“So Cain went out from the Lord'
Genesis 4:16.
“Cain knew his wife. She conceived, and gave birth to
Enoch.
He built a city, and called the name of the city,
after the name of his son, Enoch”.
Genesis 4:17.
Introduction
Pin-pointing
a geography for the antediluvian patriarch, Cain - the “Land of Nod” and the
City that he is said to have built in honour of his son, Enoch (Genesis
4:16-17) - has turned out to be quite a challenge.
Firstly, I was drawn to the idea that the ancient
cities of Sumer (southern Iraq) were Cain-ite cities. David Rohl seemed to have
a point when proposing, in his book The
Lost Testament, that ancient Eridu was called after Cain’s grandson, Irad;
Uruk (Sumerian Unuki) and Ur (Sumerian
Unuki) after Cain’s son, Enoch;
Badtibira (“City of the Metal Worker”) after Tubal-Cain.
Moreover, the Babylonian ‘Noah’, Ziusudra, is associated with Shuruppak.
All
ancient cities of Sumer with possible biblical connections.
“The Land
of Nod” could then be the region “beyond the Euphrates”, which tended to have
sinister connotations in the Bible (e.g. Jeremiah 2:18; Revelation 9:14).
My
interest in Sumer waned somewhat, however, when I came to realise that – thanks
to an article by Creationist, Anne Habermehl – Sumer was not the biblical “land
of Shinar”.
See my
subsequent:
Second attempt. I, now thinking that ancient Jericho - one of the oldest cities in the
world - must rank as a prime candidate for Cain’s city, found that Roy Schulz
had indeed argued for Jericho’s “Pre-Pottery Neolithic” (PPN) phase to have
been what he called “Cain’s Famous Walled City” (http://www.churchofgoddiaspora.com/pre-flood_world.htm).
But I later rejected PPN Jericho
as being stratigraphically far too recent for the era of Cain.
Thirdly, the view of Dr. Ernest L. Martin about the Land of Nod is the one that I
now accept and intend to build upon in this series. Dr. Martin embraced - as do
I - the traditional view that the Garden of Eden was located at the site of
Jerusalem. For him, the Land of Nod was the region beyond the eastern perimeter
of the Garden. He wrote about it, e.g., in “The Temple Symbolism in Genesis” http://askelm.com/temple/t040301.htm
Further Temple Teaching
Cain was sent into the land of
Nod, East of Eden, away from the presence of God. He became cut off from the
Eternal. God then gave him a “mark” to show that Cain was not completely
forgotten and that a measure of protection would be afforded him and his
descendants. Cain became a representative of all Gentiles. They were
reckoned as being in Nod (wandering — without a fixed spiritual home). And
while they could approach the East entrance to Eden, they could not go in. A
barrier was placed around Eden. The altar which Cain and Abel constructed in
the area of Eden near the East gate (door) of the Garden was out of bounds to
those who lived in Nod.
This condition existed
throughout the antediluvian period. But with the great flood of Noah,
everything was destroyed — the Garden, the altar, the barriers, etc. When Noah
and his children began to repopulate the earth, none of these former things
were retained — except in the memory of man, and only in symbol. In the time of
Moses, however, God selected the Israelites to be His nation — in favored
status to Him. Moses was ordered to build a tabernacle which resembled the
condition that existed in the pre-flood age. Outside the tabernacle was
represented the land of Nod. The court on the inside of the tabernacle (the
court of Israel) was Eden. The Holy Place was the Garden. The Holy of Holies
was the center of the Garden. The tabernacle not only represented Eden and the
Garden, but it was also a physical type of God’s heavenly abode.
The Israelites were reckoned
as being in Eden like Adam and Eve were. However, even the privileged nation
could only go to the East entrance to the Holy Place — which represented the
Garden. Into the Holy Place (the Garden) only the Aaronic priests could go at
the time of the morning and evening (the cool of the day) sacrifices. And even
the priests were barred from entering “the midst
of the Garden” — the Holy of Holies. They were only able to get
close to the curtain that separated the outer Garden from its midst.
