Temple for Jerusalem
       The Chariot-Throne-Crown for Temple Mount

The Arena of Essence. (Interpretations outside current congregational thinking)

​

Within scripture, there are references to angels and demons expressing the outer reaches of human behaviour, on either side of normative monogamous procreative unions that underpin acceptable community behaviour.

 

The Garden of Eden 

​

The Garden of Eden story, where 4 characters: G-D, the serpent, Adam and Eve, act out the fall, sets the stage for the developing Israelite tradition. G-D and His serpent (Gen.1:27), the outer reaches of good and evil, with the sexually active Adam and Eve, sets the ethical scene. The real moral complexity is G-D and His relationship with His serpent, which is the essential tension of a celibate inclined spiritual practicing non-procreating individual or group, in symbiotic projection with The Divine. (Gen.1:27)

 

Eden has two trees, the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. These ”trees” symbolise the two structures on the male torso, the umbilical chord (linked to all previous feminine Life) and the phallus, of good and selfish behaviour. Here, G-D represents the celibate male in antagonism with his serpent, outside the arena of the male/female relationship.Temptation is what the generic serpent does, the eating of the fruit being the procreative act, the opening of their eyes (lifting of the veil) is how this story describes humanity coming into awareness of seed in the procreation act, understanding what triggers new life, and the inevitable awareness of personal death. Understanding seed leads to mastering agrarian culture (Adam's curse). These gifts from G-D (all knowing) are spiritual and scientific enlightenment, to help harness Nature, which reinforces the Deity's external reverence/relevance.

​

The trauma of understanding personal death reinforces the need for a projected benevolent figure (G-D), to attain life beyond the grave, or at least comforting longevity. Human consciousness is trapped in this cycle of the denial of G-D’s existence (because He is a human construct, the antitheses of Gen.1:27) and our desperate need for eternal comfort, to project a benevolent relationship onto the universal unknown. The denial of G-D is retrospective, while the acceptance of a Divine relationship is ascendent in human endeavour. We are trapped by the knowledge of knowing more than is comforting. This drives our paving for the life here-after.

 

Celibate males (defined in the ancient world as “natural eunuchs” and not having “the technique” with women) understand the G-D/serpent tension well, as to fully cede to the serpent's temptations is a road to destruction. To resist, is the road to enlightenment. This is (of course) the same for procreative men, except the counter-balancing effects of women and child bearing tempers and institutionalises their rituals towards prolonged and successful life. Consider this cyclically.* *Rabbi Chaim Richman. The Spiral of Time. Available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdwuipIVgIs 19 May 2025

​

The celibate person does not have these tempering structures, so is required to monastically perpetuate positive ethics, leading to successful and powerful civilising institutions, least the outcast be their preferred path. This is a moral simplification of the complex ethics of living, but sets out the extremes from which the eunuch choses their life’s trajectory. Here, same gender unions offer solace.

​

It is suggested that the Garden of Eden is a eunuch's monastic myth, probably collected by Moses (from post-Melchizedek's circumcision practising home on Moriah) when on his exiled journey, later integrated into the Israelitic Biblical tradition. 

​

The limitations of Procreative Priesthoods

 

Rabbinic, Christian and Muslim procreative priesthoods of married men have a vested interest foremost in the guidance of their communities, as defined by family norms, and have little interest or capacity to accommodate the needs of the celibate male (and female) minority. 

 

The verses in question, Leviticus 18.22 and 20.13 “ ‘If a man has sexual relations with a male/mankind (Hebrew: person) as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.” 

 

These verses are presently interpreted as a spiritual ban on same gender behaviour. But this is a procreative interpretation, as practising eunuch males are never intimate with women. It's suggested that these verses do not apply exclusively to male on male intimacy. They seemingly can apply to dominant men abusing other men, eunuchs, celibate males and boys (people), reinforcing the verses' purpose, to protect vulnerable people in their dealings with overtly dominant men. 

 

The ethical responsibility seems placed on the dominant to not act abusively. This interpretation serves to elevate the special protected status of gentle males in their search for monastic enlightenment, away from carnal desire, which ultimately benefits society at large. Much has been recorded of eunuch status, but has since been suppressed by procreative interpretation, leading to potential religious/spiritual self-righteousness based on socio/status behaviour. 

