HOME
johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2004 John D. Brey.
johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2004 John D. Brey.
The Lord
is not a neuter or neutered being, much less an abstract or impersonal
principal, a world soul or vital force. He is an otherwise male being . . .
Moreover, in a characterological rather than a genital sense, he has been
really male and not really female. Since he presents himself sometimes in human
form and then always in male form, he may even be said to have male genitalia .
. ..
Jack Miles, God a Biography, p. 266-267.
Jack Miles, God a Biography, p. 266-267.
It’s
difficult not to notice that to an inordinate degree God’s relationship with
Abraham centers on and around Abraham’s reproductive organs; God promises that
Abraham’s genitals will play a primary role in the coming of the anointed one
(the Messiah), as well as fathering offspring as numerous as the stars. --- In
his own midrash on the subject, the Apostle Paul tells us that it was not
through law that Abraham was given the promise, but because of faith apart from
and before the Law. Even the fulfillment of the promise was received not
through the ordinary practice of biological law (pre-senescent procreation), but
instead through a process that broke the natural law which says that senescent
adults (adults who’ve lost the ability to produce offspring because of their
agedness) don’t birth and raise young.
Abraham practiced lawless faith in a “promise” stationed in the complete illegality of a bio-illogical relationship! Abraham knew that Sarah was incapable of offspring . . . and thus Abraham knew that what God required -- in order for Abraham to become the father of the promised seed through Sarah -- was faith in the impossible. Abraham’s rogue faith pre-seeded the seed of Sarah, the seed of the promise (the promise of Gen. 3:15).
In his letter to the Galatians, Paul confides with the Galatians that he believes he’s uncovered something that was previously hidden behind the veil, or foreskin, of Abraham’s reproductive organ:
Abraham practiced lawless faith in a “promise” stationed in the complete illegality of a bio-illogical relationship! Abraham knew that Sarah was incapable of offspring . . . and thus Abraham knew that what God required -- in order for Abraham to become the father of the promised seed through Sarah -- was faith in the impossible. Abraham’s rogue faith pre-seeded the seed of Sarah, the seed of the promise (the promise of Gen. 3:15).
In his letter to the Galatians, Paul confides with the Galatians that he believes he’s uncovered something that was previously hidden behind the veil, or foreskin, of Abraham’s reproductive organ:
For it is
written that Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the
free woman. His son by the slave woman was born in the ordinary way; but his
son by the free woman was born as the result of a promise. These things may be
taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants. One covenant is from
Mount Sinai and bears children who are to be slaves: This is Hagar. Now Hagar
stands for Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to the present city of
Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that
is above is free, and she is our mother.
Galatians 4:22-26.
Galatians 4:22-26.
If
Jack Miles’ contention that God possesses male genitalia is taken seriously,
then superimposing Galatians 4:22-26 over the events at Sinai begins to bear
fruit. In Galatians 4:22-26 Paul figuratively calls Mount Sinai “Hagar”! . . .
So that if Mount Sinai is figuratively Hagar, then God is figuratively Abraham
. . . and Israel, as the first fertile woman of God (a marriage effected at
Sinai) is a type of Hagar.
The "nation of Israel" as the offspring of God and Mt Sinai (God and Israel), is figuratively Ishmael.
In the narrative it’s clear that when Paul calls Mount Sinai “Hagar” he’s suggesting that “Mount Sinai” (where God’s relationship with Israel was codified) represents the first of two women (rather than just one) who will bear God offspring (Abraham bore offspring through two woman . . . first Hagar and secondly Sarah). By calling Mount Sinai “Hagar,” Paul is suggesting that Israel is only the first of God’s two fertile relationships.
In Galatians Paul speaks of the Egyptian slave girl Hagar (Gen. 21:9) as birthing Abraham offspring through the lawful manner in which all men birth offspring, i.e. “the ordinary way” (pre-senescent procreation); but he then claims that the freewoman’s offspring were born as the result of a “promise.”
The promise between God and Abraham was based on the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. Abraham is promised a son despite the brokenness of Sarah’s womb. -- But before the promise is fulfilled God requires even greater faith of Abraham. In the lapse between the promise and its fulfillment Abraham’s bio-logical (biologically logical) means of reproduction is broken through senescence. ----- Now . . . not only is Sarah’s womb barren but Abraham’s genitals (translated “stones” in Deut. 23:2) are broken beyond repair. If Abraham is going to have a child through Sarah’s womb it isn’t enough that the barren Gentile woman Sarah should need to have her ability to bear fruit for God awoken in her for the first time. It’s now the case that Abraham will need to have his own sexual organ resurrected from its death before the promise can be fulfilled.
In Paul’s thinking Abraham is quite naturally able to bear fruit with a former Egyptian slave prior to the death of his genitalia; but where Sarah is concerned it’s the case that Abraham’s genitals will experience both death and resurrection prior to the fulfillment of the promise; his genitals will be broken in their ability to bear fruit “in the ordinary way,” so that only “as the result of a promise” (one which required death and resurrection of his lawful means of fruitfulness) will the promise be fulfilled.
