163Observations
Understanding
4
Off to War
For Love of Money…
The tumultuous relationship between Mow’ab and Yisra’el became contentious again. This troublesome and overtly religious culture claimed land for themselves that Yahowah had given to the tribes of Reuben and Gad. This may serve as a foreshadowing of the attempts by Christians and Socialist Secular Humanists, who represent Moab today, to take the same region away from Yisra’el | Israel. They want to give it to the Muslims living in the geographic footprint of Mow’ab.
This goal, if achieved, would serve to censure the voice that undermines their beliefs, proving in their minds that they are now more influential than the unreformed God of the “Old Testament.” This history is all dutifully presented in Bamidbar / Numbers 21:24-30, Shaphat / Judges 3:12-30, 11:22-36, Shamuw’el / 1 Samuel 14:47, and Melekym / 2 Kings 3:4-27. And it is this very thoroughness which suggests that it was chronicled for a reason. After all, the divestiture of Yahuwdah | Judea will be the triggering event of the final assault against God’s people.
It is interesting, however, in this regard that Yahowah had previously said: “Do not harass the Mow’abites or provoke them to war, for I will not give you any part of their land. I have given ‘Ar to the descendants of Lowt as a possession.” (Dabarym / Deuteronomy 2:9) Therefore, Yisra’el was right in wanting to remove the Moabites from occupying territory given to Reuben and 164Gad but would have been wrong to invade the neighboring territory on the far side of the Dead Sea.
There is also a connection to the bad boys of Yisra’el. A notable conflict between the Moabites and Yisra’el was fought by the tribe of Benjamin, where Mow’ab | Moab joined forces with the dreaded Amalekites and Ammonites. Empowered, the Moabites were uncommonly oppressive during this period and the object of their abuse was typically Yisra’el.
The subjugation of Yisra’el by Mow’ab led to the assassination of the Moabite king, Eglon, by the Benjaminite Shaphat | Judge Ehud ben Gera. Benjamin then rubbed salt in the open wound by leading an army against the Moabite people, killing many of them along the Jordan River. This story is told in Shaphat / Judges 3:12-30.
On the other hand, Yahuwdah, and particularly Dowd / David, briefly incorporated Mow’ab into the kingdom as a vassal state. Yah’s beloved Son even sent his mother and father to Mow’ab | Moab when King Sha’uwl was pursuing him. However, it was not always peaceful. After he put down a Moabite advance, Dowd is said to have systematically executed two out of every three Moabite captives in Shamuw’el / 2 Samuel 8:2. Thereafter, under King Rehoboam, Moab was all but absorbed into the Northern Kingdom.
The final confrontation with the Kingdom of Mow’ab occurred around 850 BCE, during the reign of Yahowram | Jehoram. It incorporates the witness of ‘Elysha’ | Elisha, the prophet who followed in ‘ElYah’s | Elijah’s footsteps. This final episode in the nation’s life is told in Melekym / 2 Kings 3. It is nearly as insightful and moving as that which we have already considered, so get comfortable and be prepared to be amazed.
165But before we address it, be aware that this incident depicting the demise of Mow’ab follows one of the most revealing exchanges between Yahowah’s prophets and those representing the Adversary, the Lord Ba’al. We considered it not long ago, in the 1st chapter of the 4th volume of Observations, Yahowah v. the Lord, where we detailed ‘ElYah’s confrontation with 450 of the Lord Ba’al and 400 of ‘Asherah, the Queen of Heavens’ prophets in Melekym / 1 Kings 18:16-40. If you are unfamiliar with that story, to better appreciate the reasons Yahowah showed no regard for the Mow’abites, their religion, customs, societies, realm, or lives, you would benefit by reading it.
As we begin, we find ourselves where we have been, with Yahowah chiding His people’s propensity to be religious…
“Now Yahowram (Yahowram – Standing Up to Yah, Jehoram), the son of ‘Ach‘ab (‘Ach‘ab – Father’s Brother, Achab), began to rule over (melek ‘al – became king of) Yisra’el (Yisra’el – Individuals who Struggle With and Fight Against God) in Shimrown (Shimrown – Observant, Samaria) the eighteenth year of Yahowshaphat (Yahowshaphat – Yahowah Decides, Yahowah Judges, Jehoshaphat), king of Yahuwdah (Yahuwdah – Yahowah’s Beloved, Related to Yah, Judah). He ruled for twelve years (wa melek shanaym ‘esrah shanah). (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:1)
He engaged in and acted upon that which was evil, disagreeable and displeasing, malignant and just plain bad (wa ‘asah ha ra’ – he was wrong, doing what was counterproductive and improper (qal imperfect)) in the sight of (ba ‘ayn – in the eyes and perspective of) Yahowah (Yahowah – an accurate transliteration of the name YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence and our shalowm – reconciliation).
166Although, with one small exception (raq – while the distinction was slight, by contrast on this single issue) he was unlike (lo’ ka – he was dissimilar and different than) his father (‘ab huw’) and dissimilar to his mother (wa ka ‘em huw’), because he put away and avoided (wa suwr – he rejected, turned away from, abolished, and removed (hifil imperfect)) that which was associated with the monuments, pillars, and the memorial stones to false gods of (‘eth matsabah – the sacred sites, mounds of stones, and even the military outposts and garrisons where detachments of soldiers were located on the perimeter of an occupied area devoted to guarding the idolatrous realm of) the Lord (ha Ba’al – the one seeking to own, control, and possess, the authoritarian political leader and religious dominion requiring submission and demanding obedience, the most common name and title of the adversarial wannabe god of gentile nations surrounding Yisra’el with origins in Babel) that his father (‘asher ‘ab hem – to reveal the way of his father and to benefit his father) had produced and celebrated (‘asah – had created and made (qal perfect)).” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:2)
We have known for a very long time now that ha Ba’al is “the Lord,” and that “the Lord” is the name and title Yahowah uses to depict and describe the most commonly worshiped false god of the Gentile nations surrounding Yisra’el. This pretend deity was Bel, the Lord, in Babel / Babylon, which is where the abysmal and demeaning concept of God being feared and worshiped as the Lord, began. I am stating the obvious because a superior being who would create an inferior creature to worship him would be an insecure narcissist, the very antithesis of a loving and supportive father.
The depiction of ha Ba’al as “the Lord, the one seeking to own, control, and possess, the authoritarian political leader and religious dominion requiring submission and demanding obedience,” is not only wholly 167opposed to Yahowah’s nature, but it is also a perfect description of Imperial Rome and the Roman Catholic Church, Islam and Allah, Judaism and rabbis, the Mafia and its dons, kings and kingdoms, communist regimes and resulting dictators. But did you know that Ba’al is a compound of “ba – with or in, positioned over and against” and ‘al, meaning “to ascend over and to be above” “the Most High?”
‘Al is based upon the verb, ‘alah, which means “to ascend, to rise up, and to climb above, to excel over, to be superior to, and to be exalted beyond” someone else, even “to stir up, rouse, and take away.” Having read Yahowah’s depiction of “ha Satan – the Adversary” in Yasha’yah 14, it’s rather obvious who “ha Ba’al – the Lord” represents.
As an interesting aside, and speaking of both ‘Alah and Satan, Islam’s Ka’aba is a “matsabah – a pile of stones erected on behalf of false gods.” The resulting religion was established, spread, and maintained through “matsabah – military outposts and garrisons of mujahideen located on the perimeter of occupied territory guarding the idolatrous realm” of the Lord, Allah.
“Nevertheless (raq – while the distinction was slight and only pertained to this single issue), he pursued and clung to the wrong and mistaken way (ba chata’ah – he was positioned in opposition by being wicked and immoral, ignorant and irrational, the unfortunate and sinful way; from chata’ – to miss the way, going in the wrong direction, incurring guilt and forfeiting the opportunity through errant ideas) of Yarob’am (Yarob’am – to Contend Against the Family, Contentious People, Jeroboam [the king who led Yisra’el back into religious mythology by reintroducing the Egyptian Apis Bull cult of the Golden Calves, with the priests forced to observe their holidays to get the people to worship them]), the son (ben) of Nabat (Nabat – to Regard, pay attention to, Nebat), who caused Yisra’el to be wrong, missing the way (‘asher chata’ ‘eth 168Yisra’el – who caused those who contend with God to err and thus fail (hifil perfect)) because he clung to it (dabaq – he associated with and was plagued by it, becoming and staying close to and united with it by joining in the pandemic sickness, holding fast to it (qal perfect)) never rejecting it nor departing from it (lo’ suwr min huw’ – and was unwilling to turn away from it, forsake it, nor abolish it (qal perfect)).” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:3)
You have read it countless times because Yahowah has often reinforced His position: God damn religion. Yah hates religious imagery and monuments. He despises the veneration of any god, and most especially the Lord as if the Adversary was worthy of man’s devotion. There is only one way to God and therefore, Yahowah is opposed to all other options. Religion is not a good thing, but a very bad influence. Religion is a criminal enterprise, having robbed and murdered billions of souls.
