mean "rise up," or "spring up," or "grow up," and is also used in reference 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.

This "horn" (presumably signifying a "proclamation" or "announcement" of some kind) and, by extension, this "opening of the mouth," are here associated with the idea of a "sprouting" (or "growing up," or "springing up," or "rising up": Hebrew _tsamach_ or Greek _anatellō_ ) of a certain "plant" of some kind. But this particular kind of "plant" is presumably _not the same_ kind of "plant" that the Lord told Adam would, in the wake of the "Fall of Man," henceforth "grow up" or _"_ _rise up" to him_ from the the "ground" or "earth."

As confirmation that Ezekiel 29:21 was indeed meant to be understood as referring to "the Messiah," consider Isaiah 4:2:

In that day [that is, "in the day of the Lord"] the Sprout [or Shoot, or Branch, or Bud, or Growth: _tsemach_ , derived from the verb _tsamach_ ] of the Lord [ _yahweh_ ; LXX _theos_ ] will be for splendor and glory, and the fruit [ _peri_ ] of the earth [ _erets_ ] (will be) for the majesty and honor of the remnant of Israel.

Also consider Isaiah 61:11:

For as the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] brings forth its Sprout [or Shoot, or Branch: _tsemach_ ; the LXX has _anthos_ , meaning "flower"], and as a garden [ _gannah_ ; LXX _képos_ ] causes what is sown in it [the LXX has _ta spermata autou_ , meaning "its seeds"] to spring up [or sprout, or spring forth, or grow up: _tsamach_ ; LXX _ek-blastanō_ , meaning "to sprout up, to shoot up, to grow out of"], so the Lord God [ _yahweh_ ; LXX _kyrios_ ] will cause to spring up [ _tsamach_ ; LXX _anatellō_ , which can mean "to rise up, to spring up"] righteousness and praise in the sight of all the nations.

Also consider Jeremiah 23:5:

"Behold, days are coming," declares the Lord [ _yahweh_ ; LXX _kyrios_ ], "and I will raise up [ _qum_ ; LXX _an-istémi_ ] to David a Sprout [or a Shoot, or a Branch: _tsemach_ ; LXX _anatolé_ , which is derived from the verb _anatellō_ , and which means "a Rising," or "a Rising-up," or "a Springing-up"] of righteousness, and a King will come to reign and deal wisely [ _sakal_ ; LXX _syn-iémi_ , which can mean "comprehend, understand, perceive, be wise, take notice of"] and produce [ _asah_ ; LXX _poieō_ ] justice and righteousness in the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ]."

(Notice, by the way, that the Hebrew word _sakal_ , which I here translate as "deal wisely," is the same Hebrew verb used in Genesis 3:6, in which it is said that Eve chooses to eat from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil" after realizing that it is to be desired "to make one wise.")

Also consider Jeremiah 33:15:

In those days and in that time that is, "in the day of the Lord"] I [the Lord] will cause a Sprout [or a Shoot, or a Branch: _tsemach_ ; LXX _blastos_ , meaning "a Shoot" or "a Bud"] of righteousness to sprout up [or grow up: _tsamach_ ; LXX _blastanō_ , meaning "to bud, to sprout, to grow, to shoot forth, to yield produce"] to David, and he [or it] will produce [ _asah_ ; LXX _poieō_ ] justice and righteousness in the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] . [By the way, notice how that Greek word _blastanō_ is used in [James 5:18.]

Also consider Zechariah 3:8, in which the prophet Zechariah describes a vision that he had of an angel speaking to the figure of "Joshua, the Great Priest":

Now hear [ _shama_ ; LXX _akouō_ ], O Joshua [or Jeshua, or Yeshua: _yehoshua_ ; LXX _iésous_ , which in the New Testament is transliterated into English as the name " _Jesus_ "] , (the) Great Priest, you and your companions [ _rea_ ; LXX _plésion_ ], the ones sitting before your face [or "in your presence": _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ], for these same men [ _ish_ ; LXX _anér_ ] (are) a wondrous sign [ _mopheth_ ] [the LXX instead has "...for they are men (who are) observers of wondrous signs": _terato-skopos_ ]; for behold, I am causing my servant [or bondservant, or worker: _ebed_ , derived from _abad_ , meaning "to work"; LXX _doulos_ ] (the) Sprout [or Shoot, or Branch, or Bud, or Growth: _tsemach_ ; LXX _anatolé_ , which means "(the) Rising" or "(the) Rising-up"] to come forth.

And finally consider Zechariah 6:11-13, in which the Lord is described as saying to Zechariah,

(11) And take silver and gold, and make a crown, and place it on the head of Joshua [or Jeshua, or Yeshua: _yehoshua_ ; LXX _iésous_ , which, again, is in the New Testament transliterated into English as the name " _Jesus_ "] son of Jehozadak [a name which means "the Lord is righteous"], the Great Priest. (12) And speak to him, saying, "Thus says the Lord of forces [or powers, or hosts: _tsaba_ ] , saying, Behold, a man [ _ish_ ; LXX _anér_ ] (whose) name (is) Sprout [or Shoot, or Branch, or Bud, or Growth: _tsemach_ ; LXX _anatolé_ , meaning 'Rising'], and from his (place) below [or underneath, or beneath: _tachath_ ; LXX _hypo-katōthen_ ] he will sprout up [or shoot up, or grow up: _tsamach_ ; LXX _anatellō_ , meaning 'rise up'], and he will build the temple of the Lord [ _yahweh_ ; LXX _kyrios_ ] . (13) And he will build the temple of the Lord, and he will bear [or carry, or lift up: _nasa_ ] its majesty [the LXX instead has 'he will receive virtue [or moral excellence: _areté_ ]'], and he will sit and rule [ _mashal_ ; LXX _kat-archō_ ] upon his throne."

When read together, the preceding passages in this section provide us with a _clear contrast_ between two different basic types of symbolic "plants" that might potentially "grow up" or "rise up" to "the man" (representing all of mankind). The first kind of "plant" is the "thorn-bush" or "thistle plant," symbolizing "false prophecy" (if not all "prophecy"), with which all of us — as persons living in the "present age" — are necessarily already familiar. The second kind of symbolic "plant" is a _new kind_ of "plant," one which none of us has ever yet seen: the "Sprout" (or "Shoot," or "Bud," or "Branch," or "Growth," or "Rising"), which represents "the Messiah," and which I think was likely meant to be understood as being equivalent to the "tree of life" in the first stages of its growth. And it is the "germination" and initial " _growth_ " of that _new kind_ of "Sprout" which would symbolize the _dawning_ of a future "New Age" or "Messianic Age"; and as the "Sprout" grew to maturity, the "tree of life" would gradually _displace_ the symbolic "thorn-bushes" and "thistle plants" that had preceded it, and that had been continuously "rising up" to mankind up until then.

Finally, consider how Revelation 22:1-5 associates the "tree of life" and its "fruits" with the end of the "cursing" of the "ground" or "earth" — and how that is related to "living into the new eon" or "living into the new age":

(1) And (the angel) showed me [John of Patmos] a river of water of life, clear as crystal, going out of the throne of God and of the Lamb. (2) In the middle of (the city's) street, and on this side and on that side of the river, (there was) a tree [ _xylon_ ] of life, producing twelve fruits [ _karpos_ ] , according to month, each yielding its fruit [ _karpos_ ] . And the leaves of the tree [ _xylon_ ] (were) for (the) healing of the nations. (3) And there will no longer be any curse [ _kat-anathema_ ] . And the throne of God and of the Lamb will be in (the city), and his servants will serve him. (4) And they will see his face, and his name (will be) upon their foreheads. (5) And night will not be there, and they (will) not have need of (the) light of a lamp and (the) light) of (the) sun, because (the) Lord God will bestow light upon them; and they will reign into the ages of the ages [ _eis tous aiōnas tōn aiōnōn_ ] .

## The "crown of thorns" worn by the crucified "King of the Jews"

I think it is extremely unlikely to be coincidental that in Matthew 7:15-20 Jesus associates "false prophets" with the symbols of "thorn-bushes" (or "thorns": Greek _akantha_ ) and "thistles" (Greek _tribolos_ ), and that Jesus is also portrayed in the Gospels as wearing a "crown of thorns [or thorn branches: Greek _akantha_ ]" as he is being crucified. I believe that the authors of the New Testament meant for this to signify that Jesus was not just allowing himself to be symbolically "killed," but was specifically allowing himself to be symbolically "killed" in his role _as a prophet_. And I would go even further than that and posit that the purpose of including the symbolic image of the "crown of thorns" in the Gospel narratives was to convey the idea that Jesus was meant to be identified as a " _false_ prophet" in particular.

The "crown of thorns" is mentioned several times in the Gospels. Matthew 27:28-30 says,

(28) And after (the Roman soldiers) stripped (Jesus), they put a scarlet robe around him. (29) And, having twisted together [or woven, or braided: _plekō_ ] a crown of thorn branches [ _akantha_ ] , they put it on his head, and (put) a reed [or reed-pen, or pen: _kalamos_ ] in his right hand, and, having bowed down before him, they mocked him, saying, "Hail! King of the Jews!" (30) And after spitting at him, they took the reed and were striking him on his head.

And Mark 15:17-19 says,

(17) And (the Roman soldiers) put a purple (garment) on (Jesus), and placed a crown on him (made from) twisted-together [ _plekō_ ] thorn branches [ _akanthinos_ , derived from _akantha_ ] . (18) And they began to salute him, (saying), "Hail! King of the Jews!" (19) And they were striking his head with a reed [ _kalamos_ ] , and spitting at him, and prostrating themselves on their knees to make obeisance to him.

And John 19:2-5 says,

(2) And the soldiers, having twisted together [ _plekō_ ] a crown of thorn branches [ _akantha_ ] , put it on (Jesus's) head, and put a purple cloak around him. (3) And they started coming up to him and saying, "Hail, the King of the Jews!" And they were slapping him. (4) And Pilate went outside [ _exō_ ] again and said to (the Jews), "Behold, I am bringing him out [ _exō_ ] to you, that you may know that I find no guilt [or fault: _aitia_ ] in him." (5) So Jesus went outside [ _exō_ ] wearing the crown (made from) thorn branches [ _akanthinos_ ] and the purple cloak. And (Pilate) said, "Behold [ _idou_ ] , the man [ _ho anthrōpos_ ] !"

I believe this phrase spoken by Pilate in John 19:5 — "Behold [ _idou_ ] , the man [ _ho anthrōpos_ ] !" — was meant to be understood as an allusion to Adam and the primordial "Fall of Man" and expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Recall some of the passages from Genesis chapters 2 and 3 which also speak of "the man" (Hebrew _ha-adam_ or Greek _ho anthrōpos_ ):

First, Genesis 2:7-8 says,

(7) And the Lord God formed the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _ho anthrōpos_ ] from the (wet) mud [or clay, or dirt] of the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _ho anthrōpos_ ] became a living soul. (8) And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden from the east, and there he placed the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _ho anthrōpos_ ] whom he had formed.

And Genesis 2:15-18 says,

(15) And the Lord God took the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _ho anthrōpos_ ] and placed him in the Garden of Eden, to work it and to keep it. (16) And the Lord God gave charge to the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _Adam_ ], saying, "From every tree of the garden you may surely eat, (17) but from the tree of the knowing of good and evil, you shall not eat from it, for in the day that you eat from it, you will surely die." (18) And the Lord God said, "(It is) not good for the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _ho anthrōpos_ ] to be alone. I will make for him a complementary helper."

And, with Pilate's phrase from John 19:5 in mind, also consider Genesis 3:22, taking place after the "Fall of Man," which says,

And God said, "Behold [LXX _idou_ ] , the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _Adam_ ] has become as one of us, knowing good and evil.

Why would Jesus be depicted as wearing a "crown of thorns," if not for the purpose of signifying that he was meant to be seen as a "false prophet" — just as Adam, with the "Fall of Man," apparently chose to become? On the other hand, however, why would a "false prophet" be called "King of the Jews" (even mockingly)?

The answer, I believe, is to be found by understanding the intended significance of the symbol of Jesus's Crucifixion. I have been arguing in this book thus far that, strictly speaking, _all_ "prophets" are actually "false prophets." But although that statement is _mostly_ accurate, it is not entirely so. There is _a single exception_ to the general rule I have been propounding: The one and only _completely_ and _genuinely_ "true prophet" or "truthful prophet" is the prophet who is willing to accept his own demise _as a prophet_ ; and that is a willingness which would arise _precisely because of the fact_ that all "prophecy" is actually "false prophecy."

It is as a result of the fact that the Jesus depicted in the Gospels is _willing to be seen_ as a "false prophet," and then to "die by piercing" in his role _as_ "false prophet" (at the same time as in his role as archetypal "Prophet" more generally) that the symbolic figure of Jesus Christ becomes the _first, last, and only_ "prophet" ever to _become_ a completely "true prophet" — _but only at the moment of his death_. For example, consider John 19:30, in which Jesus says, at the moment of his death, "It is finished!" — which, I believe, was meant to signify that with Jesus's symbolic "death," the prophetical institution and vocation would likewise have been "finished" or "completed" or "concluded." And it is this same moment of Jesus's death that the Gospels elsewhere refer to as the moment of Jesus's "glorification."

Again, the depiction in the Gospels of the willingness on Jesus's part to voluntarily "die" as a prophet makes the symbolic figure of Jesus completely _unique_ in the Bible (in the sense that Jesus's "death" is the only one _depicted_ as having already been _completed_ , and not merely "prophesied" or "foreshadowed"). And I believe the very uniqueness of that willingness to "die" _as a prophet_ was meant by the authors of the Gospels to be understood as being that which _truly did_ make the symbolic figure of Jesus the "King of the Jews" (even if we find that claim expressed mockingly, and thus ironically, in the Gospels). I take that position based on my firm belief that _the need to eliminate all prophecy and prophesying_ (and all deceptive and misleading communication more generally) is _the_ core, central message that Old Testament prophecy as a whole is actually trying to convey. In other words, the archetypal "Prophet" — Jesus Christ — finally _fulfills_ all of that earlier Jewish prophecy by _accepting his death_ as a "prophet." (But it cannot be stressed too many times that Jesus's "death" must be thought of in _symbolic_ terms, and not in _historical_ terms.) The fact that Jesus allows himself to be _killed_ while he is wearing the symbolic "crown of thorns" is precisely what _makes him_ the "King of the Jews." Jesus's death is a symbolic "death" that _undoes_ the "Fall of Man" — because Jesus's "death" also represents the "death" of the symbolic "thorn-bushes" and "thistles" that _came into the world_ with the "Fall of Man."

And we can know that Jesus was meant to be understood as willingly accepting his own demise in his specific role _as prophet_ by looking at, for example, Luke 13:22,31-33:

(22) And (Jesus) was passing through one town and village after another, teaching and making (his) journey toward Jerualem.... (31) In the same hour certain Pharisees approached (Jesus), saying to him, "Get out and go (away) from here, for Herod wants to kill you." (32) And he said to them, "(After) you have gone (to Herod), say to that fox, Behold, I am casting out demons and I am bringing healings [or cures: _iasis_ ] to completion [ _apo-teleō_ ] today and tomorrow, and with the third (day) I am finished [or perfected, or completed, or fulfilled, or brought to an end: _teleioō_ ] . (33) But it is necessary for me to journey [or proceed: _poreuomai_ ] today and tomorrow, and to the (day) following; for it is not possible [or allowable: _endechomai_ ] for a prophet [ _prophétés_ ] to perish [ _apollymi_ ] outside of [ _exō_ ] Jerusalem."

So again, the fact that the figure of Jesus in his specific role _as prophet_ would allow himself to "perish" (or "be finished," or "be completed," or "be fulfilled," or "be brought to an end") is what would _make him_ the "King of the Jews," since I believe there is ample evidence to support the position that the elimination of all "prophecy" and "prophesying" (all of which is _necessarily_ and _by definition_ deceptive and misleading), is actually — even if you at first find the idea hard to believe — the true _fulfillment_ of the Jewish religion.

Such an hypothesis is also supported by Acts 13:26-29, in which the apostle Paul is depicted as saying to the Jews living in the city of Antioch,

(26) Men, brothers, sons of the stock of Abraham, and those among you fearing God, by us the message [ _logos_ ] of this salvation has been sent out [ _ex-apo-stellō_ ] . (27) For those dwelling in Jerusalem and their rulers, being ignorant [ _a-gnoeō_ ] of (Jesus) and the voices [ _phōné_ ] of the prophets that with every Sabbath day are read [ _ana-ginōskō_ ] , fulfilled [ _pléroō_ ] (the voices of the prophets) (by) having condemned [or judged, or separated, or discerned: _krinō_ ] (Jesus).

(28) And having found [or discovered: _heuriskō_ ] absolutely no cause [ _aitia_ , derived from the verb _aiteō_ ] for death, they asked [or begged: _aiteō_ ] Pilate to have him be put to death [or dispatched, or taken up, or carried off: _an-aireō_ ] . (29) And when they brought to an end [or brought to a close, or brought to a conclusion, or brought to completion, or finished, or accomplished, or fulfilled: _teleō_ ] all the things written about him, after taking him down from the tree [or wood: _xylon_ ] they laid him in a tomb [or sepulchre: _mnémeion_ ] .

[Consider that even if the Jews _found_ "absolutely no cause for death," that doesn't necessarily mean that there _was_ "absolutely no cause for death" — that is, if we are thinking about these matters in symbolic terms. It could be that even if the symbolic figure of Jesus was _rightly_ "put to death," he could have still been "put to death" _for the wrong reasons_. (In other words, perhaps, he wasn't "put to death" out of deliberate opposition to his being a "prophet" _per se_ , but for other reasons.)]

I think this passage tends to show that the "fulfillment" of prophecy is to be found in the _elimination_ of prophecy, if the figure of "Jesus" is thought of as representing _all_ prophets, both the _relatively_ "truthful" ones, and the _relatively_ "false" ones. I believe this passage is telling us that it was really the "voices of the prophets" — and not "the Jews" _per se_ — that had _already_ "condemned" the archetypal "Prophet," Jesus Christ ( _understood as a symbolic figure_ ), long before that point in time at which he is allegorically _depicted_ in the Gospels as having been "condemned" and "killed."

Also consider the possibility that the symbolism involved in the "Crucifixion of Christ" was meant to be contrasted with the symbolism involved in the episode of the "burning bush" that spoke to Moses. Even though the "bramble-bush" or "thorn-bush" that speaks to Moses is never "consumed" in the "flame" of its own "fire," one might reasonably speculate that with the Crucifixion and Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, the state of that same symbolic "thorn-bush" has changed dramatically. Now, perhaps, the archetypal "Prophet," wearing the "crown of thorns [Greek _akantha_ ]" that suits a "prophet" so perfectly, and just as a "detested branch" or "loathed branch" or "worthless branch" deserves, finally _is_ "consumed" in the metaphorical "fire" of the Holy Spirit — so that another, _better_ kind of "sprout" or "shoot" or "branch" might emerge and "rise up" from the burnt "ground" or "earth."

I believe the symbol of the "crown of thorns" is significant for another reason. Genesis 22:1-18 describes Abraham's attempt to sacrificially offer his son Isaac as a "whole burnt offering" to the Lord. The New Testament writings (see, e.g., Galatians 3:16) associate the figure of Isaac with the figure of Jesus, with both figures understood to correspond to the symbolic "lamb of God." But I think there may be more to the figure of Jesus than just that. Even though an angel of the Lord stops Abraham from carrying out his sacrifice of Isaac, Genesis 22:13 tells us that Abraham offers a substitute sacrifice:

(13) And Abraham lifted up [ _nasah_ ; LXX _ana-blepō_ ] his eyes, and saw [or perceived: _raah_ ; LXX _eidō_ ] , and behold, in the back [ _achar_ ] a ram (was) caught [or held, or bound: _achaz_ ; LXX _kat-echō_ ] in a thicket [ _sebak_ ; LXX _sabek_ ] by its horns [ _qeren_ ; LXX _keras_ ] . And Abraham went and took the ram and offered it up [or made it ascend: _alah_ ; LXX _ana-pherō_ ] for a whole burnt offering [ _olah_ , related to the verb _alah_ ] instead of his son.

This passage is particularly interesting because of its use of the Hebrew noun _sebak_ , meaning "thicket." It is derived from the Hebrew verb _sabak_ , meaning " _to interweave_." And I think the use of this word _sebak_ likely explains why the authors of the Gospels would have been so careful to let us know that Jesus's "crown of thorns" was made specifically of "thorn branches" (Greek _akantha_ ) that were " _twisted-together_ " (or " _intertwined_ ," or " _interwoven_ ": Greek _plekō_ ). The purpose of informing readers of that extra fact would presumably have been to lead readers to associate the figure of the crucified Jesus (and his "crown of thorns") with the "ram" that is sacrificed _as a substitute for_ the "lamb" (corresponding to the figure of Isaac). But if that is correct, then the "thicket" in which the "ram" is found "caught" or "bound" would presumably have been understood by the authors of the New Testament to be composed of the same symbolic "thorn-bushes" (LXX Greek _akantha_ ) that began to "rise up" after the "Fall of Man."

So I think it is plausible to suppose that the message that the author of Genesis 22:1-18 meant to convey (or, at any rate, the message that the authors of the New Testament understood that passage to be conveying) was that the aspect of a person's self that is _attracted to_ symbolic "thorn-bushes," and that gets "caught up" in them, _must be sacrificed_ in order to make it possible for the symbolic "lamb" that is _not_ attracted to them, and that does _not_ get "caught up" in them, to go free. Such an hypothesis is strengthened by the fact that the symbolic "ram" has _two_ metaphorical "horns" — which I think was likely meant by the author to be understood as a visual pun alluding to the "two voices" or "two mouths" (or "double messages," or "double meanings") that is characteristic of all esoteric "prophesy" and "prophesying" — and it is these same "two horns," significantly, that cause the symbolic "ram" to get "caught" or "bound" in the symbolic "thorn-bushes." If the hypothesis I've offered is correct, it would in turn lend additional support to the theory that the authors of the New Testament meant for the figure of Jesus to be understood as assuming the role of archetypal "Prophet" at the time of his Crucifixion (in other words, at the time of his being "sacrificially offered up" to God).

##  What does it mean to "recrucify the Son of God in oneself"?

Let's again review Hebrews 6:4-8, which says,

(4) For (it is) impossible (with regard to) those who have already both been enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and who have become fellow partakers [ _metachos_ , derived from the verb _met-echō_ ] of the Holy Spirit, (5) and who have tasted both the goodness of God's word and the power of the Coming Age, (6) and who have then fallen away, to again renew [or restore: _ana-kainizō_ ] them unto repentance [ _metanoia_ ] , (even as they are) recrucifying [ _ana-stauroō_ ] the Son of God in themselves and making a public show (of it) [ _para-deigmatizō_ ]. (7) For the land [or ground, or earth: _gé_ ] that has drunk the rain that often comes upon it, and that produces [or brings forth: _tiktō_ ] vegetation useful [more literally, "well-placed": _eu-thetos_ , partly derived from _tithémi_ , meaning "to place, to set, to establish"] for those (persons) because of whom it is also tilled [or cultivated: _geōrgeō_ ], partakes [ _meta-lambanō_ ] of a blessing from God. (8) But (the land which) brings forth [ _ek-pherō_ ] thorns [or thorn-bushes: _akantha_ ] and thistles [ _tribolos_ ] (is) not genuine [or (is) counterfeit, or discredited, or unacceptable, or worthless, or rejected: _a-dokimos_ ] and near to (becoming) a curse [ _katara_ ], of which the end [or conclusion: _telos_ ] (is) unto burning [ _kausis_ , derived from _kaiō_ , meaning "to burn"].

What does the author mean when he speaks of "recrucifying the Son of God in oneself"? As I explained in Chapter 3, I believe the "land" (or "ground," or "earth," or "soil") was likely meant to be understood as symbolizing the human soul (among other things, perhaps). So the passage seems to indicate that the idea of "recrucifying the Son of God in oneself" somehow corresponds to the idea of _failing_ to "drink" the "waters" or "rains" of the Holy Spirit, and thereby _allowing one's own soul_ to be transformed into the kind of spiritual "wasteland" that brings forth "thorn-bushes" and "thistles" (which, again, were symbols apparently meant to signify the acceptance of the spirit of "false prophesying" — which, again, I believe ought to be ultimately regarded as just another name for the spirit of "prophesying").

Furthermore, that would in turn seem to imply that the symbolic "Crucifixion of Christ" was meant to be understood as the figure of Jesus allowing _his_ own soul to be transformed into a kind of spiritual "wasteland." But in Jesus's case, it would not be out of stubbornness, or indifference, or negligence, or selfish ignorance; but rather, out of a deliberate choice made for the purpose of bringing the kind of spiritual "wasteland" that results from a refusal to accept the Holy Spirit — and the symbolic "thorn-bushes" and "thistles" that are produced by that spiritual "wasteland" — to their final "end" or "conclusion" (Greek _telos_ ). "Recrucifying the Son of God in oneself" would thus signify a choice to _return to_ one's former attraction (and even "addiction") to the symbolic "thorn-bushes and thistles" — which, in other words, would thus signify a renewed attraction to the spirit of "false prophesying" (and that of "prophesying" in general) — that the _original_ symbolic "Crucifixion of Christ" was meant to do away with _forever_.

Also notice how this passage implicitly associates the _need_ to "crucify" the "Son of God" with the "bringing forth" of "thorn-bushes" and "thistles" from the "earth." That may in turn suggest that the "crucifying" of Jesus was meant to be understood as accomplishing the _stripping away_ of the "worthless branches" ( _especially_ including "thorn branches") from the "good branches" of the "vine" that is Jesus's symbolic "body."

Let's take another look at Hebrews 6:8 in particular:

(8) But (the land which) brings forth [ _ek-pherō_ ] thorns [or thorn-bushes, or thorn branches: _akantha_ ] and thistles [ _tribolos_ ] (is) not genuine [or (is) counterfeit, or discredited, or unacceptable, or worthless, or rejected: _a-dokimos_ ] and near to (becoming) a curse [ _katara_ ] , of which the end [or conclusion: _telos_ ] (is) unto burning [ _kausis_ , derived from the verb _kaiō_ ] .

Now consider that passage in connection with Galatians 3:13-14, which I already quoted in an earlier section of this chapter, and in which the apostle Paul writes,

(13) 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 [ _kremannymi_ ] upon a tree [or wood: _xylon_ ] ," (14) so that to the Gentiles the blessing of Abraham might come into being through Jesus Christ, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith [or trust, or belief: _pistis_ ] .

Jesus's wearing of the "crown of _thorn branches_ " while he is being crucified was presumably meant to symbolize this idea that Jesus "became a curse on our behalf" in order to "redeem us" from the very same " _curse_ " (Greek _katara_ ) that the author of Hebrews 6:8 associates with the metaphorical "bringing forth" of " _thorn branches_ " and "thistles."

Also consider the connection between the idea that we find in Hebrews 6:4-8 of the " _burning_ " (Greek _kausis_ ) of symbolic "thorn branches" and "thistles" (which, you may recall, are characterized in Matthew 7:15-20 as "unfruitful"), and the " _burning_ " (Greek _kaiō_ ) of certain "unfruitful branches" that we have already seen spoken of in John 15:1-2,6, in which Jesus says,

(1) I am the true [or truthful, or sincere: _aléthinos_ ] vine, and my Father is the vinedresser. (2) Every branch in me not bearing fruit [ _karpos_ ] , he takes it away [ _airō_ ] ; and every (branch) bearing fruit, he prunes it, so that it might bear more abundant fruit.... (6) If anyone abide not in me, he is cast [or thrown: _ballō_ ] out like the branch, and is dried up [or withered: _xérainō_ ] , and (the angels?) gather them together and cast (the bundle) into the fire, and it is burned [ _kaiō_ ] .

Hebrews 6:4-8 should also be compared with Genesis 3:17-18 (which we've already looked at), in which the Lord says that as a result of the "Fall of Man," the "ground" (or "land," or "earth": LXX _gé_ ) would henceforth be "accursed" (LXX _epi-kataratos_ ), and that as a result of that "accursedness," "thorn branches" (LXX _akantha_ ) and "thistles" (LXX _tribolos_ ) would "rise up" (or "sprout up," or "grow up": Hebrew _tsamach_ ; LXX _anatellō_ ) toward "the man." (And again, it would be these symbolic "thorn branches" and "thistles" that would be "rising up" toward "the man," _instead of_ "the Messiah" "sprouting up" or "growing up" or "rising up" toward "the man.")

All of these comparisons tend to imply that the final _completion_ of the "Crucifixion of Christ" _within oneself_ was meant to be understood as being that which would finally "undo" the "curse" that the Lord pronounces against the "ground" or "land" or "earth" in Genesis 3:17-18. And Matthew 7:15-20 indicates that this "curse" was almost certainly understood by the authors of the New Testament to correspond to the "rising up" of "false prophets" and "false prophecy" (as well, I would argue, as "prophets" and "prophecy" in general); and this "curse" would also correspond to the negative _outcome_ of the choice to _follow_ and _listen to_ such persons. So again, to "recrucify the Son of God in oneself" would be to _return to_ following and listening to such persons _even after_ one has gained some substantial "spiritual" insight into the very good reasons why one should _never do so_. In other words, to "recrucify the Son of God in oneself" would be to choose to take that original "curse" back upon oneself — and for no good reason.

# Chapter 5: "Farmers" and "shepherds": The figures of Cain and Abel

I'm going to start this chapter by quoting the entirety of Genesis 4:1-26; and I will then analyze the same passage (with the exception of Genesis 4:23-26) piece by piece — so feel free to read through the full passage relatively quickly.

Genesis 4:1-26 says,

(1) And the man [or Adam: _ha-adam_ ; LXX _Adam_ ] knew [ _yada_ ; LXX _ginōskō_ ] his wife [or woman: _ishshah_ ; LXX _gyné_ ] , and she conceived [ _harah_ ; LXX _syl-lambanō_ ] and bore [or brought forth: _yalad_ ; LXX _tiktō_ ] Cain [ _qayin_ , which means "spear," and is also a play on the Hebrew word _qanah_ , meaning "to acquire"], and said, "I have acquired [or come into possession of: _qanah_ ; LXX _ktaomai_ ] a man [ _ish_ ; LXX _anthrōpos_ ] with (the help of) the Lord."

(2) And she added to [ _yasaph_ ; LXX _pros-tithémi_ ] the begetting (of children) [ _yalad_ ; LXX _tiktō_ ] with his brother Abel [ _hebel_ , which can mean "breath," or "air," or "empty"]. And Abel was a shepherd [ _ra'ah_ ; LXX _poimén_ ] of a flock (of sheep), and Cain worked [or tilled, or cultivated: _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] .

(3) And it came to pass at the end [ _qets_ ] of (some) days [ _yom_ ] (that) Cain came (with) an offering [or sacrifice: _minchah_ ; LXX _thysia_ ] to the Lord, of fruit [ _peri_ ; LXX _karpos_ ] from the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] .

(4) And Abel also came (to bring an offering); he from the firstlings of his flock, and from their fat. And the Lord looked favorably [ _shaah_ ; LXX _ep-eidon_ ] upon Abel and his offering.

(5) But upon Cain and his offering he did not look favorably  _shaah_ ; LXX _pros-echō_ ] . And Cain became angry [or burned with anger: _charah_ ; the LXX has _lypeō_ , meaning "was grieved"], and his face [or visage, or countenance: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] fell [ _naphal_ ; LXX _sym-pitnō_ or _sym-piptō_ , which can mean "collapsed" or "crashed"] with great force. (6) And the Lord said to Cain, "Why have you become angry [the LXX has "Why are you deeply grieved?": _peri-lypos_ , derived from _lypé_ ] , and why has your face fallen? (7) If you do well [or do good, or be good, or do right: _yatab_ ] , will (your face) not be lifted up [ _seeth_ ] ? And if you do not do well [or do good, or be good, or do right], sin [ _chatta'ah_ ] lies at the door [or opening: _pethach_ , derived from _pathach_ , meaning 'to open'], and its desire [or longing: _teshuchah_ ] (is) for [or toward: _el_ ] you. And you (will) rule over [or reign over: _mashal_ ] it." [By the way, consider [Luke 6:46-49, especially given what Genesis 4:5-7 says about "doing well" or "doing good" or "doing right"; and then compare that to what Jesus has to say in Luke 6:46-49 about the necessity of "doing" or "acting upon" what one has "heard" — as well as his warning about the "collapsing" (or "crashing": Greek _sym-piptō_ ) that should be expected to result if one chooses not to "do well" or "do good" or "do right" in this way.]

[For Genesis 4:7 the LXX instead has the Lord say to Cain, "Whenever you have brought forth [LXX _pros-pherō_ ] not rightly [or correctly: LXX _orthōs_ ] , and have divided [or separated, or apportioned: LXX _di-aireō_ ] not rightly [or correctly: LXX _orthōs_ ] , you have sinned [LXX _harmatanō_ ] . Be silent [or be at peace, or be quiet: LXX _hésychazō_ ] . The turning [or twisting, or stretching, or longing: LXX _apostrophé_ , derived from the verb _apo-strephō_ ] of (sin) (is) for [or toward: LXX _pros_ ] you. And you will rule [LXX _archomai_ ] it." (Cf. James 4:7.)]