If Paul’s allegory is taken to its logical conclusion, if a mountain (Sinai) is understood to be a symbol of Hagar, if a man (Abraham) is understood to be a type of God, then the nation of Israel (born through Mount Sinai) represents God’s “Ishmael” rather than His “Isaac.” Ishmael’s birth occurs “in the ordinary way,” between God and Mt. Sinai. In Paul’s allegory God’s second covenantal relationship, the one based on a promise, will be to a bride (Sarah) who has never experienced slavery in Egypt or anywhere else.
To fulfill Paul’s allegory, God – after consummating his conjugal covenant with Hagar -- would need to engage a Gentile bride like Sarah who had never experienced slavery (as had Hagar/Israel), and who had as yet not produced any offspring for God; she would have long been barren so far as spiritual fruitfulness was concerned (2 Peter 2:10). ---- Furthermore . . . if the figurative allegory is to hold true, then the very instrument that God used to engage the fruitfulness of former Egyptian slaves (the seminality of His Law) would need to be broken beyond repair – like Abraham’s reproductive seminality was broken beyond repair -- before the resurrected broken instrument could be used to produce spiritual offspring from the formerly barren womb of His bride.
* * *
If Mount Sinai is Hagar, and the nation of Israel is thus Ishmael, then who is the Gentile bride who has never experienced slavery? . . . Who in type is Sarah? . . . She cannot have been a slave in Egypt (like Israel), and she must have been raised as a Gentile, and preferably of royalty like her namesake.
The "nation of Israel" as the offspring of God and Mt Sinai (God and Israel), is figuratively Ishmael.
In the narrative it’s clear that when Paul calls Mount Sinai “Hagar” he’s suggesting that “Mount Sinai” (where God’s relationship with Israel was codified) represents the first of two women (rather than just one) who will bear God offspring (Abraham bore offspring through two woman . . . first Hagar and secondly Sarah). By calling Mount Sinai “Hagar,” Paul is suggesting that Israel is only the first of God’s two fertile relationships.
In Galatians Paul speaks of the Egyptian slave girl Hagar (Gen. 21:9) as birthing Abraham offspring through the lawful manner in which all men birth offspring, i.e. “the ordinary way” (pre-senescent procreation); but he then claims that the freewoman’s offspring were born as the result of a “promise.”
The promise between God and Abraham was based on the barrenness of Sarah’s womb. Abraham is promised a son despite the brokenness of Sarah’s womb. -- But before the promise is fulfilled God requires even greater faith of Abraham. In the lapse between the promise and its fulfillment Abraham’s bio-logical (biologically logical) means of reproduction is broken through senescence. ----- Now . . . not only is Sarah’s womb barren but Abraham’s genitals (translated “stones” in Deut. 23:2) are broken beyond repair. If Abraham is going to have a child through Sarah’s womb it isn’t enough that the barren Gentile woman Sarah should need to have her ability to bear fruit for God awoken in her for the first time. It’s now the case that Abraham will need to have his own sexual organ resurrected from its death before the promise can be fulfilled.
In Paul’s thinking Abraham is quite naturally able to bear fruit with a former Egyptian slave prior to the death of his genitalia; but where Sarah is concerned it’s the case that Abraham’s genitals will experience both death and resurrection prior to the fulfillment of the promise; his genitals will be broken in their ability to bear fruit “in the ordinary way,” so that only “as the result of a promise” (one which required death and resurrection of his lawful means of fruitfulness) will the promise be fulfilled.
If Paul’s allegory is taken to its logical conclusion, if a mountain (Sinai) is understood to be a symbol of Hagar, if a man (Abraham) is understood to be a type of God, then the nation of Israel (born through Mount Sinai) represents God’s “Ishmael” rather than His “Isaac.” Ishmael’s birth occurs “in the ordinary way,” between God and Mt. Sinai. In Paul’s allegory God’s second covenantal relationship, the one based on a promise, will be to a bride (Sarah) who has never experienced slavery in Egypt or anywhere else.
To fulfill Paul’s allegory, God – after consummating his conjugal covenant with Hagar -- would need to engage a Gentile bride like Sarah who had never experienced slavery (as had Hagar/Israel), and who had as yet not produced any offspring for God; she would have long been barren so far as spiritual fruitfulness was concerned (2 Peter 2:10). ---- Furthermore . . . if the figurative allegory is to hold true, then the very instrument that God used to engage the fruitfulness of former Egyptian slaves (the seminality of His Law) would need to be broken beyond repair – like Abraham’s reproductive seminality was broken beyond repair -- before the resurrected broken instrument could be used to produce spiritual offspring from the formerly barren womb of His bride.
* * *
If Mount Sinai is Hagar, and the nation of Israel is thus Ishmael, then who is the Gentile bride who has never experienced slavery? . . . Who in type is Sarah? . . . She cannot have been a slave in Egypt (like Israel), and she must have been raised as a Gentile, and preferably of royalty like her namesake.
