Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter 4, part 6

Having laid the groundwork for the outright brigandage of Calvin, let us turn to his more pervasive corruption of the Cross. In the wake of the revolt against the Papacy, Europeans were frightened, endangered, and even worse, unsure. The lethal weapon at Luther’s command-the printing press-had spread a dangerous outbreak of ideas, against which tyrants have always cursed and abjured. As a result, people were left with a void of security, which is the most primal of all human needs. Thus, a time of uncertainty created a prefect soil for a dark harvester to sow. And sow he did.

Calvin was a prolific writer, so it would be manifestly unfair to cherry pick him lop-sidedly. Some of his commentary was valid, even sagacious at times. But we must review the effects of his work, to see what he left behind for us, and little that was mundane survived him. After all, Luther and other Reformers were better exegetes than himself. What did survive his works was his deadly, deranged doctrine of double predestination.

Free will vs pre-destination: preachers and clerics hate this adversity, for it truly has no resolution before the discovery of particle physics. Arminius, the Dutch Reformer, made effective argument against Calvin’s position, but the truth of the matter is that free will is not mentioned in the Bible, and predestination is. That conflict still drives theology today, what little remains. To boil it down, Arminius claimed that Calvin was making God the author of sin, if He predestined a soul to sin against Him and fall. Without a choice, there is no justice in condemning a sinner, since it was God who wrote his life. A normal person would consider that a problem.

Calvin, on the other hand, had no problem with that at all. That was subsidiary to the Depravity of Man-that men were born into sin, and were damned until saved from it, which Augustine declared from times past. This terrible estate drove the ancient church to practice infant baptisms, to shield a baby from going to hell. This practice was rejected, however, by Protestants, including some Calvinists who made it their flagship issue, who became the Baptists. Baptism had to be chosen, as a sign of accepting the Gospel: and the hard core still maintain that in must be a dunk, not a sprinkle.

Yet, Calvin’s double predestination made it clear that you were not in control of salvation. That was decided by Christ, and Christ alone. This made people even more nervous, since the comfort of salvation was now utterly beyond their reach. Why do anything, then, if your are damned or saved before you were even born? Calvin at least knew that this had to be countered ahead of time, lest he be painted into a corner. So he added another impossible dimension to the axiom.

You cannot control you fate, but, you can show that you are amongst the elect, by working very hard, and adhering to all the rules. A life unstained by indolence, sluggardly repose, and waste was the one way you could know that you were likely a saint in the making. This of course meant that if you were not doing this- keeping perfect piety, working hard, with industry, never wasting time on frivolities (Weber concentrates heavily on the ‘time is money’ that made America and its’ ethic)-then you were not a saint. You still might go to hell, even if you did everything right: but, you could find comfort in being able to believe that you at least had a chance, if you adhered to absolute ardor.

This ethic, of never wasting a moment or a coin, was the security that replace the old Catholic model. Thus, Weber identifies it as the ‘Protestant Work Ethic’: it is not to imply that Catholics are lazy. It was a specifically Protestant, Calvinist response to not having the assurance of the Roman Catholic paradigm. This idea was horrific; I doubt Calvin even knew what he was unleashing. But is was here that the malice associated with Christianity began in full. The Inquisitions, the barbarity in New Spain-these were atrocious . But they died out, having been rejected over time as evil. Calvin’s idea, was only beginning.

The terror of hell, of never being certain-without diligence-created a growing coterie of followers who took to the idea fervently. They developed fanatical strength of will, and extraordinary intellect through discipline. This was, in a sense, a ‘super soldier’ program: it refined the genetic limits of the practicioner. This became its’ own curse, however, and a source of great malice to boot. First, it created the idea that if you were doing well in life, God is blessing you. That it to say, if you are successful-as industrious, focused, pennurious people mostly tend to be-it is a sign of God’s favor. This begins the trend to see unsuccessful people as not favored, and therefore, damned.

Here, we see the beginning of the division of the world into the chosen few, and the great unwashed. There is no pity for the weak or wretched; if they failed, then God did not want them. If their piety was impure, they failed. Such sinful lapses revealed a weak will, and that was only made right through the rectification of the flesh, usually through flagellation. And should the weak be unable to rectify himself-well, the whip hand was always at the ready to drive some righteousness in to their hide.

Since the program of double predestination elicited the very best efforts from people, they tended to be extremely genetically fit, and this eventually became, over time, the basis for not only the superiority of white men over all others, but of the physically adroit of the weak and puny, as a sign of divine affirmation. The Greeks called this idea Charisma: that the beautiful were anointed by the Gods, and the deformed rejected by them. There was no physical defect but spiritual light. You had both or neither. Thus, by the mid 19th century, Calvinism had become the basis for Muscular Christianity, the promotion of fitness as a sign of racial and spiritual signs of the blessing of God. This idea transformed into Eugenics, the elimination of the weak and fallow, to preserve the race-which itself was borrowed by a failed artist in Germany.

The survivors of the terror program of Calvinism lost all compassion, all sympathy, and all pity for those who were defective. As a group, they were traumatized into psychotic behavior, and this, in turn, transferred to any who were deemed unworthy. These are the people who gave us witch hunts, hangings for breach of Biblical code, and the genocide of a people in the Americas, who were assigned to hell as ‘red devils’, and wiped out wholesale where possible. The Puritans were miserable, angry, and repressed, which finally led to the collapse of their societies. By the dawn of the 18th century, The disciples of Calvin were largely divested into new traditions, that excised the madness of Calvin in different measures, creating new denominations like Baptists and Presbyterians.

Unfortunately, the dismissal of Puritan power did not erase the impact of Calvinism. The seeds had already been sown. The dawning New World was febrile with hope and energy, with the possibilities of a vast horizon, ripe for a ‘manifest destiny’. Colonial trade with Europe was thriving, and an age of invention was afoot. A man could own his labor, his freedom, for just a few years indentured servitude to pay for passage across the Atlantic. Then, there were some who could not ever do either, who paid with their very humanity to make across the waves.

Slavery in America is a grotesquely complicated, intricate affair, that cannot be cut like the Gordian Knot. You could fill the credit requirements for a History Major with the classes needed to comprehend the elaborate nuances involved in a mastery of all the data involved. I will address the matter spiritually, which is am inversion of the terrestrial examination of the affair. The making of slave-the commodification of a person-is perpendicular to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. This rests on on one commandment:

“Do unto others, as you would have done unto you”

No one wants to be vulgarized beneath humanity, robbed of their freedom and dignity, and converted into property for chattel. You cannot out-argue this position. It has a primacy that cannot be eroded, obviated, or ablated. Accordingly, I can say that the Bible does not condone chattel slavery, or the making of free men into slaves. The estates permitted in the Torah were applicable only to Canaan, and only under extreme strictures.

But we know how history went. Slaves were profitable short term-indentured people as well-as the growing economy was hungry for the production of goods. Profits were there to be made-and if that required indentured serfs, African slaves, or Indian genocide, well-they were obviously not elect. Profit was king, because in advancing in wealth, you were one step closer to God. And God loved you, because you were successful.

I will conclude this unhappy affair in the next post, as it becomes a morbid thing to dwell upon too greatly. When I have shown why the Cross is so despised today, I will put the negative behind us, and return to the voyage of the Kalak, which does have, at least, a happy ending. It should have been a spotless vessel, the tiny boat made to reach all men, all places, all times. It should have been a joy to see, as it brang the tidings of the Good News. What would the world look like today, if it had run the Tigris as it was meant? We will see a window on this ahead, as we examine what it looks like now.

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter 4, Part Five

“A tree is known by its’ fruits” Jesus says. A good tree does not make bad fruit, or vice versa. This metric, while not true in a biological sense, is meant rather to impel a deeper meaning. After all, apples are not good or evil. This refers, rather, to the parentage of righteousness and depravity. We hear of the ‘bad apple’ in the bunch, but whence did it come? In the West, it almost certainly came from Jean Calvin.

Examine the recorded history etched into history. He was in most ways an ordinary human. He was blessed, however, to have lived in the most explosive times since the Fall of the old order. After a thousand years of mayhem, the Papacy was being challenged, by a monk-and some shrewd politicians. In the vortex that followed, Calvin had the opportunity to transform from mundane into the cosmic; like so many other cult leaders-Joseph Smith, Mohammad-he took the reigns of destiny, to become more than a man.

In the Swiss cantons, the ideas unleashed by Luther were being discussed openly. and act of bravery in light of France’s brutal murder of those possessing a Protestant bible. Zwingli was being debated with Luther, and Calvin wanted the spotlight those men had acquired. Armed with some legal training, a keen mind, and relentless will to prevail, he worked his way to the top, achieving patriarchy over Geneva, where he wrote his famous Institutes. How great the irony-the hater of Popes, now was one.

I wonder if he saw, for a moment, his face in the mirror, adorned in the miter-or how much like his enemy he was. His governorship of Geneva is well documented: he established the Law of Moses as the civil code (even though he was not in the priesthood of Aaron)-which ended in him being forcibly removed from office, after demanding someone’s daughter be stoned for impertinence. Many will contest this: Calvin has ardent followers still, centuries later. I do not have reason to believe he would attempt this, considering the Michael Servetus affair.

Servetus was an atheist, a critic of religion and the Papacy, and a recklessly brave man. A physician, he held religion to be tales of the powerful to control the uneducated. He had read, certainly, the works recovered during the Rebirth, amongst which would be the works of Seneca, whose tenets on religion are still adhered to today (it is regarded by the common as true, by the wise as false, and by the ruler as useful). He was, unsurprisingly, condemned to death-psychotic, intimidating death, at the stake-for his crimes of speaking against power. He had evaded capture, making for safe haven in Itaky, until he was caught in Geneva, where he would die the death.