(8) And Cain spoke with his brother Abel, and it came to pass, in their being in the field [ _sadeh_ ; LXX _pedion_ , meaning "plain"], that Cain rose up [ _qum_ ; LXX _an-istémi_ ] against his brother Abel and killed him [ _harag_ ; LXX _apo-kteinō_ , which can also mean "put him to death"].

(9) And the Lord said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" And (Cain) said, "I do not know [ _yada_ ; LXX _ginōskō_ ] ; am I the keeper [or watcher, or jailer, or prison guard: _shamar_ ; LXX _phylax_ , derived from the verb _phylassō_ , which can mean 'to guard, to keep watch over, to keep secure'] of my brother?"

(10) And (the Lord) said, "What have you done [or made, or accomplished: _asah_ ; LXX _poieō_ ] ? The voice [ _qol_ ; LXX _phōné_ ] of the blood [ _dam_ ] of your brother cries [or shouts: _tsaaq_ ; LXX _boaō_ ] to me from the ground [or earth: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] .

(11) "And now you are cursed [ _arar_ ; LXX _epi-kataratos_ ] from the ground [or earth: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , which has opened [ _patsah_ ; LXX _chaskō_ ] her mouth [ _peh_ ; LXX _stoma_ ] to receive the blood [ _dam_ ] of your brother from your hand. (12) When you work [ _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , it [or she] will not additionally give [ _yasaph_ ; LXX _pros-tithémi_ ] its [or her] strength [or power: _koach_ ; LXX _ischys_ ] to you. You will be a vagrant [ _nua_ ; LXX _stenazō_ , meaning 'in groaning'] and a wanderer [ _nud_ ; LXX _tremō_ , meaning 'in trembling'] upon the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] ."

(13) And Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment [or guilt: _avon_ ; LXX _aitia_ ] is too great to bear [the LXX has _aphiémi_ , meaning 'to forgive']. (14) Behold, today you have driven me away from the face [or surface: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] of the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , and from your face [or presence: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] I will be hidden [or concealed: _sathar_ ; LXX _kryptō_ ] . I will be a vagrant [LXX 'in groaning'] and a wanderer [LXX 'in trembling'] upon the earth, and it will be that anyone finding [ _matsa_ ; LXX _heuriskō_ ] me will kill me [or put me to death: _harag_ ; LXX _apo-kteinō_ ] ."

(15) And the Lord said to him, "Therefore anyone killing Cain shall have sevenfold vengeance [LXX _ek-dikeō_ ] taken upon him." And the Lord set upon Cain a sign [or mark, or pledge: _oth_ or _owth_ ; LXX _sémeion_ ] , lest anyone finding him should kill him. (16) And Cain went away from the presence [or face: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] of the Lord, and he dwelt in the land [or earth: _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] of Nod [which means "wandering"] , to the east of Eden.

(17) And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch [ _chanoch_ , a name which means something like either "initiated" or "initiator"]. And Cain built a city [ _iyr_ ; LXX _polis_ ], and called the name of the city as the name of his son, Enoch. (18) And to Enoch was born Irad, and Irad begat Mehujael, and Mehujael begat Methushael, and Methushael begat Lamech. (19) And Lamech took to himself two wives; the name of the first was Adah [meaning "adornment"], and the name of the second was Zillah [meaning "shadow"] . (20) And Adah bore Jabal [meaning "course" — as in, a "course" along which one would be "led along" or "conducted"]; he became father of those dwelling in tents [LXX _skéné_ ] (and herding) cattle. (21) And the name of his brother was Jubal [which apparently also means something like "course"] ; he became father of all those playing the harp and pipe. (22) And also Zillah, she bore Tubal-cain, an instructor [more literally, a "sharpener" or "forger"] of every artificer [ _choresh_ , a word which can also mean "one who conceals," or "one who keeps silent," or "one who practices in secret," or "one who plots"] in bronze and iron. And sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

(23) And Lamech said to his wives, Adah and Zillah, "Hear my voice [ _qol_ ; LXX _phōné_ ] , wives of Lamech, listen to my speech [or words: _imrah_ ; LXX _logos_ ] . For I killed a man for wounding [ _petsa_ ; LXX _trauma_ ] me, and a child for bruising [ _chabburah_ ; LXX _mōlōps_ ] me. (24) For Cain is avenged sevenfold, and Lamech seventy-sevenfold."

(25) And Adam again knew his wife, and she bore a son, and she named him Seth [ _sheth_ , a name meaning "appointed (as a substitute)"]. "For God has appointed [ _shith_ ; LXX _ex-an-istémi_ , meaning 'raised up'] for me another [or 'a following,' or 'a subsequent': _acher_ ; LXX _heteros_ , meaning 'another' or 'a different'] seed [ _zera_ ; LXX _sperma_ ] instead of [or beneath, or below, or underneath: _tachath_ ; LXX _anti_ , which can mean 'instead of,' or 'in exchange for,' or 'in place of'] Abel, for Cain killed (him)." (26) And Seth also, to him a son was born, and he named him Enosh [ _'enowsh_ , a name which means "mortal man"]. At that time a (man) began [ _chalal_ , which can also mean "to pierce"; LXX _elpizō_ , meaning "hoped"] to call upon [or by] the name of the Lord.

Before I continue with my discussion of Genesis 4:1-26, let's first briefly consider Genesis 5:1-5, which is found in the Bible text immediately after Genesis 4:1-26, and which says,

(1) This is the book of the generations [ _toledoth_ ; LXX _genesis_ , meaning "generation" or "origin" or "birth"] of Man [or Adam]. In the day that God created [or formed, or shaped, or sculpted, or made: _bara'_ ; LXX _poieō_ ] Man [or Adam], he made [ _asah_ ; LXX _poieō_ ] him [sic] in the likeness of God. (2) Male and female he created [or formed, or made: _bara'_ ; LXX _poieō_ ] them [sic], and he blessed them, and he called them [sic] Man [or Adam], in the day they were created [or formed, or made: _bara'_ ; LXX _poieō_ ] . (3) And Adam lived one hundred and thirty years [the LXX has "two hundred and thirty years"] and begat a (son) in his likeness, after his image, and he called his name Seth. (4) And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years [the LXX has "seven hundred years"], and he begat sons and daughters. (5) And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years; and he died.

This passage is exceedingly odd, as it seems to be providing a kind of "alternate genealogy" that differs significantly from the genealogy and the narrative with which we were just provided in Genesis chapters 2 through 4. The way in which the two passages are juxtaposed is so striking that I even find it conceivable that Genesis 5:1-5 may have been deliberately included at the point in the Bible text where we find it for the purpose of serving as a kind of "thought experiment" for readers. First notice that in Genesis 5:1-5 there is no talk at all about a "tree of life" or a "tree of knowledge of good and evil" or a "serpent" located in any "Garden of Eden"; and therefore, there is also no talk about any "Fall of Man." But significantly, there is also no talk about any children of Adam and Eve named "Cain" or "Abel." In Genesis 5:1-5 the narrative jumps straight to the figure of "Seth," who is described as Adam and Eve's first child. It thus appears as if — in the absence of the "Fall of Man" — the _symbolic figures_ of "Cain" and "Abel" _never even came into existence_. And that in turn tends to indicate that the figures of Cain and Abel, and their relation to each other, were meant to be understood as telling us something important about the true nature and significance of the mythical "Fall of Man."

##  A closer look at Genesis 4:1-5: The two different types of "offerings"

Now let's take a more careful look at Genesis 4:1-26, starting with Genesis 4:1-5, which says,

(1) And the man [or Adam: _ha-adam_ ; LXX _adam_ ] knew [ _yada_ ; LXX _ginōskō_ ] his wife, and she conceived [ _harah_ ; LXX _syl-lambanō_ ] and bore [or brought forth: _yalad_ ; LXX _tiktō_ ] Cain [ _qayin_ , which means "spear," and is also a play on the Hebrew word _qanah_ , meaning "to acquire"], and said, "I have acquired [or come into possession of: _qanah_ ; LXX _ktaomai_ ] a man [ _ish_ ; LXX _anthrōpos_ ] with (the help of) the Lord."

(2) And she added to [ _yasaph_ ; LXX _pros-tithémi_ ] the begetting (of children) [ _yalad_ ; LXX _tiktō_ ] with his brother Abel [ _hebel_ , which can mean "breath" or "air" or "empty"]. And Abel was a shepherd [ _ra'ah_ ; LXX _poimén_ ] of a flock (of sheep), and Cain worked [or tilled, or cultivated: _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] .

(3) And it came to pass at the end [ _qets_ ] of (some) days [ _yom_ ] (that) Cain came (with) an offering [ _minchah_ ; LXX _thysia_ ] to the Lord, of fruit [ _peri_ ; LXX _karpos_ ] from the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] .

(4) And Abel also came (to bring an offering); he from the firstlings of his flock, and from their fat. And the Lord looked favorably [ _shaah_ ; LXX _ep-eidon_ ] upon Abel and his offering.

(5) But upon Cain and his offering he did not look favorably [ _shaah_ ; LXX _pros-echō_ ] . And Cain became angry [or burned with anger: _charah_ ; the LXX has _lypeō_ , meaning "was grieved"], and his face [or visage, or countenance: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] fell [ _naphal_ ; LXX _sym-pitnō_ or _sym-piptō_ , which can mean "collapsed" or "crashed"] with great force.

I initially wish to propose that the fact that Abel is described as a "shepherd," and Cain is described as a "worker of the ground" (i.e., a "farmer"), be regarded as being of _purely symbolic significance_. It is imperative that one appreciate the _non-literal_ nature of these two different "occupations," and of these two different types of "offerings" or "sacrifices."

Moreover, I believe that the very existence of each of these two figures ought to be regarded as being of purely symbolic significance as well. I have so far been claiming that the "Fall of Man" represents the _acceptance_ of a "prophetical" or "esoteric" manner of religious discourse among human beings. If that is correct, then at the time of Cain and Abel's symbolic "births," "prophecy" and "prophesying" would have _already_ been present in the world. Since we are supposing that "Adam" was the first human "prophet," then both of his two sons would have been born into a situation in which _both_ sons _were forced_ to have been "prophets" _of one kind or another_. And I propose that these two symbolic figures be conceptually distinguished at this point in the Biblical narrative by thinking of _Cain_ as the archetypal " _pro-prophetical prophet_ ," and of _Abel_ as the archetypal " _anti-prophetical prophet_."

Recall that in Genesis 3:17-18, the Lord says to Adam,

(17) Because you have listened to the voice [ _qol_ ; LXX _phōné_ ] of your wife, and ate from the tree (with regard to) which I gave you charge, saying, "You shall not eat from it," cursed [ _arar_ ; LXX _epi-kataratos_ ] (is) the ground [or land: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ , which can also mean "earth"] because of you. In toil [or pain, or sorrow, or grief, or affliction: _itstsabon_ ; LXX _lypé_ ] shall you eat of it all the days of your life; (18) and thorn-bushes [ _qots_ ; LXX _akantha_ ] and thistles [ _dardar_ ; LXX _tribolos_ ] will sprout up [or grow up, or rise up: _tsamach_ ; LXX _anatellō_ ] to you, and you shall eat the plants of the field [ _sadeh_ ; LXX _agros_ ] .

So Cain — unlike Abel — was _content with_ offering up to the Lord the "fruits" of the "ground," even though we know that that very same "ground" or "earth" was already " _cursed_ " due to mankind's prior _acceptance_ of "prophecy" and "prophesying," as a result of which the "fruits" (i.e., the "works," or "deeds," or "speech") that Cain wished to present to the Lord were actually the products of symbolic "thorn-bushes" and "thistles." In other words, by being depicted as making the type of offerings that he was making, Cain is being shown _not to be opposed_ to the institution and vocation of religious "prophecy" and "prophesying" that his father "Adam" (representing all mankind) had introduced into the world with the "Fall of Man." It therefore seems clear that Cain's _continued acceptance of_ and _complacent acquiescence in_ "prophecy" and "prophesying" is the reason why the Lord did not "look favorably" upon the type of "offering" that Cain wished to make to the Lord. It would be a very big mistake for any reader to conclude that "the Lord" was simply prejudiced against actual, literal farmers, and had a sweet spot in his heart for actual, literal shepherds.

But what was the "offering" that Abel wished to make? Genesis 4:4 tells us that it came from "the firstlings of his flock" — in other words, _lambs_. I am forced to speculate somewhat, but I think there is good reason to believe that this may have actually been meant to be understood as an attempt by Abel, the "shepherd," to sacrifice the symbolic "Lamb" to be found _within himself_. Abel would, in a sense, have been trying to "give the Lamb within himself" _back to_ the Lord, so as to let the Lord take over the "shepherding" of Abel's own soul. Such an hypothesis tends to be supported by Revelation 7:17, in which Jesus is described as being _both_ "Shepherd" and "Lamb" _at the same time_ :

For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will shepherd [ _poimanō_ ] them, and he will lead them to fountains of living waters, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.

[A similar idea can be found in Genesis 22:1-18, describing the attempted "sacrifice of Isaac" by his father Abraham. In Genesis 22:8, after Isaac asks Abraham where the "lamb" or "sheep" for the "whole burnt offering" would be found, Abraham begins by saying,

"God [ _elohim_ ; LXX _theos_ ] will himself see (to?) [ _raah_ ; LXX _horaō_ ] the lamb [or sheep: _seh_ ; LXX _probaton_ , meaning 'sheep'] for a whole burnt offering, my son [LXX _teknon_ , meaning 'child']." And the two of them [LXX _amphoteroi_ , which can mean "both of them"] went united [or "together," or "as one," or "as a unity": _yachad_ , which is derived from the verb _yachad_ , meaning "to unite, to be united," and which is related to _echad_ , meaning "one" or "a single one"; LXX _hama_ , which can mean "together" or "at the same time," and which is also etymologically related to the Sanskrit word _sama_ and the English word "same"]. [Similar language is also used in Genesis 22:6.]

[And so we again encounter the idea of a "shepherd" — that is, a "sacrificer" — somehow also being "the same" as that sacrificer's very own "sacrificial victim" — which increases the likelihood that I am not simply "imagining things" when I posit the idea that the "shepherd" Abel was meant to be understood as attempting to sacrifice to the Lord the "Sheep" or the "Lamb" _that Abel also was_.]

Since I strongly believe that Cain and Abel should both be regarded as symbolic figures, I also believe that what the authors of the Bible likely thought made Cain's symbolic "killing" of Abel so grievous and heinous lay largely in the fact that by doing so, Cain was _preventing_ and _interfering with the ability of_ Abel and other (relatively) "anti-prophetical prophets" to make the kind of sacrifices to the Lord that would be required if the existing "cursing" of the symbolic "ground" or "earth" was ever to be reversed, undone, and removed forever. If that supposition is correct, then we can also assume that the symbolic _sacrifice_ of "the Lamb" that is found _within oneself_ would have been _made necessary_ by Adam's original disobedience of God's command not to "eat" from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." Given that Cain is described as wishing to offer "fruit from the ground" to the Lord — and since a "fruit" appears to have been meant to signify some kind of "work" (including "a work of speech") — then it seems reasonable to suppose that the authors meant for it to be understood that the kind of "sacrifices" or "offerings" or "fruits" that Abel wished to offer up to the Lord in order to undo and remove the "cursing" of the "ground" or "earth" were works of _self-sacrifice_ , while what Cain instead wished to "offer up" were nothing more than the empty, vain, pointless, misleading, and confusing words of (pro-prophetical) "prophesying." (Cf. Matthew 6:7.)

This way of analyzing the symbolism involved in Genesis 4:1-26 would help to explain why in Matthew 23:29-35 the author would have Jesus say that _Abel_ , like all other "righteous prophets" (corresponding, I believe, to what I am calling "anti-prophetical prophets"), was metaphorically "killed" somewhere _between_ the "temple" and the "altar." In Matthew 23:29-35 Jesus says,

(29) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the burial-places [ _taphos_ ] of the prophets [ _prophétés_ ] and adorn the tombs [or sepulchres, or memorials, or monuments: _mnémeion_ ] of the righteous. (30) And you say, "If we were (living) in the days of our fathers, we would not have been fellow partakers in (the shedding of) the blood of the prophets [ _prophétés_ ] ." (31) You thus bear witness to yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered [ _phoneuō_ ] the prophets [ _prophétés_ ] . (32) And you, (go) fill up [or make full, or fulfill: _pléroō_ ] the measure of your fathers. (33) You serpents! You offspring of vipers! How might you escape from the sentence of hell?

(34) For this reason, behold, I send [ _apo-stellō_ ] to you prophets [ _prophétés_ ] and wise (men) and scribes. (Those) from among them you will kill and will crucify, and (those) from among them you will flog in your synagogues and will persecute [or pursue: _diōkō_ ] from town to town, (35) in order that upon [ _epi_ ] you might come [ _erchomai_ ] all (the) righteous blood being poured out [ _ek-cheō_ ] upon the earth [ _gé_ ] , from the blood of Abel the righteous to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered [ _phoneuō_ ] between the temple [ _naos_ ] and the altar [ _thysiastérion_ ] .

I think the point that the author meant to convey by the use of this metaphor of "righteous prophets" being "murdered" _between_ the "temple" and the "altar" was that the "righteous prophets" were never able to make the specific type of "sacrifices" or "offerings" that they were trying to make — because their _voices_ would always be silenced _before_ they could do so. In other words, by the metaphorical "killings" in which they engaged, the type of persons being characterized by Jesus as "scribes and Pharisees" (which in this particular instance I believe were meant to correspond to the figure of "Cain" as we find him depicted in Genesis chapter 4) _never allowed_ the "righteous prophets" (corresponding to the figure of "Abel") _to arrive_ at the "altar" to offer up their _righteous_ sacrifice of "the Lamb." [And, incidentally, as I explain in my previous book, I believe this sacrifice of "the Lamb" at the "altar" would have also been meant to signify a "sacrifice" of the "outer meanings" of the scriptures, while the "(inner) temple" or "sanctuary" would have been meant to correspond to the "inner meanings" of the scriptures — _an appreciation of which_ would be what would lead the "righteous prophets" — that is to say, the relatively "anti-prophetical prophets" — to _want to make_ that particular type of "sacrifice."]

Consider that before the "Fall of Man," Adam was never expected to offer up animal or cereal sacrifices — or _any_ sacrifices, for that matter — to the Lord God. The Lord did not demand to be "appeased" in any way. Adam was simply expected to abide by the Lord's one rule about not "eating" from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." So the whole idea of _needing_ to offer "sacrifices" to the Lord must somehow be related to what it means for mankind to have symbolically "eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil." And I believe that all of the animal and cereal sacrifices that are prescribed in "the law of Moses" were meant to be understood as finding their culmination and fulfillment in the _symbolic_ sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross — which is _nothing other_ than the same symbolic sacrifice that Abel was _unsuccessful_ at making, because of Cain having killed him. Once that symbolic sacrifice has been _successfully_ completed, all that would be necessary for human beings to do from then on would be to obey the commandments and laws of God that have _already_ been "written upon their hearts" (cf. Jeremiah 31:31-34).

##  A closer look at Genesis 4:6-7: What does it mean for Cain to "rule over" sin?

Genesis 4:6-7 says,

(6) And the Lord said to Cain, "Why have you become angry [the LXX has "Why are you deeply grieved?": _peri-lypos_ , derived from _lypé_ ] , and why has your face fallen?

(7) "If you do well [or do good, or be good, or do right: _yatab_ ] , will (your face) not be lifted up [ _seeth_ ] ? And if you do not do well [or be good, or do good, or do right], sin [ _chatta'ah_ ] lies at the door [or opening: _pethach_ , derived from _pathach_ , meaning 'to open'], and its desire [or longing: _teshuchah_ ] (is) for [or toward: _el_ ] you. And you (will) rule over [or reign over: _mashal_ ] it."

[For Genesis 4:7 the LXX instead has the Lord say to Cain, "Whenever you have brought forth [LXX _pros-pherō_ ] not rightly [or correctly: LXX _orthōs_ ] , and have divided [or separated, or apportioned: LXX _di-aireō_ ] not rightly [or correctly: LXX _orthōs_ ] , you have sinned [LXX _harmatanō_ ] . Be silent [or be at peace, or be quiet: LXX _hésychazō_ ] . The turning [or twisting, or stretching, or longing: LXX _apostrophé_ , derived from the verb _apo-strephō_ ] of (sin) (is) for [or toward: LXX _pros_ ] you. And you will rule [LXX _archomai_ ] it."]

Notice the parallels between Genesis 4:6-7 and Genesis 3:16. First recall Genesis 3:16:

And (the Lord God) said to the woman, "I will greatly multiply [ _rabah_ ; LXX _pléthynō_ ] your labor [or toil, or pain, or sorrow, or grief: _itstsabon_ ; LXX _lypé_ ] and your pregnancy [or conception: _heron_ ; LXX _stenagmos_ , meaning 'groanings'] . In pain [or sorrow, or grief: _etseb_ ; LXX _lypé_ ] you will bring forth [ _yalad_ ; LXX _tiktō_ ] children, and your desire [or longing: _teshuqah_ ; LXX _apostrophé_ , meaning 'turning (away from all others to one)'] (will be) for [or toward: _el_ ; LXX _pros_ ] your husband [or man: _ish_ ; LXX _anér_ ]. And he will rule over [or dominate, or have dominion over, or reign over, or be lord of, or be master of: _mashal_ ; LXX _kyrieuō_ , related to the Greek word _kyrios_ , meaning 'lord' or 'master'] you."

Now I'll repeat Genesis 4:6-7:

(6) And the Lord said to Cain, "Why have you become angry [the LXX has "Why are you deeply grieved?": _peri-lypos_ , derived from _lypé_ ] , and why has your face fallen?

(7) "If you do well [or do good, or be good, or do right: _yatab_ ] , will (your face) not be lifted up [ _seeth_ ] ? And if you do not do well [or do good, or be good, or do right], sin [ _chatta'ah_ ] lies at the door [or opening: _pethach_ , derived from _pathach_ , meaning 'to open'], and its desire [or longing: _teshuchah_ ] (is) for [or toward: _el_ ] you. And you (will) rule over [or dominate, or have dominion over, or reign over, or be lord of: _mashal_ ] it."

And now I'll repeat the Greek Septuagint version of Genesis 4:7, in which the Lord says to Cain,

(7) Whenever you have brought forth [LXX _pros-pherō_ ] not rightly [or correctly: LXX _orthōs_ ] , and have divided [or separated, or apportioned: LXX _di-aireō_ ] not rightly [or correctly: LXX _orthōs_ ] , you have sinned [LXX _harmatanō_ ] . Be silent [or be at peace, or be quiet: LXX _hésychazō_ ] . The turning [or twisting, or stretching, or longing: LXX _apostrophé_ , derived from the verb _apo-strephō_ ] of (sin) (is) for [or toward: LXX _pros_ ] you. And you will rule [LXX _arxeis_ , a future indicative form of _archomai_ ] it.

So we find the repetition of a very similar verbal structure in two passages contained in adjacent chapters of the same book of the Bible. In those two passages, we find the repetition of Hebrew words such as _teshuqah_ , and _el_ , and _mashal_ , and of Greek words such as _lypé_ (or _peri-lypos_ , or _lypeō_ (see verse 5)), and _apostrophé_ , and _pros_. I find it virtually inconceivable that this is nothing more than a "mere coincidence." I feel quite certain that this apparent parallelism was _meant to be noticed_ , both by the author and/or editor of the original Hebrew text, and by the Septuagint translator. The open question, of course, is what the significance of this parallelism might be.

At first the parallelism between Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:6-7 might seem to indicate that the Lord is telling Cain that he ought to "rule over" (Hebrew _mashal_ ) "sin" in exactly the same way that his father, "the man," was _already_ "ruling over" (Hebrew _mashal_ ) his mother, "the woman" — in which case, the figure of "Eve" would have been meant to be understood as corresponding to "sin" itself. But I don't think that's what the parallelism was meant to indicate. I think it was meant to indicate that _the way_ in which Adam was "ruling over" Eve was _destined to be replaced_ by _the way_ in which Cain would someday "rule over" sin. [And, by the way, note that the Greek Septuagint version says in no uncertain terms — by its use of the verb _archomai_ in the future tense and indicative mood — that Cain "will" someday "rule over" sin. (As far as I can determine, the Hebrew version is somewhat less definitive with regard to grammatical tense and mood.)]

I think the parallelism was meant to indicate, first, that the fundamental problem introduced into the world by "the man" involved his first becoming aware of the possible existence of — and his subsequent _acceptance of_ — an "esoteric" or "prophetical" manner of religious discourse. But at the same time, the way in which that problem would eventually have to be _solved_ would in like manner involve _being wise to the ways_ of that very same "esoteric" or "prophetical" manner of religious discourse — but without ever _accepting_ those "ways" _for oneself_. The solution to the fundamental problem of the "Fall of Man" would, in a sense, have been deemed to require "fighting fire with fire"; and that would really be just another way of saying exactly what I have been claiming in both of my two books: that the _anti-esoteric_ message of the Bible would be delivered in an _esoteric_ "package."

Also consider that a comparison of Genesis 3:16 with Genesis 4:6-7 may be pointing to the contemplation of a kind of _inversion_ , such that the Lord would be calling upon Cain to _undo_ the "desire" (or "longing": Hebrew _teshuchah_ ) of "the woman" for "the man" (while in his "fallen" state, that is), _as a result of_ Cain's coming to "rule over" (Hebrew _mashal_ ) "sin." Notice that the "desire" of "sin" for Cain only becomes a threat to Cain when he does not "do well" (or "do right," or "do good," or "be good"). And his failure to "do well" is apparently equivalent to his continued willingness to offer the metaphorical "fruit" of the "ground" or "earth" (which is a symbol that may in certain respects have been seen as equivalent to the figure of "Eve") — even while it was still "cursed."

Recall my earlier suggestion that Paul in 1 Timothy 2:12-15 (when it is read in conjunction with Revelation chapter 12) seems to be saying that "the woman" would be "saved" or "redeemed" or "rescued" by her "bringing forth" or "bearing" of the "male child." Might the symbolic "male child" have been meant to be understood as a reference to the figure of " _Cain_ " no less than to the figure of "Jesus"? (However, by no means do I assume that Paul himself would have fully understood and appreciated the symbolic significance of that "male child.") In support of such a suggestion, consider that in the Hebrew version of Genesis 4:1, after Eve gives birth to Cain, she specifically says, "I have acquired a man [or a male: _ish_ or _iysh_ ] with (the help of) the Lord." In other words, according to the Hebrew version of that verse, Eve does not say that she acquired a "child," or a "human being," or anything along those lines; what she specifically says is that she acquired a "man-child" or a "male."

Again, in 1 Timothy 2:12-15 Paul writes,

(12) And I do not permit a woman to teach (in church), nor to exercise authority over a man, but to be in silence [or quietness: _hésychia_ ] . (13) For Adam was formed [or molded: _plassō_ ] first, then Eve. (14) And Adam was not deceived [ _apataō_ ] ; but the woman [ _gyné_ ] , having been wholly beguiled [or wholly deceived, or wholly seduced: _ex-apataō_ ] , has come into transgression [ _parabasis_ ] . (15) But she will be saved [ _sōzō_ ] through childbearing [ _teknogonia_ ] , if they abide [or remain, or continue: _menō_ ] in faith and love and holiness, with self-restraint.

Compare this to Genesis 4:7 (LXX), in which the Lord says to Cain,

Whenever you have brought forth [LXX _pros-pherō_ ] not rightly [or correctly: LXX _orthōs_ ], and have divided [or separated, or apportioned: LXX _di-aireō_ ] not rightly [or correctly: LXX _orthōs_ ], you have sinned [LXX _harmatanō_ ]. Be silent [or be at peace, or be quiet: LXX _hésychazō_ , related to the noun _hésychia_ used in 1 Timothy 2:12]. The turning [or twisting, or stretching, or longing: LXX _apostrophé_ , derived from the verb _apo-strephō_ ] of (sin) (is) for [or toward: LXX _pros_ ] you. And you will rule [LXX _archomai_ ] it.

Consider that by comparing these two passages we may be seeing a hint that Cain would be the _means_ by which his mother Eve would be "saved" (or "rescued": Greek _sōzō_ , from which is derived the Greek word _sōtér_ , meaning "savior") from being "dominated" or "ruled over" by "the man" in his "fallen" state. I make this suggestion because Genesis 4:7 (LXX) seems to imply that Cain's "being silent" would be the _means_ by which he would be able to "rule over" "sin"; and 1 Timothy 2:12-15 associates both the "silence" and the "childbearing" of "the woman" with her "salvation." This at least raises the possibility that the "salvation" of "the woman" would have been expected to be achieved _through_ her "male child." _His_ "silence" would, in a sense, _become_ her "silence"; and that transformation of "the woman" would be the result of her "childbearing." So I believe this comparison lends support to my proposal that the authors of the Bible meant to convey the idea that Cain would accomplish the "salvation" of "the woman," Eve, by "ruling over" (Hebrew _mashal_ ) that which had "desire" (or "longing": Hebrew _teshuchah_ ) for _Cain_ (namely, "sin") in a way that would be _different from_ the way in which "the man," Adam, had been "ruling over" (Hebrew _mashal_ ) that which had "desire" (or "longing": Hebrew _teshuchah_ ) for _him_ (namely, "the woman").

[I realize that this interpretation might at first seem unlikely to some readers, given the fact that in 1 Timothy 2:12-15 the apostle Paul expresses a relatively high opinion of "the man," and a relatively low opinion of "the woman." But I think the "anti-woman" sentiment that Paul conveys in that passage ought to be largely disregarded, since the possibility apparently never occurred to Paul that the author of Genesis 3:16 did _not_ mean for readers to think of the "ruling over" of "the woman" Eve by "the man" Adam as being a _desirable_ state of affairs — given that it is a state of affairs that only came into being _after_ the "Fall of Man" occurred. As I have stated before, I believe that there are messages being conveyed _through_ the writings of the human authors of the Bible which those human authors would not have — indeed, _could_ not have — completely understood or appreciated themselves — which is why a passage such as 1 Timothy 2:12-15 is still deserving of careful consideration, and why it is still potentially valuable for cross-referencing.]

Consider that the Bible contains no prediction that "the woman" would ever "rule over" "sin" _directly_. But we _do_ find an implicit prediction that the "seed of the woman" or "offspring of the woman" would "strike at the head" of "the serpent" (symbolic of both "Satan" and "sin"), and thereby eventually free "the woman" from the grip of "sin" (as well as, presumably, from her being "ruled over" by "the man" in his "fallen" state). Genesis 3:13-15, taking place immediately after Adam and Eve have "eaten" from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil," says,

(13) 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."

(14) 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_ ; the LXX has 'upon the earth,' Greek _epi tés gés_ ] , are cursed [ _arar_ ; LXX _epi-kataratos_ ]. On your belly you shall go about, and dirt [or mud, or dust, or clay: _aphar_ ; the LXX has 'earth,' Greek _gé_ ] you shall eat, all of the days of your life [ _chay_ ; LXX _zōé_ ].

(15) "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_ ]."

The plain fact according to the text of Genesis chapter 4 — a fact which is almost invariably overlooked — is that the first "seed" or "offspring" of "the woman" was _Cain_.

##  A closer look at Genesis 4:8-12: What is the "voice" of Abel's "blood"?

Genesis 4:8-12 says,

(8) And Cain spoke with his brother Abel, and it came to pass, in their being in the field [ _sadeh_ ; LXX _pedion_ , meaning "plain"], that Cain rose up [ _qum_ ; LXX _an-istémi_ ] against his brother Abel and killed him [ _harag_ ; LXX _apo-kteinō_ , which can also mean "put him to death"].

(9) And the Lord said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" And (Cain) said, "I do not know [ _yada_ ; LXX _ginōskō_ ] ; am I the keeper [or watcher, or jailer, or prison guard: _shamar_ ; LXX _phylax_ , derived from the verb _phylassō_ , which can mean 'to guard, to keep watch over, to keep secure'] of my brother?"

(10) And (the Lord) said, "What have you done [or made, or accomplished: _asah_ ; LXX _poieō_ ] ? The voice [ _qol_ ; LXX _phōné_ ] of the blood [ _dam_ ] of your brother cries [or shouts: _tsaaq_ ; LXX _boaō_ ] to me from the ground [or earth: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] .

(11) "And now you are cursed [ _arar_ ; LXX _epi-kataratos_ ] from the ground [or earth: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , which has opened [ _patsah_ ; LXX _chaskō_ ] her mouth [ _peh_ ; LXX _stoma_ ] to receive the blood [ _dam_ ] of your brother from your hand.

