Stan.Point

“Erika’s Song” (in Honor of Charlie Kirk)

2026-02-13T22:29:00.000-08:00

In Matthew 10:27-31, Jesus said:

“Therefore, do not fear them, for there is nothing covered up that will not be revealed and nothing secret that will not become known. That which I say to you in the dark, tell in the light, and what you hear whispered, preach on the housetops. Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; fear, instead, the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a tiny sum? Yet not one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. And even all the hairs of your head are counted. So do not be afraid; your value surpasses the value of many sparrows.”

According to statistics published in the 2024 annual report from Open Doors (http://www.opendoors.org):

“On average, more than 13 Christians are killed each day for their faith. … roughly 5,000 people each year. …The research for the 2024 list took place from October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2023.

… Additionally, 4,125 Christians were detained without trial, arrested, sentenced or imprisoned … 3,906 believers were abducted …More than 3,200 Christians were raped, sexually harassed or forced to marry non-Christians … 42,849 followers of Jesus were physically or mentally abused … And nearly 300,000 Christians were forced to leave their homes, go into hiding or flee their country of origin.

Since Open Doors’ research teams only use reports they can verify through on-the-ground networks, these figures are likely significant undercounts.”

Perhaps, the most prominent Christian martyr in the world, at this moment, is Charlie Kirk. Wikipedia calls Charlie “an American right-wing political activist,” but first and foremost, Charlie was a Christian apologist. It is true that Republicans (vitriolically called “right wing” by the leftist opponents in such publications as Wikipedia) are also targets of assassins. Ask Donald Trump, Steve Scalise, or the late President Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless, despite his political leanings, Charlie primarily challenged those who opposed Christianity and conservative Christian lifestyles.

Charlie was a debater, not a bombastic asserter (as are some preachers). An autodidact, like Abraham Lincoln and Kenneth Burke, he decided not to complete a college degree, but he felt very much at home in a college environment. Even on the day of his death, he was sitting under a tent at a university, offering a microphone to any college student or professor who cared to argue against his conservative Christian positions. I agree with him that colleges and universities are appropriate forums for debating any religious, philosophical, and political issues.

I taught a successful Argumentation course for years at Florida State University. I detected the same sense of liberal academic bias that others in university environments have also noticed—that universities are dominated by leftist, even anti-Christian rhetoric. I am actually proud of a criticism made of me by a former disgruntled student on RateMyProfessors.com to the effect that I quoted constantly from Kenneth Burke and the Bible. It’s true. What the student didn’t mention is that Kenneth Burke, while a genius in the fields of rhetoric, philosophy (especially, the philosophy of man and man’s language/symbol-use), and literature, was politically a leftist—a liberal Democrat—although he rejected Communism, itself. Religiously, he was an agnostic, not a Christian, but unable to convince himself to be an atheist (the logic did not allow it). Perhaps, the fact that I frequently used examples and quotes from the Bible was notable since so few of the student’s other professors were either inclined to use or capable of using biblical materials. In other words, I am (as Charlie was) perfectly happy to engage both sides of an issue. I wrote a textbook on argumentation, entitled ArguMentor, which was used at FSU for several years (even in my absence).

As did Charlie, I used my adeptness at argumentation as a Christian apologist. I wrote a book, The Logic of Christianity: A Syllogistic Chain, which builds arguments one upon another, beginning with the very question of proof, itself. The book employs logic concerning “matters of which we cannot be 100% certain. Nevertheless, although certainty is impossible, we can logically conclude that something is ‘probably’ or ‘possibly’ true” (4). Concluding “that something is ‘probably’ or ‘possibly’ true” is the definition of faith—something that Aristotle viewed as being just as important as absolute knowledge (perhaps, even more so, since there are so many more things in this world that one can never prove absolutely, but that are essential to our existence).

Taking a cue from the theologian R. C. Sproule, I tackled the supreme atheistic argument that Jesus (and all of the New Testament) incorrectly predicted an early return/Parousia that did not occur. In my book Apocalyptic Apologetic: They’re Digging in the Wrong Place!, I begin “by accepting (at least, for the sake of argument) the premise of these atheists and ‘highly learned specialists in the field of biblical studies’ that the Parousia and related events were predicted to occur ‘within a generation.’” Then I demonstrate “(citing Josephus, Zeitlin, Brandon, and others) that all the prophecies did happen [were fulfilled] within the timeframe in which they were predicted to occur.”

I even use Kenneth Burke’s “definition of [hu]man” in my book Disneology: Religious Rhetoric at Walt Disney World to show that Walt’s acceptance of “scientific” explanations of creation do not contradict Walt’s acceptance of biblical teachings.

At my age, I am not capable of stepping in to take up some of the slack on the college campuses created by the assassination of Charlie Kirk, but there are others, younger than I, who are already doing so. These new apologists are being encouraged by Charlie’s widow, Erika, as the new CEO of Turning Point USA. I am appalled by online attacks on this mighty Christian woman—attacks that are often based on fake news, but are always inspired by rhetorical attempts to character assassinate her motives. (How could she ever have allowed Charlie’s enemies to assassinate not only her husband but also his life’s work! She had to step immediately into leadership.) One thing I will attempt in order to support the Kirks is this: Throughout my life, I have had an avocation as a rather prolific songwriter (sometimes, even published). In that avocation, I have now composed a song dedicated to Charlie and Erika. It’s called: Erika’s Song (Why Did You Have to Go?). The lyrics are printed on slides in the YouTube video and below. My demo recording of the song is available at: https://youtu.be/lOuG7W2FStY I would be delighted, if any professional recording artists chose to cover the song.

When the nights are long

And I look around me to find

That you are not there,

Lie awake and dream

Of the times you kissed me

And softly fingered my hair,

There’s a feeling deep in my heart,

My Dear,

That tells me I miss you so.

Oh, why in the world

Did it happen to me?

Why did you have to go?

When I ride along

On a lonesome highway and you

Are not at my side,

I remember, then,

How you’d sit beside me

And touch my cheek as we’d ride.

There’s a feeling deep in my heart,

My Sweet,

That tells me I miss you so.

Oh, why in the world

Did it happen to me?

Why did you have to go?

When I’m dining out

Or attending movies alone,

I can’t quite explain

The recurring doubt

That I’ll ever truly find peace

In spite of this pain.

There’s a feeling deep in my heart,

My Love,

That tells me I miss you so.

Oh, why in the world

Did it happen to me?

Why did you have to go?

INTERLUDE

In Matthew 10, Jesus said:

^{“Therefore, do not fear them,}

^{for there is nothing
covered up that will not be revealed and nothing secret that will not become
known. That which I say to you in the dark, tell in the light, and what
you hear whispered, preach on the housetops. Do not fear those who kill
the body but cannot kill the soul; fear, instead, the one who can destroy both
soul and body in hell. Are not two sparrows sold for a tiny sum? Yet not
one of them will fall to the ground apart from your Father. And even all the
hairs of your head are counted. So do not be afraid; your value surpasses the
value of many sparrows.”}

When I pray to God

And I read His Bible,

His Spirit tempers my tears.

When I see the news

Of a great revival,

It somehow lessens my fears.

There’s a God above who is

Over all.

His Son is still in control.

Though men and their strife

Pose a threat to your life,

They can’t destroy

your soul.

Though men, with their vice,

Put an end to your life,

They cannot touch

Your soul.

Yetzer, Free Will, Entelechy, TULIP

2025-12-30T22:32:00.000-08:00

… just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will … (Ephesians 1:4-5 NKJV)

If one were to envision a “Judeo-Christian Church,” one should begin with the issue of Monotheism and how Jesus fits into monotheism (entelechially), but I have already discussed those matters in my blogposts: Excessive Righteousness 2: Monotheism and (my more recent post) Can Jews Accept Jesus? Of secondary importance to the question “Who is God (and Jesus)?” is the question “Who is man?” Is man, analogically, a virtual robot, pre-programmed by God to do whatever God predestines him to do? Calvinist theology seems to answer that question in the affirmative. In its doctrines of “Unconditional Election” and “Irresistible Grace” (The U and the I in TULIP theology) Calvinism affirms that the Elect are chosen by God without respect to any free will on their part and that those so-chosen are helpless to resist such election. Furthermore, Calvinism’s doctrine of Total Depravity (the T in TULIP) affirms that humans have no capability of choosing Good and God on their own.

Nevertheless, Calvinist theology is neither inspired nor inerrant. Although the New Testament certainly discusses “foreknowledge” and “predestination,” as in the Ephesians passage cited at the first of this post, such passages are better interpreted in light of the concept of entelechy. The New Testament contradicts the three TULIP doctrines mentioned in several locations (for example):

· 2 Peter 3:9 (NKJV): The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.

· John 6:40 (NKJV): And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

· Romans 1:16 (NKJV): For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek.

It sounds to me like it is God’s Will that EVERYONE believes, repents, and has everlasting life—not just Calvinists or a few whom God has hand-picked to be saved before the world began. Furthermore, passages exist that might suggest that man is “inclined” to behave wickedly, such as:

· Romans 3:23 (NKJV): for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God

· Genesis 8:21 (NKJV): Then the Lord said in His heart, “… the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”

Jews certainly would not dispute the assertion that humans possess an inclination toward wickedness. The Hebrew word translated “imagination” (above) in Genesis 8:21 is yetzer. As I commented in my post Excessive Righteousness 4: Cardiac Commitment (Quid Pro No!),

“Jesus uses the term ‘heart’ to signify the center of our decision-making processes. In Genesis 6:5, God saw that the ‘intent (yetzer)’ of man’s ‘heart (levav)’ was ‘evil (ra‘)’ all of the time. Jews teach that the center of a human being’s decision-making processes (i.e., his ‘heart [levav]’) has a ‘good inclination (yetzer ha-tov)’ and an ‘evil inclination (yetzer ha- ra‘).’ These two inclinations at conflict in our hearts … sprang, perhaps, from when Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of ‘Good (ha-tov)’ and ‘Evil (ha- ra‘)’.”

A conflict, therefore, exists between Judaistic and Calvinistic anthropological theology regarding man’s total depravity. Although I have attended a Calvinistic church for more than a decade, at which the “pastor” has repeatedly cited the entire litany of Calvinist scholars (most of whom he knows personally) and their arguments on the issues of TULIP, I remain unpersuaded by them. Arminians, certainly, dispute the views of Calvinists. The Jews have the more correct anthropological theology, biblically. Even Cain, who became deadly jealous of his brother Abel, was told by God that he had the power to “rule over” the sinful inclination of his heart: “So the Lord said to Cain, ‘Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.’” (Genesis 4:6-7 NKJV).

If Cain (after the Fall) had the capacity (even though he did not exercise it) to “rule over” sin, assertions that man is totally depraved are erroneous. Man (although having powerful evil inclinations) also has free will and can “rule over” his own evil inclinations, if he chooses to. There are some exceptions, however, to the principle of the free will of humans—even in Jewish theology:

1. Do Children Have Free Will?

Not sufficiently. Once, my 4-year-old grandchild was throwing a tantrum. I demanded sternly: “Stop that!” The response: “I can’t.” There may have been some truth to that response. As I commented in my post Angels & Demons 7: Can Animals, Children, or Angels SIN?,

[A]ccording to official Jewish teachings—for the same reason animals cannot sin. Children do not possess the YETZER HA-TOV, according to the Jewish Mishnah, until they reach the age of 12 or 13 (12 for girls, 13 for boys). Prior to that age, they possess only the YETZER HA-RA. They—like animals—are essentially selfish. This is why at age 13, Jewish boys are given a BAR MITZVAH (literally: “son of the commandment”). Girls, at the age of 12, have a BAT MITZVAH (“daughter of the commandment”). They are not even expected to be able to live according to the Commandments until that age. They are considered sinless, even though they are (like animals) essentially selfish.

Hence, one could say that children do not have free will; their behaviors are determined by their YETZER HA-RA. Contrarily, one might argue that children often do nice things for others. Even so, those “nice things” are often explained by the Santa Claus entelechy. Being nice instead of naughty earns the child a reward from Santa (or whoever else is in a position to offer the reward). Such behavior is still selfishly-motivated despite the fact that it appears to be altruistic. Your dog might bring you your slippers, but he probably expects a treat or a pat on the head, in return. (Likewise, for children.) Even the avoidance of punishment may be sufficient motivation to produce behavior that appears to be self-less, but is essentially still selfish. Continuing the dog analogy, I am trying here to “throw a bone” to those who argue that children (and dogs) can behave altruistically, selflessly. Consider: if you never praised or rewarded self-less-appearing behavior on the part of your child (or dog), would they, nevertheless, persist in the good behavior?

2. Do the Mentally Handicapped Have Free Will?

Not according to Jewish teaching. I commented in my post Excessive Righteousness 2: Monotheism: “Nevertheless, [the Jews in the time of the New Testament] still believed that God could speak to humans through the occasional words of children and the mentally handicapped (indelicately called ‘fools’ by the Jews). This was still the Holy Spirit operating.”

The assumption is that, if children are considered sinless (having only the YETZER HA-RA), the mentally handicapped should qualify as sinless (and, therefore, like children, be fit conduits for delivering messages from God) since their good inclination is not fully functional. Jesus may be referring to the “sinless” phenomenon when He deals with the Pharisees in John 9:41 (NKJV): “Jesus said to them, ‘If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you say, “We see.” Therefore, your sin remains.’” This teaching appears to contradict Leviticus 5:17 (NKJV) somewhat: “If a person sins, and commits any of these things which are forbidden to be done by the commandments of the LORD, though he does not know it, yet he is guilty and shall bear his iniquity.” I believe that the best explanation of this seeming contradiction is that “blindness” is a metaphor for being mentally handicapped. If the Pharisees were mentally handicapped, they would have no sin, but since they say “We see,” their sin remains.

3. What About Those Whose Mental State is Altered by Drugs/Alcohol?

Unless they were administered the drug/s against their will, there does not appear to be a carve-out for drug-altered mental states. Admittedly, individuals under the influence are frequently not entirely in control of their actions. One might argue that they, therefore, do not at that time have free will. Women who become inebriated at a bar may engage in sexual activity that they might otherwise have resisted. (Of course, if they were the victims of deceptive drugging by men who subsequently raped them, they are considered innocent victims. See Deuteronomy 22:25-27.) Men (and women) who become inebriated or high might engage in spouse and child abuse or even murder.

In a very sad recent event, Rob Reiner’s son Nick (who had a history of substance abuse) allegedly stabbed both of his parents to death. Studies (such as the one at Yale Behind the Smoke: Unmasking the Link Between Cannabis and Schizophrenia | Yale School of Medicine) have indicated that marijuana use contributes to psychotic behavior and may even be a factor in the recent rash of mass shootings. Are those who kill others by driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs innocent because they could not control themselves after imbibing? The Greek word φαρμακεία/pharmakeia (which is transliterated “pharmacy”) means simply the use of drugs. Since drugs were/are used in witchcraft and sorcery, the term took on those secondary meanings. Galatians 5:19-22 lists φαρμακεία and drunkenness among the works of the flesh (along with adultery, fornication, murder, etc.) and states that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. Revelation 9:21 lists φαρμάκων (from the same root) alongside murder and sexual immorality, which required (but lacked) repentance. If one is capable of repenting from φαρμάκων, free will (regarding its use) is implied. Revelation 18:23 states that φαρμακεία deceives (though, in this instance, it has the connotation of drug-induced sorcery). Revelation 21:8 and 22:14 lists murderers, fornicators, and drug users (φάρμακοι) among those “outside the” New Jerusalem whose punishment is the Lake of Fire.

There is no indication that God views drug-or-alcohol impaired individuals to be absent free will. Rather, they exercise their free will in choosing to imbibe, inhale, shoot-up, etc. It is that sinful exercise of their free will that condemns them to the Lake of Fire—not inheriting the kingdom of Heaven.

4. What About the Demon-Possessed?

If the modern-day Catholic and Evangelical Christian doctrine of demon-possession were actually correct, one might argue that these demon-possessed individuals do not themselves enjoy free-will. Rather, following such reasoning, one might conclude that the wills of the so-called possessed have been confiscated by wicked spiritual entities. However, I have insistently argued that such a view of what certain Gospel writers have termed “demon-possessed” is totally erroneous. It effectively provides an excuse for bad behavior and renders the individual diagnosed as demon-possessed personally innocent of his or her actions—the responsibility for which actions resides solely with the wicked spiritual entity. Some Evangelical Christians have suggested that the killer of Charlie Kirk was demon-possessed. I disagree. At least, I do not agree in the way they mean.

Repeating my teaching on the subject of demons, however, I frequently point out that both the Apostle Paul and John the author of Revelation teach that demons do not exist as actual entities. They are simply falsehoods that people believe. In I Corinthians, Paul makes “idols” and “demons” synonymous and teaches that “idols” are “not anything,” that no idol really exists; there is no God but one. John in Revelation agrees that demons and idols are not able to see, hear, nor walk. Demons are not found at all in the Old Testament or in John’s Gospel. Where the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) do mention them, they appear to be something like psychosomatic illnesses. The possessed believe they have a malady, but there is no physical proof of illness. For example, there is never an account of having a demon of fever because a fever is proof of an actual illness. In the same way that I suggest that transgenders are affected by “demons” (they believe falsely that they are members of the opposite sex), the false belief takes hold of them. Since the term “demon” is so misunderstood, these days, I refer to this problem not as demon-possession, but as being the product of psychotic entelechy. As an example of psychotic entelechy, Pharaoh believed that Egyptian gods were superior to Moses’s God, so he demanded that his magicians replicate the plagues. So willing was he to disbelieve Moses, and resist the command to “let My people go,” the Bible says that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart (Exodus 4:21, 7:13-8:19). The operative word in Pharaoh’s hardened heart is the word “heart.” As I mention above, Genesis 6:5 asserts that “the ‘intent (yetzer)’ of man’s ‘heart (levav)’ was ‘evil (ra‘)’ all of the time. … [T]he center of a human being’s decision-making processes (i.e., his ‘heart [levav]’) has a ‘good inclination (yetzer ha-tov)’ and an ‘evil inclination (yetzer ha- ra‘).’” The hardening of Pharaoh’s heart would emphasize his free will rather than diminish it.

1. What About Angels?

In my blogpost Angels & Demons 7: Can Animals, Children, or Angels SIN?, I state: “Angels, on the other hand, are not credited with having “free will.” Neither are animals nor children. For Rabbinic theologians, adult humans have that “watershed” of which Burke writes—both the good and the evil inclinations--the YETZER HA-RA‘ (evil inclination) and the YETZER HA-TOV (good inclination). Adult humans (past the age of puberty) have the knowledge of both good and evil. … If a being (such as a child or an animal) does not have the full capability to choose freely between good and evil alternatives, that being is not held “accountable” for any sins.

While Calvinism presents a strange and upside-down picture of free will in which humans have no free will (predestination) yet angels possess free will in the teaching on fallen angels, Jewish theology paints the more correct picture: Angels, animals, children, and the mentally handicapped have no free will. All other adult humans possess free will. No excuses for drug and alcohol users or the (so-called demon-possessed) humans who succumb to psychotic entelechy.

Transgender Terrorists, Demons, and Psychotic Entelechy

2025-09-05T14:04:00.000-07:00

Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists took it upon themselves to call the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, “We exorcise you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches.” Also there were seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, who did so.

And the evil spirit answered and said, “Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?”

Then the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, overpowered them, and prevailed against them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded. (Acts 19:13-16 NKJV)

It is now no longer a question of WHETHER transgender culture tends to lead one to commit violence/terrorism. The question this post seeks to (at least, partially) answer is WHY? It happened again, last week. On August 27^th, Robin/Robert Westman, a transgender terrorist opened fire on another Christian school—this time, the Annunciation Catholic Church and school in Minneapolis—killing two children and injuring 17 other individuals. Amazingly, the mainstream media remains puzzled about the motive for this mass shooting in Minneapolis, despite the fact that Westman had his motives written all over his weapons and ammunition. The comments “Israel must fall,” “Burn Israel,” and “6 million wasn’t enough” indicate that Westman hated Jews and wanted to continue the holocaust. The comments “Kill Trump Now!” and “Kill Donald Trump RIP & TEAR” indicate that he held extreme anti-Trump views. Even though he chose to shoot up a Catholic school, his antisemitic comments indicate that he is an equal opportunity religious hater. Furthermore, Westman left a graphically illustrated manifesto related to his intent to terrorize. One specific illustration has captured the attention of the public: a drawing of the shooter looking into a bathroom mirror and seeing the face of a Baphomet reflected back at him.

One day after the Minnesota school shooting, Snihal/Sasha Srivasta, a man believing himself to be a woman, killed the father of a six-year-old whom he had just dropped off at school, in Massachusetts. https://wltreport.com/2025/08/30/more-trans-violence-transgender-man-mrders-innocent-father/?utm_source=PTN&utm_medium=mixed&utm_campaign=PTN In March of 2023, transgender Audrey/Aiden Hale shot and killed three students and three staff members at (the Christian) Covenant School in Nashville, TN. On November 19, 2022, Anderson Lee Aldridge, who identifies as nonbinary and uses “they/them” pronouns, killed five people and injured 40 others at an LGBTQ nightclub in Colorado Springs, CO. On May 17, 2019, one student was killed and eight others injured at a STEM high school in Colorado. One of the two perpetrators, Alec McKinney, was a transgender-identified female. On September 20, 2018, Snochia Moseley, who identified as a transgender man (as emails from 2016 showed) shot and killed three individuals and injured three others at a Rite Aid warehouse in Aberdeen, MD. https://thepostmillennial.com/these-are-all-the-mass-shootings-committed-by-trans-people-in-the-us

It would certainly be a gross overstatement to classify all transgender-identifying individuals as terrorists (just as it is an overstatement to suggest that all Muslims are terrorists), but an emerging sense exists that an inordinately high number in each category is prone to terrorism. Even the Democrat political party has become an implicit element of transgender terrorism (consider Westman’s comments “Kill Trump Now!” and “Kill Donald Trump!) It is commonplace to hear Democrat politicians and legacy media hosts dispute the notion that an inordinately high number in the transgender category are prone to terrorism, but consider even their argument: Briana Keilar of CNN points out that of the “32 school mass shootings that have occurred in the country since 2020, only two others were carried out by perpetrators who identified as transgender or gender-diverse.” Nevertheless, “only” two out of 32 still amounts to 1/16^th of all school mass shootings, which is “inordinately high” since transgenders represent less than 1/100^th of all adult Americans. Even one out of 32 would still be “inordinately high.” I believe that a psychotic entelechy motive is strong in this group. While the source of the Islamic psychotic entelechy is a far too common interpretation of the Koran, the implicit rhetorical source of the transgender psychotic entelechy may be the symbol known as Baphomet.

Is Baphomet a Demon?

Brittanica.com states:

“The first known mention of Baphomet was in a letter written in 1098 by Anselm of Ribemont describing the Siege of Antioch during the First Crusade. Anselm stated that the Turks ‘called loudly upon Baphomet.’ Most scholars believe that the name is an alteration of “Mahomet,” or Muhammed, the founder of Islam.

… In his book Dogme et rituel de la haute magie (1854–56; The Doctrine and Ritual of High Magic), the influential French occultist Éliphas Lévi created the Baphomet that has become a recognized occult icon. The book’s frontispiece was a drawing of Baphomet imagined as a ‘Sabbatic Goat’—a hermaphroditic winged human figure with the head and feet of a goat that is adorned with numerous esoteric symbols. Lévi describes the meaning of each element of the drawing, which is defined by its profound and pervasive duality. … More recently, the Satanic Temple commissioned a statue of Baphomet, which was unveiled in 2015 and then moved to various places as a protest against displays of Ten Commandments monuments in public spaces.”

Turks calling on the name of Muhammed does not indicate that they believed in a demon. Muhammed was an actual human (considered a prophet by Muslims, although Christians and Jews generally consider him to be a false prophet). Making Baphomet into an occult icon and later a symbol of the Satanic Temple might tend to move him toward the demon category, but the fact that he was first mentioned in 1098 and first pictured by Éliphas Lévi in 1854 suggests that he was not a demon from biblical times. The demons from the New Testament period did not have their own personal physical characteristics. They were “non-physical.” They unanimously acknowledged that Jesus was the Son of God (See Matthew 8:28-32, Mark 2:20, 3:11, 5:1-17, 8:31, and Luke 8:26-33) and submitted to him. Mt. 4:23-25, 8:14-17, Mk. 1:29-39, and Lk. 4:38-41 write of several unspecified cases of demon-possession. All demon-possessed individuals knew who Jesus was. They also believed in the one true God (James 2:19). By contrast, the Baphomet of the Satanic Temple appears to defy the Ten Commandments. Perhaps, this connection of Baphomet defying the Commandments explains why one who identifies with Baphomet might be motivated to “kill” and violate others of the Ten Commandments. Except for the “evil spirits” who rejected the Jewish exorcists in Acts 19:13-16, cited at the first of this post, demon-possessed individuals do not inflict harm on others (such as carrying out terrorist attacks and other violence). They do, however, at times, harm themselves.

In my book Angels and Demons: The Personification of Communication (Say Press, 2020), derived from my M.A. in Hebrew thesis at Indiana University, “Anamartetous Fallen Angels,” I point out that both the Apostle Paul and John the author of Revelation teach that demons do not exist as actual entities. (The term “anamartetous” means “sinless.”) On page xix of Angels and Demons, I write:

“In I Corinthians 10:18, Paul asks a rhetorical question: ‘What then is my suggestion--that an idol offering amounts to anything or that the idol itself is anything? No, but that what they sacrifice, they are offering to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to fellowship with demons.’ Paul has made ‘idols’ equal ‘demons’ and has stated (rhetorically) that ‘idols’ are ‘not anything.’ Earlier, in I Corinthians 8:4, he had stated, ‘We know that no idol really exists; that there is no God but one.’”

On page 203, I point out:

“John the author of Revelation (in 9:20) appears to agree with Paul—that demons (like idols) are nothing. He writes of unrepentant men who worshiped the ‘works of their hands’—'demons and golden idols, and silver, and bronze, and wooden, which are not able to see, nor hear, nor walk.’”

Demons are not found at all in the Old Testament or in John’s Gospel. Some argue that the Old Testament mentions a demon called Azazel. I correct this notion, however, on page 7 of my book on angels and demons:

“One attempt at identifying fallen angels in the Old Testament centers on the Day of Atonement as discussed in Leviticus 16. The Berkeley Version of Leviticus 16:7-10 mentions a certain ‘Azazel,’ which some have identified as a fallen angel:

‘He shall take the two he-goats and set them before the Lord at the entrance of the Dwelling and Aaron shall cast lots over the two he-goats, one lot for the Lord and the other for Azazel. Aaron shall bring the goat on which the lot for the Lord fell and shall prepare it for a sin offering; but the goat on which the lot for Azazel fell shall be presented alive before the Lord to make atonement with it by sending it for a scapegoat into the desert.’

Notice that this scripture passage does not contain any mention of angels or demons. A footnote in the Berkeley Version states: ‘The name Azazel is derived from Azalzeh (dismissed one) thus properly thought of as a scapegoat.’”

It is entirely possible, however, that this reference to a “goat” (incorrectly thought by some to be a demon) served as the inspiration for Éliphas Lévi’s Baphomet: the drawing of Baphomet as a “Sabbatic Goat.” Actually, the concept of demons came from the Greeks, not from the Jews. I comment on page 197 of my book:

“Demon (δαιμόνιον))is a Greek concept, not a Jewish concept. They are not even always bad or evil, in Greek thought. Socrates, with a positive air, claims, in his Apology, to have a demon. At his trial, he says he is not an unbeliever, because he hears a voice that is a demon instructing him to be a philosopher. The Greek word for ‘fortunate’ is EUDAIMŌN (εὐδαίμων)—meaning ‘(having a) good demon.’ That the Apostle Paul—who has received an education as a Roman citizen—would reject the existence of demons on the basis that they are the same as idols is not surprising.”

So, what then are demons? They are lies that are believed by the ones who are affected by them. I write on page xviii:

“John’s gospel quotes Jesus (8:44): ‘You have the devil for your father and you wish to practice the desires of your father; . . . he could not stay in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks according to his nature; for he is a liar and the father of liars.’ Jesus is probably referring to Satan’s role as a tempter. In a sense, all believed lies have the power of demons.”

It is in that sense (only) that I suggest that transgenders are affected by “demons.” They believe (falsely) that they are members of the opposite sex. This false belief takes hold on them. It is powerful. Finally, when one such as Robin/Robert Westman admits (as he does) that he regrets “his effort to ‘transition’ into a girl when he was a minor, according to handwritten notes he displayed in a YouTube video before the attack”—he wishes “I never brainwashed myself.” According to a partial translation of notes written in Cyrillic and published by the New York Post, he wrote: “I regret being trans,” and added: “I wish I was a girl. I just know I cannot achieve that body with the technology we have today. I also can’t afford that.” (https://www.ncregister.com/cna/minneapolis-church-shooter-expressed-regret-about-gender-transition). But, since the term “demon” is so misunderstood, these days, I refer to Westman’s problem not as demon-possession, but as being the product of psychotic entelechy, terminology that I coined, based on Kenneth Burke’s discussions of entelechy.

What is Psychotic Entelechy?

In my book Psychotic Entelechy (University Press of America, 2006), I document and explain the psychotic entelechy that produces Islamic terrorism (which is based upon bin Laden’s and others’ interpretation of the Koran). In my academic article "Waco and Andover: An Application of Kenneth Burke's Concept of Psychotic Entelechy" (August, 1999, in The Quarterly Journal of Speech), I define the concept of “psychotic entelechy” and apply it to David Koresh’s Branch Davidian cult in Waco, TX. In my Ph.D. dissertation at Purdue University (1995) and my book Implicit Rhetoric: Kenneth Burke’s Extension of Aristotle’s Concept of Entelechy (University Press of America, 1998; reprinted by Say Press), I explain the underlying concept of entelechy, itself. I am rather knowledgeable concerning the phenomenon and how it works.

On page 10 of Psychotic Entelechy, following Burke and Aristotle—I define entelechy as: “the process of changing from what something is into what something should become, which process is directed by an internal principle of change that allows the thing to possess internally the final form toward which the thing is changing.” Accordingly, a seed (kernel of corn, for example) contains within itself from the very beginning all of the entelechial steps it must go through in order to become a fully developed plant (corn stalk with blades and husks and tassels and ears which develop new kernels) with new seeds, each of which is capable of starting a brand new entelechy. For transgenders, the symbol Baphomet may serve as a seed, of sorts, driving the (present and future) behavior of the transgender. On page 13 of Psychotic Entelechy, I define psychotic entelechy as: “to the tendency of some individuals to be so desirous of fulfilling or bringing to perfection the implications of their terminologies that they engage in very hazardous or damaging actions.”

Just as David Koresh’s interpretation of Revelation led him to expect a fiery ending to the world just before the New Heavens come (and, therefore, he encouraged his faithful to hunker down in their burning compound, awaiting victory). Bin Laden interpreted passages (such as the following) in the Koran to mean that Muslims should hate and kill Christians and Jews:

"O believers, take not Jews and Christians as friends; they are friends of each other. Whoso of you makes them his friends is one of them. God guides not the people of the evildoers." (I:136)
"Let not the believers take the unbelievers for friends" (I:76)
"O believers, take not the unbelievers as friends instead of the believers." (I:121)
"They are unbelievers who say 'God is the Third of Three.' No god is there but One God." (I:140)
"And fight in the way of God with those who fight with you… And slay them wherever you come upon them and expel them from where they expelled you; persecution is more grievous than slaying. But … slay them--such is the recompense of unbelievers." (I:53, italics mine)
"Fight them." (I:54, italics mine)
"Prescribed for you is fighting … and whosoever of you turns from his religion, and dies disbelieving-- … those are the inhabitants of the Fire; therein they shall dwell forever." (I:57-58)

Likewise, some transgenders appear to be following the implicit elements of psychotic entelechy (tautologically) connected with Baphomet:

· Androgynous/Hermaphrodite: Éliphas Lévi’s Baphomet is a hermaphroditic winged human figure with the head and feet of a goat defined by its profound and pervasive duality. Transgenders can easily identify with this symbol. Not only does the Baphomet have both female breasts and male whiskers, the tying together of a human and a goat also expresses duality. Transgenders, likewise, see themselves as dual individuals, both male and female.

