HOME
johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2005 John D. Brey.
If one were to speak first for, and then against, Ishmael, they would first wonder why he wouldn’t have a legitimate case against Abraham and Sarah? ---- Biologically speaking, Ishmael was indeed Abraham’s firstborn son. ---- Whereas, through the logic of biology, Isaac was illegitimate and bio-illogical (biologically illogical) Sarah’s womb was barren and Abraham was sexually dead.
To speak again on Ishmael’s behalf, why did God wait until Abraham was sexually dead before he had Sarah birth Isaac? --- Mightn’t Ishmael legitimately take the delay followed by the “miraculous” nature of the birth as an act of desperation rather than divine intervention? ---- In other words, just as Sarah lost her nerve and had Abraham bed down Ishmael’s Egyptian slave mother, why would not Ishmael, as the very product of that lack of faith in God’s original promise, have reason to suspect another ruse on the part of Abraham and Sarah?
If Abraham and Sarah conspired against the Promise of God through the birth of Ishmael, then who is to say to Ishmael that they mightn’t . . . under even greater duress (Abraham no longer has sexual control over the member through which the Promise must come), pull a fast one again? To cut to the chase (in speaking on behalf of Ishmael), why isn’t Ishmael justified in suspecting that Abraham and Sarah adopted a child from outside of their wedlock (as Abraham bed down Hagar outside of wedlock), in order to do for God what it appeared God could not do for Himself? ---- If Abraham was willing to father Ishmael out of wedlock to fake the fulfillment of the Promise (which said Sarah would mother the Promised firstborn Jew) then surely Ishmael would have a case against Abraham for saying that not only did God fulfill the promise, but he fulfilled it after Abraham had lost the use of the only organ capable of fathering Isaac?
Since Ishmael was born bio-logically, could Ishmael really be reckoned too quick to reject something so Other than bio-logical law? Is Ishmael stubborn for not immediately rescinding the special title that belongs to him as a “naturally” born child of Abraham in favor of a child born super-unnaturally?
This is such a hard thing! ---- How could Ishmael find it in himself to accept Isaac as his spiritual replacement when it’s the case that Ishmael was born legitimately through Abraham’s still living loins and Hagar’s quite fertile womb while Isaac is alleged to be born from a barren womb and a sexually impotent male organ? By what act of greater faith must Ishmael accede to his father’s faith (in the supernatural birth of Isaac) when in fact Ishmael is the very product of his father’s lack of faith?
Such an unlikely faith would be tantamount to Jews who are born of the legitimate covenant of the Law accepting their replacement to be a mamzer born in opposition to Deut. 23:2! Maimonides claims that Deut. 23:2 is rightly translated “broken stones” so that we would not be too audacious if we imagined the scene where Moses broke God the Father’s seminal stones (the tablets of the Law) and then cut off members of Israel’s body (Ex. 32:27) as superimposed or transposed over the sight of a broken-stoned Abraham (sexually dead) cutting off the seminal member of his own body just before establishing the true Body of God through Isaac.
In other words, if Abraham was truly sexually dead, then according to Maimonides’ translation of Deut. 23:2 Isaac would “bio-logically” speaking be a “mamzer”! --- If it was the case that Abraham’s stones were broken through senescence (and they were) then logically speaking Isaac would have to be a mamzer born in spite of broken stones (dead stones). Worse, if we’ve really transposed Moses cutting-off the seminal members of Israel (just after the stones of the covenant are broken) with Abraham’s cutting off the seminal member of his body (after his stones are broken through senescence), then we must read “the circumcision” with the great Jewish psychologist Freud, as an “emasculation” doubling the mamzerish nature of Isaac’s birth.
Cut to a Jewish youth said to be born from a broken-stoned pregnancy (virgin birth) . . . not Isaac but his Archetype. ---- Say this seminal member of Israel’s Body is "cut off" like Abraham’s seminal member so that any spiritual progeny through Him after the fact would be a mamzer. Think how hard it would be for the legitimate heirs by birth to accept that an illegitimate bastard by biological and spiritual logic might in fact be the true heir of God whereas the naturally born members of the covenant (born before the breaking of the seminal stones and before the cutting off of the seminal member) are in fact mere persecutors of the legitimate heirs who they can never appreciate as anything other than bastards!