Only once in the year was
anyone allowed to enter the Holy of Holies. On the Day of Atonement the High
Priest, after many ceremonies of purification, and after he clouded the entire
inner chamber with incense so that the mercy seat would be hidden from view,
was able to push the curtain aside and briefly step into the inner sanctum.
After he did his required duties, the curtain came down once again, and the
Holy of Holies (the midst of the Garden) became closed for another year. This
showed that while the tabernacle stood, God still reckoned barriers between
Himself and mankind. 12
While Adam and Eve before they
sinned were able to witness God’s presence, their sins caused them to be sent
from the Garden (the Holy Place). Cain and his descendants were sent further
East — they were expelled from Eden and went to Nod. But when the Flood came
the Garden, the altar, Eden, etc. all disappeared from earth. Mankind now found
itself without any physical area on earth in which God dwelt. That’s why the
early descendants of Noah wanted to build a tower “to
reach to heaven” (Genesis 11:1–9). They wanted to reach God, to have
access to His heavenly presence. But God would not allow it. He had been angry
with man for his ways, so He changed their languages and scattered them into
all the earth. He sent all mankind into a condition of “Nod.”
Finally, God selected Abraham
to be the father of a nation which would be responsible for leading man (in a
step-by-step way) back to God. By the time of Moses, the Abrahamic family had
now reached nationhood. Moses built the tabernacle, and Israel was brought back
into Eden once again. A middle wall of partition was erected, however, that
kept all Gentiles out. God even put restrictions on Israel. Even they were told
to stay out of the Holy Place (representing the Garden). The Aaronic priests
were allowed to go in. But no one was permitted in the Holy of Holies except
the High Priest on the Day of Atonement — and even then he (the holiest man on
earth, symbolically) was not allowed to see the mercy seat. All of this shows
that God still had several barriers which kept many sections of mankind away
from an intimate association with Him.
[End of quote]
This estimation
greatly limits the geographical boundaries so that any search for Cain’s city
of Enoch in far away Sumer, or even in much closer Jericho, is doomed to
failure.
Our attention
must now turn rather to the region directly to the east of the Temple of Yahweh
in Jerusalem itself.
The “Land of Nod”
Cain apparently had not travelled very far by this
stage.
The “Land of Nod”, presumably with its city, was
adjacent to the Land of Eden.
Introduction
Modern
scholars have suggested various regions for the biblical “Land of Nod” (Genesis
4:16): “Then Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and settled in the
land of Nod, east of Eden”. I earlier referred to both Mesopotamia and the
region of Jericho.
David
Rohl, who has located the Garden of Eden as far east as the fertile Adji Chay
valley in East
Azerbaijan, Iran, has identified
the Land of Nod with Noqdi, to the east of that valley.
….
But, back in the
real Garden of Eden, we still have much more to discover. Even further to the
east of the Adji Chay valley and Tabriz, beyond a high pass leading out of the
Garden of Eden, is the land of Nod into which Cain was exiled after he had
murdered his brother Abel. The area is still today called Upper and Lower Noqdi
and many villages bear the epithet Noqdi ('belonging to Nod').
We
well-travelled moderns tend to think in global terms and vast distances, and
for us, mention of a “city”, such as the entity that Cain built, conjures up
the notion of something sizeable. However, the reality appears to have been different.
Not only had Cain not moved far away at all from the original home, the Land of
Eden - which I have accepted to have been at the site of Jerusalem - but Cain’s
“city” may have been a very small affair. I think that David J. Gibson may be
right on track with the following observations of his (http://nabataea.net/eden8.html):
EDEN
Originally titled "The Land of Eden Located" 1964
by David J. Gibson
Originally titled "The Land of Eden Located" 1964
by David J. Gibson
Chapter Eight
Cain's City of Enoch
Now
that we have arrived at what seems to be a reasonable opinion as to the
location of the Land of Eden, the identification of the four river-heads and
the approximate site of the Garden of Eden, it should be possible from this
to know where to look for the next-door region, that is, the Land of Nod to
which Cain went after he was revealed as the murderer of his brother Abel.
The Scripture account states:
"And
Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the Land of Nod, on
the east of Eden." --Genesis 4:16.