Within the context of Yisra’el being bad, and therefore estranged from God, we are introduced to King Mesha – the author of the Mesha Stele we previously considered…
“Now (wa), Meysha’ (Meysha’ – Questionable Deliverance, to question salvation, Mesha; a compound of ma – to question and yasha’ – to save), king (melek – dictatorial ruler) of Mow’ab | those of a Questionable Father (Mow’ab – to ponder the who, what, where, and why of the father, Lowt’s son born to his daughter in conjunction with the destruction of Sadom), was (hayah) a man who bred and branded sheep (noqed – a sheep breeder who marks those he owns by branding them).
And so he returned, providing (wa shuwb – he brought back and restored by choice (hifil perfect consecutive – engaged the king, making them similar for a period of time by desire)) unto (la) the king (melek – the sovereign ruler) of Yisra’el (Yisra’el – Individuals who either Engage and Endure with God or who Strive and 169Struggle Against God) a hundred thousand (me’ah ‘eleph – one hundred thousand) young male rams (car – young male sheep considered ceremonially clean and appropriate for sacrifice and consumption, but also, albeit unlikely: dry and liquid measures, howdahs, palanquins, basket saddles, pastures, meadows, furnaces, forges, battering rams, or (believe it or not) whirling dancers) and one hundred thousand (wa me’ah ‘eleph) shaggy and un-sheared (tsemer – white and woolen, with their white wool) strong rams (‘ayl – assertive and protective, ceremonially clean, male sheep, leaders of the flock, but also, albeit unlikely: large trees, columns, doorposts, strong walls, vigorous health, young stags, fallow bucks, or chiefs).” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:4)
This is very odd phrasing, if indeed the sheep were tribute, because shuwb indicates that they “were returned,” and therefore “brought back,” being “restored” to their rightful owner. Moreover, in the context of what is about to occur, the fact that the sheep were “noqed – bred and branded” by Meysha’ in Mow’ab is one of those delicious insights Yahowah seems to relish providing. As it will transpire, Yisra’el would be indelibly marked by the decisions they would make with respect to this man and his country.
Further, while we obviously weren’t there, two hundred thousand sheep would be a Lowt (just kidding) to breed on impoverished ground, much less transport on hooves across the Jordan then over the mountains. The fact that two entirely different words for “rams” were used and that both terms were masculine, is also perplexing. But we should expect no less from “Meysha’ – a Questionable Delivery” out of “Mow’ab – Progenerater of Questions.” Neither the man nor the place were named “‘Anah – Answers.”
“But it came to pass (wa hayah) by comparison when (ka – denoting the contrast as) ‘Ach‘ab (‘Ach‘ab – 170Father’s Brother, Achab), died (maweth) that the king of Mow’ab (wa melek Mow’ab) became rebellious and broke away (pasha’ – rose up in unequivocal and open defiance of authority, renouncing previous allegiances, breaking free, stepping out and away (qal imperfect)) from the king of Yisra’el (ba melek Yisra’el).” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:5)
Since the new king of Yisra’el was playing with bulls, he may have devalued the gift of rams. And putting aside for a moment the realization that Yahowram preferred pagan mythology to the Covenant relationship, the Mow’abite king was not threatening to attack Yisra’el, but simply wanted to be free of the likes of Yahowram. So, while “pasha’ – breaking free and rebelling against” Yisra’el is a poor life choice, it did not warrant Yahowram’s response…
“So King (ha melek) Yahowram (Yahowram – Rise Up Against Yah, Jehoram) departed from (yatsa’ min – rose up to take a stand, presenting himself as an authority, committing himself to fight, coming forth from (qal imperfect)) Shomarown (Shomarown – Observant, Samaria) that same day (huw’ ha yowm – at that time) to muster (paqad – to take an inventory of those who could fight and the arms they would bear, watching over) all Yisra’el (‘eth kol Yisra’el).” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:6)
There is a demonstrated propensity for people to rally around and support a country’s leaders during wartime, no matter how useless or corrupt their nation may be. Government leaders lacking the capacity to earn their people’s respect are aware of this tendency and often start wars to galvanize support while eliminating detractors, all while diverting their people’s attention away from their ineptitude. This immoral approach to governance has robbed hundreds of millions, if not billions, of their lives and has impoverished the world.
171“And he started walking (halak – he set out) and sent a message (wa shalach – reached out) to (‘el) Yahowshaphat (Yahowshaphat – Yahowah Executes Judgment, Jehoshaphat), king (melek – dictatorial ruler) of Yahuwdah (Yahuwdah – Yahowah’s Beloved and Related to Yah, Judah), saying (la ‘amar – to say), ‘The king of Mow’ab (melek Mow’ab – the authoritarian ruler over those who should question their father, Moab) has broken free and rebelled against me (pasha’ ba ‘any – has defiantly transgressed and offended me).
Will you march out with me (ha halak ‘eth ‘any – will you journey forth, conducting your life like me (qal imperfect)) toward (‘el – in the direction of) Mow’ab (Mow’ab – Questionable Father) to engage in battle, fighting this war (ha milchamah – to engage in combat, attacking with weapons of war)?’
And he replied (wa ‘amar), ‘I will rise up (‘alah – I will get carried away), as I am like you (ka ‘any ka ‘atah – like me like you, compare and contrast me with you), consider my people as your people (ka ‘am ‘any ka ‘am ‘atah), and my horsepower as your horsepower (ka sus ‘any ka sus ‘atah (commonly transliterated sus)).’” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:7)
These weekend warriors were not claiming to be Yah’s people. The lost boys and their toys were not fighting to protect their homes, freedoms, or right to follow the teaching of their God. This was not “Make Judah Great Again.” They were committing their people to war for no other purpose than to extract money. Taxing their own population was evidently insufficient.
For most of his life, Yahowshaphat was nothing like Yahowram. The king of Yahuwdah was reasonably Towrah-observant while his Yisra’elite counterpart was nothing of the sort. But what’s surprising about this is that Yahowshaphat’s early reign had been devoted to fighting 172off Yisra’el, and to protecting his northern borders from intrusion. But perhaps, now ruling in the shadow of Dowd, he saw this as an opportunity to cement his legacy. The idea of my people being your people is consistent with Yahowah’s overall vision for an inclusive and reconciled Yisra’el, with the king of Yahuwdah ruling over the unified nation as was the case under Dowd.
But it could also be prophetic in that soon there would be little distinction between Yahuwdah and Yisra’el, with Yahuwdah falling to the level of its northern neighbor. That transition grew exponentially faster as a result of Yahowshaphat’s declaration to Yahowram. One of the conditions of the alliance he negotiated with the more powerful Northern Kingdom was to have his son, also named, Yahowram, marry ‘Athalyah | Athalih (Yah Afflicts), the daughter of ‘Ahab (to Love) and ‘Iyzebel | Jezebel (Married to the Lord Ba’al).
Second only to her mother, ‘Athalyah is the most despicable woman in all of Yahuwdah, murdering every descendant of Dowd, save one who was hidden from her, while demanding, as did her mother, that they worship their god, the Lord Ba’al, throughout the land. All the while, Yahowram of Yahuwdah, her husband, became co-regent with his father Yahowshaphat in the fifth year of the rule of his namesake in Yisra’el by murdering his six brothers (2 Chronicles 21:2-4). Needless to say, this did not end well for Yahowram (who was stabbed in the back by one of his generals) or ‘Athalyah (who after ruling as queen mother following the death of her husband, was executed after her reign ended with the death of her son).
“And he said (wa ‘amar – he expressed, questioning), ‘Which specific way and for what exact purpose (‘e zeh ha derek – what particular route, which path, where, and to what purpose) shall we rise up and make this sacrifice (‘alah – shall we take this up and get carried away, making this happen)?’
173And he answered (wa ‘amar), ‘The way through (derek – the path of) the wilderness (midbar – the wasteland without the word or abundant life) of ‘Edowm (‘Edowm – the descendants of ‘Esa’ow | Esau, the man Yah hates, the forefather of Imperial and Catholic Rome, ‘Edom).’ (3:8)
So, the king of Yisra’el (wa melek Yisra’el) set off and walked (halak – journeyed) along with the king of Yahuwdah (wa melek Yahuwdah) and the king of ‘Edowm (wa melek ‘Edowm), and they set out on a circuitous route as part of an all-encompassing seven-day journey (sabab sheba’ yowmym derek – winding about and circling around they went changing directions for seven days).
But there was no water (wa lo’ hayah maym) for the encampment’s army (la ha machaneh – camp of nomadic people, military, and/or civilians) or for the beasts (wa la ha bahemah – or for very large animals, wild and domestic) which followed in their footsteps (‘asher ba regel hem).” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:9)
By the way he phrased his question, it’s evident that Yahowshaphat wasn’t eager to make this sacrifice. But since the Northern Kingdom of Yisra’el was comprised of ten tribes and Yahuwdah was one, for the outnumbered king, Yahowram had become Yahowshaphat’s “daddy” in modern parlance.