(12) "When you work [ _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , it [or she] will not additionally give [ _yasaph_ ; LXX _pros-tithémi_ ] its [or her] strength [or power: _koach_ ; LXX _ischys_ ] to you. You will be a vagrant [ _nua_ ; LXX _stenazō_ , meaning 'in groaning'] and a wanderer [ _nud_ ; LXX _tremō_ , meaning 'in trembling'] upon the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] ."

First of all, with these particular verses in mind, it is interesting to consider Matthew 5:21-25, in which Jesus says,

(21) You have heard that it was said to the ancients, "You will not murder [ _phoneuō_ ] ; and whoever might murder will be subject to the judgment [ _krisis_ ] ." (22) But I say to you that anyone who is angry with [or engaged at: _orgizō_ ] his brother [ _adelphos_ ] will be subject to the judgment. And whoever might say to his brother, "Raca!" [an Aramaic insult meaning "empty," as in "empty-headed"; recall that the Hebrew word/name "Abel," or _hebel_ , can also mean "empty"] will be subject to the Sanhedrin. And whoever might say, "Fool!" [or "Moron!": _mōros_ ] will be subject to the hell [or Gehenna: _geenna_ ] of the fire [ _pyr_ ] .

(23) So if you should offer [or bring forth, or present: _pros-pherō_ ] your gift [or sacrifice: _dōron_ ] upon [ _epi_ ] the altar [ _thysiastérion_ ] , and there remember that your brother has something against you, (24) leave [or let go of: _aphiémi_ ] there your gift before [or "in front of": _emprosthen_ ; instead of "upon," _epi_ ] the altar and depart. First wholly change (your relationship) [ _di-allassō_ ] with your brother, and then come and offer your gift.

(25) Become kindly-disposed toward your adversary [or opponent, or accuser: _antidikos_ ] quickly, as long as you are (still) with him on the way [or road, or path: _hodos_ ] , lest the adversary [ _antidikos_ ] deliver you over [or hand you over: _para-didōmi_ ] to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you will be cast [ _ballō_ ] into prison [ _phylaké_ , related to _phylax_ , which can mean "prison guard," and which is the same Greek word used in Genesis 4:9 (LXX), when Cain asks, "Am I the keeper [or prison guard: LXX _phylax_ ] of my brother?"] .

This passage is particularly striking in this context because of its inclusion of the words "murder," "angry," "to offer" (or "to bring forth"), "altar," "brother," and "prison" — all of which words tend to indicate that as he wrote it the author probably had in mind the account in Genesis chapter 4 of the dispute between Cain and Abel. (Although not necessarily _only_ the account of that dispute, since the apparent parallelism between the two passages seems to break down in so far as the idea of Abel's possible "imprisonment" within the "ground" or "earth" does not seem to correspond to the threatened "imprisonment" of the "angry brother" of Matthew 5:21-25, given that Abel is never depicted as "angry." It's worth considering, however, that perhaps Cain was considered to have somehow also "imprisoned" _himself_ by, in effect, choosing to become the "prison guard" of his "brother.")

Also, note that in verse 25 there is probably a double meaning attached to the word "adversary," which I think would have been intended to convey the idea that one's "brother" is not one's _true_ "adversary." I believe " _your_ adversary" was meant to be understood as referring to a person's "brother," while " _the_ adversary" was meant to be understood as referring to _Satan_. In that case, the intended message would seem to be that it is a person's _anger_ or _rage_ toward others that gives Satan power over that person.

Now let's return to Genesis 4:8-12 to further examine those verses:

(8) And Cain spoke with his brother Abel, and it came to pass, in their being in the field [ _sadeh_ ; LXX _pedion_ , meaning "plain"], that Cain rose up [ _qum_ ; LXX _an-istémi_ ] against his brother Abel and killed him [ _harag_ ; LXX _apo-kteinō_ , which can also mean "put him to death"].

At this point, I'd just like to note in passing that I believe the "field" (Hebrew _sadeh_ ) of which this verse speaks was very likely understood by the authors of the New Testament to be equivalent to the symbolic "Field of Blood" — a symbol which I will be discussing more extensively in Chapter 6.

(9) And the Lord said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" And (Cain) said, "I do not know [ _yada_ ; LXX _ginōskō_ ] ; am I the keeper [or watcher, or jailer, or prison guard: _shamar_ ; LXX _phylax_ , derived from the verb _phylassō_ , which can mean 'to guard, to keep watch over, to keep secure'] of my brother?"

(10) And (the Lord) said, "What have you done [or made, or accomplished: _asah_ ; LXX _poieō_ ] ? The voice [ _qol_ ; LXX _phōné_ ] of the blood [ _dam_ ] of your brother cries [or shouts: _tsaaq_ ; LXX _boaō_ ] to me from the ground [or earth: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] ."

As I noted in the translation of Genesis 4:9, both the Hebrew and Greek versions of that verse raise the possibility that Cain is asking the Lord, "Am I the _prison guard_ of my brother?" And perhaps in the author's mind the correct answer was: " _Now you are_." As I already indicated just above in this section, I think it is possible that Abel (and more specifically, the "voice" of Abel's "blood") may have been meant to be understood as being "imprisoned" or "held captive" within the "ground" or "earth." So in the Lord's ears, at least, might the " _voice_ " of that "blood" be begging to be released from its "confinement" within the "earth," screaming to be _let out_? But why would "blood" be described as having a "voice"? It seems fair to conclude that this must not be any ordinary (in other words, _non-symbolic_ ) blood. [By the way, consider the fact that in Hebrews 10:19, the author associates the symbol of the "blood" of Jesus with the idea of "speech" (and more specifically, the idea of "speaking openly," or "speaking plainly," or "speaking candidly," or "speaking freely").]

Let's continue our examination of Genesis 4:8-12 by looking at verse 11, in which the Lord says to Cain,

(11) And now you are cursed [ _arar_ ; LXX _epi-kataratos_ ] from the ground [or earth: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , which has opened [ _patsah_ ; LXX _chaskō_ ] her mouth [ _peh_ ; LXX _stoma_ ] to receive the blood [ _dam_ ] of your brother from your hand.

Why would the " _ground_ " or " _earth_ " be described as having a "mouth"? Doesn't that at least suggest the idea of its (or her) perhaps having the powers of metaphorical "speech"?

Because of this verse's reference to a " _mouth_ " — especially given that it is found in the context of the previous verse's reference to a " _voice_ " which is " _crying out_ " or " _shouting_ " — I would propose that the symbolic "ground" (Hebrew _adamah_ ) or "earth" (LXX Greek _gé_ ) perhaps be understood as signifying a certain type (or multiple possible types) of _speech or communication_.

We know that the "ground" or "earth" is itself _already_ "cursed" as a result of the "Fall of Man." But how exactly is that same "curse" _transferred_ to Cain from the "ground" or "earth"?

After Cain kills Abel, the Lord says that the "voice" of the "blood" of Abel is "shouting to me from the ground" — which would seem to be the reason why Cain would no longer be able to "work the ground" and offer up the "fruits from the ground" or "fruits from the earth," since those "offerings" would now be "contaminated" with the "voice" of Abel's "blood," which is constantly "cursing" Cain from the "ground." Genesis 4:11 associates Cain's attempt to _silence_ that "voice" (by killing Abel) with Cain's becoming "accursed" (LXX Greek _epi-kataratos_ ). I think the best way to make sense of what is going on is to suppose that by spilling Abel's "blood" (and its "voice") onto and into the "ground," Cain _gave an additional anti-prophetical "voice_ _"_ to that already-cursed "ground"; and so, the original " _cursing_ " of the "ground," which came into being as a result of mankind's acceptance and embrace of "prophetical communication" and esoteric discourse in human religious culture — and of which Cain, by his actions, has now clearly, overtly, and decisively demonstrated his _approval_ — has now additionally _passed on_ to _Cain_ himself.

It is only if the figure of Cain were to make the deliberate decision to _liberate_ the anti-prophetical "voice" trapped within the "earth," instead of actively working to keep it _silenced_ , that the "curse" of the "ground" or "earth" would be taken away _from him personally_ — because then he would no longer be a _personal participant_ in the _ratifying_ of that original "curse" by his continuing to take _active_ and _affirmative_ measures to _uphold_ it. With Cain's symbolic killing of Abel, the figure of Cain can no longer be regarded as an "innocent" or as a "neutral party" who is unthinkingly and naively "going along" with some system into which he was born through no choice of his own. He has now chosen to _fully throw in his lot_ with the "pro-prophetical prophets," by his having demonstrated in no uncertain terms his hostile opposition to anyone who would challenge the existing social arrangement. In other words, by his "killing" of Abel, the figure of Cain has most definitely chosen sides.

The most pernicious of the "seductive whisperings" that come from the "false prophets" are those that insist that the prophetical institution and vocation must _never_ be dispensed with — because if people can be made to accept that belief, then the "false prophets" themselves become no less indispensible. And that is why the "false prophets" (equivalent to what I am calling "pro-prophetical prophets" — of which the figure of Cain serves as the primary representative) are so determined to silence and willfully "overlook" any anti-prophetical and anti-esotericist message that might be found within the writings of the _relatively_ "truthful prophets" (equivalent to what I am calling "anti-prophetical prophets").

To return to our examination of Genesis 4:8-12, let's next consider verse 12, in which the Lord says to Cain,

(12) When you work [ _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ , which can also mean "earth"] , it [or she] will not additionally give [ _yasaph_ ; LXX _pros-tithémi_ ] its [or her] strength [or power: _koach_ ; LXX _ischys_ ] to you. You will be a vagrant [ _nua_ ; LXX _stenazō_ , meaning "in groaning"] and a wanderer [ _nud_ ; LXX _tremō_ , meaning "in trembling"] upon the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] .

And, in connection with Genesis 4:12, recall what is said in Genesis 4:2:

(2) And (Eve) added to [ _yasaph_ ; LXX _pros-tithémi_ ] the begetting (of children) [ _yalad_ ; LXX _tiktō_ ] with (Cain's) brother Abel [ _hebel_ , which can mean "breath" or "air" or "empty"]. And Abel was a shepherd [ _ra'ah_ ; LXX _poimén_ ] of a flock (of sheep), and Cain worked [or tilled, or cultivated: _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] .

Notice how "Eve" and the (grammatically feminine) "ground" or "earth" (Hebrew _adamah_ ; Greek _gé_ ) are both spoken of in Genesis 4:2 and Genesis 4:12 as being able to " _give something in addition_ " (Hebrew _yasaph_ ; Greek _pros-tithémi_ ) — and, more specifically, something "in addition to" Cain, or else "in addition to" what Cain could obtain by himself. Also consider that the inclusion of the same Hebrew and Greek words so close to each other in the text strongly suggests that the author meant to set up a parallelism between the two verses.

In this chapter I have been suggesting that Abel be thought of as the archetypal "anti-prophetical prophet." Related to that idea, I would also suggest that the figure of Abel (and more specifically, the "voice" of Abel's "blood") be thought of as symbolizing the "anti-prophetical" or "anti-esotericist" "inner meaning" _hidden within_ Bible prophecy. Building on what I was discussing just above in this section, when I suggested that the symbolic "ground" or "earth" should perhaps be understood as signifying a certain type (or multiple possible types) of speech or communication, I think it is worth considering the possibility that the symbol of the "ground" may have been associated with, and meant to signify, the earthy, tangible, and sensible "outer meanings" of prophecy (and of all other human communications). If that is correct, then the "curse" of the "ground" would be that those "outer meanings" no longer led people _directly_ to their corresponding "inner meanings" easily and without "toil" or "labor." In other words, because of the "curse," the "ground" would not give forth its "strength" — with that "strength" signifying the "inner meanings" which had become "trapped" or "imprisoned" within the "ground." And Cain's killing of Abel would have made him a personal accomplice in working to perpetuate that "curse."

I offer the suggestion that the author of Genesis 4:2 and Genesis 4:12 meant to set up a parallelism between those two verses partly because of a cross-reference that can be made between the two uses found in the Septuagint translation of Genesis chapter 4 of the Greek word _pros-tithémi_ — which can mean "to add, to give in addition, to give more, to proceed further, to increase, to improve" — and the use of the same Greek word _pros-tithémi_ in Hebrews 12:18-19, which says,

(18) For you have not come forth to (a mountain) [referring to "Mount Sinai"] that is touched and that has been burned with fire, and to murkiness, and to deep darkness, and to storm, (19) and to the sound of a trumpet, and to a voice [or sound: _phōné_ ] of words [or utterances, or sayings: _rhéma_ ] which those who heard [ _akouō_ ] refused [or rejected, or declined: _par-aiteomai_ ] , (so as) not to have an (additional) message [or meaning, or word: _logos_ ] given [ _pros-tithémi_ ] to them.

I believe this cross-reference tends to suggest that the figure of "Abel" may have been meant to be identified with the "inner meaning," or "second meaning," or "additional meaning," of "prophecy," whose "living voice" had — from a human societal perspective, anyway — largely been "silenced" by the symbolic figure of "Cain" and everything which that figure represents. In other words, the figure of "Cain" would correspond to the desire to uphold the "first message" (or "first meaning") implicitly spoken of in Hebrews 12:18-19, while the figure of "Abel" would correspond to the desire to communicate some "additional message" (or "additional meaning," or "second message," or "second meaning").

That suggestion receives additional support from the fact that almost immediately after that reference in the text of Hebrews 12:18-19 to an "additional message" or "additional meaning," Hebrews 12:22-29 goes on to say,

(22) But you have come forth to Mount Zion, and the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to a general festive assembly, (23) and to the church of the firstborn [ _prōto-tokos_ ] enrolled in the heavens, and to the Judge, God of all things, and to the perfected [or completed, or finished: _teleioō_ ] spirits of the righteous, (24) and to Jesus, mediator of a new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, speaking [or communicating: _laleō_ ] better (things) than the (blood) of Abel.

(25) Watch out, lest you refuse [or decline: _par-aiteomai_ ] the One speaking [ _laleō_ ] . For if those who upon the earth [ _gé_ ] refused [ _par-aiteomai_ ] the One giving instruction (to them) did not escape [ _ek-pheugō_ ] , much less do we turn away from the One from the heavens, (26) whose voice [ _phōné_ ] shook [ _saleuō_ ] the earth [ _gé_ ] at that time. And now he has promised, saying, "Still once (more) I will shake not only the earth, but also the heaven." (27) And this (phrase) "still once (more)" indicates the removal [ _meta-thesis_ ] of the (things) being shaken, as (things) having been made [ _poieō_ ] , so that the (things) not being shaken shall remain [ _menō_ ] .

(28) Therefore, receiving an unshakeable kingdom, we shall possess a grace by which we might offer acceptable service to God, with reverence and godly fear. (29) For our God is also a consuming [ _kat-analiskō_ ] fire [ _pyr_ ] .

I think it's unlikely to be coincidental that the author chooses to speak of the figure of "Abel" almost _immediately after_ speaking of an "additional message" or "additional meaning." Moreover, notice that the "blood of sprinkling" (presumably referring to the "blood" of Jesus), _and_ the "blood of Abel," are _both_ said to be able to "speak" or "communicate." And notice what makes what is "spoken" by the "blood of sprinkling" "better" than what is "spoken" by the "blood of Abel": with the "blood of Abel," God is "giving instruction" from "the earth," while with the "blood of sprinkling," God is "giving instruction" from "the heavens." But it appears that the message or meaning that God intends to communicate was meant to be understood as being _the same in both cases_. The same message or meaning that persons had been "refusing" (or "rejecting," or "declining": Greek _par-aiteomai_ ) previously is the _same_ message or meaning that they are in danger of "refusing" (Greek _par-aiteomai_ ) once again. And I think the most reasonable way to interpret this is to suppose that the author meant for it to be understood that the "instructions from the heavens," unlike the "instructions from the earth," would not be _concealed_ or _hidden_ (or "imprisoned," or "confined") behind or within some "first message" or "first meaning" (which would be equivalent to the "outer meaning" of the prophetical writings of the Bible).

[As an aside, I find it interesting that the Hebrew word used in Genesis 4:2 and Genesis 4:12 is _yasaph_ (which means "to add, to be added to, to give in addition, to augment, to increase"), since the anglicized transliteration of one form of the Hebrew word _yasaph_ is the name "Joseph," the son of Rachel and Jacob/Israel. (See Genesis 30:24. The name "Joseph" [Hebrew _yoseph_ or _yowseph_ ] literally means something like "he will add," with the word "he" presumably referring to "the Lord.") What makes the use of this word/name especially interesting is that according to Genesis 37:5-11 (and especially verse 8), it was _Joseph_ who predicted through a "dream" that he would eventually "rule over" (Hebrew _mashal_ ) his eleven brothers, representing the other eleven "tribes of Israel."]

Let's take another look at Genesis 4:2 and Genesis 4:12. First, Genesis 4:2 says,

(2) And (Eve) added to [ _yasaph_ ; LXX _pros-tithémi_ ] the begetting (of children) [ _yalad_ ; LXX _tiktō_ ] with (Cain's) brother Abel [ _hebel_ , which can mean "breath" or "air" or "empty"]. And Abel was a shepherd [ _ra'ah_ ; LXX _poimén_ ] of a flock (of sheep), and Cain worked [or tilled, or cultivated: _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ , which can also mean "earth"].

And in Genesis 4:12 the Lord says to Cain,

(12) When you work [ _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ , which can also mean "earth"] , it [or she] will not additionally give [ _yasaph_ ; LXX _pros-tithémi_ ] its [or her] strength [or power: _koach_ ; LXX _ischys_ ] to you. You will be a vagrant [ _nua_ ; LXX _stenazō_ , meaning "in groaning"] and a wanderer [ _nud_ ; LXX _tremō_ , meaning "in trembling"] upon the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] .

A comparison between these two verses suggests that the figure of "Abel," and the type of metaphorical "offerings" that he was making to the Lord, were being associated with the "strength" or "power" of the "ground" or "earth." Again, I believe a reasonable explanation for that association would be that Cain's slaying of Abel was meant to be understood as symbolizing the desire by those persons favoring a "pro-prophetical" interpretation of prophetical writings to _silence_ any public proclamation (i.e., "the voice") of the (anti-prophetical and anti-esotericist) "inner meaning" hidden within the prophetical writings of the Bible. In my previous book I presented some evidence indicating that the idea of "strength" or "power" seems to have been associated by the authors of the Bible with an appreciation of the "inner meaning" of the Bible. So by "silencing the voice" of the figure of Abel, the figure of Cain would have _lost access_ to an understanding of that "inner meaning," with the result that the symbolic "ground" or "earth" would no longer give to Cain the "strength" or "power" that _would_ have come _in addition to_ what the "ground" or "earth" would produce when it was still a "ground" or "earth" only capable of producing symbolic "thorn-bushes and thistles." (And in terms of the symbolic scheme involved here, it is conceivable that the fact that the "ground" or "earth" was now being "watered" by "blood" instead of by the "rains" of the Holy Spirit may have been what was thought to have made the symbolic "ground" or "earth" less "fertile" from the standpoint of the symbolic "farmer" or "worker of the ground" — which would be another way of saying that the "strength" or "power" of the "ground" or "earth" had diminished.)

Finally, let's take another look at Genesis 4:7 and Genesis 4:10-11. In the Hebrew Masoretic version of Genesis 4:7 the Lord says to Cain,

(7) If you do well [or be good, or do good, or do right: _yatab_ ] , will (your face) not be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door [or opening, or doorway, or entrance: _pethach_ , derived from _pathach_ , meaning "to open"], and its desire (is) for you. And you (will) rule over [ _mashal_ ] it.

And in Genesis 4:10-11, taking place after Cain kills Abel, the Lord says to Cain,

(10) What have you done? The voice of the blood of your brother cries to me [or shouts to me] from the ground. (11) And now you are cursed from the ground [or earth: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ], which has opened [ _patsah_ ] her mouth to receive the blood of your brother from your hand.

What does it mean to say that "sin lies at the door"? What is this "door"? What lies behind this "door"? I offer the suggestion that this "door" (or "opening," or "doorway," or "entrance": Hebrew _pethach_ ) was meant to be understood as signifying the _transition point_ between the realm of "the inner" and the realm of "the outer." In other words, it is the point at which "inner meanings" and "outer meanings" would come together in such a way that the meanings of language can become _ambiguous_. It is at this _transition point_ where "sin" lurks, since it is so easy to _abuse_ ambiguous or figurative or allegorical language by using it to deceive or mislead others.

And that is why I believe the use of the Hebrew verb _mashal_ is so significant in this context. Recall that in addition to being able to mean "to rule, to reign, to have dominion, (to be) lord, (to be) ruler, (to be) prince," the verb _mashal_ 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, to engage in a "prophetical" or "esoteric" manner of discourse. And also recall that the Hebrew verb _mashal_ is related to the Hebrew noun _mashal_ , which can mean "parable, proverb, byword, similitude, simile, aphorism," and that "parables" and "similitudes" such as these would often be cryptically figurative and metaphorical. Persons who use or interpret language of this kind are in a position to _dominate others_ by concealing (or merely choosing to remain ignorant of) the secretly intended "true" meanings of such language, and then substituting _their own preferred invented meanings_ (which can certainly be expected to change from time to time) whenever they think they might benefit from doing so.

I believe that when the Lord tells Cain that "sin lies at the door," but that Cain will "rule over" it, a reasonable inference would be that the author meant to convey the idea that "sin" is capable of "ruling over" (Hebrew verb _mashal_ ) the type of person represented by the figure of Cain whenever persons of that type try to use ambiguous or figurative or allegorical language to "rule over" others. By instead "ruling over" (Hebrew verb _mashal_ ) " _sin_ ," a person would be choosing to use his knowledge of _how_ ambiguous or figurative or allegorical language can be abused in order to, in a sense, "rule over" or "dominate" any persons who _would ever try_ to abuse language in that way. The killing of Abel would thus signify Cain's decision to be the type of prophet who wished to "rule over" innocent and guileless persons by abusing the ambiguity of the esoteric or "prophetical" manner of communicating, instead of being the type of prophet (represented, I believe, by the figure of Abel) who wished to _protect_ others from that kind of abuse and "domination" by expressing opposition (albeit usually quite subtle and abstruse opposition) to esoteric forms of communication.

By "killing" Abel, Cain ensures that the "voice" of Abel's "blood" would only be able to communicate an _almost entirely_ "inner meaning" or "interior message." I believe that is the reason why the author of Genesis 4:10-11 speaks of the "ground" as "opening" her "mouth" to receive Abel's "blood" _and_ its "voice" — a "voice" which can be clearly heard by "the Lord," but which _cannot_ be heard by the general run of humanity. I believe the "mouth" of the "ground" or "earth" was meant to be understood as being _equivalent to_ the "door" or "opening" or "entrance" around which "sin" lies in wait — a "door" or "opening" which can be used to _connect_ the realm of "the inner" with the realm of "the outer" (as it should be used); but which, more nefariously, can also be deliberately used to _separate_ them for purposes of personal gain and the exploitation of others.

## A closer look at Genesis 4:13-16: The "sign of Cain"

Genesis 4:13-14 says,

(13) And Cain said to the Lord, "My punishment [or guilt: _avon_ ; LXX _aitia_ ] is too great to bear [the LXX has _aphiémi_ , meaning 'to forgive']. (14) Behold, today you have driven me away from the face [or surface: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] of the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , and from your face [or presence: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] I will be hidden [or concealed: _sathar_ ; LXX _kryptō_ ] . I will be a vagrant [LXX 'in groaning'] and a wanderer [LXX 'in trembling'] upon the earth, and it will be that anyone finding [ _matsa_ ; LXX _heuriskō_ ] me will kill me [or put me to death: _harag_ ; LXX _apo-kteinō_ ] ."

Notice what we find in this passage: Cain expresses a belief that his actions can never be "forgiven" (LXX Greek _aphiémi_ ); he says that he would henceforth be "hidden" (LXX Greek _kryptō_ ) from the "face" of the Lord; he says that he would henceforth be a "wanderer" upon the earth (and no longer a _settled_ "worker of the ground"); and he also expresses _fear_ that he will be killed.

Genesis 4:15-16 next says,

(15) And the Lord said to him, "Therefore anyone killing Cain shall have sevenfold vengeance [LXX _ek-dikeō_ ] taken upon him." And the Lord set upon Cain a sign [or mark, or pledge: _oth_ or _owth_ ; LXX _sémeion_ ] , lest anyone finding him should kill him. (16) And Cain went away from the presence [or face: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] of the Lord, and he dwelt in the land [or earth: _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] of Nod [which means "wandering"], to the east of Eden.

[Compare this to Genesis 2:8, which says, "And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden from the east, and there he placed the man whom he had formed."]

Why would the Lord wish to prevent Cain from being "killed"? The answer must be that the Lord has "future plans" of some kind for the symbolic figure of "Cain." Also, notice that the _means_ by which Cain would be protected from being killed would be "vengeance." I don't belive this was meant to be understood as "the Lord" endorsing "vengeance" as a permanently desirable solution to the kind of problems that Cain created for himself; I think it was actually meant to be understood as the natural and inevitable product of Cain's _belief_ that he could never be "forgiven," coupled with his _fear_ of being killed. (And I think the author meant for that "belief" and that "fear" to be understood as being characteristic _only of the "present age_ , _"_ and _not_ of the "Coming Age" or "New Age" or "Messianic Age.") There is a kind of symmetry between these two ideas of "lack of forgiveness" and "vengeance." Since Cain did not believe others could be forgiving toward him, he would try to preserve his life by not being forgiving toward them.

I think Genesis 4:15 may have an additional symbolic significance. The fact that the passage speaks of a "sign" (or "pledge": Hebrew _oth_ or _owth_ ; Greek _sémeion_ ), coupled with the reference to "vengeance" that would be exactly " _sevenfold_ ," may suggest that the "sign" set upon Cain was meant to be understood as specifically corresponding to the "Sabbath day" (along with the "sabbath week" consisting of _seven_ days). That is because in Exodus 31:15-17, the Lord says,

(15) Six days you will do works, but the seventh day (will be) a Sabbath of rest holy to the Lord. Anyone who does a work on the Sabbath day will surely be made to die. [Doesn't that sound something like "vengeance"?] (16) And the sons of Israel will keep the Sabbath, to make the Sabbath an age-long [or eternal: _olam_ or _owlam_ ; LXX _aiōnios_ , which can also mean either "age-long" or "eternal"] covenant throughout their generations. (17) Between me and the sons of Israel, it is an age-long [or eternal: _olam_ or _owlam_ ; LXX _aiōnios_ ] pledge [or sign: _oth_ or _owth_ ; LXX _sémeion_ ]. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day he rested and was refreshed.

If the "Sabbath" was indeed meant to be understood as being equivalent to the "sign of Cain," then that may help to explain why the "sign of Cain" would be associated with " _sevenfold_ vengeance" for _disregarding_ it. However, as I argue in my previous book, I believe that the "Crucifixion of Christ" was meant to signify the _completion_ of the _first_ symbolic "sabbath week of creation," which is also what would bring the "present age" to an end. And, as I explain at greater length in Chapter 7 of this book, with the end of the "present age," there would also be an end brought to the _desire for vengeance_ and the _fear_ and the _anger_ expressed by Cain (expressed, I believe, on behalf of mankind as a whole while it is still living in the "present age"). That is the reason why I believe Exodus 31:15-17 is better translated as containing the phrases "age-long covenant" and "age-long pledge" (or "age-long sign"), than as containing the phrases "eternal covenant" or "eternal pledge" (or "eternal sign"). With the end of the "present age," the symbolic "sign of Cain" would be able to disappear, and so too would the need for a _symbolic_ "Sabbath day" that serves as a type of "covenant enduring throughout generations." (I wish to stress, in other words, that what I'm talking about here has nothing at all to do with the question of whether human beings ought to be able to enjoy at least one _literal_ day per week of _literal_ rest.)

[By the way, it's worth at least considering the possibility that the authors of the Bible may have meant for the symbol of the "rainbow" to be seen as a "sign of the covenant" in the same way that the symbol of the "Sabbath day" was meant to be seen as such. (See Genesis 9:8-17, and especially verse 12, in which the rainbow is described as a "sign [ _owth_ ; LXX _sémeion_ ] of the covenant.") If so, it might help to explain why a rainbow has traditionally been thought to contain exactly _seven_ colors, even though the choice of the number "seven" in particular would otherwise appear to be a completely arbitrary one.]

When Cain says in Genesis 4:14 that he would be "hidden" from the "face" of the Lord, consider that this is reminiscent of Genesis 3:7-10, which describes what happens just after the "Fall of Man" in the "Garden of Eden":

(7) 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, and made loincloths [or aprons] for themselves. (8) 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_ ; LXX _Adam_ ] and his wife [or woman: _ishshah_ ; LXX _gyné_ ] 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. (9) And the Lord God called to the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _Adam_ ] and said to him, "Where (are you)?" (10) And (the man) said, "I heard your voice in the garden, and I was afraid [ _yare'_ ; LXX _phobeō_ ] , because I was naked, and I hid myself [or withdrew, or concealed myself: _chaba_ ; LXX _kryptō_ ] ."

So, just like Cain, Adam and Eve begin to "hide" themselves (LXX Greek _kryptō_ ) from the "face" of the Lord. And, just like Cain, they also express "fear." That tends to suggest that, by his decision to kill his brother Abel, Cain effectively makes the choice to _replicate_ the same basic choice made by his parents in the Garden of Eden. And I believe that "choice" should be thought of as the choice to _accept_ and _insist upon retaining_ "prophetical discourse" and the practice of "prophesying" in human religious culture, as well as to silence the "voice" of anyone who would dare suggest otherwise. I believe both of these symbolic episodes were meant to convey that same basic idea, only in different ways. And in both of these episodes, a choice is made to disobey the will of God.

## A closer look at Genesis 4:17-22: Cain, builder of the world's first "city"

Genesis 4:17-22 says,

(17) And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch [ _chanoch_ , a name which means something like either "initiated" or "initiator"]. And Cain built a city [ _iyr_ ; LXX _polis_ ], and called the name of the city as the name of his son, Enoch. (18) And to Enoch was born Irad, and Irad begat Mehujael, and Mehujael begat Methushael, and Methushael begat Lamech. (19) And Lamech took to himself two wives; the name of the first was Adah [meaning "adornment"], and the name of the second was Zillah [meaning "shadow"] . (20) And Adah bore Jabal [meaning "course" — as in, a "course" along which one would be "led along" or "conducted"]; he became father of those dwelling in tents [LXX _skéné_ ] (and herding) cattle. (21) And the name of his brother was Jubal [which apparently also means something like "course"] ; he became father of all those playing the harp and pipe. (22) And also Zillah, she bore Tubal-cain, an instructor [more literally, a "sharpener" or "forger"] of every artificer [ _choresh_ , a word which can also mean "one who conceals," or "one who keeps silent," or "one who practices in secret," or "one who plots"] in bronze and iron. And sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah.

I believe this passage tends to bolster the hypothesis I offered above, that Cain's killing of Abel was meant to be understood as signifying a desire by "pro-prophetical prophets" to silence the "voices" of "anti-prophetical prophets." Notice how Cain's descendents are described as having occupations, and as having been given names that have meanings, many of which are suggestive of the theme of "religious esotericism" by their connection with the general idea of " _initiation_." One gets the overall sense that the particular characters we are dealing with here are unashamedly "pro-prophetical."

I also find it potentially significant that Cain is described as having been the "father" of the first "city" (Hebrew _iyr_ ; Greek _polis_ ). I am speculating here somewhat, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the authors of the Bible may have sometimes used the word "city" as a metaphor for "secret society," whose metaphorical "inhabitants" or "residents" would have been understood to be esotericist religious "initiates." Consider the fact that in Bible passages such as Numbers 24:15-19 (focusing in particular on verse 19) and Isaiah 14:21 (referring to the "King of Babel" or "King of Babylon"), "cities" are spoken of in what appear to be quite hostile terms.

# Chapter 6: How the writings of the prophet Zechariah link the story of the "Fall of Man," and the figures of Cain and Abel, with the story of the "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ"

For anyone who is seriously attempting to make sense of the Bible, Zechariah chapters 11 through 13 are extremely valuable to study. A few of its various details are admittedly difficult to understand, but it is not essential to understand each and every detail of the passage to get the overall gist of it, and to pick up on its overall tone. The passage is valuable because it enables us to "decipher" certain Bible symbols that might otherwise remain completely mysterious to us. It also provides us with an incisive encapsulation of what I believe to be _the_ central message of the entire Bible, by highlighting some of the most important elements of that message (using symbolic language, of course), and thereby revealing a glimpse of the final destination that the general trajectory of the Bible's entire narrative has been pointing toward. It also helps us to harmonize the symbolism used in the Book of Genesis with the symbolism used in the New Testament, thus shedding additional light on both of those writings.

Furthermore, the examination of Zechariah chapters 11 through 13 that I present in this chapter of my book (as well as in the next) is particularly important because I believe it should effectively put to rest any lingering doubts that some readers may still have regarding the question of whether the authors of the Bible _themselves_ agreed with my contention that all "prophets" are actually "false prophets," and that all "prophecy" is actually "false prophecy."