Servetus had made the wrong man very angry. He had received Calvin’s institutes, and returned it, with pointed criticisms in the margins. Calvin opened correspondence with Servetus, which grew explosive, and Calvin grew to despise the man as much as the Papacy did. When Servetus came into his power, Calvin put him to the stake, atop of pile of Servetus’ books, and burned him alive. To saturate his thirst for revenge, he added a wreath of gunpowder, to extend the torment. The last words Servetus uttered were these:

“Jesus, Son of the Eternal God, have mercy on me”

The record shows that Servetus was killed for heresy-the act of executing heretics being repugnant to Reformers-but Calvin’s letter to Farel shows the real reason. Calvin’s ego had been bruised, and he would see vengeance for the slight, no matter the cost. Here, Calvin showed from which tree he fell.

If you want to experience true madness, watch a Calvinist defend Calvin. Cognitive dissonance doesn’t begin to cover it. The evidence is replete; but they will use arguments like ‘it was common then’ or ‘everyone has bad days’. Even more insane are the true cultists-the ones who never admit that Great Leader has a fault. Great Leader is perfect. Great Leader was blessed by God. These Calvinists remind me of the North Koreans who cannot admit that Un defecates, as feces would make him defiled, a mere man.

I have to be careful-reason and wit got Servetus killed. The savage irony of Calvin is that he had an opportunity to read most of the Bible-and yet, still found a way to justify what can not-can not- be found as permissible in the Scripture. There is no power granted by the Gospel of Jesus Christ to commit mayhem or murder. The ills associated with Bible-Crusades, slavery, etc-are not sustainable in cohesion with commandments of the Messiah. Period. Yet, people find a way.

Even today, Calvin is defended, upheld, cherished. If you are in a church in America. you have likely felt his spectre brush past you. His works still haunt us, and, indeed, the world itself. From his tiny city in the Alps, Calvin warped a planet with darkness. It was he who mastered what he Popes, greedy for wealth and power, could only dream of attaining. It was the son of the Papacy, the Protestant Pope, who forged, as Sauron, the Ring of Avarice. It was he who would unleashed the Gospel of Mammon.

Calvin instituted several edicts that would bring this about. The greatest of these was the dispelling of the prohibition against usury, he lending at interest, which Yahweh forbade. If El forbids something, He probably has a reason why. There is a reason that the one demon Jesus abjures by name is Mammon, which is, Avarice. The demonic host of the power of wealth, Mammon bends all to his will. Some murder; some rape; some steal: but all want. All desire; and that desire is directed towards the great lie of the Garden: you can be your own God. This is the promise that Mammon holds out, rapt in the splendid light of gold, and all of humanity has been its’ victims-either as the commodified, or the commodifiers. Mammon makes it all happen; Mammon has the key to the door of your dreams. All Mammon needs is interest.

It would take books of sobering, boring data to bear this out. I will give you a bullet point summary, and let you decide if you believe me. Interest pays the investor on the principle. I put in a thousand, and I get a few bucks on top of it back. Cool, right? Well, no. The interest you received came from somewhere-and that is from someone else going into debt peonage. Debt peonage is the assumption of a human as property. It is never stated this way: that would frighten people. But that is the end goal of debt. You loan, you require an interest payment, which upon default of the loan, remands the money or property back to the lender. And if there is a shortfall in the restitution-well, somehow, the balance must be paid.

Not long ago, America had Debtors prisons for those unable to pay debts. There, you would work off the shortage-in the custody of the state. These are starting to make reappearances today. Along with this is the prison slave labor system, that MIC companies employ to cheaply manufacture circuit boards that are featured in the missiles that blow up children in Warzistan. And, if you want some flush quarters, you can hide toxic assets in a CDO, while still merrily handing out the toxic loans-which, of course, were never going to be repaid.

What is the root of all evil, that makes the bad tree? It is not money, but the love of it. Money is fine. Basic capitalism-working hard for your wages, in the rote of John Locke-is not evil. The Bible commends honest work and honest gain. But there is no wealth in Law of El. You cannot squeeze your brother for the vig. No, to make wealth, your money must make money. That is the difference between rich and wealthy. Rich people make tons of money-but still have to work to pile it up. The goal of the rich is to get wealthy enough to retire-so their money finally becomes self-sustaining.

The goal, ultimately, is to defeat the curse of Adam: “By the seat of your brow, shall you make your bread”. To defeat this, mankind made civilizations, and later, empires. Civilization were made, generally, by commodifying people. Slavery began as a way to feed the needs of the citizens, to liberate to urbanites from the drudgery of work-by enforcing it on some one else. These liberated folk accumulated wealth, and became the priest and philosopher classes. One such man of that class was Cliesthenes, who looked out over his family’s helots-slaves- and wondered if every person had inherent worth, which was the foundation for what we now call Democracy.

Interesting, how it took a civilization to make the wealth to allow Cliesthenes to ponder the wretchedness of the Helots. Here, he punctures the mundane, to understand an idea-that people should not be commodified, that they were something more, affirming the very Law of El that he had never seen. What is striking is that this thought-this simple idea-became a major force in shaping Western civilization. Why, why is it so amazing, that a person should grasp this concept? Does it not speak volumes that we remember this man. mostly, because he stopped for one moment to consider the truth?

That is the power of Mammon. How many countless millions died agonized in horror, as they were converted into profit for the sake of the acquisition of wealth? How many are buried in the Great Wall of China. or the Pyramids? How many baskets of severed hands did Leopold require of the Congo? How many plains tribes watched their families die of smallpox, from blankets donated by the people the Indians once saved from famine?

I am reminded of a moment from the movie 30 minutes or less where two insanely inept criminals hatch a titanic failure of a heist. They order a pizza, then strap a bomb to the delivery guy, and order him to rob a bank to get them some cash. Finally, the delivery guy asks Danny McBride’s character, why are you doing this? McBride answers, deadpan, almost dolefully :”for the sh*tiest of all reasons: for the money”. What makes this memorable to me is the performance by McBride. The character, who is a lowlife-not Hitler or Stalin, just a low end kind of human-attains a Platonic degree of perspicacity. In that moment, McBride portrays a man who knows-knows-that what he is doing is wrong, and hates himself for it. But he is doing it anyway.

You can almost see a demonic shadow, lurking above his soul. It is almost as if he is not in control of himself. He almost looks like a man crying for help, who is in the grip of something from which he cannot escape. McBride conveys a deep human empathy for the delivery man. His eyes all but say ‘forgive me’. But the money is calling. The money is calling, and he must go. The lending at interest, which seems innocuous at first, is the gateway to wealth, which is the basis of all real power. This is one of the gifts of Calvin-the normalization of the worship of money.

In the next installment, I will go further into detail on this. I will discuss Calvin’s effect on the young nation America, drawing heavily on Max Weber’s Spirit of Capitalism. Note, here and now, that the problem is not Capitalism, which is the best idea fallen man has produced. The problem, as penned by the late, sovereign wit of Douglas Adams, is people. I will also look as some other odious doctrines of Calvin’s, that have led people today to see the weak and failed as subhuman-and divorced from the grace of God, which led to spiritual malice and moreover, the disrepute of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter 4, part 4

Here, we must discuss the profound, and terrible impact of the life of Jean Calvin on our planet. I won’t clog the process with well-established history: you can easily find many sources that detail his life. What I want to show here is his part in the dialectic of darkness, and how significant he is to it. This requires a brief preamble.

Since the rise of Constantine, the Church began a path of power and pride that resulted in the marrying of itself to the State. It was slow, at first. The Bishop of Rome claimed to rule the Church through the Petrine Doctrine, which asserted that Christ built His church on Peter, whose successors occupied Peter’s chair. When Constantine became a Christian, and ordered orthodoxy in the Church, a swell of power began to rise, where humility was once commanded. Within a century and a half, Pope Hormismas became the first of the office to order the death of a heretic-a power found no where in the Bible.

This would blossom into full madness with the fall of Old Rome. When the Goths took the city in 476, they found a ruined glory, empty of it’s teeming thousands, with no one to even defend it. The sack by the Vandals in 410 had left it threadbare and dingy, as all the choice treasures had been plundered by them. Ostensibly, the government of Rome had been moved to swamps near Ravenna; calling itself the Exarchate, it held out hope that succor would arrive to restore Old Rome-which almost occurred under Justinian in the 6th century, in a reconquista spearheaded by the superb general Belisarius.

Gothic Rome held, however, and like all barbarians, they were much better at taking an empire than ruling it. They were in desperate need of assistance in running the Empire-and of all the institutions that had crumbled and atrophied, there was one that remained energized and vigorous: the Church. The bishop of Rome had a great following, and was a natural source of structure, which gave them a enhanced voice with the Gothic kings. This would find its’ fullness in the son of Merovese, Clovis the Frank.

Clovis married a Catholic girl, Clotilda, who gave him a crucifix to wear,which, according to him, saved his life in battle after he prayed to the Roman war god Christ. She never really explained what it meant-he was a Frank, the hardest fighters in the West, and that was the way he saw ‘gods’. He became a Catholic to honor the war god of his wife’s people, and the Bishop of Rome as all to happy to indulge his misconceptions-since those would now be his to direct. This began the Terror of Rome, and countless were its’ victims for the next millennium.