* * *
If the term “mamzer” is defined as a child born of “broken stones’ or a “forbidden union,” then if we take scripture seriously, Isaac and Jesus would both be bastards. --- To save Isaac we need to believe either that Abraham wasn’t sexually dead (so the scripture is weak), or else that God supernaturally resurrected a dead male-member of Abraham’s Body (which begins to sound kerygmatic). ---- If Abraham is truly sexually dead, then even though “no one knows what goes on behind closed doors” (Rich), still, if Abraham is sexually dead, then we can guess that something went on behind closed doors . . . even if they were canvas doors. --- Poor Isaac. ---- Same with Jesus. . . If we take scripture seriously, then Jesus is a bastard born out of wedlock. ---- To save Jesus we need to believe that he – Is --- the dead male-member of Abraham’s Jewish Body.
Moses raised a bronzed phallus in the desert to heal Israel and to signify what sort of male-member of Abraham was dead, pierced or “cut-off,” and then resurrected. If Jesus is a sort of macrcosmic male-member of Abraham’s Jewish Body, so that when Abraham pierced his phallus he was signifying the treatment that another and later male-member of his Body would receive, prior to another resurrection, then whatever Body is born after the resurrection of this macrocosmic male-member, represents the macrocosmic Isaac. Amen.
* * *
Where the term “rock” denotes seminal beginnings, e.g., the “root and origin” (Maimonides), so that all of Israel finds its “root and origin” from the “rocks” or stones of Abraham’s quarry (his testicles, his semen), then Maimonides reading of Deut. 23:2 takes on its due significance:
johndbrey@gmail.com
© 2005 John D. Brey.
If one were to speak first for, and then against, Ishmael, they would first wonder why he wouldn’t have a legitimate case against Abraham and Sarah? ---- Biologically speaking, Ishmael was indeed Abraham’s firstborn son. ---- Whereas, through the logic of biology, Isaac was illegitimate and bio-illogical (biologically illogical) Sarah’s womb was barren and Abraham was sexually dead.
To speak again on Ishmael’s behalf, why did God wait until Abraham was sexually dead before he had Sarah birth Isaac? --- Mightn’t Ishmael legitimately take the delay followed by the “miraculous” nature of the birth as an act of desperation rather than divine intervention? ---- In other words, just as Sarah lost her nerve and had Abraham bed down Ishmael’s Egyptian slave mother, why would not Ishmael, as the very product of that lack of faith in God’s original promise, have reason to suspect another ruse on the part of Abraham and Sarah?
If Abraham and Sarah conspired against the Promise of God through the birth of Ishmael, then who is to say to Ishmael that they mightn’t . . . under even greater duress (Abraham no longer has sexual control over the member through which the Promise must come), pull a fast one again? To cut to the chase (in speaking on behalf of Ishmael), why isn’t Ishmael justified in suspecting that Abraham and Sarah adopted a child from outside of their wedlock (as Abraham bed down Hagar outside of wedlock), in order to do for God what it appeared God could not do for Himself? ---- If Abraham was willing to father Ishmael out of wedlock to fake the fulfillment of the Promise (which said Sarah would mother the Promised firstborn Jew) then surely Ishmael would have a case against Abraham for saying that not only did God fulfill the promise, but he fulfilled it after Abraham had lost the use of the only organ capable of fathering Isaac?
Since Ishmael was born bio-logically, could Ishmael really be reckoned too quick to reject something so Other than bio-logical law? Is Ishmael stubborn for not immediately rescinding the special title that belongs to him as a “naturally” born child of Abraham in favor of a child born super-unnaturally?
This is such a hard thing! ---- How could Ishmael find it in himself to accept Isaac as his spiritual replacement when it’s the case that Ishmael was born legitimately through Abraham’s still living loins and Hagar’s quite fertile womb while Isaac is alleged to be born from a barren womb and a sexually impotent male organ? By what act of greater faith must Ishmael accede to his father’s faith (in the supernatural birth of Isaac) when in fact Ishmael is the very product of his father’s lack of faith?