· Goat: Once the trans individual identifies with the Baphomet, a connection to the (faux demonic) goat (Azazel) of Leviticus 16 comes into play. The trans individual identifies with the demonic world.

· Islamic anti-Christian, antisemitic terrorism: Since Baphomet is the entity to which Muslims in Antioch appealed, Muhammed/Baphomet and the associated Islamic terrorist behavior joins the mixture. Comments of Westman (such as comments “Israel must fall,” “Burn Israel,” and “6 million wasn’t enough”) become operative. Christian schools become targets.

· Anti-God: “Where is your God?” was scrawled on one of Westman’s rifle magazines. Since Baphomet became a prime symbol of the Satanic Temple, the entelechy has a true ultimate end in mind—fighting against God.

Is there a cure?

Yes, there is a potential cure for psychotic entelechy. In my article “Waco and Andover: An Application of Kenneth Burke's Concept of Psychotic Entelechy,” I unpack the approach. There, I comment:

“Just as Christian scholars Tabor and Arnold were able to persuade David Koresh that his own interpretations might be flawed, Islamic scholars may be able to persuade many Muslims that there are significant questions pertaining to the interpretations of the Koran supplied by bin Laden. By questioning whether the specific passages referring to holy war are correctly interpreted as referring to modern-day Christians and Jews, recalcitrance may wear down the psychosis.”

Similarly, a more reasonable transgendered person (perhaps, someone like Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner) may be able to persuade many transgenders that there are significant questions pertaining to their interpretations of Baphomet and how the symbol is affecting them. They might be encouraged to, as Benjamin Franklin recommended at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, doubt a little bit of their own infallibility. Recalcitrance may wear down the psychosis. On page 171 of Psychotic Entelechy, “I recommend the ‘what if’ treatment to avoid the dangers of psychotic entelechy. Whenever dangerous or damaging results will be produced by any behavior, try asking yourself: What if I am wrong?”

· Start with the Baphomet issue. What if Baphomet is just a lie—a demonic factor—that is influencing me? What if it was just a mistaken sound first heard in the Crusades? What if it really did (as scholars say) refer to the cry of Muslims to their dead prophet, Muhammed?

· What if the Baphomet image of an androgynous/Hermaphrodite is just the creation of some weirdo named Éliphas Lévi? Am I living life based upon some lie?

· What if my (typically teenage) interpretation is mistaken and the biology is correct? What if God knew what He was doing when He made me into a specific sex? Westman admits that he regrets “his effort to ‘transition’ into a girl when he was a minor … wishing “I never brainwashed myself.” His notes written in Cyrillic say: “I regret being trans,” and “I wish I was a girl. I just know I cannot achieve that body with the technology we have today. I also can’t afford that.” Westman is not the only transgender who realized (too late?) that he shouldn’t have transitioned. Others are detransitioning. According to Sarah Jorgenson, a pharmacist and Ph.D. student at the University of Toronto, “The full extent of regret and detransition in young people transitioning today, under vastly different circumstances than in the past, will not be known for many years.” (published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior). https://bigthink.com/health/transgender-detransition/

· For that matter, what if there really is a God? What if morality is a real thing that can save me from a life of pain and disappointment?

Isn’t shooting up Christian schools, STEM schools, coworkers, or even LGBTQ nightclubs a moral issue, at the very least? If one does not consider such murder to be wrong, then there is very little chance that one would consider any sexual choice or behavior itself to be immoral. Gender dysphoria or confusion often stems from the difficulty of adhering to societal norms. Who died and made society God? Why does society get to dictate the acceptable norms? Who gets to write the laws pertaining to male or female traits and activities? Is that the prerogative of society? Is sensitivity always “female”? Is aggression always “male”? Should females play contact sports, like boxing, wrestling, or football? Should males try to excel at finesse activities, like ballet or gymnastics? Should females always be passive? Should males always be the ones who take the initiative? Should males not want to sing in the choir or play in the band? Who says so? Consider the movie/TV programs “The Odd Couple” or “Maude.” Is there an authoritative source for gender behavior—to tell us how males and females should behave? For two thousand years, globally, society has been increasingly (and successfully) dependent on the mores of the Bible (as the basis for morality) as the God of Abraham, His Son Jesus, and (perhaps, even) Islam have offered moral guidelines by which children of either sex can behave socially, with confidence. The Bible does not stipulate the types of sports (and other activities) to be engaged in by the two sexes. There is no condemnation of “tomboys” or “sissies.” The judge Deborah sent Israelites into battle. Perhaps, even counterintuitively in modern-day norms, in the Bible, men were typically the singers and the players of musical instruments. Consider the psalmist (singer/songwriter) King David, who also fought with giants and led armies. There is, however, guidance regarding sexual behavior that applies to all males and females who have reached puberty and beyond. God forbids adultery, same-sex intercourse, transvestitism, rape, and prostitution. Beyond those hard-core parameters, the Bible is fairly silent. There appears to be room in biblical morality for wide-ranging varieties of traits and activities for both men and women. Saving individuals from the confusion over their sexual natures is a simpler matter than society has made it out to be. Even eunuchs (men who are subjected to genital mutilation) and those who choose to be life-long virgins can find a place of importance within the sexual morality of God (Acts 8:26-40). What if all of society simply chose to follow the morality of God? No more sexual confusion. No more hating Jews and Christians, please! No more bloodbaths in the schools and workplace, please! No more psychotic entelechy.

Can Jews Accept Jesus?

2025-05-06T11:17:00.000-07:00

For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. (Romans 11:25 NKJV)

Conversely, before that question too quickly “raises the hackles” of my Jewish brothers, I will also ask the equally pertinent question: Can Christians accept Judaism? (Thus, I fear, I have raised everyone’s hackles). I offer this blogpost in the spirit of Jewish midrash—a perspective on scripture that is possibly true (and possibly not), but worthy of consideration. I will, thus, begin this discussion by personally answering in the affirmative to that second question. I believe that a transcendence is not only possible, but also advisable between Christianity and Judaism. I would not be so arrogant as to suggest that this post is the final word on this matter, but as Henry Fischel taught me, I see midrash as an attempt to look at any given scripture and glimpse its possibilities. Then, I take a perspective that may not yet have been elucidated (often, a twist) and I offer that perspective. As I indicate on page 163 of my book Revelation: The Human Drama, the term “transcendence” is explained by Kenneth Burke as follows: “Transcendence occurs as a person ‘learns to take the oppositional motives into account, widening his[/her] terminology accordingly, . . . [thus arriving] at a higher order of understanding’ (GM 40).” I comment on page 70, regarding transcendence: “In Platonic dialectic, something similar to the ‘opposite banks of a stream’ is present. The antithetical nature of the ‘opposite banks’ may be transcended by the ‘reality’ of the whole stream. It is not necessary in dialectic to disprove one bank of the stream, in order that the opposite bank may be true.” On page 162, I observe: Burke “uses the term to designate not a mere ‘comparison’ of disparate goals, etc., but, more importantly, a ‘combination’ of disparate matters and even of polar opposites. An example that he offers is ‘[t]he battlefield … which permits rival contestants to join in battle.’ For Burke, ‘battlefield,’ therefore, allows the contestants to transcend ‘their factionalism, being ‘superior’ to [their factionalism] and ‘neutral’ to their motives’ (RM 11).”

Please, don’t jump to the conclusion that I am recommending in any way that Jews and Christians “join” each other as “opponents” on a battlefield of ideas. I am merely acknowledging the notion that Christians and Jews are often considered to be “antithetical” or “rivals” or “polar opposites” or “opposite banks of the stream.” I am saying that “It is not necessary in dialectic to disprove one bank of the stream, in order that the opposite bank may be true,” so to speak. Jews do not need to disprove Christianity and Christians do not need to disprove Judaism for both of them to be true.

My Years Immersed in Judaism

There are many happenings in my life that I consider to be providential:

· Finding my wife (Linda)—the only woman I have ever met who was perfect for me,

· Losing occasional jobs—only to move into much more worthwhile ones,

· By chance, becoming an expert on one of the greatest liberal thinkers in America (Kenneth Burke)—which probably strongly contributed to my being hired to teach at Loyola University Chicago and Florida State University—even though I was a staunch conservative and those faculties were liberal (as can be documented by their almost unanimous political contribution data), and, among others,

· Discovering Millard Burrows’s book on the Dead Sea Scrolls just two days after one of the greatest tests of my faith. (My Jewish professor had pointed out an “impossible contradiction” in the gospels: The Synoptics say that Jesus celebrated Passover with His disciples [Last Supper] but John says that Jesus was already dead-and-in-the-tomb when the Passover was celebrated. Burrows found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that the Jews had more than one calendar, with different dates for Passover; both John and the Synoptics could be right.)

One of the most providential occurrences of my life was my spending seven years (from 1971-1977) studying Hebrew language and literature at the feet of Hellenistics and Rabbinics scholar Dr. Henry A. Fischel, in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Literature at Indiana University. Fischel, a Jew, had, in the 1930s, studied philosophy at the University of Berlin and rabbinics at the Hochschule für Wissenschaft des Judentums in Berlin, before the Holocaust. After the Kristallnacht Pogrom, in 1938, the Nazis imprisoned him for several months at the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, north of Berlin. I once asked him if he had any family still living in Europe and I received a very terse “no.” After his death, I learned from his obituary that “His mother, nine uncles and aunts, and three cousins perished in the Holocaust.” Last month, my wife and I visited the Holocaust Museum in Houston, and I relived (as much as is possible without actually going through the horror) what his and his fellow Jews’ experiences might have been like. In 1941, Fischel came to Canada, and, later, became President of the Society of Biblical Literature in Canada. In 1945, he received the Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland. He was a pioneer in exploring the relationship between Jewish literature and the Hellenistic world.

I had applied for admission to the graduate program in Linguistics at Indiana, and received a rejection letter just a few days before the Fall 1971 semester began. (My undergraduate program in biblical studies—including Greek and Hebrew—at Lincoln Christian University, which I had just concluded, was not considered appropriate for them, I think.) They, however, transferred my application materials to the Near Eastern Languages and Literatures Department and I was immediately accepted into a Master’s in Hebrew program. I took every single one of my Hebrew courses under Fischel and received A’s in all of them. I was fascinated by the amount of information about the New Testament I was able to glean from studying the midrashim, the Mishnah, and the Talmud. I supported myself throughout my graduate studies as a Christian minister, and the rabbinic thought and background of the New Testament kept showing up in my sermons. By the time I began working on a Ph.D. at Purdue University, I had founded (along with two other elders) a new Christian Church in West Lafayette, Indiana. My constant references in my sermons to rabbinic thought must have annoyed a couple of men in the congregation. They nicknamed me Rabbi Stan, thinking they were ridiculing me; I wore the nickname as a badge of honor.

When I wrote my Master’s thesis (Anamartetous Fallen Angels), I found rabbinic angelology to be much more credible (and logical) in describing New Testament angelology than what I had seen in Christianity. (Billy Graham had been writing his book Angels, at the time.) The lone New Testament scholar on my M.A. in Hebrew thesis committee, J. Paul Sampley, once remarked that my scholarship in rabbinics was much stronger than my New Testament scholarship. Having attended, in protracted periods, various Christian Churches, Churches of Christ, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches (plus less-lengthy stints with Catholic, Disciples of Christ, Episcopal, Methodist churches, etc.), my experience has been that the overall theology of churches is much weaker than that of rabbinic Judaism. (I must confess, however, that I have not attended modern-day Jewish services, except for once, in a Messianic Church. Fischel, once, shared with me his frustrations that the messages in his synagogue had become mostly book reviews and critiques of motion pictures—not actual engagement with scripture.) On the other hand, when I first moved to West Lafayette, Indiana, I attended the West Lafayette Christian Church which met Sundays in Temple Israel. I studied the various Jewish artifacts I found in the building and grounds. I was circumcised as a baby, but that was not due to religious beliefs. I do not attempt to follow Kosher dietary laws, partially because, as a gentile, I believe that I am only responsible for following the Noachian (not the Mosaic) dietary laws. See Acts 15:13-35.) If one glances through my books and my blogposts, one will find them replete with teachings borrowed from Judaism. I, therefore, repeat my answer to the question: Can Christians accept Judaism? The answer is “yes.”

What About Jews Accepting Jesus?

According to John J. Johnson’s 2000 article in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS 43, 229-46), Rosemary Ruether’s 1974 book Faith and Fratricide asserts: “Christians must be able to accept the thesis that it is not necessary for Jews to have the story about Jesus in order to have a foundation for faith and a hope for salvation” (New York: Seabury, 1979: 256). Johnson also cites Gregory Baum in the introduction to Ruether’s book (p. 22) stating that Christians must “look for a formulation of the Christian faith that does not negate Jewish existence.” Johnson points out that “Krister Stendahl no longer believes that Paul’s letter to the Romans [cited at the first of this post] teaches that Jews must receive Christ as their Savior in order to experience salvation.” Whether all that is true is not totally relevant to my purposes, here. Johnson’s article pertained to Christian and Jewish reactions to the Holocaust and some Christians’ complicity in that horrific event. Whatever that complicity may have been, at the time, it is now becoming clear that most conservative Christians (in America, at least) loudly condemn such Antisemitism. The attack by Hamas on innocent Jews in Israel on October 7, 2023, is condemned by conservative Christians, even if some liberals, agitated college students, and Muslims disagree. Antisemitism is rearing its ugly head (once again) in this world, but conservative Christians are not the problem. We support Jews.

Is it, then, antisemitic to pose the question: Can Jews accept Jesus? I contend that it is not and I turn, once again, to the importance of Burke’s notion of transcendence (between Christians and Jews). Those who have read my previous post on Consubstantiality will notice the similarity between consubstantiality and transcendence. As Burke said, “Transcendence occurs as a person … widen[s] his[/her] terminology . . . [thus arriving] at a higher order of understanding.” On page 162 of Revelation, I further exemplify Burke’s thought: “Transcendence is accomplished, Burke indicates, by a widening of circumference. … The widening of circumference often involves a Burkean tracing of the fingers back to the hand (GM xxii), to the point where they meet.” Such tracing of the fingers back to the hand, to the point where they meet, smacks of Consubstantiality, as when individual humans trace their family tree back to the point where they have a common ancestor.

Substance, or Hypostasis, and the Church’s Trinitarian Errors

When I suggest that Jews can accept Jesus, I mean that they can accept the Jesus of the New Testament. I do not necessarily mean that they can easily accept the Jesus of the various subsequent Church creeds. They might become non-denominational Judeo-Christians. I concluded my previous blogpost as follows: “The word ‘substance’ in the Greek New Testament is hypostasis/ὑπόστασις, with the ‘hypo-/ὑπό-’ meaning ‘sub- or under,’ as in a hypo-dermic needle that goes under the skin (dermis) and the ‘stasis/στασις’ meaning ‘standing.’ Together, the word hypostasis/ὑπόστασις means that which ‘stands under,’ as when wood ‘stands under’ or is the ‘substance’ of all wooden furniture, etc., and as ‘Faith is the substance (hypostasis/ὑπόστασις) of things hoped for’ (Hebrews 11:1). This term hypostasis/ὑπόστασις is, I think, misused by the subsequent Church in trying to explain its concept of Trinity as a ‘hypostatic (ὑπόστασις) union.’”

The term hypostasis/ὑπόστασις is very useful, if one would understand the relationship between God and Jesus. The term is used only five times in the entire New Testament. While, admittedly, the following discussion might get down into the weeds, slightly, there are only five verses to consider, so please bear with me. In 2 Corinthians 9:4 and 11:17, Paul uses the term to refer to his “confidence.” Perhaps, his confidence is due to his logical thought process—his confidence in his personal experience with the Corinthians in 9:4 and his confidence in his own personal resume in 11:17. Both of these applications of confidence would be based upon Paul’s internal argumentation processes—both inductive and deductive—concerning himself and concerning the Corinthians.

In the other three instances of the term hypostasis/ὑπόστασις, the author of Hebrews uses the term somewhat differently. Although Hebrews 11:1 has also been taken by some to convey a sense of confidence (for example, the NIV translation: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see”), other translations, such as the KJV, NKJV, BRG, DRA, JUB, MEV, etc., offer a better, more literal translation of hypostasis/ὑπόστασις as substance: (“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen”). Even with this better translation, the term translated “evidence” is still somewhat problematic. One might expect the term “evidence” to be an exact parallelism or a synonym for “substance.” The Greek word translated “evidence” is elenchus/ἔλεγχος. This is a technical term used by Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle to indicate the Socratic method of argumentation (by asking Socratic questions). The goal of this method is not so much to “prove” a thesis as it is to “re-prove” (or refute) a position (or behavior) that had been commonly held (or practiced). According to Andre Archie of the Department of Philosophy at Colorado State University, ἔλεγχος is used to liberate someone “from his traditional beliefs, i.e., prejudices,” forcing the individual to “reconsider and reconstruct from the ground up rational arguments and propositions on the topic” (‘Socrates, Elenchus and Tradition,’ accessed at: https://www.academia.edu/35067881/Socrates_Elenchus_and_Tradition?work_id=35067881). Perhaps, readers of this post will reconsider and reconstruct from the ground up, also. This concept of “reconstructing from the ground up” sounds as if it might be parallel to substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις, since a sub-stance is the ground, so to speak, on which something is built. I take the Hebrews 11:1 passage to indicate that faith is the ground upon which we build our hope. The question, however, is: Faith in what specific substance/hypostasis/ ὑπόστασις? Whatever that substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις may be, we may conclude that it is “hoped for” and yet “unseen.”

Hebrews 3:14 exhorts Christians to “hold firm” from the beginning (ἀρχὴν) of the substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις to the end (τέλους), thus affirming a point my brother Dennis Lindsay makes about faith being that which “holds firm.” [See my blogposts Apocalyptic? #18: Evangelize? Or Hold Fast? (Rev. 2:13, 25, 3:3, and 11) and Apocalyptic? #19: Does Absolute Truth Exist? (Rev. 3:14).] That substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις in which Christians are exhorted to “hold firm” has both a beginning (ἀρχὴν) and an end (τέλους), which brings me back to my short definition of entelechy as “any process that has a beginning (ἀρχὴ) and an end (τέλος).” I believe that the specific entelechy/process, in this instance, during which Christians are exhorted to “hold firm” is the process of living their individual lives on Earth. Hebrews 12:1-2 exhorts Christians to run “with endurance” the race that is set before them, looking to Jesus the ἀρχηγὸν (from ἀρχὴ) and τελειωτὴν (from τέλος) of faith. Revelation 3:14 and 22:13 states that Jesus is the ἀρχὴ and τέλος (the beginning and the end) of creation. Revelation 21:6 states that God is the ἀρχὴ and τέλος (the beginning and the end). And then we consider this momentous verse: Hebrews 1:3 refers to Jesus as the exact expression (χαρακτήρ, transliterated: character) of the hypostasis/ὑπόστασις of God. Since Hebrews 1:3 is the only location in the New Testament where the term χαρακτήρ/character is used, its meaning is somewhat debatable. The possibilities include (but are not limited to) the following:

1. Jesus is the “image” of the hypostasis/ὑπόστασις of God (Jews should have no problem with this concept since all humans are created in the image of God. Hebrews 1:3, however, seems to be claiming something much more than that for Jesus),

2. Jesus is the “impression” of the hypostasis/ὑπόστασις of God, as a coin has an impression of Caesar (Perhaps, Jesus’s earthly body has the stamp or impression of the substance of God), and

3. Jesus is the “likeness” of the hypostasis/ὑπόστασις of God, in the same way that 4 Maccabees 15:4 suggests that children are the “likeness” of their parents. I prefer this option, as I will explain eventually. It relates to consubstantiality.

Does God have a substance? In my previous blogpost, I stated: “There is a level of consubstantiality between the Cross, the Tree of Knowledge, the framework of my backyard shed, my bookshelves, and even toilet paper. They all experience a descent, of sorts, from the trees God created on the Third Day (Genesis 1:11).” Their common substance is wood, a physical, earthly substance. I even said that Jesus’s “flesh … [and] bread and wine, are all biologic, organic material/hulē/ὕλη. They were all living (biological as opposed to mineral or gaseous) substances on Earth.” But God does not consist of material/hulē/ὕλη. Perhaps, that is why Hebrews 11:1 can say: “Now faith is the substance … [and refutation?] of things not seen.”

What did the Church do with this “hypostasis/ὑπόστασις of God” concept from Hebrews 1:3? While the Nicene Creed of 325 did not use the term ὑπόστασις, it asserted that the Father is the “one God” and the “Almighty” (in agreement with the Book of Revelation—and with Judaism). Then, it asserted that Jesus Christ is “the Son of God,” having the same being/homoousion/ὁμοούσιον as the Father. (If the Jews object to this characterization of Jesus, they cannot say that they objected to it from the beginning of Christianity, because the creed was not developed until the Fourth Century.) The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) changed the language concerning Jesus from “one in being with the Father” to (the Latinate) “consubstantial with the Father,” but since the Greek word translated is “same essence/homoousion/ὁμοούσιον,” not “substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις,” the term “consubstantial” in the creed does not carry quite the same meaning as Burke’s term “consubstantiality, which” I referenced in my previous blog. Nevertheless, I think this newer translation of the Latin creeds by the Second Vatican Council brings us closer to a transcendence with Judaism. Actually, the term homoousion/ὁμοούσιον (best translated as “of the same essence or being”) does not occur anywhere in the New Testament or in the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Old Testament).

The Church Fathers may have correctly recognized that God has an unseen, immaterial hypostasis/ὑπόστασις, but, unfortunately, they chose a different word to describe the doctrine: homoousion/ὁμοούσιον. Furthermore, they also go a little haywire, later, with their use of the term hypostasis/ὑπόστασις in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries. Plotinus, a Greek Platonist from the Third Century, taught a three-fold ὑπόστασις doctrine: the ὑπόστασις of the soul, the ὑπόστασις of the mind, and “the one.” Perhaps, his doctrine provided some of the impetus for developing the Trinity theology in the early Fourth Century. Apollinarius, who died in 382, was the first of the Church fathers to use the term hypostasis/ὑπόστασις to refute Jesus’s humanity. He taught that Jesus was true God and denied the existence of a human soul in Jesus. His doctrine was rejected as heretical by the first Council of Constantinople in 381. One might call Apollinarius a monohypostatic—one who believed God only had one (mono) hypostasis/ὑπόστασις. Dyohypostatics—those who believed that God had two (dyo) hypostases/ὑπόστασεις (Father and Son)—developed (also) in the Fourth Century. And, according to Wikipedia, “the Cappadocian fathers were the first pro-Nicenes to believe in three hypostases” (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). We may call them Trihypostatic. Shawn J. Wilhite (Credo Magazine, November 29, 2020 · Volume 10, Issue 4) writes: “Lewis Ayres defined pro-Nicene Trinitarianism … [as] those theologies, appearing from the 360s to the 380s, … about the nature of the Trinity and … Trinitarian theology.”

But, are any of these “hypostatic” theologies correct? I do not believe so for the following reasons:

1. The approaches are all non-biblical. Nowhere in the Bible does this language exist. (The word homoousion/ὁμοούσιον appears nowhere in the scriptures.)

2. The word hypostasis/ὑπόστασις appears only five times in the New Testament—twice in Paul (2 Corinthians) and three times in Hebrews. It never appears in the plural, only the singular.

3. Hypostasis/ὑπόστασις is applied to God (and Jesus) only once, in Hebrews 1:3.

The Church in the Fourth and Fifth centuries decided that hypostasis/ὑπόστασις could be plural, allotting each hypostasis/ὑπόστασις individually to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and then tying them all together as one homoousion/ὁμοούσιον (a term that doesn’t even occur in the Bible). Hypostasis/ὑπόστασις, referring to God, in the New Testament is singular, not plural. Can Jewish theologians conceptualize God and the Logos as having a single hypostasis/ὑπόστασις. Yes! And, here is where Fischel is still teaching me.

Jews Can Accept Both God and Logos as Preexisting

Fischel, in his 1946 article in the Journal of Biblical Literature, entitled “Jewish Gnosticism in the Fourth Gospel” (pages 173-74), asserts: “the central theology of the Gospel [of John], particularly of the Prologue … is in all its essentials parallel to that of the Rabbis. Both for John and for the Rabbis the ‘Holy Spirit,’ ‘the Spirit of God,’ ‘Wisdom,’ or the ‘Logos’ or ‘Word’ were the agents of creation … and were preexistent.” He cites the Hebrew terms: דבור, חכמה, אלהים רוח, and הקדש רוח. (The translation of these Hebrew terms were in the ‘’ quotation marks above.) There are hints of ὁ λόγος/Logos in the words “the Spirit of God”/ ורוח אלהים and “and He said”/ויאמ in Genesis 1. Unaware that Fischel had already made this assertion, I have, over the years, made similar observations. For example, in my July 27, 2022 blogpost Amoeba/Protozoa Theology (Gospels 1), I observe: “both God and the Logos existed simultaneously … ‘in the Beginning.’ … John did not use the explicit term “Jesus” or “son” when he first said that “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ) was the Logos. The … words … “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ) …have … meaning in Aristotle’s concept of entelechy/ἐντέλεχεια. … The Father/Son relationship, however, is not introduced until the 14^th verse of chapter one. There, the ‘loins of the father’ analogy may contribute to an understanding.”

In The “Form” of God and Entelechy (Gospels 6) blogpost, as I had mentioned in my blogpost The Logos and Entelechy (Gospels 3), I stated:

On page 150 of my book Angels and Demons: The Personification of Communication, I write:

Jewish scholar G. F. Moore links . . . three terms . . . together quite easily. In his chapter entitled, "The Word of God: The Spirit," Moore states, "God's will is made known or effectuated in the world not only through personal agents (ANGELS), but directly by his WORD or by his SPIRIT" (emphases mine).

Since John himself (quoting Jesus) emphasizes that God IS spirit (John 4:24) and the facts that the “Spirit of God” is hovering over the face of the waters and God is speaking “words” are all found in Genesis 1:1-3, the possibility of the Logos being identified as the Spirit of God is a very definite possibility. Identifying the Logos-become-flesh as Jesus may be a later development in the entelechy [of creation].

Identifying the Logos as the Spirit of God seems to have some corroboration in Matthew’s description of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18 …[and] 1:20 [and] … Luke 1:35 agree … If the Logos is the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, then the statement that the Logos/Spirit of God/Holy Spirit “became flesh and dwelt among us” would be very consistent.

Rabbinic Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, Wisdom, Logos, and Word are NOT Hypostases

Various English words have sprung from the Greek term hypostasis/ὑπόστασις, most importantly among them, the phrase “hypostatic union.” According to The Oxford English Dictionary (oed.com/dictionary), the noun “hypostasis” began to be used in English in 1529, followed by the adjective “hypostatic/hypostatical” in 1561. It was in 1561 that Thomas Norton translated John Calvin’s Institution of Christian Religion (ii. F. 154) with the statement: “He being the Word ... did by hypostatical vnion take vpon hym the nature of man.” (Calvin’s work was first published in Latin in 1536.) In 1620, Thomas Granger, in Syntagma Logicum 310, remarked: “To the singular number (Jehovah) his essentiall name, noting the unity … is added the plurall (Elohim) his hypostaticall, or subsistentiall name, noting the Trinity.” In 1673, Henry Hickman, in Historia Quinq-articularis Epist. sig. A4, wrote: “I believe the Hypostatical Union, a Trinity of persons in the Unity of Essence.” (The phrase “Unity of Essence” is a translation of the non-biblical term homoousion/ὁμοούσιον.) In 1682, Thomas Hobbes, in Answer Dr. Bramhall 38 in Tracts, asserted: “The word Hypostatical Union is rightly retained and used by Divines, as being the Union of two Hypostases, that is, of two Substances or Natures in the Person of Christ.” From 1678 on, according to oed.com, “hypostatic/al union” had two meanings in theology: “Of or pertaining to substance … hypostatic union noun (a) the union of the divine and human natures in the ‘hypostasis’ of Christ; (b) the consubstantial union of the three ‘hypostases’ in the Godhead.”

Christian theologians since the Third Century have employed derivatives of the term hypostasis/ὑπόστασις anachronistically. M. Eugene Boring’s 1992 article ‘The Voice of Jesus in the Apocalypse of John’, NT 34 (4): 354), seems to be referring to phenomena similar to that Fischel which claims is “the central theology of the Gospel [of John and]… is in all its essentials parallel to that of the Rabbis. Both for John and for the Rabbis the ‘Holy Spirit,’ ‘the Spirit of God,’ ‘Wisdom’ or the ‘Logos’ or ‘Word’ were the agents of creation … and were preexistent.” Boring, however, cites the Hebrew terms: חמקום, השם, השכגה, חכמה, קול בת, and ממרה. Boring uses a later-developed verb form deriving from hypostasis/ὑπόστασις along the same anachronistic lines as the Third Century gang when he says: “James Charlesworth [in Scottish Journal of Theology, 1986] has made it probable that John’s tradition … contained … the voice of God, hypostysized [emphasis mine] as an ‘independent’ figure analogous to חמקום, השם, השכגה, חכמה, קול בת, and ממרה.” Are all of these Hebrew/Aramaic terms referring to “independent” figures? Let’s unpack these Hebrew/Aramaic words that Boring suggests (along with Charlesworth) are hypostysized:

· חמקום=The Maḳom (meaning existence or substance), Genesis Rabbah s. 68 explains: “in circumscribing the name of the Lord, why do we call him Maḳom? … because He is the existence (the preserver) of the world, but His world is not His existence” (Source: Jastrow).

· השם=HaShem (meaning The Name). The pronouncing of the Tetragrammaton, YHWH. Since Jews don’t pronounce God’s Name, they sometimes just refer to Him as The Name.

· השכגה=Hashkagah (meaning “awakening”?). Did Boring mean השגהה =Hashgahah (meaning “Providence”)?

· חכמה=Ḥokma (meaning “wisdom”). Personified as existing with God at Creation in Proverbs 8.

· קול בת=Bat Kol (meaning “daughter of a voice,” refers to a heavenly voice). See my blogpost Excessive Righteousness 2: Monotheism for a fuller discussion.

· ממרה=Memra (meaning “Word” or “Logos”). This is a term used especially in the Targum as a substitute for “the Lord.” (Source: Jewish Encyclopedia).

Of these terms (cited by Charlesworth), at least Maḳom, HaShem, and Bat Kol seem to me to be clearly alternative ways of referring to God (or His name) without sinning (by taking the Lord’s name in vain). The Ḥokma passage in Proverbs 8 is similar to the John 1 account, but even this use (in Proverbs 8) is probably just an instance of poetic personification. (Ḥokma, incidentally, is the only term cited by both Fischel and Charlesworth.) Memra is very close in meaning to Logos, but the Jewish Encyclopedia views it also as a substitute for “the Lord.” In other words, Charlesworth (or, at least, Boring) seems to assert that the process of hypostysizing [sic] amounts to making these various terms into “independent” figures. Yet these terms seem to me to be simply other ways of referring to God’s name without sinning. Since Fischel published his comments in 1946, just one year after he received the Ph.D. from the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and Charlesworth published his comments in 1986 in the Scottish Journal of Theology, perhaps, there was some overlap in thought between Jewish and Christian (Scottish) theologians on the matter raised by Fischel. Fischel, however, never suggested that his comments amounted to hypostysizing (or hypostasize/ing or hypostatize/ing—i.e., verbs/verbals that came into use in the 1880s meaning “treat[ing or represent[ing] something abstract as a concrete reality”). With the baggage of the “hypostatic union” view of Trinity, in the background, one wonders if Charlesworth, or Boring, is not thinking of the substances/hypostases/ὑπόστασεις, such as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Perhaps, Charlesworth even thought he was borrowing these notions from Fischel. Fischel, however, uses no terminology derived from hypostasis/ὑπόστασις in his comments regarding the Prologue to John. I believe that Fischel was asserting that terminology such as “Holy Spirit,” “the Spirit of God,” “Wisdom,” ‘”Logos,” and “Word” were not simply abstractions, but were the “agents of creation … and were preexistent.” They are not separate, “independent” figures or persons, in the Trinitarian sense. They were forces, nonetheless. Word, Spirit, Logic, Wisdom—these were all part of (and used by) God in creation.