It was small at first. The Frankish war machine took the North, where the gnostic Gospels had fled after Nicaea, and where paganism was still rife. Here, people were tortured and murdered for resisting the Cross of Christ, which became a standard of violence and terror. In one case, St Dawid earned his stripes by butchering 200,000 pagans. Teutonic pagans were likewise subjected, until Charlemagne wiped them out, and tore down their great tree.

Then, the Papacy, not content to rule Heaven, cast its’ eyes on the seat of the Holy Roman Empire, and with that, it became a purely political office. It began to scheme and plot as any earthly ruler did-and it played the game the same way. It created the False Decretals, and the Donations of Constantine, to prove that the Papacy was the inheritor of the Empire, not the Emperor. This split Europe in two, as men like Dante-at the threat of death and damnation-wrote courageously of the right of the state to rule without subjection to the Church.

The sheer greed of power and opulence began to mushroom forward from the Vatican, and to the desire of the evil Popes, there was no limit. Some men wore the miter with dignity, even honestly. But the structure of the Papacy was increasingly corrupt by nature, as power attracts men willing to sacrifice ethics to obtain it. After time passed, the Papacy began to claim powers so absurd that reason could not bear them-which became a deadly virus to catch anywhere the Cross was displayed. At times, even where it was displayed.

Not only was it criminal to question the Pope, it was equally anathema to seek Christ your own way. Jon Hus was murdered-after a promise of safe conduct-for ‘heresy’, as were the pitiful Vaudois, who were abluted by methods of evil unparalleled until the 20th century, by the very pious Charles Emmanuel II of Savoy. The claims of power and avarice were unchecked, even by kings, as the Bishop of Peter claimed the power of Interdiction-the cutting off of an entire nation from Communion from Christ, if the ruler did not bow before the power of Old Rome.

The Papal Bulls-decrees- are visible to see, as a record of the madness of power. They made the teaching of the poverty of Christ a heresy, while launching wars of acquisition of land in the Levant. And after a while, they assisted empire in the converting people into property, with demarcation of the New World, and the Bull Dum Diversas. By the time of Age of Discovery, the Papacy had the power to conquer the world, and act as its’ primary functionary of human trafficking. Eventually, the became spiritual traffickers as well, being able to spring a loved one from Hell-for a modest donation.

The power of the Papacy to do harm became reckless, unchecked, unfettered, to the extent that they could burn men alive-for having the wrong Bible, or contradicting their version of the truth, like the geocentric doctrine. And when I say could, I mean did. Bruno would not recant the heliocentric model under torture, as poor Galileo did, and was roasted, hurling defiance at the Pope as he burned. At the turn if the 16th century, the Terror of Rome has no rival, no equal, no limit. The Hapsburg alliance controlled most of Europe, and underwrote the Papacy with the full support of the might of Austria, Germany and Spain. Heady with power, it seemed that the dream would never end for the men in the Lateran Palace (incidentally, known as the best whorehouse in Rome, for he array of prostitutes who gathered there, to service knights and priests, or, occasionally, a Pope, like Alexander or Julian). Then, the bravest man in Europe put an end to it all.

The Papacy had survived the game of power, and risen to the top of it. No one could stand against it. Then, a grumpy monk in northern Germany nailed his 95 theses to the door of the church in Wittenberg, and rewrote the planet dramatically. Martin Luther was the torch on the powder keg that had brewed for a thousand years. Armed with courage, conviction, and a surprise weapon-the printing press-he struck a blow at the Papacy that ignited the resistance to it, and with the help of Frederick the Elector of Saxony, found an ally in a growing movement of nations that would stand up to Rome, including Sweden, under Gustav Adolphus, and the Hanseatic League of the north. Francis of France also agitated greatly against the Hapsburgs, which helped Luther remain safe for a while, but it was the work of Frederick that kept him safe from the Pope’s promise of safe conduct that had led Hus to immolation not long before.

Eventually, the Empire struck back, and the Papacy formed the Councils of Trent, which formulated the response to the Reformation movement-and it was a violent one. Not at first, but an animal near death becomes thrice as savage for it, and the papacy was no different. The counter-Reformation was so bloody a war that Europe had to quit fighting, after a third of it had died, just as in the days of the Black Death. Finally, at Westphalia, all parties agreed on the sacred words: “Cuius Regio, est Religio”-to the ruler, his religion. What is insane-or human- in this whole affair, is that Protestants were seen as another religion.

So, as a new day dawned on Europe in 1648, let us look at the tally at the end of game for the Papacy. Execution by whim, torture at will by Inquisition, rapine and brigandage in the New world, the commodification of non-Christendom, land grabs by war of conquest in the Levant, the hostility to the poverty of Christ, and the assertion of the power to damn the very souls of men. I have not even touched what the Hebrew endured during this time-and what they saw, when the Cross came their way, which is even worse than I have enumerated thus far.

The true villainy of this is that the Bible permits none of this. In an age when the controllers of the Bible dictated what it said, it was used to validate virtually anything the controllers desired. It was, to borrow from Nietzsche, ‘human, all too human’. But, in defiance of the ‘True Scotsman’ nonsense, I must assert that Christ gave us one commandment which makes these affairs impossible to support Biblically. Thus He spoke, as Law from His mouth: “do to others what you would have done to you’. If adhered to, this obviates all the maladies hitherto abjured. He never said ‘If that guy disagrees with your political agenda, cut off his head’. So, it is not Christianity that is to blame, but rather, Christendom, the political edifice built on the Church, all those centuries ago, in the age of Constantine.

Thus, when the Vaudois were savagely extirpated, the last of their tortured moments saw the Cross emblazoned on the armor and shields of their assailants, as did the Cathars. The pagans of Wales and Germany share this with them, as well as the Huguenots of France, who were themselves Christians. The Hebrews, beaten, robbed, massacred, converted by force, burned as witches, and continually dehumanized came to see the Cross as a symbol of absolute terror-as did the Mezo-Americans who were obliterated by the men from the ships bearing it on their sails. Thus was the Cross impugned. It was the standard of men who bore no resemblance to the man who died upon it. It was a politicized emblem of an empire gone berserk. Nothing-nothing– that stood before the Terror of Rome could long survive. And this would be the blueprint for what was to come.

All of this has been a primer-a mere primer- for what is to come. For now, now you are ready to face the iniquity of the Arch villain of history, whose blackness, like a singularity, swallows all that it covers. Here, no light can escape’ here, only darkness prevails. What I showed you in the Papacy was the foreshadowing of the Pope of the Protestants, their true son, who made his father-for Papacy comes from the Latin for Father-proud of the stamp it left on its’ offspring. You saw what the Papacy did to the Cross. Now, prepare to see the epic shadow of the man who drowned the world in madness ineffable. Behold, the shade of Calvin.

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter 4, Part 3

Now, we have seen how the Great Barge made its’ way through history, as the vessel of one people, in one place, at one time. From their river, the Euphrates, came the Tigris, and the vessels for it, the kalak. Let us then examine the navigation of those tiny boats, for history will turn on them. Indeed, all the world will soon be covered by the swarm of them out on their run.

Following the reports of the resurrection of the Messiah, a frenetic wave of activity covered the Roman empire; first in Judea, then in Greek cities like Corinth, Thessaloniki, and the Gallic city Galatia. Within a generation, men trained to go out into the waters of the nations-to be fishers of men, as the kalak is used often-to spread the word of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The most famous of these is of course Paul, the apostle to the gentiles; but, while chief amongst them, he was one of many who went forth, proclaiming the Good News.

There were fish to catch, for the Kingdom of God, and the early followers of The Way-known now as Christianity-left no stone unturned for those willing to repent and believe. They sailed the Tigris, casting their nets on all sides, looking for people to fish out and be saved. In the beginning, this was a tidal swell of activity, which was threatening to wash over the whole world. Indeed, until the age of Constantine, it looked for all the world like the Way might prevail against all odds. There seemed to be no way to stop the conversion of the Earth to the Gospel.

This is not empty rhetoric; Gibbons felt strongly that Christianity brought the Roman Empire down, as did Nietzsche. As a side note, I personally think the disease brought back from the Parthian wars of the third century did them in more than anything. Inflation was killing them, and political discord after the death of Marcus Aurelieus led to the splitting of the Empire into four factions. But it is perfectly reasonable to assert what Gibbons and Nietzsche did. An army with no weapons had beaten Rome-no weapons except having gained mastery over the fear of death.

You will recall our discussion of the impact of death on humans. Oddly, this is a dull sting to aboriginals and hunter-gatherers. They have an easier time accepting the way of things. Only as people became civilized did they become afraid: it would seem that having a luxurious life leads one to fear it ending. After all, if death eats you, what was the point of anything? If the only fate that awaits is nothingness, is it not the ultimate cruelty, to live long enough to realize that you are going to blank out, then go dark, extinguished, and erased?

The idea-the fact, in a Roman mind-that you will end was a torment they could not endure. They sought for every way possible to gain immortality-through writings, sculptures, histories. When you see these things, you seeing the Roman soul, flailing in fear, that they will not even be remembered. It was the keen awareness of this fear that the Romans used to dominate and control people; without this, Rome could not stand. A person who did not fear death was a weapon that could not be disarmed. This did challenge the Roman way of thinking, and undermined their cultural values greatly.

So, Christianity could be seen as an assault on Roman values themselves, as Nietzsche points out in Genealogy of Morals. Even today, I still cannot find a way to conclusively dismiss his argument empirically. While I do not agree with Frederick’s conclusion, his synopsis is quire valid. Romans did not like The Way. It was emasculating, prudish, and, well, Jewish. Romans liked conquest, personal glory, domination, and the glorious festival of the winter solstice, the Saturnalia. They were lovers of life, the Romans-for death was always after them.