## Proof that metaphorical "shepherds" were meant to be understood as signifying "prophets"; and what that would imply

Let's start our Bible analysis in this chapter by looking at Zechariah 13:1-7, which says,

(1) 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.

(2) And it will come to pass in that day, declares the Lord of forces [or powers, 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 [ _nabi_ ; LXX _pseudo-prophétés_ , meaning "false prophets"; I have explained in my previous book why I believe the Greek LXX translation ought to be disregarded in the case of this particular word] and the unclean spirit will pass away from the earth.

(3) 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_ ] whenever he might prophesy [ _naba_ ; LXX _prophéteuō_ ] . (4) And it will come to pass in that day that every one 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 an outer garment [or cloak: _addereth_ ] of hair in order to deceive.

(5) And he will say, "I am no prophet [ _nabi_ ; LXX _prophétés_ ] , I am a man [ _ish_ ; LXX _anthrōpos_ ] working [ _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , for a man [or Adam: _adam_ ; LXX _anthrōpos_ ] has possessed [ _qanah_ ] [the LXX instead has 'begat' or 'engendered,' _gennaō_ ] me from my childhood [ _naur_ ; LXX _neotés_ ] ."

(6) And one [the LXX has "I"] will say to him, "What are these blows [or stripes, or wounds: _makkah_ ; LXX _plégé_ ] between your hands?" And he will say, "Those with which I was struck [or wounded: _nakah_ ; LXX _eplégén_ , a form of _pléssō_ ] in the house of my beloved (friend) [ _aheb_ ; LXX _agapétos_ ] [the Hebrew has 'beloved (friends),' in the plural]."

(7) "Awaken [ _ur_ ; LXX _ex-egeirō_ ] , O sword [ _chereb_ ; LXX _rhomphaia_ ] , against my shepherd [ _roi_ ; LXX _poimén_ ] , and against the man [or warrior: _geber_ ; LXX _anér_ ] who is my fellow [or companion, or comrade: _amith_ ; LXX _polités_ , meaning 'fellow-citizen']," declares the Lord of forces [or powers, or hosts: _tsaba_ ] . "Strike [or wound: _nakah_ ; LXX _patassō_ ] the shepherd [ _ra'ah_ ; LXX _poimén_ ] and let the flock of sheep [LXX _probaton_ ] be scattered [ _puwts_ ; LXX _dia-skorpizō_ ] , and I will turn [ _shub_ ; LXX _ep-agō_ , meaning 'bring upon' or 'bring against'] my hand against the little ones [ _tsaar_ ] [the LXX instead has 'against the shepherds']."

It seems clear to me, based on a careful reading of Zechariah 13:1-7, that the symbolic "shepherd" was almost certainly meant by the author to be understood as specifically corresponding to a "prophet." First, it is obvious that the figurative "person" in verse 6 who says "I was struck [Hebrew _nakah_ ]" was meant to be regarded as the generic "prophet" (or, to be more precise, the generic "(future) _former_ prophet"). And second, the use of that same Hebrew word _nakah_ , meaning "to strike, to smite, to wound," _in the very next verse_ , verse 7, in the phrase "Strike [Hebrew _nakah_ ] the shepherd," strongly implies that the generic "prophet" was meant by the author of this passage to be equated with the symbolic "shepherd."

That is a very important piece of information, since Zechariah 13:7 is explicitly referred to by Jesus in two passages in the Gospels. In both passages, the scriptural references are clearly to Zechariah 13:7, and (so far as I know) there is little if any dispute among Christians about that fact.

First, Matthew 26:31, which takes place the night before Jesus's Crucifixion, says,

Then Jesus said to (his disciples), "You will all be made to stumble [ _skandalizō_ ] in me [!] in this night, for it is written, 'I will strike [ _patassō_ ] the shepherd [ _poimén_ ], and the sheep [ _probaton_ ] of the flock will be scattered [ _dia-skorpizō_ ].'"

Next, virtually the same language can be found in Mark 14:27, which also takes place the night before the Crucifixion:

Then Jesus said to (his disciples), "You will all be made to stumble [ _skandalizō_ ] in me [!] in this night, for it is written, 'I will strike [ _patassō_ ] the shepherd [ _poimén_ ], and the sheep [ _probaton_ ] will be scattered [ _dia-skorpizō_ ].'"

These two passages are significant because they seem to indicate that the authors of the passages were having Jesus compare himself to the symbolic "shepherd" of Zechariah 13:1-7 — which would in turn mean that the authors were having Jesus compare himself to the generic, universal, and archetypal "Prophet" — who would be "wounded" or "struck" (in Jesus's specific case, by means of his being "scourged" and "crucified").

Furthermore, Zechariah 13:1-7 also seems to be saying that the "(future) _former_ prophet" — in other words, the "shepherd who would be struck" — would sooner or later _need_ to be symbolically "pierced" with a symbolic "sword" (LXX Greek _rhomphaia_ ); and this "striking" would be for the purpose of bringing an end to all "prophesying." This symbolic "sword" is reminiscent of the "spear" (Greek _logché_ or _lonché_ ) that is said in John 19:34 and John 19:37 (both of which I quote below) to have "pierced" (Greek _nyssō_ or _ek-kenteō_ ) Jesus at his Crucifixion. [But also see Luke 2:34-35, in which it is implied that it would be not a "spear" but a "sword" (Greek _rhomphaia_ ) that would eventually "pierce" (Greek _di-erchomai_ ) Jesus.] And so it would seem to logically follow that the authors of the New Testament would have meant for readers to understand that the purpose of Jesus's own symbolic "piercing" (in other words, his being "crucified") would _likewise_ have been to bring an end to all "prophesying." I have already argued, both in this book and in my previous one, in favor of the proposition that Jesus was meant to be understood as being the generic, universal, and archetypal "Prophet" — with Jesus's "Crucifixion" additionally making him the archetypal " _Final_ Prophet" — but a cross-referencing of the passages that I've been discussing in this section presents us with additional confirmation of the validity of that proposition.

A cross-referencing of the passages I've quoted in this section also indicates that the "sheep of Jesus's flock" — signifying Jesus's disciples — were _meant_ to be (temporarily) "scattered"; this was not any kind of "misfortune" that Jesus's disciples were supposed to try to avoid or prevent. After his Resurrection, Jesus is depicted in Luke 24:25-27 and Luke 24:31 as encouraging his disciples to _think for themselves_ , so that they would be able to truly _understand_ the scriptures; and it is the achievement of that _common genuine understanding_ that would once again make them all members of the same "flock" (and indeed, members of a much larger "flock" than ever before). Luke 24:25-27 begins with Jesus saying to his disciples/apostles,

(25) "O you thoughtless [or foolish, or mindless, or dense, or silly: _a-noétos_ ] (persons), and slow in heart to believe [or trust in: _pisteuō_ ] ALL [ _pasin_ ] (the things) that the prophets [ _prophétés_ ] spoke [or communicated: _laleō_ ] . (26) Was it not necessary for the Christ to suffer [ _paschō_ ] these things and to enter into his glory?" (27) And, having begun [ _archomai_ ] from Moses and from ALL [ _pantōn_ ] the prophets [ _prophétés_ ] , he interpreted [or fully explained, or fully expounded, or translated: _di-erméneuō_ ] to them the things concerning himself in ALL [ _pasais_ ] the scriptures [ _graphé_ ] .

Then, Luke 24:31, referring to these same disciples/apostles, says,

And their eyes were fully opened or opened wide: _di-anoigō_ ] [cf. [Genesis 3:7, describing what happens after Adam and Eve eat the fruit from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil"; the same Greek word _di-anoigō_ appears in the LXX translation of that verse], and they recognized [or fully understood, or fully knew: _epi-ginōskō_ ] (Jesus). And he vanished [or became invisible, or became hidden, or disappeared, or became obscured: _a-phantos_ ] from (their sight).

I mentioned John 19:34,36-37 a bit earlier in this section. That passage, describing the episode of the Crucifixion, says,

(34) [O]ne of the soldiers pierced [ _nyssō_ ] (Jesus's) side with a spear [ _logché_ or _lonché_ ] , and at once blood and water came out.... (36) [T]hese things took place that the scripture might be fulfilled [or completed: _pléroō_ ] : "Not one of his bones will be broken." (37) And again another scripture says, "They will look to him whom they have pierced [ _ek-kenteō_ ] ."

The second of the two scriptural references in John 19:34,36-37 — the one that we are concerned with — is to Zechariah 12:10. That verse says,

I [the Lord] will pour out [LXX _ek-cheō_ ] upon the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit [LXX _pneuma_ ] 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.

In my previous book I argue that Zechariah 12:10 ought to be read in conjunction with Zechariah 13:1-7, since both of those passages speak of a "child" or "offspring" who is "pierced." When we do so, we can reasonably conclude that the authors of the New Testament meant for Jesus to be understood as having been "pierced" (i.e., "crucified") as the necessary " _penalty_ " for his having been a "prophet" and for his having "prophesied."

Furthermore, when these passages are read in conjunction with Zechariah 13:1-7, they show that the "fulfillment of prophecy" is to be found in the _ending_ of all "prophesying" — which is what partially _characterizes_ "the day of the Lord" and the arrival of a "New Age" or "Messianic Age."

##  What Zechariah has to say about the figures of Cain and Abel

Let's take another look at Zechariah 13:5 in particular. This is an _exceedingly important_ verse, because it enables us to connect the story of the "Crucifixion of Christ" to the figures of Cain and Abel, and, by extension, to the story of the "Fall of Man":

(5) And (the now-former prophet) will say, "I am no prophet, I am a man [ _ish_ ; LXX _anthrōpos_ ] working [ _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , for a man [or Adam: _adam_ ; LXX _anthrōpos_ ] has possessed [ _qanah_ ] [the LXX instead has 'begat' or 'engendered,' _gennaō_ ] me from my childhood [ _naur_ ; LXX _neotés_ ] ."

Now compare that verse to Genesis 4:1-2:

(1) And the man [or Adam: _ha-adam_ ; LXX _Adam_ ] knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain [ _qayin_ , which means "spear," and is also a play on the Hebrew word _qanah_ , meaning "to acquire" or "to come into possession of"], and said, "I have acquired [or come into possession of: _qanah_ ; LXX _ktaomai_ ] a man [ _ish_ ; LXX _anthrōpos_ ] with (the help of) the Lord." (2) And she added to the begetting (of children) with his brother Abel. And Abel was a shepherd of a flock (of sheep), and Cain worked [or tilled, or cultivated: _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ].

It seems quite clear to me that the figure depicted as speaking in Zechariah 13:5 was meant to be understood as corresponding to the figure of _Cain_. And when Zechariah 13:5 is read in the fuller context of Zechariah 13:1-7, that would in turn imply that Cain would have been working as a "shepherd" — that is, as _a kind of_ "prophet" — _before_ turning away from _all_ "prophesying" to _return_ to "working the ground." It seems clear to me that the author of Zechariah 13:1-7 meant to convey the idea that with the end of all "prophesying," the figure of Cain would finally be allowed to _return_ to "Eden" from his exile "east of Eden." Furthermore, if Cain is _able_ to return to "working the ground" as he once did, then that would seem to imply that the original "curse" that came into being with the "Fall of Man" would have already been "lifted" from the "ground" or "earth" by then. But how would that happen?

As I indicated in the previous chapter, I believe the two figures of Abel and Cain (as we encounter them in Genesis chapter 4) were meant to represent two different _kinds_ of "prophets": Abel would represent the " _relatively truthful_ prophets" (or "anti-prophetical prophets," or "anti-esotericist prophets"), while Cain would represent the " _relatively untruthful_ prophets" (or "pro-prophetical prophets," or "pro-esotericist prophets" — sometimes referred to in the Bible as "false prophets"). "Prophets" like Abel would have been subtly pointing toward the eventual _dismantling_ of the prophetical institution and vocation, while "prophets" like Cain would have been wishing to _perpetuate_ that same prophetical institution and vocation for ever and ever — so much so that prophets like Cain would have become determined to silence the "voice" (signifying, I believe, the anti-prophetical and anti-esotericist _message_ ) of any prophets such as Abel who would have been seen as posing a threat of interference with the continuation of their ancient and hallowed institution.

But if we conclude from our examination of Zechariah 13:1-7 that the symbolic figure of Cain had decided to assume Abel's former role as symbolic "shepherd," then that would mean that Cain had decided to become an "anti-prophetical prophet" as well. (However, as I discuss below in this chapter and in the next, the Bible makes an important distinction between "good shepherds," and "worthless shepherds" or "useless shepherds.") In order for the "curse" of the "ground" or "earth" to be "lifted," so that Cain could return to "working the ground," it would be necessary that the "voice" of the "blood" of Abel first be "liberated" from its "imprisonment" and its imposed "silence." But if Cain had decided to assume Abel's former role as symbolic "shepherd" (i.e., anti-prophetical prophet), then one might think of Cain as having decided to allow the "voice" of Abel to speak _through_ Cain's own new-found anti-prophetical "voice." So by Cain having assumed Abel's former role as "shepherd," the "voice" of Abel's "blood" would have been _freed_ from its captivity "within the earth."

It is very interesting, and even rather surprising, that in Zechariah 13:1-7 the author indicates that a "prophet" should aspire to eventually become not like the figure of Abel (in other words, a "shepherd"), but like the figure of Cain (in other words, a "worker of the ground"). Isn't Abel the "good guy," and isn't Cain the "bad guy"? However, to aspire to become like the figure of Cain would presumably require that this figure have already been "redeemed" from the "bloodguilt" that he incurred from his killing of his brother Abel. So I think we are being encouraged to imagine a new and different "Cain" — one who would never kill his brother Abel — _since there would be no desire to kill him_. And that is because Cain's "offerings" of the symbolic "fruit from the ground" — in other words, Cain's "works" and "deeds" and "speech" — would be _gladly received_ by the Lord, since the "ground" or "earth" would no longer be "cursed" — which I think should be thought of as just another way of saying that Cain's "works" and "deeds" and "speech" would be _of a different nature_ than they had been when the symbolic "ground" or "earth" was still "cursed."

That in turn suggests that we are being encouraged to imagine the kind of (mythical) world that would have existed _before_ the "Fall of Man" ever took place. And significantly, that "imagined world" is implicitly described in Zechariah 13:1-7 as being _a world in which there would be no prophets or prophesying_. We are led to imagine a "Cain" who is again a _settled_ "worker of the ground," and who is again _attached_ to the "ground" or "land," and who is no longer a "wanderer upon the earth." The symbolic "ground" or "land" that Cain would thenceforth "work" would no longer be "cursed" for the reason that the seductive whisperings of "false prophets" (or of any "prophets") would no longer be met with a favorable "reception" in _anyone's_ soul — thus making it impossible for symbolic "thorn-bushes and thistles" to "grow up" or "rise up" from out of anyone's soul in the future. (By the way, please bear in mind that I think the figure of "Cain" ought to be thought of as representing all of the tendencies found _throughout all of mankind_ to be attracted to "prophecy" and "prophesying" and religious esotericism — an attraction that also leads persons to _refuse to repudiate_ all of the "prophetical discourse" or "esoteric discourse" found in a religion's authoritative writings — and especially in those of their own religion.)

Again, the prophet Zechariah — speaking on behalf of all prophets — appears to be saying that he is looking forward to some future time when he and all other metaphorical "shepherds" could move from their _current role_ of "Abel" (i.e., "shepherd") to the role of "Cain" (i.e., "farmer"). In other words, they would _no longer need to serve_ as "anti-prophetical prophets." Always bear in mind that both "Cain" and "Abel" should be thought of as _archetypal figures_ — which means that "Abel" never actually "died" for all time. So Abel (representing all of the "shepherds," i.e., "anti-prophetical prophets") would, in a sense, be _resurrected_ from his "confinement" within the "earth" to a new kind of life; and, as I explain at greater length in the next chapter, it is Cain's symbolic "death" _as a "shepherd_ _"_ that would make this "resurrection" possible. If Cain were to _consent to die_ as a "shepherd," that would not only bring an obvious end to Cain's own recently assumed "shepherding" duties, it would also suddenly become possible for Abel to abandon _his_ former "shepherding" duties.

As I wrote above, I think it is virtually indisputable that Zechariah 13:5 was meant to be understood as alluding to the figure of Cain when it presents us with a figure who has now forsaken all "prophesying" and wishes for nothing more than to return to "working the ground." _But I believe it was also meant to allude to the figure of Abel_. With the conversion of Cain from symbolic "farmer" to symbolic "shepherd," followed by Cain's symbolic "death" or "piercing" as "shepherd" (i.e., as "anti-prophetical prophet"), there would no longer be any _need_ for Abel to make the kind of "offerings" to the Lord that Abel had been trying to make before Cain killed him. It is the existence of "pro-prophetical prophets" (and those who support them) that _necessarily gives rise_ to the existence of "anti-prophetical prophets." When the attraction to "pro-prophetical prophecy" disappears, so too does the need for anyone to engage in "anti-prophetical prophecy." So with the end of, first, "pro-prophetical prophesying," followed by the end of _all_ "prophesying," the figure of Abel would be free to take on the role of a _fellow_ "worker of the ground" _alongside Cain_ , now that the "cursing" of the "ground" no longer existed, and so would no longer need to be _opposed_ by means of Abel's symbolic "shepherding" and "sacrificing of lambs."

[By the way, consider that if "Cain" would be _returning_ to " _working_ the ground" after Cain's "killing" of Abel, then that may suggest that the authors of the Bible would have seen a need to first have a _symbolic_ "Sabbath day of _rest_ " before a new symbolic "sabbath week" of "work" or "creation" could begin. Perhaps that is because the figure of "Abel" would finally be able to find his own "rest," because he would no longer need to "shout from the earth" in his role as an "anti-prophetical prophet" to get the attention of others. This idea of a need for a symbolic "Sabbath day of rest" would perhaps also pertain to the Lord telling Cain in Genesis 4:7 (LXX) that Cain's response to his great "grief" and his "fallen countenance" ought to be to simply "be silent" or "be at peace." Furthermore, consider that if the suggestion I offered above is correct, and the "sign" (Hebrew _oth_ or _owth_ ; Greek _sémeion_ ) of "Cain" was indeed meant to be understood as corresponding to the "sign" (Hebrew _oth_ or _owth_ ; Greek _sémeion_ ) of the "Sabbath day of rest," then Cain's being able to return to "working the ground" would be made possible by the _removal_ of the "sign of Cain" from him — which would also coincide with the final _completion_ of the symbolic "first sabbath week of creation." (I talk more about the symbolic significance of the "sabbath week" in my previous book.)]

##  The symbols of the "thirty pieces of silver" and the "Field of Blood"

The Bible passages that I will be discussing in the remainder of this chapter are extremely important in terms of their symbolism; but it must be pointed out that the symbols being used in them can lead to quite a bit of confusion, since it is not always clear what these symbols and symbolic figures were meant to refer to. (That is actually true, to a greater or lesser extent, of all of the passages that I discuss in this book; but it is especially true of the ones discussed in the remainder of this chapter.) More specifically, with these passages it is often difficult to know whether a particular figure was meant or understood to represent or correspond to a symbolic "shepherd," or a symbolic "sheep," or both at the same time.

For instance, recall Revelation 7:17, in which Jesus is described as being _both_ "Shepherd" and "Lamb" at the same time:

For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will shepherd [ _poimanō_ ] them, and he will lead them to fountains of living waters, and God will wipe away every tear from their eyes.

So, while bearing in mind that this potential ambiguity (which I think was very likely a deliberate ambiguity) requires that we approach these passages with an attitude of heightened caution and care, let's continue our Bible analysis by reviewing Genesis 4:8-10, which says,

(8) And Cain spoke with his brother Abel, and it came to pass, in their being in the field [ _sadeh_ ; LXX _pedion_ , meaning "plain"], that Cain rose up [ _qum_ ; LXX _an-istémi_ ] against his brother Abel and killed him [ _harag_ ; LXX _apo-kteinō_ , which can also mean "put him to death"]. (9) And the Lord said to Cain, "Where is your brother Abel?" And (Cain) said, "I do not know [ _yada_ ; LXX _ginōskō_ ] ; am I the keeper [or watcher, or jailer, or prison guard: _shamar_ ; LXX _phylax_ ] of my brother?" (10) And (the Lord) said, "What have you done? The voice [ _qol_ ; LXX _phōné_ ] of the blood [ _dam_ ] of your brother cries [or shouts: _tsaaq_ ; LXX _boaō_ ] to me from the ground [or earth: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] .

As I already indicated in Chapter 5, I believe the primordial shedding or spilling of Abel's "blood" in this "field" is what created the symbolic "Field of Blood" that we find explicitly mentioned in the New Testament (in passages that I will discuss below in this chapter).

Let's next look again at Matthew 23:29-36, in which Jesus explicitly associates the figure of "Abel" with the figure of "Zechariah," as well as both of those figures with "righteous blood." In Matthew 23:29-36 Jesus says,

(29) Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the burial-places [ _taphos_ ] of the prophets [ _prophétés_ ] and adorn the tombs [or memorials: _mnémeion_ ] of the righteous [ _dikaios_ ] . (30) And you say, "If we were (living) in the days of our fathers, we would not have been fellow partakers in (the shedding of) the blood of the prophets [ _prophétés_ ] ." (31) You thus bear witness to yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered [ _phoneuō_ ] the prophets [ _prophétés_ ] . (32) And you, (go) fill up [or make full, or fulfill: _pléroō_ ] the measure of your fathers. (33) You serpents! You offspring of vipers! How might you escape from the sentence of hell?

(34) For this reason, behold, I send out  _apo-stellō_ ] to you prophets [ _prophétés_ ] and wise (men) and scribes. (Those) from among them you will kill and will crucify, and (those) from among them you will flog in your synagogues and will persecute [or pursue: _diōkō_ ] from town to town, (35) in order that upon you might come all (the) righteous [ _dikaios_ ] blood being poured out [or spilled: _ek-cheō_ ] upon the earth [or ground: _gé_ ] , from the blood of Abel the righteous [ _dikaios_ ] to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah [which is a reference to the prophet Zechariah; see [Zechariah 1:1] , whom you murdered [ _phoneuō_ ] between the temple [ _naos_ ] and the altar [ _thysiastérion_ ] . (36) Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

Why would the author of this passage specifically associate the figure of Abel with the prophet Zechariah? One important reason, I believe, is that both of these figures were meant to be understood as being "anti-prophetical prophets," in so far as they were both symbolic "shepherds"; and the " _offering_ " that they wished to make at the "altar" (viz., _the anti-prophetical or anti-esotericist message contained within prophecy_ — which "offering" I believe was understood to be equivalent to their own symbolic "blood," _including_ the "voice" of that "blood") was being _prevented from being made_ by the metaphorical "murdering" of those two figures (along with all other "anti-prophetical prophets"), resulting in the _spilling_ of their "blood" upon the "earth" or "ground" — thus transforming that symbolic "earth" or "ground" into a symbolic "Field of Blood."

That the prophet Zechariah was himself meant to be seen as one of these symbolic "shepherds" is shown in Zechariah 11:4-17:

(4) Thus said the Lord my God, "Pasture [or shepherd, or tend, or feed: _ra'ah_ ; LXX _poimanō_ ] the flock (of sheep) to be slaughtered [ _haregah_ ; LXX _sphagé_ ] , (5) whose owners [or possessors: _qanah_ ; LXX _ktaomai_ ] slaughter [or butcher, or murder, or kill: _harag_ ; LXX _kata-sphazō_ ] them and are not held guilty [or do not feel guilty: _asham_ ; LXX _meta-melomai_ , which means 'repent, regret, feel remorse,' and which is derived from _melō_ , meaning 'to care, to be concerned'; so that _meta-melomai_ literally means something like 'to change one's object of concern'], and those who sell [ _makar_ ; LXX _pōleō_ ] them say, 'Blessed be the Lord (and I have become rich!),' and their shepherds [ _ra'ah_ ; LXX _poimén_ ] do not show mercy to [or have compassion on, or spare: _chamal_ ; LXX _paschō_ , meaning 'feel suffering (because of)'] them.

(6) "Therefore I [the Lord God] will no longer show mercy to [or have compassion on, or spare: _chamal_ ; LXX _pheidomai_ , meaning 'spare'] the inhabitants of the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] ," declares the Lord, "and behold, I will find [ _matsa_ ; LXX _para-didōmi_ , meaning 'deliver over, give up, hand over'] mankind [or men, or 'the man': _ha-adam_ ; the LXX has 'the men' or 'the people': _tous anthrōpous_ ] , every one [ _ish_ ; LXX _hekastos_ ] , in [or into] the hand of his neighbor [ _rea_ ; LXX _plésion_ ] , and in [or into] the hand of his king, and they will all smash [or destroy: _kathath_ ; LXX _kata-koptō_ ] the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , and I will not rescue [ _natsal_ ; LXX _ex-aireō_ ] them from their hand."

(7) And I [Zechariah] pastured the flock to be slaughtered [the LXX then continues by saying "unto the Canaanites"; the word "Canaanite" is either derived from or related to a word that literally means "trader" or "trafficker" or "merchant"], even the lowly of the flock. And I took for myself two staffs; one I called "Delight" [or "Beauty": _noam_ ; LXX _kallos_ ] and one I called "Bonds" [or "Cords": _chebel_ ; LXX _schoinisma_ , meaning "Measure (of land)," or "Portion," or "Allotment"]. And I pastured the flock. (8) And I made disappear [or concealed: _kachad_ ; LXX _ex-airō_ , meaning "removed" or "took away"] the three shepherds in a single month. [It's not at all clear to me (or others, apparently) what these "three shepherds" were meant to signify.] And my soul [ _nephesh_ ; LXX _psyché_ ] was wearied [or discouraged, or worn down: _qatsar_ ; LXX _barynō_ ] by them, and their soul also loathed [ _bachal_ ; LXX _epōryō_ , meaning "howled at"] me. (9) And I said, "I will not pasture you [or 'for you,' perhaps?]. That which is dying, let it die. That which is disappearing, let it disappear [ _kachad_ ; LXX _ek-leipō_ ] . And those that remain [ _shaar_ ; LXX _kataloipos_ ] , let each one eat the flesh of the other [the LXX has 'the flesh of his neighbor': _plésion_ ] ." [Given what is said in verse 9 about "pasturing," it would appear that the words "them" and "their" in verse 8 may be referring to the "sheep," not the "three shepherds." On the other hand, the use of the Hebrew verb _kachad_ in both verse 8 and verse 9 tends to indicate that the words "them" and "their" may be referring to the "three shepherds." So perhaps the words "them" and "their" were meant to refer to both the "sheep" and the "shepherds" at the same time.]

(10) And I took my staff "Delight" and broke it into pieces [ _gada_ ] , so that I might break [ _parar_ ] the covenant I had made with all the peoples [ _am_ ; LXX _laos_ ] . [Did the _individual_ prophet Zechariah ever make a "covenant with all the peoples"? Of course he didn't — so in this instance Zechariah must be speaking _in the voice_ of the archetypal and universal "Prophet," representing _all_ prophets.]

(11) And it was broken [ _parar_ ] in that day, and so the lowly of the flock who were being watched [or kept, or guarded: _shamar_ ; LXX _phylassō_ ] by me understood [or knew: _yada_ ] that it (was) the word [ _dabar_ ; LXX _logos_ ] of the Lord. [The LXX version of verse 11 has, "And (the covenant) will be disbanded in that day; and the Canaanites will come to know the sheep being guarded by me, because it is the word of the Lord."]

(12) And I said to them, "If it is good [ _towb_ ; LXX _kalos_ ] in your eyes [or in your sight: _ayin_ ; LXX _enōpios_ ] , give me my wages [LXX _misthos_ ] . And if it is not, forbear." [Is "them" referring to the other "shepherds," or to the "traders in the sheep," or to the "sheep"?] And they weighed out for my wages [LXX _misthos_ ] thirty (pieces) of silver.

(13) And the Lord said to me, "Cast it to the Potter [ _yatsar_ ] " — the handsome [ _eder_ , which can also mean "cloak" or "mantle"] price [ _yeqar_ ] at which I was valued [ _yaqar_ ] by them. And I took the thirty (pieces) of silver, and I cast (the silver) (into) the house of the Lord, to the Potter [ _yatsar_ ] .

[For Zechariah 11:13, the LXX instead has, "And the Lord said to me, 'Lower them into the smelting-furnace, and examine [LXX _skeptomai_ ] (to find out) if (the silver) is genuine [LXX _dokimos_ ] ,' in which manner I was tested [LXX _dokimazō_ ] for their sake. [For _whose_ sake? That of the 'sheep'? The 'shepherds'? The 'traders'? All of them?] And I took the thirty (pieces of) silver and cast [LXX _em-ballō_ ] them into the house of the Lord, into the smelting-furnace."] [Compare this to Zechariah 13:8-9.]

(14) And I broke into pieces [ _gada_ ] my second staff, "Bonds," so that I might break [ _parar_ ] the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

(15) And the Lord said to me, "Next take for yourself the implements of a useless [or worthless, or incompetent, or foolish, or silly, or unskilled: _evili_ ; LXX _apeiros_ ] shepherd.

(16) "For behold, I am raising up [ _qum_ ; LXX _ex-egeirō_ , which can also mean 'rousing'] a shepherd in the land [or earth: _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] who will not show concern for [or pay attention to, or look after: _paqad_ ; LXX _epi-skeptomai_ ] those hidden from view [ _kachad_ ; LXX _ek-leipō_ , which can also mean '(those) left out'], nor seek the young [or scattered ones: _naar_ ; LXX _skorpizō_ ] , nor heal the broken, nor sustain [or nourish: _kul_ ; LXX _kat-euthynō_ , meaning 'guide, direct'] those who are established [ _natsab_ ; LXX _holokléos_ , meaning 'sound, complete'], and (who) eats the flesh of the fat (sheep), and tears apart [ _parach_ ; LXX _ek-strephō_ ] their hooves [ _parsah_ , derived from the verb _paras_ , meaning 'to break in two, to divide, to split'; LXX _astragalos_ , which can mean 'knucklebones'].

(17) "Woe to the useless shepherd, who abandons the flock! [For the previous sentence, the LXX instead has, 'O those tending [LXX _poimainō_ ] the vain [or unimportant, or trivial, or pointless, or worthless: LXX _mataios_ ] (matters), and abandoning [LXX _kata-leipō_ ] the sheep!'] A sword [ _chereb_ ; LXX _machaira_ ] (will strike) against his arm and against his eye! His right arm will completely wither [ _yabesh_ ; LXX _xérainō_ ] , and his right eye will completely darken [ _kahah_ ; LXX _ek-typhlaō_ , meaning 'be made completely blind']!"

This passage ought to strike readers as a terribly strange one. Why would a Bible prophet — a metaphorical "shepherd" — announce that he decided to "abandon his flock," even though we are also told in the same passage that a "useless shepherd" who "abandons his flock" would be subject to "woe"? And why would the Lord tell a Bible prophet that he _ought to_ become a "useless shepherd"?

And most of all, why would an Old Testament prophet describe himself as receiving "thirty pieces of silver" as his "wages" (LXX Greek _misthos_ ) after "abandoning" his "flock" — when Judas Iscariot is described in Matthew 27:3-10 and Acts 1:15-19 (both of which passages I quote below in this chapter) as also receiving "thirty pieces of silver" as _his_ "wages" (Greek _misthos_ ) after having supposedly "betrayed" Jesus? Isn't the figure of Judas Iscariot pretty much the human epitome of moral depravity and worthlessness in the eyes of many Christians? After all, consider that the Christian author Dante Alighieri, in his medieval work _The Divine Comedy_ , chose to place the figure of Judas in the fourth ring of the Ninth Circle of Hell, which is also the lowest ring and circle of Hell, and therefore the one located closest to Satan; and, moreover, Judas's soul is described as suffering the greatest punishment of any soul in all of Hell.

Matthew 27:3-10 says,

(3) Then Judas, the one who delivered over or handed over, or betrayed, or gave up, or transmitted, or handed down (as a tradition): _para-didōmi_ ] [compare the use in [Mark 7:13 of this same word _para-didōmi_ , as well as the word _paradosis_ , which is derived from _para-didōmi_ and means "tradition" or "something handed down"] (Jesus), having seen that (Jesus) was condemned [ _kata-krinō_ ] , and having come to regret [or repent of: _meta-melomai_ ] (his actions), returned [ _strephō_ ] the thirty (pieces) of silver to the chief priests and elders, (4) saying, "I sinned, having given up [or handed over, or delivered over, or betrayed, or transmitted, or handed down (as a tradition): _para-didōmi_ ] innocent [ _athōos_ ] blood." And they said, "What (is that) to us? You see (to it) [ _opsé_ ] ." [Or, to be more accurate, "What (is that) to us? You will see." The Greek word _opsé_ is a form of the verb _horaō_ in the future tense and indicative mood — _not_ the imperative mood, as one might expect based on most of the popular translations of this verse. In other words, it is likely that the "chief priests and elders" were not _not_ meant by the author to be thought of as "issuing a command" to Judas.]