It is
to be noted that "the presence of the Lord" was in Eden. Here, in
the infancy of the human race the Lord's presence is connected with a place.
Many think the place was the entry to the Garden, where the Cherubim stood
with a Flaming sword. It is generally assumed that to this sacred spot the
people brought their sacrifices, as we read of the offerings of Cain and
Abel. At this place God spoke directly to the worshippers and the worshippers
spoke to Him. From this place Cain was driven and cut off for life.
Cain
dwelt thereafter in the Land of Nod. It was "on the east of Eden,"
an expression which seems to mean adjoining it. Therefore, it was not far
away. Here in due time Cain's son Enoch was born. As Adam's family increased
in Eden, and Cain lived in fear that "everyone" there sought his
life for slaying Abel, he hit upon an idea. He enclosed and
"fortified" his residence, for self protection. This is the primary
meaning of the word, "city" in Hebrew. It did not at first denote
size, but an enclosed, fortified place. Cain may merely have erected a wooden
palisade about a few huts, but this was new, it was novel, it deserved a
name. He named it after his son, "Enoch." The record runs:
"And
he builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his
son, Enoch." --Genesis 4:17.
[End of quote]
With
this in mind, it may be futile to look for any archaeological remains of such
a basic enclosure, given the ravages afterwards of the Noachic Flood. And
Gibson has made this very point: “Now obviously the city which Cain builded
and named after his son Enoch must have been destroyed by the Flood so that
the physical entity itself probably disappeared, though it was subsequently
re-founded”.
In the
same article, Gibson quotes Dr. Arthur C. Custance, who thought that the name
of Cain’s city, “Enoch”, became a standard for subsequent cities:
The
subsequent history of this city we do not know: but of the name of the city
we know a very great deal. Without entering into too much detail regarding
changes in pronunciation which occur in the course of the development of a
language, it seems necessary to point out here that the sound represented by
the letter N is often reproduced (strange as it may seem) as an R. The CH
sound which terminates the name Enoch may be replaced by a K or G, or a GH.
These
changes are very common. When cuneiform was being deciphered for the first
time, it soon became apparent that some of the cities mentioned in Biblical
antiquity were still in existence as mounds and very often the natives in the
area had preserved the original name in a modified form. A very important
city in antiquity appeared under the name Uruk and a study of cuneiform soon
revealed that this could equally well be pronounced Unuk, which was recognized
at once by Sayce, and many others, as identical with the Biblical word,
Enoch.
One of
the features of cuneiform writing was the use of what are called
determinatives, signs which are placed before or after certain words to
enable the reader to distinguish between names of cities and names of people,
or names of deities and names of mortals, and so forth. Thus if a city
happened to have a name which was also the name of a famous man, it was
customary to use a determinative to let the reader know whether one was
referring to the man or to the place. In the case of a man's name, the
determinative was put in front of the word; in the case of a ... The
interesting thing about the city Unuk, or Uruk, was that the determinative
was omitted. It is the only instance in which this is so. The reason for this
sole exception to the rule was not apparent at first until it was realized
after considerable study of cuneiform texts that the word had come to mean
the City par excellence, a special city, special for historical reasons.
And as
such, it was not considered to stand in need of any distinguishing~
determinative. The 'specialness' lay in the fact that it was the name of the
first City ever to have been built, and as such it was the prototype of all
others and came to be referred to, to all intents and purposes, as The City -
in somewhat the same way that people tend in England to refer to London as 'The
city'.
|
Nod and Nob
Could the obscure name, “Nob” (e.g. Isaiah 10:32), be
a vestige of Cain’s old “Land of Nod”, which we located earlier “east” of the
Temple site in Jerusalem (Eden) and adjoining it?
Introduction
The
two names are quite similar in Hebrew:נוֹד “Nod” and נֹב
“Nob”.
“The name Nod comes from the verb נוד (nud)
denoting a going back and forth” http://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Nod.html#.V9Dri03yl9A
The meaning of Nob is rather less
certain.
