|
|
| Torah On Guard However, had Yahweh chosen to be explicit rather than vague and ambiguous, think of all the words he could have used to make unquestionably clear his thoughts that were expressed in Genesis 22:2. Some that come to mind would be: יקד (yakadh)–to burn with fire, באש-בער (boeyr ba’eysh)-consume with fire, קטר (katar)–to raise an odor by burning, הרג (harag)–to slay, שחט (shachat)–to slaughter, קטל (katal)–to kill, שרף (saraf)–to burn, consign to flames, זבח (zavach)–slaughter for sacrifice, or even אשה (isheh)–which is the literal term for burnt offering, fire offering. All of these terms are conspicuously absent however, from Genesis 22:2, but use is made instead, and repeated, as if to establish it firmly, of the עלה (alah) verb, the verb of ascension. Let’s say it again. Above are a group of eight Hebrew words, four which mean kill, and four that mean burn. None of them are used in Genesis 22:2 to describe what was to happen to Yitschak. Rather, a word is used, — twice —, which means, simply, go up, alah. Alah? Olah? Ascension? Cause him to go up? And up to what? Cause him to go up to a going up? Ascend to an ascension? A calling on high! But how many think that the way to be called on high is through death? Is it not rather through repentance, conversion, redemption, and restoration? Let us renounce our “covenant with death” please! This is “to life”, and the glory of Yah — the silence doth roar: let us listen in awe!
Moreover, had Yahweh intended that Yitschak not only go up to the עלה (olah), but actually be the עלה, he could have indicated so, much more explicitly, at minimal effort, by simply changing one letter of one word in his command of testing. Yahweh commanded Avraham to “cause him (Yitschak), to ascend” to an olah (לעלה- l’olah). Had he chosen to command ascension as an olah (כעלה- c’olah), instead of to an olah, the meaning would have changed substantially, more in conformity to the interpretation of Babylon. The use of the substantive preposition כ- (caf), rather than the directive preposition ל- (lamedh), to say the least, would have made the topic much more controversial than it is, but thankfully, it is not so. The lamedh would typically imply direction toward the olah, whereas caph would have typically implied identification of the subject with the olah, the subtle but self-evident difference between Yitschak being directed to an ascending offering, or hypothetically being identified as an ascending offering. Having encountered allegations that the difference between the two prepositional meanings is essentially irrelevant, perhaps we are justified in asking, “Then why do the proponents of the traditional Babylonish interpretation insist on blurring their differences of meanings, and how can all this be explained?” Would the answers be interesting, perhaps even amusing? Again, we can learn from the silence, as we can from the vocalization.
In reflection, the tenacity with which proponents of the Babylonish interpretations of Genesis 22 maintain their stance is truly astounding, in light of the above detailed information. What motivates them to insist so vehemently that Yahweh would explicitly will for Avraham to perform an act that is at once distasteful in extreme to the kind hearted, and violates so many points of logic, not to mention bending and stretching torah to the point of distress? Is it to deliberately portray Yahweh as if in perverse disregard of his own rules, acting as if an ill-tempered old man in a fit of dementia; to pave the way for their own apostasies? Is it to soothe chafing consciences of previously committed vile acts? Is it to justify every rash and desperate act of self-will, flying in the face of all reasoned wisdom and prudent self-restraint? Are they attempting to justify themselves by saying, “If Yahweh can require such a deed of Avraham, merely to test him, then I also can be justified in requiring such irregular deeds of myself, or of my subordinates”, to prove dedication, or zeal, or to deal with whatever expediency may arise? Is it an attempt to prove Yahweh’s lack of qualification to continue to be Elohim, by reason of inconsistency, with all of the consequential ramifications? Both they and we need to consider and remember though, that what Avraham was about to do before the angel stopped him, was but one of several optional ways wherein he could have fulfilled the command that Yahweh had given him. That it was not the best way is manifest and obvious, in that he was stopped and redirected!
And sometimes a slavish literal translation can reveal more than an exquisitely figurative one. For example, Deuteronomy 16:1, “Observe (or guard) the new moon (or month) of the green ears (aviv), and do pesach for Yahweh.” Wonderfully enlightening, to guide the Passover observer into precious synchronization with the holy schedule of Yahweh our creator, sustainer, and the restorer of the good ways. Since it is our contention that most of the problems relating to misunderstanding of the offering up of Yitschak originate in excessive stretching of the translational “fabric” of which our understanding is formed, the cure will be simple. We will allow the “whole cloth” of torah to return to its natural state; flat, level, uniform, free of distortion, and begin anew. Hopefully then, by emphasizing literality, we will determine what the account says, and not merely what the interpreters say it means.
As our guide now to a more strictly literal translation of Genesis 22:2, may we avail ourselves of the greater context, in other words the entire Hebrew sacred scriptures? And in particular, are there examples of use of the two key action words in the verse, both being derived from the Hebrew verb of ascension, that will help to indicate both typical and extraordinary meanings? And help us to understand the difference, and judge and act accordingly? Yes, our resort to the context will help us to understand both how the words that have typically been translated as “…and offer him up there for a burnt offering…” can and should be defined. Let’s take a look!