As my comments above indicate, I am suggesting the possibility that God’s singular (monotheistic) substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις is “spirit.” John 4:24 (NKJV) states: “God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” In line with G.F. Moore’s chapter entitled, "The Word of God: The Spirit," God, His Word (Logos/Memra/Dibur) and His Spirit are identical. Word or communication is God’s very substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις. By Word He created all things. God and His Word/Spirit are NOT two separate substances/hypostases/ὑπόστασεις. There is one God whose sole substance is spirit. Spirit is like wind (John 3:8) in the sense that it is unseen, just as Hebrews 11:1 confirms that faith (which always carries a Word/Logos/Memra/Dibur/communication connotation) is the substance/hypostasis/ ὑπόστασις of the unseen. Since God’s substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις (i.e., Logos in John 1:1-3) created all things, among those things He created must have been the “flesh” in which the Logos “tabernacled” among us (John 1:14). A tabernacle is, by definition, a temporary abode, but the Logos (before He became flesh) preexisted “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ). See my blogpost The “Form” of God and Entelechy (Gospels 6). Entelechy is the midrashic key that unlocks the whole conundrum.

Some advocates of “hypostatic union” theology (Hobbes, for example, mentioned above) have suggested that Jesus consisted of two hypostases/ὑπόστασεις—one fleshly and one spiritual that were united into a single substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις. Yet, if Logos created the “flesh” in which He “tabernacled” among us, then the underlying substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις of Jesus’s flesh is Logos, not flesh. A single substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις (God/Logos/Holy Spirit) generated the flesh that began to grow in Mary’s womb before His birth on Christmas Day. God = Logos = Spirit (=monotheism). Now, enters my midrashic key of entelechy. John 1: “En archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ)—just as a seed archē (ἀρχῇ) already (preexistently) contains within itself, every single development (roots, stem, tassles, new seeds, etc.) that will ever occur—God/Logos already (preexistently) contained within Himself every single development of creation and earthly time. (Heavens and Earth, Light, Sea, Dry Land, Vegetation, Fish, Birds, Animals, Man, including the human Jesus, His Son). Through what Burke calls the “temporizing of essence” (meaning that although an essence is grasped in the blink of an eye, it takes time [temporality] for it to unfold itself) the various developments (Heavens and Earth, Light, Sea, Dry Land, Vegetation, Fish, Birds, Animals, Man, including the human Jesus, His Son) came into appearance over a timeline. God/Logos even contained within Himself the concept of “time” itself, as a part of creation. To understand how Jesus can be considered preexistent and yet appearing at a given point in history, one needs only to consider that Levi paid tithes to Melchizedek when he was in the loins of his great-grandfather Abraham (Hebrews 7:1-10). See my blogpost Amoeba/Protozoa Theology (Gospels 1). Although Levi and Abraham eventually became two separate individuals, they worked as a united entity at the time of Melchizedek. Still, Levi and Abraham represent a physical/material entelechy and the relationship between God and Jesus is not physical or material. It is spiritual, unseen, sharing the substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις of God. The primary claim of Jesus to a divine nature is that He is the “Son” of God (Psalm 2:7, Hebrews 1:5, 5:5, Matthew 3:17, 17:5, Mark 1:11, 9:7, Luke 3:2, 9:35, John 1:14, 3:16, Acts 13:33, 2 Peter 1:17, Romans 1:4, 1 John 5:9-10). Father-Son is an entelechial relationship that stems from a common substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις. All father-son relationships were at one time united, during which time, they operated as a unity.

Consubstantiality

Referring back to my previous blogpost, Burke lists the types of substance that qualify for consubstantiality, including “Familial substance … [which] stresses common ancestry in the strictly biological sense.” This sense of consubstantiality has the advantage of tying in the third translation of the word “exact expression (χαρακτήρ/character)” from Hebrews 1:3 offered earlier: “Jesus is the ‘likeness’ [χαρακτήρ] of the hypostasis/ὑπόστασις of God, in the same way that 4 Maccabees 15:4 suggests that children are the likeness of their parents.” Yet, Jesus has spiritual/non-physical/non-biological entelechial consubstantiality [or χαρακτήρ/character] with God’s substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις. He also has consubstantiality with Jews (having a common ancestry in the strictly biological sense). Indeed, He has a closer consubstantiality with Jews (in the biological sense) than He does with me and other Gentile Christians. God didn’t choose the Chosen People so that He could turn water into blood or split the Red Sea so much as He chose the Jews as the people to bring His Son (consubstantiality) into the world.

Transcendence

Similar to consubstantiality: “Transcendence is accomplished … by a widening of circumference. … The widening of circumference often involves a … tracing of the fingers back to the hand (GM xxii), to the point where they meet.” Such tracing of the fingers back to the hand, to the point where they meet smacks of Consubstantiality, as when individual humans trace their family tree back to the point where they have a common ancestor.

So, what are the obstacles to achieving transcendence between Christians and Jews? The foremost obstacle is the reluctance to widen the circumference, to trace the fingers back to the hand, to the point where they meet. Clearly, Christians and Jews meet in the Old Testament/TANACH. We also meet, however, in the New Testament and early Rabbinic era. There are several different perspectives on issues, of course, but by and large, every moral issue has champions on both sides who are in agreement. The single most difficult question facing Christians and Jews to this day is whether Jews can accept Jesus as the Messiah or as the Son of God. It is almost as if it has been codified into the Law as the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not accept Jesus. Why is that true when Simon bar Kokhba was hailed by Rabbi Akiba as the Messiah-King in the Second Century? Moses of Crete became a candidate in the Fifth Century. Dozens of other candidates have arisen and been promoted as Messiah for the past two millennia, but no other candidate has even approached the accomplishments of Jesus of Nazareth in drawing all nations to God/YHWH. If the problem is that He claims to have preexistence “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ), Fischel’s assertion, as expanded by entelechial thought can handle the matter. If the problem is the Trinitarian creeds of the Third Century, discount them, and return to simple non-denominational New Testament theology, where the possibility of transcendence is much greater. Even those Third Century creeds, however, have made a small advance toward transcendence by changing to “consubstantiality” language.

True, there have been two millennia of fierce invective exchanged between Christians and Jews, and that historical feud is always difficult to overcome, but modern-day Jews who cherish hope that the antisemitic invective spewed by Muslims can be disarmed will surely see that Christians and Jews, as well, can dispense with their respective invectives. I, for one, have learned to love and appreciate the Jewish perspectives that I learned from Fischel. I don’t have the arrogance to think that what I have written here is the final word in Judeo-Christian transcendence. It is only my midrash from entelechial and consubstantial considerations and the singular substance/hypostasis/ὑπόστασις of God. Read my midrash and mull it over. I think we have some potential for transcendence.

Communion: Not Transubstantiation but Consubstantiality

2025-02-25T22:18:00.000-08:00

And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. (Matthew 26:26-28 NKJV)

Called by various names—the Lord’s Supper, the Eucharist, Communion—the meal at which Jesus gave bread to his apostles and called the bread His body and gave the fruit of the vine to his apostles and called it His blood is one of the two great sacraments or ordinances of the Church (the other being baptism). Various denominations have debated the sacrament of baptism:

1. When should it be administered? Soon after the birth of a child? As soon as a child can understand what it means to believe in Jesus? When a child reaches the age of accountability, when s/he is held accountable for any sins s/he may commit since Acts 2:38 (NKJV) says “be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins”? (The Jews teach that this age of accountability begins at age 13 for boys and age 12 for girls—corresponding roughly with the commencement of puberty.) At an age corresponding to Jesus’s age when He was baptized?

2. How should it be administered? By immersing the entire body in water (as the Greek word baptizō/βαπτίζω actually means)? Sub-question: Should the water be living/running water (as in the Jordan River where John baptized), or can it be standing water (as in the Pool of Bethesda or Siloam)? The Didache chapter 7 states: “And concerning baptism, baptize this way: “Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if you have no living water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit.” (Remember, however, that the Didache is not part of the inspired scriptures.) I discuss the proper baptismal formula in my blogpost “Excessive Righteousness 2: Monotheism.”

Likewise, various denominations have debated the sacrament of taking communion:

1. How frequently should it be taken? Every first day of the week (as Acts 20:7 NKJV indicates: “Now on the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread”)? Since the Jews have always understood the first day of each week to begin at sundown on Saturday (based on the “evening and the morning” language of the six days of creation in Genesis, should Christians take it Saturday night or Sunday morning? Or since it is so precious, should Christians take it only once per month or even once per year (during Passover or Easter)? Conversely, one might argue that since Jesus uses the two substances that were present in the Jewish meal, every day, should communion (even if one is by oneself) be taken daily or at every meal?

2. Should the wine be fermented or unfermented? (In the Qumran/Essene/Dead Sea Scrolls messianic meal on which the Lord’s Supper may have been based, it was to be [unfermented] new wine.) 1Q28a [1QSa] of the Dead Sea Scrolls states: “[the Me]ssiah of Israel shall ent[er] and … [when] they gather at the table of community [or to drink] the new wine, and the table … is prepared [and] the new wine [is mixed] for drinking, [no-one should stretch out] his hand to the … the bread and of the [new wine] before the priest, for [he is the one who bl]esses the … bread and … new wine [and stretches out] his hand towards the bread before them.”

3. Should the bread be leavened or unleavened? (Since Jesus was celebrating Passover, we assume that the bread was unleavened at the time He instituted the meal, but if it is taken every week or month or day, does leavening matter?)

4. Is Jesus using metaphors or is He being literal about “My body … My blood”? This question brings us to the issue of transubstantiation, the focus of this blogpost.

Metaphor

There is no question that Jesus frequently uses metaphors. When He says “you are the salt of the earth” or “you are the light of the world” (Matthew 5:13-14 NKJV), He is not talking about the sodium content or any literal luminescence of His listeners. When He says “a good tree does not bear bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit,” in Luke 6:43 (NKJV) or Matthew 12:33-37, He is not literally speaking of agricultural matters. Neither is He concerned with literal agriculture in His parable of the sower (Matthew 13:3-9, Mark 4:1-9, and Luke 8:4-8) or His parable of the lost sheep (Matthew 18:12-14 and Luke 15:3-7). Instead, just as with His similes about the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30), the mustard seed (Matthew 13:31-32, Mark 4:30-32, and Luke 13:18-20), the hidden treasure (Matthew 13:44), and the pearl of great price (Matthew 13:45-46), He is using analogy. The fruit trees, sower and seed, lost sheep, wheat and tares, mustard seed, treasure, and pearl all represent or stand for something or someone else. When He tells His disciples, “I have food to eat of which you do not know” (John 4:32 NKJV), He is not talking about literal “meat” or “food,” though the disciples think He is. Hence, protestants rejecting the teaching of transubstantiation, often say that the bread and wine of communion “represent” Jesus’s body and blood. Huldrych Zwingli emphasizes memorial aspect of communion: “do this in remembrance of Me” Luke 22:19 (NKJV). According to Zondervan Academic, John Calvin’s view is “usually called the spiritual presence view. It's not transubstantiation, and it's not consubstantiation. And it goes beyond Zwingli’s memorial view. For John Calvin, there are symbols that are very powerful. They are the signs of the bread and the wine He says they are indeed symbolic—they are signs—but they're not empty signs. They really do render that which they portray, so they render to us the presence of Jesus Christ and his salvific benefits: all the work of salvation that he has accomplished on our behalf.”

Transubstantiation

On the other hand, Catholics opt for a literal understanding of Jesus’s statements “this is My body … this is My blood.” Brittanica.com defines: “transubstantiation, in Christianity [as] the change by which the substance (though not the appearance) of the bread and wine in the Eucharist becomes Christ’s real presence—that is, his body and blood.” By receiving the Eucharist, Christian are understood to be literally consuming the body and blood of Jesus. At least some of Jesus’s audience in John 6:52-60 (NKJV) interpreted such statements by Jesus as being literal: “The Jews therefore quarreled among themselves, saying, ‘How can this Man give us His flesh to eat?’ Then Jesus said to them, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him …This is the bread which came down from heaven—not as your fathers ate the manna, and are dead. He who eats this bread will live forever.’”

Consubstantiation

Zondervan Academic explains consubstantiation: “A second historical view is that of Martin Luther, generally called consubstantiation, though that was not a term that he himself used. By consubstantiation, we mean that Jesus Christ is present in, with, and under the bread and the wine whenever the Lord’s Supper is celebrated. Luther very clearly distinguished his view from transubstantiation. There's no mystical change of the substance of the bread and the wine. However, when the church celebrates the Lord’s Supper, Christ is present in, with, and under the elements of the bread and wine.”

Consubstantiality

Edward Lamoureux, a Catholic former professor of rhetoric at Bradley University, in his introductory course on Kenneth Burke (it has been suggested in Wikipedia) taught that Burke borrowed the concept of consubstantiation to explain his concept of logology. Having never sat in Lamoureux’s course, I cannot be certain of his teachings on Burke and “consubstantiation,” but as the author of the Expanded Kenneth Burke Concordance, I can assert that Burke was employing the concept of “consubstantiality” long before Burke used the term “logology.” Furthermore, the only instance I have found in which Burke uses the term “consubstantiation” is in his later work The Rhetoric of Religion and, even there, Burke does not attach any real importance to the term by including it in his Index list of terms.

Burke only uses the term “consubstantiation” at that one time, on page 260, after he is discussing (on pages 257-258) the first three chapters of Genesis, and there he appears to be using the term only as Theodor Reik uses it. Burke analyzes Reik’s Myth and Guilt, the Crime and Punishment of Mankind. In that work, Reik connects the two Trees of the Genesis Garden of Eden (of Life and of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) with the Cross of Christ which is frequently called a “tree” in the King James Version (Acts 5:30, 10:39, 13:29; Galatians 3:13; 1 Peter 2:24 KJV). (Actually, the Greek word translated “tree” in the KJV in those instances is xulon/ξύλον, which means simply “wood” or anything made of wood.) Burke comments that from his own “point of view, the … merging of Christ, the two trees and the Cross … would suggest another route whereby the principle of sacrifice could be shown to be implicitly present … in the vessels of life and temptation, at the very beginning.” Burke is not commenting from a biblical studies perspective; he is commenting on Reik’s application, not the Bible, itself. Although Burke does not use the term “consubstantiality” (or even “consubstantiation”) at this point, he easily could have applied the term “consubstantiality” to the Trees and Cross observation. It is a good illustration of “consubstantiality” in the realm of physics (and even biology). In physics, the Tree of Life, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and the Cross of Christ all have consubstantiality (but not consubstantiation). They are all composed of a “common” (con-) “substance” (-substant-)—i.e. wood or xulon/ξύλον. Burke uses the noun “consubstantiality” more than a dozen times in his earlier works. He uses the adjective “consubstantial” another dozen or so more times—but not in The Rhetoric of Religion.

Whereas The Rhetoric of Religion was first published in 1961, Burke’s first mention of the terms “consubstantiality” and “consubstantial” was in his 1941 book The Philosophy of Literary Form where he comments that “in the communion service, consubstantiality is got by the eating of food in common” (pages 28-29). It is that common (communion) meal that makes Christians consubstantial with each other. On pages 44-45, he speaks “of familistic consubstantiality by which parents take personal gratification” in their children. Parents and child are of the same “substance.” He even speaks of “the delegation of one’s burden to the … scapegoat,” suggesting that the one whom we scapegoat is actually of the same substance as we are. In Leviticus 16, the scapegoat sent into the wilderness on the Day of Atonement took with him all of the sins of Israel. He was consubstantial with Israel. In Christian theology, the suffering servant of Isaiah 53, understood as Jesus, bore our griefs and carried our sorrows. He consubstantially became our scapegoat. This is not the same as the theological doctrine of consubstantiation.

On pages 29-31 of his 1945 book, A Grammar of Motives, Burke lists his types of substance which might qualify for consubstantiality, including “Familial substance … [which] stresses common ancestry in the strictly biological sense,” which substance he repeats on page 102. On page 372, he describes the Declaration of Independence as something that gave Americans of various ancestries consubstantiality, by giving them a common enemy—the Crown of England. On pages 21 of his 1950 book, A Rhetoric of Motives, Burke identifies the “offspring” as “consubstantial with its parents, with the ‘firsts’ from which it is derived.” He then presses this “firsts” concept to other circumstances. Needless to say, we can trace any and all humans back to some common (first) progenitor, such as Adam. This is to say that all humans have a certain level of consubstantiality with each another. There is certainly a closer level of consubstantiality, however, among members of the same contemporaneous family, living in the twenty-first century. There is a level of consubstantiality between rain, ice, clouds, seas, and rivers (H2O). There is a closer level of consubstantiality between the Illinois river and the Mississippi River, since one flows into the other. There is a level of consubstantiality between the Cross, the Tree of Knowledge, the framework of my backyard shed, my bookshelves, and even toilet paper. They all experience a descent, of sorts, from the trees God created on the Third Day (Genesis 1:11). There is a closer level of consubstantiality between Sawtooth Oak trees, Pin Oak trees, Bur Oak, Live Oak, and even Poison Oak, etc. There is an even closer level of consubstantiality between the large live oak behind my house and the smaller live oak trees that have sprung up from its acorns.

So, what consubstantiality exists between Jesus’s body and bread and wine? There is a level of consubstantiality in the fact that his flesh, like bread, wine, rocks, minerals, gasses, and animals are all composed of “natural” substances (in “physics/φυσική”). There is a closer level of consubstantiality in the fact that substances of His flesh, like bread and wine, are all biologic, organic material/hulē/ὕλη. They were all living (biological as opposed to mineral or gaseous) substances on Earth. Why would that be significant for communion? Because only biological substances can die. When the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14), Jesus tabernacled in living, biologic, organic material/hulē/ὕλη. Rocks and minerals neither live nor die, but Jesus’s body lived biologically and died biologically.

As I mentioned in my previous blogpost on The Antichrist/s, “Like Judas and those who are described in Hebrews 6:4-6 (NKJV), [the antichrist/s] ‘crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.’ An antichrist is not an agnostic, unbeliever, or even an honest atheist. Indeed, the antichrist knows who Jesus is! He ‘is a liar … who denies that Jesus is the Christ’” (1 John 1:22). The antichrists deny the incarnation of Christ. This has been taken by many scholars to indicate that (at least, an incipient form of) docetic gnosticism (the belief that Christ just “appeared” to come in human form, but did not actually do so) was present in the church(es) to whom John wrote in 1^st and 2^nd John (the only places in the New Testament that discuss the Antichrist/s), but docetic gnosticism does not rear its ugly head until the 2nd century. I find it just as compelling (or more so) to understand that they are making reference to the prologue of John's Gospel (and 1 John 1:1-3) where the Logos “became flesh and dwelt among us.” This denial of the incarnation of Christ is, then, tantamount to a repudiation of Jesus as Christ. So, I don't believe we need a 2nd century theological explanation in the epistles.

When Jesus came to Earth, He chose not to come as a mineral or as a gas or a liquid. He came into a living, biologic, organic material/hulē/ὕλη, a body that lived biologically and died biologically. Furthermore, He came, not as a lower-level living, biologic, organism, such as a grain of wheat or a grape, or any vegetation, or insect or any other zoological organism other than the highest living, biologic, organism that He himself created: a man, the organism created in God’s image. Nevertheless, as a man, He took on the nature of ALL biologic, organic material/hulē/ὕλη—He lived and died. Just as wheat dies before it is baked into bread and as the grapes die before being crushed into new wine, Jesus himself died, organically. I point out on page 77 of my book The Logic of Christianity: A Syllogistic Chain that “the Crucifixion and Resurrection combine to form the Key Links” in the logic of Christianity. “He died one of the cruelest deaths of any human. Jesus was mortal.” On page 94, I conclude:

Thinking of the LEX TALIONIS, what should we think the fair maximum penalty [for whatever sins we have committed] could possibly be? Could it be any worse than CRUCIFIXION? What kind of sin or crime could one possibly commit that would suggest a fair maximum penalty greater than Crucifixion? I cannot think of one. If that is so, Jesus’ Crucifixion was JUSTICE for any sin known to mankind. Jesus did receive justice. He received justice, not for his own actions, but for the actions of any human that has ever lived. He paid the price. The CRUCIFIXION, then, is Judicial Rhetoric/The Justice Link in the Logic of Christianity.

Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14, Romans 3:24-25, and 1 John 1:7 all indicate that it is the blood of Jesus that redeems us and purifies us from sin. That is a fact that we might remember, as we “do this in remembrance of” Jesus (Luke 22:19), as Zwingli admonishes. As Paul teaches: “For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death till He comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26). True, there is metaphoric significance to the fact that bread often resembles human flesh and that new wine resembles human blood, but the fact that Jesus died organically as a scapegoat for our sins offers us all kinds of consubstantiality with Jesus, as His organic flesh—His body and blood—have consubstantiality with his organic creations of wheat and grapes. As we, in communion, all over the world share in the same organic meal of bread and new wine, we have consubstantiality with Christ and with each other.

As a final note, the passage where Burke uses the term “consubstantiation” in The Rhetoric of Religion, page 260, states: “Reik’s interpretation … circulates around the imagery of eating … with the ideas of both transubstantiation and consubstantiation being conceived after the same image.” The word “substance” in the Greek New Testament is hypostasis/ὑπόστασις, with the “hypo-/ὑπό-” meaning “sub- or under,” as in a hypo-dermic needle that goes under the skin (dermis) and the “stasis/στασις” meaning “standing.” Together, the word hypostasis/ὑπόστασις means that which “stands under,” as when wood “stands under” or is the “substance” of all wooden furniture, etc., and as “Faith is the substance (hypostasis/ὑπόστασις) of things hoped for” (Hebrews 11:1). This term hypostasis/ὑπόστασις is, I think, misused by the later Church in trying to explain Trinity as a “hypostatic (ὑπόστασις) union.” That will be the topic of my next blogpost.

Excessive Righteousness 8: The Antichrist(s)

2024-12-14T11:24:00.000-08:00

Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us. … Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also. (1 John 2:18-23 NKJV)

Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the Antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world.

(1 John 4:2-3 NKJV)

For many deceivers have gone out into the world who do not confess Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist. (2 John 7 NKJV)

Are you expecting the “Antichrist” to come to the world soon? Some well-meaning Christians are surprised to learn that the term “Antichrist” occurs only in these few passages and that these passages are ONLY from the first two epistles of John. The term “Antichrist” does NOT appear in Revelation. It does NOT appear in any of the gospels, Acts, or the epistles of Paul, Peter, James, or Hebrews, yet attempts to interject this term into end-time predictions in all of the above sources are myriad. Furthermore, some well-meaning Christians overlook the obvious indication in these passages that the term “antichrist” is primarily a PLURAL entity, not a SINGULAR entity. You may be wondering why we consider the “Antichrist(s)” in the context of “Excessive Righteousness.” We’ll get to that, in a moment.

NOT the Man of Lawlessness.

It is not because the “Antichrist(s)” refers to the same individual(s) as the “Man of Lawlessness,” although one would think that ANYONE who followed some of the Law of Moses would possess righteousness that would exceed the righteousness of the Man of Lawlessness. Christianity.com (and many others) are wrong when they say: “In 2 Thessalonians 2, Paul refers to [the “Antichrist”] as the Man of Lawlessness.” Here are a few reasons that the two are not the same:

1. The “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:19 (NKJV), “went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest, that none of them were of us.” In other words, the “Antichrist(s)” fellowshipped with the Church (and were even assumed to be Christians) for a while before going “out from” the Church. By contrast, the Man of Lawlessness is never mentioned in 2 Thessalonians as having once affiliated with the Church.

2. The “Antichrist(s)” is never spoken of as “sit[ting] as God in the temple of God,” as is the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (NKJV).

3. The “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:18-23, is never spoken of as “exalt[ing] himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped,” as is the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:4 (NKJV).

4. The “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:18-23, is never spoken of as “coming … according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,” as is the Man of Lawlessness in 2 Thessalonians 2:9-10 (NKJV). There is no indication that the “Antichrist(s)” possessed any miraculous powers.

5. True, the “Antichrist(s),” according to 1 John 2:18-23 (NKJV), is a “liar … who denies that Jesus is the Christ.” While 2 Thessalonians 2:4-5 (NKJV) states that the Man of Lawlessness comes “with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,” Paul does not say that the specific lie he breathes is that he “denies that Jesus is the Christ.” According to Brittanica.com, the Book of Daniel “foretold the coming of a final persecutor who would ‘speak great words against the most High … and think to change times and laws’” (7:25).” Antiochus IV Epiphanes has been suggested as the reference in Daniel, but “Early Christians applied it to the Roman emperors who persecuted the church, in particular Nero (reigned [AD] 54–68).” Nevertheless, neither Daniel nor Paul states that the Man of Lawlessness “persecutes the Church,” or is opposed to Christ, in particular—just that he speaks against the “most High God,” according to Daniel. 2 Thessalonians 2:4 says that he “exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” According to J.A.T. Robinson, in Redating the New Testament, Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians in AD 50-51 (p. 352), three or four years before Nero even became Emperor, and well before he began persecuting Christians (AD 67) and even before he sent his troops to wage war with the Jews (AD 66). A better candidate for Paul’s Man of Lawlessness is the emperor Caligula, who died just one decade before Paul wrote 2 Thessalonians. I write in my book Revelation: The Human Drama (p. 82): “There is evidence that Caligula … shocked the whole Jewish world by commanding that his statue be set up in the Temple at Jerusalem in A.D. 40. Perhaps John's discussion of the image of the beast alludes to this command. The statue was never constructed, however. Caligula's untimely assassination was the only thing that prevented his command from being carried out.” I continue on page 88: “It is highly probable that John, with his term ‘image [of the beast],’ is making allusion to the proposed statue of Caligula that would have been placed in the temple in A.D. 40, had Caligula not been assassinated. If, as Wellhausen claims, ‘[t]he eikôn [image] is the alter ego of the empire just as Jesus was called the eikôn of God’ (cf. II Corinthians 4:4 and Colossians 1:15), then a living human being serves as the ‘image’ of the beast, just as the human, Jesus, serves as the ‘image’ of God.” Caligula is the best fit for Paul’s statement that the Man of Lawlessness “exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.” Paul seems to suggest that this “mystery” of a Man of Lawlessness, sitting in the temple of God, had already begun before he wrote: “For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.” Paul clearly knew, writing in 50-51, that Caligula had not actually sat “as God in the temple of God,” since he was assassinated a decade earlier, but knew that such a scenario (mystery) of lawlessness was on its way. John, in Revelation, then interprets this principle of a Man of Lawlessness sitting in the temple in AD 69 as the Jewish High Priest, the image of the Beast (Rome), requiring all Jewish patrons of the temple to worship the Roman Emperor Nero. I continue on pages 89-90 of Revelation: “The high priestly party could easily have been understood to be the talking ‘image’ of the beast who compelled people to worship Rome. Zeitlin observes:

On … the beginning of January 66, a great assembly … establish[ed] a government to carry out … the war. It chose as head of the government the High Priest Ananus, a Sadducee who inherently was for peace. ... This government … played a double role. It thought it would achieve its goal by shrewdness. Speaking openly for war, inwardly it was for peace. It wanted to disarm the extremists so that it should have all power concentrated in its hands and thus be allowed to make peace with Rome. It failed utterly.

6. The Man of Lawlessness is NOT the Antichrist. Rather, the Man of Lawlessness is the Jewish High Priest(hood), the “image of the Beast,” who lied to the Jewish people. The High Priest actually “sat in the temple,” encouraging the Jews to worship the Beast (Rome), and the High Priest actually offered sacrifices in the temple on behalf of the emperor (who did persecute both the Christians and the Jews: Nero).

Who is/are the Antichrist/s?

If the Antichrist(s) is not the same individual(s) as the “Man of Lawlessness, who is he (or who are they)?

· He and they ARE former Christians, at least in name. They “went out from us.”

· In this respect, he and they are similar to those described in Hebrews 6:4-6 (NKJV): “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they fall away, to renew them again to repentance, since they crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.”

· He and they are similar to those in Hebrews 10:25-26 (NKJV) who were “forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as is the manner of some … For if we sin willfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins.”

· He and they are similar to those in Hebrews 12:25 (NKJV) who were cautioned: “See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him.”

· This “Antichrist” apostasy could be what I refer to (in Apocalyptic Apologetic, 100-1) where I mention J.A.T. Robinson (Redating, 207-8) reporting (regarding the Neronian persecution of Christians following the Roman Fire of AD 64):

[E]xceptional and dangerous circumstances, involving the betrayal of fellow-Christians … [in] the Neronian persecution in Rome. Describing it, Tacitus ... spoke of the “information” given by those who confessed which led to the conviction of their fellow-believers. Clement, reflecting on the same sad story from the Christian side, speaks of “a vast multitude of the elect, who through many indignities and tortures, being the victims of jealousy, set a brave example among [the Christians].” … [The Shepherd of] Hermas … pictures vividly the various sections under pressure: “As many … as were tortured and denied not, when brought before the magistracy, but suffered readily, these are the more glorious in the sight of the Lord; their faith is that which surpasseth. But as many as became cowards and were lost in uncertainty, and considered in their hearts whether they should deny or confess … that a servant should deny his own lord.”

Even in Asia Minor, where being a Christian might not have cost someone that person’s life in the Neronian persecution, it certainly might have cost one’s livelihood. So, in a move to protect their businesses and business interests, many “Christians” chose to put distance between themselves and the Church. Perhaps, as a show of good faith to Rome, these “Jewish Christians” even participated in pagan festivals. It was just good business. Robinson [Redating, 211-12] comments:

If we ask why now [the Jewish Christians] were … “staying away” from assembling with their fellow Christians ([Hebrews] 10:24f.), we may recall that in his description of the [Neronian] persecutions, [the Shepherd of] Hermas speaks of those who “were mixed up in business and cleaved not to the saints;” they “stood aloof ... by reason of their business affairs ... from desire of gain they played the hypocrite .... Some of them ... are wealthy and others are entangled in many business affairs;” and the wealthy “unwillingly cleave to the servants of God, fearing lest they may be asked for something by them. ... [T]he Jewish community in Rome had a strong business sense, which was reflected in its Christian members. Their temptation was to allow racial and economic connections to outweigh the commitment of their Christian faith. … [T]hey sought to shelter under the ‘protective colouring’ of the religio licita [=legal religious status] of Judaism.”

In [Revelation’s] terminology, the synagogue of Satan, Jezebel, the Nicolaitans, and the Balaamites sold out their fellow Christians. Since the Jews were exempt from Nero’s persecution of the Christians—because Judaism was considered an “acceptable religion” (religio licita), many Jewish Christians became—like the high priesthood in Jerusalem—“harlots” who committed porneia with Roman authorities. Their garments were “defiled” because they chose to be in league with the Beast.