Beyond this, of course, together they were clueless. They were operating in their own backyard, and yet they didn’t know where to find water or how to get from here to there without wandering in circles. This is what happens when we are self-motivated and self-reliant. Yahowah’s directions are clear and straightforward while man’s are usually circuitous.
Partnering with an enemy is seldom a good idea. Allying with ‘Edowm would come back to bite them – 174especially Yahuwdah (both in the short and long term). These lost souls were going the way of ‘Edowm, which is the way of Imperial and Catholic Rome. Beyond that, these political buffoons were either insistent on eating like kings or they had an affinity for bulls; they either had no respect for the troops tagging along behind them or they were camping out with a host of beastly spirits.
It is for certain they realized that they were not on Yah’s mission. Worse, this overtly religious and political individual foisted the notion that there was a conspiracy underfoot to control and harm him.
“Then the king (wa ha melek – so the dictatorial ruler) of Yisra’el (Yisra’el – Individuals who Strive and Struggle Against God) said (‘amar – proposed and expressed (qal imperfect)), ‘Oh no!’ in alarmist and conspiratorial fashion (‘ahah – alas, raising fears by declaring that the obvious explanation cannot be right, that it is not so, stating the contrarian perspective in an emphatic and adversative fashion, thereby expressing an opposing view which is the antithesis of common understanding, a.k.a., proposing a conspiracy)!
It’s apparent that (ky – consider this alternative, making an exception which may have overlapping consequences for another time, rather instead, hypothetically what if it might be true that) Yahowah (Yahowah – based upon ‘elowah’s – God’s towrah – guidance on His hayah – existence) has summoned (qara’ – has designated and appointed (qal perfect – at this moment in time it seems real)) these three kings (la shalowsh ha melekym ha ‘elleh – for these specific three rulers) to give them (la nathan ‘eth hem – to place and bestow them, offering them (qal infinitive construct – serving as an unnuanced expression using a particularly vivid verb)) into the hand (ba yad – into the power and influence) of Mow’ab (Mow’ab – those of a Questionable Father)!’” (3:10)
175Hogwash. Yahowah didn’t solicit any king on this day, much less all three of them. Yahowram, on his own initiative, and for his own selfish purposes, mustered his people and dispatched messages to the other two kings. So, if he’d been the least bit receptive to the evidence, all of which states otherwise, and shown even a modicum of reason, he would never have proposed such a ridiculous idea. And likewise, had the other kings been rational, they would have realized he was lying.
Moreover, the idea, if true, was completely destructive to Yahowram’s agenda, which was to garner support to plunder and punish Mow’ab. If God’s intent were to actually hand them over to Mow’ab, his allies would have had to have been fools to carry on. Therefore, what is the purpose of this conspiracy? Why has this patently false claim been inserted into this story? And why are the other two kings shown entertaining it as if it were somehow possible?
This is akin to the absurd conspiracies imagined and promoted today. They are just as easily undermined by evidence and reason. And yet, millions of people succumb to them, not only believing them, but promoting and defending them with a religious zeal. However, scholastic research has shown that the lone common denominator among those enticed by conspiracies is that they are looking for an excuse, someone other than themselves to blame for their failures. They are losers in life. Such was the case with Yahowram. Left to his own devices, he would have lost and needed an excuse.
Yahowram, obviously insecure, was irrationally seeking to position Yahowah, who was in a position of authority, such that God could be blamed should he fail. It is a common practice today, to ascribe heartaches and failures to the will of God. Sure, the scheme he was promoting was groundless, and yet even when it was refuted, as we shall soon see, as a true believer in the 176mythos of clandestine collusion, he continued to affirm his devotion and his stupidity by repeating it.
Further, as is the case with those most averse to the purpose of these books, the king presented his conspiratorial babel, while citing Yahowah’s name, in conjunction with his own personal and political agenda.
And let’s be clear, Yahowram was promoting a conspiracy. ‘Ahah ky, when combined, represent an “alarmist conspiracy that is presented as if true.” This political and religious fraud wanted his audience “to replace the most obvious explanation with one that was contrarian and adversative and thus the antithesis of what one would normally conclude.” He wanted everyone to accept his hypothesis, his claims, and his opinions, as accurate. They call themselves “Truthers,” today, and they operate in exactly the same way.
“Yahowshaphat (Yahowshaphat – Yah Judges) inquired (‘amar – asked), ‘Isn’t there a prophet here (ha ‘ayn naby’ poh – is there no one here, in this place who proclaims the message) of Yahowah ( – Yahowah based upon ‘elowah’s – God’s towrah – guidance on His hayah – existence) through whom (min ‘eth huw’) we may consult at our option, expressing our desire to find out from (wa darash ‘eth – we can choose to inquire, to petition, and to investigate of our selection to find out (qal cohortative imperfect – actually expressing their ongoing desire to choose the means of consulting with)) Yahowah (Yahowah – based upon ‘elowah’s – God’s towrah – guidance on His hayah – existence)?’”
While they could banter about His name, it does not appear that any of these guys actually knew Yahowah. None had thought to seek His advice prior to marching off to war for fame and fortune. They had not searched His testimony for guidance prior to commencing their killing spree. Two of the three did not even know ‘Elysha’, the 177miracle-working prophet tasked with reporting the Word of God.
It is telling that Yahowshaphat’s question was posed as the collective “we” and was spoken in the cohortative, the first-person expression of volition. He was reserving the right of the three kings to engage a prophet of their choosing. And as bad as that sounds, Yahowshaphat was better than most: he at least knew God’s name. That would not be true of the preponderance of politicians and clerics today.
“Then (wa) one (wa ‘echad) of the servants (min ‘ebed) of the king of Yisra’el (melek Yisra’el) answered (wa ‘anah – responded), saying (wa ‘amar), ‘‘Elysha’ | God Saves (‘Elysha – Salvation is from God, Elisha) is here (poh – provides a mouth which is relatively close by), the son (ben) of Shaphat | One who Exercises Good Judgment (Shaphat – to be just by judging), who to show the way to the benefits of the relationship (‘asher) poured (yatsaq) water on the hands (maym ‘al yad) of ‘ElYah | Yahowah is God (‘Elyah – Almighty Yahowah, Elijah).’” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:11)
One of the most debilitating aspects of being lost in the realm of conspiracy theories is the willful disregard for common knowledge. When it comes to Yahowah’s naby’, ‘ElYah and ‘Elysha’ were rock stars. To have lived in Yisra’el or Yahuwdah and not know of them would be an act of self-absorbed and willful ignorance.
Beyond revealing much of what is wrong with government, and troubling about conspiracies, it should be noted that the vocabulary used here is particularly helpful. The ordinary rendering of qara’ and ‘anah in these conversations affirms that we translated them correctly when it mattered most – throughout the Miqra’ey.
The only fellow worth the air that he was breathing, the leader of Yahuwdah, interjected…
178“Yahowshaphat | Yahowah Executes Good Judgment (Yahowshaphat – Judgment is from Yahowah, Jehoshaphat; from Yahowah and shaphat – to judge) said (‘amar – expressed in words (qal imperfect)), ‘The word (dabar – the message, communication, statements, accounts, testimony, and way of speaking) of Yahowah (Yahowah – an accurate transliteration of the name YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence and our shalowm – reconciliation), it exists, it is affirmed and real, substantive and enriching (yesh – it is affirming of Yah’s existence, of Yah’s substance, and of Yah’s enriching nature, uniquely standing out and existing) with him (‘eth huw’).’
So (wa) the king of Yisra’el (ha melek Yisra’el – the authoritarian dictator ruling Individuals who Struggle with God) and Yahowshaphat | Yahowah Executes Good Judgment (Yahowshaphat – Justice is from Yahowah, Jehoshaphat; from Yahowah and shaphat – to judge) descended, lowering themselves (yarad – they went down), to him (‘el huw’) along with the ruler (wa melek) of ‘Edowm | the Descendants of ‘Esa’ow (‘Edowm – of man out of the clay who was ruddy and red and thus bloody (all symbolic of Rome and depicting that which was hated by God)).” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:12)
In a moment, we will ponder the implications of why Yahowshaphat, the one exercising good judgment and representing Yahowah’s Beloved, so radically discounted ‘Elysha’s acclaim as a prophet. After all, it was something the king had experienced firsthand as true. And yet, he presented ‘Elysha’, whom Yahowah had personally inspired to know future events before their occurrence, commonly as someone of whom it could be said, “the Word of Yahowah exists and is affirmed, it is substantive and enriching with him.” This could be said of anyone and everyone who is committed to translating and sharing 179Yahowah’s testimony in an affirming, substantive, and enriching manner.
Yahowah’s words are revealed through every accurate translation, as is God’s existence. The more amplified the translation, the more substantive and enriching it becomes, especially when insights gleaned from Yah’s words are shared and logical conclusions are drawn from them.