(5) And, having cast [ _rhiptō_ ] the (thirty pieces of) silver into the temple [ _naos_ ] , he withdrew, and, having gone away [or passed away: _ap-erchomai_ ] , he hanged [ _ap-agchō_ ] himself.

(6) And the chief priests, having taken the (thirty pieces of) silver, said, "It is not lawful to put [or cast: _ballō_ ] them into the treasury [ _korban_ ] , since it is the price [or value: _timé_ ] of blood. (7) Then, after having taken counsel [ _sym-boulion_ ] , they bought [ _agorazō_ ] with (the thirty pieces of silver) the Field [ _agros_ ] of the Potter [ _kerameus_ ] , as a burial (ground) for the foreigners [or strangers: _xenos_ ] . (8) Therefore that field [ _agros_ ] has been called "Field [ _agros_ ] of Blood" even to today.

(9) Then was fulfilled [ _pléroō_ ] that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "And they took the thirty (pieces of) silver, the price [or value: _timé_ ] of the one who has been priced [or, 'of the one whose value has been appraised': _timaō_ ], upon whom those from the sons of Israel set a price [or 'to whom they assigned a value': _timaō_ ]. (10) And they gave (the thirty pieces of silver) for [or put them into: _eis_ ] the Field [ _agros_ ] of the Potter [ _kerameus_ ], just as the Lord directed me." [Doesn't that tend to imply that the "chief priests" who are being depicted here have somehow _taken on the role_ of an Old Testament prophet in terms of their actions? It is as if those "chief priests" are practically serving as active "vessels" for the "speech" of that "prophet."]

(The writer of this passage obviously made an error in verse 9 in attributing this particular "prophecy" to Jeremiah instead of to Zechariah. The reason for the error may have something to do with the fact that an episode is described in Jeremiah 32:6-15 which involves the "buying" of a "field." Of greater interest than that, however, is Jeremiah 18:1-11, in which the workings of "the potter" are compared to the workings of "the Lord.")

After comparing Zechariah 11:4-17 with Matthew 27:3-10, you may at first be inclined to conclude that the author of Matthew 27:3-10 must have been assigning some new set of meanings to the symbolic scheme that was being used by the author of Zechariah 11:4-17. (Once again, how could the author of Matthew 27:3-10 possibly compare a well respected Old Testament prophet to _Judas Iscariot_ of all people?) But I believe that that would be an incorrect interpretation. I think it is reasonably possible to reconcile the two passages; indeed, I believe that they _demand_ to be reconciled. That is because I believe the "Field of Blood" explicitly referred to in Matthew 27:3-10 is the _very same_ symbolic "Field of Blood" where Abel was killed by Cain, and where every other " _anti_ -prophetical prophet" in the history of the world — _including_ the prophet Zechariah — has been _metaphorically_ "killed" (i.e., _silenced_ ) by the " _pro_ -prophetical prophets." This symbol of the "Field of Blood" is extremely important because it relates to the figures of "Abel," "Cain," "Zechariah," "Jesus," and "Judas Iscariot," all at once, and helps to tie them all together in terms of their symbolic significance, as I will explain in the remainder of this chapter and in the next.

Remember that according to Genesis 4:10, it is the " _voice of_ the blood" of Abel that is "crying" or "shouting" to the Lord from the "ground" or "earth" (which, again, I am arguing _became_ the symbolic "Field of Blood" with Abel's primordial "killing"). And I am claiming that this "voice of the blood" was meant to be understood as signifying the message contained _within_ "prophecy" which _denounces_ "prophecy." So the fact that this _collective_ "voice of the blood" is depicted as having been assigned a value of only "thirty pieces of silver" by the "sons of Israel" was presumably meant to convey the idea (probably among other ideas) of _just how little interest_ there was (and is) among adherents of Bible-based religions in discovering the anti-prophetical or anti-esoteric _message_ contained within Bible prophecy. (By the way, the symbol of "thirty pieces of silver" was probably also meant to be seen as alluding to the story that one finds in Genesis 37:2-28, of Joseph being sold into slavery by his eleven brothers for "twenty pieces of silver.")

But the Bible text suggests that "the Lord" did not (and does not) share this generally low assessment of the "value" of that "voice." Again, Matthew 27:5-10 says,

(5) And, having cast [ _rhiptō_ ] the (thirty pieces of) silver into the temple [ _naos_ ] , (Judas) withdrew, and, having gone away [or passed away: _ap-erchomai_ ] , he hanged [ _ap-agchō_ ] himself. (6) And the chief priests, having taken the (thirty pieces of) silver, said, "It is not lawful to put [or cast: _ballō_ ] them into the treasury [ _korban_ ] , since it is the price [or value: _timé_ ] of blood. (7) Then, after having taken counsel [ _sym-boulion_ ] , they bought [ _agorazō_ ] with (the thirty pieces of silver) the Field [ _agros_ ] of the Potter [ _kerameus_ ] , as a burial (ground) for the foreigners [or strangers: _xenos_ ] . (8) Therefore that field [ _agros_ ] has been called "Field [ _agros_ ] of Blood" even to today. (9) Then was fulfilled [ _pléroō_ ] that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "And they took the thirty (pieces of) silver, the price [or value: _timé_ ] of the one who has been priced [or, 'of the one whose value has been appraised': _timaō_ ], upon whom those from the sons of Israel set a price [or 'to whom they assigned a value': _timaō_ ]. (10) And they gave (the thirty pieces of silver) for [or put them into: _eis_ ] the Field [ _agros_ ] of the Potter [ _kerameus_ ] , just as the Lord directed me."

Now cross-reference Matthew 27:5-10 with both the Hebrew Masoretic and Greek Septuagint versions of Zechariah 11:12-13. First, the Hebrew version of Zechariah 11:12-13 says,

(12) And I said to them, "If it is good in your eyes, give me my wages. And if it is not, forbear." And they weighed out for my wages thirty (pieces) of silver.

(13) And the Lord said to me, "Cast (the silver) to the Potter [ _yatsar_ ] " — the handsome price [ _yeqar_ ] at which I was valued [ _yaqar_ ] by them. And I took the thirty (pieces) of silver, and I cast (the silver) (into) the house of the Lord, to the Potter [ _yatsar_ ] .

Next, the Greek version of Zechariah 11:13 says,

(13) And the Lord said to me, "Lower (the thirty pieces of silver) into the smelting-furnace, and examine (to find out) if (the silver) is genuine," in which manner I was tested for their sake. And I took the thirty (pieces of) silver and cast [LXX _em-ballō_ ] them into the house of the Lord, into the smelting-furnace.

When these last three quoted passages are read in conjunction with one another, I believe one can detect a strong intimation that the authors of the New Testament meant for the symbolic "Field of Blood" to be understood as being the true " _treasury_ " of "the house of the Lord"; and if that is correct, then the "blood" — or rather, the " _voice_ of the blood" — would be the true " _treasure_ " of "the house of the Lord." [By the way, consider the possibility that the authors of the New Testament (and perhaps also the Septuagint translator of Zechariah 11:13) may have equated the symbolic "Field of Blood" with the symbolic "smelting-furnace" spoken of in Zechariah 11:13 (LXX) — in which case, the symbolic "silver" would be equated with symbolic "blood," and the reason for "lowering the silver into the smelting-furnace" would be the same as the reason for spilling symbolic "blood" upon the "Field of Blood": to determine whether the "silver" or the "blood" (as well as the "voice" of that "blood") _was genuine_. (Again, consider this idea in connection with Zechariah 13:8-9.)]

Furthermore, if that interpretation is correct, then again consider Matthew 27:7 and what it may be implying:

(7) Then, after having taken counsel [ _sym-boulion_ ] , (the chief priests) bought [ _agorazō_ ] with (the thirty pieces of silver) the Field [ _agros_ ] of the Potter [ _kerameus_ ] , as a burial (ground) for the foreigners [or the strangers: _xenos_ ] .

It does not seem unreasonable to suppose that the author of this verse may have meant to convey the idea that the "anti-prophetical prophets" whose "blood" has been spilled on the symbolic "Field of Blood" or "Field of the Potter" since the beginning of human culture have been regarded as "foreigners" or "strangers" by the other members of their own societies. If that is indeed what the author had in mind, then the idea would be reminiscent of John 1:9-11, which is describing the figure of Jesus Christ:

(9) 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. (10) (The light) was in the world, and the world came into being through it; (but) the world did not know [or understand, or recognize, or perceive: _ginōskō_ ] (the light). (11) He came to (his) own, and (his) own did not receive him.

In support of my suggestion that the "voice of the blood" buried in the "Field of Blood" would have been thought to constitute the _true_ "treasure" of "the house of the Lord," consider the parable that Jesus tells in Matthew 13:44:

(44) The kingdom of the heavens is like a treasure [ _thésauros_ ] hidden [or concealed, or kept secret: _kryptō_ ] in the field [ _agros_ ], which a man having found [or discovered: _heuriskō_ ], hid [or concealed, or kept secret: _kryptō_ ]. And from the joy of it, he goes away [ _hyp-agō_ ] and sells [ _pōleō_ ] all things [ _panta_ ] that he has, and buys [ _agorazō_ ] that field [ _agros_ ].

Notice that the "man" in the parable "buys" (Greek _agorazō_ ) a "field" (Greek _agros_ ), just as the "thirty pieces of silver" are described in Matthew 27:5-10 as having been used to "buy" (Greek _agorazō_ ) the "Field [Greek _agros_ ] of Blood." And if the "field" spoken of in the parable was indeed meant to be understood as alluding to the symbolic "Field of Blood," then the parable might be reasonably read to imply that the "price of blood" — that is, "thirty pieces of silver" — is the same "price" to be paid if one wishes to have access to " _all things_ " (Greek _panta_ , the symbolic significance of which I discuss more extensively in my previous book; it suffices to say here that the "all things" is what is granted to all persons who inhabit the "kingdom of the heavens," symbolized by the "new Jerusalem"). In other words, the " _unearthing_ " of the "voice of the blood" (i.e., the " _treasure_ ") would be the _means_ by which a person would _gain access_ to the "all things" to be obtained in the "kingdom of the heavens."

With the parable in Matthew 13:44 still in mind, also consider that the "unearthing" of the same "treasure" that is currently "hidden" or "concealed" within the "Field (of Blood)" might be what is being spoken about in Revelation 18:24, which says,

(24) And in [or within: _en_ ] (Babylon) was found [or discovered: _heuriskō_ ] (the) blood of prophets [ _prophétés_ ] and saints [or holy ones: _hagios_ ] , and of all those slain [or slaughtered: _sphazō_ ] upon the earth [ _gé_ ] .

And significantly, this "finding" or "discovery" (Greek _heuriskō_ ) of "blood," and the "yielding up" of that "blood," would _coincide with_ the final "fall" or "collapse" or "undoing" of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon." (For more about the significance of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon," please see my previous book. Also, Revelation 18:24 tends to suggest that this "treasure" would be found _within_ the "ground" or "earth" of symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" — which would be consistent with the theory I advance in my previous book that symbolic "Babel" or "Babylon" was meant to be understood as being largely symbolically equivalent to Jesus Christ's "outer body.")

If a person were to choose to adopt this suggested way of viewing the relevant Biblical symbolism contained in the passages I have been discussing, it would change the way in which the person reads certain other Bible passages that speak of "blood." First consider Matthew 27:24-25, which says,

(24) And Pilate, having seen that nothing (he said) was doing any good, but instead a riot was forming, (Pilate), after having taken water, washed (his) hands before the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of [or unpunished for: _athōos_ ] this blood. You see [ _opesthe_ ] (to it) yourselves." [More literally: "You yourselves will see." Again, the Greek word _opesthe_ is a form of the verb _horaō_ in the future tense and indicative mood, not the imperative mood.] (25) And responding, all [ _pas_ ] the people [ _laos_ ] said, "His blood (be) upon [ _epi_ ] us and upon [ _epi_ ] our children."

Gospel passages such as these have historically contributed to a belief among more than a few Christians over the centuries that the Jewish people ought to be regarded as "Christ-killers," who bear all (or at least much) of the guilt for Jesus's death. But I think that that is because passages such as these have been misunderstood. I believe that what the author actually meant for the reader to understand the Jewish people to be doing here, when they all say, "His blood (be) upon us and upon our children," is _asking that they be given the "hidden treasure_ _"_ — the "blood of prophets and saints and of all those slain upon the earth" — spoken of in Matthew 13:44 and Revelation 18:24. In other words, they would be asking that this "treasure" finally be "unearthed." If that is correct, then Pilate, on the other hand, would be saying that he does _not_ want to be given this "hidden treasure," and does _not_ want this "treasure" to be "unearthed"; and the author would be dramatizing that choice by having Pilate wash all of the symbolic "blood" off of himself. (And that might also explain why in John 18:37-39 Pilate is depicted as expressing such indifference to "truth," if we suppose that the very existence of the "voice of the blood" of the "anti-prophetical prophets" that is found in the "Field of Blood" is to be attributed to the devotion of those prophets to "truth.")

I believe this hypothesis receives support from a cross-reference between Matthew 27:24-25 and Matthew 23:33-36, in which, once again, Jesus says to the "scribes and Pharisees,"

(33) You serpents! You offspring of vipers! How might you escape from the sentence of hell [or Gehenna: _geenna_ ] ? [Note that this is _not_ a rhetorical question.]

(34) For this reason [or "because of this": _dia touto_ ] , behold, I send out [ _apo-stellō_ ] to you prophets [ _prophétés_ ] and wise (men) and scribes. (Those) from among them you will kill and will crucify, and (those) from among them you will flog in your synagogues and will persecute [or pursue: _diōkō_ ] from town to town, (35) in order that upon [ _epi_ ] you might come all (the) righteous [ _dikaios_ ] blood being poured out [or spilled: _ek-cheō_ ] upon [ _epi_ ] the earth [or ground: _gé_ ] , from the blood of Abel the righteous [ _dikaios_ ] to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple [ _naos_ ] and the altar [ _thysiastérion_ ] .

(36) Truly [ _amén_ ] I say to you, all [ _panta_ ] these (things) will come upon [ _epi_ ] this generation [ _genea_ ] .

I find it highly noteworthy that in Matthew 27:25 the Jewish people say, "His blood (be) upon [ _epi_ ] us and upon [ _epi_ ] our children," while in Matthew 23:36 Jesus says, "Truly I say to you, all [ _panta_ ] these (things) will come upon [ _epi_ ] this generation [ _genea_ ]." [Consider that, given the context, the phrase "all these (things)" would be most reasonably read as referring to " _all these voices of the blood_ spilled upon the earth."] I believe the phrase "this generation" that one encounters here in Matthew 23:36, as well as in a number of other instances in the Gospels, was often (if not always) meant to be understood as referring to all those persons living in the "present age"; I do _not_ believe the authors meant for readers to be thinking of ordinary, conventionally understood "generations." So for the Jewish people to express a wish for the symbolic "blood" (and more specifically, "the _voices_ of the blood") to come upon both them _and_ their "children" was, I believe, meant to convey the idea that the final "revealing" of the previously "hidden" symbolic "blood" and its "voices" is what would not only bring the "present age" to its end, but also usher in the "New Age" in which _all of_ the members of the _next_ metaphorical "generation" would necessarily be living. Moreover, such an interpretation would explain why Jesus says, "Truly I say to you," when he says that "all these (things) will come upon this generation." I believe the figure of Jesus is _not_ merely _making a prediction_ about the future when he says this; he is _not_ promising that certain events will occur within the next twenty, or thirty, or even one hundred years following the writing of that passage. Rather, the authors, speaking _through_ the figure of Jesus, are telling people _what must necessarily happen_ — no matter how long it takes — if the "present age" is ever to come to an end.

Also notice that in Matthew 27:24, Pilate says, "You yourselves will see," which is reminiscent of what the chief priests say to Judas in Matthew 27:4 (in the same chapter no less) when Judas tries to return the "thirty pieces of silver": "What (is it) to us (that you delivered over innocent blood)? You will see." (As with Matthew 27:4, the Greek word used by the author, _opesthe_ , is a form of the verb _horaō_ in the future tense and the indicative mood, not the imperative mood.) So perhaps what the author of these two passages meant for the Jews to be understood as _really_ saying was, "We will see the symbolic blood of 'Jesus' and all of the other 'slain prophets,' _and their previously hidden voices_ , coming _upon us_ , the Jewish people" — which is something that Matthew 27:3-10 suggests could only occur _outside of the temple_ [Greek _naos_ ], by all of the Jewish people _going out_ to the symbolic "Field of Blood" themselves.

##  The conceptual interrelations between and among the figures of Jesus, Judas, and Zechariah; and the symbols of "shepherds" and "sheep"

When Matthew 27:3-10 is cross-referenced with Zechariah 11:4-17 (both of which passages speak of paying out "thirty pieces of silver" as someone's "wages" or "payment"), one encounters what appears to be a possible symbolic inconsistency, in that _both_ the figure of "Jesus" _and_ the figure of "Judas" might plausibly be seen as corresponding to the "useless shepherd" or "worthless shepherd" or "incompetent shepherd" of Zechariah 11:4-17. Exactly whose "value" is the "thirty pieces of silver" a measurement of? That of the figure who received that silver as his "wages" (namely, Zechariah or Judas)? Or, given the fact that in Matthew 27:3-10 the "thirty pieces of silver" is referred to as the "price of blood" or "value of blood," was the "thirty pieces of silver" meant to be thought of as a measurement of the "value" of the figure whose "blood" was or would be shed (namely, Jesus)?

Let's take a closer look at these passages. Again, Matthew 27:6 says,

(6) And the chief priests, having taken the (thirty pieces of) silver, said, "It is not lawful to put [or cast: _ballō_ ] them into the treasury [ _korban_ ] , since it is the price [or value: _timé_ ] of blood.

And again, Matthew 27:9 says,

(9) Then was fulfilled that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "And they took the thirty (pieces of) silver, the price [or value: _timé_ ] of the one who has been priced [or, 'of the one whose value has been appraised': _timaō_ ] , upon whom those from the sons of Israel set a price [or 'to whom they assigned a value': _timaō_ ]."

And again, Zechariah 11:12-13 says,

(12) And I said to them, "If it is good in your eyes, give me my wages [LXX _misthos_ ]. And if it is not, forbear." And they weighed out for my wages [LXX _misthos_ ] thirty (pieces) of silver. (13) And the Lord said to me, "Cast it to the Potter [ _yatsar_ ]" — the handsome price at which I was valued by them. And I took the thirty (pieces) of silver, and I cast (the silver) (into) the house of the Lord, to the Potter [ _yatsar_ ].

According to Matthew 27:6 and Matthew 27:9, the "thirty pieces of silver" represent the "price" or "value" _of Jesus_ ; while in Zechariah 11:12-13, the "thirty pieces of silver" represent the "price" or "value" _of Zechariah_. Is that an inconsistency? I would say no, for the reason already indicated in what I wrote above in my translation of Zechariah 11:4-17, and which I will here repeat: "Did the _individual_ prophet Zechariah ever make a 'covenant with all the peoples'? Of course he didn't — so in this instance Zechariah must be speaking _in the voice_ of the archetypal and universal 'Prophet,' representing _all_ prophets." But I have been arguing that the figure of "Jesus Christ" was _also_ meant to be seen as "the archetypal and universal 'Prophet,' representing _all_ prophets." So the figures of "Zechariah" and "Jesus" seem to have, in effect, merged together.

At first that way of trying to reconcile these two symbolic schemes may seem to make matters more murky instead of more clear, since it would raise the question of what the authors of the New Testament meant for _Judas's_ role in the Gospel narratives to be understood as being. When Jesus is "handed over," are the "wages" paid for that act of "handing over" being paid to "the archetypal and universal 'Prophet'" — that is, "Jesus Christ" — as _payment_ for his symbolic "blood"? Or are those "wages" being paid to "Judas Iscariot"? The best answer, I believe, would be "both."

The way in which I am suggesting that we resolve this apparent problem helps to illustrate why it is so enormously important that we regard the characters in the Bible as _symbolic figures_ , and not as _historical individual persons_. When we view the characters as symbolic figures, then it becomes possible to think of the _figure_ of Judas as _a split-off part_ of the _figure_ of Jesus Christ. Of course, such an idea makes no sense at all so long as we are thinking of these characters as concrete, historical individual persons; but it does make (at least some) sense if we are interested solely in discovering the intended _symbolic significance_ of these figures. If we do think of the figure of Judas as "a split-off part" of the figure of Jesus Christ, then it becomes possible to think of Jesus as, in a sense, handing _himself_ over when Judas supposedly "betrays" him.

And that might help to explain why Matthew 27:5 says,

(5) And, having cast [ _rhiptō_ ] the (thirty pieces of) silver into the temple [ _naos_ ] , (Judas) withdrew, and, having gone away [or passed away: _ap-erchomai_ ] , he hanged [ _ap-agchō_ ] himself.

In other words, perhaps, after having served his purpose _as a character in the Gospel narrative_ , the symbolic figure of "Judas" is being allowed to "withdraw" and "pass away" as a _separate_ symbolic figure.

Incidentally, the idea I just suggested, that Jesus be thought of as handing _himself_ over when Judas supposedly "betrays" him, finds a possible echo in Zechariah 11:4-17. I previously offered the suggestion in Chapter 5 of this book that what made the figure of Abel "righteous" was that he was the kind of "shepherd" who was trying to sacrificially offer up the symbolic "Lamb" or "Sheep" _found within himself_ ; in other words, he was trying to engage in acts of _self-sacrifice_. Similarly, one gets the overall impression that the symbolic "shepherds" and the symbolic "sheep" (or "lambs") spoken of Zechariah 11:4-17 are both facing the _same_ basic predicament: they are both "doomed to be slaughtered." That raises the possibility that Zechariah — who, again, in Zechariah 11:4-17 is speaking _in the voice_ of the archetypal and universal "Prophet," corresponding to "Jesus" (who, again, is said in Revelation 7:17 to be both "Lamb" and "Shepherd") — was meant to be understood as representing not only the "useless shepherd," but _also_ those very "sheep" or "lambs" that had been sacrificed and abandoned _by_ that same "useless shepherd." So by being willing to "take up the implements of a useless shepherd," might it not be said that Zechariah was actually _betraying himself_ , if he was in fact also _at the same time_ meant to be understood as representing one or more of the "sheep" or "lambs" over which he had been given charge? If so, then I think the "Jesus/Judas" _composite figure_ might be thought of in a similar manner.

We can find additional evidence along these lines, that the authors of the New Testament never meant for the figure of "Judas" to be seen as the "villain" or "bad guy" that he subsequently received a reputation for being — any more than the prophet Zechariah has ever been regarded as a "villain" or "bad guy" for letting his readers know that he "abandoned his flock." And evidence such as this that might "exonerate" or "rehabilitate" the figure of Judas deserves close attention, because of the fact that the English name "Judas" is the anglicized transliteration of the Greek word/name _ioudas_ — which also happens to be the Greek word/name for the tribe of "Judah" (Hebrew _yehudah_ ). And given the fact that the figure of "Judas" is also described in the New Testament as being one of Jesus's _twelve_ disciples — just as the tribe of "Judah" is one of the _twelve_ tribes of Israel — the figure of "Judas" was very likely meant to be seen as symbolizing "the Jewish people." So if it can be determined that the figure of "Judas" was never meant to be seen as the "villain" or "bad guy" in the Gospel story, then that would strongly suggest that the authors of the New Testament never meant for "the Jewish people" to be seen as the "villains" or "bad guys" of the Gospel story either.

For instance, carefully consider Acts 1:15-19, which says,

(15) And in these days (after Jesus's Ascension), Peter stood up [or rose up: _an-istémi_ ] in (the) middle of the brothers — (the) number of names (gathered together there) was about one hundred and twenty — (and) he said, (16) "Men, brothers, it was necessary that the scripture be fulfilled [ _pléroō_ ] which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand through (the) mouth [ _stoma_ ] of David, concerning Judas, the one who became guide [ _hodégos_ ] to those who apprehended [ _syl-lambanō_ ] Jesus. [The Greek word _syl-lambanō_ , like the English words "apprehend" and "grasp," can carry either the more physical sense of "to arrest, to seize," or the more conceptual sense of " _to understand, to comprehend_." This same word _syl-lambanō_ can also mean "to conceive" — either in the sense of "conceiving a child" or in the sense of "conceiving an idea" — and, in fact, _syl-lambanō_ is the Greek word used in the LXX translation of Genesis chapter 4 whenever it is said that Eve or some other figurative woman "conceived" a child.]

(17) "For he was counted among us, and obtained by lot a share in this ministry. (18) And so he acquired [or came into possession of: _ktaomai_ ] a field [ _chōrion_ ] out of (the) wages [ _misthos_ ] of unrighteousness [ _a-dikia_ ] . And, having (gone) [ _ginomai_ ] forward [or head-first, or headlong: _prénés_ or _pranés_ ] [might that be read to signify "voluntariness" on Judas's part?], he burst open [or cracked open: _laskō_ ] (in the) middle, and all his innards poured out [or spilled out: _ek-cheō_ ] ." (19) (And it became known to all those dwelling in Jerusalem, so that that field [ _chōrion_ ] was called in their own language "Akel-dama [ _hakeldamach_ ] ," that is, "Field [ _chōrion_ ] of Blood.")

[Consider, by the way, that the Aramaic word _akal_ , like the Hebrew word _akal_ , means "to eat"; so it strikes me as possible that a more literal translation of _akel-dama_ than the one provided by the author of Acts 1:15-19 might perhaps be "Eater of Blood" or "Drinker of Blood" — which, if that is in fact correct, would be reminiscent of Genesis 4:11, which describes the "ground" as "opening up" its "mouth" to receive the "blood" of Abel. Ask yourself: If "Field of Blood" (Greek _chōrion haimatos_ ) was meant to be thought of as the most literal possible translation of the Aramaic word _akel-dama_ , then why would the author have even bothered to additionally include the Aramaic word — if not in order to create a conceptual association in the minds of at least some readers for the purpose of calling those readers' attention to some possibly new and unexpected idea? (Having said that, however, I wish to emphasize that I am _not at all certain_ that the alternative translation of _akel-dama_ that I am proposing here is correct. One reason for my lack of certainty is that the Hebrew word _chelqah_ can mean "field," and the Hebrew word _cheleq_ can mean "portion of land," so it strikes me as possible that in the Aramaic equivalent of either Hebrew word, the last syllable may have been absent, in which case a word resembling _ha-chel_ would mean "the field" or "the portion of land"; and that may have been transliterated into Greek as a word corresponding to the _hakel_ found in _hakeldamach_. But — as always, unfortunately — still another possibility that we are forced to consider is that a verbal pun may have been intended by the author.)]

In response to Acts 1:15-19: First consider that if we did decide to translate the Greek word _syl-lambanō_ as "to understand, to comprehend," then wouldn't we have to consider it to be a _good thing_ , and not a _bad thing_ , that the symbolic figure of "Judas" acted as "guide" to those who eventually came to "understand" or "comprehend" Jesus?

Second, by now we've learned that the symbolic "Field of Blood" is actually a place of honor, not disgrace, since it is the symbolic "place" where all of the "righteous blood" that has ever been "spilled" since the beginning of human religious culture is to be found. So even though Judas is said to have "acquired a field out of the wages of unrighteousness [Greek _a-dikia_ ]," he is also said to have immediately followed that "acquisition" by _contributing his own symbolic "blood_ _"_ to the very same "Field of Blood" to which Abel was the first Biblical figure to contribute _his_ symbolic "blood" — an act which, according to Jesus in Matthew 23:34-35, means that Judas's "spilled blood" ought to henceforth be regarded as "righteous [Greek _dikaios_ ] blood":

(34) For this reason, behold, I send out to you prophets and wise (men) and scribes. (Those) from among them you will kill and will crucify, and (those) from among them you will flog in your synagogues and will persecute [or pursue: _diōkō_ ] from town to town, (35) in order that upon you might come all (the) righteous [ _dikaios_ ] blood being poured out [or spilled out: _ek-cheō_ ] upon the earth [or ground: _gé_ ] , from the blood of Abel the righteous [ _dikaios_ ] to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered [ _phoneuō_ ] between the temple [ _naos_ ] and the altar [ _thysiastérion_ ].

Notice how both Acts 1:18-19 and Matthew 23:34-35 speak of "blood" being "poured out" (or "spilled out": Greek _ek-cheō_ ) upon the ground. I believe it would be reasonable to infer from a comparison of these two passages, as well as from a consideration of what I have already written in this book, that all symbolic "blood" was likely understood by the authors of the New Testament to be presumptively "unrighteous" _until_ it has been "spilled out" or "poured out" upon the symbolic "ground" or "earth"; the _willingness_ to allow one's "blood" to be "shed" or "spilled" is how the " _genuineness_ " of that "blood" would be " _tested_." There is no reason to assume that Abel's "blood" was perceived by those authors to have been "righteous" _before_ it was "spilled" upon the "ground" as a result of Cain having killed him. In fact, there is every reason to think that the "unrighteousness" of Abel's "blood" _is precisely what led Abel to want_ to offer his sacrifices of "lambs" or "sheep" to the Lord. In other words, Abel — unlike Cain — would have been _fully aware_ of his own unrighteousness, and therefore would have been searching to find _some means by which_ to bring that unrighteousness to an end. Moreover, I believe it is likely that the _search_ for those "means" is what Abel's "offerings" were symbolically meant to represent — which would explain why the Lord looked upon those "offerings" with favor.

Again, Acts 1:18 says that Judas "acquired [or came into possession of: _ktaomai_ ] a field [ _chōrion_ ]" with his "thirty pieces of silver." Notice how this is reminiscent of the parable that Jesus tells in Matthew 13:44, already quoted above in this chapter:

The kingdom of the heavens is like a treasure [ _thésauros_ ] hidden [or concealed, or kept secret: _kryptō_ ] in the field [ _agros_ ] , which a man [ _anthrōpos_ ] having found [or discovered: _heuriskō_ ], hid [or concealed, or kept secret: _kryptō_ ]. And from the joy [ _chara_ ] of it, he goes away and sells [ _pōleō_ ] all things [ _panta_ ] that he has, and buys [ _agorazō_ ] that field [ _agros_ ].

Was "Judas" (among other figures) meant to be understood to be that "man"? It certainly seems at least possible. In that case, might Judas have "acquired" the "Field of Blood" precisely _so that he could_ "burst open" and "spill out" his "innards" (including his "blood") there? Might his goal have been to _mingle_ his own symbolic "blood" with all of the other "righteous blood" found in the symbolic "Field of Blood"? Might performing that symbolic act of self-sacrifice have been thought by the authors of the New Testament to be the necessary _means_ by which Judas (and all other figures and persons) would _overcome_ the "unrighteousness" that plagues _all of us_ as human beings?

Also related to the question of Judas's "righteousness" or "unrighteousness" is Luke 15:4-7, in which Jesus tells the Parable of the Lost Sheep:

(4) What man [ _anthrōpos_ ] of you, having a hundred sheep, and having lost [ _apollymi_ ] one of them, does not leave behind [ _kata-leipō_ ] the ninety-nine in the wilderness [ _erémos_ ] and go after the one lost [ _apollymi_ ] until he should find [ _heuriskō_ ] it. (5) And, having found [ _heuriskō_ ] (it), he lays (it) upon his shoulders, rejoicing [ _chairō_ , related to the word _chara_ , meaning "joy"]. (6) And, having come to the house, he calls together the friends and the neighbors, saying to them, "Rejoice together with [syg- _chairō_ ] me, for I found [ _heuriskō_ ] my sheep, the one that became lost [or ruined, or destroyed: _apollymi_ ] !" (7) I say to you that in the same way, there will be joy [ _chara_ ] in heaven over one sinner repenting [ _meta-noeō_ ] , rather than over ninety-nine righteous (persons) [ _dikaios_ ] who have no need of repentance [ _meta-noia_ ] . [Of course, the reference to the "ninety-nine righteous persons who have no need of repentance" is merely rhetorical. The universal Christian belief is that no such persons actually exist in real life; they only exist in people's own minds.]

[By the way, a comparison between Luke 15:4-7 and Acts 1:15-19 (in which Judas is described contributing his own "blood" to the "Field of Blood") is especially significant given the fact that the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts are traditionally attributed to the same author, so that the Book of Acts is often regarded as a kind of "continuation of" or "sequel to" the Gospel of Luke.]

Now compare Luke 15:4-7 with Matthew 27:3-4, which says,

(3) Then Judas, the one who delivered over [or handed over, or betrayed, or gave up, or transmitted, or handed down (as a tradition): _para-didōmi_ ] (Jesus), having seen that (Jesus) was condemned [ _kata-krinō_ ] , and having come to regret [or repent of: _meta-melomai_ ] (his actions), returned [ _strephō_ ] the thirty (pieces) of silver to the chief priests and elders, (4) saying, "I sinned, having given up [or handed over, or delivered over, or betrayed, or transmitted, or handed down (as a tradition): _para-didōmi_ ] innocent [ _athōos_ ] blood."