The Antichrist: a Judas Typology

In the Antichrist(s), we are not looking at the typology of Christians who are struggling with their faith, as may be the case with someone who cannot answer the arguments pressed upon him/her by an unbelieving academic world. To the contrary, like Judas, they know who Jesus is, yet they reject him anyway. Like Judas and those who are described in Hebrews 6:4-6 (NKJV), they were “once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come.” Like Judas and those who are described in Hebrews 6:4-6 (NKJV), they “crucify again for themselves the Son of God, and put Him to an open shame.” An Antichrist is not an agnostic, unbeliever, or even an honest atheist. Indeed, the Antichrist knows who Jesus is! He “is a liar … who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either” (1 John 2:22 NKJV). One might well say to an Antichrist (just as one could say to Judas): “You know, don’t you!” Nevertheless, for financial gain (“thirty pieces of silver” or business purposes) or for social or academic acceptance, etc., the Antichrist will deny the Son (and, by extension, the Father). Like Judas, the Antichrist will hand Jesus over to be crucified again, all the while knowing the truth “that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh [and] is of God” (1 John 4:2 NKJV).

Similar to the Unforgiveable Sin

Thus, we return to the Unforgiveable Sin. It was identified in my blogpost Excessive Righteousness 3: The Greatest Sin. There, I point out: “If ‘blasphemy’ consists of believing in the existence and power of another god in addition to the God of Israel, as the Pharisees in John 10:33-36 asserted … then they themselves are guilty of ‘blasphemy’ when they attribute the healing power of Jesus to the Canaanite god Beelzebub.” They knew that there is no actual god Beelzebub who had given Jesus the power to heal. It was the unforgiveable sin for a teacher of the Law, steeped in the monotheism of the Ten Commandments and the Shema, who certainly knew better to lie to and deceive those who believed in them, suggesting that Beelzebub actually existed.

Likewise, it is unforgiveable for Christians who were “once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come” and, therefore, certainly know better to lie to and deceive those who believe in them, denying that Jesus is the Christ, come in the flesh.

How Does This Understanding Contribute to Excessive Righteousness?

The two great (unforgiveable) sins are:

1. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit (knowing that there is no other God, yet claiming that a power like Beelzebub exists) and

2. Antichrist behavior (knowing that Jesus is the Christ, come in the flesh, yet denying that claim and, thereby, crucifying Him all over again).

Since God and Jesus are the only two in existence who can determine what righteousness is (i.e., the only ones who can issue moral commandments), political correctness, wokeness, DEI, Thomas Paine’s “human experience and rationality,” etc., are not the grounds for determining righteousness. If one’s righteousness will exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, one must begin by recognizing the exclusiveness of God’s Law and Christ’s commandments, and then seek to correctly interpret those laws and commandments.

John said that many Antichrists had already come when he wrote his epistles. Some want to speculate concerning the identity of some eschatological Antichrist. The clearest Antichrist known to the world is Judas, who knew who Jesus was and betrayed Him to be crucified anyway. Jesus said at His Last Supper: “The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born” (Matthew 26:24 NKJV). Whatever we do, we must certainly avoid being another Antichrist, ourselves!

Excessive Righteousness 7: A Fence for the Torah

2024-11-04T12:49:00.000-08:00

“Then Jesus spoke … saying: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. Therefore, whatever they tell you to observe, that observe and do, but do not do according to their works; for they say, and do not do. For they bind heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers … Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.”

(Matthew 23:1-4, 15 NKJV)

Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua. Joshua transmitted it to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly. They [the Men of the Great Assembly] said three things: Be deliberate in judgment, raise many students, and make a protective fence for the Torah.

(Mishnah 1(a))

One might argue that going above and beyond the Law of Moses (the Torah), as when the Pharisees built fences for the Torah, constitutes having righteousness that exceeds that of the Christians. Since the Law of Moses prohibits taking THE LORD’S Name in vain, as discussed in the previous post, the practice of making it impossible to pronounce His Name would be an example of building a fence for the Torah. Therefore, for centuries, Gentile Christians were unable to even figure out how to pronounce the four consonants that constitute His Name, let alone take It in vain. After that, their attempts at the pronunciation—Jehovah or Yahweh—have been in error. The Jews have effectively built a fence, of sorts, for the Law/Torah.

There is a definite tension regarding building fences for the Torah in the New Testament teachings. Question: Should we ever recommend to Christians that their behavior should be restricted beyond any specific commandment restrictions from Moses? Jesus appears to criticize the practice of Pharisees in requiring stricter behavior than the written Law of Moses stipulates. In Matthew 23 (cited above), He is probably referring to the Pharisaic practice of making a protective fence for the Torah (the Law of Moses) described in Mishnah 1 (a), also cited above. “Published at the end of the second century [AD], the Mishnah is an edited record of the complex body of material known as oral Torah [or Law] that was transmitted in the aftermath of the destruction of the … Temple in [AD] 70. … Rabbi Judah the Prince … undertook to collect and edit a study edition of these halachot (laws)” (https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/mishnah/). While these teachings were not written down (by Rabbi Judah) until around AD 200, there is clear evidence (even in the New Testament) that the various teachings were well-known and actively taught during the lifetime of Jesus on Earth.

In Matthew 15:1-9 and Mark 7:1-22, Jesus condemns imposing such oral Laws, citing Isaiah 29:13: “This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me;in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” (Matthew 15:8-9 and Mark 7:6-7 [NKJV]).

Sabbath Fences

Using the principle of building a fence for the Torah, the Pharisees:

· Established a maximum distance of travel (see Acts 1:12) in which one could engage during a Sabbath day (= 6/10ths of a mile) even though the Law of Moses only states “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work” (Exodus 20:8-10 NKJV). The Pharisees indicated that walking or travelling beyond this distance constituted “work.” The New Testament presents no disagreement with regard to this fence, although modern-day Christians (and Jews) would have a great difficulty living within these parameters. Jews could not even travel to their local synagogue on Friday night or Saturday, under this fence law.

· Established a rule that even picking a single grain of wheat constituted work (see Matthew 12:1-5). True, the Law of Moses describes a violation of the Sabbath Law: “Now … the children of Israel … found a man gathering [wood] on the Sabbath day. ^…Then the Lord said to Moses, ‘The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp.’ So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died” (Numbers 15:32-36 NKJV). Nevertheless, the activity of wood “gathering” (Hebrew: qashash) is an act of purposeful “labor,” similar to “gathering” straw or stubble, not the random incidental act of plucking a grain to eat. Jesus rejected this fence law.

· Established a rule that healing on the Sabbath constituted unlawful work (Matthew 12:9-13, Mark 3:1-6, Luke 6:7-11, 13:10-17, 14:1-6; John 7:22-23, 9:16). Fortunately, doctors and hospitals today ignore that fence law, as did Jesus. He reasoned that we would rescue even an endangered animal on a Sabbath. Why not a human! These Sabbath fences missed the spirit of the Law: that the Sabbath was made for man, not vice versa.

Washing-hands-before-Eating

Using the principle of building a fence for the Torah, the Pharisees:

· Instituted the Netilat Yadayim—the requirement that all Jews ritually wash their hands before eating bread. They prayed: “Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with Your commandments, and commanded us concerning the washing of the hands.” According to https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/hand-washing/#:~:text=The%20tradition%20of%20netilat%20yadayim%20prior%20to%20eating,that%20could%20be%20eaten%20only%20after%20ritual%20washing, “It derives from various practices concerning ritual impurity from when the ancient Temple stood in Jerusalem. The priests who performed the temple rituals were given gifts of oil, wine and wheat that could be eaten only after ritual washing. For various reasons, the ancient rabbis extended this practice to all Jews before eating meals,” thus creating a fence for the Torah. In Mark 7 and Matthew 15:1-20, Jesus’ disciples were criticized by the Pharisees for violating this fence-law. (Incidentally, the law had nothing to do with hygiene—which makes some sense--it was merely a ritual purification.) Exodus 30:18-20 describes the Laver in the Tabernacle area, where priests ritually washed their hands and feet before performing service at the altar or in the Tabernacle, but the expanded application to all Jews of the ritual washing law is non-biblical. Jesus rejected this fence law.

Eve’s Fence

Actually, the first woman in history, Eve, appears to have built a fence for the Torah. God had commanded Adam: “Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (Genesis 2:16-17 NKJV). Eve may not yet have been formed from Adam’s rib, at the time God issued the prohibition, but, after her entrance to the world, she understood that God’s command applied to her, as well. So intent on not violating the commandment was Eve that she embellished the commandment in speaking to the serpent: “of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat it, nor shall you touch it, lest you die’” (Genesis 2:16-17 NKJV). By adding the words “nor shall you touch it,” Eve effectively built a fence for the Torah (although this specific law was a Law of Adam rather than a Law of Moses).

Jesus’s Fences

In His Sermon on the Mount, Jesus appears to be building fences for the Torah:

· As I mentioned in my previous post regarding our use of the tongue, Jesus builds a fence around the commandment: “‘You shall not murder … [saying] that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment. And whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca!’ shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:21-22 NKJV).

· As I mentioned in my post regarding loving THE LORD with all your heart, Jesus builds a fence around the commandment: “‘You shall not commit adultery’ … [saying] that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:27-28 NKJV). This law of Jesus, however, might not be a fence law. Perhaps, it is just an explication of the tenth commandment in Exodus 20:17 (NKJV): “You shall not … covet your neighbor’s wife.” Nevertheless, the (hyperbolic?) suggestion that you pluck out your right eye or cut off your right hand if they cause you to sin might be termed building a fence for the Torah.

· As I mentioned in my previous post regarding our use of the tongue, Jesus builds a fence around the commandment: “[Y]ou shall not swear by My name falsely” (Leviticus 19:12 NKJV), saying “do not swear at all” (Matthew 5:35 NKJV).

· Although my Jewish professor at Indiana University explained to me that the “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, Burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe” standard for justice as expressed in Exodus 21:24 (NKJV) indicates the MAXIMUM penalty for an injury against you, Jesus built a magnanimous fence of mercy around this justice maximum: “I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away” (Matthew 5:39-42 NKJV).

· Leviticus 19:12 (NKJV) commands “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” Since His parable of the Good Samaritan explicates who is one’s “neighbor,” in Matthew 5:44 (NKJV), Jesus builds the fence: “love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you.” This way, you will never come close to not loving your neighbor.

The Pink Elephant in the Room/Modern-day Fences

There have been a few fences for the Torah that the Church in the 19^th through 21^st centuries have wisely constructed:

· I have been criticized for my position (and that of the vast majority of Christians in the early 20^th Century plus Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Seventh-Day Adventists) that we should completely abstain from drinking alcoholic beverages. The logical premise used by the modern Christian world to oppose my position is that the specific biblical “law” on the subject only explicitly condemns “drunkenness”:

o And do not be drunk with wine, in which is dissipation; but be filled with the Spirit (Ephesians 5:18 NKJV).

o Now the works of the flesh are … drunkenness … of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. (Galatians 5:19-21 NKJV).

o But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is … a drunkard … not even to eat with such a person. (1 Corinthians 5:11 NKJV).

o Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators … nor drunkards … will inherit the kingdom of God (1 Corinthians 6:9-10 NKJV).

Galatians 5:19-21, plus 1 Corinthians 5:11 and 6:9-10, makes it sound pretty dangerous for us if we accidentally happen to get the definition of drunkenness (is it the American legal blood alcohol content) or the frequency of being drunk (once a month or year, or only on special occasions) wrong. I just think that it is safest to forego drinking altogether. This would entail my building a fence for the Law. If I am wrong, what harm is there? Abstainers are never condemned to hell in the Bible and the health and safety of individuals and society, in general, is enhanced. If the more liberal interpretation (that drinking wine is acceptable) is wrong, there is a severe eternity-related problem with condoning it. Actually, it does not take drinking too much of modern-day wine to render one drunken. Modern-day undiluted natural wine (without additives and distilling) contains 12 percent ABV (alcohol by volume). Even the most completely fermented wines consumed by Jews and/or Christians at the time of the New Testament contained only about 2.8 percent ABV, because they were always diluted with one part wine to three parts water. That’s only slightly more ABV than the ABV of mustard (2.0 percent). One would need to drink four glasses of wine in New Testament times to equal a single glass of modern-day wine. And, drinking four glasses of wine in one sitting in New Testament times would have probably resulted in the drinker being classified as drunk. Incidentally, The ABV of Spirits is 40 percent; the ABV of Rum is 60 percent. Yet, the liberal interpreters of the Bible seem to lump all of these drinks together as being acceptable. I, therefore, continue to argue for building a fence of abstinence.

· Similar to the argument of liberals which enable potentially-eternity-threatening drinking, United States southerners before the Civil War argued that slavery was acceptable because there was no biblical law outlawing it. Exodus 21 just gives instructions as to slave rights. The American fence for the Torah, enacted by Abraham Lincoln eliminated slavery completely (except for modern-day sex slavery, etc., which we also condemn).

· Bill Clinton made a similar legalistic argument, regarding the oral sex he had with Monica Lewinsky: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." His argument was that, absent coitus, there was no sin. Wise fence laws in society proscribe even unwanted touching and sexual harassment.

· Others today, make similar legalistic arguments about abortion. They argue that, since God did not explicitly outlaw “abortion,” it is somehow acceptable behavior. Pro-life advocates argue that a fence around the law against murder should effectively protect even the unborn.

· Homosexuals even point out that Jesus did not specifically condemn homosexuality, even though Paul and the Old Testament did. These are applications of "legalism" (such a strict application of law that any action that is not specifically "forbidden by a law" is somehow acceptable behavior). These all needed fence laws. We needed to even build fence laws so that statutory rape laws protect children from pedophiles.

Conclusion

In the grand scheme of things, fence laws restricting travel on the Sabbath, occasionally picking grain on the Sabbath, healing on the Sabbath, and ritually washing hands before eating pale in significance to the fence laws of Eve, Jesus, and Modern-Day fence laws on drinking, slavery, abortion, and sexual behavior. Jesus charged us to see that our righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. Fences for the Torah help us do just that.

Excessive Righteousness 6: My Name, Your Tongue

2024-09-26T14:21:00.000-07:00

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.”

(Exodus 20:7 NKJV)

Even so the tongue is a little member and boasts great things.

See how great a forest a little fire kindles! And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity. The tongue is so set among our members that it defiles the whole body, and sets on fire the courseof nature; and it is set on fire by hell. For every kind of beast and bird, of reptile and creature of the sea, is tamed and has been tamed by mankind. But no man can tame the tongue. It is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison.

(James 3:5-8 NKJV)

The Summer following my freshman year as a bachelor’s student at Lincoln Christian University, I was hired by a church of 300 to serve as their interim preacher. I had won several state, national, and international public speaking and preaching contests as a high school student, and, I guess, that is why the church wanted me, just for the Summer, to do the preaching and counselling for them while they conducted a search for a permanent preaching minister, even though I was not ordained at the time. Just three days before I started the position, a young husband and father, there, who had previously held a reputation as what we then called a “hood” had been baptized and was just beginning his Christian life. As I conversed with him, he shared with me his strategy for becoming a better Christian. First, he had given up alcohol, because he knew drinking was a sin and, although he was an alcoholic, he fought his way through the addiction. Second, he gave up smoking, despite also having been addicted to nicotine. In retrospect, I now think to myself, “This man was seriously hungering and thirsting after righteousness; he was seeking first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness; he was trying to make his righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees.” He told me, however, that he was really struggling with his language problem. Vulgarity and profanity had so thoroughly infiltrated his vocabulary for so many years that he would just blurt out the offensive language before he could even catch himself. I thought of James 3:8 (cited above) that “no man can tame the tongue.”

Speech and God’s Image

As a professor of Communication, I have long been struck by Kenneth Burke’s observation that the single characteristic that differentiates humans from all other animals is the human’s capacity for speech/language/symbol-use. The Greeks called it “Logos.” It means “Word” with the added connotation of “Logic” since logic is required to formulate and understand words. John 1, of course, identified Logos as being “with God” and as “being God” en archē. It is a simple deduction, then, that our use of logos/speech/language/word is the major way in which we were created in God’s Image. The reference to the “creation” aspect of Logos indicates how much immense power is actually contained in words. With words (such as “Let there be Light!”), God formed the world! With the words “Peace, be still” Jesus calmed a raging storm at sea. Conversely, the use of cutting words uttered by a husband or wife can completely destroy a marriage. The use of words directed at our children can either uplift them to take on the world and excel or entirely deflate them and ruin their self-esteem. Jesus told his disciples at the Sermon on the Mount that they should rejoice and be exceeding glad “when [others] revile and persecute [them], and say all kinds of evil against [them] falsely for [His] sake.” We should not return insult for insult. Instead, He said, “love your enemies, bless those who curse you” (Matthew 5:43 NKJV). Jesus’s admonition applies not just to members of our families, but even to those whom we oppose: “whoever says to his brother, ‘Raca! shall be in danger of the council. But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of hell fire” (Matthew 5:22 NKJV).

Vulgarity

The third commandment (Exodus 20:7 cited above) deals with the use of the tongue. Specifically, the commandment forbids using THE LORD’s name in vain. Of course, the vocabulary of vulgarity is not the same thing as taking THE LORD’s name in vain. The Latinate word “Vulgate,” as in the Latin Vulgate translation of the scriptures—used by Catholics—does not refer to bad language. “Vulgate” means “common or colloquial speech.” The Latin Vulgate Version attempted to translate the Bible into common, everyday language. From the same root, “vulgarity” refers to the use of “common or colloquial speech,” typically using short four-letter words to identify bodily functions and body parts. Such four-letter words generally dishonor and degrade those body parts and functions, rather than represent our bodies and their various functions with respect and dignity. Vulgarity, therefore, engages in crassness and tastelessness and devalues actions that are better viewed with gentility and decorum, even with respect, honor, and sacredness. While the use of such vocabulary is typically the province of the non-Christian world, it does not yet rise to the level of a violation of the third commandment. Like the new convert I was counselling, we should continually try to purge vulgarity from our vocabulary, which is sometimes difficult in today’s world. Even TV shows are replete with offensive language. Just as vulgate means “common,” use of vulgarity makes those parts and functions of our bodies that should be held in “honor” common and devalued (1 Corinthians 12:23 NKJV: “And those members of the body which we think to be less honorable, on these we bestow greater honor; and our unpresentable parts have greater modesty”). There are other forms of vulgarity that are used in society that do not refer to the parts and functions of the human body—such as the phrase Mike Huckabee quoted his friend Larry Gatlin as euphemizing as “bovine droppings.” Other vulgar terms are written using the first letter and **. Nevertheless, the sad fact is that we are easily able to substitute the offensive language in our minds, due to the much too common use of vulgarity in society. Rap music is a veritable conglomeration of vulgar terminology. Virtually all politicians use at least some of the terminology. President Carter may be the only exception to the rule in my lifetime, but his interview with Playboy Magazine was probably intended to reverse the impression of him that he was too clean. Franklin Graham urged President Trump to say the same things Trump says, but without the vulgarity. Good advice. Trump has stated that he is trying to comply. The vulgarity with which my new convert struggled and many others today struggle should be avoided but vulgarity itself does not yet rise to the level of taking THE LORD’s name in vain.

Cursing

Cursing, from which the American term “cussing” derives, is the act of condemning (or damning) someone or something to hell or to death or to an undesirable circumstance. While the Bible indicates that cursing does definitely occur, even in the Bible, it is an activity generally reserved to God alone. In Genesis, God cursed the ground because of Adam’s sin; He cursed the Serpent who had tempted Eve; He cursed the woman with pain in childbirth; He cursed mankind with death for having eaten of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. While He alone stipulates those actions that are to be cursed, God instructed His people Israel to utter curses from Mount Ebal upon those who did not follow the commandments while blessing were to be uttered from Mount Gerazim upon those who did follow the commandments (Deuteronomy 11:26-29). Individuals may be violating the third commandment when they casually call upon God to condemn someone to hell, even though they do not technically use the “name of THE LORD.”

Swearing

We use swearing in courts of law to proscribe the committing of perjury: “I solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me, God.” In days past, this oath was accompanied by placing one’s hand on a Bible. Presidents and other public office holders are still “sworn in” by placing their hand on the Bible and reciting their oath of office. We are expected to realize the gravity of such oaths, when we say “so help me, God.” This is not taking THE LORD’s name in vain, unless we intentionally commit perjury following our oath. Nevertheless, Jesus told his followers:

“But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King.Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one.” (Matthew 5:34-37 NKJV).

Some Christians, out of respect for this command from Jesus, change the language from “swear” to “affirm”: “I solemnly affirm …”

God’s Name

Since we are comparing our righteousness to the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, however, it should be pointed out that they were careful NOT EVEN TO PRONOUNCE the Name of God, lest they be found guilty of taking His Name in vain. To this day, Jewish writing frequently even spells the word “God” as: “G_d,” even though “God” is not His Name, only His title. The Hebrew Bible (which we now use overwhelmingly), as written down by the Masoretes (from the 5^th Century AD on), adds vowel points to the Hebrew letters, so that those who are less proficient in the Hebrew language can pronounce the Hebrew words. Technically, there are no vowels in written Hebrew—only consonants. The Masoretic text adds vowel “points” so that we know how to pronounce each specific Hebrew word. For example, in the modern Jewish spelling of the word “G_d,” they would add an “o” vowel point, so that it could be pronounced “God,” if they pronounced it at all. The Hebrew word for God’s Name (sometimes called the tetragrammaton—meaning four letters) is (Yod Hē Vav Hē) יהוה . Hebrew writing is backward, read from right to left, unlike English, which is read left to right. Therefore, the first letter is Yod, which is pronounced either “ē,” “i,” “y,” or “j.” The second and fourth letters are the identical; the letter is Hē (pronounced like the English word “hay”). In writing, it is either silent or pronounced “h.” The third letter is Vav (with the “a” pronounced as in the word “father”). In writing, it is either pronounced “v” or “w” or “o” or “u.” When the Masoretes added the vowel points, however (to keep individuals from pronouncing God’s Name and taking it in vain), they substituted the vowel points from a different Hebrew word, Adonai / אֲדֹנָי, meaning “my Lord.” Some Bible translators started using the resulting composite form Yehowah, Iehouah, and Jehovah from the 12^th to the 16^th centuries, which would be a conflation of the consonants from the tetragrammaton and the vowels from “Adonai.” Jews simply call him אֲדֹנָי / Adonai (my Lord) or הַשֵּׁם / Ha-Shem (The Name). Later, some (Christians) speculated that His Name should be pronounced YAHWEH, but (as I was persuaded by my major professor in Hebrew at Indiana University) even this pronunciation is incorrect. My Jewish professor trusted me enough not to use God’s name in vain that he shared with me exactly how it was pronounced. I have shared that pronunciation with very few others, because I have no desire to facilitate someone taking His Name in vain, even accidentally. In most translations of the Bible, the tetragrammaton is simply translated as “THE LORD.” Amazingly, throughout the New Testament, no one (including Jesus) is recorded as having pronounced His Name. In the Lord’s prayer, Jesus simply states “Hallowed be Thy Name” and refers to Him in direct address as “Our Father (Who art in Heaven).” Since YAHWEH and Jehovah are not the correct pronunciations of His Name, anyway, and since Jesus simply called him “Father,” I suggest that we follow suit and call Him Father.

Ask in My Name

There is another very important aspect of taking God’s Name worth considering. The rabbis taught that the power of pronouncing God’s name was so vast that it could transport people to Heaven. In Jewish folklore from around the time of the New Testament, the story is told of a young virgin maiden who tricked angels into telling her how to pronounce the name of God. Once they did, she immediately pronounced His Name and was transported into the heavens as the constellation “Virgo” or she was transported to God and the constellation was then named “Virgo” in her honor (Lindsay, Angels and Demons, 33-35). One can imagine the sense of how powerful “taking the Name of THE LORD” is (and, by extension, taking Jesus’s Name) when Jesus comments in John 14:13-14 (NKJV): “And whatever you ask in My name, that I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask anything in My name, I will do it.” This is why we end our prayers “in Jesus’ Name I pray.” In John 16:24 (NKJV), he says: “Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full.”

Some are disappointed that, since they have asked for something “in Jesus’ Name,” they have not received it. Jesus even warns those who “will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’” (Matthew 7:22-23 NKJV). Note that these three passages promising fulfilled requests when asked “in My Name” occur in John’s Gospel (and were directed to his twelve apostles). In Matthew 7:7-8 (NKJV), Jesus says something similar, but addresses it to many of his followers in the Sermon on the Mount: “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened.” The “in My Name” language in John appears to be the stronger promise of the two. Perhaps, in John, when Jesus states “in My Name,” He is using that terminology as the equivalent of His other Johannine terminology: “in Me.” In John 17:23 (NKJV), Jesus prays for his apostles: “I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect, and that the world may know that You have sent Me.” In John 14:16-19 (NKJV), the same chapter of John where Jesus promises to do whatever is asked in His Name, Jesus says: “And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever; Even the Spirit of truth … ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you. … At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.” In my blogpost on Monotheism (“Excessive Righteousness 2”), I observe: “Not only are all of God’s works known to Him from eternity, but they are also known to Logos and Logos-become-flesh. If, therefore, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit know absolute truth, concerning everything, there is no point of disagreement between them concerning anything. People do not disagree about things that are considered ‘known facts.’” I think this is the essence of asking “in My Name”: being “in Me!” If we, like the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit all “know absolute truth, concerning everything, there is no point of disagreement between them [and us] concerning anything.” EVERYTHING we ask “in that state of being” will be given to us, because we will understand everything and being in the same spirit (and Name) as God and Jesus, we will never ask for something that they would disagree with.

So, by all means, “take God’s Name,” but NEVER “take it in vain.” If you take His Name inside you, so as to have Him “in you,” you will always try to keep in mind what is in His mind. When you pray “in Jesus’s Name,” don’t just say the words as some sort of incantation. Pray “in the Spirit,” meaning that you are merging God’s and Jesus’s spirit with your own. Ask for those things that you know God and Jesus would agree with you asking for, and whatever you ask in His Name, He will do it.

Excessive Righteousness 5: Soul Flakes

2024-08-03T14:40:00.000-07:00

“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your … soul …’ This is the first and great commandment.”

(Matthew 22:34-38 NKJV)

Like snowflakes, every human soul is unique. In giving the greatest commandment, Jesus and Moses are not referring to Plato’s concept of the “soul”—i.e., that a soul is “eternal” (existing in the past and in the future, before and after entering an individual’s body on Earth; that it can “remember” things it “knew” in its ideal world before entering a body, that this “pre-knowledge” can be accessed by asking Socratic questions, etc.). These concepts of the soul are Plato’s, not the Bible’s. Genesis, on the other hand, taught that Adam’s soul did not exist until God breathed into Adam’s nostrils the breath (or spirit) of life (Genesis 2:7). Jesus taught that not all souls continue to exist (quasi-eternally) after death. Jesus warned: “And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell” (Matthew 10:28 NKJV). Contrasted with Plato’s concept of “soul,” Jesus-following-Moses-in-Genesis 2:7 recalls that God formed man from the dust of the earth and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and man became a living “soul.” In simplest terms, your “soul” is your life. If one loves God with all of one’s soul, it means, first of all, that one will gladly surrender one’s life for the sake of God. The Gospel of Mark makes this martyr attitude one of its key features. Many Christian martyrs throughout the years have done precisely that—surrendered their lives for God’s sake. Jesus went them all one better; He surrendered his perfect life not only for the sake of God, but also for our sakes. Jesus said, “Greater love has no one than this: than to lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13 NKJV). Similarly, husbands are called upon by the Apostle Paul to love their wives in such a way that they would surrender their lives for their wives’ sakes (Ephesians 5:25).

In addition, the Greek word for soul (ψυχή/psychē), since it is connected with a study of personality, reflects a secondary aspect of even the Hebrew soul (נֶפֶשׁ /nephesh). That secondary aspect is the unique personality or psyche (soul flake, like a snow flake) of every human being. With the rise of the internet as it pertains to marketing, specialists now tend to emphasize psychographics more than demographics. Demographics (as relied upon by advertisers in recent centuries) were content to place us each in various categories based on sex, race, religion, age, occupation, political party, etc., and then design advertisements that would appeal to that specific demographic group. We were seen, not as individuals, but as members of groups. However, with the internet’s ability to identify the unique elements in our personalities and with the internet’s huge data storage capabilities, marketers are now more able to reach out to each of us as unique individuals, with personal tastes and interest not necessarily linked to our demographic categories.

What does all of that mean when interpreting the greatest commandment? In one of my multiple doctoral programs at various academic institutions, I availed myself of the opportunity to take a course under Dr. Clyde Narramore. Most Christians would be more familiar with one of Narramore’s famous students—Dr. James Dobson, founder and host of Focus on the Family—but Narramore himself was a pioneer in applying the academic discipline of psychology to Christian counseling. As Dobson’s mentor, Narramore guided Dobson to pursue academic psychology. Later, Dobson interviewed Narramore in a segment of his Focus on the Family radio program entitled Clyde Narramore: Mentor and Friend.

On page xi of my book The Seven Cs of Stress: A Burkean Approach, I acknowledge: “[T]he seeds for this study [i.e., my book] were planted by Professor Clyde Narramore [who] … taught a course on stress management … in the Summer of 1991.” In that same course, Narramore also argued that the role of parents is to help their children discover themselves. I am paraphrasing, here, but I understood Narramore to be suggesting that job of parents is to help discover and analyze their children’s unique aptitudes and natures and help and encourage the children to develop those aptitudes and natures into (frequently unique) life skills, activities, and careers. Of course, we should not limit ourselves to helping our children; as mentioned earlier, Narramore served as a mentor in guiding James Dobson into academic psychology. We analyze and encourage each other to discover one another’s unique aptitudes and natures and help to develop those aptitudes and natures into (unique) life skills, activities, and careers. “Know thyself” is an ancient Greek maxim, inscribed on the temple of Apollo at Delphi. Whatever the meaning of the maxim may have been originally for ancient Greeks, Plato redirected the meaning to this sense: Know your soul (ψυχή/psychē). Know what makes you unique—your aptitudes and nature.

Frankly, this process of self-analysis occurs throughout our lifetimes. Twentieth century American psychologist Abraham Maslow observed that humans have a hierarchy of needs—those things that motivate us to pursue various actions. Firstly, we have physiological needs (such as air, water, food, shelter, sleep, and clothing). When people say that they work to put a roof over their heads, food on the table, and clothes on their backs, they are motivated by Maslow’s first level of needs. Secondly, we have safety needs (such as personal security and health). When people turn down good-paying jobs, working on high-rise construction, off-shore drilling, mining operations, etc. to, instead, accept lower wages working in safer environments with health insurance benefits, they exhibit the second level of needs. Thirdly, we have love and belonging needs (such as friendship, family, and a sense of belonging). Once we have a roof over our heads, food and clothing, and are working in a safe environment, we may change jobs because we have no interaction with other people. We want to make and have friends. We want to spend more time with our family, where we experience belonging. Fourthly, we have esteem needs (such as status, respect, and recognition). Even though we have friends and family, we like to feel as if we excel at something, we have achieved something, we demand some respect, so we attempt to climb the corporate ladder or pursue honorific professions. Fifthly, and finally, Maslow observes that we have self-actualization needs (the desire to become the most that we can be). We thoroughly self-analyze. We try to discover what makes us unique—our aptitudes and nature. As the Army recruiting slogan for two decades states: “Be all that you can be!”