As for the prophets, themselves, one would rightly say: he or she is personally inspired by Yahowah to speak for Him in first person, conveying God’s message word for word as it is spoken, simultaneously conveying detailed accounts of past, present, and future events with one hundred percent accuracy to prove his authenticity as a prophet of Yahowah.
Transfixed by the conspiratorial notion the king of Yisra’el had invented and was now promoting, the kings momentarily suspended their pursuit of money and mayhem, not to listen to the Word of God, but instead to have Yahowram express his desire to challenge Yahowah’s messenger and reject his analysis. This resulted in one of the most memorable prophetic citations:
“And so (wa – then) ‘Elysha’ (‘Elysha’ – God Saves (the prophet who succeeded ‘ElYah)) remarked to him (‘amar la huw’ – stated and declared to him with ongoing implications (qal imperfect)), to (‘el – concerning) the king of Yisra’el (melek Yisra’el – the dictatorial governmental ruler of those who strive and struggle against God), ‘What have I to do with you (mah la ‘any wa la ‘atah – why did you approach me, what is the reason and for what purpose should I care about you, why should I be concerned for you, and what is the point for me to even be near you)?
You should have chosen to go to (halak ‘el – you should walk with, follow, conduct your life in accord with, and live for (qal imperative)) the prophets of your father 180(naby’y ‘ab ‘atah – the ones who proclaimed the message of the God of your father) and to the prophets of your mother (wa ‘el naby’y ‘em ‘atah – the ones who proclaimed the message of the God of your mother).’
But then (wa) the king of Yisra’el (melek Yisra’el – the authoritarian ruler of those who strive and struggle against God) said to him (‘amar la huw’ – abruptly interjected and declared, to him (qal imperfect)), ‘No, most certainly not (‘al – negative, negating the statement, that’s not right), because to the contrary (ky – alternatively, rather and instead by contrast and conditionally, indeed surely and truthfully) Yahowah (Yahowah – an accurate transliteration of the name YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence and our shalowm – reconciliation) has actually summoned and called (qara’ – has invited and called out, designating and appointing at this moment (qal perfect)) for these specific three kings (la shalosh ha melekym ha ‘eleh) so as to give them (la nathan ‘eth hem – to offer them and to place them, bestowing them (qal infinitive construct – as a verbal noun it infers that a vivid example is being made of the kings)) into the hand (ba yad – into the control and influence) of Mow’ab (Mow’ab – those of a Questionable Father)!’” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:13)
This is a classic case of conspiracy, as bad as it gets in many ways, and exactly as it continues to be manifest by those who have sought to undermine the purpose of these books featuring Yahowah’s words. It could not have come at a better time – just as we were trying to ascertain the nature and identity of today’s incarnation of Mow’ab.
As addressed a moment ago, under normal circumstances we would have expected Yahowshaphat to have acknowledged that he was aware of the fact that ‘Elysha’ was a “naby’ – prophet.” But that’s not what he said, and I suspect that the reason the king of Yahuwdah used terminology well beneath ‘Elysha’s station, “dabar 181Yahowah yesh ‘eth huw’ – the word, the message, and the accounts of Yahowah, exist, they are affirmed and real, substantive and enriching, with him” has more to do with what’s happening today, right here and now, than it did back in 850 BCE.
Let me explain, in this story we have a narcissistic psychopath in the king of Yisra’el who is marching off to war, endangering the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, many his own, all because he believes that he was disrespected by Mesha, the Moabite king, when he didn’t receive his tribute. Incensed, he was not only going to take what he had not earned but bludgeon the Moabites in the process to show the world what happens to those who slight him.
Since this pathetic pile of babel, pontificating his putrid blend of politics, conspiracy, militarism, and religion, did not know Yahowah beyond the existence of His name, and had never searched God’s testimony on his own initiative, all he had to offer was to essentially say, “No! I will not consider, much less accept, the words of Yahowah as they have been written, and instead demand that you all believe me.”
This wasn’t a debate between a prophet and a king, but instead a referendum on the words of Yahowah versus conspiracy. One refutes the other, and they should never be intermixed because they do not blend. One is essential, and the other is far worse than inconsequential. That is why ‘Elysha’ stated that he wanted nothing to do with him.
Yahowram was trying to manipulate the two kings and their entourages through his conspiracy such that they would remain loyal to him, and fight to protect him, while also appealing to their baser instincts so that they would continue to participate in his ill-advised covetous crusade. He could pretend to be one of the chosen people, especially as the leader of Yisra’el, and a conveyor of Yahowah’s 182words, while at the same time, projecting his own failures onto God, hence this conspiracy.
Simply change the names, and I have seen this all firsthand. A number of years ago, I made a horrific mistake. I not only included a conspiratorial narcissist on Yada Yah Radio, the program devoted to providing an audio presentation of these books, but I kept him on as a cohost even after more thoughtful individuals, a hundred or more of them, began chafing at his crazy conspiracies and abusive manner.
Then I read Yahowah’s overt condemnation of conspiracies in Yasha’yah and asked this individual, who like so many others of his ilk had a Facebook site with “truth” woven into its name, to refrain from commingling his absurdly foolish conspiratorial notions and Yahowah’s words. He refused because he and his followers were far too vested in them, and they had developed a significant following by copying and pasting my translations, transliterations, and insights prominently on their site to attract attention. It provided them with a veneer of credibility, thereby making their conspiracies appear somewhat believable.
When I stated that they could choose one over the other, but could not have both, as ‘Elysha’ had told Yahowram, they threw a hissy fit, irrationally clinging to my translations and insights while slandering and demeaning the one who provided them. It became a circus of circuitous contradictions. Little did they realize that if I was right, they were wrong, and if I was wrong, so were they.
Not only is Yahowah opposed to the promotion of conspiracy, He is especially averse to babel, to mixing lies and truth together because, it not only discredits and devalues the credibility of His testimony, it leads the unsuspecting away from Him. So, while the “Truthers” 183became an ongoing irritant and frustrating distraction, it was a battle that had to be fought, and which we are still waging, because second only to religion, conspiracy is the most entrenched and beguiling, indeed, debilitating, form of Babel.
The Truthers will claim otherwise, as was the case with Yahowram, but the fact remains that those who promote the babel of conspiracy cannot have a relationship with Yahowah. They cannot be Yisra’el, Yahuwdah, or Covenant because they haven’t accepted the prerequisite of the Covenant – they continue to be unwilling to walk away from the very thing God has been asking His people to avoid.
I would not care that the “Truthers” believe the Earth is flat and airplanes produce chemtrails rather than contrails to poison people’s minds at 30,000 feet (someone has to have their head in the clouds, I suppose). Their moronic positions on 9-11 being a government plot are only surpassed by the absurdity of their assertions that the mass shootings and bombings in the US are actually staged by government actors.
Their positions on vaccines, while easily refuted, have caused a reemergence of diseases such as measles so their moronic evangelism is not a victimless crime. And yet, up to the point they impair others, or discredit Yahowah’s testimony, they are free to make fools of themselves, as was the case with Yahowram.
But they are in fact harming others when they disparage Yahowah’s words by combining them with their own. There is nothing worse than claiming to know Yahowah and being part of His Covenant Family while at the same time besmirching both by commingling and promoting mind-blowingly stupid conspiracies.
For the unsuspecting, it destroys the single most essential element behind everything written in these books 184devoted to Yahowah’s testimony: credibility! It is why Yahowah despises religion. He knows that when such idiotic notions are attributed to Him, associated with Him, and when His testimony is intermixed with such bogus claims, His standing suffers in the minds of those who aren’t readily able to separate truth from lies.
If you think that I may be making too much of this, I encourage you to come up with another reason Yahowah would juxtapose the king’s conspiracy with a story that delineates the counterproductive choices that led to the destruction of ancient Mow’ab. Why else would He condemn conspiracies in the 8th chapter of Yasha’yah / Isaiah?
In reality, the king’s continued devotion to his ridiculous conspiratorial notion is so incongruously set within this account, one in which God gives the king what he desires, that if it isn’t for this purpose, then God is undermining the benefit of His own account – something that just isn’t plausible. That said, there is a lesson in God giving idiots what they want.
