Contextual aspects of the Saying for the boiling pot – Ezekiel, 24

Abstract

I. The existing words for rust in Hebrew and their use in the Old Testament have micro- and macrolexial aspects:
I.1 The microlexical aspect is that of the choice of the appropriate word. Ezekiel preferred the word [hela] for rust but not the usual one in Hebrew [hèled]. It is because [hela] is a better expression of the notion of systematic unmoral and impure human’s behavior. The word [hela] is much more expressive because the semantics of this word involves the sins as a kind of [mahala] sickness.
The semantics of the routine word for rust [hèled] is associated with something short-lived as it is the human life. Thus the impurity of human’s behavior should be not cleaned in a short term. Human`s impurity must be remembered and punished. The word [hela] expresses the prophetic symbolism of rust as “sickness”.
I.2. The macrolexial aspect is concerned with the number of the uses as prophetic strategy kept more than 1000 years. In the Old Testament there are only three uses of the word rust. This very small number is already a symbol. Obviously the prophets avoid the use of the words for rust. The three uses are in the Saying for the boiling pot by Ezekiel. We already know that Ezekiel prefers the word [hela] but not the usual Hebrew word for rust [hèled]. The very special three uses of rust are part of a sophisticated language strategy of the prophets. There are more than three hundred uses of the word Light and more that six hundred uses of words that express the notion of macrolight such as snow, milk, wool, lightening, fire. We can conclude that the word presence of macrolight in the Old Testament is quite visible – at about 1000 uses of words suggesting light. At that macrolight background there are only three uses of rust.
I.3. The main conclusion is that the text of the Old Testament does not have rust - in the area of the symbols and by factual lexical material.
I.4. It is true that the Old Testament is the Old version of the contract between God and the people. There is also a new version of the same contract including the Jews – the New Testament. But it is remarkable that the old version has no rust – neither symbolically nor lexically.
II. The notion for Hell – lexical and culture context.
II.1. Old Testament Hell. Ezekiel did not use a new term for Hell. The term Sheol as a “dark place”, “grave”, “place of the dead” remains the only one term for Hell. The culture context takes place in the Greek translations where hades becomes the right translation of Sheol. The prophet represents a new notion for Hell in the frames of monotheism by the “Saying for the boiling pot”. The innovation is that impurity of humans must be boiled in a pot by the melting strength of a furious fire.
II. New Testament Hell. In the New Testament the term Sheol is still used. Right beside it there is a new term for Hell - [Ge-Henom] which literary means “the valey of Enom” (Gehenna, in Bulgarian - Геена; hell of fire, in Bulgarian - геената огнена). The terms have two Jewish sources: 1. The Ezekiel`s culture innovation made by the content of the “Saying for the boiling pot”. 2. “The valey of Enom” [Ge-Henom] is geographically, historically, and linguistically formed.
III. The Genre. The term Genre is ambiguous and it is not a modern issue at the area of theory of literature. From other point of view - the cognitive importance of Genre is undoubtedly: We can observe the Saying for the Boiling Pot passes from the Old to the New Testament’s culture on the issue of Hell. This Saying became part of our notions, images, art and subconsciousness through the centuries. In other words the cognitive and pragmatic side of the Genre is still important. The cognitive importance of different Genres is quite visible at the area of journalism – interview, news, commentary etc.