Christianity is the death they fear, plus a new kind of death-a death to self, which took away the thin veneer of joy they had, in keeping Grendel upon the moors. In any other circumstance, they would have obliterated the offending cult-as they were famous for doing. But in Christianity, they finally met their match. They met an opponent who grew stronger as you killed them. Roman plebians-the commoners-who had long suffered under the patrician class, found that The Way offered them a power they could not have elsewise: the power to defy Rome. Slaves, as Frederick noted, were especially attracted to the Gospel, as it offered what they had never known, which was hope for a better tomorrow.

So the swell built, washing away the Roman power, and was being followed-even against psychotics like Diocletian-in the breadth of the Empire, surging as the Pagan ways were dwindling out. After Adrianople, Rome was an empty shell, a paper tiger that barbarians would to scoff-and later, take. Those people, the Goths, would elevate Christianity to new level-but at the price of creating a juggernaut of terror unmatched even in the days of Rome. This terror was Rome plus the Church, which became known formally as the Papacy. Please note, with acumen, the following:  This is not anti-Catholic. This is anti-Papal. I love my Catholic brethren fully and unconditionally. The Papacy is not Catholic: it is a tumor than grew up on the church. After the Peaces of Westphalia. the terror was finally leashed, and today is actually a spiritual center of some sorts, although the sybarite, hedonistic elements still remain strong within the Vatican.

The fall of the Terror of Rome was coterminus with the discovery of the New World (or, not Europe), and with this came a literal sailing of missionaries across the whole Earth, in the wake of Magellan’s epic quest to triumph over the insults heaped upon him by the King of Portugal. Unfortunately, this would not be the tale of epic splendor one would hope-for vessels meant to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ instead brought horror and darkness, and the commodification of people in the service of avarice. This is largely due to the impact of the arch-criminal of history, who harmed more than can be counted. This isn’t the standard bad guy-Hitler, Stalin, Mao, or even Karl Marx. This person cast a shadow over most of our planet that threw billions into ruin and nightmare, all through uniting the Gospel of Christ with that of Mammon. He is the son of the Papacy, who in fighting Popes became one, and the father of most protestant denominations in the West. This was Jean Calvin, and our next interlude will have to examine why he and his Papal counterparts made the Cross of Jesus Christ a sign of disrepute and disgust to most of humanity.

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter Four, Part Two

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter four, part two

     So, we have discovered the basic state of play for mankind in the time of Jesus.  It was to this broken, fallen world that He came, draped in human flesh, Emmanuel, God with us.  He ministered to the Hebrews, to the tribes of Abraham, to the Great barge, because only they could
know who He was.  No one else would have understood His miracles, His sermons, His sacrifice.  Having ministered for three years, He established His church, and prepared her to got out into the rest of the world, to make disciples of all men, in preparation for the day when the rivers merge again.

     He explained by parable, that He wanted His hall filled, for the great day of His marriage, and that the disciples were to go and preach, ‘whosoever will’.  From Matthew 22:

Go therefore to the main highways, and as many as you find there, invite to the wedding feast.’ 10 Those slaves went out into the streets and gathered together all they found, both evil and good; and the wedding hall was filled with [e]dinner guests.

     This stands in stark contrast to the first journey on the Euphrates.  The requirements were harsh, terrifying and immutable.  There was no grey area for behavior under the Law.  This seemed like a bum deal to the Hebrews; after all, they bore the Torah through the desert, and suffered greatly for it.  We see the mind of Judah in the parable of the Prodigal: the older brother, the one who remained, was angry that the profligate was received.  And in the parable of the vineyard, those who worked all day were angry that the wage was the same for those who worked an hour.  To be honest, they kind of have a point.

     It seems grossly unfair that the gentiles would be treated as family by El Shaddai.  What was the point of separating out from the nations, if those nations are welcomed in anyway?  I sympathize with the Hebrews in this: like Jonah, I have to call BS on what must be called as such.  The Ninth commandment compels it.  I can understand the older brother: why did he remain and work, if the younger could party and come back like nothing happened?

     Well, as the story goes, the older brother, Judah, did not get shorted after all.  The Father comforts him, and says, clearly in Luke 15

29 But he answered and said to his father, ‘Look! For so many years I have been serving you and I have never [k]neglected a command of yours; and yet you have never given me a young goat, so that I might celebrate with my friends; 30 but when this son of yours came, who has devoured your [l]wealth with prostitutes, you killed the fattened calf for him.’ 31 And he said to him, ‘Son, you [m]have always been with me, and all that is mine is yours. 32 But we had to celebrate and rejoice, for this brother of yours was dead and has begun to live, and was lost and has been found.’”

     Yahweh has never left Judah, not even in the worst of times.  He cannot, for Judah is His inheritance.  While the Gentiles were welcomed in, to be loved, restored, and uplifted, he has no portion on the farm.  It is, in fact, Judah’s farm.  Now, please pay close attention to the following words:

     This not about the love of God: this is about the proprietorship of the farm.  Jesus loves all mankind, no exceptions.  He paid for the sins of all people, no exceptions.  He sent His disciples to all the world, no exceptions. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is supernumerary to all barriers, all thoughts, all constructs of matter or will than do or can exist.  There is no power, in hard or limitless reality, that can interpose between the soul reaching to be saved, and mighty hand Yahweh to do so, as he attests in Isaiah 59. 

     That love belongs to all His progeny, no exceptions.  However, the administrative functions of the farm-those are not handed out to the wedding guests.  Those belong to Judah.  This will rankle a few people-and let me state that I am a gentile by birth-but the facts are intransigent.  The older brother has, as his portion, all the Father has.  This is established by the leadership team of the next reality, the final one, immortal, impervious to darkness.  Eternity is going to be run by thirteen Jewish men.  One Messiah, Yeshua, and His twelve friends, the Apostles.

    If you think that is incidental, try this.  Flip a coin thirteen times in a row, and try to get all heads.  Unless you have an Altered Carbon download, you will die of old age before that happens.  A permutation of 2 to the 13th power is pretty huge; it’s a series circuit that fails the first time you flip tails-and that just represents that they are are males.  That they are all Hebrew males-the chance of that event occurring is so  astronomical that I can’t calculate it.  It would be a theta value, which in Trigonometry is a number so small, it can be said to be 0, even though it is not.

     So let’s face the facts: Judah has not been subjected to ‘replacement theology’.  El may add to that number-after all, there were Ger who followed the Law, and were counted as native born, with an inheritance (ezek 47).  But Judah is given reign over the estate.  When all things come to an end, when the Millenium is over, and this world obliterated, the leadership team of New Jerusalem, which has a gate for each Tribe of Israel, will be Hebrews, and those who joined them on the Great Barge. 

     If this chaffs you, please remember that if you attending the wedding of the Lamb, you are not on fire.  That is a benny worth-well, anything.  If you are on fire, that is your job.  Not being on fire is an amazingly  good deal, especially when we earned it.  So, I am alright if I say ‘Sir’ to a Hebrew-considering that I could be saying “AHHHHHHHHH!” as I run around perpetually immolated.  Perspective, at times, is a virtue worth pursuing.

     This segue will lead us right to where Paul discusses the Jew and the Gentile, in Romans 3, where he explains that Hebrews have lost nothing.  Rather, the goyim have gained life, and the love of God, which can be spread around to as many as will receive them.  Now, we have returned to Romans 4 again, where the circumcised and uncircumcised children of Abraham are being brought in their vessels.  We will discuss the Kalak one more time, so that we can envision the day when all the vessels of faith join up in that happy armada, the Marriage of the Lamb.

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter Four, Part One

So, what then is the purpose of having a Tigris?  El gave a Law to His people, to govern their existence.  Why then does the Tigris branch off at all?  After all, it would seem that He had a plan in place for the superintendence of His people.  But that proved to be the very reason the Tigris run was needed.  There were people living in this world that had grown up under the aegis of inquiry.  These had never heard of the written Torah, and did not know how the universe worked.

The civilized world was built on power, brutality, and avarice, all of which stemmed from one source: the fear of death.  From the mighty to the small, death plagued the soul of fallen men.  It was the spectre on the moors, a dread banshee that could not be repelled.  In fact, the more power and largess an empire acquired, the more the feared death.  The race of power makes one aware of the danger of power; thus, as one gains power, one fears losing it even more.  This was true for civilizations as well as people; the savagery and cruelty needed to make civilization (as Nietzsche detailed in Genealogy of Morals) always leaves a haunting whisper in the mind of the victor, as he surveys the dead he slaughtered to become a king: one day, this will be you.

Death, the constant northern star of fallen man’s literature and art; Death, the motor that drives his quest for first medicine, then immortality; Death, the hand and their throat, waking them in the night, waiting silently just beyond the door, silently, patiently.  Death, the cessation of anima, obsessed fallen man.  Death is the progenitor of all the gifts of civilization, either through the arts, philosophy, medicine and logic, or through mathematics and science, through which power may be gained.  It’s invincibility, omnipresence, and inevitability made it a god to men, literally.  Every ancient pantheistic religion had a god of death, who generally had to be appeased to stave him off.

If you think I am overstating this, pick up some Camus, or give Ingmar Bergman’s Seventh Seal a watch.  For an abridged version of existentialist angst, watch What if Ingmar Bergman directed the Flash? on youtube.