And finally, compare Matthew 27:3-4 with Zechariah 11:4-5 (LXX), in which we find this same Greek word _meta-melomai_ :

(4) Thus said the Lord my God, "Pasture [or shepherd, or tend, or feed: _ra'ah_ ; LXX _poimanō_ ] the flock (of sheep) to be slaughtered [ _haregah_ ; LXX _sphagé_ ] , (5) whose owners [or possessors: _qanah_ ; LXX _ktaomai_ ] slaughter [or butcher, or murder, or kill: _harag_ ; LXX _kata-sphazō_ ] them and are not held guilty [or (do not) feel guilty: _asham_ ; LXX _meta-melomai_ , which means 'repent, regret, feel remorse,' and which is derived from _melō_ , meaning 'to care, to be concerned'; so that _meta-melomai_ literally means something like 'to change one's object of care or concern'], and those who sell [ _makar_ ; LXX _pōleō_ ] them say, 'Blessed be the Lord (and I have become rich!),' and their shepherds [ _ra'ah_ ; LXX _poimén_ ] do not show mercy to [or have compassion on, or spare: _chamal_ ; LXX _paschō_ , meaning 'feel suffering (because of)'] them." [Compare the use here of the Greek word _paschō_ to its use in Luke 24:26.]

So, given all of that information, do you think the authors of the New Testament would have wished to see someone in Judas's position being condemned to an eternity in hell, as Dante thought would be fitting for him? Do you think the authors of the New Testament would have likely meant for the figure of Judas — by the time of his death, that is — to be regarded as more of a "worthless shepherd," or as more of a "good shepherd"? (I will be speaking more about the distinction between a "worthless shepherd" or "useless shepherd," and a "good shepherd," in the next chapter.)

##  The equivalence between the "Field of the Potter" and the "Field of Blood"

In this section I will quickly point out why the symbolic "Field of Blood" is actually _equivalent to_ the symbolic "Field of the Potter"; and then I will also discuss what I think the authors of the Bible may have meant for that symbolic equivalence to signify.

First let's take another look at Zechariah 11:12-13:

(12) And I [Zechariah] said to them, "If it is good in your eyes, give me my wages. And if it is not, forbear." And they weighed out for my wages thirty (pieces) of silver. (13) And the Lord said to me, "Cast it to the Potter [ _yatsar_ ]" — the handsome price [ _yeqar_ ] at which I was valued [ _yaqar_ ] by them. And I took the thirty (pieces) of silver, and I cast (the silver) (into) the house of the Lord, to the Potter [ _yatsar_ ].

Next let's take another look at Matthew 27:6-10:

(6) And the chief priests, having taken the (thirty pieces of) silver, said, "It is not lawful to put [or cast: _ballō_ ] them into the treasury [ _korban_ ] , since it is the price [or value: _timé_ ] of blood. (7) Then, after having taken counsel [ _sym-boulion_ ] , they bought [ _agorazō_ ] with (the thirty pieces of silver) the Field [ _agros_ ] of the Potter [ _kerameus_ ] , as a burial (ground) for the foreigners [or strangers: _xenos_ ] . (8) Therefore that field [ _agros_ ] has been called "Field [ _agros_ ] of Blood" even to today.

(9) Then was fulfilled [ _pléroō_ ] that which was spoken through Jeremiah the prophet, saying, "And they took the thirty (pieces of) silver, the price [or value: _timé_ ] of the one who has been priced [or, 'of the one whose value has been appraised': _timaō_ ], upon whom those from the sons of Israel set a price [or 'to whom they assigned a value': _timaō_ ]. (10) And they gave (the thirty pieces of silver) for [or put them into: _eis_ ] the Field [ _agros_ ] of the Potter [ _kerameus_ ] , just as the Lord directed me."

So it seems pretty straightforward that the author of Matthew 27:6-10 meant to tell us that the symbolic "Field of Blood" and the symbolic "Field of the Potter" are actually the same thing. I've already discussed what I think the symbolic significance of the "Field of Blood" might be. But what is this "Field of the Potter"?

I think the answer is to be found in Genesis 2:5-8. Notice how the same Hebrew word that is used in Zechariah 11:13, _yatsar_ (meaning "to form, to fashion, to mold," as with a piece of clay), is also used in Genesis 2:5-8:

(5) (The day that the Lord God made the heavens and the earth was) before any shrub [ _siach_ ; LXX _chlōros_ , meaning "green thing"] of the field [ _sadeh_ ; LXX _agros_ ] came into being in the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , and before any plant [ _eseb_ ; LXX _chortos_ ] of the field [ _sadeh_ ; LXX _agros_ ] grew up [or sprouted up, or rose up: _tsamach_ ; LXX _anatellō_ ] , for the Lord God had not caused it to rain [ _matar_ ; LXX _brechō_ ] on the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , and no man [ _adam_ ; LXX _anthrōpos_ ] (existed) to work [or till, or cultivate: _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ] . (6) And a mist [ _ed_ ; LXX _pégé_ , meaning "a spring, a fountain"] ascended [ _alah_ ; LXX _ana-bainō_ ] from the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , and watered [ _shaqah_ ; LXX _potizō_ ] the whole face [or surface: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] of the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] .

(7) And the Lord God formed [or fashioned, or molded (as a potter would mold a clay vessel): _yatsar_ ; LXX _plassō_ ] the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _ho anthrōpos_ ] from the (wet) mud [or clay, or dust, or dirt, or ashes: _aphar_ ; LXX _choos_ or _chous_ ] of the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , and blew [ _naphach_ ; LXX _em-physaō_ ] into his nostrils [or his face, _or his anger_ : _aph_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ , meaning "face"] the breath [ _neshamah_ ; LXX _pnoé_ , derived from _pneō_ , meaning "to blow, to breathe," which is related to the Greek word _pneuma_ , meaning "spirit"] of life [ _chay_ ; LXX _zōé_ ] , and the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _ho anthrōpos_ ] became a living [ _chay_ ; LXX _zaō_ ] soul [ _nephesh_ ; LXX _psyché_ ] .

(8) And the Lord God planted [ _nata_ ; LXX _phyteuō_ ] a garden in Eden from the east, and there he placed the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _ho anthrōpos_ ] whom he had formed [or fashioned, or molded: _yatsar_ ; LXX _plassō_ ] .

And after "the man" has been "formed" (Hebrew _yatsar_ ), Genesis 2:15 says,

(15) And the Lord God took the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _ho anthrōpos_ ] and placed him in the Garden [ _gan_ ] of Eden, to work [or till, or cultivate: _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] it and to keep [or preserve, or guard: _shamar_ ; LXX _phylassō_ ] it.

And in Genesis 3:19, after the "Fall of Man" takes place, the Lord says to Adam,

(19) By the sweat of your face [ _or anger_ : _aph_ , related to the Hebrew word _anaph_ , meaning "to be angry"; LXX _prosōpon_ , meaning "face"] you will eat bread, until you return [or turn back: _shub_ ; LXX _apo-strephō_ ] to the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , for from out of it you were taken. For you (are) (wet) mud [or clay, or dust, or dirt, or ashes: _aphar_ ; LXX _gé_ , meaning "earth"], and into (wet) mud [or clay, or dust, or dirt, or ashes: _aphar_ ; LXX _gé_ ] you will return [ _shub_ ; LXX _ap-erchomai_ , which can mean "go off" or "pass away"].

I'm forced to speculate, but the similarity between the Hebrew words _aph_ , which can mean "face" or "nostril" or "anger" (presumably because "flared nostrils" often accompany "anger"), and _aphar_ , which can mean "mud" or "clay" or "dust," leads me to suspect that the author expected that this similarity would be noticed, and wished to communicate a message of some kind by using what appears to be a possible play on words. I think the author may have meant to hint that the original placement by the Lord of "the man" in the Paradise of Eden was actually _a removal of him from a state of anger_ ; and that by expelling "the man" from that Paradise, the Lord was _allowing him to return_ to that original state of anger. I offer this suggestion not only because of the possible play on words contained in Genesis 3:19, but also because in Genesis 4:5-6 Cain is described as feeling great "anger" toward his brother Abel; and as I explained in Chapter 5 of this book, a good argument can be made that by Cain killing his brother as a result of that "anger," he was _replicating_ the same basic decision that Adam made in the Garden of Eden which led to the "Fall of Man." And that would in turn tend to suggest that the decision made by Adam which led to the "Fall of Man" and his expulsion from Paradise was _also_ somehow rooted in "anger." (By the way, it is worth mentioning that in the ancient Zoroastrian religion of Iran, which both influenced and was influenced by the religion of the ancient Israelites, the functional equivalent of "Satan" was named _Angra Mainyu_ — which literally means something like "Angry Spirit" or "Hostile Spirit.")

Related to that idea, I am inclined to think that the "forming" (or "molding": Hebrew _yatsar_ ; Greek _plassō_ ) of "the man" was _not_ meant to be understood as referring to his _physical_ "formation," or to his being given _physical_ life; I believe it was meant to be understood as referring to his _spiritual_ "formation." That idea receives some support from Zechariah 12:1, which, significantly, appears in the text just after the prophet Zechariah implicitly speaks of an end being brought to all "worthless shepherding" (i.e., all "prophesying"):

The burden of the word [ _dabar_ ; LXX _logos_ ] of the Lord [ _yahweh_ ; LXX _kyrios_ ] against Israel: Thus declares the Lord [ _yahweh_ ; LXX _kyrios_ ], who spreads out the heavens, and who lays down the foundations of the earth, and who forms [or fashions, or molds: _yatsar_ ; LXX _plassō_ ] the spirit [ _ruach_ ; LXX _pneuma_ ] of man [ _adam_ ; LXX _anthrōpos_ ] within him....

So when in Genesis 3:19 the Lord says to Adam, "For you (are) (wet) mud [or clay, or dust, or dirt, or ashes: _aphar_ ; LXX _gé_ , meaning 'earth'], and into (wet) mud [or clay, or dust, or dirt, or ashes: _aphar_ ; LXX _gé_ ] you will return [ _shub_ ; LXX _ap-erchomai_ , meaning 'go off' or 'pass away']," I believe this "returning into wet mud" or "returning into wet clay" was meant to convey the idea that Adam, "the man," would need to be _spiritually_ reformed (or _re-formed_ ) before he would be able to reenter the Paradise of Eden. Remember, that original "forming" of "the man" _did not take place in the Garden of Eden_ ; so if he is to be "re-formed," then that "re-forming" would presumably _also_ need to take place in the symbolic "ground" _outside of_ the Garden of Eden.

But if that symbolic "ground" outside of the Garden of Eden is what the "Field of the Potter" signifies, then what does it mean for the author of Matthew 27:6-10 to _identify it_ with the symbolic "Field of Blood"? I think the answer can be found by supposing that the discord between the figures of Cain and Abel was meant to represent the discord _within "the man" himself_ which had been _created_ by the "Fall of Man." In other words, I believe Cain and Abel were meant to represent _two different aspects_ of "the man."

Furthermore, it appears that the _way_ in which "the man" (representing all of mankind) would be "re-formed," so that he could reenter the Garden of Eden, would need to be through the shedding of symbolic "blood." If it is correct to conclude that the authors of the Bible meant for it to be understood that Adam would need to be "re-formed" not only in the "Field of the Potter," but also in the "Field of Blood" (because of the symbolic equivalence of the two), then the "wetness" of the mud or clay or dirt found in that symbolic "field" the second time around would result from the field having been "watered" with " _blood_."

Again, Genesis 3:19 says,

(19) By the sweat of your face you will eat bread, until you return to the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , for from out of it you were taken.

If "Abel" and "Cain" were meant to be understood as representing the two different "parts" or "aspects" of a single "man," then for "the man" Adam to _fully_ "return to the ground," _both_ Abel _and Cain_ would need to "return to the ground." And the way in which Cain would do so would presumably be by allowing his own "blood" to be "spilled" upon the "Field of Blood," so that the "ground" or "earth" would "swallow" his "blood" just as it had already "swallowed" the "blood" of Abel.

And that shouldn't necessarily be surprising, if we first consider the etymological relation between the Hebrew words _adam_ (meaning "man") and _adamah_ (meaning "ground"), and then also consider the etymological relation between the Hebrew word _adam_ and the Hebrew word _dam_ , meaning "blood." I believe it's reasonable to suppose that the authors of the Bible meant to convey the idea that for "Adam" to return to the Garden of Eden, the "Field of the Potter" would first have to _become_ a "Field of Blood" for _both_ of Adam's two "parts" (i.e., his two "sons"). In other words, before the "curse" could be lifted from the "ground" or "earth," it would be necessary that the symbolic "blood" of both Abel _and Cain_ have already been spilled upon that symbolic "field." But since the figure of Abel has already had _his_ "blood" spilled, then we must still be _waiting_ for the figure of _Cain_ to allow _his_ "blood" to be spilled in order that the "curse" of the "ground" or "earth" might be lifted.

To say that an additional "shedding" or "spilling" of symbolic "blood" will be required of some part of mankind is, I think, another way of saying that self-sacrifice, pain, and loss will be required of human beings if they are to ever overcome the evil phenomena that the mythical "man" Adam originally chose to introduce into the world — namely, "prophecy," "prophesying," and religious esotericism — as well as all of the other kinds of deception, dishonesty, and insincerity among human beings which their practice inevitably promotes.

# Chapter 7: The death of the "good shepherd"; and the final redemption of Cain through the workings of the "Son of God"

In this chapter I will further pursue the argument that I've already briefly touched on in this book: that the symbolic "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus" can also be legitimately regarded as the symbolic "Crucifixion and Resurrection _of Cain_." That notion may at first sound preposterous to you — but if it does, it is only because you are still used to thinking about the Bible as if it were a history book, and about the characters of the Bible as if they were actual historical persons being more or less accurately described in that history book.

I've already given some attention in this book to the importance of regarding the characters of the Bible as _symbolic figures_ rather than as _historical individual persons_ ; but the ideas which I present in this chapter make it especially important that readers be fully prepared to think of those characters as symbolic figures, and also understand what that way of thinking would entail. Trying to understand the interrelations between and among these symbolic figures requires the use of a different way of thinking than most persons are in the habit of using, especially when they are reading the Bible. For that reason, I wish to discuss this matter at a bit more length in the next section in the hope of getting readers somewhat more comfortable and familiar with that different way of thinking.

##  How to think about the conceptual interrelations between and among symbolic figures in the Bible

First of all, it must be emphasized when I say that the symbolic "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus" can also be legitimately regarded as the symbolic "Crucifixion and Resurrection _of Cain_ ," I am _not_ saying that the figure of Cain ought to be thought of as "really being" the figure of Jesus, or of the figure of Jesus as "really being" the figure of Cain, or anything along those lines. It is not as if either figure is disguised by some sort of "mask" that he could suddenly rip off to reveal his "true identity." The figures of Jesus and Cain are better thought of being able to _overlap_ and _resemble each other_ and _correspond to each other_ in terms of the symbolic significance and meanings that their respective characterizations in the Bible were intended to convey to the reader.

But this "overlapping" among symbolic figures would not be _limited_ to the figures of Jesus and Cain. _All_ of the symbolic figures in the Bible are capable of "overlapping" in this way to a greater or lesser extent. When dealing with symbolic figures, one never faces rigid "either/or" choices; "both" is _always_ potentially an acceptable explanation of the meaning or meanings that an author intended to convey, and the reference or references that he had in mind, when he was writing about some particular episode described in the Bible. So there is a sense in which one might argue that Jesus corresponds to the figure of Abel, if Abel is also thought of as a "shepherd" who wishes for the "Lamb" within himself to be "offered up" (or to be "sacrificed," or to "ascend") to the Lord; and there is a sense in which one might argue that Jesus corresponds to the figure of Seth, if Jesus is thought of as also coming to serve as a "substitute" for Abel in the performance of that task; and there is a sense in which one might also argue that Jesus corresponds to the figure of Adam, since Jesus is described in the New Testament (for example, in 1 Corinthians 15:42-49) as representing the new "Man" or "Adam" — that is, a new, redeemed, and regenerated mankind. (And the same could be said for any number of other Old Testament figures, such as Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses.) I do believe, however, that it would be a mistake to think of symbolic figures such as Cain, Abel, Seth, or Adam as being "prefigurations" of Jesus, since I believe Jesus was _himself_ a symbolic figure — and, once one moves away from a simplistic linear chronological way of thinking about the order in which the events or episodes described in the Bible occur, it makes no sense at all to speak of one symbolic figure as "prefiguring" another symbolic figure (unless one is equally willing to speak of a particular symbolic figure as "postfiguring" some other symbolic figure).

But even though I think the figure of Jesus might legitimately be seen as corresponding to many different Old Testament figures in various respects, I do believe there is a sort of increasing " _unifying_ " or " _merging_ " that we can see taking place in the Bible between the symbolic figure of Cain and the symbolic figure of Jesus that I consider to be _especially_ interesting and significant for the purpose of understanding the intended meaning of the Bible as a whole — partly due to the fact that this correspondence has gone virtually unnoticed thus far. With this "unifying" or "merging," Jesus might be thought of as "stepping into the shoes" of Cain, so to speak, in order to bring about the final redemption of Cain — which would in turn bring about the final redemption of, first, "the woman," followed by that of "the man." For that reason, I think it would be permissible to speak of the figures of "Cain" and "Jesus" more or less interchangeably in the particular context of the accomplishing of Cain's _final redemption_ from the original "bloodguilt" that he incurred by his killing of Abel.

As I just said, I believe it might be appropriate to think of the symbolic figure of Jesus as "stepping into the shoes" of the symbolic figure of Cain — but _not_ "taking over for Cain" because of Cain having "botched" his own moral duties. It is _Cain himself_ who redeems _himself_ ; and he does so through the development of the very same willingness to _sacrifice himself_ that we see him _refusing_ to display in Genesis chapter 4. We must be open to the idea that the symbolic figure of Cain has the ability to _change_ over the course of the story of the Bible in terms of the way in which we are meant to view him. It would certainly be reasonable to think of the figure of "Jesus Christ" as being opposed in nature to the character of the _original_ "Cain" whom we first encounter in Genesis chapter 4; but we should not assume that "Jesus Christ" would always be opposed in nature to the figure of "Cain" as a general matter — unless we assume that "the Lord" had already "given up" on Cain (which we know from Genesis chapter 4 that he never did). For that reason, the figure of Cain might plausibly be thought of as "transforming into" the figure of Jesus Christ by the time that "the end of the age" arrives, by his gradually becoming more "Christ-like" in the way in which he is characterized (whether explicitly or implicitly) by the authors of the Bible.

Finally, there is a way in which we might view the figure of "Jesus Christ" as corresponding to Cain, _and_ Abel, _and_ Adam, all at the same time. If Cain and Abel were meant to be understood as representing _two different aspects_ of "the man," Adam, then if Cain were to finally _become like_ Abel, so that there would no longer be any _distinction_ to be made between their two characters (with respect to those traits which the authors of the Bible would have deemed relevant), then "the man," Adam — representing all of mankind — would finally be _unified_ and at peace _within himself_.

##  Zechariah chapters 11 through 13, and the archetype of the "good shepherd"

The importance of carefully analyzing Zechariah chapters 11 through 13 for the purpose of understanding the meaning of the entire Christian Bible is indicated by the fact that the Gospels contain at least three clear references to those chapters. The Gospels explicitly refer to those chapters on two occasions (when they refer to verses 12:10 and 13:7 by using phrases such as "it is written" and "in order that scripture might be fulfilled"); and they implicitly refer to them by way of their use of the symbol of the "thirty pieces of silver" paid to Judas. This tells us that the authors of the Gospels must have studied those chapters of the Book of Zechariah very closely. If they were reading those chapters at least as carefully as I have been (which is very likely), then they surely would have drawn many of the same conclusions that I have drawn about its intended meaning; and so they very likely would have been _fully aware_ of the fact that the author of Zechariah 13:1-7 almost certainly _meant_ to allude to the figures of "Cain" and "Abel" in that passage, as I explained in the previous chapter of this book. And that supposition tends to be confirmed by the fact that in Matthew 23:35, and also in Luke 11:50-51, Jesus speaks of both "Abel" and "Zechariah" in the same breath.

In Matthew 23:35 Jesus speaks of

...all (the) righteous blood being poured out [or spilled: _ek-cheō_ ] upon the earth [or ground: _gé_ ] , from the blood of Abel the righteous to [or 'as far as,' or 'until': _heōs_ ] the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah....

And in Luke 11:50-51 Jesus speaks of

...the blood of all the prophets that has been poured out [or spilled: _ek-cheō_ ] from the foundation of the world... from the blood of Abel to [or 'as far as,' or 'until': _heōs_ ] the blood of Zechariah....

These two passages strongly suggest that the authors of the Gospels were _in full agreement with the prophet Zechariah_ that for an end to be brought to the "shedding of the blood of the prophets," the _symbolic dispute between Cain and Abel_ would need to be resolved; and, by a cross-referencing Zechariah 13:1-7 with Matthew 26:31 and Mark 14:27 (the two passages in the Gospels which speak of "striking the shepherd" in reference to the Crucifixion of Jesus), we can additionally conclude that the authors of the Gospels believed that this "resolution" would be brought about by means of the symbolic "Crucifixion of Christ."

Earlier in the book I offered the suggestion that the reason why Jesus associates the figure of "Abel" with the figure of "Zechariah" is that they are both depicted as symbolic "shepherds" — in other words, as "anti-prophetical prophets." But why does Jesus not only _associate_ "Abel" with "Zechariah," but also specifically say that the "spilling of righteous blood" upon the "earth" has been (or would be) " _from_ the blood of Abel _to_ the blood of Zechariah"? I think the most likely explanation is that the authors of the Gospel passages that I just quoted were able to _recognize_ that in his writings Zechariah was _imagining himself_ as the archetypal "Prophet" _at the precise moment_ when Abel's "career" as "shepherd" (which would be representing _all_ "shepherding careers") could finally be _brought to an end_. So the authors of the Gospels would themselves have been well aware of the fact that Zechariah was comparing the "death" of the universal or archetypal "Prophet" (represented partly by the figure of Zechariah) to the "death" of the symbolic "shepherd" (again, represented partly by the figure of Zechariah).

Given its importance in the discussion that follows it, I think it's worth reviewing Zechariah 11:4-17 one more time:

(4) Thus said the Lord my God, "Pasture [or shepherd, or tend, or feed: _ra'ah_ ; LXX _poimanō_ ] the flock (of sheep) to be slaughtered [ _haregah_ ; LXX _sphagé_ ] , (5) whose owners [or possessors: _qanah_ ; LXX _ktaomai_ ] slaughter [or butcher, or murder, or kill: _harag_ ; LXX _kata-sphazō_ ] them and are not held guilty [or (do not) feel guilty: _asham_ ; LXX _meta-melomai_ , which means 'repent, regret, feel remorse,' and is derived from the verb _melō_ , meaning 'to care, to be concerned'], and those who sell [ _makar_ ; LXX _pōleō_ ] them say, 'Blessed be the Lord (and I have become rich!),' and their shepherds [ _ra'ah_ ; LXX _poimén_ ] do not show mercy to [or have compassion on, or spare: _chamal_ ; LXX _paschō_ , meaning 'feel suffering (because of)'] them. [Cf. Luke 24:26.]

(6) "Therefore I will no longer show mercy to [or have compassion on, or spare: _chamal_ ; LXX _pheidomai_ , meaning 'spare'] the inhabitants of the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] ," declares the Lord, "and behold, I will find [ _matsa_ ; LXX _para-didōmi_ , meaning 'deliver over, give up, hand over'] mankind [or man, or 'the man': _ha-adam_ ; the LXX has 'the men' or 'the people': _tous anthrōpous_ ] , every one [ _ish_ ; LXX _hekastos_ ] , in [or into] the hand of his neighbor [ _rea_ ; LXX _plésion_ ] , and in [or into] the hand of his king, and they will all smash [or destroy: _kathath_ ; LXX _kata-koptō_ ] the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , and I will not rescue [ _natsal_ ; LXX _ex-aireō_ ] them from their hand."

(7) And I [Zechariah] pastured the flock to be slaughtered [the LXX then continues by saying "unto the Canaanites"], even the lowly of the flock. And I took for myself two staffs; one I called "Delight" [or "Beauty": _noam_ ; LXX _kallos_ ] and one I called "Bonds" [or "Cords": _chebel_ ; LXX _schoinisma_ , meaning "Measure (of land)," or "Portion," or "Allotment"]. And I pastured the flock. (8) And I made disappear [or concealed: _kachad_ ; LXX _ex-airō_ , meaning "removed" or "took away"] the three shepherds in a single month. And my soul [ _nephesh_ ; LXX _psyché_ ] was wearied [or discouraged, or worn down: _qatsar_ ; LXX _barynō_ ] by them, and their soul also loathed [ _bachal_ ; LXX _epōryō_ , meaning "howled at"] me. (9) And I said, "I will not pasture you [or 'for you,' perhaps?]. That which is dying, let it die. That which is disappearing, let it disappear [ _kachad_ ; LXX _ek-leipō_ ] . And those that remain [ _shaar_ ; LXX _kataloipos_ ] , let each one eat the flesh of the other [the LXX has 'the flesh of his neighbor': _plésion_ ] ."

(10) And I took my staff "Delight" and broke it into pieces [ _gada_ ] , so that I might break [ _parar_ ] the covenant I had made with all the peoples [ _am_ ; LXX _laos_ ] . (11) And it was broken [ _parar_ ] in that day, and so the lowly of the flock who were being watched [or kept, or guarded: _shamar_ ; LXX _phylassō_ ] by me understood [or knew: _yada_ ] that it (was) the word [ _dabar_ ; LXX _logos_ ] of the Lord. [The LXX version of verse 11 has, "And (the covenant) will be disbanded in that day; and the Canaanites will come to know the sheep being guarded by me, because it is the word of the Lord."]

(12) And I said to them, "If it is good in your eyes [or in your sight: _ayin_ ; LXX _enōpios_ ], give me my wages [LXX _misthos_ ] . And if it is not, forbear." And they weighed out for my wages [LXX _misthos_ ] thirty (pieces) of silver.

(13) And the Lord said to me, "Cast it to the Potter [ _yatsar_ ] " — the handsome price at which I was valued by them. And I took the thirty (pieces) of silver, and I cast (the silver) (into) the house of the Lord, to the Potter [ _yatsar_ ] .

[For Zechariah 11:13, the LXX instead has, "And the Lord said to me, 'Lower them into the smelting-furnace, and examine (to find out) if (the silver) is genuine [LXX _dokimos_ ],' in which manner I was tested [LXX _dokimazō_ ] for their sake. And I took the thirty (pieces of) silver and cast [LXX _em-ballō_ ] them into the house of the Lord, into the smelting-furnace." (Cf. Zechariah 13:8-9.)]

(14) And I broke into pieces [ _gada_ ] my second staff, "Bonds," so that I might break [ _parar_ ] the brotherhood between Judah and Israel.

(15) And the Lord said to me, "Next take for yourself the implements of a useless [or worthless, or incompetent, or foolish, or silly, or unskilled: _evili_ ; LXX _apeiros_ ] shepherd.

(16) "For behold, I am raising up [ _qum_ ; LXX _ex-egeirō_ , which can also mean 'rousing'] a shepherd in the land [or earth: _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] who will not show concern for [or pay attention to, or look after: _paqad_ ; LXX _epi-skeptomai_ ] those hidden from view [ _kachad_ ; LXX _ek-leipō_ , which can also mean '(those) left out'] , nor seek the young [or scattered ones: _naar_ ; LXX _skorpizō_ ] , nor heal the broken, nor sustain [or nourish: _kul_ ; LXX _kat-euthynō_ , meaning 'guide, direct'] those who are established [ _natsab_ ; LXX _holokléos_ , meaning 'sound, complete'], and (who) eats the flesh of the fat (sheep), and tears apart [ _parach_ ; LXX _ek-strephō_ ] their hooves [ _parsah_ , derived from the verb _paras_ , meaning 'to break in two, to divide, to split'; LXX _astragalos_ , which can mean 'knucklebones'].

(17) "Woe to the useless shepherd, who abandons the flock! [For the previous sentence, the LXX instead has, 'O those tending [LXX _poimainō_ ] the vain [or unimportant, or trivial, or pointless, or worthless: LXX _mataios_ ] (matters), and abandoning [LXX _kata-leipō_ ] the sheep!'] A sword [ _chereb_ ; LXX _machaira_ ] (will strike) against his arm and against his eye! His right arm will completely wither [ _yabesh_ ; LXX _xérainō_ ] , and his right eye will completely darken [ _kahah_ ; LXX _ek-typhlaō_ , meaning 'be made completely blind']!"

Given that we've already established that for Zechariah "shepherds" serve as a metaphorical symbol for "prophets" of some kind, notice the profoundly "anti-prophetical" overall tone of this passage — indeed, a "self-hating" tone, in view of the fact that the author of the passage is himself a "prophet." Zechariah doesn't seem to have a very high estimation of the "prophetical" vocation as a whole, even including _his own_ performance as a "prophet." Now try to reconcile that with a passage such as Matthew 23:34-35, in which Jesus says,

(34) For this reason, behold, I send out to you prophets and wise (men) and scribes. (Those) from among them you will kill and will crucify, and (those) from among them you will flog in your synagogues and will persecute or pursue: _diōkō_ ] from town to town, (35) in order that upon you might come all (the) righteous [ _dikaios_ ] blood being poured out [or spilled: _ek-cheō_ ] upon the earth [or ground: _gé_ ] , from the blood of Abel the righteous [ _dikaios_ ] to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah [which is a reference to the prophet Zechariah; see [Zechariah 1:1], whom you murdered between the temple [ _naos_ ] and the altar [ _thysiastérion_ ].

How can we account for the fact that in Zechariah 11:4-17 the prophet Zechariah seems to be implicitly describing himself as a "useless shepherd" or "worthless shepherd," but at the same time, Jesus describes Zechariah's "blood" as "righteous"? In what way has Zechariah been shown to be a _victim_ comparable to Abel? Wasn't he a _victimizer_ , in so far as he abandoned his "flock doomed to slaughter," to whom he proved to be a "worthless shepherd" or "useless shepherd" or "incompetent shepherd"?

The answer, I believe, can be found by understanding what it really means to be a symbolic "shepherd." Recall that I have previously posited that the symbolic "shepherd" signifies not just a "prophet," but more specifically, an " _anti-prophetical_ prophet." So, by a very strange paradox, the more "useless" or "worthless" or "incompetent" a symbolic "shepherd" becomes _in the eyes of others_ , the more he _discredits_ the entire institution and vocation of "prophesying" — which means that he has performed his _actual_ duties as "shepherd" exactly as he was supposed to. The _entire purpose_ of a _genuine_ "shepherd" is to be "struck down" or "cut down" _as a "shepherd_ **,** _"_ that is, _as a prophet_ _._

(And if any person feels inclined to dispute my contention that a true "shepherd" was meant by the authors of the Bible to be understood as symbolizing an " _anti-prophetical_ prophet" in particular, then I challenge that person to offer _a more convincing explanation_ to account for the apparent strangeness of Zechariah chapters 11 through 13 than the one I have just offered.)

The Bible repeatedly (albeit quite subtly in most cases) tells us that "prophecy" can only be _fulfilled_ by its being _ended_. And prophecy (and prophecy-based religious scriptures, and the religious institutions built upon those scriptures) can only be ended by their being _publicly shown_ to be "worthless" and "useless" — _because they don't meet the actual needs of actual people_ (as Zechariah 11:16 so vehemently reminds us). And that is true of both "pro-prophetical prophecy" _and_ "anti-prophetical prophecy." It must never be forgotten that in the end, the only value of "anti-prophetical prophecy" lies in the fact that it _might_ help to bring about a conclusion to _all_ "prophecy," because _both_ kinds of prophetical discourse are more or less worthless _in comparison_ to other, less deceptive and less misleading kinds of religious discourse.

We find essentially this same idea expressed in John 10:11-18, in which Jesus describes himself as a " _good_ shepherd" _precisely because_ he is willing to "lay down his life" in his role _as_ a "shepherd" (i.e., as an " _anti-prophetical_ prophet"). The willingness to die _as "shepherd_ _"_ is what distinguishes the _ordinary_ "shepherd" from the " _good_ shepherd." In John 10:11-18 Jesus says,

(11) I am the good [ _kalos_ ] shepherd [ _poimén_ ] . The good shepherd lays down his life [ _psyché_ ] for the sheep [ _probaton_ ] . (12) And, not being (the) shepherd, the hired servant [or wage-worker: _misthōtos_ , related to the word _misthos_ , meaning "wages"], whose sheep are not his own, sees the wolf coming, and forsakes [ _aphiémi_ ] the sheep and flees; and the wolf snatches them and scatters [ _skorpizō_ ] (them), (13) because he is a hired servant [or wage-worker: _misthōtos_ ] and does not care [or concern (himself): _melō_ ] about the sheep.