“The name Nob is thought to be
derived from the otherwise unused verb נבה (nabah),
meaning to be high or prominent”. However, there appears to be a fair degree of
assumption involved here:
The root נבה (nabah)
isn't used in the Bible, and some scholars assume it once existed because of a
few otherwise difficult to explain names. The venerable theologian Gesenius
pointed at a comparable verb in Arabic, and that verb means to be prominent or to be high. The Hebrew equivalent probably had a similar meaning, or so it is assumed.
I
made an attempt to locate Isaiah 10:32’s strategic “Nob”, and other associated
places, in my postgraduate university thesis:
A Revised History
of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
Volume
Two, pp. 6-7:
The Rabshakeh, after having
left Lachish where Sennacherib had established himself, may have firstly had to
connect with the main body of the Assyrian army - which was steadily
dismantling the forts of Judah - before coming in person to parley with Hezekiah’s
officials at ‘Nob’ - so far not unequivocally identified, but apparently in
sight of Jerusalem. If so, then this location must coincide with the “conduit
of the upper pool ... Fuller’s Field”. Certainly the verse, “he will shake his
fist against the mount of the daughter of Zion”, is an appropriate description
of the Rabshakeh’s contemptuous words against Jerusalem and its king
(e.g. Isaiah 36).
So where was this precise
location?
Boutflower who, keeping open his
geographical options, was not sure if the Upper Pool were “north, west or south
of the Sacred City”, imagined that it must have been at least “very close to
the walls”. He refers here to Josephus’ testimony that north of the city, in
the same quarter as the “camp of the Assyrians”, there “stood a monument called
‘the Monument of the Fuller’.” According to Burrows … it was probably to the
south of the city, near the Gihon Spring. I think however that one can be
somewhat more specific than any of this, and can perhaps tie up, all together,
(a) the Upper Pool location, (b) the Fuller’s Field, and (c) the ‘Nob’ of
Isaiah 10.
A Clue from 2
Samuel
‘Nob’ is usually thought to be
either Mt. Scopus, or the Mount of Olives. I am going to suggest the latter,
following Macduff, who went even further to equate ‘Nob’ with the New
Testament’s Bethphage:
Bethphage is literally “the
house of unripe or early figs”. Dr. Barclay identifies it with the ruins of
a village on the southern crest of “the Mount of Offence”, above the village of
Siloam. He describes it as “a tongue-shaped promontory or spur of Olivet,
distant rather more than a mile from the city, situated between two deep valleys,
on which there are tanks, foundations, and other indubitable evidences of the
former existence of a village”. ... - City of the Great King, 67. ....
the direction, indeed the spot, is visible from the Hosanna road; and I have no
hesitation in expressing accordance with the above reliable authorities. ....
In his account of the travels of the Roman lady Paula [Jerome] mentions that
she had visited [Bethphage]. They describe it as a Village of the Priests,
possibly from “Bethphage” signifying in Syriac “The House of the Jaw;” and the
jaw in the sacrifices being the portion of the priests.
‘Nob’ of the Old Testament was most
certainly, likewise, a ‘village of the priests’ (cf. 1 Samuel 22:11, 19).
The Fuller’s
Spring
During Absalom’s revolt, more than
two centuries before Hezekiah, king David had been forced to abandon Jerusalem,
which he fled via the Mount of Olives. Beyond the summit of Olivet was a place
called Bahurim (cf. 2 Samuel 15:30; 16:1, 5). …. Now Jonathan and Ahi-maaz,
acting as spies for David, “were stationed at the Fuller’s Spring”, which was
apparently on the road close to Bahurim (cf. 17:17, 18).
Thus we seem to have our location:
a spring or pool (conduit); with the name ‘Fuller’, apparently on a main road.
All about a mile or so from Jerusalem.
That would appear to be our perfect
location for the Rabshakeh’s address.
[End of quote]
Bethphage
- in the land of Nod (Nob)? - will be re-visited next, as a suggested site for
Cain’s primeval city named “Enoch”.
A location for “Enoch”
“The village of
Bethphage on the Mount of Olives was a most important religious center for the
Judahite authorities in the period of the Messiah and the apostles. It was a
walled village which was the only area outside the walls and camp of Jerusalem
that was considered by the Sanhedrin (the Supreme Court of the nation) to be an
official part of the city of Jerusalem”.