Such an unlikely faith would be tantamount to Jews who are born of the legitimate covenant of the Law accepting their replacement to be a mamzer born in opposition to Deut. 23:2! Maimonides claims that Deut. 23:2 is rightly translated “broken stones” so that we would not be too audacious if we imagined the scene where Moses broke God the Father’s seminal stones (the tablets of the Law) and then cut off members of Israel’s body (Ex. 32:27) as superimposed or transposed over the sight of a broken-stoned Abraham (sexually dead) cutting off the seminal member of his own body just before establishing the true Body of God through Isaac.
In other words, if Abraham was truly sexually dead, then according to Maimonides’ translation of Deut. 23:2 Isaac would “bio-logically” speaking be a “mamzer”! --- If it was the case that Abraham’s stones were broken through senescence (and they were) then logically speaking Isaac would have to be a mamzer born in spite of broken stones (dead stones). Worse, if we’ve really transposed Moses cutting-off the seminal members of Israel (just after the stones of the covenant are broken) with Abraham’s cutting off the seminal member of his body (after his stones are broken through senescence), then we must read “the circumcision” with the great Jewish psychologist Freud, as an “emasculation” doubling the mamzerish nature of Isaac’s birth.
Cut to a Jewish youth said to be born from a broken-stoned pregnancy (virgin birth) . . . not Isaac but his Archetype. ---- Say this seminal member of Israel’s Body is "cut off" like Abraham’s seminal member so that any spiritual progeny through Him after the fact would be a mamzer. Think how hard it would be for the legitimate heirs by birth to accept that an illegitimate bastard by biological and spiritual logic might in fact be the true heir of God whereas the naturally born members of the covenant (born before the breaking of the seminal stones and before the cutting off of the seminal member) are in fact mere persecutors of the legitimate heirs who they can never appreciate as anything other than bastards!
* * *
If the term “mamzer” is defined as a child born of “broken stones’ or a “forbidden union,” then if we take scripture seriously, Isaac and Jesus would both be bastards. --- To save Isaac we need to believe either that Abraham wasn’t sexually dead (so the scripture is weak), or else that God supernaturally resurrected a dead male-member of Abraham’s Body (which begins to sound kerygmatic). ---- If Abraham is truly sexually dead, then even though “no one knows what goes on behind closed doors” (Rich), still, if Abraham is sexually dead, then we can guess that something went on behind closed doors . . . even if they were canvas doors. --- Poor Isaac. ---- Same with Jesus. . . If we take scripture seriously, then Jesus is a bastard born out of wedlock. ---- To save Jesus we need to believe that he – Is --- the dead male-member of Abraham’s Jewish Body.
Moses raised a bronzed phallus in the desert to heal Israel and to signify what sort of male-member of Abraham was dead, pierced or “cut-off,” and then resurrected. If Jesus is a sort of macrcosmic male-member of Abraham’s Jewish Body, so that when Abraham pierced his phallus he was signifying the treatment that another and later male-member of his Body would receive, prior to another resurrection, then whatever Body is born after the resurrection of this macrocosmic male-member, represents the macrocosmic Isaac. Amen.
* * *
Where the term “rock” denotes seminal beginnings, e.g., the “root and origin” (Maimonides), so that all of Israel finds its “root and origin” from the “rocks” or stones of Abraham’s quarry (his testicles, his semen), then Maimonides reading of Deut. 23:2 takes on its due significance:
It is prohibited for an Israelite “that is wounded
in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off” (Deut. xxiii. 2), to marry an
Israelitish woman; because the sexual intercourse is of no use and of no
purpose; and that marriage would be a source of ruin to her, and to him who
would claim her.
Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, p. 379.
Maimonides, Guide for the Perplexed, p. 379.