(14) I am the good shepherd, and I know [ _ginōskō_ ] those that are mine, and those that are mine know [ _ginōskō_ ] me. (15) Just as my Father knows [ _ginōskō_ ] me, I also know [ _ginōskō_ ] the Father; and I lay down my life for the sheep.

(16) And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold  _aulé_ , which can also mean "courtyard," such as that of the Jewish high priest; see [John 18:15] . It is necessary for me to lead [or bring: _agō_ ] those also, and they will hear my voice, and they will become one flock (with) one shepherd.

(17) For this reason my Father loves me, because I lay down my life, so that I might again take it. (18) No one takes [ _airō_ ] it away from me; rather, I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to again take [or receive: _lambanō_ ] it. This commandment [ _entolé_ ] I received [ _lambanō_ ] from my Father.

First notice that in this passage Jesus contrasts the "good shepherd" with the "hired servant" or "wage-worker" (Greek _misthōtos_ , related to the word _misthos_ , meaning "wages"); and then recall that in Zechariah 11:12 the prophet Zechariah speaks of the "wages" (LXX Greek _misthos_ ) that he receives for his "shepherding" work. Next, in Zechariah 11:13, _in keeping with the instructions of the Lord_ , the prophet describes himself as throwing those same "wages" into "the house of the Lord." Then, almost immediately after that in the text, in Zechariah 11:15-17, the prophet describes himself as being _instructed by the Lord_ to take on the role of a "useless shepherd" or "worthless shepherd" who would be struck by a "sword" (presumably "killing" him, if this is the same "sword" that Zechariah 13:7 says would sooner or later "strike" the "shepherd" — an image which, according to the Gospels, corresponds to Jesus's "crucifixion" and "piercing" and "death"). In other words, it seems that in Zechariah 11:4-17, the prophet Zechariah — speaking _in the voice_ of the _universal and archetypal_ "Prophet" — is describing his _transition_ from mere "wage-worker shepherd" to full-fledged "good shepherd" — that is to say, a "shepherd" who is, _per the Lord's instructions or orders_ (reminiscent of what Jesus says in John 10:18 about a certain "commandment" that he received from "the Father"), willing to be "killed" for the sake of the metaphorical "sheep" — presumably for the purpose of _teaching_ those "sheep" that they would not be safe following _any_ human "shepherds." It is _in this way_ that the "good shepherd" would be protecting the "sheep" from the "wolves" (which we know from Matthew 7:15-20 is a symbol that was at least sometimes meant by the authors of the Gospels to be understood as signifying "false prophets").

Also consider that this idea of the "good shepherd" who is willing to "lay down his life" _as "shepherd_ _"_ corresponds _exactly_ to the idea of the "true prophet" or "truthful prophet" who is willing to "lay down his life" _as "prophet_ _."_ In this book I have been arguing that _there is no such thing_ as a "true prophet" or "truthful prophet"; _all_ "prophets" are actually "false prophets." The only way for a symbolic figure to _escape from_ having that generalization apply to him is by becoming the kind of "prophet" who willingly accepts his own demise _as a prophet_. The _self-contradictory premises_ contained in the idea of the archetypal "good shepherd" and in the idea of the archetypal "true prophet" can in both cases be logically reconciled _only_ by means of the ultimate _self-neutralizing_ or _self-annihilation_ of any symbolic figure designed to act as the personified representative of one of those archetypal ideas. And that explains why the idea of symbolic "death" is so essential to understanding the true message of the Christian Bible, and why that idea of "death" really does lie at the heart of the Christian Bible; and why it has therefore been entirely appropriate for Christians to make the symbol of "the Cross" the primary symbol of their religion.

##  The initial contrast between Cain and Jesus

I've already stated my belief that it would be perfectly legitimate to think of the "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus" as being largely equivalent in its symbolic significance to the "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Cain." Having said that, however, it cannot be denied that there is nothing the least bit "Christ-like" about the Cain we see depicted in Genesis chapter 4. So before discussing the possible resemblances between the figure of Cain and the figure of Jesus, let us first devote some attention to considering the obvious _differences_ that we find between the figure of Cain (as he is initially presented to us) and the figure of Jesus, including Jesus's precepts regarding how a person ought to think and behave.

First recall Genesis 4:11-16, taking place after Cain's killing of Abel, which begins by the Lord saying to Cain,

(11) "And now you are cursed [ _arar_ ; LXX _epi-kataratos_ ] from the ground [or earth: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , which has opened its mouth to receive the blood [ _dam_ ] of your brother from your hand. (12) When you work [ _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , it will not additionally give its strength to you. You will be a vagrant [ _nua_ ; LXX _stenazō_ , meaning 'in groaning'] and a wanderer [ _nud_ ; LXX _tremō_ , meaning 'in trembling'] upon the earth [ _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] ."

(13) And Cain said to the Lord, "My guilt [or punishment: _avon_ ; LXX _aitia_ ] is too great to bear [the LXX has _aphiémi_ , meaning 'to forgive']. (14) Behold, today you have driven me away from the face [or surface: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] of the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , and from your face [or presence: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] I will be hidden [or concealed: _sathar_ ; LXX _kryptō_ ] . I will be a vagrant [LXX 'in groaning'] and a wanderer [LXX 'in trembling'] upon the earth, and it will be that anyone finding [or discovering: _matsa_ ; LXX _heuriskō_ ] me will kill me [or put me to death: _harag_ ; LXX _apo-kteinō_ ] ."

(15) And the Lord said to him, "Therefore anyone killing Cain shall have sevenfold vengeance [LXX _ek-dikeō_ ] taken upon him." And the Lord set upon Cain a sign [or mark, or pledge: _oth_ or _owth_ ; LXX _sémeion_ ] , lest anyone finding him should kill him. (16) And Cain went away from the presence [or face: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] of the Lord, and he dwelt in the land [or earth: _erets_ ; LXX _gé_ ] of Nod [which means "wandering"], to the east of Eden.

As I already mentioned in Chapter 5, the fact that the Lord says to Cain, "Therefore anyone killing Cain shall have sevenfold vengeance taken upon him," tells us that the Lord must have had definite "future plans" for Cain (otherwise, why would the Lord have been so concerned about keeping him alive?) — even if Cain's approach to life would center around a "vengeance-seeking" mentality until the time arrived when those "future plans" would finally begin to come into fruition.

And we find this idea of "vengeance" taken even further in Genesis 4:23-24, which describes what is said by Cain's descendent Lamech:

(23) And Lamech said to his wives, Adah and Zillah, "Hear my voice [ _qol_ ; LXX _phōné_ ] , wives of Lamech, listen to my speech [or words: _imrah_ ; LXX _logos_ ] . For I killed a man for wounding [ _petsa_ ; LXX _trauma_ ] me, and a child for bruising [ _chabburah_ ; LXX _mōlōps_ ] me. (24) For Cain is avenged sevenfold, and Lamech seventy-sevenfold."

[According to the LXX, a more literal translation of verse 24 would be, "Because avenging [LXX _ek-dikeō_ ] seven times [LXX _heptakis_ ] (is) from Cain, and (avenging) seventy times seven times [LXX _hebdomékontakis hepta_ ] (is) from Lamech."]

Now compare that to Matthew 18:21-22:

(21) Then, having come near to (Jesus), Peter said to him, "Lord, how many times will my brother sin against me and I will forgive [ _aphiémi_ ] him? As many as seven times [ _heptakis_ ] ?" (22) Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you as many as seven times [ _heptakis_ ] , but as many as seventy times seven times [ _hebdomékontakis hepta_ ] ."

So it is clear from comparing these last two passages that the authors of the New Testament meant to _contrast_ the idea of "vengeance" with the idea of "forgiveness." Moreover, it also seems clear that the practice of "forgiveness" was meant to be understood as being the _means_ by which mankind would "retrace the steps," so to speak, of Cain's (and Cain's descendents') previous "wandering" in the wake of Cain's being "cursed" as a result of his killing of Abel.

In addition, consider Luke 7:47, in which Jesus, speaking in reference to "a woman who was a sinner in the city," says,

On account of this [that is, the woman's anointing of Jesus's feet], I say to you, her many [ _polys_ ] sins are forgiven [ _aphiémi_ ] , for she has loved [ _agapaō_ ] much [ _polys_ ]. And he who is forgiven [ _aphiémi_ ] little, loves [ _agapaō_ ] little.

Recall Cain's expression in Genesis 4:14 (LXX) of _certainty_ that his sin against Abel could never be "forgiven" (LXX _aphiémi_ ). A comparison of these two passages therefore at least raises the possibility that the author of Luke 7:47 meant for readers to understand that the Cain who was capable of killing Abel was someone who "loved little" — and not just with regard to Abel, but as a general matter. If that is correct, then the author's intended message would appear to be that Cain's failure to be forgiving toward others — that is, his failure to "love" — was inextricably _bound together_ with his certainty that others could never be forgiving (that is, "loving") toward him.

It is of course well known that in the Gospels Jesus is depicted as assigning a great deal of importance to the idea of "forgiveness." For example, in Matthew 6:14-15 Jesus says,

For if you forgive [ _aphiémi_ ] persons their transgressions [or trespasses: _para-ptōma_ ], your heavenly Father will also forgive [ _aphiémi_ ] you. But if you do not forgive [ _aphiémi_ ] persons their transgressions, neither will your Father forgive [ _aphiémi_ ] your transgressions.

And also consider Luke 23:34, which describes Jesus as he is dying on the Cross:

And Jesus was saying, "Father, forgive [ _aphiémi_ ] them, for they do not know [or '(do not) understand,' or '(do not) perceive,' or '(are not) aware of': _eidō_ ] what they are doing [or making, or producing, or accomplishing: _poieō_ ]." [Cf. Genesis 4:10.]

This second passage is significant not just because Jesus is expressing forgiveness toward his persecutors _even as_ they are "killing" him; it is made still more significant because I think the author has Jesus utter his expression of forgiveness at the moment when it is uttered _for the very purpose of calling attention to the fact_ that _it is_ being uttered as they are "killing" him — the prospect of which seems to have been Cain's and Lamech's greatest fear. In other words, I think Jesus's expression of _forgiveness_ was meant to be seen as a _direct repudiation_ of the attitude displayed by Cain and Lamech in Genesis chapter 4. In that chapter, Cain responds to the prospect of his being "killed" by anyone who happens to "find" him by first feeling _fear_ , which then leads to a desire for _vengeance_ against anyone who would dare even to elicit that feeling of fear in him. So it seems likely that the explicit _acceptance_ by Jesus of his own death was meant to be contrasted with the _fear of being killed_ initially expressed by Cain.

Furthermore, I think it would be reasonable to suppose that the authors of the Bible meant to convey the idea that Cain's perpetual "wandering" would cease when Cain no longer felt the need for the kind of "protection from death" that is based upon the seeking of "vengeance" — which would also coincide with the overcoming by Cain of his fear. One might view the attitude displayed by Jesus, both before and during his Crucifixion, as being intended to _neutralize_ and _dissipate_ the negative and destructive mental habits that we can imagine having been built up over time by the figure of Cain and his metaphorical "descendents." Luke 23:34 strongly suggests that the symbolic "Crucifixion of Christ" was meant (in part, anyway) to be seen as dramatically demonstrating that Cain's _certainty_ that his "guilt" for killing Abel was "too great to forgive" was simply _wrong_. If that certainty could disappear, then so too could some of the _fear_ that Cain initially felt; and that would in turn lead to a reduction in the level of _hostility_ that he and his metaphorical "descendents" would feel toward others.

More possible evidence of the contrast between Cain and Jesus might be found by considering Matthew 27:62-66, which says,

(62) And (on) the next day after Jesus's 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, (63) saying, "Sir, we remember how that impostor [or deceiver; more literally, 'misleading one,' or 'wandering one': _planos_ ] said, while he was still living, 'With three days I rise.' (64) Therefore order the tomb to be secured until the third day, lest his disciples come and steal him away, and say to the people, 'He has been raised from the dead'; and the last [ _eschatos_ ] fraud [or deception, or delusion, or deceit; more literally, 'leading astray,' or '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.] (65) Pilate said to them, "You have a guard of soldiers; go, make it (as) secure as you know (how)." (66) So they went (and) made the tomb secure (by) sealing the stone and (setting) the guard of soldiers.

I can't be entirely certain that the "first wandering" was meant to refer to the "wandering" of Cain. After all, according to the Bible the Israelites are said to have spent forty years "wandering" in the desert after their exodus from Egypt; and there are descriptions in the Bible of other figures who have spent time "wandering" (see, e.g., Genesis 37:15). But given that Cain's "wandering" is the _first_ "wandering" that is spoken of in the Bible, it would not be unreasonable to suppose that that is what the author of Matthew 27:62-66 may have had in mind when he speaks of a "first wandering."

[On the other hand, however, also consider that after he kills Abel, Cain is no longer a settled "farmer," someone who continues to be "attached" to the "ground" or "earth." He instead becomes a "wanderer" — which leads one to think that perhaps he was meant to be understood as having adopted a _pastoral life_ like that of his brother Abel, resulting in his eventually becoming a symbolic "shepherd." That would in turn suggest the possibility that the "first wandering" may have been meant to be understood as corresponding to the "wandering" of Abel, while the "last wandering" may have been meant to be understood as corresponding to the "wandering" of Cain (which presumably would have become conceptually "merged together" with the "wandering" of Jesus in the mind of the author of Matthew 27:62-66).]

## The new and improved, "Christ-like" Cain

But even in spite of the obvious differences between the figures of Cain and Jesus as we first encounter those figures, I would still propose that when reading Zechariah chapters 11 through 13, readers think of the "protagonist" who speaks or is spoken about in those chapters as being not necessarily "Zechariah," but _also_ possibly "Jesus" or "the Messiah" — _and also_ possibly "Cain." And I'll give some more of my reasons for proposing that. First recall that in Zechariah 11:10 the author writes,

And I [Zechariah] took my staff "Delight" and broke it into pieces [ _gada_ ], so that I might break [ _parar_ ] the covenant I had made with all the peoples [ _am_ ; LXX _laos_ ].

As I explained in the previous chapter of this book, we _must_ conclude from this that the author of Zechariah 11:4-17 could not have meant to be understood as speaking in the capacity of a single, individual prophet, but rather, in the capacity of the universal, generic, and archetypal "Prophet," who would be representing _all_ prophets — which is also how I believe Jesus Christ was meant to be regarded by the authors of the Gospels. And I see absolutely no reason to think that we should regard that situation as having changed in the text after Zechariah 11:4-17, in chapter 12 (especially verse 10) and in chapter 13. I believe the "piercing" that is described in Zechariah 12:10 and in Zechariah 13:2-4 would have been meant to be understood as applying equally to both "Zechariah as archetypal Prophet" and "Jesus as archetypal Prophet." Likewise, I believe the "striking of the shepherd" described in Zechariah 13:7 would have meant to be understood as applying equally to both "Zechariah as archetypal Prophet" and "Jesus as archetypal Prophet."

But as I have already indicated, I would go further than that, and suggest that the language we find in Zechariah chapters 11 through 13 _also_ be applied to " _Cain_ as archetypal Prophet," so that Cain could _also_ be regarded as the "central character" in this story (which is really a story about "the end of prophecy").

The contrasts between the figure of Cain and the figure of Jesus that I was pointing to in the previous section may lead readers to think of Jesus as having simply been sent into the world by God to "clean up the mess" made by Cain (or Adam); and, once that "mess" has been "cleaned up," the hateful figure of murderous Cain can (thankfully!) be forgotten forever. But when we carefully read Zechariah 13:5-7, things don't appear to be quite that simple.

First let's review Zechariah 13:5:

(5) And (the now-former prophet) will say, "I am no prophet, I am a man [ _ish_ ; LXX _anthrōpos_ ] working [ _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , for a man [or Adam: _adam_ ; LXX _anthrōpos_ ] has possessed [ _qanah_ ] [the LXX instead has 'begat' or 'engendered,' _gennaō_ ] me from my childhood [ _naur_ ; LXX _neotés_ ] ."

And let's again compare Zechariah 13:5 to Genesis 4:1-2:

(1) And the man [or Adam: _ha-adam_ ; LXX _Adam_ ] knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain [ _qayin_ , which means "spear," and is also a play on the Hebrew word _qanah_ , meaning "to acquire"], and said, "I have acquired [or come into possession of: _qanah_ ; LXX _ktaomai_ ] a man [ _ish_ ; LXX _anthrōpos_ ] with (the help of) the Lord." (2) And she added to the begetting (of children) with his brother Abel. And Abel was a shepherd of a flock (of sheep), and Cain worked [or tilled, or cultivated: _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ].

Based on this comparison, I think it's difficult to dispute that the figure depicted as speaking in Zechariah 13:5 was almost certainly meant to be understood as corresponding _at least_ to the figure of _Cain_ (among other figures, perhaps).

Zechariah 13:5 becomes even more significant when it is read in conjunction with the following verse, Zechariah 13:6. If we accept that the "now-former prophet" was actually meant to correspond to the figure of "Cain," then notice the dramatic change that has taken place in Cain's character:

(6) And one [the LXX has "I"] will say to him [that is, to "Cain"], "What are these blows [or stripes, or wounds: _makkah_ ; LXX _plégé_ ] between your hands?" And he will say, "Those with which I was struck [or wounded: _nakah_ ; LXX _eplégén_ , a form of _pléssō_ ] in the house of my beloved (friend) [ _aheb_ ; LXX _agapétos_ ] [the Hebrew has 'beloved (friends),' in the plural]."

I will state at the outset that it's not entirely clear who the "beloved friend" was meant to be understood to be. In my previous book I suggested that this "beloved friend" may have been meant to refer to "God" or "the Lord"; and that suggestion does receive support from the next verse, Zechariah 13:7, in which the Lord says, "Awaken, O sword, against my shepherd, and against the man who is my fellow [or companion, or comrade: _amith_ ; LXX _polités_ , meaning 'fellow-citizen']." [The suggestion receives additional support from 2 Chronicles 20:7 and Isaiah 41:8 (both of which verses use the Hebrew word _aheb_ to describe the Lord God's relationship with Abraham), Exodus 33:11, and John 15:12-14.]

But regardless of whether that suggestion is correct, I believe the author of this verse — especially if one chooses to follow the Hebrew version of it, which speaks of "beloved _friends_ " in the plural — meant to convey the more general idea that Cain has adopted an attitude of _forgiveness_ and _compassion_ and _lovingness_ toward any person or persons who have metaphorically "struck" him — an attitude which has presumably come to replace the _anger_ and the desire for _vengeance_ that Cain previously felt whenever others (whether human beings or the Lord) displayed displeasure or hostility toward him. So I believe that what the author meant for us to see here is a completely _different_ Cain — different from the one we first saw in Genesis chapter 4 — a Cain who has now fully _overcome_ his _anger_ , and his _fear_ of being killed, and his thirst for _vengeance_ if anyone should ever harm him or even threaten him.

And when we then proceed to the next verse, Zechariah 13:7, we find the reference to the "shepherd" which we know from Matthew 26:31 and Mark 14:27 was regarded by the authors of the New Testament as a reference _to Jesus_ , but which we know — because of the repetition of the same Hebrew word _nakah_ in Zechariah 13:6 and Zechariah 13:7 — must almost certainly have _also_ been meant by the author of Zechariah 13:1-7 to be regarded as a reference _to Cain_ :

(7) "Awaken [ _ur_ ; LXX _ex-egeirō_ ] , O sword [ _chereb_ ; LXX _rhomphaia_ ] , against my shepherd [ _roi_ ; LXX _poimén_ ] , and against the man [or warrior: _geber_ ; LXX _anér_ ] who is my fellow [or companion, or comrade: _amith_ ; LXX _polités_ , meaning 'fellow-citizen']," declares the Lord of forces [or hosts: _tsaba_ ] . "Strike [or wound: _nakah_ ; LXX _patassō_ ] the shepherd [ _ra'ah_ ; LXX _poimén_ ] and let the flock of sheep [LXX _probaton_ ] be scattered [ _puwts_ ; LXX _dia-skorpizō_ ] , and I will turn [ _shub_ ; LXX _ep-agō_ , meaning 'bring upon' or 'bring against'] my hand against the little ones [ _tsaar_ ] [the LXX instead has 'against the shepherds'] ."

If it is correct that Zechariah 13:5 was meant to be understood as alluding to the figure of Cain, then when we read that verse in the full context of Zechariah 13:1-7, we can additionally conclude that the author must have meant for the figure of Cain to be understood as having been working as a symbolic "shepherd" prior to the arrival of "the day of the Lord" and prior to the disappearance of all "prophecy" and "prophesying" from the earth. In other words, I believe Cain was meant to be understood as having taken over the "shepherding" role of his brother Abel, and as finally _completing_ the job that Abel _began_ before he was killed. Furthermore, because of Cain's newfound willingness to be "struck" with a "sword," and even "lay down his life" as a "shepherd" without feeling any anger or desire to retaliate, it would appear that Cain has become not only a "shepherd," but also a " _good_ shepherd" — just like Jesus.

So it seems reasonable to suppose that the authors of the New Testament meant for readers to think of the symbolic figure of Cain as having substantially _merged together_ with the symbolic figure of Jesus by the time that the symbolic episode of the "Crucifixion" takes place. If that suggestion sounds at all "defamatory" or "blasphemous" to you, I suspect it is because you are not yet thinking about these symbolic events in the way in which I would recommend that you think about them. I am not trying to "substitute" Cain for Jesus in anyone's mind in order to, so to speak, "write Jesus out of the picture." And I am not suggesting that the figure of Jesus Christ becomes more "Cain-like" as he approaches the hour of his "Crucifixion"; rather, I am suggesting that the figure of Cain becomes more and more "Christ-like" as he approaches the hour of _his_ "Crucifixion." As I explain below in the next section, I believe the best way to make sense of this symbolism is to think of the "Son of God" (who should _not_ be thought of as any single historical individual person) as _working through_ the figure of Cain; this is what makes it possible for Cain to _grow into_ a different kind of person, and to _be transformed_ into someone with much greater courage, fearlessness, compassion, honesty, and willingness to take responsibility for others (and especially so by his having developed a much greater willingness to make sacrifices _of himself_ ).

One way in which we might discern a "merging" of the figures of Jesus and Cain can be found by considering the idea of some "curse" from which mankind is in need of redemption. First recall Genesis 4:10-11, in which the Lord says to Cain after his killing of Abel,

(10) What have you done? The voice of the blood of your brother cries to me from the ground [or earth: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] . (11) And now you are cursed [ _arar_ ; LXX _epi-kataratos_ ] from the ground [or earth: _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , which has opened her mouth to receive the blood of your brother from your hand.

Next recall Galatians 3:13-14, in which the apostle Paul writes,

(13) Christ redeemed [ _ex-agorazō_ ] us from the curse [ _katara_ ] of the law (of Moses), having become a curse [ _katara_ ] on our behalf, for it is written, "Cursed [ _epi-kataratos_ ] is every one hanging [ _kremannymi_ ] upon a tree [or wood: _xylon_ ] ," (14) so that to the Gentiles the blessing of Abraham might come into being through Jesus Christ, so that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith [or trust, or belief: _pistis_ ] .

Some readers might be thinking, "Fine, but what does 'the curse of the law of Moses' have to do with the figure of Cain?" I think part of the answer may be found in Romans 5:12-21, in which the apostle Paul writes,

(12) [T]hrough one man [that is, Adam] sin entered into the world, and through sin, death; and in this manner death spread to all men, for all (men) did sin. (13) For sin was in the world until the law, but sin is not counted (against a man) when there is no law.

(14) Nevertheless death reigned [ _basileuō_ ] from Adam until Moses, even over those who have not sinned in [or after: _epi_ ] the likeness [or similitude, or resemblance: _homoiōma_ ] of the transgression [ _parabasis_ ] of Adam, who is a type [or pattern, or figure: _typos_ ] of the one who is going to come [ _mellō_ ] (15) — but not (come) as the trespass [or transgression, or "falling away": _para-ptōma_ , related to the Greek verb _para-piptō_ , literally meaning "to fall away"; cf. Hebrews 6:4-8, especially verse 6] — and in this same manner (as the one who is going to come) (comes) the gift of grace [ _charisma_ ] . For if by the one trespass [or transgression, or "falling away": _para-ptōma_ ] the many died, much more [ _mallon_ ] did the grace [ _charis_ ] of God and the gift [ _dōrea_ ] in grace [ _charis_ ] , which is of the one man Jesus Christ, abound [or overflow: _perisseuō_ ] to the many.

(16) And the gift [ _dōréma_ ] (comes) not as through the one who sinned. For the judgment [ _krima_ ] (that was the product) of one (was) unto condemnation [ _kata-krima_ ] ; and the gift [ _dōréma_ ] (that is the product) of many trespasses [ _para-ptōma_ ] (is) unto justification [or "being declared righteous": _dikaiōma_ ] . (17) For if by the trespass [ _para-ptōma_ ] of the one, death reigned [ _basileuō_ ] through the one, much more [ _mallon_ ] will those receiving the abundance [ _perisseia_ ] of the grace [ _charis_ ] and of the gift [ _dōrea_ ] of righteousness [ _dikaiosyné_ ] reign [ _basileuō_ ] through the one, Jesus Christ.

(18) So then, just as through one trespass [ _para-ptōma_ ] (attributed) to all men (came) condemnation [ _kata-krima_ ] , also in the same manner through one act of righteousness [ _dikaiōma_ ] (attributed) to all men (comes) justification [or "the making righteous": _dikaiōsis_ ] of life. (19) For just as through the disobedience [ _parakoé_ ] of the one man the many were designated sinners, also in the same manner, through the obedience of the one, the many will be designated righteous [ _dikaios_ ] .

(20) Now the law (of Moses) came in alongside (sin) so that the trespass [ _para-ptōma_ ] might increase [ _pleonazō_ ] ; but where sin increased [ _pleonazō_ ] , grace [ _charis_ ] abounded even more [ _hyper-perisseuō_ ] , (21) so that just as sin reigned [ _basileuō_ ] in death, so also might grace [ _charis_ ] reign [ _basileuō_ ] through righteousness [ _dikaiosyné_ ] unto eternal [or age-long: _aiōnios_ ] life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Before proceeding with my discussion of this passage in particular, I must acknowledge that for a long time I have had quite a bit of difficulty understanding the reason for Paul's intense and indefatigable opposition to "the law of Moses." Mustn't every religion have rules regulating the conduct of its members and those members' relations with each other — if it is in fact to be called a "religion" at all? But I am beginning to wonder if perhaps what Paul found so objectionable about "the law of Moses" (and analogous religious legal codes in other religions) was that they had the effect of _distracting_ people from the reason why religious "laws" of that kind had been made necessary in the first place: namely, the mythical primordial "transgression" or "trespass" or "falling away" of "the man," Adam, in the "Garden of Eden." To put it another way, I think Paul's objection to "the law of Moses" may have resulted from a belief that, in practice, it served not to _bring an end_ to the "transgression of Adam," but rather, to "manage" and "regulate" it, and to keep it "contained" in such a way that _the hope_ would never even _occur_ to most of the people who lived under that "law" that the original "transgression" of Adam might actually someday be _overcome once and for all_. According to this hypothesis, "the law of Moses" would have been thought by Paul to be responsible for causing people to _lose sight_ of the _true nature_ — and the _true danger_ — of that original "transgression," because of their having been taught to focus so much of their attention on performing "works of the law" in an effort to "keep it under control." If my interpretation of Paul's thinking is at all correct, then it would help to explain why in verse 20 of Romans 5:12-21 Paul would say that the original "transgression" or "trespass" of Adam had actually been " _increased_ " by "the law of Moses" — presumably because persons who lived under that "law" had, taken as a whole, learned to become _accustomed to_ and _comfortable with_ the existence of that original "transgression," instead of being properly _horrified_ by it.

So again, in verse 20 of Romans 5:12-21 Paul says that the law of Moses "came in alongside" sin so that Adam's original "trespass" or "transgression" or "disobedience" might " _increase_." In other words, the "curse of the law" would appear to be _even more_ difficult to escape from than the the original "curse" of the "ground" or "earth" that came into being with the "Fall of Man." That strongly suggests that if, as Paul claims in Galatians 3:13-14, Christ is able to "redeem" humanity from "the curse of the law of Moses," then he is also, _a fortiori_ , able to "redeem" humanity from the original "accursed" (LXX _epi-kataratos_ ) condition of the "ground" or "earth." [See Genesis 3:17 (LXX).]

Again consider what Paul writes in Romans 5:14:

(14) Nevertheless death reigned [ _basileuō_ ] from Adam until Moses, even over those who have not sinned in [or after: _epi_ ] the likeness [or similitude, or resemblance: _homoiōma_ ] of the transgression [ _parabasis_ ] of Adam, who is a type [or pattern, or figure: _typos_ ] of the one who is going to come [ _mellō_ ] .

To speak of "those who have _not_ sinned in the likeness of the transgression of Adam" tends to imply (or at least suggest) the existence of "those who _have_ sinned in the likeness of the transgression of Adam." And for the reasons I gave in Chapter 5, I believe that the latter category should be understood to include the figure of _Cain_ , since I believe that with Cain's "killing" of Abel, Cain was meant to be understood as having _replicated_ and _ratified_ the same primordial "transgression" that had _already_ been committed by "the man" and "the woman" in the Garden of Eden. I just suggested that if Christ is able to "redeem" humanity from "the curse of the law," then he is also, _a fortiori_ , able to "redeem" humanity from the original "curse" of the "ground" or "earth." But if Christ is able to redeem humanity from the original "curse" of the "ground" or "earth," then he is presumably also able to redeem _Cain_ from _his_ "curse," since Genesis 4:11 (LXX) tells us that Cain is "cursed" (LXX _epi-kataratos_ ) _from the "ground_ _."_

At the same time, however, if we accept Paul's statement that the law of Moses "came in alongside" sin so that Adam's original "trespass" might " _increase_ ," then it also seems to follow that if it were possible to somehow "undo" the original "trespass," then there would be no sin in existence for "the law of Moses" _to_ "increase." As I have already stated, I believe that the "Crucifixion" can legitimately be thought of as being the "crucifixion" of the figure of Cain no less than it is the "crucifixion" of the figure of Jesus. So when in Galatians 3:13 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 [ _kremannymi_ ] upon a tree [or wood: _xylon_ ] '," I believe it would be perfectly reasonable of think of this as _also_ describing the actions of the figure of Cain. I believe the symbolic "death" of the one "hanging upon a tree" was meant to be understood as being that which would bring an end to the original "curse" of the "ground" or "earth" — by "Cain" (i.e., "Jesus") _taking that curse upon himself_ (as I believe Abel was originally _trying_ to do before his murder). By doing so, Cain would also be atoning for _his own_ bloodguilt — which was actually — in a sense — the same "bloodguilt" of his father Adam, since the silencing of the anti-prophetical "voice" of Abel's "blood" was ultimately the product of Adam's original choice to introduce religious "prophecy" and "prophesying" into the affairs of human beings. One might think of Cain as having agreed to take _his own_ "curse" _upon himself_ ; in other words, he came to _accept_ and _acknowledge_ the _existence_ of his "curse," and became willing to do whatever was necessary to remove that "curse" from himself as well as from others, instead of continuing to try to run away from taking responsibility for its existence.

By Jesus being a _willing_ sacrificial victim, he uses "forgiveness" to neutralize the need for the "vengeance" that had been keeping the figure of Cain (and his metaphorical "descendents") symbolically "alive." And I think it would be appropriate to think of Cain as becoming that very same _willing_ sacrificial victim by the time that the symbolic "Crucifixion" takes place — and that "self-offering" by the figure of Cain would be what would bring about the "undoing" of the "cursing" of Cain, along with the "undoing" of the more primary "cursing" of the symbolic "ground" or "earth."

With these thoughts in mind, I recommend that you reread Zechariah chapters 11 through 13, and especially Zechariah 12:10 through 13:7, while being open to the possibility that the symbolic figure whom the author had in mind may have actually been _Cain_ , who came to find redemption by becoming willing to _accept his own death_ as the new substitute "shepherd" (i.e., "anti-prophetical prophet") in the wake of Abel's death. If that is correct, then Cain would finally be making the sacrifice _of himself_ that Abel had been _trying_ to accomplish, but that Cain, by killing him, _prevented_ him from accomplishing. Once again, I believe Zechariah 11:4-17 — and indeed, much of Zechariah chapters 11 through 13 as a whole — can be reasonably regarded as actually being spoken from the standpoint of Zechariah, _and_ of Jesus, _and_ of Cain (or else being spoken about them) — all at the same time.

I offered a suggestion in the previous section that the authors of the New Testament may have meant for it to be understood that Cain's perpetual "wandering" would cease when he no longer felt the need for the kind of "protection" that is based on the seeking of "vengeance" — which would also coincide with the overcoming by Cain of his _fear_. In support of that suggestion, consider 1 John 4:18:

There is no fear [ _phobos_ ] in love [ _agapé_ ], but perfect [or complete, or fully-developed: _teleios_ ] love drives out [ _ballō exō_ ] the fear. For fear is accompanied by punishment [or chastisement, or retribution: _kolasis_ ], and the one who fears [ _phobeō_ ] is not perfected [ _teleioō_ ] in love.