This (self-actualization) is what loving God with all your soul (ψυχή/psyche) is all about: Analyze yourself, your aptitudes and nature, and then strive with everything inside of you to use all of your unique qualities in the service of God. Don’t be content to restrict your Christian activities to setting up chairs in the church, if your unique talents and capabilities could offer so much more. Don’t get me wrong. Chairs do need to be set up and your need for status should not preclude your being humble. Even Jesus washed people’s feet. If your unique set of aptitudes and abilities has already placed you among the highly honored in your community, you have the unique opportunity to teach the importance of humility—just as President Jimmy Carter worked in the construction of homes for Habitat for Humanity. Nevertheless, just because you can work building houses, never forget that, if you are presidential material, the world needs Christian politicians and statesmen. If you have academic aptitudes, the world needs Christian teachers, professors, and scholars. Even if marksmanship is your unique aptitude, the world needs excellent snipers to protect the safety of our political leaders, as a recent assassination attempt on President Donald Trump demonstrated. Know thyself! Find out what you have the unique aptitude to be really good at, and then practice, hone, and refine your abilities. Study to prepare for God to use you. Spend as much time as you have spent refining your abilities searching for the best ways to use your talents and abilities for God. Then, get engaged in those activities. In short, love the Lord your God with all your soul!

This post concludes a series of four posts unpacking the “Greatest Commandment.” In the third post, we considered the term “heart,” based on the commandment to “Love the Lord your God with all your “heart.” In the second post, we considered how one breaks the Greatest Commandment, by expressly believing in and attributing God’s works to false deities who would stand in opposition to the Lord God, such as Beelzebub, notions of “rebel fallen angels,” Lucifer, and Demons. There are no deities who stand in opposition to the Lord God. Whoever believes in them, at least, comes close to committing the unforgiveable sin.

This brings us back to the first post: the Shema teaches monotheism, but not just any monotheism. There appears to be a trend among biblical scholars to suggest that the Bible teaches something called “monolatry,” rather than monotheism—the view that although the various “gods” of the nations do exist, the Bible commands us to worship only the one God YHWH. I totally reject that view. As Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:18, “idols” and “demons” are the same thing and in 1 Corinthians 8:4: “We know that no idol really exists; that there is no God but one.” Revelation 9:20 agrees that demons (like idols) are nothing. He writes of unrepentant men who worshiped the “works of their hands”—“demons and golden idols, and silver, and bronze, and wooden, which are not able to see, nor hear, nor walk.”

In addition to the error posed by monolatry, many founders of American democracy flirted with “deism.” Although the majority of founding fathers “generally continue[d] their public affiliation with Christianity, … [Non-Christian] Deists, such as Thomas Paine “argued that human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine the validity of human beliefs. … Paine … postulat[ed] a distant deity whom he called “Nature’s God” (a term also used in the Declaration of Independence). … Non-Christian Deists such as Paine refused to use Judeo-Christian terminology and described God with such expressions as “Providence,” “the Creator,” “the Ruler of Great Events,” and “Nature’s God” (https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214). Despite the “monotheistic sound” of deistic terminology, deism (along with the many “tolerant” versions of monotheism present today, as Americans accept any and every notion of God), such forms of monotheism will not suffice in fulfilling the Greatest Commandment. Why? Because all of the laws associated with the second greatest commandment are given by the one true God, YHWH. They are not open to debate. Using Thomas Paine’s “human experience and rationality—rather than religious dogma and mystery—determine[d] … beliefs,” we are left with the crazy set of political correctness laws that are in vogue in the world, today.

Starting with my next post, we will begin to examine the laws of God, YHWH, as they constitute the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself.

Excessive Righteousness 4: Cardiac Commitment (Quid Pro No!)

2024-05-17T12:12:00.000-07:00

“‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment.”

(Matthew 22:34-38 NKJV)

Jesus’s first and great commandment exhorts: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” The “love” language here may be contrasted with the “love” language of the second commandment: You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Matthew 22:34-38 NKJV). The “love” language as to how one should love in the second commandment corresponds to the Golden Rule: “Whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them” (Matthew 7:12 NKJV) and “Just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise” (Luke 6:31 NKJV). It is a proactive principle of reciprocity. For example, if you would like someone to give you a nice Christmas present, you should give them a nice Christmas present first. Quid pro quo expectation is involved: I wouldn’t treat you in a way that I would not like to be treated myself. Even if unrequited love occurs, the second commandment still recommends the Golden Rule as the high moral ground.

The “love” language as to how one should love God, however, is of a different variety. We should not love the Lord our God with quid pro quo expectations. According to classicists John Kirby and Eduard Norden, when the ancient Greeks prayed to their gods, quid pro quo was frequently involved: “Either, because of past benefices which I have performed for you, you owe me; or, I will do this . . . for you, if you will do this . . . for me (conditional promise).” Modern-day Christians and non-Christians alike are prone to pray to God, having similar quid pro quo expectations. “God, if you will heal my disease, I will go to church,” for example. There are, however, no quid pro quo implications in the commandment: “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.” When people pray with constant “requests” in mind, they miss the point of this commandment. The term “all” is repeated three times: all your heart, all your soul, all your mind.

All Your Heart

Having dealt with “all your mind” in the previous post, we turn to “all your heart.” The greatest commandment has nothing to do with a literal, biological heart (cardia in the Greek); the term “heart/cardia” used by Jesus and Moses is a metaphor. Though the English metaphor “heart” refers to emotions (perhaps, because when you are frightened, excited, angry, or attracted to the opposite sex, your literal “heart/cardia” tends to beat faster and stronger), that is not what the metaphor “heart” typically means in Hebrew or Aramaic (the languages of Jesus and the Old Testament commandments). Perhaps, the Christian worshippers who like to wave their hands in the air, put quivers in their voices, and well up with tears in their eyes while worshipping think that this commandment means that they need to display emotional love toward God. I have difficulty picturing Jesus and John the disciple whom Jesus loved waving their hands in the air at each other and welling up with tears. Jesus certainly did express emotions, at times. He wept when He arrived at the tomb of His friend Lazarus, but there is no metaphorical mention of his “heart” in that account (John 11:17-44). Instead of using the term “heart” for emotions, the Hebrews typically used the term “bowels” (the belly) as a metaphor for the emotions (perhaps, because when you are frightened, excited, angry, or attracted to the opposite sex, your stomach feels like it is tied up in knots). The bowels are the seat of emotion/compassion in Hebrew and Aramaic, as in Genesis 43:30 (see KJV).

Jesus, however, uses the term “heart” in His beatitudes: Blessed are the pure in heart (Matthew 5:8). It is difficult to imagine what pure emotion would look like, but a purely-based decision is clearer. Most likely, Jesus uses the term “heart” to signify the center of our decision-making processes. In Genesis 6:5, God saw that the “intent (yetzer)” of man’s “heart (levav)” was “evil (ra‘)” all of the time. Jews teach that the center of a human being’s decision-making processes (i.e., his “heart [levav]”) has a “good inclination (yetzer ha-tov)” and an “evil inclination (yetzer ha- ra‘).” These two inclinations at conflict in our hearts” sprang, perhaps, from when Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of the Knowledge of “Good (ha-tov)” and “Evil (ha- ra‘). A Jewish psychoanalyst named Sigmund Freud borrowed this Jewish doctrine for his psychanalytic theory. The “good inclination (yetzer ha-tov)” became his “superego” and the “evil inclination (yetzer ha- ra‘)” became his “id.” These two factors were combined in his decision-making center (i.e., his “heart [levav]”), which Freud called his “ego.” New World Encyclopedia confirms: “The opposition of the id and the superego may be a reflection of a traditional Jewish psychology of fallen human beings, that within each person there is unending conflict between the "evil inclination" (yetzer ha-ra) and the "good inclination" (yetzer ha-tov)” (Ego, superego, and id - New World Encyclopedia). Jews center these two inclinations in the “heart.” Therefore, when Exodus 4:21 reports that God hardened Pharaoh’s “heart (levav),” Pharaoh’s free-will “decision” not to let the Israelites go was “hardened”; his initial “decision” was set in concrete, so to speak. God did not make Pharaoh’s decision for him, but He assisted Pharaoh in turning his decision into a psychosis. Pharaoh could not be talked out (or plagued out) of his psychosis by Moses.

Applying all of this to Jesus’s beatitude “Blessed are the pure in ‘heart,’” Jesus is praising those whose “decisions” are pure—following only their “good inclination (yetzer ha-tov),” with no input from their “evil inclination (yetzer ha- ra‘).” Likewise, in loving the LORD our God with “all” of our “heart,” we must be certain to follow only our “good inclination (yetzer ha-tov),” with no input from our “evil inclination (yetzer ha- ra‘)” with regard to our decisions. We must be the exact opposite of those, in Genesis 6:5, whose “intent (yetzer)” of their “heart (levav)” was “evil (ra‘)” all of the time. When it comes to our love of God, the “intent (yetzer)” of our “heart (levav)” must be “good (tov)” all of the time. A comparative example of “heart” in decision-making is Jesus’s observation that “whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28 NKJV). I understand this to mean that “lust” as Jesus uses the term is that inward decision to commit adultery with a woman, if and when the opportunity arises. Jimmy Carter, in his 1972 Playboy magazine interview, stated: “I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times.” If by that statement, Carter meant that he experienced sexual temptation, he would have experienced the same emotion millions and millions of other men (and women) have experienced; but if by that statement, Carter meant that he had made an inward decision to commit adultery with a woman, if and when the opportunity arose, that is quite another matter. Likewise, if Christians and Jews experience temptations to relinquish their faith in and love toward God, as when their faith is threatened by non-Christian arguments (yet, agonizing over their problem), that is one thing; but if Christians and Jews consciously decide to readily relinquish their faith in and love toward God for personal gain, such as advancement in the academic world, if it becomes necessary, they do not love THE LORD with all of their heart. Loving God must involve total inward (cardiac) commitment to staying true to God despite all the “fiery darts of the wicked.” Paul recommends “taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench” those darts (Ephesians 6:16 NKJV).

Excessive Righteousness 3: The Greatest Sin

2024-04-22T11:22:00.000-07:00

Pharisees … asked Him a question …“Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?”Jesus said … “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the first and great commandment.”

(Matthew 22:34-38 NKJV)

Pharisees … said, “This fellow does not cast out demons except by Beelzebub,

the ruler of the demons.” …“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy

will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men …

either in this age or in the age to come.”

(Matthew 12:24-32 NKJV)

It seems logical that the greatest sin it is possible to commit would relate to the greatest commandment. Monotheism is the basis of the greatest commandment (see previous post), so polytheism would be considered suspect as the basis of the greatest sin.

Beelzebub

Why would Pharisees, who are so protective of monotheism that they accuse Jesus of being blasphemous in claiming to be the Son of God (John 10:33-36), be so willing to attribute the works of Jesus to a Canaanite “god”? That’s who Beelzebub is! The only reference to Beelzebub in the Old Testament is in 2 Kings 1:2-17 (NKJV):

Ahaziah [the northern, Israelite king] fell through the lattice of his upper room in Samaria, and was injured; so he sent messengers and said to them, “Go, inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron, whether I shall recover from this injury.”But the angel of the Lord said to Elijah the Tishbite, “Arise, go up to meet the messengers of the king of Samaria, and say to them, ‘Is it because there is no God in Israel that you are going to inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron?’ Now therefore, thus says the Lord: ‘You … shall surely die.’” So Elijah … arose and went down with him to the king … he said to him, “Thus says the Lord: ‘Because you have sent messengers to inquire of Baal-Zebub, the god of Ekron … you shall surely die.’”So Ahaziah died.

Sometimes spelled Beelzebul and (as in 2 Kings) Baal-Zebub, Beelzebub (the putative “god”) is possibly best translated “Lord of the Flies.” There were multiple Baals (the Hebrew plural is Baalim), Baal-Zebub being only one of these Baalim. Bible students are aware of the Canaanite god(s) called Baal, a word (in Ugaritic and Canaanitic) meaning “Lord.” The Old Testament speaks elsewhere of the god/s Baal (Numbers 25:3, Joshua 11:17, Judges 3:3, 7, and 8:33, 1 Kings 18:18, 20-40, 1 Chronicles 5:5, 8:30, 9:36, Jeremiah 7:9, 19:5) who served in Canaan as rival/s of the God of Israel. Zebub probably means “flies,” perhaps indicating the insect pests that were prone to constantly land on feces and then land on humans and were, therefore, suspected of transferring diseases from these feces to humans. Baal-Zebub was a Canaanite god of health. In both the 2 Kings account and Matthew 12:24-32, Baal-Zebub/Beelzebub is credited with healing powers. Ahaziah thought Baal-Zebub could heal him from the injuries of his fall; the Pharisees thought Beelzebub could heal the demon-possessed, so they attributed to Beelzebub the healings that Jesus had performed.

If “blasphemy” consists of believing in the existence and power of another god in addition to the God of Israel, as the Pharisees in John 10:33-36 asserted (accusing Jesus of claiming to be one), then they themselves are guilty of “blasphemy” when they attribute the healing power of Jesus to the Canaanite god Beelzebub. Jesus clearly healed, so they implicitly concluded that there was an actual god Beelzebub who had given Him power to heal. That was the unforgiveable sin for a teacher of the Law, steeped in the monotheism of the Ten Commandments and the Shema, who certainly should have known better.

Loving God with All Your Mind

Your mind is the center of your thought processes. Your mind allows you to conceive of who you are, how the world came to be, life after death, and, most importantly, who God is! The greatest sin is not murder or stealing or adultery. Those are sins of the body. King David committed all of these, but God forgave him when he repented. The greatest sin is a sin of the mind—holding polytheistic views when you should know better. Polytheistic views are the product of one’s mind (as are atheistic views).

The New Testament Christians’ righteousness exceeded the righteousness of the Pharisees, by holding to a clear monotheism, while the Pharisees embraced polytheism—the belief in Beelzebub, the god of Ekron, a rival to THE LORD. Imagine! They reject Jesus’s claim to be the Son of God (even though all that He taught and the works He did were accomplished by power of His Father), yet they embrace and attribute healing power to the pagan god of the Canaanites: Beelzebub! Jesus called this the blasphemy against the Spirit and said it would never be forgiven men … either in this age or in the age to come! Jews since the time of the New Testament have overwhelmingly repented of that Pharisaic position on Beelzebub (although, they have more repenting yet to do in their assessment of Jesus as not being God’s Son). As an example of rival-god-repentance, Jewish scholar Bernard Bamberger states: “The astounding thing is that, after some centuries of experimentation with this idea [of divine forces/angels rebelling against God] the authoritative teachers of Judaism dropped it altogether. … The main line of Jewish thought returned to an uncompromising monotheism in which there was no room for satanic rebels.” To my Jewish friends: Remember, Jesus was never a “satanic rebel.” He tells the Pharisees He has no connection with Satan (Matthew 12:26). It was His blood that cast Satan out of Heaven (Revelation 12:11).

Christians and Beelzebub

Meanwhile, however, Christians since the time of the New Testament have picked up the Beelzebub-error baton and have run with it! They seem to believe that Beelzebub actually exists and that he is a powerful rival to God. Modern day Catholic and Evangelical notions of fallen angels are largely responsible, as they hearken back to Persian dualistic religious influence occurring between the Old Testament and New Testament periods. In my book, Revelation: The Human Drama (page 73), I comment:

Some interpreters of Revelation [wrongly] consider the informing anecdote of the book to be the conflict between God and Satan. This perceived conflict is a vestige of Judaism's contact with Persian religion. Martin Hengel discounts such … [Persian Dualism] in accounting for the scene which, for example, produced the “fallen angel” stories in the centuries preceding the New Testament period. In perusing John's Revelation, examples of a direct rivalry between God and Satan cannot be found. While allusions are made to “fallen angels” in Revelation, it is not clear that they are typical of the Fallen Angel Stories of the centuries preceding the Christian Era.

In my book, Angels and Demons: The Personification of Communication (pages 19-20), I explain further:

“Persian religion developed the concept of an Evil God who was constantly at war with a Good God.” There is no picture in the Old Testament of a Satan who could [or would] rival God. The Hebrew word “SATAN” … means “adversary” or “prosecuting attorney.” That is all Satan was in the Book of Job [an adversary of humans, not of God]. He certainly had not “fallen” from Heaven by then. Job 1:6 has Satan joining the angels (sons of God) in presenting themselves before God. He petitions God for permission to “test” Job. He certainly does not demand anything of God. This “testing” role is also the one he assumes in the New Testament as he “tests” Jesus in the desert, following his baptism. At the end of Jesus’ life (Luke 22:31), Jesus informs Simon Peter that Satan has asked permission to sift him like wheat. This sounds to me like the same Satan who was in the courts of Heaven in Job.

Frankly, this point (that the Old and New Testaments do not depict fallen angels who “sin”) is a primary reason I wrote my Indiana University M.A. in Hebrew thesis—“Anamartetous [= Sinless] Fallen Angels”—and my subsequent book, Angels and Demons. I do not find anywhere in the Old or New Testaments Satan or any other angel rebelling against God. Satan (aka, the Devil) is called an “adversary,” but not an adversary of God. In 1 Peter 5:8. He is “your [human’s] adversary, the Devil!” (just as he was the adversary of [the humans] Adam and Eve). This is exactly the view of Satan embraced by Judaism in the past two millennia. In that respect, I think it highly likely that, after the New Testament period, the righteousness of Jews has exceeded the righteousness of Christians on the Beelzebub issue.

The issue of demons as adversaries of God is also problematic, despite what the movies suggest. In gospel texts, “demon-possessed” individuals confess that Jesus is the Son of God (Matthew 28:29, Luke 4:41). James 2:19 (NKJV) states: “You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!” In John 4:6 God’s Spirit is contrasted with the Spirit of Error. A “spirit of error” fairly well describes a demon (in the New Testament). The Old Testament does not include a single case of demon-possession (nor do John’s Gospel, Revelation, or Paul’s writings; Matthew only includes one—an incident that concludes, according to Mark 5:15, with the man finally being “in his right mind”). Demon is a Greek (not Jewish) concept. The Apostle Paul suggests that “idols” and “demons” are the same thing (1 Corinthians 10:18). He also states (rhetorically) that “idols” are “not anything.” In 1 Corinthians 8:4, he states, “We know that no idol really exists; that there is no God but one.” Revelation 9:20 agrees that demons (like idols) are nothing. He writes of unrepentant men who worshiped the “works of their hands”—“demons and golden idols, and silver, and bronze, and wooden, which are not able to see, nor hear, nor walk.” Those who believed they had demons were actually in error. The physical malady they thought the demon caused existed only in their minds (= psychogenic). The list of illnesses and bodily malfunctions cured by Jesus (which I provide on pages 203-4 of Angels and Demons) does not contain any type of mental illness. Similar to psycho-somatic illness, the demon-possessed (or, as they are also identified: those with “unclean spirits” or “evil spirits,” meaning “spirit of something ‘bad’—not ‘evil’ in a moral sense) just believed the lie and that belief in a lie produced the physical malady. There are no supernatural, divine, or semi-divine beings that are adversaries or rivals of the One True God. This is the heart of monotheism.

When I say that Christians since the time of the New Testament have picked up the Beelzebub-error baton and run with it, believing that Beelzebub actually exists and that he is a powerful rival to God (and that modern day Catholic and Evangelical notions are largely responsible for that doctrine), I include Catholic and Evangelical doctrines of rebel fallen angels (including the view that Satan is a rebel fallen angel) and of demons that war against God. One had better be careful when asserting that such rebels against God exist in the supernatural realm. Why? Because such an assertion is close to (if not precisely) the unforgiveable sin! True: there was a war mentioned in Revelation 12:7-12. John sees Satan being cast out of Heaven (by Michael, not by God) when Jesus died on the cross. Satan was thrown out because his job as “accuser” (of men) was no longer needed. Jesus’ blood had secured forgiveness for men. No longer is an accuser necessary in Heaven.

If you know (with all your mind) that THE LORD our God is one, you cannot allow your mind to believe that He has any rival (including Beelzebub, Satan, fallen angels, or demons). He is the only and absolute king of the world! Love THE LORD your God with all your mind!

Excessive Righteousness 2: Monotheism

2024-03-09T11:16:00.000-08:00

(Matthew 22:34-38)

Matthew 5:20 (NKJV) records Jesus’ warning: “Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” If one would have righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees (and righteousness can be defined as “fulfilling the commandments”), it is prudent to begin with what both Jesus and the Pharisees agree is the greatest commandment. Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, and Luke 10:27 all record the saying of Jesus cited at the first of this post. While the saying of Jesus in Matthew and Luke is truncated from the full command from Deuteronomy, Mark and the Jews emphasize the full text of what they call the Shema. The term Shema is translated “Hear!” and the entire Shema is as follows: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:4-5 NKJV). Jews believe that their righteousness with regard to this command exceeds the righteousness of Christians because of the emphasis of the Shema on monotheism: The LORD our God … is one. They suggest that Christian teachings of the Trinity set up three Gods, rather than just the one. Before we consider how to fulfill the greatest commandment, we need to, first, tackle the question of who God is.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

Henry Fischel, my (Jewish) major professor of Hebrew at Indiana University pointed out to me that the word “Trinity” appears in neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament. Nevertheless, the words “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” do appear together in the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 (NKJV): “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” On the day of Pentecost, Peter, however, used a somewhat different baptismal formula: “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’” (Acts 2:38 NKJV). Paul was told by Ananias in Acts 22:16 (NKJV) “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” And, Paul simply mentions baptism into “Christ Jesus” in Romans 6:3-4 (NKJV): Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore, we were buried with Him through baptism into death.” It seems to me that any of these baptismal formulas is acceptable—so long as it is Jesus into whom one is baptized. Acts 19:1-5 recounts Paul’s rebaptism of twelve individuals in Ephesus who were baptized only with John the Baptist’s baptism—a baptism of repentance, with no reference to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Paul baptized them “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Then Paul (an apostle) laid hands on them and they received gifts of the Holy Spirit—tongues and prophecy. Spiritual gifts were conferred only by the laying on of the hands of apostles (Google: “Stan.Point Logic of Christianity 17”). Yet, all Christians who are baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ … receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38 NKJV). What exactly that “gift of the Holy Spirit” is will be considered momentarily.

Another passage that uses the words meaning Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together is actually not in the earliest texts; it is a later textual addition—1 John 5:7 (NKJV): “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” Although Christians often cite this passage as evidence of a doctrine of Trinity, the words “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit” are not in the earliest texts of 1 John. The vast majority of recent translations recognize this fact by excluding the terminology from this passage--Holman Christian Standard Bible, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard, American Standard Version, Common English Bible, The Complete Jewish Bible, The Darby Translation, Good News Translation, GOD'S WORD Translation, Lexham English Bible, New Century Version, New International Reader's Version, Revised Standard Version, World English Bible, and Weymouth New Testament. The SBL Greek New Testament and even The Latin Vulgate have also eliminated the language.

As cited above, the New King James Version retains the language, as it seeks to remain close to the old King James Version, published in 1611 (before modern textual criticism demonstrated that the words were a late addition). Other old translations--Wycliffe published from 1382 to 1395, Tyndale published c. 1522–1535, the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible published 1582, and the Webster Bible published 1833—have the Trinitarian language, along with lesser known recent translations--Jubilee Bible 2000, Third Millennium Bible, and Young's Literal Translation. One should not base one’s Trinitarian doctrine on the 1 John 5:7 passage. It was not in the original text.

The Holy Spirit

It is not blasphemous to suggest to a Jew that the Holy Spirit exists. There are more than sixty passages in the Hebrew Old Testament explicitly mentioning the Holy Spirit (aka the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the LORD, Your [i.e., God’s] Spirit, the Spirit, My [i.e., God’s] Spirit, Your [i.e., God’s] good Spirit, a new Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord). These passages mentioning the Holy Spirit begin in Genesis 1:2 with the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters at the beginning of Creation. Furthermore, Jews understand that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of prophecy. That means the Holy Spirit is that which God placed in His prophets to deliver His messages to humans. The Pharisees believed that the operation of God’s Holy Spirit to inspire prophecy ceased with Malachi—which they assumed to be the last inspired book of the Bible. For this reason, they could not accept John the Baptist as a prophet, let alone accept the early Christian prophets. Nevertheless, they still believed that God could speak to humans through the occasional words of children and the mentally handicapped (indelicately called “fools” by the Jews). This was still the Holy Spirit operating. Jesus alluded to this phenomenon on Palm Sunday in Matthew 21:15-16 (NKJV): “But when the chief priests and scribes saw … the children crying out in the temple and saying, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David!’ they were indignantand said to Him, ‘Do You hear what these are saying?’ And Jesus said to them, ‘Yes. Have you never read, “Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise” [Psalm 8:2]?”

Pharisees also believed that God’s spirit continued to speak to humans through what they called a Bat Qol (or Bat Kol: a mysterious voice from Heaven). According to “Bat Kol: A Divine Voice | My Jewish Learning”:

[B]at kol, literally “daughter of a voice,” refers to a heavenly voice that proclaims God’s will or a divine judgment in a matter of legal dispute. The term itself doesn’t appear anywhere in the Hebrew Bible, though God’s voice is heard frequently in the Bible. Later sources indicate that there were bat kols in biblical times that were not recorded in the text, as in the Talmud’s declaration that a bat kol announced the death of Moses. The clearest statement of the nature of the bat kol is the Talmud’s declaration that the bat kol served as a means of communication between God and humankind after the end of the prophetic era. Though this teaching clearly connects a bat kol to the prophecies of the Bible, instances of the latter indicate explicitly in the text that it is God speaking, while the language of “daughter of a voice” concerning a bat kol suggests it is some sense a lesser (yet still divinely originating) voice. The Tosafot, commenting on a passage concerning a bat kol in Tractate Sanhedrin, distinguishes it from a voice that descends directly from heaven (which might refer to traditional prophecy), comparing it instead to an echo, a voice that emerges from within another voice.

The term appears only twice in the Mishnah, but it is found frequently in the Talmud.

Bottom Line: Pharisees also believed that God’s Spirit was/is active in the Bat Qol. Christians will note: a Bat Qol occurs at Jesus’s baptism and another at his transfiguration. Furthermore, a Bat Qol of Jesus’s voice speaks to Saul of Tarsus at his conversion. The fact that Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is still active (though, like the Jews, believing that the age of prophecy is now ceased) does not suggest that Christian doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit is blasphemous or even inferior to the views of the Pharisees. The Jews have no problem believing that the existence of the Spirit of God does not compromise their doctrine of monotheism. Why should they contend that Christian belief in the Holy Spirit would compromise a doctrine of monotheism?

The “Talmud’s declaration that the bat kol served as a means of communication between God and humankind” (emphasis mine) is a fair description of all activity of the Holy Spirit (not just the Bat Qol). The Holy Spirit spoke through prophets, children, the Bat Qol, angels, the written word, and directly (from God to humans). Jewish scholar G. F. Moore links three terms together in his chapter entitled, "The Word of God: The Spirit," Moore states, "God's will is made known or effectuated in the world not only through personal agents (ANGELS), but directly by his WORD or by his SPIRIT" (emphases mine). The Apostle Paul, in Ephesians 6:17 (NKJV), is in agreement with Moore’s observation: “And take … the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Although the English is confusing, the word “which” in this passage cannot be referring back to the term “sword,” since, in the Greek, “sword” is a feminine noun and “which” is a neuter pronoun. The only neuter noun “which” could refer back to is the neuter noun “Spirit.” The Spirit is the word of God, just as Moore demonstrates. (Incidentally, the Greek word for “word,” here, is not logos, but rhēma, from the same root as “rhetoric.” This might indicate that in the armor of God, His Spirit of persuasion is the sword we wield; whereas, God’s Word/Logos in John’s Gospel might refer more to His powerful spoken fiats of creation. (Since my Ph.D. is in Communication, I pay close attention to such distinctions.)

Since Jesus emphasizes that God is spirit (John 4:24) and the facts that the “Spirit of God” is hovering over the face of the waters and God is speaking “words” are all found in Genesis 1:1-3, the possibility of the Word/Logos of John chapter 1 being identified as the Spirit of God is a distinct possibility. God and His Word are one and the same. There is no threat to the doctrine of monotheism when God and His Spirit are mentioned as existing together any more than there would be the implication that my words when uttered are somehow different from me as a single human being. Later in the first chapter of John, the Logos-becomes-flesh (as Jesus) and dwells among us.

The fact that God (His Spirit) speaks to the darkness (creating light), to the waters (creating a firmament and, later, creating sea creatures, birds, beasts, cattle, and creeping things), to the land (creating vegetation), etc., does not preclude God from communicating with humans, as well, through His Holy Spirit. 2 Corinthians 13:13 (NKJV) states: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.” While Jesus purchased “grace” for us, and God so “loved” the world that He gave Jesus to us, the Holy Spirit offers us “communion with Him.” The word translated “communion” is the Greek word koinōnia (frequently, translated “fellowship”). It means, sharing or having things in common. The English words “common,” “communion,” and “communication” have the same root. As a professor of “communication,” I can assure you that you will have great difficulty in “communicating” with another human, unless you have things in common with that individual (especially, a common language). Japanese-speaking and English-speaking individuals have great difficulty communicating until they learn each other’s language. In John 14:16-18 (NKJV), Jesus promises: “I will pray the Father and He will give you another Helper [paraclete, literally: one whom you call alongside you, such as a friend or companion], that He may abide with you forever—the Spirit of truth … you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.” This is what Peter meant on the day of Pentecost, when he promised that those who are baptized will receive the “gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38 NKJV). God doesn’t need to give you miraculous gifts of prophecy, healing, miracles, tongues, etc. for you to simply enjoy His company and communicate with Him. Everything you would hope to find when communicating with your best friend—liberty, righteousness, peace, and joy—you will find in God’s companionship through His Holy Spirit. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17 NKJV). Romans 14:17 (NKJV) states that there is “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Galatians 5:22-23 (NKJV) even adds to the benefits of being the companion of the Holy Spirit: “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” The words of the genie in the Disney movie “Aladdin” should more accurately be applied to the Holy Spirit: “You ain’t never had a friend like me!” Not only is He our friend, He is our teacher, the One who reminds us of things God has commanded us. “He will teach [us] all things, and bring to [our] remembrance all things that [Jesus] said to [us].” (John 14:26 NKJV). He will guide us “into all truth” (John 16:12). That’s true communication. That’s communion. That’s the Holy Spirit.

The Father and the Son

The Pharisees would have no problem believing in God the Father. Several Old Testament passages—Deuteronomy 32:6, Isaiah 64:8, Jeremiah 3:19, Psalm 68:5, Jeremiah 31:9, Isaiah 63:16, and Malachi 2:10—all refer to God as Father. Several other passages refer to (especially Israel as) His son/s. To say that Christians believe in God the Father is not problematic, although, most frequently, the father-son relationship of God in the Old Testament is with Israel as His son. Perhaps, the reason some Jews might shy away from the “Father” language—except to say that Abraham is their father—is that Christians use the terminology in connection with His relationship to Jesus. This is the stumbling block over which two millennia of Jews have tripped. When the New Testament refers to Jesus as the Son of God, Jews consider that to be polytheistic rather than monotheistic. This Pharisaic thought process is encapsulated in John 10:33-36 (NKJV):

The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

Jesus is, here, defending Himself for claiming to be the “Son of God.” To defend Himself, Jesus cites Psalm 82 (NKJV):

God stands in the congregation of the [gods, re: LXX];
He judges among the gods.

How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked? …

I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are [sons] of the Most High.

But you shall die like men.

Michael S. Heiser (2008, page 3) states: “many scholars consider Psalm 82 to be either a vestige of polytheism overlooked by monotheistic redactors or perhaps a deliberate rhetorical use of Israel’s polytheistic past to declare the new outlook of monotheism. After the exile, so it is put forth, the gods of the nations are relegated to the status of angels.” Jesus and John, apparently, did not get that memo. Even “angels” is not an appropriate translation for “gods” in this passage for Jesus, John, and, implicitly, their Jewish audience. I discuss both the John 10 and Psalm 82 passages in my book Angels and Demons (page 82):

Jesus is quoted in John 10:33-36 as clearly implying that the term “sons of the Most High” (from Psalm 82:6 …) refers to “human judges.” Human judges are even called “gods/ELOHIM” in both Psalm 82:6 and Exodus 22 ... Jesus was making the point that it was not blasphemous for him to be called “god” or “son of God,” if even humans (judges) could be called “gods” and “sons of the Most High.”