Maimonides says that “rocks” or
“stones” refer to “origin,” seminality, so that Abraham is the quarry from
whence Israel is chiseled. And since we know that Abraham’s testicles are the
actual quarry from which Israel is chiseled, we know that if Abraham’s
testicles are “broken” so that he has “wounded stones” then intercourse with
Sarah is of no purpose and their relationship is a source of ruin. Were Sarah
to have a child from Abraham’s broken stones then that child would be one of
two things: A miraculous birth affected by God from a resurrected male-member
of Abraham’s Body, or else a mamzer or bastard actually fathered by someone
with unbroken stones fraudulently acting on Abraham’s behalf.
If one has “faith,” then Isaac is the product of a resurrected male-member of Abraham’s Body: a Miracle! --- If they don’t . . . then he’s a bastard: the Holy Scripture is clear that through senescence Abraham’s quarry was broken beyond repair prior to the birth of Isaac. --- Therefore, since it's a Biblical fact that Abraham's sexual organ was dead . . . it could not produce Isaac . . . then either Isaac is from a “forbidden union,” outside the marriage of Abraham and Sarah (and we know that Abraham and Sarah are not above such a thing: reference Ishmael) or else something miraculous happened?
If something miraculous happened, it's fair to focus on the nature of the miracle. --- To keep it simple . . . a dead member of the nation of Israel (made up of only Abraham at this point) has to be resurrected against “natural” law if the Promise of God is to be fulfilled. A primary member of the soon to be Jewish Body (aggregate of all Jews) dies before the promise of God which is designed to come through this now dead member. (Note that Abraham’s phallus is “a primary member” of the Body that will be made of all Jews since Abraham’s phallus is the quarry (see Maimonides quote) from which all Jews will find their origin.)
The “member” through which the Promise of God is to come dies before the Promise is fulfilled; according to the normal law that governs things the Promise is dead. --- But the Author of the Promise demands that Israel keep the faith despite the deadness of the lawful means through which the Promise must come; He demands even greater faith; He has the only member through which the Promise could possibly be lawfully enacted (Moshiach) “cut-off” completely (see Daniel 9:26) so that only through a purely supernatural (apart from natural law) intervention could the promise be fulfilled.
But the Jew’s rightfully respond: “Abraham didn’t `cut-off’ the promissory member!” ---- And neither did he “cut-off” Isaac according to the reenactment of the circumcision. In other words, in the two seminal narratives of Jewish history (both concerning the “cutting-off” of the one anointed to bring about the promise (Abraham’s phallus, and then Isaac as the firstborn member of the resurrected phallus) God never requires Abraham to go all the way. In the case of the emasculation, He only requires that Abraham “cut-off” the foreskin, and in the case of the sacrifice of Isaac, He only has Abraham draw the blade that would “cut-off” the anointed one. In both cases Abraham only goes part way! In both cases God performs the actual act for which Abraham’s actions are merely symbolic.
The Author of the Promise lets Abraham only simulate “cutting-off” the anointed one (Isaac) before He provides His own substitutionary lamb (with his head stuck in a crown of thorns, or a crown of thorns stuck on his head (Gen. 22:13)), so that likewise, the Author of the Promise only has Abraham simulate “cutting-off” the anointed member (Abraham’s phallus) attached to the seminal quarry of Israel (see Maimonides) before He provides His own substitutionary seminal member to be “completely” circumcised from the body of Israel forever.
In both cases it’s clear that Abraham is only the “type” of the One who will go all the way by completely emasculating Himself from His only begotten Son whose head is stuck in a crown of thorns. And this emasculation of the only begotten Son of God occurs only –after--- He has entombed the broken stones (Ex. 32:19) that bore His only-begotten Son. The seminal stones that should have led to the arrival of the Jewish Messiah were broken and entombed in the sarcophagus, or ark, of the testicles, or testimony, prior to the emasculate birth of the Jewish Messiah. The broken tablets of the testicles, or testimony, are entombed in a sarcophagus or covenantal ark, forever and ever (Ex. 40:20).
God places His broken seminal stones – the ones that would have bore His firstborn Son were they not broken – in a sarcophagus signifying that they were dead and impotent (Ex. 32:19). He does this prior to the miraculous birth of His first-born Son, who, naturally, was born super-naturally (virgin pregnancy), by reason of the fact that His Father’s stones were already entombed in the golden sarcophagus of the broken covenant placed in the mausoleum (or tabernacle) of the broken testimony/testicles; His Father’s broken stones (Ex. 32:19) were incapable of providing seminality in the Lawful manner.