In addition to reading this verse alone, I would also recommend reading this verse in the context of the entirety of 1 John 4:7-21 (which I do not quote in this book), with the thought in mind that perhaps what the author of that passage is really speaking about are the relations among the symbolic figures of Adam, Cain, and Abel. I believe the resurrected "Jesus" was meant to be regarded as the new "Adam" that would come into being upon the _reconciliation_ of the symbolic figures of "Cain" and his brother "Abel." (Such a suggestion is supported by Luke 3:21-38, in which _both_ Jesus and Adam are referred to as the "Son of God.") I think Adam was meant to be understood as having _ceased_ to be the "Son of God" when he lost the "Spirit of God" that had been infused into him at the time that he was first "formed" or "molded" by the Lord. And that loss of the "Spirit of God" would correspond to the division that emerged between the symbolic figures of Cain and Abel — if one is willing to accept that the "division" between those two figures is actually best thought of as a division _within_ the figure of Adam himself.

If one thinks of the figures of Cain and Abel as being the two divided "parts" of Adam, then if either Cain or Abel were to work toward achieving reconciliation between them, then _either one_ of those two symbolic figures could be regarded as the "Son of God," and also as the "Savior of the World," because he would be responsible for _sending_ the "Spirit of God" _back into_ "the world" after it had first _departed_ from "the man," Adam (representing all of mankind); and _either one_ of those two figures could be thought of as performing the necessary work of offering "propitiation" or "atoning sacrifice." However, because of Abel's symbolic "death" (in other words, his "silencing" or "imprisonment"), only the figure of Cain would now be in a position to offer that needed "propitiation." And that would help to explain why the Lord was so intent on preventing Cain from being "killed" during that long period of time during which the figure of Cain would be gradually beginning to accept that it would be _his_ responsibility to offer that necessary "atoning sacrifice" — on behalf of Abel, on behalf of himself, and on behalf of "the man" as a whole.

##  The final outcome of the death of the "good shepherd"

If readers can agree with me that it would be reasonable to think of the figure of Cain as having "merged together" with the figure of Jesus by the time that Jesus is depicted as dying upon the Cross, then that would show that the figure of Cain had overcome his fear of being "killed," and had fully accepted that he (and everything, and everyone, that the figure of "Cain" represents) would have to be symbolically "killed" in order to make it possible for a new kind of world to come into being. And it is this "killing" — rightly understood — that would make it possible for Cain (and Abel, and Adam, and Eve) to reenter the "Garden" or "Paradise" of Eden.

We are of course familiar with the image of Jesus wearing a "crown of thorns" or "crown of thorn branches." But it strikes me as at least as appropriate to think of _Cain_ himself as wearing the symbolic "crown of thorns" as he is being "killed" (or "pierced," or "crucified") _in his role as anti-prophetical prophet_ (that is, as "good shepherd"). Recall that according to Matthew 7:15-20 symbolic "thorn-bushes" and "thistle plants" were meant to be understood as being able to signify _types of persons_ (specifically, "false prophets"). Because of that fact, it seems quite likely that the purpose of having "Jesus" — or, in other words, "Cain" — wear a symbolic "crown of thorns" would have been to indicate that the victim of the Crucifixion was himself being _identified_ as a kind of figurative human "thorn-bush." It was _in his role_ as "thorn-bush" that Cain's offerings to the Lord (that is, the "fruits" — the "works," and "deeds," and "speech" — that _came from himself_ , the "thorn-bush") were originally rejected; and so, in order to _overcome_ his original character and scheme of values, Cain would need to allow his previous existence as a symbolic "thorn-bush" to come to an end. It is by "dying," not only as a symbolic "shepherd," but _also as a symbolic "thorn-bush_ , _"_ that "Cain" (i.e., "Jesus") would become "King of the Jews." Recall what the Lord says to Cain in Genesis 3:7 (Hebrew Masoretic version):

(7) If you do well, will (your face) not be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door, and its desire [or longing: _teshuchah_ ] (is) for [or toward: _el_ ] you. And you (will) rule over [or reign over: _mashal_ ] it.

And also recall what the Lord says to Cain in Genesis 3:7 (Greek Septuagint version):

(7) Whenever you have brought forth [LXX _pros-pherō_ ] not rightly [or correctly: LXX _orthōs_ ] , and have divided [or separated, or apportioned: LXX _di-aireō_ ] not rightly [or correctly: LXX _orthōs_ ] , you have sinned [LXX _harmatanō_ ] . Be silent [or be at peace, or be quiet: LXX _hésychazō_ ] . The turning [or twisting, or stretching, or longing: LXX _apostrophé_ , derived from the verb _apo-strephō_ ] of (sin) (is) for [or toward: LXX _pros_ ] you. And you will rule [LXX _archomai_ ] it.

In other words, with the redemption that Cain would achieve by allowing himself to _die to_ his former life as a symbolic "thorn-bush" — a "death" that would signify his newfound willingness to repudiate all "prophecy," "prophesying," and religious esotericism — he would finally become the "ruler" or "king" that the Lord originally predicted he would someday become. (But whether one prefers to think of "Jesus" or "Cain" as being the figure who wears the "crown of thorns," either way I feel quite certain that the symbolic "death" of that figure was meant to signify that the institution and vocation of "prophecy" and "prophesying" — symbolized by the "thorn-bush" and "thorn branches" — had reached its final conclusion.)

Once Cain sacrificed himself both _as symbolic "thorn-bush_ " (i.e., as "pro-prophetical prophet") and _as symbolic "shepherd_ _"_ (i.e., as "anti-prophetical prophet"), the "ground" or "earth" would no longer be "cursed." All "prophecy" and "prophesying" would have come to an end at that point. Because of that, Cain would then be able to return to being a "worker of the ground," knowing that his "offerings to the Lord" of the "good fruit from the ground" (i.e., his "good works" and "good speech," now inspired and nourished by the plentiful "rains" of the Holy Spirit) would thenceforth be looked upon with favor by the Lord.

Another indication that it would be appropriate to think of the figures of Cain and Jesus as having become functionally identical to each other by the time that Jesus's Crucifixion and Resurrection are completed can be found in John 19:41-42, which says,

(41) Now in the place where (Jesus) was crucified, there was a garden [ _képos_ ] , and in the garden a new tomb [or sepulchre: _mnémeion_ ] in which no one was yet laid. (42) So, because of the Preparation (for the Sabbath) of the Jews, they laid Jesus there, since the tomb was nearby.

Might it be symbolically significant that Jesus is described as having been laid to rest in a tomb located in a "garden"? I think it is — especially when we also consider John 20:14-15, taking place after the Resurrection, which says,

(14) (Mary Magdalene) turned around to what was behind (her), and she saw Jesus standing (there), and had not perceived [ _eidō_ ] that it was Jesus. (15) Jesus said to her, "Woman [ _gyné_ ] , why do you weep? Whom do you seek?" (Mary), supposing that he was the gardener [ _képauros_ ] , said to him, "Sir [or lord: _kyrios_ ] , if you have carried him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away [ _airō_ ] ."

Recall what Zechariah 13:5 says:

(5) And (the now-former prophet) will say, "I am no prophet, I am a man working [ _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] , for a man has possessed me from my childhood."

We've already established that the "now-former prophet" who is speaking in this verse should almost certainly be thought of as "Cain." So I think it is significant that after Jesus's "death" (which I have been arguing was meant to be thought of as the "death" of the archetypal "Prophet" in his role _as prophet_ ), Jesus is no longer _recognized_ in the same way that he used to be (that is, _as a prophet_ ). (Cf. John 4:19.) He is now perceived to be, not a "prophet," but a "gardener" — in other words, someone who "works the ground" in a "garden."

And that takes us back to the Lord God's original plan for Adam before the mythical "Fall of Man" ever occurred. Recall Genesis 2:15, which says,

(15) And the Lord God took the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _ho anthrōpos_ ] and placed him in the Garden [ _gan_ ] of Eden, to work [or till, or cultivate: _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] it and to keep [or preserve, or guard: _shamar_ ; LXX _phylassō_ ] it.

So according to Genesis 2:15, the occupation which the "now-former prophet" of Zechariah 13:5 would be pursuing after all "prophecy" and "prophesying" has come to an end would be precisely what the Lord God _originally expected Adam to do_ before the "Fall of Man" took place. So by his "working the ground" in the Garden of Eden, Cain would be living _in accordance with_ the Lord's original intentions for "Adam" (i.e., all of mankind). It is important to understand that according to the Bible, there was never perceived to be anything wrong with "work" _per se_. The need to engage in "work" was never seen as a symptom of some basic dysfunction in mankind. And "working" _per se_ was never the punishment for Adam's disobedience of God's one command not to "eat" from the "tree of knowledge of good and evil." It is necessary to make a distinction between "working" (Hebrew _abad_ ; Greek _ergazomai_ ) and the "toil" (Hebrew _itstsabon_ ; Greek _lypé_ ) spoken of in Genesis 3:17. According to Genesis 3:22-23, the purpose of the expulsion of Adam from Eden was not to force him _to begin_ "working the ground," but rather _to prevent him_ from specifically "working the ground" _of Eden_ , leaving him to instead "work the ground _from which he was taken_." Recall that Genesis 3:22-23 says,

(22) And the Lord God said, "Behold, the man [ _ha-adam_ ; LXX _Adam_ ] has become like one of us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he stretch out [or extend, or 'send out': _shalach_ ; LXX _ek-teinō_ ] his hand, and take also from the tree of the living (ones) [or tree of life], and eat and live forever [or 'into the age,' or 'into the eon': _lo-olam_ or _lo-owlam_ ; LXX _eis ton aiōna_ ]" — (23) and the Lord God sent [ _shalach_ ; LXX _ex-apo-stellō_ ] him out from the Garden of Eden, to work [ _abad_ ; LXX _ergazomai_ ] the ground [ _adamah_ ; LXX _gé_ ] from which he was taken.

It seems reasonable to infer that "in the day of the Lord," the figure of Cain would finally be able to return to "working the ground" much as he had been doing prior to his life of "wandering" — only this time, he would be able to "work the ground" _of Eden_ — just as Adam had originally been doing before his destructive choices resulted in the "Fall of Man." Please give special attention to the fact that in Zechariah 13:5, the "now-former prophet" — that is, Cain — does not say, "I am no _false prophet_ "; instead he says, "I am no _prophet_." In other words, it seems reasonable to conclude that for a figure to "work the ground" _outside of_ "Eden," by cultivating symbolic "thorn-bushes and thistles," is what a "prophet" would do; but for a figure to "work the ground" _without_ also being a "prophet" would presumably mean that the figure was "working the ground" _of Eden_. But that would only become possible once the "curse" had been removed, first from Cain himself, and then from the "ground" or "earth." And I think the only way in which the authors of the Bible believed that that "curse" could be removed would be if mankind as a whole ensured that the true "voice" of "Abel" and all of the other "anti-prophetical prophets" — finally culminating in the prophet Zechariah, who might be thought of as the exemplar of all those "anti-prophetical prophets" wishing to transition from the role of "shepherd" to the role of "farmer" — would no longer be "imprisoned" within the "ground" or "earth."

There is another possible symbolic overlap between the figure of Cain and the figure of Jesus — this one involving the "sign of Cain." Luke 2:34 says,

(34) And Simeon blessed (Joseph, Mary, and Jesus), and said to Mary the mother of (Jesus), "Behold, this (child) is appointed [or positioned: _keimai_ ] for (the) fall [ _ptōsis_ ] and rising up [ _anastasis_ , derived from the verb _an-istémi_ ] of many in Israel, and for a sign [ _sémeion_ ] that is opposed [or contradicted, or spoken against, or objected to, or denied, or rejected, or disputed, or refused: _anti-legō_ ] ."

First, might this "fall" (Greek _ptōsis_ ) have been meant to refer to the "fall" of the "prophets" (that is to say, the symbolic "thorn-bushes and thistles" that had _previously_ been "rising up" to "the man" outside of "Eden")? And might this "rising up" (Greek _anastasis_ ) have been meant to refer to the "rising up" to "the man" of "the Messiah" (in other words, the symbolic "Sprout," or "Shoot," or "Branch," or "Bud," or "Growth," or "Rising") — which "rising up" would presumably symbolize "the end of prophecy" and the "rising up" of all those persons who chose to associate themselves with "the end of prophecy"?

Second, might the "sign" (Greek _sémeion_ ) that is referred to in Luke 2:34 have been meant to be understood as alluding to the "sign (LXX Greek _sémeion_ ) of Cain"? And if so, might the "opposition" to that "sign" have been meant to be understood as indicating that _by his death_ , the figure of Jesus (which I am proposing should be thought of as functionally equivalent to the figure of Cain at the time of Cain's death) would be _bringing an end_ to the "sign of Cain" and everything that it represents, by bringing an end to what made such a "sign" _necessary in the first place_? And what made that sign "necessary in the first place" would include not only Cain's _fear_ of being "killed," but also the _anger_ that led to his murder of Abel (which is what in turn led to Cain's fear of being "killed"); and, most significantly, it would also include Cain's original insistence on making "offerings" to the Lord of the symbolic " _fruits_ " produced by symbolic " _thorn-bushes and thistles_ " — the rejection of which by the Lord is what originally _gave rise_ to Cain's anger.

In Luke 2:35 Simeon goes on to say,

(35) And a sword [ _rhomphaia_ ] will also [ **!** ] pierce [or pierce through, or go through: _di-erchomai_ ] your [that is, Mary's] own soul [ _psyché_ ] , in order that the thoughts [or deliberations, or ponderings: _dialogismos_ ] of many [ **!** ] hearts may be revealed [or disclosed: _apo-kalytpō_ ] .

When Luke 2:35 says, "And a sword will also pierce your own soul," that tends to imply that the "opposition" to the "sign" (Greek _sémeion_ ) that was just spoken of in Luke 2:34 would somehow involve a "piercing." It also tends to imply that the "piercing" of Jesus was actually meant to be understood as being a symbolic "piercing" of Jesus's "soul" (Greek _psyché_ ).

Furthermore, if the "piercing" of Mary's own "soul" would lead to the "revealing" of the "thoughts" of "many hearts," that strongly suggests that "Mary" was meant to be thought of as an _archetypal_ figure — which tends to suggest that she was meant to be understood as a sort of symbolic "reincarnation" of the figure of "the woman," Eve, which in Chapter 3 I posited was meant to signify (to some extent, anyway) the "collective human soul." And that would in turn increase the likelihood that the symbolic figure of Cain was meant to be understood as being somehow involved in all of this; so that just as "Mary" would have served as a kind of _repentant_ "reincarnation" of the figure of "Eve," so too would "Jesus" have served as a kind of _repentant_ "reincarnation" of the figure of "Cain" — the first "seed" or "offspring" of "the woman."

Also, given the fact that the "sign of Cain" is associated in Genesis chapter 4 with the idea of "vengeance," might the authors of the Gospels have meant for the widespread human desire for vengeance (and the accompanying anger and hostility) to be understood as that which has _prevented_ "the thoughts of many hearts" from being "revealed" or "disclosed" to others? And if so, might that once again point to a deep-seated connection between the desire for vengeance (and anger, and hostility), and mutually felt _fear_?

To see another possible "overlap" between the figures of Cain and Jesus, leading to a "reversal" of Cain's original situation as it is described in Genesis chapter 4, compare Genesis 4:5-7 with Luke 21:28. First recall Genesis 4:5-7:

(5) But upon Cain and his offering (the Lord) did not look favorably [ _shaah_ ; LXX _pros-echō_ ] . And Cain became angry [or burned with anger: _charah_ ; the LXX has _lypeō_ , meaning "was grieved"], and his face [or visage, or countenance: _paneh_ ; LXX _prosōpon_ ] fell [ _naphal_ ; LXX _sym-pitnō_ or _sym-piptō_ , which can mean "collapsed" or "crashed"] with great force. (6) And the Lord said to Cain, "Why have you become angry [the LXX has "Why are you deeply grieved?": _peri-lypos_ , derived from _lypé_ ] , and why has your face fallen? (7) If you do well [or be good, or do good, or do right: _yatab_ ] , will (your face) not be lifted up [ _seeth_ ] ? And if you do not do well [or do good, or be good, or do right], sin [ _chatta'ah_ ] lies at the door [or opening: _pethach_ , derived from _pathach_ , meaning 'to open'], and its desire [or longing: _teshuchah_ ] (is) for [or toward: _el_ ] you. And you (will) rule over [or reign over: _mashal_ ] it."

This notion of a metaphorical "falling" of Cain's "face" might bear some relation to Luke 21:28, in which Jesus, speaking of "end times" events, says,

And as these things begin to happen, raise yourselves up [or lift yourselves up: _ana-kyptō_ ] and lift your heads up high [ _ep-airō_ ], because your redemption [or ransoming, or deliverance: _apolytrōsis_ ] is approaching [or drawing near: _eggizō_ or _engizō_ ].

Was this "raising up of heads" or "lifting of heads" meant to be contrasted or compared with the original "falling" of Cain's "face"? Ordinarily I would not be inclined to assign too much significance to a possible correspondence such as this one (which at first seems rather weak and uncompelling); but I think the other evidence I've offered in this book tending to indicate that in the minds of the authors of the Bible the idea of "the end of the present age" was somehow associated with the idea of "the death and redemption of Cain" justifies giving some additional consideration to the possibility that a comparison between the two passages may have been intended by the author of Luke 21:28.

The events of the "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ" described in the New Testament might be thought of as accomplishing one more kind of "reversal" of what we find described in Genesis chapter 4. It is said in Genesis 4:8 (LXX) that Cain " _rose up_ " (LXX Greek _an-istémi_ ) to " _kill_ " Abel. With the "Crucifixion and Resurrection of Christ," on the other hand, Jesus (in his specific role _as prophet_ ) instead " _rises up_ " (Greek _an-istémi_ ) on the "third day" _only after having allowed_ himself to _be_ "killed." (And again, I believe that the authors of the New Testament meant for this symbolism to apply to the figure of Cain no less than to the figure of Jesus, so that it would be legitimate to think of the figure of Cain as doing whatever was required to "reverse" or "undo" _his own_ "curse.")

We have already seen that in John 10:11-18, Jesus — that is, the "Son of God" — says more than once that the "good shepherd" is willing to "lay down his life" for his "sheep." And if readers can agree with me that a symbolic "shepherd" is best thought of as an "anti-prophetical prophet," then the symbolic "good shepherd" would signify the "prophet" who was willing to "lay down his life" _as a prophet_. This raises the question of exactly what idea the authors of the New Testament meant for the words "Son of God" to be understood as _referring to_ , and what relation that idea would bear to the subject matter of "prophecy" and "prophesying." After having given the matter considerable thought, I would propose that, for lack of a better way of phrasing it, **the "Son of God" is best defined or characterized as the "force" or "tendency" that continuously** _leads mankind back to God_ — which would be another way of saying, back to a mankind (or, in other words, an "Adam") that is _united instead of divided_. But that "way back" must _pass through_ a symbolic "death" — by which I mean, a "death" to any further attraction to "prophecy" and "prophesying," as the result of having passed through _a more primary_ "death" to any further attraction to the Lie.

What that "death" of the archetypal "Prophet" would accomplish is the elimination of a _multiplicity_ of _individual_ human "shepherds" (in other words, "prophets"). This is, I believe, the basic idea that is being pointed to by the language that we find in Zechariah 13:7, Matthew 26:31, and Mark 14:27, about "striking the shepherd" and allowing the "sheep" to "scatter." I believe the intended significance of this metaphorical imagery was that after the symbolic "Crucifixion of Christ" takes place, these "sheep" (a metaphorical symbol which up until that point had been intended to be understood as corresponding to the _disciples_ of some particular religious _prophet_ ) would no longer have any _human_ "shepherds" to lead them. But when human "shepherds" (i.e., "anti-prophetical prophets") no longer exist, that must be because they would no longer _need_ to exist — which would imply that symbolic "thorn-bushes and thistles" (i.e., "pro-prophetical prophets," or "false prophets") were no longer "rising up" from the symbolic "ground" or "earth."

_After_ that "death" of the archetypal "Prophet," however, there would be a symbolic "Resurrection." With the occurrence of that "Resurrection," there would thenceforth be only a _single_ "Shepherd" in people's minds: the Lord God — elsewhere in the Bible called the "God of Truth" (see, e.g., Isaiah 65:16). And this change in people's thinking would come about as a result of the elimination of the multiplicity of _ways of expressing meanings_ that is created by the practice of religious esotericism (or what the Bible calls "prophesying"). It must be stressed that it is not a multiplicity of _meanings_ that is harmful to human welfare; just the opposite, in fact. What is harmful to human welfare is a multiplicity of _ways of expressing meanings_ , since a diversity of that kind leads to the confusing and confounding of human _thought_ , and has a tendency to make genuinely productive _communication_ between persons difficult if not impossible.

However, the New Testament specifically tells us that it is _Jesus_ , the "Son of God," who would be the one and only "Shepherd" after the "Resurrection." How are we to make sense of this given what I have just said? I propose that the conception of the authors of the New Testament may have been something like this: After the "Crucifixion" and "death" of the "Son of God" _while serving in the role_ of the archetypal "Prophet" (representing _all_ individual human "shepherds," i.e., "prophets"), the "Son of God" would "return to life" as _a different kind_ of "shepherd" — one that would lead only a _single_ "flock," because the metaphorical "sheep" in this new "flock" would all be joined together by a deeply imbued respect for the practice among its members of _honesty_ : a basis for unity to which _there can never be any natural bounds or limits_. No longer would the "Son of God" be thought of as merely _a_ "shepherd," in the sense of being some kind of "prophet" (even an _archetypal_ "Prophet"); instead, the "Son of God" would thenceforth be _the_ "Shepherd," by _leading_ humanity back to God _by means of_ the cultivation of a commonly shared desire among all human beings to _repudiate the Lie_. At the time that the symbolic "sheep" finally came together to form a single "flock," God and the symbolic "Son of God" — the "Lamb" — _which is to be found in and among all human beings_ — would be _perpetually reunited_ , because deceptive and misleading ways of _communicating_ among human beings (especially including with regard to religious matters) would no longer serve to _separate_ God from the "Son of God." With the accomplishing of that _reunification_ , all people would thenceforth have only _God_ as their _sole_ "Shepherd."

(In connection with the idea I have suggested of characterizing the "Son of God" as the "force" or "tendency" that continuously leads mankind _toward_ God — as well as the relation of that idea to the idea of " _communication_ " — consider John 1:1-2: "(1) In (the) beginning [or, 'at (the) origin,' or 'at (the) source': _en arché_ ] was the Meaning [or Word, or Reason, or Explanation, or Account, or Message: _logos_ , derived from the verb _legō_ , which can mean 'to say, to speak, to tell'], and the Meaning [ _logos_ ] was toward [ _pros_ ] God, and God was the Meaning [ _logos_ ] . (2) This (Meaning) was in (the) beginning [ _en arché_ ] toward [ _pros_ ] God.")

When we think about the "Son of God" in this way, we are able to understand that the "Son of God" (in his role as archetypal "Prophet") must lay down his symbolic "life" for the same reason that the figure of Cain must lay down _his_ symbolic "life" if there is to be a reconciliation between Cain and his hostile symbolic "brother" — or, to state it less figuratively, if there is to be an end to the _intrinsic opposition_ between "pro-prophetical prophesying" and "anti-prophetical prophesying." When the symbolic figures of "Cain" and "Abel" have both consented to being or becoming symbolic "good shepherds," then the _only kind_ of "prophet" that would then exist would be the _genuinely_ "anti-prophetical prophet." And when that is the case, there would no longer be anything _preventing_ the basically "anti-prophetical" nature and intent of the prophetical communications of the symbolic human "shepherds" from finding their _fulfillment_ in the _elimination_ of "prophetical communication" of _any_ kind.

By _leading_ the symbolic figure of Cain to a _willingness_ to surrender all previous attachment to the institution and vocation of "prophecy" and "prophesying," the "Son of God," as the archetypal symbolic "Shepherd," _reveals_ the symbolic "Lamb" that had been hidden within the figure of Cain all along, but was never visible. Just as the "Son of God" is described in Revelation 7:17 as both "Shepherd" and "Lamb," so too must the figure of Cain take on the role of "shepherd" (in other words, the role of "anti-prophetical prophet") just long enough to accomplish the giving of the symbolic "Lamb" found within himself _back to God_ , thereby _doing away_ with the practice of "prophesying" — which had actually been _separating_ God from the "Lamb" found within Cain (and within all of those individual persons whose character tendencies are _represented_ by the symbolic figure of Cain) far more than it had ever been serving as any kind of "bridge" or "transmission pipeline" or "channel" between them — as Cain must have once supposed. The omnipresent workings of the "Son of God" would have thus made it possible for "the man," Adam — now that the two divided "parts" of his "self" have been unified and no longer have "opposing agendas" with regard to the matter of "prophecy" — to reenter the symbolic "Garden of Eden." Mankind as a whole would be "resurrected," so to speak, to a new kind of life, by having gained access to the symbolic "tree of life" located within a well-kept "garden" that could always be trusted to be completely free of all noxious and worthless "thorn-bushes and thistles."

# Afterword

I strongly believe that both this book and my previous one contain very important messages that desperately need to get out to the world. That is why I have chosen to make both of my books available to everyone at no cost. But if these messages are to be widely disseminated, then I will need the help of readers. If you believe that _any_ of the ideas and arguments I have presented in this book are correct — or even partially correct — or even nothing more than merely "quite thought-provoking" — then I ask you to help me in making other persons aware of them, so that those persons can then decide for themselves what they wish to do with them. (And one way in which you might choose to do that — one which I would greatly appreciate — would be to leave a book review at the website of the ebook retailer where you obtained this book.)

In this book I have revealed what I believe to be two important, virtually indisputable, and (as far as I know) heretofore undiscovered facts contained in the Bible; and even if they have already been discovered (which would not surprise me), they still have not been discussed nearly to the extent that they ought to be.

The first fact is that the author of Zechariah 13:5 almost certainly meant for his readers to understand that he was alluding to the figure of Cain when he speaks of the "now-former prophet" who describes himself as "a man working the ground." The figure spoken of in Zechariah 13:5 is obviously the same figure spoken of in Zechariah 13:6. And the repeated use in both Zechariah 13:6 and Zechariah 13:7 of the same Hebrew verb _nakah_ , meaning "to strike," strongly implies that the "shepherd" spoken of in Zechariah 13:7 was likewise meant to be understood as alluding _to Cain_.

But we also know that the authors of the New Testament Gospels understood the "shepherd" of Zechariah 13:7 to be a reference _to Jesus_. That means that — assuming the authors of the Gospels successfully grasped Zechariah's intended meaning — those authors must almost certainly have viewed the figures of Cain and Jesus as _overlapping figures_. In this book I have presented my best attempt at explaining the conceptual mindset of the authors of the New Testament, in order to try to make sense of this notion of "overlapping figures," and to point out what would likely be implied by such an interpretation. If some Christian readers do not feel satisfied with my explanation, then it is incumbent upon them to develop some better explanation for _what appears to be a fact_. No Christians should allow themselves to pretend that this fact does not exist simply because they are at a loss to explain it. I'm sure that many Christians will _wish_ to remain silent about this fact due to an insistence on believing that either Cain, or Jesus, or both, were historical individual persons — since historical individual persons are prevented by the law of non-contradiction from conceptually "overlapping" with each other in the manner I have proposed in this book. But if Christians do choose to remain silent, then, in the absence of any more convincing explanation, I believe my own explanation deserves to stand.

The second fact I have presented in this book is that the mythical "Fall of Man" in the "Garden of Eden" was almost certainly understood by the authors of the New Testament (and also by those of the Old Testament, I believe) to be the result of the acceptance and approval by mankind of "prophesying" — or, at the very least, of "false prophesying." This is an exceedingly important fact, because it helps us to give _practical significance_ to the idea of the "Fall of Man." I generally get the sense that for most Christians the story of the "Fall of Man" in the Garden of Eden serves as nothing more than a constant reminder of how irredeemably rotten we human beings are when left to our own devices. According to this way of seeing things, we humans, because of our inherent weakness and inclination to disobey God's will, can never be anything more than the playthings of external forces; and so just as it was merely a matter of time before a malevolent external agent, "the serpent," would be able to "deceive" us into making a terrible choice that would lead to our collective descent into misery, the only way in which we could possible escape from that misery would be by being "rescued" by a benevolent external agent, Jesus Christ. But the story of the "Fall of Man" is very rarely seen as a source of _information_ — from the application of which we might all actually benefit.

It is quite clear from reading the Book of Revelation (and other books from the New Testament, as well as from the Old Testament) that "the ending of the present age" and "the dawning of a New Age" were both understood to coincide with an _undoing_ of the original "Fall of Man," and a _return_ to the symbolic "Garden of Eden." So, in order to work toward bringing about an "ending of the present age" and a "dawning of a New Age" according to the Biblical conceptual framework, it is imperative that we all learn as much as we possibly can about what that original "Fall of Man" was actually meant to signify. And we do not necessarily need to wait for the intervention of any benevolent external agent or agents in order to attain that understanding.

In this book I have explained why there is ample evidence indicating that the "Fall of Man" was meant by the authors of the Bible to be understood as resulting from _an identifiable social phenomenon_ : namely, "prophecy" and "prophesying" (or, at the very least, "false prophecy" and "false prophesying"). So if we could first gain an adequate knowledge of the precise nature of the social phenomenon that is responsible for the "Fall of Man," and then, using that knowledge, work to eliminate the social phenomenon, then it seems completely reasonable to suppose that we could actually _undo_ the "Fall of Man" through the correct use of our own rational human intellect.

But that would mean that we must come to terms with what exactly "prophesying" is. And if it is claimed by some persons that the "Fall of Man" was caused not by the introduction of "prophecy" and "prophesying" in general, but by the introduction of "false prophecy" and "false prophesying" in particular, then it is necessary that we first all be able to agree on what exactly the difference is between the two. Even if there is still a dispute to be had between those persons who believe that the "Fall of Man" is perpetuated by the existence of "prophecy" and "prophesying" in general, and those persons who believe that it is perpetuated by the existence of "false prophecy" and "false prophesying" in particular, we will have at least substantially narrowed the range of issues requiring discussion and debate. (And again, I consider "prophecy" and "prophesying" to be equivalent in meaning to the practice of what I am calling "religious esotericism" — the products of which can be found in the authoritative writings of _all_ traditional religions.)

Once we have narrowed the range of debatable issues down to this, those persons who choose to claim that it is _specifically_ "false prophecy" and "false prophesying" that prevents humanity from undoing the "Fall of Man" should then be asked what _exactly_ it is about "false prophecy" and "false prophesying" — as they define it — that makes it _necessarily impossible_ for human beings to eliminate it _on their own_. Related to this, they should also be asked to explain what the elimination of "false prophecy" and "false prophesying" has to do with "the ending of the present age." (My own position is that what the two have in common is that they both involve and pertain to the ending of "the Lie" in general in the affairs of human beings.)

So with these thoughts in mind, I would encourage all persons (Christian or not) who have read this book, and can at least agree with me that the two facts which I have been discussing in this Afterword are indeed _facts_ , to begin making efforts to elicit responses to these two facts from Christians. Consider asking them: "Why do you think the authors of the Christian Bible would have been equating Cain with Jesus? What message do you think they may have been trying to convey to readers by doing that?" And you might also ask them: "Can we at least agree that the idea of the 'Fall of Man' in the Garden of Eden must be somehow closely _related_ to the idea of the approval of 'prophecy,' or the idea of the approval of 'false prophecy' — or, at any rate, _something like that_?"

Finally, in your efforts at engaging in dialogue, both with Christians and with non-Christians, I offer the suggestion that you might see greater success than you otherwise would by using video clips from popular movies to help open people's minds to the idea that all "prophecy" and "prophesying" — and all religious systems built upon and around "prophecy" — were perhaps _meant_ to come to an end someday. Consider, for example, the ending scene of the movie "Terminator 2: Judgment Day." At the risk of trivializing the pain that I know must surely come to many of the adherents of the traditional religions who make the difficult decision to (more or less) accept the message that I am trying to deliver to them in my books, I think that in some cases the _images_ contained in movie clips such as this might actually do a better job of driving that message home than any of my _words_ could (even if it happens to be a message that never entered the filmmakers' conscious minds). The Biblical symbolism pertaining to the "consumption" of the "prophetical" and esotericist "old religious order" in the flames of the symbolic "fire" of the Holy Spirit makes this scene particularly fitting.

# Where to find other writings of mine

AgainstTheLie.com

HonestyCulture.com

My previous ebook, _A "New Age" or "Messianic Age": How to Bring It Into Being_ , can be found at your favorite ebook retailer.

Thank you for your time, interest, and devotion to honesty!

Eric Heubeck