The
site of the important Bethphage is a possible candidate for where Cain had
built that city named after his son, Enoch. The “walled village”, though
situated “outside the walls and camp of Jerusalem”, as Cain’s “Land of Nod” was
situated outside the Land of Eden, and likewise to the east, “On the Mount of
Olives”, was still “considered by the Sanhedrin … to be an official part of the
city of Jerusalem”.
Dr.
Ernest L. Martin has written of the supreme sacerdotal importance of this site
The Significance of Bethphage on the Mount of
Olives
Ernest L. Martin
The village of Bethphage on
the Mount of Olives was a most important religious center for the Judahite
authorities in the period of the Messiah and the apostles. It was a walled
village which was the only area outside the walls and camp of Jerusalem that
was considered by the Sanhedrin (the Supreme Court of the nation) to be an
official part of the city of Jerusalem. In this village was one of the two
seats of the great Sanhedrin of seventy-one members. The prime seat of the
Sanhedrin was in the Temple at the Chamber of Hewn Stones located just to the
south and east of the Altar of Burnt Offering. The other was at this walled
village of Bethphage located just east of the western summit of the Mount of
Olives (a little to the east of the Miphkad Altar where the Red Heifer was
burnt to ashes and the Day of Atonement sacrifices were burnt). There were
specific decisions of the Sanhedrin that were reserved for determination only
at this official seat of the court in Bethphage. Those were decisions affecting
what were the limits of the camp of Israel around the city of Jerusalem (and
this included where the Red Heifer could be burnt).
For more on the meaning of the Red
Heifer, see my:
Dr. Martin continues:
This also embraced what
districts surrounding Jerusalem were to be reckoned as inside the city:
This also included what were to be the dimensions of the Temple (whether
enlarged or restricted). And this is also where death sentences for rebellious
leaders of the nation as shown in Deuteronomy 17:8-13 were validated (Sanhedrin
14a, b; Sotah 44b; 45a).
The reason that these types of
decisions were to be made at this special village on the east side of Jerusalem
proper is because it was necessary that these decisions be made "at the
entrance" to Jerusalem (or if local decisions were made by lesser
Sanhedrins associated with the various towns throughout Judaea, they were held
in the gates or entrances to the towns). There were biblical reasons for this.
Note Proverbs 31:23 which says "Her husband is known in the gates,
when he sitteth among the elders." Also:
"Execute the judgment of truth and peace in your gates" (Zechariah
8:16). In the case of Jerusalem, which was the capital city of the nation, the
principal gate to the city was on the eastern side just beyond the camp (that
is, "outside the camp"). Thus, the Sanhedrin had the village of
Bethphage built just to the east of the city limits of Jerusalem proper. This
village of priests was located just to the east of the summit of the
Mount of Olives.
Although Dr. Martin has not made the
point here, he will discuss in another article the “gates” or “door” of Eden in
connection with Cain. Thus we read in his:
The Temple Symbolism in Genesis
by Ernest L. Martin, Ph.D, 1977
Cain and Abel
Our first parents were cast
out of the Garden — never to re-enter in this life. They still remained,
however, in the territory of Eden. It is important to note that the “Garden”
and the country of “Eden” were not synonymous. The Garden was in Eden,
but the Garden did not represent all Eden. Look at a modern example. My
residence is in Pasadena, California. Pasadena is in California, yet not
all California is Pasadena. Adam and Eve were simply expelled from the
Garden in Eden. They were still able to live in other regions of Eden.
Adam and Eve then had
children. The first of which we have record were Cain and Abel. Cain became a
tiller of the ground — he raised fruits and vegetables. Abel was a sheepherder
(Genesis 4:2).
“And
in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the
ground an offering unto the Lord. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings
of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to
his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain
was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the Lord said unto Cain, ‘Why are
you wroth? and why is your countenance fallen? If you do well, shall you not be
accepted? and if you do not well, sin lies at the door. And unto you shall be
his desire, and you shall rule over him.’ And Cain talked with Abel his
brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up
against Abel his brother, and slew him.”