Ultimately, we can go back to the man that the Greeks and Romans revered as the great sage: Homer.  It was he that penned the verse by which all of them lived:

“Any moment might be our last. Everything is more beautiful because we’re doomed. You will never be lovelier than you are now. We will never be here again.”

This diatribe is of overwhelming importance, because you can now see how the minds of men were formed by history.  It was to this verse that Paul referred when he wrote “13 But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope”.  (1 thess 4).

Now, I must be thorough, which requires a quick statement.  The Greeks were investigating the possibility of the immortality of spirit as early as 400 bc, in what were called the Eleusinian mysteries.  So the idea of escaping Death was not totally unheard of.  These cults were highly guarded and secretive, probably because they were sexual rites.  For the majority of mankind, however, it seemed that life was a cruel joke,  in which Camus said it was absurd to assign meaning.  It is perhaps summed up best by T.S. Elliiot:

“I will show you fear in a handful of dust.”

It was to this world, a world without hope, a world of fear and terror, ruled by empires of fear and terror, that the Great Barge brought the sacred scroll, Torah.  Alexander of Macedon introduced the Hebrews to the world, and they moved to his eponymous city, Alexandria.  There, the Greek would work with them to translate the Torah into the Septuagint work that survives today.  Things were looking good, until the Hebrews revolted against the Seleucid Greeks (Seleucus  being a general of Alexander that inherited part of his master’s empire upon Alexander’s death).  Antiochus IV placed a statue of Zeus in the Temple, prefiguring the Abomination that causes Desolation in the End Times, when the Antichrist sits in the 3rd temple’s holiest seat, and declares himself God.  This led to the Maccabean revolt, which plunged Judea into constant turmoil and violence, until the Diaspora in 70 ad.

It was to Judea that Yeshua ben David, known also as Jesus, came with His ministry.  His work was strictly limited to the people of Israel;  not that He was a racist, but His focus was on the Hebrews, not the Goyim.  This was intended, for the Hebrews were versed in the Torah: they were educated and instructed by the Law, and moreover, knew of the prophesies that accompanied the arrival of the Messiah.  Jesus performed His miracles to show the Hebrews that He was the Anointed One, of whom the prophets had spoken.

In short order, the power elites of Judea worked to kill Jesus.  Like the empires of men, they feared death, and the loss of power.  That should have been the end of it.  But then, the world changed in three days (note: for a Hebrew, three days means “one whole day, with part or all of a day on either side of it’).  The impossible, if the reports of this man Jesus could be believed, had occurred.  Mankind’s ancient enemy, his tormentor, his god-like foe, had been thrown down.  As lunatic as it was fervent, the cries rang through the streets of Jerusalem, tearing down walls between Greek and Jew, and giving mankind the hope that they had never known:


To the Greek, the Roman, the fallen, this simply could not be.  Death could not be defeated. And yet, here they were, the tribe of Christians (as Josephus called them), willing to face the very power at which all men and empires quailed, to proclaim the name of Jesus to Rome and the rest of the world.  Here, the Tigris Run, the Gospel of the Risen Christ, would burst forth from the water table made flush by the mighty Euphrates, to bring the light of the Torah to all mankind, borne on the modest Kalak that bears the joyous refrain:

He is Alive.

Abraham, river of faith: interlude on bifurcation

This is a short rest on our journey, a place to cool our heels. In the old West, cowpokes would use these reprieves to tell stories, and pass around some grub or coffee.  In keeping with the traditions of the land where men were free, I too want to spin a yarn-not a tall tale of epic daring-do, but, rather, about a thematic element in the writing of Yahweh.  This element is bifurcation.

Some will beef with me on this.  How can I, a mere man, critique the words of the Almighty God?  Well, I am made in His image, Regenerate in His royal blood-and I have a university education.  Image, by the way, should be rendered likeness, or similarity.  Yahweh doesn’t have a body-He is supernumerary to the conventions He created (time, space, matter).  Our likeness to Him is our reason (or wisdom, in Psalms 8).  His mind works like ours, because ours works like His.

His writing can be deconstructed, just like any literary form.  El has themes, a plot, symbolism, and a conflict.  He has styles which He favors, that flavor His work, like any human writer does.  Accordingly, we can examine one of His primary thematic elements, which is bifurcation, the splitting of something into two parts.  This works in tandem with His consistent use of the symbolism of two in His work.

From the beginning, Yah divides the universe.  He makes water and land; earth and heaven; sun and moon; and, when HE makes His children, He makes them ‘male and female’.  This particular bifurcation, along with providing fodder for most music and writing, is considered by some cultures to be the fundamental substance of existence itself (Yin and Yang, Shiva/Shakti).  This is a curious situation, since El reveals Himself in the masculine primarily.  There does not appear to be a feminine aspect of Elohim (a fact which the Babylonians derided, as their religion was based on gods and goddesses having sex).

The theme of two repeats itself throughout the Bible.  Proverbs are phrased in couplets, for instance.  Some of the major overtures of the Bible come from two brothers in conflict: Cain and Abel, Isaac and Ismael, Jacob and Esau, and even Judah and Israel.  If we examine history, we can see that Jew and Greek are not just terms of Paul’s day, but, rather, represent the perpendicular patterns of life between the Hebrew pattern-superintendence- and the Greek, which is inquiry.  The latter would build civilization to answer the great questions, and the former would come from the wilderness to bring them the sacred scroll, Torah.

Paul refers to this continually in his missives.  As we saw in Romans, he discusses the two sons of Abraham: the Circumcised, and the Uncircumcised.  This pattern is consistent with flow of the Bible.  Although the Shmei tells us ‘El is one’, he often has two sons that He loves equally.  Even when He separates out the Hebrews, and the Prosyltos with them, to make Israel, He also provides hope that He will one day tear down the walls, and bring the Gentiles home to Him.

In the end, there is only one.  When all is settled, there will be divisions no more.  This is the power of a well written story: when the end almost entirely resembles the beginning.  The circle completed is a hallmark of masterful writing.  In the Bible, we see this.  All was one, then divisions occurred.  But when the final second of the clock of this reality is struck, we will reunite forever in El.

Now that we have chewed the fat, and sat a spell, I will pick up my tack and head back out on the range.  The theme of two will recur often in this work, so I wanted to hash out the details before we hit the trail.  Let us take our kalak, now, into the swift, roaring waters of the Tigris.  The Great barge is still rumbling along, chugging inexorably to the end.  Let us see, then, what the trip on the Tigris entails.

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter 3, Part 4

Now, let us turn to the narrative of the Scriptures on the the tribes of Israel.  The origin, the Exodus, immediately shows a faultline in the Hebrew peoples, that will manifest time and time again.  Stephen died pointing out this flaw: ‘you received the law as by Elohim, and you did not keep it.”  Without regard to the miracles done to show them that, as Yul Brenner said, ‘Moses’ God IS God’, they still ran the other way every chance they got.  It is irony of the first order that the Egyptians were willing, at the very last, to accept that this was so, and the People of Yah would reject it time and time again.

The first generation was condemned to die in the desert, because of their apostasy.  They were nearly obliterated from existence, by the wrath of Yahovah.  Only Moses saved the Godly line from ablution, a man who was a prince of Egypt, who murdered an overseer, and fled his country to the wilderness.  This man learned righteousness, and his character was testified to, not by men, but by El Himself.

“Hear now My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, the Lord, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.
I shall speak with him in a dream.
“Not so, with My servant Moses,
He is faithful in all My household;
With him I speak mouth to mouth,
Even openly, and not in dark sayings,
And he beholds the form of the Lord.
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against My servant, against Moses?  (num 12)

Yet the people did not.  Even as the Promised Land came into sight, the people were struck with terror, for the dreaded Annakim were amongst them.  Having forgot that El cowed the army of Pharoah, an army that won a pyrrhic victory against the mighty Hittites, and drowned that army, they still feared the giants.  It was the courage of Joshua, for whom Jesus was named (Yahoshua, God saves His people) that led them forward, in the promise of El for the land.  Yet it was not long before the troubles came.

Aachan scarred the victory at Jericho, causing the Holy Camp to obliterate him, and his family.  This would scar most people, watching the children die with him, as rocks cascaded over their frames, until at last, the stony rain washed away the last of their vitae, whose remains were then purged by holy fire.  Then, for  a time, things ran well. Joshua oversaw what seemed to be the Promise that they had been given, of a land of milk and honey.  This, unfortunately, was the calm before the storm.

In the accounts of Judges, we see the development of a dreaded cycle: Israel chases after other gods, is chastised by El through the scourge of the Nations, and then when they have been purified by anguish, they are delivered back to the Land.  There,  they promptly abandoned their vows to be holy, and went into ‘rinse and repeat’ mode.  Time  and time again, they put of the Asherahs, the Baals, Chemosh-then were punished for it, and thence delivered again.  It became a vaudeville, like the old Benny Hill show, where the whole world ends up chasing him to the burlesque music, but he ends up back home, safe.  On next weeks show, you know it will happen again; after a while, you get to expect it.

Finally, a Judge named Samson ends the parody-with the greatest life that was ever lived.  Samson was not the holy men of the past; he was a drunken fornicator, who had some character flaws (animal cruelty, and excessive egotism).  He also killed-not murdered- tons of people, which leaves some people in an ethical quandary, since these homicides occurred under the auspices of the holy Spirit.  Eventually, he committed suicide, to escape his nagging broad.  But even as death came for him, ‘them which he killed in his death, were more than those killed in his life’.