“So (wa) ‘Elysha’ (‘Elysha’ – God Saves; a compound of ‘el – God and yasha’ – saves) said (‘amar – responded and exclaimed), ‘As Yahowah of the vast array of spiritual implements (Yahowah tsaba’) lives, creating and restoring life (chay – abundantly invigorates and renews life, nurtures and favors life, sustains and preserves life, is alive), before whom and in whose presence I stand (‘asher ‘amad la paneh huw’ – for whom and to reveal the way to the proper path to the most beneficial relationship with Him I appear before, present myself, and stand firm, appointed and sustained, persistent and enduring, upright and remaining with Him), surely (ky), if it were not (luwle’ – unless and except, making a contrast and exception) for the presence of (paneh – the appearance of) Yahowshaphat (Yahowshaphat – Yah is Just; a compound of Yahowah and shaphat – to exercise 185good judgment) as the king of Yahuwdah (melek Yahuwdah – the ruler of those Beloved by Yah), which I regard and uplift (‘any nasa’ – which (addressing Yahuwdah) I embrace and raise), under no condition (‘im – not even conditionally) would I show any regard for you (‘nabat ‘el ‘atah – would I consider paying any attention to you or respond to you) nor would I even see you (wa ‘im ra’ah ‘atah – nor would I perceive or acknowledge your presence (qal imperfect energic nun jussive – genuinely and emphatically, with ongoing implications, based upon the desires of a third person (God))).’” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:14)
We ought to admire the integrity, courage, and brilliance of Yah’s prophets. ‘Elysha’, armed with nothing more than his relationship with Yahowah and his intellect, was likely enjoying his time with friends and family when, in the midst of a dusty and snorting plume, he was approached by these kings and their entourage.
Yet he effectively spit in the face of an impetuous, covetous, self-aggrandizing, conspirator who was likely psychotic and perhaps even psychopathic, and who was accompanied by as many armed men as he could muster. He rebuffed him as Yahowah would have done. He did not respect the man or the office he held, his influence or military might, his religion or his politics, and he overtly rejected the conspiracy he was promoting. As is the case here, we can learn from the likes of ‘Elysha’.
Yahowah’s naby’ | prophet framed the issue by posing a rhetorical question, one which accurately assessed the difference between these two individuals: “What have I to do with you?” The answer is nothing. One was babel the other was beryth. One promoted his conspiracy while the other engaged in telling the truth about God. One was political and the other condemned such things. One was seeking to use his military might to oppress his neighbors and then tax them while the other sought to reconcile the 186people’s relationship with Yahowah and then freely share what he had come to understand.
The question he was asking is one we should all consider and convey: how should someone who is engaged in a relationship with Yahowah respond when a political, conspiratorial, and/or religious person approaches them? The answer is to follow ‘Elysha’s example.
I would delight in asking a self-assured head of state, a misguided religious leader, or the pompous administrator of a wayward conspiracy group: “mah la ‘any wa la ‘atah – why did you approach me, what is the reason I should care about you, why should I be concerned for you, and what is the point for me to even be near you?”
Then delineating the difference between us, our next line ought to be as ‘Elysha’ stated, “You should have chosen to go to, walk with, to follow, and to conduct your life in accord with the prophets,” which would of course, include the Towrah and Mizmowr. It is the antidote for the ills of man, for conspiracy theorists, political pontifications, economic envy, religious myths, patriotic diatribes, societal maladies and military adventurism in all of which Yahowram participated.
‘Elysha’ went a step further, identifying the naby’ as being “of your father” and “of your mother,” both uniquely singular, because it became a teaching opportunity – one lost on those who came to advance their conspiracy against Yahowah. Everyone in the audience, including those of us reading about the Yisra’elite king today, has been made aware that “Yahowram | Jehoram…was unlike his father and his mother because he put away and avoided the monuments, pillars, and idols to the Lord Ba’al that his father had produced and celebrated,” they missed the fact that ‘Elysha’ was reminding the observant that the inspiration behind the prophets was our Heavenly Father 187and Spiritual Mother, the paternal and maternal manifestation of the one and only God.
He was thereby explaining the second statement on the second tablet. He was refuting the conspirators, the political and the religious, the economically covetous and militaristically inclined, by subtly conveying that the Word of God exposes and condemns their agenda.
Had Yahowram | Jehoram done as ‘Elysha’ advised, he would not have been marching off to invade Mow’ab. He would not have allied his people with ‘Edown. He would not have been manufacturing gods or worshiping bulls. Rather than being afraid that he was being played by God in some sort of twisted Divine conspiracy, He would have been celebrating the fact that with Yah, he and his people would have been invincible, enriched, enlightened, and empowered.
Dumb as a stone and with a head equally impervious to evidence and reason, the man crippled by his conspiratorial beliefs and his egocentric and covetous nature, blurted out: “No, most certainly not, because surely Yahowah has called for these specific three kings so as to give them into the hand of Mow’ab!”
No, I beg to differ: the facts are contrary to this conspiratorial rubbish. If they had been communicating with Him, they would not have come to ‘Elysha’ seeking to reinforce the veracity of their conspiracy, nor to validate it.
Realistically, Yahowah would not have cared if ‘Edown ruled over Mow’ab or the other way around. He does not intervene in monetary or military disputes between strangers. And while Yah was disgusted by Jehoram, Yisra’el is His family and Yahuwdah is His beloved. So, while He wouldn’t have cared one way or another about the rulers, a Father and Mother protect their family.
188As for the king, ‘Elysha’ did not accept him. He did not try to help him, did not seek to influence him, didn’t even offer to save him – he simply refuted him. He was blunt and unequivocal. And after completely discounting him, the prophet revealed, not for the king of Yisra’el, but for everyone else, what we should do before we act out, before we lash out, and even before we speak out. We are best prepared and equipped for any adventure and are best served when we read and consider the message of Yahowah as it was conveyed through His prophets.
Recognizing that Yahowah has already revealed His desire for our lives and has instructed us on how to live with Him, asking for individual guidance on a conspiracy rather than reading the instruction He has provided is like asking a teacher who has handed his class the answer to every test question, to repeat the answer just for them because they hadn’t bothered to read or listen previously and couldn’t be bothered to do so now.
It is like saying, “I’m so special, my time is more valuable than God’s time. And I’m so set in my own ways, so confident in my beliefs, so steadfast in my conspiracies, that I saw no reason to consider anything God had to say previously.” Anything presented to such a man will be wasted on him. ‘Elysha’ didn’t try to coddle or inspire him because he could not be helped. Such is the case with everyone engaged in promoting a conspiratorial, religious, political, economic, or military agenda, and is also true of those who believe them. ‘Elysha’ refuted him, exposing and condemning the myth he was promoting. Lies presented in the presence of those who know and affirm the Word of God should never go unchallenged.
The biggest differences between ‘Elysha’s God and Jehoram’s golden calves, his father’s Lord, the gods of Babylon, Greece, and Rome, and those of Hinduism, Christianity, and Islam is that One is alive, and all the others are inanimate objects, One created man, and men 189created all the rest. And that is why ‘Elysha’ exclaimed “Yahowah of the vast array of spiritual implements lives, creating and restoring life.”
‘Elysha’ had only one credential that mattered. He stood for Yahowah and revealed the way to the most beneficial relationship with Him. He spoke for Yahowah and he knew it. ‘Elysha’ even conveyed God’s viewpoint: “Surely if it were not for the presence of Yahowshaphat as the king of Yahuwdah, which I uplift, I would not pay any attention to you or respond to you, nor would I even see you.” There would be no evangelical calling, no missionary zeal, and no propensity to present God’s plan of salvation.
Apart from exposing and condemning them, discounting them, and then sharing the truth such that those who are more open-minded might know it, we are not supposed to be wasting our time with the likes of Yahowram – those who advance religious, political, conspiratorial, economic, militaristic, or societal deceptions.
Also, as a lesson for the observant, Yahowah is not omniscient nor omnipresent, in spite of the religious suppositions to the contrary. He does not know those who do not know Him. He is not involved in the everyday existence of believers. He is not responsible for the good or bad in people’s lives. God pays no attention to those who are religious or political, conspiratorial or militaristic. He neither responds to them nor respects them. And that means that God does not listen to their prayers or love them.
No matter how wretched and misguided the king of Yisra’el was on this occasion, however, Yisra’el is Yah’s bride, and He has promised to protect them, especially Yahuwdah, His Beloved. And that is why ‘Elysha’ said…
“‘Nevertheless (wa ‘atah), fetch me (laqah la ‘any – obtain for me) a musician who can play a stringed instrument while singing an ironic song composed by a 190worthy leader (nagan – someone who can strum while melodically conveying the sarcastic and sardonic lyrics of a proper official).’
And it came to be (wa hayah) as (ka) the minstrel mocked and played (nagan ha nagan – the musician strummed his stringed instrument and sang his ironic song on behalf of the ultimate leader), the hand (yad – the influence) of Yahowah (Yahowah – the proper pronunciation of YaHoWaH as ‘elowah – God instructed in His Towrah – Guidance regarding His hayah – existence) came to exist (hayah – came to be) upon him (‘al huw’).” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:15)
Yahowah evidently appreciated ‘Elysha’s decision to disrespect and distance himself from the twisted head of state. He did not care for him either. So, they summoned the perfect muse, a mocking minstrel. Even if Jehoram did not realize it, God found a way to mock the man while being merciful to His people.