- Genesis 4:3–8
There are three major points
to consider in this narrative.
First, both men decided
to bring offerings at a set time of the year — on a particular day. The phrase “in process of time,” in Hebrew, means “at the end of days.” It often signified the
end of the agricultural (or civil) year (1 Kings 17:7) and was near the
beginning of Autumn. Recall that the Israelites were required to appear three
times in the year at the temple (Exodus 23:14–17). One of these occasions was “at the end of the year” (verse 16). This was
the season of Tabernacles. Cain brought token offerings of his crops “at the end of days.” This shows the brothers
must have appeared before God at a precise time near the Autumn of the year.
This means they must have been told by God when to bring them.
Second, they also must
have been told where to bring them because they “brought” their
offerings to one altar.
Third, they were no
doubt told what to bring. God would hardly have been angry with
Cain unless he brought offerings not sanctioned by God.
This is similar to what
happened with the later Israelites in regard to the temple. They were told when,
where, and what to bring to the temple. All sacrificial
offerings could only be presented at the sanctuary. Under no circumstances was
any other location allowed (Deuteronomy 16:5–6, 11, 16). With Cain and Abel,
the same factors are in evidence. Back at that time, they went to the area
where they knew God had been dwelling — He was a resident of the Garden. They
built their altar as close to God as possible near the East entrance (the gate
or door) to the Garden.
When the proper time came they
both offered their gifts, waving them in sacrificial praise to God whom they
believed to be in the Garden. God then issued His approval of Abel's offering,
but He was displeased with Cain’s offering. The older brother no doubt had been
told to bring a lamb or goat, but Cain offered fruit and vegetables. God was
not pleased and Cain’s countenance fell. God then answered:
“Why
is your countenance fallen? If you do well [in the future and bring
the proper sacrifice], shall you not be accepted?
And if you do not well, sin [a sin offering] lies at the door.”
- Genesis 4:6–7
Many people for generations
have stumbled over the meaning of this verse. Yet it is quite clear what is
meant if one understands that temple language is being used. God was really
being merciful to Cain. The mercy was this: If Cain would repent and still
bring the proper offering (“if you do well”),
then he would be accepted; but if he did not do so, then “sin [a sin offering] lies at the door.” This “sin” was a
sin-offering. God said that He would provide a sin-offering which would lie “at the door.” What was this door?
The Gate of the Garden, the Door of the Temple
The matter becomes understandable
once this “door” is identified. The word in Hebrew is pehthagh and
refers in other parts of the Old Testament to the entrance of any tent (Genesis
18:1), but more particularly to the “door
of the tabernacle” (Exodus 29:4), or the “door
of the temple” (Ezekiel 8:7, 16), or “the
door of the east gate of the Lord’s house” (Ezekiel
10:19).
In the case of Cain and Abel,
they constructed their altar at the East gate of the Garden just in
front of the Cherubim which guarded its entrance (Genesis 3:24). God was
indicating to Cain that he still had a chance to obtain a proper offering and
offer it. Cain, on the other hand, was a tiller of the ground. He had no lamb
to give unless he got one from his brother. God understood the problem, so He
added further: “if you do not well” (even
if Cain was unable to obtain the proper animal sacrifice) God would have a
sin-offering to lie “at the door” of
the Garden where the altar was located. 9
[End of quote]
Was the village of Bethphage, facing
the east gate of the Temple, considered to be a “door” in this sense, and near
to the Miphkad Altar of Atonement?
Dr. Martin continues, now with a New
Testament connection:
Now note this important point.
The word "Bethphage" means the "House of Unripe
Figs." There were two symbolic reasons for naming this village of priests
by this name. As I explained in my book Secrets of Golgotha,
the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil from which Adam and Eve ate that
brought sin into the world was the fig (not the apple). Adam and Eve
took leaves from that very tree from which they ate to hide their nakedness
from YEHOVAH God. But, with the Sanhedrin, they were supposed to act as
YEHOVAH's judges and thereby were to be rendered free of sin in their
judgments. This is why they named the village the "House of Unripe
Figs" because at this place there were supposed to be "no ripe figs"
available to tempt the judges to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and
Evil.