Then comes Samuel, who watched as Israel divorced Yahweh, to have a King like the nations around them.  They clamored for political power and intrigue, and they got it in spades.  The first king turned against El, and tried to murder his successor.  Then the righteous David murdered his loyal friend Uriah out of covetousness.  His son Solomon brought idolatry back to Israel, where it was consistently a problem until the Assyrians and Babylonians resolved it for them.

When the Hebrews got back to the land, they revolted against the Seluccid Greek rulers, were free a while, and then got a sweetheart deal with Marc Anthony that irritated Rome until they diaspora.  It was this special status, against bowing before the Paterfamilias, that the Pharisees and rulers wished to protect in the time of Jesus.  The men responsible to bless the one comes in the name of El instead wanted Him gone, to protect their privilege in the kingdom of the Gentiles (note: this is not Jew blaming, it is Sanhedren blaming).

This is how the journey progressed.  Though the Law was given as by Elohim, a Law declared not be beyond reach (deut 30), a Law that revealed the light of God, the chosen people not only did not keep it-they did not want it.  Yahovah called Israel His bride; and like most spoiled women, she only wanted what she didn’t, or couldn’t have.  Like Aphrodite in Baron Munchausen, as many diamonds as Vulcan fused from his bare hands, the same were tossed over her shoulder as she complained ‘ANOTHER diamond’.

Finally, the Temple is smashed by the Romans, the Hebrews scattered, and the veil torn by Christ, ending the priesthood of Aaron.  It would seem, then, that the river had dried up, the journey ended.  But the Euphrates is the Great River; it is history.  It has one final appearance to make, in the end of days, when the run of the Tigris is complete.  No, the Euphrates was not ended, or abolished.  It was suppressed, as per Eph 2:15; Paul uses the word Katagero there, to explain that the dividing wall was pushed down, deflated, so that those who were far could be brought near.  This was to bring in Abraham’s other children, those of the Uncircumcision, whose river we will now explore.

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter 3, Part 3

The voyage of the Great Barge began in Abraham, when El promised him an heir from his body (gen 15). That seed would go into slavery in Egypt for 400 years, and would be marked by a sign-a physical seal of the Covenant, circumcision (gen 17).  This creates in them a unique identity, that separates them from the rest of the world.  Reinforcing this is the Law of Moses, a code of rules that reiterates the holiness, or quality of being set apart, of the tribes of Jacob.  This word, tribe, needs examination, as it is comprised of two elements.

The primary element, or branch, is the issue of Abraham, in the form of the Hebrews from his body.  The other branch are those who entered into Covenant with the natural root, who were not of his body.  Indeed, Yahweh says plainly “the same Law applies to you, and the stranger who sojourns among you” (exo 12).  many other times, He says that His justice is indivisible, comprehensive, and evenly applied.

This bolsters claims made by the Torah Community that indeed, there is one Law for everyone.  However, the word stranger/sojourner needs further examination here.  A study of this word conducted in our convocation revealed that this word, ger, relates very strongly to the word Proselyto/Proselytes in the Septuagint, which changes the connotation of the word.  This directly imputes a property of motion towards converting to the worship of Yahweh. not simply one ‘passing through’.  In other words, this is one who acts and lives as one native born.

This is a moebius band, an object with one side.  It appears to be a union of two, a common theme with El.  But, in fact, it is one.  It can, in fact, be no other way.  The commandments do not differentiate between two groups: they are for anyone living in Israel.  Observe the language: the 613 mitzvah all center around how you live in The Land, and How you worship Yahovah.  These events are localized.  If you are not near the Holy Land, you are not involved in these affairs.

Further, if you are near the Land, you still have a wall to cross.  If you did not come from the loins of Abraham, you had to enter in through the Covenant as native born.  You were no longer what you were.  To live in Israel, to have an inheritance, a potion, you had to belong to a tribe.  Your genetics did not change, but your body did: for it had to bear the sign of the Covenant.  To cross the barrier Paul describes in Eph 2 15, you had to become as Native born.

Consult the map of Israel.  How is the land demarcated? By tribe.  Where is the space for ‘ger’, or stranger?  Where is the land for the Hittite, the Jebusite, Gibbionite?  None exists.  This Land was for the offspring of Jacob-and any who, by conversion, took the sign of their people.  Subsidiary to this was the adoption of Yahweh as Elohim, the God.  This requires that any practice of former cultures-the shaping of beards, the carving of flesh to honor dead ancestors (note: that is not a commandment against ‘inking’ the skin).

Several statutes prohibit mixing of things-fabrics, seeds, even people.  The law prohibited miscegenation-yet, if they entered in, the very same people, genetically, could marry and live in Israel.  Why? They were now Native born.  Their very identity had been altered.  They were no longer goyim: they were Israelites.  Thus, while the Tribe had genetically different members, it was racially unique. It was a tribe, of Hebrews, whether through the loins of Abraham, or adopting his Covenant with El.

Thus, any who were in the Euphrates could be pulled up out of the water.  Indeed, there was much room on the Great Barge-for anyone near enough to enter it.  Further, as the hand reaches up, it changes: before the rescued can set foot on the Barge, he must transmogrify into a Hebrew, both in body, and in habit.  Where once he was a Hittite, he transforms into a Hebrew, and now, by commandment, must see the very people from which he came as Goy, as unclean, as the enemy-or, at least, as uncircumcised.

Thus, Steve the Hittite becomes Steven Cohen, although he still has the same history and genetics.  He might keep his old monniker, as in Steve “the Hittite” Cohen.  But once he joins the ecclesia, the Assembly, his identity is now Hebrew.  he has the sign of the Covenant, he has adopted the ordinances.  He is now reborn, as one native to Jacob.  In the New Covenant, the blood of Christ, this is called regeneration.

In this way, the Covenant of the Circumcision was, by its’ nature, exclusive and divisive.  It was meant to separate out, to keep undefiled the people of God.  Those people were Hebrew, or counted as.  That identity was required to inherit the Land, the blessings, the portions of the tribe of Jacob.  This was open to any who would come in, and transform, but the great majority of the Earth was not able to enter in.  The Circumcision was localized, immobile, and exclusive.  It would take another river to reach out to all mankind, one in which the transformation required was not bound by any earthly demarcation.

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter 3, Part Two

Now, for all intents and purposes, the written Torah is used interchangeably with Moses, as it was he who carried it down.  It is called the Law of Moses, when in fact it is the Law of El.  However, over time, conflation and usage simply overlapped the one with the other.  This effect emerges as stereotyping in modern culture.  When you see x and y together long enough, you begin to refer to them as a single unit, as if they are inextricable from one another.

Moses is a good captain for the Great Barge.  Like all captains, he has to hard enough to make the tough calls on the waters ahead.  He has the distinction of meeting Socrates’ standards of leadership: he didn’t want the job to begin with.  Further, when he is offered a chance to be the father of a new humanity, he roundly rejects it.  When he is informed that there are elders showing gifts, he is relieved.  Someone else can herd the cats for a while.

Frustration in dealing with the slovenly generation of the desert resulted in him going postal on the Rock of Meribah, where his nerved were taxed to the point of the abandon of reason.  For this, he could not cross into the promised land, a bum deal if ever there was one.  They drove him crazy, and he has to pay for it?  This completes the epic of the rambunctious rubes who left the state of Egypt.

This offers us a window on the people who came out to the desert-and why the ordinances were written as they were.  These were a slave people, which means, historically, they were illiterate and uneducated.  That is how you establish a control matrix over slaves, a method used up until the 20th century.  A reading of the Mitzvah reveals an audience who can do very little without supervision and guidance.  Indeed, the overall metaarchitecture of the written Torah is superintendence, which would place the Hebrews directly perpendicular to the people who would receive them-the Greeks.

The Greek world, as the figurehead of civilization, was driven by doubt, which leads to questioning.  This forms the context of almost all learning, which leads to advances in knowledge.  The Hebrews were not sent in this direction.  Rather, they were given a shepherd to follow, and a rulebook to observe.  As discussed, these rules were not about growing a civilization.  It was a management system, to polish up the rubes, who showed, throughout the Tanakh, that they indeed needed close observation to function.

They were fearful, ignorant and dim.  This is not speculation.  What reasoning person, having seen the pillar of fire, the ten plagues, the parting of the sea, then proceeds to grief the Elohim who did them?  After Moses and the Levites cut down thousands, and the ground eats Korah and the 3000, who would EVER go outside the lines? But the ycan’t help themselves.  They are slaves: they have poor impulse control, no comprehension of rational, critical thought, and are unable to remember much of anything.

Let me obviate the inevitable charge of ‘anti-Semitism’, a word rent to ruin by applying it to mean ‘has mass and occupies space’- at least, if you criticize Israel (which, as a follower of Yahweh, I must, as His land is stained by an Apartheid State) or the Likud and Jewish Home political parties (see previous comment).  I am not an anti-Semite.  I am pro justice, and the rule of law.  Whatever runs afoul of these will find in my words an apt opponent to stand and deliver against iniquity.  Even if I were as such, I have an ally at my back,who is a thousand times moreso, and that is Yahweh, God of Gods.

This is not a ‘Christ-Killers’ episode.  We all killed Christ, to the last human being.  I speak, rather, of Yahweh’s own opinion of His own people.  The Torah and Tanakh are replete with objurgations of the first order that were pronounced by His Majesty, Baruch Adonai.  Here are a few of His own evaluations of the tribes of Jacob.

