The sacred balance

"Make every effort to live in peace with everyone and to be holy; without holiness no one will see the Lord." Hebrews 12:14 NIV

Εἰρήνην διώκετε μετὰ πάντων καὶ τὸν ἁγιασμόν, οὗ χωρὶς οὐδεὶς ὄψεται τὸν κύριον (original Greek)

<idle musing>
My translation: Pursue, chase after, peace with all and holiness, without which (holiness) no one—nobody, no matter how important or unimportant in the world's eyes—will see the Lord.

That's a tough balance, though. Being at peace with all is easy if you let holiness go, but how can you be holy without being a jerk about it? That's the sacred balance—and that's where love comes in. Not a mushy, anything goes, feel good love, but a love that genuinely cares and nurtures and hopes on behalf of others in a sacred holiness—as modeled in Jesus.

Did you know that the we have many times more ancient copies of the Gospels than we do of the rest of the New Testament? That says something about the early church and their priorities. They lived in an anti-Christian environment—far more anti-Christian than anything the U.S. has seen. Yet they lived a life of peace and holiness. May we recapture that!

Even so, come Lord Jesus! Not to "rapture away" your church, but to fill it with you that we might light the way to a better and restored world.

footnote: I'm still Premillennial, but I also believe that we can experience a good bit more of the Kingdom of God here than most either (a) believe or (b) have experienced so far!

Just an
</idle musing>

According to their kind

In total, the phrase “according to its/their kind” is repeated 10 times in these 7 verses alone (Gen 1:11–12 and 1:21–25). Clearly, the author is emphasizing the creation and reproduction of each species according to its own distinctive type or class. Thus, the ancient audience may have been surprised when they heard or read the next two verses in which the creation of humans is described not as “according to his kind,” as they might have expected, but as “in the image of” and “according to the likeness of” Elohim. This juxtaposition of the oft-repeated “according to its/their kind” with “in the image and likeness of God” suggests that the author was drawing a sharp distinction between humans and the other created beings. However, it also implies that just as the plants and animals were created according to their own type, humans were made, at some level, according to Elohim’s kind, although not literally born of God. The author could have said that God made humans according to his (God’s) kind using lə + mîn, as he did with the plants and animals, but he did not. Rather, he expressed human similarity to the divine with ṣelem and dəmût. Thus, it seems that being created in the image and likeness of God is both comparable to being created “according to God’s kind,” but is distinct from it. In other words, humans are not divine, nor are they members of the heavenly host. They are their own category, type, or species, which is defined by being created in the image and likeness of God. However, at some level, humans belong to the divine class or species, that is, humanity’s kind or type is God.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, pages 132–33

<idle musing>
Pretty amazing thought, isn't it?
</idle musing>

But not gods

The biblical author avoids explicit birthing language like that which appears in the mīs pî and the wpt-r texts to describe the ritual creation of a divine image, and even distances ʾādām from Elohim by describing them as made in the image (bəṣalmēnû) and according to the likeness (kidmûtēnû) of God, rather than asserting that humankind is the image and likeness of the divine.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 131

Laying the ground work

The frequent appearance of dəmût in the descriptions of Ezekiel’s visions demonstrates that the prophet is struggling to describe what he sees. He uses the term to relate the unfamiliar to the familiar, to put into language that which defies description. He did not see a human but something like a human. He did not see a throne, but something resembling a throne. What Ezekiel observed corresponded to and resembled things that were familiar to him, but the referents themselves were foreign. Thus, dəmût refers to correspondence and likeness, but it does not seem to indicate a copy or a facsimile, as can ṣelem.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 125

<idle musing>
She's just laying the ground work here for some serious theology. Have a bit of patience : )
</idle musing>

But it looks great!

Impressive, large, public buildings have power—that is why they are built. They speak to us of human power, implicitly ordained by the divine. This is why the powerful from ancient times through today invested and still invest so much money and time in building. The sheer size of our largest human constructions implies a potent mixture of human effort and divine presence or providence; an awesome confluence of divine and human power.—Nicole Wilkinson Duran in in Sacrifice, Cult, and Atonement in Early Judaism and Christianity: Constituents and Critique, forthcoming from SBL Press

<idle musing>
Remind you of anyone?
</idle musing>

But not God

How, then, does Gen 9:6 illumine our understanding of what it means that humankind is created bəṣelem ʾelōhîm? It clearly demonstrates that humans are not God nor are they the ultimate lawmakers. However, it does indicate that there is a profound level of correspondence between God and humans. That is, humankind acts on God’s behalf, in the capacity of a divinely appointed judge and administrator and as one who obeys and enforces the divine law authored by God. Thus, being created in the image (ṣelem) of God has something to do with representing him in the realm of law and justice, but it is clearly distinct from being God himself.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 122

<idle musing>
And some of us forget the last part: we are not God! Or, perhaps more honestly, all of us on occasion forget that we aren't God. .thinsp;.
</idle musing>

Come, let us play God!