Those whom God has called “gods” and “sons of the Most High” in Psalm 82 will “die like men.” There are no accounts in the Bible of gods or angels dying.” Isaiah 14:15 does say that Lucifer will die, but Lucifer is not an angel or any kind of divine being. In Angels and Demons (page 96), I observe: “Granted, if we begin reading in the middle of [Isaiah chapter 14], at verse 12, Lucifer can appear to be a powerful angel who has fallen because of his attempt to rebel against ‘the Most High.’ That is, until we reach verse 16 (where it is clear that Lucifer is a man): ‘They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the MAN that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?’ Verses 18-20 (KJV), furthermore, point out that Lucifer is a ‘king.’”

On page 108 of his book, Bauckham states: “Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions … always accepted the existence of … [other] supernatural beings: angels … demons.” Without further belaboring this point, I will direct any interested readers to my book Angels and Demons, where I dispute the unambiguous existence of fallen angels in the Bible and point out that the Gospel representations of demons are misunderstood. Fallen angels and demons exist in non-canonical writings between the Old and New Testament and (later) in the patristic writings, however. Jewish scholar Bernard Bamberger admits that point, but concludes in his book Fallen Angels (page 55): “The astounding thing is that, after some centuries of experimentation with this idea, [by the first century AD] the authoritative teachers of Judaism dropped it altogether. … The main line of Jewish thought returned to an uncompromising monotheism in which there was no room for satanic rebels.”

Certainly, according to Jesus and John, the 82^nd Psalm is not to be taken to suggest that there are other “gods”—the various gods of the nations who meet from time-to-time in congregation with God Almighty. Such an interpretation is polytheistic; it also would make absolutely no sense for Jesus to use such a passage (with such a doctrine) to defend himself against a charge of blasphemy. From Jesus’s statement in the John 10 passage, alone, one might even infer that Jesus saw Himself as a mere human (judge?) and not as a divine being at all. However, John who records the event, sees something quite beyond a mere human judge in Jesus. John chapter 1 will be discussed momentarily.

Another tack one might make concerning a Christology of Jesus is found in Revelation 4-5. While Jesus identifies Himself as the “Son of God” to the church at Thyatira in Revelation 2:18, typically Revelation refers to Him as the Lamb. (Note that Revelation 14:1 refers to the Lamb and His Father.) Just looking at Revelation 4-5, however, Jesus is presented as newly worthy of praise along with the Father—a new development in Heaven. I point out on pages 116-118 of my book Apocalyptic Apologetic:

No Jew would object [to Revelation chapter 4] … All are agreed that all creation should “worship” the Lord God Almighty because of his creation of all things. The Baruch Atah prayer of the Jews from the time of the Mishnah (Ber. 6:1) unto the present time attests to that. The Shema of Israel attests that the Lord our God is One.

Then comes Jesus, in chapter 5 … the great stumbling block for many Jews. Chapter 5 has the audacity to explain how Jesus, like the Lord God Almighty, is now also “worthy” of praise and worship and blessing. … “every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea” [Revelation 5:13] … say: “Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb forever and ever” (KJV).

…

What made him worthy? He “was slain and … redeemed us to God by [his] blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation” (verse 9). Therefore, … angels, living creatures, and elders … proclaimed: “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing” (verse 12).

Jesus and God are, thus, now both worthy of worship. This is what Jews stumble over. Christians worship both God and Christ.

Even so, perhaps, these two chapters could be taken to suggest that God Almighty is the only God. In my book Revelation: The Human Drama (page 127), I point out: “Jesus is never referred to as pantokratôr (the Almighty)” in Revelation. Perhaps, it could be argued that Jesus (as a man) is worthy of worship because He “was slain and … redeemed us to God by [His] blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). God is worshiped as Creator. Jesus is worshiped as our supreme sacrifice who redeemed us.

On the other hand, Jesus is explicitly identified as the “beginning (archē) of the creation of God” in Revelation 3:14. Some translators interpret this passage to suggest that Jesus was the first being whom God created. Possibly, sensing that viewing Jesus as the “beginning” of the creation of God, in Revelation 3:14, presents problems for Christology, G. K. Beale (p. 298), elaborately takes archē in the verse as the equivalent of prōtotokos [first-born] of all creation in Col 1:15 and prōtotokos [first-born] from the dead in Col 1:18). Beale admits that “most commentators think … the titles in 3:14 … link Jesus to the original creation.” Nevertheless, Beale argues, that the beginning of God’s creation in Rev 3:14, instead, designates “Christ as the sovereign inaugurator of the new creation … not over the original creation.” However, the terms archē/beginning and telos/end, are used by Revelation to refer to both God and Jesus (21:6, 22:13). In 21:6, the archē and the telos is a title for God. In 22:13, the archē and the telos is a title for Jesus. Since Revelation would never suggest that God had a “beginning/efficient cause” or an “end/final cause,” John is probably referring in these archē and telos formulas, instead, to a process that has a beginning/efficient cause [archē], namely, God’s creation (3:14).

Jesus is not just a man—He is the archē of creation, for John. What does that mean? Craig Koester tries a translation taking archē to mean “ruler” (of creation), but that does not work, because John’s word for “ruler” is archōn (see Revelation 1:5), not archē. Furthermore, since John employs the polar opposites archē and telos in 21:6 and 22:13 in parallel with the polar opposites alpha and the omega, plus in parallel with the polar opposites first and last in 22:13, John’s use of archē as “ruler” does not make sense. What would be the polar opposite of ruler? Servant, perhaps, but not telos/end.

Some New Testament passages suggest that Jesus was the creator of the universe. Related to 1 Corinthians 8:6, Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the God of Israel, p. 29) sees something entelechial in his discussion of Rom 11:36a, wherein “from him, and through him, and to him [are] all things” “refers to God.” Yet, “in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul has divided it between God and Christ, applying to God two of the prepositions that describe God’s relationship as Creator (“from” and “for” or “to”) and the third of these prepositions (“through”) to Christ. …That God is not only the agent or efficient cause [understand: archē] of creation (“from him are all things”) and the final cause or goal [understand: telos] of all things (“to him are all things”), but also the instrumental cause [which also figures in entelechy] (“through him are all things”) well expresses the typical Jewish monotheistic concern that God used no one else to carry out his work of creation, but accomplished it alone, solely by means of his own Word … Paul’s reformulation in I Corinthians 8:6 includes Christ in this exclusively divine work of creation by giving to him the role of instrumental cause.” Similar language is also used in Colossians 1:16-17, with the agent or efficient cause (understand: archē), the instrumental cause, and the final cause (understand: telos) all being applied to Christ.

Furthermore, that most important Logos Hymn of John states that all things were made by the Logos. As discussed earlier in this blogpost and quite frequently in several of my previous posts, I am inclined to understand Logos as the Holy Spirit or Word of God. But God’s Holy Spirit also took on flesh and dwelt among us in the person of Jesus (John 1:14). How is it possible that Jesus took on flesh somewhere around 4-6 BC and yet was present en archē to create the universe? Through the principle of entelechy:

1. Consider the way that one-celled amoeba/protozoa reproduce by simply dividing themselves. There is no way of knowing which of the two “daughter cells” thus produced is the parent and which is the child, and yet both of them were active in the actions of the original amoeba/protozoa. If God and Jesus were active together “as one” en archē, they both participated in creation, even if Jesus took on flesh at a later date.

2. Consider the various passages that suggest that children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and beyond are active in the loins of their fathers (John 3:3-4, Hebrews 7:1-10, Romans 5:12-21, and 1 Corinthians 15:22). If all of Adam’s offspring preexist in the loins of Adam and are somehow held accountable for the actions of their father Adam, because they participated in his sin, then God and Jesus were active together “as one” en archē, as they both participated in creation even if Jesus took on flesh at a later date.

3. Consider that, mystically, when they become husband and wife, two individuals—man and woman—become one flesh. In like fashion, when Jesus’s life in the flesh is completed, He returns to God and becomes “one” with Him again (John 10:30, 14:10-11, 20).

Since entelechy observes that all endings (telos) are implicit in their beginnings (en archē), and since the Father and Son are both called archē by John in Revelation, and the Logos is present en archē in John 1, verses such as the following are much easier to understand from the perspective of entelechy:

• Eph 1:4: “He chose us ἐν [en] Him before the foundation of the world.”

• John 17:24: “You loved Me before the foundation of the world.”

• 1 Pet 1:20: “He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times.”

• Matt 25:34: “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

• Matt 13:35: “I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”

• 2 Tim 1:9: “grace which was given to us ἐν [en] Christ Jesus before time began.”

• Heb 9:26: “He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”

• Acts 15:18: "Known to God from eternity are all His works.”

Not only are all of God’s works known to Him from eternity, but they are also known to Logos and Logos-become-flesh. If, therefore, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit know absolute truth, concerning everything, there is no point of disagreement between them concerning anything. People do not disagree about things that are considered “known facts.” (The only room for rhetoric—the art of persuading someone that something is “probably or possibly” true, as opposed to simply stating that something is “definitely” true—is if there are questions that have at least two possible-but-unknown answers.) If people have trouble understanding how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can rule the universe, without any conflict among them, it is because they never argue; they never disagree, they don’t have differing opinions, because they know “absolute truth” for certain. The great theological danger of polytheism is not the idea that God has a Son and a Spirit (explainable by entelechy). It is that he had a divine rival, an opponent, a Lucifer, a Beelzebub. This is where one’s theology begins to approach committing the “unforgiveable sin” (Matthew 12:24-32, Mark 3:22-30, Luke 11:15-20). This is a very important area in which one’s righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. More on that in my next post: “How to Love God.”

Gog and Magog Watch

2023-10-09T13:31:00.000-07:00

Living in Florida, I realize that there is a big difference between a Hurricane Watch and a Hurricane Warning. When I lived in the Midwest, I knew that there was a difference between a Tornado Watch and a Tornado Warning. I grew up living in the Sangamon River Valley (we called it the “bottoms”), which was prone to flooding from time to time, from an overflowing Sangamon River. My own parents house was wiped out by one of those floods before I was born. I know the difference between a Flood Watch and a Flood Warning. Similar to Tornado Warnings and Flood Warnings, “Hurricane warnings indicate that hurricane conditions … are expected somewhere within the specified area. … A hurricane watch means that hurricane conditions … are possible within the specified area” (https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/watch-warning.html). The mistake many well-intentioned preachers and bible interpreters make when discussing eschatology is to issue warnings when only watches are called for. With the warnings vs. watches distinction in mind, I think it might be prudent to issue a Gog and Magog Watch at this point—not a Warning, but a Watch.

In my previous post, I wrote approvingly of those “Muslims who … took my courses at Loyola University Chicago, in the 1990s. … They agreed with my position that we should not drink alcohol. They agreed that we should practice sexual purity. They agreed that abortion was unacceptable. They agreed that God should be revered.” I applauded “Muslim parents [who] delivered passionate speeches against elementary schoolchildren in Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools being forced to learn LGBTQ sexuality curriculum against parents' wishes at a [June 27, 2023] school board meeting.” On the other hand, I also condemned those “Muslims who engage in atrocious behavior, such as the Islamic terrorists who murder innocents, and hate Christians and Jews.”

With the Hamas attack on Israel, this past Sabbath, we have seen that atrocious behavior repeated—what has been called Israel’s 9-11. I wrote in my blogpost Apocalyptic #39: The Final Battle of History (posted January 13, 2022), which also appears in my soon-to-be-released book Apocalyptic Apologetic: Nails in the Coffin of Atheism, the following observation:

The end of human history, according to Revelation, is focused around four entities: 1. the Dragon (who raises up world empires), 2. his final Beastly protege(s)—Gog and Magog—and, once again, 3. the “land” and “the beloved city,” along with an additional entity, 4. “the camp of the saints.” Revelation 20:7-9 tells us:

Now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth (land), Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle, whose number is as the sand of the sea. They went up on the breadth of the earth (land) and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.

I offered the following caveat at the beginning of that earlier post: “Allow me to acknowledge, at the outset of this blogpost, that much of what I write in this specific post is speculative.” I make no claim to be a prophet, just a student of God’s Word. There is certainly the possibility that my speculative interpretations are in error. As Kenneth Burke stated, “[A]n interpretation can be wrong. Hence, a point of view introduces the possibility of error. But where there is the possibility of a wrong interpretation, there is also the possibility of a right one. The freedom to err argues a freedom to be right” (PC 257). In that spirit of optimistic humility, I speculated the following:

The words “the ... city” in Revelation ALWAYS refer to Jerusalem, but sometimes to the old Jerusalem and sometimes to the New Jerusalem. In the first 90% of Revelation … referring to the old (earthly) Jerusalem … In the final 10% of Revelation … referring to the New Jerusalem … ONLY ONCE does John refer to “the BELOVED city” … here, in Revelation 20:9—placed CONSPICUOUSLY BETWEEN John’s two divergent uses of the term “the . . . city.” This does not seem sheerly accidental; it seems intentional. … By simple deduction, since the New Jerusalem will not arrive until a new heavens and new earth are created, John must still be referring to the earthly Jerusalem. We, therefore, may feel confident that we know who the “beloved city” is (Jerusalem) and what the “land/HA-ARETZ/earth/GĒ” is (the Land of Israel). Jerusalem (along with the Land of Israel) is the central scene of the final battle of history.

…

Who, then are Gog and Magog? … Gog and Magog were understood to be the final anti-Jewish political forces who would invade the land of Israel in the final conflict in the history of the world. … Yet, Gog and Magog would be destroyed in the land of Israel, as they proceed to attack. This is interesting, since the Jews were not even in control of the land of Israel from the year AD 70 until the year AD 1948. With the emergence of the State of Israel in 1948, the stage could be set for a possible invasion from Gog and Magog.

…

[T]he term “camp” is most likely referring to a military entity … it is not referring to a heathen military entity. This entity is a military entity of the “saints.” … In 14:12, John makes clear that the saints “keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus,” so they are Christians.

…

If, then, the “camp of the saints” is a Christian military entity, there is really only one major “Christian” military entity in the world, right now: the armed services of the United States of America. …

It turns out … that the two strongest western allies, at present, are the United States and Israel. If I were to speculate concerning the identities of the “camp of the saints” and “the beloved city,” in the current environment, I would guess that this alliance of the strongest Christian country and the Jewish nation of Israel might be the co-targets of Gog and Magog. I would, then, be on the alert, if any major military movement against Israel (the land) and Jerusalem (the beloved city) begins.

…

While it seems to me, at the present, that the most likely enemy of Israel (and the U.S., for that matter) would be a Muslim country, such as Iran, there is no more powerful political and economic adversary of the United States, right now, than Communist China. Gog and Magog could be a conglomeration of Muslim countries or it could be a multi-national alliance of Communist or former Communist nations. … Nevertheless, with Muslim Pakistan in possession of nuclear weapons and Muslim Iran rapidly developing them and Muslim Afghanistan in possession of the extremely large sophisticated weapon cache left behind when the Biden administration pulled out and with the significant wealth and power of Muslim Syria, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia (not to mention Ethiopia, Sudan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, Lebanon, and perhaps even Iraq, etc.), the development of an anti-Israel (and anti-American) Islamic confederation is certainly not out of the question, with these countries existing, as Revelation puts it, on the “four corners of the land” of Israel (Revelation 20:8). It appears to me that the Egyptian-based Muslim Brotherhood, the Syrian and Lebanon-based Hezbollah, and the Palestinian-based Hamas are continually trying to provoke such a conflagration between Islamic countries and the US-Israeli alliance. I would keep an eye on such possibilities. The fear of “mutually-assured destruction” has generally held sway in the conflict between America and her Communist foes, but Islamic terrorists display no such fear. They even seek the reward of dying in a Jihad. Hence, that is my greater concern.

Those were my speculations from nearly two years ago. Are there any indications that those speculations might apply to the current Hamas-Israeli War? Clearly, “Hamas” invaded the “land” of Israel. According to Politico (“How Big is This Going to Get? What to Watch for in the Israel-Hamas Battle” 8 October 2023,” there are reports that “Hezbollah” has also launched attacks against Israel. Politico also states, “A Hamas spokesperson reportedly said Iran supported the weekend attack, and Iranian officials have cheered it. A Wall Street Journal report Sunday, citing senior members of Hamas and Hezbollah, said Iranian security officials had helped plan the attack. … As Hamas attacked, Saudi Arabia and other Arab states issued statements more sympathetic to the Palestinians than Israel.”

According to American Military News:

At least nine Americans were killed in the Hamas terrorist attacks in Israel over the weekend, the U.S. State Department confirmed on Monday. The rising death toll comes amid reports that American weapons left behind in Afghanistan ended up in the Gaza Strip and concerns that those weapons may have been used to kill Americans in Israel.

According to a Newsweek report that flew under the radar earlier this year, an Israeli commander warned that U.S. weapons abandoned in Afghanistan during President Joe Biden’s deadly withdrawal were seen in the hands of Palestinian groups in Gaza (https://americanmilitarynews.com/2023/10/us-military-weapons-from-afghanistan-may-have-been-used-to-kill-americans-in-israel-report/).

Communist China, as an ally of Iran, is also possibly indicated in this mess. The thousands, perhaps millions, of male military age illegal aliens—including those from Muslim countries--streaming across the southern (and northern) border of the U.S. (plus the pro-Hamas demonstrations in US cities, over the weekend). gives one pause regarding whether internal terrorist attacks will soon occur in the United States. Is Gog and Magog arriving? I do not know. But there are enough elements at work to at least consider this a Gog and Magog Watch. (if not yet a Warning.) Hebrews 10:25 (KJV) is worth thinking about: “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is; but exhorting one another: and so much the more, as ye see the day approaching.”

Excessive Righteousness 1: Sodom, et. al.

2023-07-02T14:52:00.001-07:00

“We’re here, we’re queer, we’re coming for your children.”

(Queer March Chant, 6/25/23)

In late June, the chant quoted above was shouted by marchers in the Queer March in Manhattan. NBC News defended the chant, saying that it had been “used for years at Pride events.” Not true. The chant “we’re coming for your children” originates from lyrics sung by the San Francisco Gay Men’s Choir in 2021 (https//thepostmillennial.com/nbc-news-defends-were-coming-for-your-children-chant-at-nyc-drag-march-arguing-its-been-used-for-years-at-pride-events). Other lyrics from that song are: “We’ll convert your children, happens bit by bit, quietly and subtlety and you will barely notice it” (https://www.standingforfreedom.com/2021/07/gay-mens-choir-performs-song-with-the-lyrics-were-coming-for-your-children/). NBC News implies that it’s just gays joking about this unfounded charge leveled against them, but that’s not really true, either. We have only to look at Walt Disney World, in my own back yard, to see that this is not a joke. The LGBTQ+ movement is very serious about converting your children.

They are also serious about quieting any resistance from you. Corporation after corporation is being enlisted in an effort to “normalize” what was generally considered “abnormal” behavior a few short decades ago. The corporations and colleges have DEI codes and re-education programs to ensure that their employees and professors fall in line with their new “normal.”

“UNLESS YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS EXCEEDS … [SODOM]” (Matthew 5:20)

If Mark’s Gospel is the Gospel of Extreme Self-Denial and Luke’s Gospel is the Gospel of Extreme Impoverishment and John’s Gospel is the Gospel of Extreme Faith, then Matthew’s Gospel is the Gospel of Extreme Righteousness. Only Matthew (in 5:20 NKJV) records Jesus’ warning: “Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” Righteousness that EXCEEDS can be called “Excessive Righteousness,” the main title of the next several blogposts in this series. While Luke’s account of the Beatitudes states: “Blessed are you who hunger now, For you shall be filled” (Luke 6:21 NKJV), Matthew 5:6 (NKJV) states: “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For they shall be filled.” Along with Matthew, the very first New Testament book written, according to J. A. T. Robinson (the book of James), emphasizes personal righteousness. As Jesus’ own brother, James corroborates how important “righteousness” was to Jesus. The concept of righteousness permeates Jesus’s Sermon on the Mount in Matthew. Since our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees in order for us to enter the kingdom of heaven, we will be considering the righteousness of the Pharisees in the next few blogposts, for comparison.

It is no great leap to suggest that, if our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, it must most certainly exceed the righteousness of the inhabitants of Sodom. You may be currently attending a church that welcomes LGBTQ+ activities. The Roman Catholic Church released a document on June 20, 2023 stating: “Roman Catholic bishops should discuss how the Church can be more welcoming to LGBTQ+ people” (https://news.yahoo.com/vatican-document-urges-talks-welcoming-123153676.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall). Other denominations have already been more welcoming: Association of Welcoming & Affirming Baptists (AWAB), Affirming Pentecostal Church International, Episcopal Church (United States), Evangelical Anglican Church In America (EACA), Alliance of Baptists, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (CBF), Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), United Methodist Church (UMC), Global Alliance of Affirming Apostolic Pentecostals (GAAAP), Gay Apostolic Pentecostals, Presbyterian Church (USA), Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), Reformed Church in America (RCA), United Church of Christ (UCC), Friends General Conference (FGC), Mennonite Church USA (MC USA), to name a few (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_affirming_LGBT_people). One might suggest that there is a difference between engaging in such sexual sin and tolerating or supporting or welcoming those who do so engage. Nevertheless, those in Sodom who stormed Lot’s home in order “to (carnally) know” the angels who were his guests may have been a minority of the citizenry of Sodom (since, for instance, the city also contained women, yet, no women were mentioned as being guilty of the active crime). These remaining citizens, however, apparently tolerated or supported or welcomed those who so engaged. Genesis 18:19 states that Abraham’s family should “do righteousness,” but in Genesis 18:24, Abraham negotiates with God to save the city of Sodom, if there were only 50 “righteous” in it. Then, Abraham re-negotiates for saving the city if there were only 45 “righteous” (verse 28), then 40 (verse 29), then 30 (verse 30), then 20 (verse 31), then 10 (verse 32). Hence, the “unrighteous” included many who did not seek to commit the sin against the angels, but the entire city was destroyed with fire and brimstone (except for Lot, his wife, and two daughters).

“UNLESS YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS EXCEEDS … [ISLAM]” (Matthew 5:20)

Exceeding the righteousness of the inhabitants of Sodom sets the bar pretty low, but what if the bar is set at a level that many Christians look down on: Islam? There certainly are Muslims who engage in atrocious behavior, such as the Islamic terrorists who murder innocents, and hate Christians and Jews. Nevertheless, I had many Muslim students who took my courses at Loyola University Chicago, in the 1990s. Far from hating me, they loved me as a professor, perhaps, because I took a stand in my classes for morality. They agreed with my position that we should not drink alcohol. They agreed that we should practice sexual purity. They agreed that abortion was unacceptable. They agreed that God should be revered. Although I had fewer Muslim students at Florida State University, I found that they also agreed with my positions on these matters. Although not all Muslims resist the LGBTQ+ movement, most Muslims do. “Muslim parents delivered passionate speeches against elementary schoolchildren in Maryland's Montgomery County Public Schools being forced to learn LGBTQ sexuality curriculum against parents' wishes at a [June 27, 2023] school board meeting” (https//www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/muslim-activist-gives-powerful-speech-against-forced-lgbtq-curriculum-our-people-are-not-backward/ar-AA1d9jdD).

This is consistent with Islamic teaching throughout the world. An opinion piece in the Islamic publication al-Jazeera put it this way:

As Muslims, we refuse to be coerced into believing something our faith categorically condemns. This is not a political stance. It is a moral principle. A recent statement … titled “Navigating Differences: Clarifying Sexual and Gender Ethics in Islam”, has been signed and endorsed by more than 300 Islamic scholars and preachers across North America. In this document, we explicitly and clearly lay out the non-negotiable, normative Islamic position on sexuality and gender ethics (https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2023/6/19/muslims-opposed-to-lgbtq-curricula-for-their-kids-arent-bigots).

The intolerance of Muslims, here, is a good example for Christians to follow. Stepping away from LGBTQ+ issues, for a moment, look at the morality of drinking alcohol. Islam condemns it. The university with which I am currently affiliated—Liberty University—also opposes it. “Liberty University’s code of conduct, known as the Liberty Way, prohibits the consumption of alcohol for all students living on or off campus. This policy applies not only to those under the age of 21, but also those who are 21 and older.” Mormons also oppose it, but an overwhelming majority of evangelical churches (including the one I have attended for the past decade) now accept it. I have had debates with the preachers and elders of my church and have succeeded, at least, in discouraging their preaching from the pulpit the acceptability of drinking. Between 1920 and 1933, Prohibition was the law of the land—and the consensus agreement of Christians throughout the U.S. Nevertheless, as things now stand, there is a good possibility that, in this area (and even in the LGBTQ+ area), the righteousness of Muslims exceeds the righteousness of Christians.

“UNLESS YOUR RIGHTEOUSNESS EXCEEDS … [PHARISEES]” (Matthew 5:20)

Jesus, however, is not satisfied with our righteousness exceeding the Muslims or the citizens of Sodom. He demands that our righteousness exceeds that of the Pharisees. Put away the anti-Pharisee prejudice instilled in you by Sunday School for the next several posts and, with me, look afresh at the impressive righteousness taught by the Pharisees. This is the bar that we must exceed. This is the standard above which we must rise. There are 613 commandments adhered to by the Pharisees. We will consider them, as we look at the Laws the Old and New Testaments impose upon us. The process should result in our being much humbler, rather than our thinking of ourselves as “holier than thou.” One can have “excessive righteousness” without being “holier than thou.”

Home Economics is Stewardship (Money 4)

2023-05-30T11:25:00.002-07:00

“Give an account of your stewardship.” (Luke 16:2 NKJV)

When I attended a small-town high school (in Easton, Illinois, population 350), virtually every female student in the school took courses in Home Economics, while virtually every male student took courses in Agriculture. My older brothers, Tim and Rod, and I studied “Ag, “while my older sisters, Marilyn and Barb, studied “Home Ec.” According to Wikipedia:

Much less common today, [Home Economics] was, and is, most commonly taught in high school. Home economics courses are offered around the world and across multiple educational levels. Historically, the purpose of these courses was to professionalize housework, to provide intellectual fulfillment for women, to emphasize the value of “women's work” in society, and to prepare them for the traditional roles of sexes.

Nevertheless, the phrase “Home Economics” itself is redundant. It is unnecessary to repeat the term “home.” The term “economics” is comprised of two Greek roots: OIKOS/eco- (which means “home”) and NOMOS/-nomics (which means “law”). Put them together and you have “the law of the home.” Another word for home is “household.” Today, the root “eco-” even carries the sense of “earth-as-our-home” as with the word “eco-logy.”

LOGOS/-logy means the study or logic of something (such as the earth). But “ecology” carries a slightly different connotation from the similar word “ge-ology” which also means the study or logic of the earth. The Greek word for Earth or land is GĒ/ge-, as in “ge-ography” in which we map (or graph) the Earth or land. The slightly different connotation between ecology and geology is involved with the concept of “stewardship.” Ecology pertains to “stewardship” of the Earth, just as Economy pertains to “stewardship” of the home or household.

Since there is so much discussion of “stewardship” among modern-day churches, it is surprising that only one of the four Gospel writers in the New Testament employs the OIKONOMOS/OIKONOMIA (=economist/economy) “stewardship” terminology: our friend Luke—the money management expert. The Apostle Paul (with whom Luke was well-acquainted) and the Apostle Peter (who, like Paul, used Silas [aka, Silvanus] as a secretary/amanuensis) also use the terminology. Peter’s only use, in 1 Peter 4:10 NKJV, commands: “As each one has received a gift, minister it to one another, as good stewards of the manifold grace of God.” In 1 Corinthians 9:17, Paul views the preaching of the Gospel as something he has been entrusted with—a “stewardship.” Likewise, in Ephesians 1:9-10 and 3:9 and Colossians 1:25, he views the “mystery” of God’s will which he has received as an OIKONOMIA/stewardship for which he is answerable. In 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, he refers to himself, Apollos, and Cephas all as “stewards” of the mystery of God, and states: “it is required in stewards that one be found faithful” (NKJV). In Ephesians 3:2, it is the OIKONOMIA of the grace of God. In 1 Timothy 1:4, Paul appears to pass the responsibility for stewardship of the word/OIKONOMIA along to Timothy. In Titus 1:7, Paul tells Titus to appoint elders in every city who will be God’s “stewards.” In a purely secular example, Paul states in Galatians 4:2 that children are not under their own authority and control, but are placed under “stewards.” In Paul’s only purely money-related use of the terminology, Romans 16:23 mentions Erastus, the treasurer (steward) of the city. In the “treasurer” sense, it is interesting that the role of treasurer among Jesus and his twelve disciples was given to Judas Iscariot (John 12:6 and 13:29)—undoubtedly, a poor steward, who even sold Jesus to the high priests for thirty pieces of silver.

The notion, however, that we must be good stewards of the money with which we have been entrusted by God is found in neither Paul nor Peter nor in the other New Testament writers—other than Luke. In my article in the KB Journal, “Burke, Perelman, and the Transmission of Values: The Beatitudes as Epideictic Topoi,” I write:

Only Luke records two parables on stewardship. In the parable of the steward who forgave many debts that were owed to his “rich” boss who was firing him, his boss commended him because he had [subsequently] done wisely. In the parable of the rich man and the poor beggar Lazarus, both die and the rich man finds himself in torment while the poor man is relaxing in Abraham’s bosom. Abraham tells the rich man: “Son, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus received evil things; but now here he is comforted and you are in anguish” (Luke 16:1-26).

Although the rich man and Lazarus parable does not specifically contain the terminology of stewardship (OIKONOMOS/OIKONOMIA), it follows shortly after Luke’s key parable of stewardship in chapter 16, and appears to be grouped by Luke along with the earlier parable about dealing with money, including the statement by Jesus in 16:13 (NKJV), also found in Matthew 6:24: “You cannot serve God and mammon.”

The other Lukan parable about stewardship is found in Luke 12:42-48 (NKJV):

“Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his master will make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season?Blessed is that servant whom his master will find so doing [having his waist girded and his lamp burning^, waiting for his master, when he returns from the wedding and knocks so that he may open to him immediately] when he comes. Truly, I say to you that he will make him ruler over all that he has. But if that servant says in his heart, ‘My master is delaying his coming,’ and begins to beat the male and female servants, and to eat and drink and be drunk, the master of that servant will come on a day when he is not looking for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in two and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. … For everyone to whom much is given, from him much will be required.”

Stewardship Principle #1: Do Not Waste

While the parable about a faithful and wise steward “appears” to pertain to the management of money (and home/household economics), its true significance, as Luke employs it, is directed towards being constantly prepared for Jesus’ return. Nevertheless, the comment about eating, drinking, and being drunk seems to equate to the Luke 16:1 accusation lodged against the steward that he had been “wasting” (DIASKORPIZŌ, literally “scattering”) his master’s goods. This is the same term Luke uses in the previous chapter (15:13) to describe how the Prodigal Son “wasted” his substance with riotous living. Seemingly, “wasting” one’s money on alcohol and riotous living is unacceptable “stewardship.”

On the other hand, giving away that money that belongs to one’s master is not necessarily poor stewardship. It seems counterintuitive that the steward in Luke 16 who was charged with “wasting” his master’s goods would be subsequently praised for forgiving various debts owed to his master. He went to each of his master’s debtors and forgave each a portion of their debt. Would this not constitute being further wasteful of his master’s goods? Not, if his master were a champion of debt forgiveness. Jesus taught us to pray, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors (Matt. 6:12).” (In Matt. 18:28-34, Jesus condemns an individual who refused to forgive a debt, after he had been forgiven an exponentially larger debt.) Furthermore, both the master and the previously wasteful steward in Luke understood an important public relations principle:

“[A] certain creditor … had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty … he freely forgave them both. ... [W]hich of them will love him more?” … “I suppose the one whom he forgave more.” … “You have rightly judged.” (Luke 7:41-43 NKJV).