“You spread your legs for every man who passed by” Ezek 16

‘Name him Lo-Ammi, for you are not my people, and I am not your God’  Hosea 1

The Lord said to Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold, they are e]an obstinate people. 10 Now then let Me alone, that My anger may burn against them and that I may destroy them; and I will make of you a great nation.”  (exo 32)

Now, this is not ‘anti-Semetism’, in the sense of racism.  El i s above such things.  These  are the evaluations of the Deity.  It is simply His demands of holiness being abjectly and thoroughly discarded and ignored.  The operating emotion here is not hatred, ignorance or bigotry (an aside-declaring homosexual concourse as abominable in the sight of Yahweh is not bigotry-it is promulgation of Imperial Law): rather, it is frustration.  El is simply out of His mind concerning His children-not because He hates them, but rather, the reverse.  He wants to make a Holy people of them-but all they do is complain that they had better meat in Egypt.

It us not difficult, then, to see why the ordinances look as they do.  They spell out a very controlled, defined existence, which is managed to near-strangulating tightness.  This is only just if the recipients simply CANNOT get their head right.  This training program makes the navy Seals look like hippies at Woodstock.  After all, the Seals were never eaten by the ground, forced to drink gold, or run through the camp and kill everyone in arms reach.  They were never carpet bombed by a death plague, or told by the commandant that they would never graduate the program.

having belabored the point, I hope I have driven it home.  The Great Barge was made to very slowly, very deliberately trundle through time, without a great deal of hard waters to face.  The rolling Great River was too difficult for the first generation, and subsequent ones did little better.  Stephen died for stating what was known: ‘you were given the Law, as by Elohim, and you did not keep it.’  Next, then, we should examine how the story of the Great Barge unfolded as it made its’ way down the Euphrates.

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter 3, Part One

So let us take the Great Barge, as it slowly, inexorably rolls along, to the end of history itself.  Something we will need to discuss before proceeding in the difference between Eternal Torah and written Torah.  Paul’s use of Law is sometimes confusing, so a deconstruction of what is being referred is prerequisite.  The difference is between source and destination.

“Your Word is a lamp to my feet, a Light to my path”  Thus David says of the Scriptures.  The imagery here is potent; as an official biographer of Yahweh, David has a deeper insight into the character of El.  Here, he expertly divides the two aspects of the Law.  First, he reveals the rubber on the road function, found in the written Torah.  This is the lamp function.

The lamp acts as a symbolic standard for the Mitzvah.  The ordinances formed the context of all aspects of a Hebrew’s life.  It was the mechanism of their existence.  Whatever occurred in the Holy Camp, the written Torah was sought a light on the matter.  In this way, it is the lamp.  Where it is held up, light bathes the holder, and illuminates his environs.

More importantly, though, is that the Light shows the path.  A path goes somewhere; it isn’t static.  A lamp can set on a table, and it is good.  But when you need to travel through the dark, it must move.  The Light of Eternal Torah shows the way forward.  It isn’t there to sit in one place; it is there to keep you moving, towards a destination.

Thus, the lamp serves as the icon of the local; the Light, the icon of the universal.  This is born out by what the Scripture reveals of itself.  Paul says ‘sin was in the world before the Law was given’.  This means the subject is not eternal.  It has a beginning-and end.  When everyone dwells in perfect love, there will no longer be a code of ordinances (against perfect love, there is no Law).  But that cannot refer to the Eternal Torah, the light of El-for that is forever a part of Him.  ! tim 6 says ‘ He dwells in light immortal’.

So, if one Law is temporal, and one is Eternal, are they the same thing? It is more accurate to say that Eternal Torah powers written Torah, as the latter reveals El’s disposition on sin.  Sin cannot be defined in sum toto as breaking the law, as Paul says sin preceded the Law of ordinances.  This Law divided mankind, whilst the Eternal Law is uniting us, on our voyage to the end of human history.

Now, it is true that this final period of the world will see the written Torah emerge, where the Holy Edicts will govern humanity for 1000 years.  But the existence of the Ordinances still accompany a division, between the Holy People, and the hordes of Gog and Magog.  When the last division is resolved by judgment, then the Law of ordinances will have no more use.  Yet, the Light of God goes on forever, even as this reality paradigm is destroyed 2 peter 3).

This subject requires a great deal more discussion to fully consummate.  Labyrinthine arguments exist on these matters, and I cannot do them justice with bullet points.  I am only revealing how I see the matter.  My goal was to define the elements.  This being done, I can now turn to Captain Moses, to show us a tour of the Great Barge.

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter Two, Part Two

SO, what are the conveyances that the children of Abraham use?  There is the Law, the ordinances of El, that were the commandments of the holy camp of Israel.  These were to be observed without exception.  Those that came from the mountain at Sinai were to conduct their existence inside the regimen they proscribed.

This is also true of the Gospel.  The Regenerate are holy, separated people.  They must live under the regimen proscribed by the Messiah and His apostles.  The rules  are to be observed as fully as those from Sinai. In form, there is no real difference.  It would seem that they are not very different.

The truth is, they aren’t. El does’t demand that one group exert effort, and the other lives care free.  Both ways demand obedience, faith, and trust.  Both rewrite the course of your life.  In truth, they become your life. There is no difference in this.

Imagine, then, our  two ships: the Great Barge, which sails the Great River.  Ponderous and purposeful, like the description of the Sphinx in Yeat’s superb Second Coming, the Euphrates rolls along, throughout out history,winding its’ way to the end.  This ship picked up the tribe of Hebrews-and those who would become ‘as native born’-as it made its way onward.  Then, there is the kalak, the smaller vessel.  Sleek, fast, it roams the faster waters of the Tigris, picking up anyone who will reach up a hand.

The kalaks can make many trips.  You collapse them, and take them back up river.  The great barge makes only one.  Thus, the motif of the great barge is that of we are history.  Mankind is only bit player in the story of the Hebrew.  This is the tribe that brought forth the Messiah, and the Sacred Torah, which they carried to mankind (romans 3:2).  The Gospel is themed whosoever will.  It does not camp in one region; rather, it was sent out to the whole of the Earth.

But it is all Yahweh’s will.  Why the discrepancies? Torah Observant followers believe that Torah is for all mankind.  It is called ‘the light on the path’. This seems a legitimate assertion.  Why would the rules system change, if they uphold what El says is good?  The answer is the basis of the Sinai covenant: circumcision.

Look at Romans 4.  Paul comes into this asking, from 3, ‘What advantage, then is there for the Jew? Of what benefit is the circumcision?’ Here, Paul is directly tying the word Jew (read Hebrew) to circumcision.  They are one and the same.  While many Ger or Gentiles joined into Israel, they were considered ‘as native born’.  There was no place for a Hittite, Jebusite, Gibeonite, etc.  The map of Israel is marked by which tribe is your home.  There is no inheritance, no portion, for anyone who does not belong to these tribes.

So, while any who came to the Holy Camp could convert, it was, in effect, a racial conversion.  They could not retain their previous identities.  To reside in Israel, to have a portion, you had to be of the tribe.  And that was accomplished by the sign of the covenant of Sinai, the circumcision.  This sign, in fact, identifies the possessor as a Hebrew, just as Paul is saying.

Consider the past tense language in Romans 3.”They were entrusted with Oracles (Torah)”.  Look at this. One, he says ‘they’, referring to the Hebrews.  Was Paul not a Hebrew?  Why are they ‘they’?  Look at the tense. They were entrusted. Why not now? Yet, at the end of 3, he writes

 Do we then nullify the Law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the Law.

Thus, he begins 4 with a connection to the circumcision.  Gen 15:6 declares Abram was credited with righteousness.  Paul never says the Law is bad-not once.  He declare sit is righteous (Romans 7:12).  Yet, after this, he drops a bomb.  He asks if Abraham received the covenant while circumcised or not?  It was while uncircumcised.  Now, the father of faith appears to lack the one thing that is sine qua non to the Hebrew identity.  Here is the whole passage:

Is this blessing then on d]the circumcised, or on e]the uncircumcised also? For we say, “Faith was credited to Abraham as righteousness.” 10 How then was it credited? While he was f]circumcised, or g]uncircumcised? Not while h]circumcised, but while i]uncircumcised; 11 and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which j]he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which k]he had while uncircumcised.

There it is , in black and white.  He received the blessing while uncircumcised, so that those who were not could call him father.  I know it will rankle many ( a speciality of mine), but this is the fact: the circumcision covenant was for the Holy People.  The light of Torah, while still good, only shone on those who could make it to Israel.  And you could only live there by becoming a Hebrew.  Thus, the nations, the goyim, the Gentiles were locked out.  Then Jesus tore the temple veil, and the Tigris River was born.

To continue this deconstruction. I will identify the characteristics of the vehicles of faith. First I will examine the format of the circumcision, followed by the format of the Gospel, the uncircumcised river, over which Paul was appointed Apostle.  Let us then examine the barge, whose skipper was Moses.


Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter Two, Part One

Now, down to the meat of the matters.  The opening framework here will be to show the symbology of the pattern which I have assigned to Abraham.  In the beginning, he was Abram, of Mesopotamia.  Thus, from his start, he was a man of two rivers.  The Tigris and Euphrates were the most important features of his homeland.  They made possible the rise of the Sumerians, the forebears of Assyria, Akkad, and Babylon.  They gave fertile soil to a hostile region, and commercial waterways that are still used today.

Time has not erased the power of these rivers.  You can still see the various barges, large and small, sailing along them, as in times past.  The Kalak, a raft made of strong reed and goat skins, can still be seen, although the British rail system greatly reduced water traffic in the region.  Barges, flat bottom boats, were commonplace until the river was dammed in the 20th century.  Barges were usually large vessels, designed to move cargo on the Euphrates slow speed, while the Tigris required curved hulls to navigate safely.