It may be
that a further step has to be taken, and that something more than a metaphor
should be recognized in the figure of speech with which the Bible in identical
words twice repeats Moses’ remark as to his heaviness of speech: “For I am
uncircumcised of lips” . . . He who has to establish the covenant between the
people and YHVH is, so to speak, not accepted fully into the covenant of the
tribe [he doesn’t speak their tongue].”
Buber, Moses, p. 59.
Buber, Moses, p. 59.
The
person who mediated God’s engagement to Hagar at Sinai was Moses. Unlike
Israel, but very much like Sarah, Moses was raised as a Gentile of royal birth.
Like Sarah, Moses encouraged God to fulfill the promise in the ordinary way,
through unbroken law (logical biology). Moses, like Sarah, encouraged
God/Abraham to fulfill the promise through an Egyptian slave girl. Thus, Moses
is figuratively speaking, a type of Sarah.
Just as the first fruitful relationship between Abraham and a woman was brought together by the work of Sarah, so too, the first fruitful relationship between God and a woman (a woman who was formerly an Egyptian slave) was brought together through the work of Moses. It was through Moses that the first covenant (a type of Abraham and Hagar) was brought to completion; and it was likewise with Moses that the new covenant (a type of Abraham and Sarah) came to be established.
In his Guide for the Perplexed, the great Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides states that: “It is clear to me that what Moses experienced at the revelation on Mount Sinai was different from that which was experienced by all the other Israelites, for Moses alone was addressed by God, and for this reason the second person singular is used in the Ten Commandments” (p. 221). Martin Buber concurs: “The Ten Commandments are not addressed to the collective `You,’ but all of them to a single `Thou’ . . .” (On Judaism, p. 208). Maimonides and Buber both confirm that the commandments of God were given to Moses in the “second person singular”!
Likewise, R. B. Thieme, Jr. confounded his audience (Spiritual Dynamics lesson 1028) . . . and he was himself noticeably baffled when he revealed that in strict exegesis of the Hebrew of Exodus 19:5-6 (“Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”) . . . God is actually speaking directly to Moses in the second person singular and not to Moses as a representative of the newly formed nation of Israel. --- God is telling Moses that it is not through Hagar (the nation of Israel) that He will raise up a kingdom of priests, but rather, it’s through Moses himself . . . who, figuratively speaking is Sarah. Even though Moses encouraged God to bring about the promise in a natural way with an Egyptian slave girl, God now tells Moses repeatedly in Exodus 19:5-6, Num. 14:12, and Deut. 10:4, that it is with Moses alone, independent of Israel, that he is going to fulfill the promise of Gen 3:15. God promises Moses that He is going to raise a kingdom of priest directly through Moses and not through the former Egyptian slaves that God speaks of as belonging to Moses (as Hagar belonged to Sarah): “Then the Lord said to Moses `Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt’” (Ex. 32:7).
Just as the first fruitful relationship between Abraham and a woman was brought together by the work of Sarah, so too, the first fruitful relationship between God and a woman (a woman who was formerly an Egyptian slave) was brought together through the work of Moses. It was through Moses that the first covenant (a type of Abraham and Hagar) was brought to completion; and it was likewise with Moses that the new covenant (a type of Abraham and Sarah) came to be established.
In his Guide for the Perplexed, the great Jewish philosopher Moses Maimonides states that: “It is clear to me that what Moses experienced at the revelation on Mount Sinai was different from that which was experienced by all the other Israelites, for Moses alone was addressed by God, and for this reason the second person singular is used in the Ten Commandments” (p. 221). Martin Buber concurs: “The Ten Commandments are not addressed to the collective `You,’ but all of them to a single `Thou’ . . .” (On Judaism, p. 208). Maimonides and Buber both confirm that the commandments of God were given to Moses in the “second person singular”!
Likewise, R. B. Thieme, Jr. confounded his audience (Spiritual Dynamics lesson 1028) . . . and he was himself noticeably baffled when he revealed that in strict exegesis of the Hebrew of Exodus 19:5-6 (“Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation”) . . . God is actually speaking directly to Moses in the second person singular and not to Moses as a representative of the newly formed nation of Israel. --- God is telling Moses that it is not through Hagar (the nation of Israel) that He will raise up a kingdom of priests, but rather, it’s through Moses himself . . . who, figuratively speaking is Sarah. Even though Moses encouraged God to bring about the promise in a natural way with an Egyptian slave girl, God now tells Moses repeatedly in Exodus 19:5-6, Num. 14:12, and Deut. 10:4, that it is with Moses alone, independent of Israel, that he is going to fulfill the promise of Gen 3:15. God promises Moses that He is going to raise a kingdom of priest directly through Moses and not through the former Egyptian slaves that God speaks of as belonging to Moses (as Hagar belonged to Sarah): “Then the Lord said to Moses `Go down, because your people, whom you brought up out of Egypt, have become corrupt’” (Ex. 32:7).