 

Further, the Levitical verses seem aimed at procreative men in relation to other males, as typically, in the ancient world, only men who practiced procreative behaviour, were called men, while youths and eunuchs were excluded from this title.

 

It's suggested that disinterested celibate eunuchs have the ability to understand, discuss and negotiate the universal needs of the various procreative communities, when competing for resources. The vested interests of procreative priests, in direct relationship to their communities, has been unhelpful for inter-faith relationships, especially when validating the ambitions of over-zealous political leaders, inclined to oppress rival communities.

 

Angelic versus Demonic impulses.

 

Eunichs are not bound by child rearing nor the survival of the family unit, and are therefore more susceptible to the energies of construction and destruction. Instant decisions on what is good or bad for survival are developed outside and beyond the family and tribal unit, which inclines eunuchs towards deeply spiritual roles of perception. These roles constantly appear in biblical text, notably the following:

 

Angelic Male and further Serpent References (3-dimensional Social Model)

 

Sarah

Gen 18.2: The 3 angels that visit Abraham and promise him that Sarah will bear a child, is in distinction to when leaving and walking toward Sodom. Abraham had difficulty finding 10 good men to save the destruction of the city. There is an ethical link and comparison between the angelic righteousness of the three in relation the condemned cities in the valley, being ethically controlled versus gratuitous phallic behaviour.

 

Gen 21.17: The angel that appears to Hagar and Ishmael, leading them to water.

 

Infanticide

Gen 22.9: Angel of the Lord that stopped Abraham sacrificing Isaac, at Mount Moriah, is the place called Salem where Melchizedek and his followers formed their community. It is reasonable to assume eunuch (relative angel) involvement in this prevention. "Called out from Heaven" may be interpreted as a profound entering into awareness.

 

Jacob

Gen 28.10: Jacobs dream at Bethel, of angels ascending and descending the ladder, is a Merkavah image of angels (spiritually enlightened people) entering and leaving the future Merkavah for Jerusalem.

 

Gen 32.22-32: Jacob wrestles with G-D, is a euphemism of what actually took place. Jacob was alone, having sent his wives and children ahead. Over night, he wrestled with a male, implying that he was physically challenged by a passing "angel" or eunuch. Jacob overcame impulses, opportunities and offerings by the male. By doing so, he was able to teach control of these energies between men and males, a significant lesson for Israelite/Jewish male behaviour. The angelic passive male’s blessing of Jacob’s name change to Israel, signifies passing a test, towards patriarchal nation building. In blessing Jacob/Israel, the angelic male was also blessed (reciprocity of blessing, as Melchizedek and Abraham). Rabbinic interpretations state that Jacob was dealing with the spirit of Esau, in his journey to integrate an ethical balance within himself.

 

Gen 32.30: So Jacob called the place Peniel saying, “It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared.” 

This means that Jacob was challenged with a desire that could have destroyed him, which he overcame. He met death there and repudiated it for both of them, choosing G-D and life. This is what is meant, that he “saw G-D face to face,” death to life, in front of him, and was spared. The angelic male did not have the power to overpower, hence the wrestling all night of both Jacob, male, and desire. 

 

Joseph

Gen 37.23 : Joseph’s vain relationship to his brothers is redefined by them stripping him (wanting him killed), but throwing him into a cistern, (pit or hole) “with no water in it,” (Rabbinic sources state serpents and scorpions) a suggested euphemism for physical abuse, then sold to passing Ishmaelite traders, then Potiphar, as a beautiful degraded slave. Joseph's later success was his determination to right this injustice. The Israelites carried Joseph's bones out of Egypt, his sarcophagus either being the essence of the Ark of the Covenant (compare aesthetics) or the Ark modelled thereon. This suggests that the dominant drive of the Israelite sacrificial and centralised ritual, is based on the brother’s guilt (not Benjamin nor possibly Judah) of their atrocity, and recognition of the ultimate saving grace of Joseph, a messianic act. It is not coincidental that King David placed the final resting place of the Ark, on the Jerusalem site of the ancient eunuch monastery (Sodom's circumcision-practicing escapees), reaffirming the blessings of Abraham and Melchizedek, choosing Zadok as High Priest. Joseph's bones are considered reburied in a field, allotted by Jacob for this purpose, near the Patriarchs' graves in Hebron. Site not found.