But there was a second reason
for naming the village Bethphage. Figs are always unripe at the start of
the growing season. This place of Bethphage was the site where the Sanhedrin
determined legal measurements for the nation. It was where they set the limits
on sacred and secular things (the size of the city, the Temple, the day
to start the sacred calendar, when to observe the festival days, starting the
census, etc.) This part of the court was located east of Jerusalem and away
from the city lights so that the heavens could be observed in starting the new
season for the months and years, etc. It was also from Bethphage where fire
signals were sent to the Jewish communities outside Jerusalem so that they
could determine when to start the festival seasons with those at Jerusalem. In
a word, it was from Bethphage where the measurements for the nation were
enacted and legalized. It was also the place where the most rebellious of
the elders in Israel were sentenced to die. Indeed, after the Messiah was tried
by the Sanhedrin at the Chamber of Hewn Stones in the Temple itself, and
afterward was taken to Pilate to obtain Roman permission for his death, he was
then taken to the Mount of Olives to await the final sentence of the
Sanhedrin when they gave their decision for his death at Bethphage on the Mount
of Olives. The New Testament says that all the chief priests, scribes
and elders of the Judahites witnessed the crucifixion of the Messiah (Matthew
27:41), and in the Talmud it states that all the elders of the
Sanhedrin including the High Priest had to make the decision for such things at
Bethphage (Sanhedrin 14b).
There is even further New
Testament significance to these matters. It was no accident that the Messiah
told his disciples to go into Bethphage and obtain a donkey for him to ride
into Jerusalem to fulfill the prophecy of Zechariah about the Judahites
adoring their king riding on a donkey. By getting this donkey at Bethphage was
like saying that the Messiah went to the central Supreme Court area of the land
in order to get his royal position for legal sovereignty approved (note that
the owners of the donkey at Bethphage did in fact allow the donkey to be taken
and Bethphage was the village of the priests and the measuring center for all
things that the Sanhedrin had to determine).
But there is even more. Note
that when the Messiah departed on the donkey from Bethphage that the people
praised him as the King of Israel (Matthew 21:1-17). The Messiah then
returned to Bethany on the east side of the Mount of Olives and the next
morning started once again into Jerusalem. He then saw a fig tree (note
carefully that this was a fig tree) that had no eatable fruit on
it. Indeed, the texts say that it was not yet the time for ripe figs because it
was so early in the season. But the Messiah, finding no ripe figs on it,
cursed it then and there! This event occurred on the Mount of Olives and
right next to the village of Bethphage (the House of Unripe Figs). And soon,
that fig tree withered away and died, and this all happened suddenly, within a
matter of hours.
Judahites living at the time
in Jerusalem (without the slightest doubt in their minds) would have known the
significance that the Messiah was placing on that miraculous event. That fig
tree was a Tree of Unripe Figs next to the village of Bethphage (the House of
Unripe Figs) which was the site where the Sanhedrin determined the limits of
things that were holy and things not holy. In effect the Messiah, through the
miraculous withering of that fig tree of unripe figs, was showing the demise
and final authority of the Sanhedrin to make decisions at Bethphage (the House
of Unripe Figs). This symbolic act was taking away the authority of the
Sanhedrin and the Messiah said it would be given to a nation bringing forth the
fruits thereof. Recall, the Messiah then went on to the Temple and stated
dogmatically: "Therefore say I unto you. The kingdom of God shall be taken
from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof"
(Matthew 21:43).
Yet there is even more
symbolism to this withering of the fig tree and its unripe figs. Since it was
recognized that the fig tree was the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil
(again, not the apple), the Messiah cursed the tree that introduced sin into
the world with our first parents. The symbol the Messiah was creating showed
that the type of tree that introduced sin into the world will not be available
for humans as a temptation to sin in the future. This, of course, became the
case when he was crucified two days later for the sins of the world not but a
few yards from that symbolically accursed tree.
Once it is realized that the
Messiah was in fact crucified on the Mount of Olives, all these historical and
symbolic matters found in the early Judahite records and the New Testament
begin to make sense to those who understand the basic facts of the Holy
Scriptures.
No comments:
Post a Comment