“He said (wa ‘amar), ‘This is what is being conveyed by (koh ‘amar) Yahowah (Yahowah – an accurate transliteration of the name YaHoWaH, our ‘elowah – God as guided by His towrah – instructions regarding His hayah – existence and our shalowm – reconciliation), “Engage in such a manner as to make (‘asah) this wadi (ha nachal ha zeh) full of trenches by excavating the earth (geb geb – ditches and cisterns to hold water).” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:16)
For this is what is being communicated by (ky koh ‘amar) Yahowah (Yahowah – based upon ‘elowah’s – God’s towrah – guidance on His hayah – existence), “You shall not see wind (lo’ ra’ah ruwach), nor shall you see rain (wa lo’ ra’ah geshem), yet (wa) this ravine shall be filled (huw’ nachal ha huw’ male’) with water (maym) so that you may drink (wa shathah), you and your livestock (‘atem wa miqnah ‘atah – you, your property and 191possessions you have acquired, your herd of domesticated animals), as well as (wa) your beasts (bahemah).”’” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:17)
If we follow Yahowah’s instructions, He’ll supply whatever is needed to sustain the lives of His children. In this case, while they would not see the ruwach, she was there, represented by the wind and water.
Earlier, we were not alone in noticing the odd use of bahemah – beasts. To make the distinction, Yahowah recognized their “miqnah – livestock,” and then addressed the bahemah tagging along.
Similar bahemah | beasts were among the beings “spoiling, terrifying, and violently killing” in association with Sha’uwl’s plague of death in Chabaquwq / Habakkuk 2:17. These same bahemah | beasts are shown running amuck in Howsha’ / Hosea 4:1-4 “swearing, lying, killing, stealing, and adulterating” the world because “there was no truth, no mercy, nor any knowledge of God in the Land.”
As was the case with Noach in the presence of the impending flood, as was the case of ‘Abraham while walking away from Babel | Babylon to live with God, and as was the case with Moseh throughout the initial celebration of the Miqra’ey during the exodus, we must act and engage if we want to benefit from Yahowah’s instructions. Rather than draw their swords, those who had been mustered to satiate the king’s lust for tribute would till the earth instead.
These trenches, even filled with water, would be defensive and thus would not violate Yahowah’s previous instruction to stay out of the land of Mow’ab. But there was an entirely different subliminal message being conveyed here, one I suspect everyone except ‘Elysha’ missed on this day.
192Yahowah was toying with a spoiled child. He would turn Yahowram’s conspiracy on its head and let him choke on it. Rather than Yahowram being handed over to Mow’ab, Yahowah would give Mow’ab to Yahowram – but at a price! If he took it, if he acted upon his perverted desires, Yahowah would withdraw. He would ridicule the one mocking Him, spurning the despot and his people, tangibly demonstrating His disapproval. This seemingly insignificant, albeit irritatingly stupid, conspiracy would become a catalyst behind God’s swift and sudden withdrawal from those who sought to blaspheme and rival Him.
“‘And (wa) while this will cause Him to withdraw, to disparage, even spurn, showing disapproval and disappointment for this (qalal zo’th – He will recede, disparage, and spurn because of this, He will humble and humiliate for this, trifling with those who don’t take His message seriously, seeing them as contemptible for this (nifal perfect consecutive – the subject of the verb, God, carries out this curse as a result of being trivialized and blasphemed for a finite period of time, all under the auspices of freewill)) from the perspective (ba ‘ayn – in the sight and view) of Yahowah (Yahowah – based upon ‘elowah’s – God’s towrah – guidance on His hayah – existence), (wa) He will bestow at this moment under the auspices of freewill (nathan ‘eth – He will place, offering in exchange your heart’s desire, delivering should you choose (qal perfect consecutive – for a limited time and as an expression of volition)), Mow’ab (Mow’ab – those of a Questionable Father) into your hand (ba yad ‘atem).’” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:18)
This was not, as English Bibles are wont to suggest, a “trivial or insignificant thing” but instead laid out an option that would have consequences that would reverberate throughout time: listen to Him or men, accept truth or lies, support life or end it, engage in the Covenant or chase after 193conspiracies. God does not do “trivial things,” but will trivialize those who do.
Both verbs were presented under the auspices of freewill. The three kings were being offered a choice – one that would come with a consequence. If they moved forward and invaded, God would withdraw. If they pillaged, He would impoverish. If they took lives, their lives would hold little value.
As is the case with religion, government, or conspiracy, the perpetrators were free to choose their fate. But with every stride, they would be moving away from the only one who could actually help them. With every militant step, with each blow, with every meaningless object stolen, they would become ever more like the victims they were pursuing. Moreover, Yahowshaphat’s words would prove prophetic: “‘I will rise up and get carried away, as I am like you, consider my people as your people, and my horsepower as your horsepower.’” But so would ‘Elysha’s response from Yah’s perspective: “‘What have I to do with you, what is the reason and for what purpose should I care about you, why should I be concerned for you, and what is the point for me to even be near you?’”
As we press on, we are once again reminded that the way a verb is shaped reveals as much about what is being communicated as does the action being depicted. Nakah, for example, in this next statement was written in the hifil perfect consecutive. This indicates that for a limited period of time, God gave His wayward, militant, and covetous children a wide range of options of their choosing, provided that they were aware that every action would have an equal and similar reaction.
Driven by their desires, they could invade Mow’ab, but if they elected to do so, as perpetrators of nakah they would come to embody an escalating range of ever more 194devastating interactions, with victim and victimizer becoming more alike. The range of options available to the kings would be “nakah – to simply make contact with these people, to strike them, to conquer them, or to utterly destroy them.”
Their choices would shape their fate: make contact with them and they would find themselves rubbing elbows with a similar foe, smite them and they would be smitten, conquer them and they would in turn be subdued, destroy them and they would one day be ravaged. Had they bothered to read it, had they cared to consider it, they would have known that Yah had explicitly told Yisra’el not to go into Mow’ab. But here they were, nonetheless, poised to invade for nothing more than tribute.
Now, while there is always the possibility that I may be shaping an overly grand edifice out of the seldom considered implications of these Hebrew stems, conjugations, and moods, I’d nonetheless like to press this perspective forward one or two thousand years, because should I be right, it becomes essential, a matter of their very survival, for Yisra’el to come to understand what Mow’ab represents, especially as the modern manifestation is poised to “nakah – invade and strike” in the desire to “conquer and destroy” Israel.
Would the quid pro quo of their actions on this day be prophetic of what Yisra’el will endure during the Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles? Is this foe the military state, the propensity of nations to invade on the flimsiest notions, or is Mow’ab more correctly identified as the plague of Pauline Christianity cohabitating within the world of the multicultural, politically correct ideals of Socialist Secular Humanism? Or is Yahuwdah’s greatest menace – the conspiracy theorist – those perpetually willing to craft all manner of deceptions such that Jews are blamed for their miserable existence, the modern incarnation of Mow’ab? Did Yisra’el bring the bane of conspiracy, the likes of the 195Protocols of the Elders of Zion, upon themselves, becoming their own worst enemy because of the bad decisions made this day?
“‘For a limited time, you may choose to engage, contacting, striking, conquering, or even destroying (wa nakah – under the auspices of freewill, you can decide to interact in close proximity, to smite, subdue, or ruin, making these objects of your desire like you, including (hifil perfect consecutive – the subject, of their own initiative, causes the object to participate in similar fashion, such that perpetrator and victim become indistinguishable for a finite period of time)) every inhabited fortress or defended city (kol mibtsar ‘iyr – any defensive structure or anguishing stronghold, as well as all fortified population centers), every inhabited town, exemplary inner shrine, or armed terrorist (wa kol mibchowr ‘iyr – all of the most important temples along with everyone who has decided to be angry asses), even every desirable tree and all beneficial timber (wa kol ‘ets towb – all quality and useful wood) could be brought down and be attributed to you (naphal – could fall, becoming like you in this way (hifil imperfect – subject causes the object to participate for a prolonged period such that they become similar over time)).
Every source of water (wa kol mayan maym – every spring which serves as a source of life) you can block off and actually seal up on an ongoing basis (chatham – you can close by stopping the flow, literally shutting it down forever (qal imperfect)).
Every (wa kol) tract of land (ha chelqah – piece, portion, plot, or parcel of land) which is good and useful (ha towb – productive, pleasing, or attractive) you may destroy with stones (ka’ab ba ha ‘eben – you may ruin it, causing pain, anguish, and grief by building a rocky edifice which is naturally dense, hard, and impervious (hifil 196imperfect – causing the grieving to continually feel your pain)).’” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:19)
Should these kings choose the worst of these options, there would be nothing left of Mow’ab when they were done. It would be left defenseless and uninhabited, parched and without resources, incapable of being reconstituted as a nation. It was clearly an opportunity Yisra’el should have foregone.
It reminds me of America’s invasion of Iraq. Sure, their ruler was a bad fellow, but there was everything to lose and nothing to gain by invading. Like this situation with Mow’ab, it was lose-lose. Mow’ab would be like Mosul after the battle was “won.” And the “victors” would lose their souls in the process of taking them.