 

Moses 

Ex 3: Moses and the Burning Bush at Horeb (Sinai) is a significant image related to the future Merkavah for Jerusalem, both being a tree or bush, that flames and is not consumed.

 

Aaron

Ex 7.8: ‘Take your staff and throw it down before Pharaoh,’ and it will become a snake.” A staff is by nature a displaced phallus, which links us to the Divine. Throwing down one’s staff suggests (managing) a depraved act, to reinforce spiritual authority. The staff becoming a serpent. Aaron’s serpent consuming the Egyptian sorcerers serpents implies overcoming a physical advance, challenge or sorcery.

 

Passover

Ex 12.12: Passover demonstrates the confidence of the Hebrew people to overcome infanticide (the angel of death), and the success of lessons remembered from the patriarch Abraham when offering Isaac, halted by an angel (presumed eunuch) from the Melchizedek monastery of the same site. The Israelite family demonstrates spiritual direction and destiny by daubing the posts and lintels with the lamb’s blood. This demonstrates the maturing spiritual development of the early Hebrew family and people to manage destructive internal and external jealousies.

 

Amalek* *(Purim: Rabbi Yitzchak Breitowitz, The Amalek Attack. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFay8em1LdI (12.04 to 12.36) - 13 April 2025)

Ex 17:8-16: The Amalekite attack on the Israelites was counteracted by Moses raising his staff to HaShem, reinforcing the spiritual link of the Israelites to the Divine. When the staff lowered, this signified the encroachment of Amalek's covert predatory forces over the Israelites. The fight against Amalek "from generation to generation" is the same ongoing fight as that of G-D and the chaotic serpent in Eden. (See Deut 25:19). Amalek is also an aggressive egotistical murderous spirit, an overt military enemy, such as recent attacks. 

 

Moriah

From Passover until 2 Samuel 24:18-25, where David buys the threshing field of Araunah the Jebusite, the Zadokite priesthood appears in Israelite worship. It is precisely the purchasing of this site, that David invites Zadok, (of Eleazar's genealogy) seemingly associated in name with the ancient priesthood of Melchizedek (and slain Jebusite King Adonizedek), as High Priest into the national ritual, now developed into its own Levitical establishment. Originally, Abraham’s first spiritual dealings with Melchizedek were on this site, including celebrating with bread, wine and tithing, and later the transmuted sacrifice of Isaac, remembered and enacted at the first Passover, protecting the Israelite first-born in perpetuity. 

 

The Christian Hebrews 7:3 text states that Melchizedek was without father or mother, no genealogy, which suggests a euphemism for eunuch celibacy. Rabbi Isaac the Babylonian states Melchizedek was born circumcised. 

 

Elijah

Following the collapse of the Israelite Commonwealth, there was a descent of many Israelites into idolatry.

1 Kings 17: Elijah the foreigner, who was an alien resident from Gilead, told Ahab, “As the Lord God of Israel lives, in whose presence I’m standing, there will be neither dew nor rain these next several years, except when I say so.” Elijah, the alien, again being of separation.

 

1 Kings 19:19. As Elijah passed by, he tossed his cloak at Elisha. This is a reference to the intimacy of the relationship which was to follow. It suggests the sharing of the cloak, in distinction to the forbidden sharing of sleeping blankets amongst Israel's military men.

 

Elijah and Elisha’s intense spiritual relationship may well have superseded any physical friendship. They lived and shared together as a union. Elisha’s viewing of the Chariot of G-D suggests intense spiritual and physical devotion, leading to Merkavah viewings, potentially founded in close sharing.

 

Temple columns

2 Kings 25: 13 The Chaldeans also broke into pieces and carried back to Babylon the bronze pillars that stood in the Lord’s Temple, along with the stands and the bronze sea that used to be in the Lord’s Temple. 16 The bronze contained in the two pillars, the one sea, and the stands that Solomon had crafted for the Lord’s Temple could not be inventoried for weight. 17 The height of one of the pillars was eighteen cubits, and the capital on top of it was three cubits high. A latticework carved in the form of pomegranates (fertility symbol) encircled the capital, crafted completely out of brass. The second pillar was identical to the first.  "Tree"(upright), to staff, to pillar.