To begin, the Hebrew word translated “and offer him,” (w’ha’aleyhu), is causative in nature, what is called “hiphil” (rhymes with “if wheel”) and “imperative.” Its typical translation would be “and cause him to ascend,” as we may see an example for in 2 Kings 10:15. There we find a very similar word, “w’ya’aleyhu,” whose main difference is a lack of imperative nature, which is typically translated “and he took him up,” or, “and he caused him to ascend.” Many similar examples can be referred to using George V. Wigram’s The Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance of the Old Testament. (Please also see appendix 1 ) Look for word # 5927, alah, turn a couple of pages to find the sub-listing Hiphil-imperative, and there you will find nine examples, including Genesis 22:2. Only the above mentioned verse deviates from the other eight in definition from the basic meaning of “ascension,” and not necessarily justifiably so. In the adjacent Hiphil listings, many more similar examples affirm the basic meaning of “ascension.” Even in the (approximately) ten examples where it is associated with light being caused to ascend to or from lamps in the tabernacle, and smoke being caused to rise from a burning city, the meaning is still clear and consistent. Please note also, to this effect, the many examples wherein the concept of burning, conflagration, ignition, or combustion would be entirely inappropriate and foreign to the word alah and its derivatives. Some of these would be where the word is used to indicate rumination (Leviticus 11:3-26), rising of a cloud from the sea (1 Kings 18:44), and an old prophet being lifted out of a wet, muddy dungeon, in Yir-m’yahw 38:13.
And the word translated “for a burnt offering,” from Hebrew, “l’olah,” will be most entertaining to research. First, for convenience, let us remove its single letter preposition, translated “for.” The remainder, “olah,” is usually, and loosely we might add, translated burnt offering. However, there are at least six examples where the exact same word is used, with identical vowel points, but literally and correctly translated! These are located in 1 Kings 18:44, translated there ariseth, Song of Solomon 3:6 and 8:5, both translated as ascending, Daniel 8:3, translated came up, or more accurately, coming up, 1 Chronicles 26:16, translated going up and in Ecclesiastes 3:21, with the addition of the definite article, translated as that ascends. More examples may yet come to light. All six of these examples can be found in the KAL.—Participle. Poel. partial column, #5927 of the aforementioned Englishman’s Hebrew Concordance by G.V.Wigram. The list also contains approximately 43 other examples with slight vocalic variations, or plural suffixes. The search continues, and we welcome your participation. “Good hunting.”
Another interesting point of visitation is list #5930 in Englishman’s. This is the list for the infamous word olah; the word so “diabolically” translated as burnt offering, or burnt sacrifice. As with any crime scene, clues are often carelessly left. All of the words in this column are translated as above, with two exceptions, and we ask the reader to please note the contrast of definition. We will refer at this time to the aforementioned two items on that list, then confidently leave the readers to ponder their own contextual conclusions. First, in 1 Kings 10:5 we have a word translated "and his ascent", and second, in Ezekiel 40:26 is a word translated "to go up to it". You will no doubt perceive, as I did, that there is little if any resemblance between these two translations, and the words “burnt”, “sacrifice”, “offering”, or any combination thereof. Is there a legitimate reason for this incongruity, or have “forced” translations occurred, with devious motives?
As a minor digression, could there be, we might ask, any significance in the abbreviations for “burnt offering” and “burnt sacrifice”? At the risk of offending the sensibilities of the faint hearted, may we suggest that their abbreviations have also at times been taken to stand for “bull odor” and “body scent”? Perhaps that may help to explain why the use of so much “B.O.”, and especially “B.S.” in the translation of Genesis 22:2 has corrupted faith and integrity so regrettably? Or was it perhaps the opposite case, that corruption of faith and integrity led so inexorably to the point of pervasion of B.S. and B.O. in discussion and interpretation of the Akedah? And of course, for those of us more familiar with “B.S.” being an abbreviation for “baloney slices”, “bad stories”, or “Babylonish sarcasm”, please be assured, it is not our intent to exclude you! If we all pull together, hopefully we can make this not only a "No B.S.” zone, but also hopefully, one-day, a “sincerity and truth” zone! May EliYah come soon!
So how then shall we treat לעלה שם והעלהו (w’ha’aleyhu sham l’olah)—“…offer him up there for a burnt offering…?” Perhaps, “And cause him to ascend there to, for, or at, that which ascends?” Or perhaps “And cause him to go up there to an ascending (offering)? Either might suffice to provide a wonderfully illustrative, rather literal translation to compare with, and serve similarly to the aforementioned one of De. 16:1. And if this is lawful, would it not give plenty of room to assure that Yahweh may easily have meant, from the very beginning, for Avraham to offer a bloodless offering, or a substitute sacrifice? In addition, would it not still allow contemplation of the horrifying implications of the conventional idiomatic translations of Genesis 22:2, to which we have become accustomed?