Before we move on, consider the range of options available to the first recipients of this message. Kol mibtsar ‘iyr could be interpreted as “every inhabited fortress,” which would be to say, “military targets” or “any defended city” and thus “fortified population centers,” which would be filled with civilians. Likewise, kol mibchowr ‘iyr could be construed as “every inhabited town,” “each exemplary shrine or prominent temple,” or “all armed terrorists” and thus “angry asses (a.k.a., Islamic jihadists).” This is to suggest, that the way Yisra’el and Yahuwdah chose to interpret ‘iyr would come to define the way the future manifestations of Mow’ab would target Yisra’el and Yahuwdah.
Now I have a confession to make. These thoughts, and almost every word penned in this introduction to the chapter on Mow’ab, were not as I expected them to be, especially when attempting to translate and explain Yasha’yah / Isaiah 15 and 16. Most were composed later as I was grappling with Mow’ab three chapters hence. I had come to conclude from history alone that these references to Mow’ab were not being addressed to a nation circa 700 197BCE when Yasha’yah presented his prophetic portrayal of these people. Therefore, in speaking of their impending destruction, the prophet was addressing what Mow’ab had come to represent.
While that conclusion will prove valid, realizations based upon Yahowah’s words are vastly more reliable and indeed insightful. So, by doing what we have now done, and what we are about to do, we will learn not only what Mow’ab would come to represent, but at the same time come to appreciate why the name of this ancient kingdom was evoked by the prophets to awaken Yisra’elites. So, should I have accurately translated Melekym / Rulers / 2 Kings 3:19, and should Yahuwdym consider this analysis of Yahowah’s witness to them in the days leading up to the Time of Ya’aqob’s Troubles, several thousand additional souls may come to trust Yahowah’s call to come home.
“And it came to pass (wa hayah) the next morning (ba ha boqer – at the time to be especially observant and thoughtful), when lifting up (‘alah – when raising) the offering (ha minchah – the gift), then behold (wa hineh – pay attention, look up now and see), water (maym) came (bow’ – arrived) from the direction (min derek – out of the route, path, and way) of ‘Edowm (‘Edown – the descendants of ‘Esa’ow, the man God hates who became symbolic of Imperial and Catholic Rome) and the land (wa ha ‘erets – the area, region, or realm) was filled (male’ – was filled up and flooded) with water (‘eth ha maym).” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:20)
This could mean nothing more than the modest trenches the Yisra’elites and Yahuwdym were able to dig overnight filled with water. But it could also indicate that there would be another flood, indeed several more floods, from the direction of ‘Edowm. The first two would be by Legions of Roman troops, as Imperial Rome “nakah – came in contact with, smiting, conquering, and destroying” Yahuwdah not once, but twice. Then would come the 198destructive and eroding waters of ‘Edowm’s other incarnation, Roman Catholicism, as the Church would invade the Promised Land, subduing it, while smiting Yahuwdym for sixteen centuries in an effort to destroy the most important truth in the universe: Yahowah is God, not the Lord Jesus Christ, the Towrah saves while the Christian New Testament condemns, Yisra’el is God’s home, nowhere else, and His people are Yahuwdym, not Christians, Muslims, Democrats, or Republicans.
This would not be the end of the floodwaters coming from ‘Edowm, because Muslims would arrive and nakah Yisra’el, beginning in the 8th century and continuing into the future, right up to the pages of Yasha’yah 17 and the Islamic war. And they would come from the direction of ‘Edom. Moreover, Hitler’s Third Reich, the third incarnation of Rome, would inflict the most bitter of blows by extinguishing six million Jewish lives – justifying doing so largely based upon the conspiracies portrayed in Mein Kampf and Protocols of the Elders of Zion.
Further, as we shall discover in the next chapter, Yahowah’s Spirit would fulfill the promise to turn the tide and drive the floodwaters of Islamist militancy out of Yisra’el. And speaking of fulfilling predictions, the nifal infinitive ascribed to “lecham – to attack in hostile fashion so as to gain control over another using armed forces,” seems to affirm the previous interpretation of 3:19. See if you don’t agree…
“When (wa) all of (kol) Mow’ab (Mow’ab – those of a Questionable Father) heard (shama’), that indeed (ky), the kings (melek) had risen (‘alah – had ascended and come up) to fight against them and be attacked in return (lacham ba hem – to attack them and engage against them militarily such that in response they would be assaulted militarily by them, becoming the subject of wars in return, an enduring symbol of what it means to be constantly attacked and to battle for one’s survival to keep from being 199enveloped and consumed (nifal – the subject of the verb, the kings, would bring the fight and be attacked as a result, both carrying out and receiving the militant action, infinitive – serving as a verbal noun whereby the action depicts and describes those who have become warlike)), then (wa) they cried out (tsa’aq – they screamed loudly, summoning everyone to come together) to all (kol), including (min) those who were able to gird themselves (chagar – those who were capable of belting up and strapping in, dressing by), binding themselves in skins, including the leather belts required to hold their weapons (chagowrah – adorning themselves in animal hides to serve as armor), even (wa) the unfaithful and disobedient (ma’al – those who were unreliable and untrustworthy, those who were over the top, including the treacherous).
And (wa) they were present in front of those who imposed themselves over them, standing (‘amad – they were required to stand, propped up by those in charge) at the territory border (‘al ha gebuwl – upon the boundary of the governmental administrative area or kingdom).” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:21)
Written in the nifal stem, lacham ba hem affirms that Yisra’el’s decision to start this fight would cause them to be attacked in return. And while that might ordinarily mean nothing more than Mow’ab would defend itself by fending off the invading armies, since that is not what occurred, we are being encouraged to look to the future, to a time when the modern incarnation of Mow’ab would “lacham – engage militarily and fight wars” against Yisra’el and Yahuwdah. And so it would be, both one thousand and then again two thousand years hence.
Now speaking of Mow’ab circa 850 BCE…
“They had risen early in the morning (wa shakam ba ha boqer – they were prepared and active, getting an 200early start at daybreak) and (wa) as the light of the rising sun appeared (shemesh zarah – as the ascending sun became visible with the dawn’s early light shining) upon the water (‘al ha maym), the Moabites (Mow’ab – those of a Questionable Father) saw (ra’ah – viewed, observed, and perceived) the water (ha maym) from (min) the opposite direction conspicuously before them as their counterpart (neged ‘eth – the inverse perspective straight in front of them as their corresponding equivalent) as if it were the ruddy red colors of men’s blood (‘adamym ka ha dam – consistent with and as they pertain to mankind’s blood, as a reflection of ‘Adam and bloodshed, akin to the death of the first man created in God’s image, and as blood’s deep burgundy and reddish brown colors as they are reflected in wine and soil).” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:22)
Their perceptions became their reality. They let unfounded and inaccurate opinions influence them, not unlike the faithful devotees of conspiracy, religion, and politics. It is baffling that so many today will accept errant impressions with a flippant: “Everyone is entitled to their opinions.” That is to say, it would be wrong to rob people of their delusions and their conspiracies, no matter how ridiculous or harmful.
Sadly, no one challenged the false impressions, and this was the result…
“So (wa) they said (‘amar – they declared, expressing), ‘This is blood (zeh dam)! The kings (ha melek – the dictatorial rulers) have fought and killed each other (chareb chareb – they have devastated and wasted one another) and (wa) have made physical contact, striking one another, seeking to afflict and subdue each another, destroying one another (nakah ‘ysh ‘eth huw’ – they have beaten, smitten, wounded, defeated, and conquered each other, causing one another to fight back in similar fashion (hifil consecutive imperfect – the kings engaged one another, causing each other to respond in 201kind, becoming like one another for an ongoing period with unfolding consequences)).
So now then (wa ‘atah – this being the case), Mow’ab (Mow’ab – those of a Questionable Father), let’s move in the direction of (la – let’s move toward) the booty (shalal – the spoil and plunder, the prey, their property and possessions)!’” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:23)
Unfounded opinions aren’t entitlements but instead debilitating and often deadly delusions. And it is as if they have a life of their own, growing uncontrollably, with one preposterous notion breeding another, ultimately turning their victims into zombies – akin to the walking dead.
“But when (wa) they entered into (bow’ ‘el – they came and arrived upon) the camp (machaneh – the temporary encampment) of Yisra’el (Yisra’el – Individuals who Wrestle and Fight with God), Yisra’el (Yisra’el – Individuals who Engage and Endure with God) took a stand, rising up (quwm – stood up and stood fast, establishing themselves) and (wa) they made contact, afflicting, beating, striking, wounding, killing, and destroying (nakah ‘eth – in their proximity, engaged in physical contact with vicious blows, smiting and ruining, defeating and conquering (hifil imperfect – as a causative and relational stem with ongoing implications, Yisra’el caused Mow’ab to respond in kind, albeit with unfolding consequences over time)) Mow’ab (Mow’ab – those of a Questionable Father) such that they quickly fled (wa nuws – so that they departed the area in haste, escaping, and fleeing away (commonly translated as nus)) from their presence, turning their backs to them (min paneh hem – away from being in front of them, no longer facing them).