God is the creator of humankind, and therefore he, or one appointed by him, is the only one who can take a human life. For another man to do so is tantamount to insurrection. That is, to kill a human being is to exert oneself as Creator-God. Furthermore, because of the correspondence between God and humans, to harm them is, in some way, an attack on God.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, pages 121–22

An implication of the imago dei

I must point out that nowhere in the Old Testament is Yahweh referred to explicitly gōʾēl haddām, but Zechariah’s cry for Yahweh “to see and avenge” (yēreʾ yhwh wəyidrōš) and the psalmist’s identification of the Lord as the avenger of shed/poured out/spilt blood (dōrēš dāmîm) indicates that Yahweh was understood to fulfill this role.

What does this reveal about Yahweh’s relationship to humanity? If he is indeed the divine blood avenger, then he is humanity’s nearest kin. Hu-man beings are members of his clan and are, therefore, kin to one another. For this reason shedding human blood (šōpek dam hāʾadam) is fratricide. Furthermore, to murder one’s kinsman is to slay a member of God’s family.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 121

Opening the mouth in Egyptian ritual

Through the reanimation of their sensory organs, the royal deceased of ancient Egypt were revived through their cultic images so that they could live eternally in the hereafter. This ritual procedure, known as the Opening of the Mouth (wpt-r), was applied to mummies, sarcophagi, and statues of the dead. In the latter two cases, the images were constructed by human craftsmen from stone and/or wood and adorned with precious materials and/or painted details. However, like its Mesopotamian counterpart, the wpt-r indicates that the divine image was also “reborn.” This notion is communicated not only by the verb used to describe the image’s creation, msiʾ, “to give birth, bear,” but by the equipment used for the opening of the mouth (the p –kf set, particularly the p –kf knife), the overall progression of events in the ritual from birth through childhood, and through a series of explicit references in the wpt-r itself to birth and newborn care. Thus, as with Mesopotamian divine statues, Egyptian images of the deceased were “born” or “reborn” through ritual means but they were also constructed from raw materials. The end product was not simply a physical representation. Rather, it was considered to be a living manifestation of the deceased that was now able to consume the sustenance necessary in the afterlife.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 109

A foregone conclusion

This [depicting the statue as completed before it was begun being made] would also explain why the ritual as it is recorded in Rekhmire’s tomb begins with the purification of the completed statue. The artist was not concerned to present the events in chronological order. Rather, by beginning the written and visual records of the wpt-r with a completed image of Rekhmire, the very sequence itself declares the success of the ritual acts: that this image will be transformed into a manifestation of its referent is a foregone conclusion.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 104

Well then, what is it?

I have sought to demonstrate that, according to the mīs pî pīt pî, the creation of a divine statue was not primarily a ritual of purification, although clearly purity was of utmost concern. Nor was it modeled exclusively on the analogy of human procreation and birth. Rather, the creation of the divine image was achieved through two complementary and requisite processes. The image was born through ritual means, as Ebeling, Jacobsen, and Boden have recognized, but it was also physically constructed from wood, precious metals, and gemstones. Manufacture did not preclude birth, nor did birth preclude manufacture. The two modes of creation functioned concurrently to produce not a representation of the divine but, as indicated by the birthing language and imagery in the pīt pî, as well as by the animation of the image’s sensory organs and the offerings of food, drink, clothing, and shelter (in the temple), what was considered to be a physical, living manifestation of an otherwise invisible reality.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, pages 84–85 (emphasis original)

Paradigm break, anyone?

Recent studies have demonstrated that the act of bringing sacrifices to a deity is in several respects analogous to gift-giving, which can be seen as an essential ingredient in social interaction between humans, in all known cultures. The keyword, in both cases, is reciprocity. In a reciprocal relationship, one is never forced to accept a gift, but refusing to do so could signal dissatisfaction with the relationship. According to the biblical authors, human beings did not have the power to control YHWH, or to determine the actions of the deity. Hence, the possibility of rejection would seem to be a corollary of ancient Israelite sacrificial logic. Contrary to a widespread opinion, therefore, declarations to the effect that the deity does not accept what is being offered may in fact be perfectly compatible with a positive attitude to sacrificial cult.—Göran Eidevall in Sacrifice, Cult, and Atonement in Early Judaism and Christianity: Constituents and Critique, forthcoming from SBL Press (emphasis original)

<idle musing>
Interesting idea, isn't it? The whole book seems fascinating...
</idle musing>