Since the “wasteful” steward desired the good will of those whom he forgave debt, he was called “shrewd” by his master. Whether the courts end up agreeing or disagreeing with President Biden’s plan for America to forgive student loans, for instance, it is clear that the president’s intent is to purchase “goodwill” (in the form of votes) from those voters whose debts will have been forgiven. Even his “attempt” to proclaim forgiveness of student loans appears to have garnered some support from young voters in the 2022 midterm election. There is a clear public relations factor in debt forgiveness. Jesus’s example in Luke 7, however, was a parable pertaining to Jesus forgiving a sinful woman whose reputation was terrible. Jesus made the forgiveness parable, using debt forgiveness as a metaphor. He is offering an example of the good will that is generated by forgiving debts as well as sins. Nevertheless, forgiving debt is never condemned in Luke, or anywhere else in the New Testament. It is not “wasteful.” Often, in a public relations sense, it is excellent stewardship. At the very least, if one has been forgiven, it is incumbent upon that individual to forgive others.

Stewardship Principle #2: Do Not Abuse Those in Your Household

In the Luke 12:42-48 (NKJV) parable, Jesus states concerning the “faithful and wise steward, … his master will make [the steward] ruler over his household, to give them their portion of food in due season.” The wicked steward, however, “begins to beat the male and female servants.” Females from my generation will understand that this is a principle of Home Economics/Stewardship. While my dad engaged in a good-sized farming operation, my mom generally served as household steward of the profits he reaped. Don’t get me wrong. Dad still made the decisions about buying all of the farm machinery used to make his business go. He negotiated the purchase of land, seed, fertilizer, fuel, pesticides, herbicides, etc. He made the car deals. But Mom managed all of the money for the household. She bought the groceries, the clothes, the furniture, the household items. I remember going on shopping trips with her to Springfield, Illinois, for clothing; to the grocery store in Havana, Illinois, for food. I loved shopping for items at the Havana bakery with her, because I would wind up with cream horns or “fudge squares.” I never asked my dad to purchase such things, because it was always understood that those matters fell under Mom’s stewardship. I didn’t always receive everything I asked for, but I always received my “portion of food in due season.” I received my fair share of spankings as a child, but my parents never “beat” me.

If one has received the “gift” of a household (spouse, children, grandchildren), one has an obligation (debt) “to give them their portion of food in due season,” to refrain from abusing them (though painful-but-not-harmful spankings may, occasionally, be required for small children). Even leaving an estate for one’s children at one’s death can be considered good stewardship. Paul, in 2 Corinthians 12:14 (NKJV) asserts: “the children ought not to lay up for the parents, but the parents for the children.” My parents did this. Prior to her death (and following my dad’s death), my mom sold their farm and divided the profits equally among my five siblings and me. That gift allowed me to pay cash for the home in which I now live. My wife and I have, ourselves, now saved up a fair-sized estate that we do not anticipate dissipating during the remaining years of our lives (Good Lord willing and the creek don’t rise!). I expect that my own children will be able to divide our estate equally to help them in their retirement years. While this teaching from 2 Corinthians allows me to justify my persuasive efforts when I was a financial consultant, it is just one matter pertaining to the next stewardship principle.

Stewardship Principle #3: Be Constantly Preparing to Give an Accounting (Luke 16:2)

Even if, as in the case of the Rich Young Ruler (Mark 10:17-22, Matthew 19:16-29, Luke 18:18-30), you never personally sold all of your possessions and gave the money to the poor … even if, as in the case of Barnabas and the early church in Jerusalem (Acts 2:44-45, 4:32-37), you never personally sold all of your possessions and laid all of the profits at the feet of the apostles, still, you do not “own” what are putatively considered your possessions and wealth. All you have belongs to God (Deuteronomy 10:14). You are only the steward. To view yourself in that way is to be “poor in spirit” (Matthew 5:3). As a steward, you are personally poor, but responsible for how you manage all of the things God has entrusted to you (money, health, skills, intellect, and the gospel). This past week, my family considered how even our vacations could provide opportunities to be stewards. What things do you do on vacation that advance God’s kingdom?

So long as you are not “wasting” what God has given you, you have been given considerable latitude as to how to invest His resources. Just be prepared to justify your investments. (There is a grey area between “justifying” and “rationalizing” one’s stewardship decisions.) If the criterion for successful stewardship is found in the parable of the Talents, where the good stewards were successful in doubling the wealth of the master, I have, at times, been a poor steward. When the Walt Disney Corporation took a stand against the State of Florida decision to prohibit woke sexual instruction in kindergarten through 3^rd grade schools, I established a website: NotWaltsFault.com (now available only by Googling “NotWaltsFault.com”) and produced hundreds of Tshirts, but with no profit. However, at least, I can offer an accounting. I did what I thought might advance the values system of the Bible and protect our children. In the past, I wrote and recorded some Christian music without profit. I also collaborated with a former music professor on two full-length Christian musicals without profit. Even the writing and publication of this blog has generated no financial return, but I have had hundreds of thousands of hits on various posts, so I can give an accounting. Some of my ventures have also been financially successful, but I think the accounting of being a steward is to be found in the motives of our stewardship, not in the financial results. Even the “wasteful” steward was applauded by his master for forgiving debts owed to the master!

My mother was quite good at home economics/stewardship (in addition to the stewardship of her biblical knowledge). She didn’t generate extra money for the family, except for those occasions in which she served as a substitute teacher, but she managed well the household funds that my dad generated. I don’t recall her ever having to give an account, but I’m sure that she could have easily done that. She didn’t waste. She didn’t abuse the household. She was faithful and trustworthy in her role. As Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 4:2: “it is required in stewards that one be found faithful” (NKJV). As Jesus asks in Luke 12:42 (NKJV): “Who then is that faithful and wise steward?” Do you and I meet the standard as stewards of God’s wealth?

“That’s All I Need … I Need This!” (Money 3)

2023-04-12T11:39:00.001-07:00

[A]ll who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.

(Acts 4:34-35 NKJV; see also Acts 2:45)

When Steve Martin’s character in the movie “The Jerk” exhausted all of the wealth he had accumulated, he became destitute. He was forced to leave all of his wealth behind. He rationalized his situation by proclaiming that he really didn’t “need” all of that wealth. Walking out of his mansion, he listed a few basic items and said “That’s all I need.” A second later, he saw something else that he wanted to keep and exclaimed “I need that! And that’s all!” Thus, he continually did as he left the mansion. What did he actually “need”? As mentioned in the previous post, for Luke, the use of money to handle the “needs” of each believer is an acceptable and positive use of money. In this blog, we consider what might constitute actual “needs.” Fifty years ago, some very close friends of ours announced to my wife and me that they were not going to acquire anything except that which they actually “needed.” It could be argued that what we actually “need” is almost nothing. We do not even “need” to live. Therefore, we do not need anything that sustains life, such as water, food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medicine, health care, etc. Of course, we “need” Jesus and his grace to save us, but that does not cost us any money. It cost Jesus dearly, but He gives us this gift of salvation freely.

Nevertheless, Luke, in Acts 2:45 and 4:34-35, describes the (quasi-communist?) practice of the early church to pool all of their possessions and distribute them to the believers, as they had “need.” Acts 6:3 even names the (distributing) office of the first seven deacons the office of “need” (χρεία the same term as in 2:45 and 4:35). Taking care of believers’ “needs” became too big a job for the apostles, so deacons were chosen to care for the believers’ “needs.” Note that the church’s “needs” ministry was for the well-being of the believers, not for poor people in the general public. In Acts 20:33-34, Paul reminded the Ephesian elders that he had not coveted their gold or silver or apparel, as he ministered to them, but his own hands had supplied whatever “needs” he experienced. He mentioned “apparel” as a need, but shelter and food generally are considered the equal of clothing, in terms of needs. This practice, said Paul (in verse 35), was an “example” for the elders. Paul, therefore, did not practice any type of voluntary “communism,” as some have suggested was the case for the early church in Acts 2-6. Following Paul’s example, it is good for us to work with our hands to supply our own “needs.” Paul tells the Thessalonians (2 Thess. 3:10 NKJV): “If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat.” Of course, Paul encouraged free-will “offerings” on the part of his gentile churches to assist the Jerusalem church in their times of need, but this was not a quasi-communist practice. It was much more of a quasi-capitalist practice, where those who are financially successful freely donate assistance to the less fortunate. Luke 3:10-14 (NKJV) supplies John the Baptist’s prescription for freely donating to the less fortunate:

So the people asked him, saying, “What shall we do then?” He answered and said to them, “He who has two tunics, let him give to him who has none; and he who has food, let him do likewise.” Then tax collectors also came to be baptized, and said to him, “Teacher, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Collect no more than what is appointed for you.” Likewise the soldiers asked him, saying, “And what shall we do?” So he said to them, “Do not intimidate anyone or accuse falsely, and be content with your wages.”

Luke 5:31 (NKJV) records Jesus answering his critics for eating with publicans and sinners: “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick.” It is a simple deduction that Luke understood that health care was a need, just as the saving grace of Jesus was a need of publicans and sinners. Luke 9:11 states that Jesus cured those that had a need of healing. Along with Jesus’s gift of salvation, our needs include medicine, health care, and health insurance.

In Luke 10:42 (NKJV), Jesus corrects Martha who had complained that Mary was not assisting her with serving a meal. Instead, Mary had chosen to sit at Jesus’s feet and listen to His teaching. Jesus answers Martha: “One thing is needed; and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her.” It may sound self-serving, but I justify my expenditure of years and years, along with huge sums of money, spent to pursue education in biblical studies at Lincoln Christian University, Indiana University, the University of Illinois, the University of Wisconsin, and Purdue University. The student loans were quite large and I only finally paid them off after I turned 71. Did I need to spend that money? I appeal to Jesus’s answer to Martha. Do Christians need to support and learn from teachers in the local churches and Christian colleges? I think so. There are such individuals as “autodidacts” who teach themselves Christianity, and that is certainly good, but even they need to buy (or borrow) books. Furthermore, they might not be able to readily distinguish between Bible-believing scholars and liberal, skeptical scholars (wolves in sheep’s clothing). They need devout Christian mentors to guide them. Paying for

the teaching and guidance of Christian leaders is a worthy need.

Before Jesus entered Jerusalem on Palm Sunday, He sent his disciples into Jerusalem to borrow a donkey upon which He would ride in his triumphal entry. Luke 19:31 and 34 (NKJV) record the instruction to tell the donkey’s owner: “The Lord has need of it/him.” The donkey, of course, served as Jesus’s mode of transportation. Transportation is often a need. We may debate whether our transportation need involves a wheel chair, a bicycle, a golf cart, a taxi, a new automobile, an SUV, an electric car, a train fare, a plane ticket, or even the purchase of a private Jet or helicopter. The individual Christian should be free to justify his/her transportation choice on the basis of stewardship. Jesus lived His entire earthly life in a country the size of New Jersey. He, therefore, walked much of the time (probably, a healthier approach), but he also rode boats across the Sea of Galilee and, as mentioned, He rode a donkey into Jerusalem. His pregnant mother Mary, we believe, rode a donkey from Nazareth to Bethlehem before His birth, and the two of them, no doubt, rode a donkey from Bethlehem to Egypt and back.

In Matthew 6:8 (NKJV), Jesus introduces the Lord’s Prayer with the caveat: “Your Father knows the things you have need of before you ask Him.” “Daily bread” would, no doubt be among those things, therefore, that are considered needs. Whether one’s “daily bread” consists of simple sliced bread or an extravagant cuisine is another matter of personal stewardship.

Regarding shelter, Luke 9:58 (NKJV) quotes Jesus: “Foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests, but the Son of Man has nowhere to lay His head.” This quotation might be mistaken to indicate that, for Jesus, shelter was not a need, but John 1:38-39 (NKJV) clearly indicates that Jesus had lodging/shelter: “‘What do you seek?’ They said to Him, ‘Rabbi’ (which is to say, when translated, Teacher), ‘where are You staying?’ He said to them, ‘Come and see.’” Once again, considerations concerning how elaborate one’s home might be pertain to the issue of stewardship. Churches, incidentally, which ask you to give money to their ministry, face a similar dilemma when it comes to the buildings that house the church activities. How elaborate is too elaborate? Would less elaborate quarters diminish the ministry of the church? What is the stewardship involved?

Clearly, the list of items upon which we spend money in the 21^st Century far exceeds the list of what we might term “needs.” And, even those items that might be termed “needs” vary greatly in terms of elaborateness. Our meals, our clothing, our health, our shelter. Luke provides some discussion of stewardship, which we will consider in the next post. The sum of money entrusted to stewards in Luke’s various discussions is rather large. 21^st Century Christians often are also made stewards of large sums of money. Even those whom we might consider “poor” among American Christians are extremely wealthy by comparison to the “poor” in Jesus’s age. Does this mean that we all are actually the “rich” upon whom Jesus pronounced “woes”? We’ll look at that, next time.

Meanwhile, I leave you with two hierarchies pertaining to “needs” in the 21^st Century. The first hierarchy is a financial planning triangle I taught to my clients when I was in the financial planning business. On pages 157-158 of my book Making Offers They Can’t Refuse: The Twenty-One Sales in a Sale, I describe it:

Virtually all financial experts refer to this as the financial triangle. Notice that it is divided into three layers. The bottom layer is marked “safe.” The middle layer is marked “low-risk.” The top layer is marked “high-risk.”

… You need to build your financial future the same way you would build a house. You don't start at the roof and build downwards; you start at the foundation and build upwards. … [The first level] is the foundation. It is marked “safe.” Before you begin to invest in low-risk areas such as mutual funds, there are four areas which financial experts encourage you to keep absolutely safe. I use an acrostic. I use the letters of the word “s-a-f-e” to help you remember them.

The letter “s” stands for “sickness.” You need health insurance to pay for doctor and hospital bills so that, if there is a special surgical procedure or medication or treatment that would save your life, they can perform it. The money will be there. If your sickness results in disability, so you can't go to work, you need an income to replace the income that you lost.

The letter “a” stands for “after 65.” According to social security statistics, only 10 out of 100 Americans born 65 years ago are well-to-do today. … [M]ake certain that, when you reach age 65, you will be one of the ten.

The letter “f” stands for “fatality.” When you are married and have a family, you will need at least ten times your annual income in life insurance. In other words, if you make $40,000 per year, you will need $400,000 in life insurance. …

The letter “e” stands for “emergency funds.” You need a savings account of some variety. Experts say that you should save up at least two or three months’ income, in case of an emergency. …

Once we have set up the “safe” level for you, you may consider yourself free to invest in some of the low-risk, and, eventually, maybe even high-risk areas.

That “safe” level comprises those matters that financial planners deem to be “needs.” You may not ever invest in low-risk or high-risk areas, but you need to take care of the “safe” level.

The second hierarchy is Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs. Starting, once again, at the bottom rung of the hierarchy, such basic needs as food, water, and sleep are mentioned. Think of a poor individual seeking any kind of job that would provide enough money to provide food and shelter (somewhere to sleep). The worker might even accept a dangerous job (coal mining, off-shore drilling, policeman in New York, etc.) to receive an income that would meet these “physiological needs.” But then, that worker realizes that s/he needs safety, as well, so the worker bumps up to Maslow’s second tier of needs. He could lose his health in the coal mine. S/he could lose his/her life as a police officer. He could lose his family with an off-shore drilling job that kept him away from home. The prospect of a loss of family moves him to his third-tier set of needs: love and belonging. Perhaps, an individual would even pay money (or accept a lower income) to be able to spend more time with his/her family. Or, perhaps, an individual would accept a lower income in order to gain more esteem (the next tier in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs). We have a “need” for the respect of others, for the sense that we are achieving something. Finally, one might throw away one’s entire career in order to do what one believes one is “meant to do,” what s/he was “put on earth to do,” what s/he has the “aptitude and desire for.” This final need is the need for “self-actualization.” When someone experiences a mid-life crisis, this need may be the culprit.

Maslow’s list may go beyond what Luke would count as “needs” in Luke and Acts, but I believe the list is worth considering. After all, we know that we need food, water, and sleep, but if health is on Luke’s list of needs, wouldn’t safety be, also? Love is a need that prompted God to give his only begotten Son for the world. Jesus praised (i.e., blessed) his disciples in the Beatitudes, so He surely thought they needed to receive esteem, even though the world may not have esteemed them. Jesus, above all men, understood what He was “meant to do,” what He was “put on earth to do,” and he paid an ultimate price to be self-actualized. What do you actually “need”? Give consideration to these things.

In the next post, the subject of stewardship.

“Money is a God Term”--Prestige (Money 2)

2023-02-18T12:23:00.001-08:00

Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession. And he kept back part of the proceeds.

(Acts 5:1-2 NKJV)

According to Kenneth Burke, while he was teaching a course at the University of Chicago, as a visiting professor, the conservative rhetorical scholar Richard Weaver (who was, at the time, a full professor at the University of Chicago) sat in the back of Burke’s classroom, each day, taking notes. In that course, Burke introduced his notion of what he called “God terms.” After Burke concluded his course at Chicago, Weaver published a work describing as his own concepts: “God terms” and “devil terms.” Burke was angry with Weaver, believing that Weaver had stolen his terminology, without crediting Burke. Their feud, developing from this issue, lasted throughout both of their lifetimes. Although I like Weaver (and agree with his Conservatism more than with Burke’s liberalism), I find Burke’s notion of “God terms” to be much more useful (and original) than Weaver’s, so in this blog, I use Burke’s definition of “God terms,” not Weaver’s.

In The Complete White Oxen (293), Burke equates “God term” with a “summarizing title.” In The Rhetoric of Religion (2-3), he equates it with “summarizing,” then equates it with a “title of titles” (33). In “Tactics of Motivation,” Chimera 1 (1943): 28, he calls it an “ultimate title.” I take Burke to mean, by all this, that there are certain “terms” that many other terms may be translated into. I think Burke’s best example of such a summarizing or ultimate title of titles is the term “money.” Burke is not suggesting that money is somehow a “God.” It is only a ”God term.” In A Grammar of Motives (355), discussing capitalist systems, Burke comments: “Money would be … [a] ‘God term.’ For a God term designates the ultimate motivation, or substance.” (Capitalists are ultimately motivated by money.) Money is a summarizing title, because virtually anything may be translated into money. “Time Is Money is an aphorism that is claimed to have originated … in ‘Advice to a Young Tradesman,’ an essay by Benjamin Franklin that appeared in George Fisher’s 1748 book, The American Instructor: or Young Man’s Best Companion” (Wikipedia). What this means is: I can buy someone’s time by offering them money, when I hire them to complete a project or to do something for me. In the same sense of using money to buy things, food is money, clothing is money, shelter (a home or apartment) is money, health (even longer life) is money (I buy the services of a doctor or pharmaceutical products), transportation (whether car, gas, airplane, train, bus, etc.) is money, security (and peace of mind) in retirement is money, security (and peace of mind) against criminals (whether robbers, murderers, or rapists, etc.) is money. Some might even suggest that love is money—that it can be bought—although the Beatles’ song disagrees: Money Can’t Buy Me Love!

Obviously, even in Luke’s writings, despite emphasizing “Blessed are you ‘poor’” (Luke 6:20 NKJV) and “Woe to you who are rich” (Luke 6:24 NKJV) and “You cannot serve God and mammon” (Luke 16:13 NKJV), not every use of money is condemned. For example, Luke 7:37-38 speaks approvingly of:

[A] woman in the city who was a sinner [who], when she knew that Jesus sat at the table … brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil [which Matthew identifies as a ‘precious ointment’] … and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil.

Spending money exorbitantly in the service/worship of Jesus is not wrong. (Hence, the Magi who gave exorbitant gifts to Jesus in Bethlehem were acceptable.) In Acts 4:34-35 (NKJV), Luke reports: “all who were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of the things that were sold, and laid them at the apostles’ feet; and they distributed to each as anyone had need.” Therefore, for Luke, the use of money to handle the “needs” of each Christian is an acceptable and positive use of money. In the next blog, we will consider what might constitute actual “needs.” As an example, par excellence, of the early church’s practice of selling real estate and giving the proceeds to the apostles to distribute, Luke mentions Barnabas in Acts 4:36-37 (NKJV): “And … Barnabas … a Levite of the country of Cyprus, having land, sold it, and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet.” Apparently, this selfless act (at least, in part) produced some “prestige” for Barnabas, since Barnabas shows up in the church history of Acts multiple times, thereafter (9:27; 11:22, 30; 12:25; 13:1, 2, 7, 43, 46, 50; 14:12, 14, 20; 15:2, 12, 22, 25, 35-37, 39). Paul mentions him in his letters (1 Corinthians 9:6; Galatians 2:1, 9, 13; Colossians 4:10). In the previous post, I mentioned that, in Acts 13, Barnabas was Paul’s companion when the two of them encountered the magus Elymas, while they were on a missionary journey together (Acts 13-14). The story of Barnabas’s relationship with Paul begins in Jerusalem in Acts 9:26-27, as Barnabas vouches for Paul’s conversion when the leaders of the church, there, had been afraid of him. Barnabas seems to carry a lot of influence (or prestige), because the church, then, accepts Paul. After that time (Acts 11:22-25), the church at Jerusalem sends Barnabas to the newly developing church in Antioch to establish the church. Barnabas feels he could use the assistance of Paul, so he travels to Tarsus to fetch him and, together, they establish the Antioch church. When a prophecy, later, foretells a coming famine in Israel, the Antioch church sends financial help to Jerusalem, by the hands of Paul and Barnabas (Acts 11:30). In Acts 15, they travel together to Jerusalem to defend their mission work with the Gentiles.

With all of this prestige bestowed upon Barnabas, a married couple in Jerusalem (Ananias and Sapphira) attempt to replicate Barnabas’s self-less act of selling real estate and donating the proceeds to the apostles to distribute. But their “motivation” was not identical to Barnabas’s. Recall Burke’s definition of a “God term” in A Grammar of Motives (355): “For a God term designates the ultimate motivation

.” Barnabas’s donation of all of the proceeds of his real estate sale to the church is motivated by a concern to share with his fellow Christians, with no regard to his own financial well-being. That he did not keep back any of the proceeds from his real estate sale is evidenced by the implication in 1 Corinthians 9:6 that Paul and Barnabas, alone among the leaders of the church, find it necessary to “work” for their living, while preaching the Gospel. This self-less motivation of Barnabas in selling real estate and giving away the proceeds is not the motivation of Ananias and Sapphira in Acts 5:1-11. They sell real estate, and pretend to donate the full proceeds to the apostles, but secretly “keep back” part of the proceeds. What is their motivation? Apparently, it is purely to gain the prestige that Barnabas has. They both deny to the apostles that they kept anything back; thus, they lie to God (5:4); they lie to the Holy Spirit (5:3). Why would they lie about it? The apostles tell them that it would have been acceptable for them to keep the proceeds (5:4), but they lie, no doubt, because they covet the prestige given to Barnabas.

Motivation is often the key to understanding Luke’s emphasis on money. In the previous post, Simon (Magus) is motivated to use his money to buy “power” in the church—the capacity to grant miraculous spiritual gifts. In this post, Ananias and Sapphira are motivated to use their money to buy “prestige” in the church. Is the purchase of anything that supplies prestige a fatal sin? From athletic shoes to jeans to handbags, Americans engage in the purchase of prestigious brands. In 2020, I bought my first “Lincoln” automobile. Prior to this time, I had purchased many new vehicles (plus used vehicles), and then driven them until they wore out, usually putting 300,000 or 400,000 miles on each vehicle before it dropped. My business practice required an exorbitant amount of travel and I “needed” reliable transportation. The new vehicles generally carried the “Ford” trademark, although there were a couple of Chevys, plus a Mercury, a Buick, and an Oldsmobile, along the way. One used vehicle I bought, my wife and I nicknamed the “crunch.” It was a tiny Ford Festiva that had been involved in an accident and was smashed in on all sides, the back, and the top, but, it only had 40,000 miles on the engine and I got it for almost nothing. I replaced the broken window glass with Plexiglass that I fastened to the frame by screws. I used a crowbar to bend the wheel wells out enough to accommodate the free movement of the wheels—but if someone rode in the backseat, the wheel wells would rub on the tires. I filled in the spaces where the doors didn’t quite fit close together with foam insulation. I (and my son Tristan) drove the vehicle until it quit. In other words, I have driven cars that supplied no prestige, whatsoever (the Festiva, for one)! However, in 2020, I retired from full-time teaching at Florida State University, and I found a super deal on a new Lincoln MKZ. $9000.00 off list price! I couldn’t resist it. I sold my Ford that had only 300,000 miles on it and bought the Lincoln. Was I motivated by the “prestige” of owning a Lincoln? Yes, I honestly think I was, even though I was also motivated by the super deal. Have I witnessed increased prestige in they eyes of my neighbors and friends? Yes, I have. Many more compliments! To keep me humble, I park it alongside my 2009 Ford Ranger pickup truck, so no one will think of me as a snob. Did it buy me any new prestige in the church? No, I don’t think so. Did I “need” a vehicle that was reliable (even if it also supplied a little “prestige,” along the way)? Yes, I think I did. As mentioned, my next blog will discuss that issue of “needs” and how Luke interprets Jesus’s teaching, there.

Nevertheless, it is clear, even in New Testament times, that money was used to obtain prestige (even privilege) in the church. James 2:1-4 (NKJV) cautions:

My brethren, do not hold the faith … with partiality. For if there should come into your assembly a man with gold rings, in fine apparel, and there should also come in a poor man in filthy clothes, and you pay attention to the one wearing the fine clothes and say to him, “You sit here in a good place,” and say to the poor man, “You stand there,” or, “Sit here at my footstool,” have you not shown partiality among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts?

James, being Jesus’s brother, might have held some added insight into what Jesus may have meant by his “Blessed are the poor” beatitude. In the situation James describes, the rich do not even need to sell their property and give it away to receive prestige, even though Luke emphasizes the superiority of the prestige for those (like Barnabas) who do so (with the proper motivation). Perhaps, Matthew’s version of the beatitude (“Blessed are the poor in spirit”) correctly indicates that those who may have money should not flaunt it (gold rings, fine apparel) or accept deference because of the size of their bank accounts. They should exercise a “spirit” of being poor, even if they are not. They should not be motivated by the prestige of having money or of giving money away. We should check our motives.

The Other Magi—Simon and Elymas (Money 1)

2023-01-05T11:15:00.000-08:00

“Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, magi from the east arrived in Jerusalem.”

(Matt 2:1 NASV)

“Now a man named Simon had previously been practicing magic in the city and astonishing the people of Samaria.”

(Acts 8:9 NASV)

“Elymas the magician (for so his name is translated) was opposing them”

(Acts 13:8 NASV)

Tomorrow (January 6th) is Three Kings Day. Have you ever noticed that Matthew is the only gospel that provides an account of the Magi at Jesus’s birth (Matt 2:1-12). The number three became attached to the group, since they brought three gifts—gold, frankincense, and myrrh. In light of these gifts, they were, apparently, rich guys. However, we do not actually know the exact number of the Magi; Matthew never informs us of that, but that’s not the point of this post. I’m beginning a series of posts on Luke’s teaching about Christians and money. For Luke, there are several monetary landmines Christians need to avoid, if they wish to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. While Luke’s infancy narrative does not mention the Magi at Jesus’s birth, Luke mentions another magus (singular of magi), as he writes in Acts 13:8 (NASV): “But Elymas the magician (for so his name is translated) was opposing them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith.” The Greek word translated “magician” in 13:8 is the same word—magi—as in the birth narrative in Matt 2:1-12—magus/μάγος. While Luke does not use the term magus/μάγος to describe Simon (often referred to elsewhere as “Simon Magus,” in Acts 8:9-25, he uses the cognate noun mageia/μαγεία in Acts 8:11 to refer to Simon’s “magical arts.” He is also called “Simon the Sorcerer.” Elymas and Simon, the magi, both appear to be “rich guys,” as were the Magi in Matthew’s account, but they are presented (only by Luke) in negative contexts.

As I mention in my article in the KB Journal, “Epideictic oratory [which I argue is the genre of the gospels] … strengthens the disposition toward action by increasing adherence to the values it lauds.” Matthew has no problem lauding the “rich guys”—the Magi. Luke, however, does not even mention them, and, instead, lauds the “humble” (poor man’s) view of Jesus’ birth. In Luke 1:48, before Jesus is born, Mary comments on her own “low estate.” In 1:52-53 (CEB), she exalts God: “He has pulled the powerful down from their thrones and lifted up the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things and sent the rich away empty-handed.” Luke 2:7 says that Jesus was wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger. Since God saved the first-born sons of the Israelites, Exodus 13 demands that the first-born males (even of livestock) be redeemed by a sacrifice. The first-born male donkey, for example, was to be redeemed by the sacrifice of a lamb. When Jesus was redeemed (being Mary’s first-born son) in Jerusalem, Luke 2:24 reports that Joseph and Mary offered up two turtle doves or two young pigeons, as the price of his redemption—a poor man’s redemption price. Matthew includes none of these humble origins of Jesus.

Why is this true? As I mentioned in a previous post, Luke lauds the value of EXTREME IMPOVERISHMENT. By comparing the Beatitudes in Luke with the Beatitudes as Matthew presents them, we see that Luke lauds poverty more than does Matthew. Luke’s beatitude “Blessed are you who are poor” becomes Matthew’s “poor in spirit.” Luke’s “Blessed are you who are hungry now” becomes Matthew’s “hunger after righteousness.” Luke follows-up his Beatitude with the statements, “Woe to you who are rich . . . woe to you who are full now.” Matthew does not. Luke is the only gospel to provide the Good Samaritan parable. Acts (also written by Luke) tells of Christians like Barnabas who sold their possessions and brought the money to the apostles.

Hence, we come to a differentiation between Magi in Matthew and Luke. Dispensing with the good Magi who brought gifts to the baby Jesus and the bad magus Elymas who opposed Paul and Barnabas, and whom Paul temporarily blinded for that opposition, we turn for an understanding of Luke to the one who is called in history “Simon Magus.” Much legendary material was produced in the second century concerning Simon, which I do not trust. Looking only at the biblical account in Acts 8:9-24, we find the account, written by Luke.

To summarize the account: the apostles Peter and John came to Samaria after the deacon (from Jerusalem) Philip had evangelized and converted the first Samaritans to Christianity. Philip had baptized the new Christians, but none of them had received a charismatic gift—a miraculous gift of the Spirit, such as Philip and Peter and John had. (Philip, apparently, had no ability to confer these gifts of the Spirit to anyone. Then, the apostles Peter and John laid hands on some of the new Samaritan Christians and those who had received the laying on of hands of apostles received miraculous charismatic gifts (8:13). “Simon saw that through the laying on of the apostles’ hands” these spiritual gifts were conferred, so he offered to buy this ability to confer spiritual gifts on people from the apostles (8:18-19). Peter blasted him (8:20 NKJV): “Your money perish with you, because you thought that the gift of God could be purchased with money!” Peter told him to repent, and apparently, he did. End of story.

In addition to offering another indication of Luke’s attitude toward money, this passage is the clearest evidence that modern-day spiritual gifts are non-existent. Spiritual gifts can only be conferred by the laying on of apostles’ hands. Since there are no apostles alive, today, there are no spiritual gifts, today. While I don’t always agree with Calvinists, I do agree with John Calvin who wrote: “It pleased the Lord that those visible and admirable gifts of the Holy Spirit, which he then poured out upon his people, should be administered and distributed by his apostles by the laying on of hands . . . since that gift has ceased to be conferred, to what end is the laying on of hands? . . . Assuredly . . . those miraculous powers and manifest operations, which were distributed by the laying on of hands, have ceased. They were only for a time” (Inst. 4.19.6).