Are you ready then for the editor’s choice translation? Here it is: “…and bring him up there, for an ascending offering…!” Notice that the word “offering” would be in Italics, to indicate its lack of explicit presence in the Hebrew original. A little vague? Yes, but who can say that vagueness was not part of the original plan for the testing of Avraham? Ambiguous? Perhaps, but then, so also appears to be the Hebrew original, and who would dare label that as a fault? No doubt, this far removed as we are from the actual time of the event, only with Yahweh’s help could we hope to understand exactly in what figure of speech the words were intended to have been taken, and exactly in what sense of understanding they were received. Superficially, however, it appears that (and in retrospect, of course, it is much easier to suggest alternatives) Avraham might have also been justified in a far less radical course of action than what he actually undertook. Perhaps leave the fire, knife, and wood with the servants, or at home, bring Yitschak to the mountaintop, and prepare to spend some “quality time,” as Mosheh did on Sinai, in the presence of Yahweh? On the agenda would be (De.6:7) “teaching thy child diligently,” heartfelt petitions for their acceptance by Yahweh, inquiry into the details and more exact nature of the “olah” that they had been called up to, and whether it would be physical or figurative in nature, and perhaps fasting and revelations of the wonders of years and events to come, Mosheh and Eliyah, and Yahshua in glory? In the forefront of their thoughts would be the understanding that, should Yahweh for any reason find their souls either acceptable or unacceptable, he would be entirely capable of killing and incinerating one or the other or both of them, at any time, on the spot, with or without their co-operation! Yahweh proved capable of providing a suitable victim (a ram) for the ceremony, the thicket in which the ram was caught was available for wood, and Yahweh is already famous for his fire from heaven. Dear reader, please bear with me for a moment, while I ask the world a heartfelt question. "World: what’s the problem? Get a life! Is anything too difficult for Yahweh?" Thank you for your kind forbearance, dear Reader.
Interestingly, there appears to be scriptural evidence that the translation of olah as “burnt offering” is based on a derived meaning, one that has become commonly understood through popular use, but which has no direct connection to the meaning of the Hebrew root word. The basic meaning of the Hebrew word עלה, alah, is “ascend.” I have not seen so far though, any instance of its use in the Hebrew scriptures to directly and explicitly indicate combustion, burning, or fire, and do not expect to do so any time soon. Its use in the term “burnt offering” appears to be unique, and is evidently derived from the fact, commonly known, that as fire burns an object, most of the object typically “ascends”, as smoke or vapor. Hence, matter burned on the altar of sacrifice would mostly “ascend” toward the heavens, hopefully to be accepted favorably by Yahweh; leaving only a residue of ash on the earth. And so, as in the English figure of speech “to go up”, which is often used to mean “burn, go up in flames,” so the Hebrew term olah, literally “ascending”, has commonly been accepted as meaning “burnt offering.” There is some speculation that this rendering, though, however popular, must at best be accepted only with the gravest reservation by the discerning student of torah. Reasons being: one, the tenuous, derived, and figurative nature of its use; and two, there is another Hebrew word, אשה, isheh (which is directly, literally, and explicitly derived from אש, eysh “fire”) which literally and primarily means “fire offering, burnt offering,” and is commonly so used. (See please, for examples, G.V.Wigram’s, listing #801, appendix 1, herein.)
To return to the “scriptural evidence” now though, let us turn, please, to Leviticus 6:8-13 in most English translations, or Wayyikrah 6:1-6 in a Hebrew text. Here we find an account of just exactly what makes an ascending offering a “burnt” offering. Perhaps to remove any doubt in the minds of the priests of Yahweh, either of that time or the generations to come, as to in what way these offerings would be caused to ascend, and how high, it was explained here. An excellent English translation of these verses, sadly unappreciated recently, is the KJ Authorized Version of 1611. It goes: “…This is the law (instruction, torah) of the burnt offering… (ascending offering, olah):” and continues “…It is the burnt offering, because of the burning upon the altar…”! Sound redundant? Yes, it is: but let’s read on! Also, much of the seeming redundancy dissipates with more correct translation as “…It is the ascending offering, because of the burning upon the altar…”
The “ascending” offerings, according to this point of torah, would derive their character of ascension from the burning that they would undergo, upon the fireplace, which was upon the altar. Also, not only would the fire act upon them from externally, they being placed upon the place of burning, but it would further act upon them from internally, (and the fire of the fireplace will burn in them) implying virtually complete combustion. Thus, the offerings would ascend in smoke and vapor, to be dealt with at Yahweh’s pleasure, only a token residue of ash remaining. Would Yahweh have detailed these apparently redundant instructions if the meaning of “ascending offering” had been self-evident, and unquestionably so to all generations? For example, was it not possible that at a future time, ascending offerings may have in part been confused with “wave” offerings, and a perception may have resulted that an “ascending” offering need only be caused to ascend upward in the hands of the priest’s arms, to the limit of their reach, and only temporarily, and then used for human food? These six verses of instruction would hopefully help forestall any such deviation or misunderstanding, and also have served to justify Avraham in his apparently intended course of action.
next…
Just Following Orders?
| |
|