In the garden

The Mesopotamian mouth-washing and mouth-opening ritual was a two-day event that was carried out in several different locations, each of which represented in physical form a mythological space within the divine sphere. The human craftsmen’s workshop was, ultimately, the workshop of the craft deities Ninkurra, Ninagal, Kusibanda, Ninildu, and Ninzadim, and of the patron deity of craftsmen, Ea, who was named in the mīs pî pīt pî as the father of the image under construction. The riverbank stood at the gateway to the Apsû, Ea’s subterranean watery abode, and granted the priests access to the holy water and to Ea himself. The attached garden, known [in Babylon] as “the garden of the Apsû,” was also Ea’s domain. This was where most of the animating acts took place, including the opening of the statue’s eyes. It was in the garden that the image was fed with fruit and clothed with divine regalia and insignia, which included an exalted crown radiating divine splendor in all directions. Once created, born, fully animated and adorned, the image was then installed in its temple home and fed its first full meal.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 84

Take it on faith

When the ritual texts and incantations are viewed as a whole, they present the “god” as both born and manufactured. The mouth-washing texts do not explain how these two modes of creation functioned in tandem. Rather, birth and manufacture are simply presented as the means by which the physical manifestation of a god comes into being.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 83

<idle musing>
That answer certainly wouldn't fly today, would it? We want to know how and why. Take all the mystery out of it. Reduce it to cause and effect, a mechanistic view of everything.

I read an interesting take on the prequels and sequels of the Star Wars movies yesterday. I confess I haven't seen any of them. I was a big fan of the original three, but didn't even watch the second set, so I can't judge first-hand what he is saying, but maybe you can?

Star Wars is—or should be—a religious franchise. The Jedi are a monastic order trained in contemplating and manipulating an omnipresent Force, and in fighting against those who use the Force for evil ends. The crucial question for every character is always spiritual: whether one will choose the “light” or the “dark” side of the Force. Their character arcs involve taking a religious stance toward this mystical energy field.

At least that's how it was in the three original Star Wars films (1977-83). In the originals, access to the Force occured on the basis of faith and asceticism. Luke Skywalker had to cease trusting his physical eyes and take on the eyes of faith; he had to train his body and mind extensively before he was capable of the same feats of Force as Yoda.

By contrast, the Star Wars prequels (1999-2005) departed from this religious heart, by making the Force something embedded in the natural world….

In the prequels, the Force is a part of the biological world. It is accessed not by the mind or spirit but by microscopic organisms. This view renders the Jedi religion superfluous—one either has a “high midi-chlorian count,” or one does not. The prequels rewrite the Jedi’s disciplined access to the mystical life as something determined by a blood-test.

This secularization of the Force coincides with its most grotesque, irreverent use. …

If the prequels scooped the sacred from the Force by biologizing and technologizing it, Rogue One returns it by spiritualizing and refusing to use the Force. Physical sight can no longer behold the Force.

So maybe the ancients were right? Maybe there is something beyond us? What a radical thought!
</idle musing>

Not by human hand, kind of

Although the materials are said to be pure and of divine origin, the divine statue, three times referred to as an alam/ almu rather than an ilu, is manufactured by the craft deities who form its wooden body with carpenter’s tools and provide it with eyes of paint or inlaid precious stones. Although the role of human craftsmen is ritually denied, as we have seen, the mouth-washing and mouth-opening texts do not attempt to hide the fact that the divine statue was constructed from raw materials. On the contrary, the contribution of the craft deities as manifestations of Ea, the divine craftsman par excellence, is a prominent theme. As with the “birth” of the statue, the manufacturing process is also imagined as undertaken by the gods.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 81

Open my eyes...

Unique to the Babylon version, however, is the specific instruction to open the image’s eye (īn ili šuāti tepette). Although the text does not explain or elaborate on why this was done, it was, presumably, intended to animate the statue’s eyes, just as the other sensory organs and limbs had been activated. Despite the lack of an explicit reference to this act in the Nineveh version, the repeated commands to set the image’s eyes toward the rising sun suggest that the opening of the eye(s) may also have been a feature of the pīt pî at Nineveh.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 65

<idle musing>
Think of some of the ramifications for some of the prophetic texts if—as I think probable—the prophets were aware of these rituals...
</idle musing>

Thirteen, the magic number?

Although the text does not state explicitly that the transformation from statue to divine being was a gradual process, the fact that the priest performed 13 mouth-washings and mouth-openings suggests that this was the case. If one mouth-washing and mouth-opening would have been sufficient, then why perform 12 additional mouth-washings and mouth-openings? Furthermore, note the exclamation in Incantation Tablet 4 in which the image is addressed directly, “He (Ea) has brought your divinity to completion!” (i-lu-ut-ka ú- ak-lil in ibid., 162–63, 184 line 18ab), suggesting that all 13 mouth washings and openings were necessary.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 56 n.79

<idle musing>
Give the poor image a break! After all, it's a long way from being a tree in the forest to becoming a god!