So, they went on like this (wa bow’ ba huw’ – they came on in pursuit in this manner), afflicting, smiting, killing, and defeating (nakah ‘eth – making contact with, striking, beating, subduing, ruining, and conquering while 202causing those they were attacking to engage similarly and become ever more like them while destroying (hifil infinitive)) Mow’ab (Mow’ab – those of a Father who Should Be Questioned).” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:24)
While Yisra’el was perpetrating nakah upon Mow’ab, Mow’ab did not respond with nakah on this day. One was pursuing and the other was retreating. One was smiting and the other beaten. The reciprocation that Yisra’el engendered on this day would come two and three hundred and then one, two, and three thousand years later.
There was no point to any of this senseless carnage. The Mow’abites were trying to run away. And what’s worse, the choices Yisra’el made that day would come back to haunt them in future days. But at least we have found affirmation of what we had sought: the kingdom of Mow’ab was destroyed such that all prophetic references to Mow’ab address these people’s future incarnations.
This time around, there would be no mention of “mibtsar – defensive fortifications or military strongholds,” so there would be no hiding the fact that Yisra’el went for the jugular.
“And (wa) their cities, towns, and villages (ha ‘iyr – the temple complexes and inner shrines, the sources of anguish and terror, the asses and donkeys, and/or the inhabited population centers) they overthrew and demolished, leaving them in ruins (haras – they utterly destroyed and laid waste, tearing down (qal imperfect)), and (wa) every (kol) good and productive (towb – desirable and beneficial) parcel of land (chelqah – piece of property and tract of land), each individual (‘ysh huw’ – each person) threw (shalak – tossed and scattered, hurled and cast (hifil imperfect)) his stone (‘eben huw’ – his rock) such that (wa – so that) it was filled and covered (male’ hy’ – it was finished).
203Every (wa kol) source of water (mayan maym – spring and artesian well of water and fountain of life) they obstructed and stopped (chatham – they blocked and sealed up, shut off, and stopped the passage and flow (qal imperfect)).
And (wa) every (kol) useful and productive tree (towb ‘ets – valuable and beneficial piece of timber) they fell (naphal – they brought down (hifil imperfect)) until only (‘ad – to the extent that for all time only) stones (‘eben – rocks) were left (sha’ar hy’ – remained and were spared) in (ba – within) Qyr Charseth / among the Broken Down Walls of Clay and Speechless Enchanters (Qyr Charseth – compound of qyr – cast out and destroyed walls of cheresh – earthenware, pottery, and clay as well as evil enchanters, muted writers, and now silenced plotters).
Then (wa) the slingers (ha qala’ – the soldiers wielding slingshot weapons) surrounded it (sabab – encircled) and attacked it (wa nakah hy’ – struck and destroyed it, made physical contact with it and ruined it).” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:25)
They were not satisfied with what Yahowah had given to them, they were not interested in observing what He had written for them, they wanted what they wanted instead. And so Yisra’el, by its choices, by its words and deeds, brought the Roman assaults, both Imperial and Catholic, upon themselves, Islam upon themselves, and even the multiculturalists of socialist secular humanism upon themselves. God offered Yisra’el and Yahuwdah a choice, and He gave them what they chose.
If the king was reflective of his people, Mow’ab was no better than Sadom, perhaps worse. The Mow’abite king thought only of himself, becoming the antithesis of the captain of a sinking ship. Showing no concern whatsoever for his people, after commandeering the best remaining soldiers, he tried to escape.
204“When (wa) the king of Mow’ab (ha melek Mow’ab – the ruler over those with a questionable father) saw (ra’ah – envisioned) that the battle (ha milchamah – that the war) was indeed usurping his power (ky chazaq min huw’ – was surely severe and resolutely harsh against him and would triumph over him, overpowering and conquering him (qal perfect)), he took with him (wa laqah ‘eth huw’ – he fetched and seized, grasping hold of and obtaining with him) seven hundred (sheba’ me’ah) sword-wielding men (‘ysh shalaph chereb – individuals brandishing metal weapons with their swords drawn) to (la) break out (baqa’ – splitting open a breach) toward the direction of (‘el) the king of ‘Edowm (melek ‘Edowm – the ruler of ‘Esa’ow’s descendants), but (wa) they were incapable and were overcome (lo’ yakol – they failed, unable to succeed, accomplishing nothing (qal perfect)).” (Melekym / 2 Kings 3:26)
The man who failed as king by not only deserting his people when they were being besieged, but who took the best remaining troops with him, failed as a general too. To say that there was nothing left of the kingdom of Mow’ab would be too generous. Its cities, towns, and villages were all gone. There was no water, no trees, and every parcel of arable land was inaccessible beneath a layer of stones.
If that were not enough, consider this insight into the depravity of Mow’ab. While Yisra’el ought not have pursued them, much less struck them, or destroyed their land, should the king have been indicative of his people, the planet was better without them.
“Then (wa) he took (laqah ‘eth – he grasped hold of) his firstborn son (ben huw’ ha bakowr – his eldest child) who (‘asher) was to reign (melek – was to be king) under him (tachath huw’ – beneath him and in his place) and (wa) he offered him up as a religious sacrifice and burnt offering (‘alah huw’ ‘olah – carried him away in intense rage to present him as a sacrificial offering or holocaust 205(hifil imperfect)) upon (‘al) the wall (ha chowmah – the barrier around the city).
There came to be (wa hayah – there was, is, and would be) widespread and intense (rab – a great deal of, extensive and massive) fracturing, displeasure, discord, and dissension, even animosity and anger, frustration and rage (qetseph – breaking apart and splintering, wrath and fury, antagonism and indignation, snapping apart and strife) among and upon (‘al – over and toward, by and against) Yisra’el (Yisra’el – Individuals who Struggle or Engage, who Fight or Endure, with God).
And so, they withdrew and departed (wa nasach – they pulled out, left, and moved on) from being around him (min ‘al huw’ – from being near him, before him, or by him) and returned (wa shuwb – turned around and went back) to their own land (la ha ‘erets).” (Melekym / Kings and Rulers / 2 Kings 3:27)
Indeed, it was Yisra’el’s choice, not God’s desire. And yet, the very idea of God giving His people the opportunity to obliterate a nation, tiny and menacing as this kingdom may have been, was troublesome – at least until these final two statements. It is evident now why God did not care about what happened to these people, nor should we. They were a menace to themselves and a blight on the planet.
Sure, they all did it, virtually every human civilization, from Sumer to Babylon, from Assyria to Persia, from Greece to Rome, from Carthage to Sparta, from the Celts to the Goths, from the Aztecs to the Incas, from Hindus to Polynesians. But nonetheless, it makes one sick to realize that governments sacrificed humans to appease their gods. It’s a wonder no one asked: why should we trust a god to save us who is insistent that we kill ourselves first?
There are two different ways to look at the concluding comments. I suspect that the “rab qetseph – widespread displeasure, discord, and dissension” was “‘al Yisra’el – by 206Israelis.” It took burning a young man alive on the city wall in order to appease some revolting god that finally got Yisra’el’s attention.
They had somehow justified the bludgeoning and brutalizing they had done up to this moment. It was only when they witnessed the most perverted and depraved of all human behavior, the worship of a false god through human sacrifice, that the people walked away, deserting the king of Yisra’el. Their God had called them to be different, to be better than this, to tell the truth about Him, to be anti-religious and apolitical, and yet here they were provoking the opposite response.
There is yet another way to read these closing statements. By choosing to invade and destroy their neighbor, Yisra’el and Yahuwdah made it possible for Roman Legions, Roman Catholics, and Fundamentalist Muslims to infiltrate their Land and bludgeon them. They lost their calling, their distinction, their purpose and became like the rest of the world. In the Land of Tsyown, Tsadaq, and Shalowm, Yisra’el had become wrong and warlike – no different than the Gowym surrounding them.
Mow’ab had been destroyed as a nation, but its politics and religion would live on in the hearts and minds of those who had subdued them. To all who witnessed this melancholy and morose scene, it would have seemed that Yisra’el had prevailed, imposing their will on a fallen foe. But it was Yisra’el that fell the furthest on this day, with the God who had chosen them withdrawing, disparaging, and spurning them.
Rather than revealing their God to the world and showing everyone what it was like to live with Him, they became like everyone else, no longer taking His message seriously. Enticed by a conspiracy, they would be plagued by them. Yisra’el had become the opposite of what Yahowah had intended.
207Along the way, we have learned that Mow’ab was reprehensible, with their final act as a nation the king’s sacrifice of his own son to appease his Lord and save himself. So, as we seek to find such vestiges of religious and political depravity today, we need not look any further than nations and institutions willing to sacrifice their sons on the altar of their ideals, who look to their Lord for their salvation, who act in an abominable way and yet expect a favorable outcome.