From a land of two rivers came Abram, to a Promised Land, which was marked off by-two rivers.  Genesis 15:18 describes it:

“To your t]descendants I have given this land,
From the river of Egypt as far as the great river, the river Euphrates

Thus, he kept the river of his origin, and added another.  This is consistent with the character of El: he gives generously, multiplying liberally, desiring always to bless.  Thus, we can see a window here, of an adding on.  Something here must be addressed, to clarify any ambiguity.

While the Tigris is a branch of the Euphrates, with different vessels, on a different route, it is still a river.  That means that, morphologically, it must share more attributes than it differentiates. This is to assert, bluntly, that the two rivers do not represent two gods or two religions.  The Tigris is a product of the Euphrates; as such, it is a descendant, with the same character.  What differs are not the rivers so much as the vessels upon them, and the routes those take to reach the unification in the end.

Thus, the Tigris route does not vary ethically from the Euphrates.  Yahweh does not change what is right and wrong.  The sailing conditions, however, are bifurcated for a while.  This corresponds well to the fact that Grace is only a limited time offer.  The time will come when the great hall is closed, and no more guests or virgins will get in.  Fortunately. this only occurs when mankind has gone reprobate, and the times of the Gentiles are complete.

So, let us look at the covenant given to Abram.  First, it changes his name.  This is important in the Bible.  This change, to Abraham, magnifies his character, from strong one, to very strong one.  This also indicates an increase in his possessions, and his progeny. He will increase in blessings, and he will have more of what he had before.  Thus, we see multiplication already begin in the name being elevated.

So, already, he is not the man he was before.  He has two names, and expanded blessings-the foremost of which is that he will have a son.  Now, in Gen 15, it is written: “Abram believed, and it was credited to him as righteousness.’  Here is a conundrum.  What exactly did Abram do?  Yah told him He would do these things.  Is that, then, belief?  The definition of faith ,from Hebrews, “the assurance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

Here I must inquire: where is the faith in this?  El appears to Abram, and tells him He will perform some verbs.  Anyone in the universe can believe that.  Yet, the Scripture affirms that Abram believed.  How is this anywhere as strong a faith as the offering of Isaac?  They aren’t even close.  That is why I thought of Gen 15/17 as one covenant, the circumcision/flesh covenant, and Gen 22 as the covenant of the Gospel.

The problem here was a false choice dilemma.  It isn’t an either or affair.  In 15, the faith is trust and obedience, which is also required in the Gospel.  The Torah requires the evidence of things not seen.  If it were not so, would Israel have turned away, time and time again?  Even with the Law given, as by Elohim, they still ran after false gods and fallen men.

So, why then the two rivers? It seems that each has common elements.  Is this division illusory?  Let us examine the vehicles of faith that the covenant of Abraham produced: the Law and the Gospel.  Here we will see the difference.

Abraham, River of Faith: Chapter One, Part One

Abram, as all of us, had a story from which he arose.  Unlike most of us, his came from a band of survivors from a world destroyed for iniquity, sailing on a barge to a new beginning.  His ancestor, Noah, was also a man of faith, also approved of by El.  Like Abram, Noah would be given a covenant by Yahweh, that would apply to his sons, for as long  as this world persists.  I must pause here, to explain something you will almost certainly reject, and that is the account of Noah.

I won’t bury you under volumes of work here; that would be a diversion.  Very simply stated, the events listed in Genesis concerning Noah did not occur on this planet.  You will likely recoil from this idea, but we are, by the Word of Yahweh, under commandment to be honest.  The ninth commandment compels right witness; Jesus does as well (let your yes be yes).  So, on either river you take, your steward demands you accept the truth.

Here are truths observable to mankind today.

1)  the human race did not emerge from 8 people

2) the human race did not reset 5000 years ago

3) life has not been wiped clean here (almost, but not 100%)

4) structures and artifacts exist that predate the Ussher numbers

5)  The Flood did not cover our mountains.  Everest stands at almost 30000 ft.  If the waters covered it, that adds 908 atmospheres of pressure.  This results in the loss of all topsoil, converting the planet to a ball of mud, killing most plant life as well.

There is much more, but that is another story.  I mention it only to prevent confusion if I use phrases like ‘Noah’s world’, etc.  If you disagree, so be it; it isn’t necessary for you agree with me to see what I am presenting about Abraham.  Noah was the last righteous man of his world; he was also the forbear of the Messiah.  His trip is symbolic of the journey of faith in all cases.

Noah left all he knew behind, to venture forward to a new life.  He sailed onward, keeping his eyes on the horizon, searching for that land promised to him.  When he arrived here, he founded three lines of people, one of whom would be the Hebrew race, from which would arise Abram (I know, Hebrew comes from Eber, but that is how we refer to the genetic group commonly called Jews).  He was also given a covenant, a sacred calling, and a promise of hope.

Noah’s covenant was for he, and his descendants, with a promise to all life not to drown it again.  He went out in faith, a man of righteousness, a man approved, and made the line that would give us Abram.  In that sense, Noah is the father of all who sail the river of faith, which ever branch they traverse.  Abram followed this pattern.  Going out from Ur, he made for a land promised to him, a place where he would have descendants from his body-and some who were not.

Noah serves as the symbol of God seeing us through the storm-contrary to the Ninja rapture advanced by Darbyites.  Noah obeyed and believed, as his descendant would do.  But he never made a sacrifice like his only son; and that is why he only sailed on one water.  His progeny, Abram, would supercede him.  Abram would also at in absolute, Kirkegaardian trust that his friend, El Shaddai, would not turn against him.  And thus, from the mountain of hope beyond reason, a new river was made.  Carved from Abraham, it would bend away from the Great River, for a little while.  Thus Abraham would become the father of two rivers: one from his body, a covenant of a land, a people, a tribe, and one from his faith, which would usher in everyone else.

Abraham, the river of faith: Seeing the Euphrates and Tigris as the Torah and the Gospel

Prologue: how it came to be

Greetings to all.  This blog series will explore an epiphany I received last Friday, during our Holy Convocation on Skype.  I want to thank all our members, who make the gathering a true joy for me.  I give special thank here for our brother Jason; it was his presentation on the covenant of Abraham that laid the groundwork for the awakening; it was also he that spoke the words that caused me to here the striking of the Truth.  This is not to elevate one man over another: it is simply right to acknowledge from whence the radix of the understanding emerged.

One of the most vexing elements of my faith walk has been the apparent dichotomy between the Sinai covenant of old, and the Gospel, the new covenant of Calvary.  I find myself a product of the latter, who seeks instruction from the tutor, which is the former.  Yet, the hobgoblin remains: why does there seem to be such a gulf between them?  This struggle-Law vs Grace-has driven much of Western literature.  The legendary Hugo explored this theme masterfully in his brilliant epic, Les Miserables.

In our Sabbath gatherings, we have had many discussions on this divide.  I am not in the full Torah Observance movement; I look to it as a guide, a teacher.  Paul refers to this covenant as that of Hagar, and the Gospel as Sarah.  But many believe that it one covenant, building piece by piece over time.  We have had vigorous struggles on this theme, which led to the last meeting.  I was having a hard time dealing with the Abramic covenants; Genesis 15 is the covenant of flesh, and Genesis 22 the covenant of faith.  I saw these as the roots of the Torah and Gospel, two separate events.

Jason presented a paper to address this conflict.  He asserted that it was one covenant, whilst I held to 15/17 and 22 being the divide Paul discusses in Galatians.  I could not believe that Abraham was not multiplied more in 22 than in 15.  Jason asserted that the number in 15 and 22 were the same seed promised, that the sum was given in 15 and 22.  In the midst of the debate, Jason made the prophetic (the minor usage, a right witness) statement that made it all clear.  He said ” They may look different, but they all meet in the end”.  And so it was. In that moment, the sacred chord was struck, and I heard it.  We were both right.

Jason was moreso than I; he correctly assessed that 15/17 and 22 were not different covenants at all. I held that Romans 4 clearly came from Gen 22; but then, it also hearkened to Gen 15.  Yet Paul refers to Sinai and the Gospel as distinct from each other.  It was maddening.  Why is it that this happens so often in the Bible?  Why is there conflict in  a divine revelation?  The answer is, there isn’t.

Jason said it perfectly: the seed in 15 and 22 are one number, because they all meet in the end.  When those words fell, I was immediately taken to Revelation 12:17: whose children keep the commandments and hold to the testimony of Jesus.  Here, all of Abraham’s children, through Torah and Gospel, meet in the end.  Just as the Tigris and Euphrates do, at the Persian gulf, before heading into the sea.

The Euphrates is the Great River.  It is the mightiest of the ancient world, and served as the basis of the Mesopotamian civilization.  But Mesopotamia was a named given the fertile land by the Greeks; it means ‘the land between two rivers’.  That second river is the Tigris; but is it really a second at all? Geograpically, it does not directly stem from the Euphrates; but the water table on which it rests, including Lake Hazar ( its’ source) is saturated by the Euphrates.  But for a small turn of fate, a minor channel forming would have made it so.

I am treating the Tigris, therefore, as having the Great River as the tributary for the Tigris; this isn’t a lesson in geology or water tables.  It is meant to show a spiritual principle: of how one river, Abraham, carved out a fork that became a different stream  for a while, until rejoining the Great River once again.  Thus, in Abraham, we find both Torah and Gospel, which are not opposed, but are two different currents, rolling towards the place where they will reunite.

This groundwork having been laid, I will take us back to the first Great Barge that traveled waters of faith, that being Noah and the Ark.