OK, that sounds like something Isaiah or Habakkuk might say : )
</idle musing>

It's alive!

The rituals outlining these procedures and the accompanying incantations are known collectively by the Babylonian titles mīs pî (“washing of the mouth”) and pīt pî (“opening of the mouth”). The mīs pî, as noted earlier, was primarily a ritual intended to purify the recipient in preparation for cultic activity. As Walker and Dick conclude, “the ‘washing of the mouth’ was essentially a purification rite which prepared the object/person for contact with the divine. It washed away impurities.” The mīs pî was performed not only on divine statues but also on the king and his royal insignia, royal statues, priests, individual humans, and various animals and sacred objects. By contrast, the mouth-opening rite (pīt pî) was apparently reserved for inanimate objects, including figurines and larger divine images, a leather bag, cult symbols, and royal jewels. It was thought to consecrate, activate, and/or enliven the object in preparation for cultic use. When applied to a divine statue, the Opening of the Mouth was thought to animate the statue’s sensory organs and limbs, enabling it to consume offerings, smell incense, and move freely. Once the mouth washing and opening were complete, the statue was considered a fully functioning, living manifestation of the divine.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 44

<idle musing>
Remember, the ancients were fully aware that it wasn't the deity—it was just a manifestation of the deity. But at the same time, it was the deity. Confusing? Maybe. But because in a very real sense it was the deity, Isaiah and the other prophets could have a good time making fun of the whole process.

At the risk of incurring the wrath of the few people who actually read this blog, I could say we can compare it to the treatment that is given to the U.S. flag. It isn't the country, but it represents in a very real way the U.S. That's why people get so upset when people burn it out of protest. They are symbolically burning the country. Or, why the flag is never supposed to touch the ground, or you stand and salute the flag, or say the Pledge of Allegiance, or any one of a number of other "silly" rules about handling the flag.

Side question? Is the flag an idol?

You figure it out, but I would suggest it is...just as nationalism is an idol. Yes, especially "American exceptionalism."
</idle musing>

But you got it all wrong!

It is clear in Genesis 3 that in eating the forbidden fruit and becoming like ʿelōhîm the man and the woman had transgressed a very significant boundary between the human and divine spheres. In the Mesopotamian pît pî and the Egyptian wpt-r, however, the opening of the eyes, which signified the image’s (re-)birth and the transformation of the image into a living manifestation of an ʿel (Akkadian ilu), was precisely the goal. Although there is a notable difference between the opening of the eyes in Gen 2:5–3:24, which signified the acquisition of illicit wisdom, and the opening of the eyes in the mīs pî pīt pî and wpt-r, which indicated the image’s vitality, it does seem that the Eden author is playing with the idea of the “opening of the eyes” as a means to life. In his story, however, the outcome is reversed. The man and the woman, who were created and animated prior to the opening of their eyes, now faced banishment, exile, decay, and eventual death.—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 42

<idle musing>
They already were alive and animated—before they ate the fruit! They had no need of it, unlike the images of the gods, who were inanimate until the opening of their eyes when the spirit of the deity entered them, thus animating them. By trying to add to what God had already done, they reversed the process. Sound familiar? We're still doing the same thing...
</idle musing>

The collapse

A dialogue between the serpent and the woman ensues (Gen 3:1b–5), and the subtle and deceptive serpent convinces the woman to taste the forbidden fruit. The following climactic moment of disobedience is conveyed with shocking brevity. What took 20 verses to describe (Gen 2:5–24) is now dismantled in less than a single verse (Gen 3:6b) by the actions recorded in four, short converted yiqtol verbs: wattiqaḥ (she took), wattōʾkal (she ate), wattittēn (she gave), and wayyōʾkal (he ate).—The "Image of God" in the Garden of Eden, page 39
<idle musing>
I never thought of it that way before. . .pretty depressing how quickly we can destroy what God has built.

Speaking of which, if you aren't a believer in climate change, then explain to me the weather here. We had a thunderstorm last night! And it's raining right now. Well, it just turned to freezing rain as I'm writing this. And two weeks ago it was -18ºF. This is crazy!

Cue the reading from Psalms today:
God is our refuge and strength,
a help always near in times of great trouble.
That’s why we won’t be afraid when the world falls apart,
when the mountains crumble into the center of the sea,
when its waters roar and rage,
when the mountains shake because of its surging waves. Selah (Ps 46:1–3CEB)

That's reassuring, this last week of 2016, a year that has seen more than its share of international disasters—many/most of them man-made. May the new year bring shalom in it's fullest (Hebrew) sense. Of course, I realize that can only be God who brings it; it's a metaphorical saying, the new year can't bring anything by itself.
</idle musing>