een alleen is maar verdrietig: samen zijn we blij!

Zo is het ook
met alles wat we voelen,
denken, doen & laten tussen geboorte & sterven:
het hoort allemaal bij elkaar & 't is 't onderling verband
dat de betekenis uitmaakt, 't
verschil tussen zin
& onzin
.....

In die mate
dat we het ene
met het andere kunnen verbinden
& een eigen plaats geven in 't groter geheel
van 't bestaan ontstaat er zin, betekenis, 'n levend geheel
van oorzaak & gevolg. En op eenzelfde manier:
als het verband verbroken is, alles verder
verbrokkelt als los zand, stuivend stof
& pijnlijke droge doodsheid, zijn
we ogenschijnlijk totaal
verloren, eenzaam,
alleen, verdwaald,
losgeslagen, op
drift, doelloos &
levenloos?!

Geen wonder
dat hele volkeren
hun bestaan plachten terug te voeren
tot de daden van "G d"
als bron ervan.

{1QM 13.7-8}
'YOU ESTABLISHED A COVENANT WITH OUR FATHERS
AND RATIFIED IT WITH THEIR OFF-SPRING FOR TIMES ETERNAL!'
But in other scrolls, the word BERIT often signifies the teachings of the Sect,
its rules and its commandments, to the exclusion of the remainder of the Jewish people:
'FOR FUTILE ARE ALL THOSE WHO DO NOT KNOW THE COVENANT'
{1 QS 5.19}.

This covenant
is the result of "G d's graceful selection of the Community",
and so it is called
'a covenant of grace'
[BERIT CHESED]
{1QS 1.8}.

It is also referred to
with the biblical eschatological name
"new covenant" [BERIT CHADASH]
{CD 6.19; 8.21; 1QpHab 2.3}!
True, this "NEW COVENANT"
does not - as Christianity sometimes would have it -
nullify the old, but it is - as it is for Christianity - a sine qua non of salvation.
The community of "G d's chosen" {1QpHab 10.13} has become a sect, in the technical sense of the word. The author of the War Scroll believed the members of the Community will ascend together
from the desert of Yerushalayim, seize the Temple, and their priests
'SHALL TAKE THEIR POSITIONS AT THE BURNT OFFERINGS
AND THE SACRIFICES, IN ORDER TO PREPARE THE PLEASANT
INCENSE OF G D'S APPROVAL, TO ATONE FOR
ALL HIS CONGREGATION'
{1QM 2.5}.,
but when this vision failed to materialize,
there developed a severe religious and practical difficulty:
the members of the YA{C}HAD believe the Temple to be defiled and presently not able to be purified. How, then, can they maintain their religious obligations toward G d while distant from the impure Temple? Their answer was to represent the commandments & special purity restrictions of the Yahad
as a full & satisfactory substitute for the Temple service in which they never participated.
Or in their words:
'WHEN THESE EXIST IN ISRAEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE RULES
IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE SPIRIT OF HOLYNESS IN TRUTH
ETERNAL, IN ORDER TO ATONE FOR THE GUILT OF INIQUITY
AND FOR THE UNFAITHFULNESS OF SIN, AND FOR
THE APPROVAM FOR THE EARTH, WITHOUT
THE FLESH OF BURNT OFFERINGS &
WITHOUT THE FATS OF SACRIFICE
- THE OFFERINGS OF THE LIPS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE DECREE
WILL BE LIKE THE PLEASANT AROMA OF JUSTICE AND THE PERFECTNESS OF BEHAVIOR
WILL BE ACCEPTABLE LIKE
A FREEWILL
OFFERING'
{1QS 9.4-5}.

Indeed,
the special commandments of the Qumran community
are described as "pleasing atonement"
{1QS 3.11}.
Flavius Josephus
and Philo refer to this issue
in their description of Essenes.
Philo recounts that the Essenes b]
'have shown themselves especially devout in the service of G d, not by offering sacrifices of animals,
but by resolving to sanctify their minds'!
And Josephus is referring to this as well in saying that
'THEY SEND VOTIVE OFEFRING TO THE TEMPLE, BUT PERFORM THEIR SACRIFICES
EMPLOYING A DIFFERENT RITUAL OF PURIFICATION. FOR THIS REASON THEY ARE BARRED
FROM THOSE PRECINCTS OF THE TEMPLE THAT ARE FREQUENTED BY
ALL THE PEOPLE AND PERDORM THEIR RITES
BY THEMSELVES!'

Josephus' account
has gives rise to various speculations as to the "offerings" of the Essenes.
Some scholars suggested that the phrase means 'the distinction of the offerings,'
failing to notice that this is merely a scholastic form of 'the various offerings' of the Essenes
[see Hebrews 9:10]!
It should also be noted
that the Latin translation of
Antiquities (6th century) & the Epitome (10th or 11th century)
read different: this reading is not attested in any of the manuscripts, & it is clear that some phrase
have been inserted in a misguided attempt to emend the text & thus clarify its meaning.
The men of the Yahad conclude that the defiled sanctuary in Yerushalayim is not,
in fact, the Temple - rather, the sect itself is the true Temple:
'AT THAT TIME THE MEN OF THE COMMUNITY SHALL SET APART A HOLY HOUSE FOR AHARON,
IN ORDER TO FORM A MOST HOLY COMMUNITY, AND A HOUSE FOR THE COMMUNITY OF ISRAEL,
THOSE WHO WALK IN PERFECTION'
{1QS 9.5-6;
8.4-11; CD 3.19-4.4}.
The elevation of the Temple
to a spiritual-mystical symbol is for the "G d-community" of the Yahad
a response to their distance from the actual Temple services. The elevation of the Yahad itself
to the status of a spiritual Temple provides the conceptual underpinnings for the special role of the priests in the community. It is like ly no coincidence that immediately
following the words of 1QS cited above, there follows:
'ONLY THE SONS OF AHARON WILL HAVE AUTHORITY
IN THE MATTER OF JUDGMENT AND OF GOODS,
AND THEIR WORD
WILL THUS BE
DEFINITIVE![/u['
{1QS 9.7}.

Iets dergelijks
blijkt op die manier dus ook
nog steeds voor ons te gelden
als we heen en weer reizen in tijd & ruimte:
ergens kom je altijd jezelf weer tegen als plantaardig/dierlijk/menselijk/'goddelijk'
wezen dat contact blijkt te zoeken
met al die andere levensvormen
en bestaanscriteria?
We komen er niet onderuit
dat bepaalde regels moeten worden gehanteerd
om te kunnen overleven, opereren,
werken, samenleven
& te genieten.

Een Levend Geheel
van alle levensvormen op aarde in tijd en ruimte
'herschept' de "Tempel" van Ooit zodat we nu vrij kunnen ademhalen,
rondbewegen, bevrijden, verlossen, heiligen, heelmaken d.i. genezen &
de zin van ons bestaan ligt juist in die grote lijnen tot en met de allerkleinste details:
'ook' verliefd, echt, trouw, humoristisch, ernstig, genietend,
mededelend, barmhartig, genadig, allesomvattend
& niets uitsluitend
...

De 'aard' van 'g d'
is niet dat iets 'moet',
'vastligt', 'dwingt', maar juist
dat we 'mogen', 'kunnen' & 'kiezen':
in die zin is alle echte religie & ware filosofie
[of hoe je het ook maar graag zou willen benoemen]
uit op 't zelfde 'onbereikbare doel' dat zingeeft
aan alle levensvormen van 't allereerste begin
af aan tot in de verste toekomst ~ 't blijven
allemaal alleen maar lege woorden
als we het niet zelf beleven
& leren waarderen
...