 

Ezekiel

Ezekiel (his vision at the River Chebar, Ez.1:1), would most certainly have been viciously physically abused (when serving in the Jerusalem Temple) by invading Babylonian troops, a trauma which his innocence would have transfigured into visions of structural purity, to crown his head, a throne on which to sit, to preserve his sanctity, and heal his wounds. He would have suffered terribly.

​

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1:200 scale model details.

 

Jesus

It is suggested that the eunuch Jesus challenged the unilaterally substituted priesthood's interpretation of the Law and was put to death, effectively offering himself as a human sacrifice, to protest the usurping of the Zadokite Order of Melchizedek holy site, an inverse act, as Judaism/Moriah are profoundly anti-human/infanticide sacrifice. More likely, Jesus's intimate relations (bonding with Stephen) observed by Judas may have been an aggravating circumstance, making him vulnerable to the strict interpretation of Levitical behavioural Law. 

​

For what other reason would Jesus have been betrayed, considering the following Christian faith and his utterances presumed celibacy (walking on water/sensuality), from where so easily fallen? It seems that sensual impulse control, as practised by differing behavioural groups, was the disintegrating energy here. The Christian reference Rev 4: 8-11 mentions the "Elders" bowing before the Throne (3rd Temple). This seems to suggest the reinstatement of the (seemingly celibate) eunuchs and/or elderly Tzadik spiritual leaders of collective Israel, over and above (Is 56:4) the hierarchical, procreative Priestly family class. Jesus was also noted for breaking Shabbat prohibitions.

 

Mohammad (Peace be upon him)

Mohammad's disputed Hadith: "When a man mounts another man, the Throne of G-D shakes." "Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to." This mirrors Levitical Law as interpreted from the procreative man's perspective. This Hadith tacitly acknowledges that essentially celibate eunuchs serve in the Throne and the dangers of intimate activity therein. The Jerusalem Temples were always an architectural interpretation of the Throne motif, most specifically defined in Ezekiel's vision and measurement.

 

The Questions

Was Jesus victimised for his intimate vulnerability? How pure and celibate are eunuchs expected to be (in contradistinction to their married Priestly counterparts) when in service to the Throne/Temple? How does one interpret Isa 56: 4 "who choose the things that please me?" After Creation (creativity), the primary message of scripture is the tension between G-D and the serpent, or Amalek (Ex 17:8) and the protection of the Israelite people, but also suggests including the protection of the righteous performing Israelite accepted eunuchs, the assumed foundation of the Melchizedek/Abraham blessing.

​

​The Cornerstone (3 axiality, volumetric logic)

​

Psalm 118:22

The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.

 

Isaiah 28:14

[God’s Precious Cornerstone] “Therefore hear the message from the Lord, you scoffers who rule this people that are in Jerusalem.

 

Isaiah 28:16

Therefore this is what the Lord God says: “Look! I am laying a foundation stone in Zion, a tested stone, a precious cornerstone for a sure foundation: Whoever believes firmly will not act hastily.

 

Jeremiah 51:26

They won’t get a cornerstone or a foundation stone from you, because you will be a wasteland forever,” declares the Lord.

 

Zechariah 10:4

From them arises the cornerstone and tent peg, from them the battle bow, from them arise all sorts of oppressive rulers.

 

Matthew 21:42

Jesus asked them, “Have you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. This was the Lord’s doing, and it is amazing in our eyes?’

 

Mark 12:10

Haven’t you ever read this Scripture: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone".

 

Luke 20:17

But Jesus looked at them and asked, “What does this text mean: ‘The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone’?

 

Acts 4:11

He is ‘the stone that was rejected by you builders, which has become the cornerstone.’

 

Ephesians 2:20

having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, the Messiah Jesus himself being the cornerstone.

 

1 Peter 2:6

This is why it says in Scripture: “Look! I am laying a chosen, precious cornerstone in Zion. The one who believes in him will never be ashamed.”

 

1 Peter 2:7

Therefore he is precious to you who believe, but to those who do not believe, “The stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone…

 

The cornerstone represents 3-dimensional thinking, or spatial logic, in contrast to 2-dimensional binary opposition legal discourse. Binary opposition is based on profound opposites, like male and female, whereas 3-dimensional axiomatic thinking defines sliding scales and co-ordinates within a spatial model. 2-dimensions are the plans, 3-dimensions are the volumes within the buildings. We all approach the Throne from differing spatial and behavioural co-ordinates.​