If one has “faith,” then Isaac is the product of a resurrected male-member of Abraham’s Body: a Miracle! --- If they don’t . . . then he’s a bastard: the Holy Scripture is clear that through senescence Abraham’s quarry was broken beyond repair prior to the birth of Isaac. --- Therefore, since it's a Biblical fact that Abraham's sexual organ was dead . . . it could not produce Isaac . . . then either Isaac is from a “forbidden union,” outside the marriage of Abraham and Sarah (and we know that Abraham and Sarah are not above such a thing: reference Ishmael) or else something miraculous happened?
If something miraculous happened, it's fair to focus on the nature of the miracle. --- To keep it simple . . . a dead member of the nation of Israel (made up of only Abraham at this point) has to be resurrected against “natural” law if the Promise of God is to be fulfilled. A primary member of the soon to be Jewish Body (aggregate of all Jews) dies before the promise of God which is designed to come through this now dead member. (Note that Abraham’s phallus is “a primary member” of the Body that will be made of all Jews since Abraham’s phallus is the quarry (see Maimonides quote) from which all Jews will find their origin.)
The “member” through which the Promise of God is to come dies before the Promise is fulfilled; according to the normal law that governs things the Promise is dead. --- But the Author of the Promise demands that Israel keep the faith despite the deadness of the lawful means through which the Promise must come; He demands even greater faith; He has the only member through which the Promise could possibly be lawfully enacted (Moshiach) “cut-off” completely (see Daniel 9:26) so that only through a purely supernatural (apart from natural law) intervention could the promise be fulfilled.
But the Jew’s rightfully respond: “Abraham didn’t `cut-off’ the promissory member!” ---- And neither did he “cut-off” Isaac according to the reenactment of the circumcision. In other words, in the two seminal narratives of Jewish history (both concerning the “cutting-off” of the one anointed to bring about the promise (Abraham’s phallus, and then Isaac as the firstborn member of the resurrected phallus) God never requires Abraham to go all the way. In the case of the emasculation, He only requires that Abraham “cut-off” the foreskin, and in the case of the sacrifice of Isaac, He only has Abraham draw the blade that would “cut-off” the anointed one. In both cases Abraham only goes part way! In both cases God performs the actual act for which Abraham’s actions are merely symbolic.
The Author of the Promise lets Abraham only simulate “cutting-off” the anointed one (Isaac) before He provides His own substitutionary lamb (with his head stuck in a crown of thorns, or a crown of thorns stuck on his head (Gen. 22:13)), so that likewise, the Author of the Promise only has Abraham simulate “cutting-off” the anointed member (Abraham’s phallus) attached to the seminal quarry of Israel (see Maimonides) before He provides His own substitutionary seminal member to be “completely” circumcised from the body of Israel forever.
In both cases it’s clear that Abraham is only the “type” of the One who will go all the way by completely emasculating Himself from His only begotten Son whose head is stuck in a crown of thorns. And this emasculation of the only begotten Son of God occurs only –after--- He has entombed the broken stones (Ex. 32:19) that bore His only-begotten Son. The seminal stones that should have led to the arrival of the Jewish Messiah were broken and entombed in the sarcophagus, or ark, of the testicles, or testimony, prior to the emasculate birth of the Jewish Messiah. The broken tablets of the testicles, or testimony, are entombed in a sarcophagus or covenantal ark, forever and ever (Ex. 40:20).
God places His broken seminal stones – the ones that would have bore His firstborn Son were they not broken – in a sarcophagus signifying that they were dead and impotent (Ex. 32:19). He does this prior to the miraculous birth of His first-born Son, who, naturally, was born super-naturally (virgin pregnancy), by reason of the fact that His Father’s stones were already entombed in the golden sarcophagus of the broken covenant placed in the mausoleum (or tabernacle) of the broken testimony/testicles; His Father’s broken stones (Ex. 32:19) were incapable of providing seminality in the Lawful manner.