I turn, now, to the monetary implications of Luke’s message, with some trepidation. For a decade of my life, I earned a living as a financial planner—primarily, as a life insurance agent. I sought to persuade mostly young college graduates that they should plan for their financial future, especially for the prospects of unexpected illness, disability, or death, plus the more expected needs of retirement. I recommended products that I also purchased for myself, my wife, and my children. I still have these products in force, on my family, forty years later. I wrote a book regarding my persuasion methods and my products that has been used (with a few upgraded editions) as a college text at multiple universities. The current title of the book is Making Offers They Can’t Refuse: The Twenty-One Sales in a Sale, 3^rd ed. My trepidation comes as I begin this series on Luke’s theology of money. Jesus says, in Luke 18:25 (NKJV), “For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” Matthew 19:24 and Mark 10:25 record the same saying of Jesus, but with different Greek words for “the eye of a needle.” (Interestingly, the three gospels used three different Greek words for “eye,” but that’s insignificant since Jesus spoke in Aramaic and, hence, all Greek is translation.) What is significant, however, is that being “rich” is everywhere presented as being an extreme barrier to entering the Kingdom of God.

I might be wading into a mine field by considering the monetary teachings of Luke. Perhaps, I will step on landmines that could be devastating to myself, as well as my readers, but, wade we must! For the next several posts, we will consider Luke’s monetary teachings, one-by-one, starting here with Simon Magus. Contrary to those who later coined the term “simony,” meaning “to buy a religious office,” Simon was not attempting to purchase any ecclesiastical office. He just wanted power and he believed that everything was for sale. Once he determined who held the source of miraculous power—the apostles—he was willing to offer “the big bucks” in exchange for some of that power. Kind of a quid pro quo.

I cringe when I have witnessed church boards and ministers who were unwilling to confront the sinful behavior of certain members of the church, on the grounds that they are “such good givers.” I worry that multi-million-dollar church building programs, with the attendant debt, create scenarios in which the church owes its soul to the congregational wealthy. What happens if the rich in the church get offended and pull the plug? What happens if the “wealthy woke” decide that the church should accept abortion or homosexuality or living together before marriage or adultery or transgenderism among its members? (Not accepting these behaviors does not mean we should not love the sinners, by the way.) Are the wealthy, in those instances, not exerting a Simon-like attempt at buying power?

The Magi who visited the baby Jesus may have been wealthy, but they sought no quid pro quo from the baby or Mary or Joseph. Their purpose in giving was to worship, not to purchase power or influence. Lest we be tempted to expect some quid pro quo from our giving, we should be on constant vigil to avoid stepping on the Simon Magus landmine in our financial dealings with God. Next, we consider the landmine of buying prestige.

The Importance of His Flesh in Entelechy (Gospels 11)

2022-12-12T10:36:00.004-08:00

“And the Word became flesh.”

(John 1:14 NKJV)

“unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.”

(John 6:53 NKJV)

Imagine that you are Jewish, at the time of Jesus. Like Peter, in Acts 10:13, you refuse to eat any foods that are not kosher. No pork, no shellfish, no rabbit, not even Jello (if it had been invented back then; it’s made of pig parts). No catfish, shark, or sturgeon. No escargots, no insects (other than certain varieties of locust). You can’t eat an egg that has blood in it, because the blood indicates an unborn embryo that was not properly killed, and, besides, you cannot eat anything with blood in it. Then, along comes Jesus who tells his disciples to eat his flesh and drink his blood. Not only is drinking any blood a violation, but eating his flesh even smacks of cannibalism. Justin Martyr’s First Apology (Chapter 5 & 6) indicates that the Romans accused the early Christians of cannibalism, perhaps, based somewhat on this passage. Jesus’ saying even scandalized many of his disciples in Capernaum who heard it: “Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this, said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can understand it?’ . . . Jesus . . . said to them, ‘Does this offend you?’ . . . From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.” (John 6:60-61 NKJV).

Material/hulē/ὕλη

Many commentaries on John have wrestled with the John 6:53-61 passage, but my purpose, here, is to see if the concept of entelechy sheds any new light on its meaning. It is possible that the John 6:51-63 passage is where the concept of hulē/ὕλη plays a most important role. As I mentioned in my post The “Form” of God and Entelechy (Gospels 6), “all (natural) material/hulē/ὕλη (including “flesh”) was “made” by (or through) the Logos.” Although the New Testament only once uses the term hulē/ὕλη, John makes considerably more use of the term flesh/sarx/σὰρξ, using the term eleven times. Of those eleven times, eight are in the John 6:51-63 passage, now under consideration, where Jesus also claims to be the living bread that came down from heaven.

Incarnation: flesh/sarx/σὰρξ

It is not enough to say that John’s account of Jesus is employing the trope of metaphor. It clearly is. The question is how extensive the metaphor is. Certainly, Jesus’ body is not literal bread or manna (John 6:31-33), yet he does assert that he literally did come down from heaven. His use of the verbs to eat and to drink pertain to the bread and manna metaphor, so they are not literal, either. Importantly, however, when Jesus refers to his own flesh/sarx/σὰρξ (and blood), he is being quite literal.

Seeing

Other than the John 6 passage, perhaps, the most important (entelechially-enlightening) passage in John is 1:14, where John tells us that the Logos became flesh/sarx/σὰρξ. We celebrate this verse at Christmas time, calling Christmas the “incarnation.” In-carn-ation, features the flesh element, since the root “caro/carnis-” is Latin for “flesh/sarx/σὰρξ,” as in “carnivore” and “carnival.” The combination of Logos and flesh/sarx/σὰρξ, according to 1:14, allows us to see/theaomai/θεάομαι his glory—as of the only begotten of the Father—full of grace and truth. This “seeing” (or perception of Jesus’ glory) is the more literal equivalent of “eating” and “drinking.” The metaphor of eating and drinking indicates “ingesting” into one’s own flesh/sarx/σὰρξ the nutrients that are, then, to be “assimilated” into one’s own flesh/sarx/σὰρξ. John uses three Greek words meaning “to see” interchangeably:

(1) theaomai/θεάομαι,

(2) horaō/ὁράω‎, and

(3) theōreō/θεωρέω.

Theōreō/θεωρέω may have the etymological implication of seeing as God helps one to see, according to Wiktionary’s notes on θεωρός. Note the prefix “the-” at the first of the word theōreō. “The-” is the first part of the words theos/θεὸς (God) and theology (the study of God). The English words “theory,” “theorist,” and “theorize” come from the word see/theōreō/θεωρέω. The word see/theōreō/θεωρέω is employed by Aristotle in On Rhetoric, to suggest that the discipline of rhetoric helps one to “see/theōreō/θεωρέω” the available means of persuasion in any given situation. Aristotle is not interested in mere spectatorship on the part of his readers. He is interested in truly in-depth “seeing,” the kind of seeing that would enable one to fully grasp all implications of an issue, “theoretically, so to speak.” Likewise, John, in his gospel, wants his audience to fully grasp all implications of Jesus and his work as Logos-become-flesh: specifically, his glory—as of the only begotten of the Father—full of grace and truth. He wants his disciples to ingest and assimilate the implications of what they “see” him accomplish in his flesh/sarx/σὰρξ. As Odeberg (p. 36) puts it, “they will see the conne[ction] being brought about between the celestial appearance, the Glory, δόξα [doxa], of Christ and his appearance in the flesh.” This connection, according to Odeberg, is what the disciples will observe when they “see the angels of God ascending and descending on the son of man,” as discussed in the previous post. Even as it pertains to the simplest term for seeing (to “see”/horaō/ὁράω), Odeberg (p. 40) credits Abbott with showing that, in John, “the choice of the verb ὁράω . . . always refers to the spiritual sight, the spiritual perception . . . [which] in [John] presupposes the entrance into the spiritual reality.” It is as when one says “Oh, I see!” to indicate that one, at last, fully comprehends all of the implications in something that has been said or done.

Theōreō/θεωρέω

When John states that people believed-in/followed him when they saw/theōreō/θεωρέω the signs he did (2:23, 6:2, 40), or the Samaritan woman saw/theōreō/θεωρέω that he was a prophet (4:19), he indicates what Jesus says in 12:45: “whoever sees/theōreō/θεωρέω me sees/theōreō/θεωρέω Him who sent me.” In contrast to his disciples, Jesus says in 14:17 that the world cannot receive the Spirit of Truth because it neither sees/theōreō/θεωρέω him nor knows Him. In 16:10, 16, and 19, Jesus tells his disciples that, when he goes to the Father, they will see/theōreō/θεωρέω (interchangeably phrased: see/horaō/ὁράω) him no longer, but then in a little while, they will see/theōreō/θεωρέω him again. Perhaps, Jesus is clarifying this “in a little while” reference in 17:24 when Jesus prays to his Father that his disciples might be where he is, to see/theōreō/θεωρέω his glory, just as John 1:14 says we saw/theaomai/θεάομαι his glory—as of the only begotten of the Father.

Theaomai/θεάομαι

In other uses of to “see”/theaomai/θεάομαι, John 1:32 states that John the Baptist saw/theaomai/θεάομαι the Spirit descend from heaven like a dove on Jesus. In John 4:35, Jesus calls upon his disciples to see/theaomai/θεάομαι that the fields are white unto harvest, as the Samaritans were coming out to him. In John 11:45 many Jews who had seen/theaomai/θεάομαι him resurrect Lazarus believed in him. This word for seeing also implies great depth of understanding, and ingesting and assimilating.

Horaō/ὁράω‎

It is not enough to have great understanding of Jesus; eating his flesh involves bearing “witness” to what one has seen. In John 1:34, the word “to see”/horaō/ὁράω‎ is connected with bearing “witness.” John the Baptist says that he has seen/horaō/ὁράω‎ and borne witness that Jesus is the Son of God. In 1:50-51, Jesus tells Nathanael that he will see to see/horaō/ὁράω‎ greater things; he will see/horaō/ὁράω‎ angels ascending and descending on Jesus. In John 3:11, Jesus connects his own “witness” with what he has seen/horaō/ὁράω‎ with God above. In the primary passage under consideration in this post (in 6:46), Jesus says he is the only one who has seen/horaō/ὁράω‎ the Father. In 8:38, those things he has seen/horaō/ὁράω with his Father are what he speaks about. In 11:40, before he raises Lazarus, he tells Lazarus’s sister Martha that, if she believes, she will see/horaō/ὁράω‎ the glory/δόξα/doxa of God.‎ In John 14:9, Jesus tells Philip that whoever has seen/horaō/ὁράω him has seen/horaō/ὁράω the Father. In 19:35, John summarizes why he has written his gospel: “He who saw/horaō/ὁράω it [i.e., John] has borne witness . . . that you also may believe.”

Testimony/martyria/μαρτυρία

The three words for seeing, as John uses them, are virtual synonyms. As noted, it is necessary, but not enough, for his disciples to “see” the things that Jesus did in the flesh. As I wrote in the previous post, Odeberg connects the testimony/martyria/μαρτυρία of Jesus with the believer’s testimony.

As Odeberg notes in his comments on Lazarus’s resurrection (pp. 120-121), those who are eye witnesses of the resurrection supply testimony/martyria/μαρτυρία concerning the Divine power of Jesus, emanating from a personal experience of that power.” His disciples could not have supplied “eye witness” testimony, if they had not “seen” Jesus, in the flesh, doing his works. As they “see” Jesus’ mighty works and ingest and assimilate the truth about him and his glory as a result, they engage in the process (entelechy/ἐντέλεχεια) of eating his flesh (sarx/σὰρξ) and drinking his blood. Jesus’ words may be spirit, but what humans actually “saw” him do was in his flesh (sarx/σὰρξ). One cannot “see” spirit, but one can “see” flesh. John 3:8 points out that, like the wind, one cannot “see” spirit, even though it is active around one. Jesus’ flesh—the hulē/ὕλη—is supremely important in order for his disciples to “see,” ingest, and assimilate. Furthermore, Jesus’ spirit was not tempted; his flesh was tempted, as when he hungered after fasting in the desert, but he did not sin. His spirit did not die; his flesh died on Calvary. Were it not for the death of his flesh, there would be no forgiveness of sin—no sacrifice. When priests offered a sin offering for the people, they would eat of the flesh (Leviticus 10:12-15). When Israelites offered an acceptable sacrifice of thanksgiving, they themselves ate all of it on the same day (Leviticus 22:30). John is unique among the gospel writers in asserting that Jesus was crucified on the very day that the Passover lamb was slain. John the Baptist asserts: Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the world’s sin (John 1:29). Once Jesus died on the cross, his body was placed in a tomb for three days, then resurrected and ascended. No one ever literally ate his flesh, but those who saw his flesh, believed in him, and witnessed to his deeds in the flesh ingested and assimilated his flesh and blood into their own lives. His flesh was of the utmost importance!

Jacob’s Ladder and the Locomotion Entelechy (Gospels 10)

2022-11-15T10:33:00.001-08:00

“Most assuredly, I say to you, hereafter you shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man.”

(John 1:51 NKJV)

While most other interpreters (including visual artists of the last few thousand years) depict Jacob’s Ladder as angels climbing up and down on a ladder, the Gospel of John cites Jesus as saying that the angels would be ascending and descending on a person, instead of a ladder (specifically, on Jesus Himself). At first glance, one might think that John and Jesus must be making a very loose application of the Jacob’s Ladder incident in Genesis 28:12 by having the angels ascend and descend on a person. Hugo Odeberg (p. 35), however, instructs that “there is the record of the two variant interpretations put upon the [Hebrew word commonly translated ‘on it’] of Gen. 28:12, one taking it in the sense of ‘on the ladder,’ the other in the sense of ‘on [a person].’” Specifically, this second variant would be literally translated “on him.” If one looks only at the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint), the translation must be “on it.” Nevertheless, the Hebrew word is בו “bō.” Writes Odeberg: “Burney has pointed out that the [Johanine] interpretation presupposes a direct reference to the Hebrew original, and cannot be derived from the LXX [Septuagint].” Like the interpretation in the rabbinic text, Genesis Rabbah, John and Jesus are translating the Hebrew word as “on him.” Jesus is the ladder (or train track, a slightly updated metaphor) to and from Heaven on whom angels are ascending and descending (in a locomotion sense). Train tracks have the railroad ties that cross the tracks at intervals, resembling the rungs of

a ladder, so the updated metaphor may be easily visualized.

The clearest Aristotelian entelechial language in Jesus’ John 1:51 comment to is Aristotle’s description of the fourth type of kinēsis/κίνησις: “in respect of locomotion, upwards and downwards” (Physics 201a5ff.). Hugo Odeberg (p. 38) observes that the Johannine interpretation of Jacob’s ladder “is necessarily and essentially bound up with the Son of Man . . . there is no ascent and descent of the angels, no ‘heaven opened,’ no union of the celestial man with the terrestrial without the Son of Man.” Jesus is, most likely, understood to be the “gate of heaven” referred to by Jacob in Genesis 28:17. Odeberg (p. 36) quotes Bauer who says, “the from heaven descended one (3:13) . . . will also be elevated thither again (3:14, 6:62, 8:28, 12:34) in order to receive the glorification (12:23, 13:31).” There is a “locomotion” entelechy when one “descends” from heaven (to earth) and another “locomotion” entelechy when one is “elevated thither [to heaven] again.”

The angelic descending and ascending, however, is different from that of Jesus’ descending and ascending. My uncle Beauford H. Bryant, in his commentary on John (p. 68), draws my attention to the extraordinary (opposite) directional sequence of the ascent and descent of the angels. One might typically think of angels, first, descending to Earth from Heaven PRIOR TO their ascending back to Heaven from Earth, but the Genesis 28:12 and John 1:51 accounts both have the angels “ascending,” first, and then, “descending,” second. The order of Jesus’ own (circular?) locomotion entelechy appears to be a “descending” to Earth, first, followed later by His “ascending” back into Heaven.

· In John 3:13 (NKJV), Jesus says: ^“No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.”

· In John 6:32-33 (NKJV), Jesus says: “Most assuredly, I say to you, Moses did not give you the bread from heaven, but My Father gives you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”

· In John 6:38 (NKJV), Jesus says: “For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.”

· In John 6:42 (NKJV), the Jewish skeptics ask concerning Jesus: “How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

· In John 6:50-51 (NKJV), Jesus says: “This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven.”

· John 6:60-62 (NKJV) reports: “[M]any of His disciples . . . said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can understand it?’ . . . Jesus knew . . . that His disciples complained . . . He said to them, ‘Does this offend you? What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before?’”

Angels, God’s Word, and God’s Work

John’s record of Jesus’ descent to Earth uses telos/τέλος-related entelechial language as Jesus views his being sent (down to earth) to achieve an end/telos/τέλος for God’s “work.”

· In John 4:34 (NKJV), Jesus says: “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish [teleiōsō/τελειώσω from the root telos/τέλος] His work.”

· In John 5:36 (NKJV), Jesus says: “[T]he works which the Father has given Me to finish [teleiōsō/τελειώσω from the root telos/τέλος]—the very works that I do—bear witness of Me, that the Father has sent Me.”

· In John 17:3-4 (NKJV), Jesus says: “[T]hat they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent . . . I have finished [teleiōsas/τελειώσας from the root telos/τέλος] the work which You have given Me to do.”

In the previous blogpost, I note that John 19:30 (NKJV) indicates the precise end/telos/τέλος of Jesus’ race (or course) to Earth, when Jesus, on the cross, declares “’It is finished [tetelestai/τετέλεσται from the root telos/τέλος]!’ And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.” In answer to the question posed at the end of the previous blogpost, Jesus begins His Race when He comes down from Heaven.

What is the Father’s work that Jesus is finishing? Odeberg (pp. 191) is certainly cognizant of the fact that, according to John, “the Son does the Father’s ‘works’” which Odeberg identifies: “he gives life, ‘makes living’ the dead’ . . . executes judgement [sic], is the judge of the world,” based on John 5:22-29. If giving life to the dead is one of the works of God, then Jesus accomplishes this same work. He raises the widow’s son in the town of Nain (Luke 7:11-17), the daughter of Jairus (8:40-56), and Lazarus (John 11:1-44), not to mention himself. If executing judgment is one of the works of God, not only will Jesus execute judgment in the future (John 5:27-29), but He also “forgives sins” (and, thus, executes judgment) while He is on Earth for the woman who anoints His feet (Luke 7:48) and the paralytic (Matthew 9:1-8, Mark 2:1-12). Note that the scribes remark, in Mark 2:7 (NKJV): “Who can forgive sins but God alone?”

The Rabbis could agree with Jesus that God’s work of judgment “is continually active from the beginning of time unto eternity,” according to Odeberg (p. 202). The Rabbis, however, think God’s works of “creative fiats” are no longer in progress. They think God has “rested” on the seventh day (Sabbath) from those works. Therefore, God would not allow any “work” to be done (such as healing) on the Sabbath. Jesus, however, claims in John 5:17 (NKJV): “My Father has been working until now, and I have been working.” The work of “executing judgment,” which Jesus (and God) do, involve Him making “pronouncements” or using “words,” such as “your sins are forgiven you.” Giving life to the dead typically involves Jesus making “pronouncements” or using “words,” such as “Lazarus, come forth!” The biblical understanding of God’s creative and life-giving work is that it was accomplished by making pronouncements, using creative fiats or “words.” In my book, Angels and Demons: The Personification of Communication—Logology (p. 153) I cite Kenneth Burke regarding “Words” used by God. Burke calls the type of words God uses in creating the world (capitalized) “Word”:

If God speaks a “Word,” that Word has “omnipotence” (or, at least, the total power necessary to complete its task). In Genesis 1:3, God speaks a Word (“And God said, ‘Let there be light’”). The very Word he speaks has the “omnipotence” to produce light. Psalms 33:9 confirms the power of this (capitalized) Word: “He spoke, and it was done; he commanded, and [the universe] stood fast.” The Word of God has tremendous power. Isaiah 55:11 goes so far as to suggest that God’s Word is infallible--it cannot fail: “So is my word that goes out from my mouth; it will not return to me empty, but will accomplish what I desire and achieve the purpose for which I sent it.”

Furthermore, these creative fiats/Words are understood by the Rabbis to generate angels who accomplish the works demanded by the fiats. On pages 155-156 of Angels and Demons, I connect the Rabbinic teaching on angels with God’s spoken Words:

[A]ngels were considered by Jewish teachers to be . . . generated by God’s use of “Word” (capitalized). When [Louis] Ginzberg [vol. V, p. 21] states, "Out of every word uttered by God angels are created," he is picturing angels as the personification of God’s creative fiats. He presents these angels, not as the free moral agents humans are, but as the commissioned forces that are charged with making certain that God’s Words are infallibly fulfilled. . . . When God says, “Let there be light,” an Angel of Light (Gabriel?) is created who infallibly produces light.

In his Dictionary of Angels (p. 25), Gustav Davidson describes angels, in the rabbinic fashion, as nothing more than personified spirit forces that are charged with carrying out the terms of God’s creative fiats. Hence, whenever Jesus pronounces creative fiats, He also generates angels who would, then, ascend to Heaven (after accomplishing their explicit tasks).

Consider the “creative fiats” of Jesus on Earth. From the time of Jesus, and down to the present day, the blessing Jews recite at their meals make two basic acknowledgements: (1) It is God who “brings forth bread from the earth” and (2) It is God who “creates” the “fruit of the vine.” (Compare these two creations—bread and wine—with the Lord’s Supper.) Note that, in the very first “sign” that John lists in his gospel, Jesus changes water into wine at Cana of Galilee. This is evidence that, like God, Jesus creates the fruit of the vine. In another sign, the feeding of the five thousand, Jesus creates enough bread to feed the multitude and, then, take up twelve baskets of left-overs. This is evidence that Jesus, like God, brings forth bread from the earth. Jesus accomplishes this sign by a pronouncement (blessing) over the five loaves belonging to a boy in the crowd. A Christian Rabbi might say that by speaking “Words,” Jesus generates angels who fulfill the works of the Words He has spoken.

Furthermore (illustrating another approach to “words” as “angels”), Odeberg (p. 217) credits J. Lindblom with pointing out how important for John was the “conception of ‘the testimony’” (martyria/μαρτυρία), which would also be “words.” According to Odeberg, Lindblom “lays stress on [Jesus’] function as bearer of the testimony from the celestial to the terrestrial world.” Odeberg also connects the testimony/martyria/μαρτυρία with “the believer’s testimony” and classifies it with descending and ascending (κατάβασις and ἀναβασις). Odeberg juxtaposes: “[T]he Divine μαρτυρία . . . the Divine-spiritual reality, brought down to earthly men (κατάβασις) . . . [with] the self-expression of that reality in man (ascending ever upwards in his experience of Jesus (ἀναβασις).” As Odeberg notes in his comments on Lazarus’s resurrection (pp. 120-121), those who witness the resurrection supply “testimony [martyria/μαρτυρία] concerning the Divine power of [Jesus], emanating from a personal experience of that power.” Testimony (especially Divine testimony), whether it emanates from God (and descends to man) via Jesus or whether it emanates from the believers who have witnessed the Divine power of Jesus, exists as words (that are, effectively, personified as angels). Odeberg (p. 218) writes, further: “The Son gives μαρτυρία (to the world), he receives μαρτυρία (from the Father on one side, and from the believer . . . on the other).”

Why, then, do angels “ascend” first and “descend” second? Angels are God’s Words personified. If God the Father were the only one whose Words become personified, then the angels would naturally “descend” first. But, Jesus, who is already on Earth when he meets Nathaniel generates His own angels of communication with God (thus, His angels ascend). This ascent is followed by God’s communication back with Jesus (thus, descending), and so on, back and forth. Jesus’ identity as God is indicated by the “ascending” of angels. Jesus and his Father are communicating back and forth with each other (their Words personified as angels). As Odeberg’s comments (in the previous paragraph) seem to suggest, Jesus can be both the creator of angels (the Word/Logos) and the Way by which His angels “ascend” to God. This is a Locomotion entelechy. Since I use the word “connectivity” to describe Jesus as He relates to humans and God, we might even attempt even more modern metaphors, however reductionist, of a spiritual telephone wire (or internet cable) to describe Jesus as Jacob’s Ladder. Messages (Word/Logos) are sent both ways, using the same telephone line/internet cable. As Odeberg’s comments suggest, Jesus may be understood as both the creator of the messages He sends to God and the metaphorical-phone-line-connection that delivers that message. The point is: Jesus is “connected” to both God and man. Jesus, both “delivers Words” to God and “receives Words” from Him, delivering them on to man. Put more plainly, the words Jesus teaches on Earth are the angels that Jesus receives from above and His words to God on behalf of His believers are the angels Jesus sends back to God. What kinds of messages (angels) does Jesus communicate from God to us and from us back to God (on our behalf)? Most importantly, Jesus communicates to us God’s love for us and He communicates back to God that we believe in Him.

The locomotion entelechy of angels, however, is not the primary interest of John’s Gospel. The back-and-

forth locomotion of angels is designed to communicate between God and man. “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” not to save angels. Rather, angels ascend and descend on the Word-become-flesh in order to connect God with man, to communicate God’s “love” for the world and to allow mankind’s “faith” to be communicated back to God, in order to “save” mankind:

· In John 3:13-17 (NKJV), Jesus says: ^“No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven . . .that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life. For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved.”

· In John 3:35-36 (NKJV), John the Baptist testifies: ^“The Father loves the Son, and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has everlasting life.”

· John 20:31 (NKJV) states: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”

Can you personally see the angels ascending and descending on the Son of Man? Can you see the love of God being sent to you via Jesus? Are you sending back your faith testimony through Jesus? Jesus assured Nathaniel that he would see the angels. We need to see them, as well. Jesus and God are both working identical works for an identical outcome. As Jesus said:

“Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does; and He will show Him greater works than these, that you may marvel. For as the Father raises the dead and gives life to them, even so the Son gives life to whom He will. For the Father judges no one, but has committed all judgment to the Son, that all should honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him. Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears My word and believes in Him who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life” (John 5:19-24 NKJV).

Jesus, in John 5:36 (NKJV), pulls it all together, entelechially: “But I have a greater witness (martyrian/μαρτυρίαν) than John’s; for the works which the Father has given Me to finish (teleiōsō/τελειώσω from the root telos/τέλος)—the very works that I do—bear witness (martyrei/μαρτυρεῖ) of Me, that the Father has sent Me.”

The Locomotion Entelechy and Jesus’ “Race” (Gospels 9)

2022-10-27T14:12:00.001-07:00

Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author [archēgon/ἀρχηγόν from the root archē/ἀρχή] and finisher [teleiōtēn/τελειωτὴν from the root telos/τέλος] of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

(Hebrews 12:1-2 NKJV)

Coming to Aristotle’s fourth and final type of entelechy or kinēsis, we encounter it as a metaphor, as it pertains to Jesus, such as in the “race” referred to in the Hebrews 12:1-2 passage (above). Paul is also fond of the “race” metaphor for his own life, and sees his life as having been a race, in 2 Timothy 4:6-8 (NKJV):

[T]he time of my departure is at hand. I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing.

A race is an example of Locomotion Entelechy.

In addition to the “race” metaphor, the book of Hebrews uses entelechial terminology (cognates of of archē/ἀρχή and telos/τέλος) in describing the beginning and end of the work Jesus came for:

· Hebrews 2:10 (NKJV) says: “For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain [archēgon/ἀρχηγόν from the root archē/ἀρχή] of their salvation perfect [teleiōsai/τελειώσαι from the root telos/τέλος] through sufferings.”

· Hebrews 5:9 (NKJV) says: “And having been perfected [teleiōtheis/τελειωθεὶς from the root telos/τέλος], He became the author [i.e., cause/aitios/αἴτιος—indicative of Aristotle’s four “causes” of kinēsis or entelechy (of which one is archē/ἀρχή)] of eternal salvation to all who obey him.”

Loco-Motion and Kinēsis

Kinēsis generally means motion or movement. And, in order for entelechy to exist, there must be some type of motion/kinēsis. In English-speaking countries, we know the word kinēsis from such phrases as “kinetic energy,” the energy that exists when something, such as a train, is in “motion.” An advertising slogan for Trane HVAC Heating and Cooling uses the play on words: “It’s hard to stop a Trane.” Of course, they want you to picture in your mind a “train” in motion. The kinetic energy of such motion is so great that, even if the fuel is removed, the engine stopped, and the brakes applied, the train will continue to move forward, due to kinetic energy. This is why one would not be wise to remain in a vehicle that is stalled on a railroad track with a train approaching. It’s hard to stop a train! However, the motion described in the train example is only one of Aristotle’s four types of kinēsis. This type is appropriately entitled “locomotion.” I point out on page 43 of Implicit Rhetoric that the four types of kinēsis are:

(1) substance--the one is positive form [morphê], the other privation [sterêsis]; (2) in quality, white and black; (3) in quantity, complete [teleion] and incomplete [atelês]; (4) in respect of locomotion, upwards and downwards or light and heavy. (Physics 201a5ff.)

Types #1, #2, and #3. We have already encountered the first three types of kinēsis (or entelechy). Type #1 was involved in the “growth” of Jesus’ human body. His body increased in physical substance. Type #2 was involved in the qualitative change of Jesus’ form from the human form to the form of God (at his transfiguration) to the form of a servant (again) to the resurrected form to the ascended form. His form changed in quality. Type #3 was involved in Jesus’ filling his mind with knowledge/wisdom and filling up his authority until “all authority” had “been given to” him. There was an increase in the quantity of knowledge and authority Jesus possessed.

Type #4. Since trains are often called “locomotives,” I used the train example for type #4. Notice that the word “loco-motion” includes both the term “motion” and the root of the term “location.” This type of change or kinēsis involves a change of location, moving upwards or downwards, or (as a train does) moving from place (location) to place (location).

One may observe that in the “locomotion” entelechy, there is no need for the concepts of form/eidos/εἶδος or material/hulē/ὕλη. There is a need for both of these terms in a “substance” entelechy, because the form/eidos/εἶδος is either “growing” (as in the seed example or as Jesus’ material/hulē/ὕλη “substance” began to grow in form/morphē/μορφή in Mary’s womb) or it is withering/decaying/diminishing. There may sometimes be a need for both terms in a quality entelechy, but if the quality of Jesus’ body changed again, at the ascension, to a purely spiritual essence, the terms would be unnecessary, there. There is sometimes a need for both of these terms (form/eidos/εἶδος and material/hulē/ὕλη) in a “quantity” entelechy, because the form/eidos/εἶδος is either a complete “filling” (“full” form as in the grain tank example and the material/hulē/ὕλη “substance” with which it is filled is grain). However, when it comes to Jesus’ “filling” his head with knowledge or filling his authority, it is hard to see that knowledge or authority acquisition has an actual form/morphē/μορφή or material/hulē/ὕλη. We return, therefore, full circle to an observation I made in my earlier blogpost The Logos and Entelechy (Gospels 3): “The Book of Revelation employs the same important terminology that is fundamental to Aristotle's concept of entelechy. I note, especially, the language of archē/ἀρχή and telos/τέλος, usually translated ‘the beginning archē/ἀρχή and the end telos/τέλος’ with which Revelation refers to God and Jesus.” These two terms, archē/ἀρχή and telos/τέλος, are required and fundamental to all four types of entelechy, including (4) locomotion. Whereas, the terms “form/eidos/εἶδος” and “material/hulē/ὕλη” are important or required only in the entelechies of (1) substance, (2) quality, and (3) quantity. I conclude that, wherever there is discussion of the two primary terms (causes), archē/ἀρχή and telos/τέλος, in the New Testament, an entelechial interpretive perspective is appropriate.

Other Biblical Examples of Locomotion Entelechy

One can easily recall numerous locomotion entelechies in the Bible. The heavenly bodies God created usually travel on circular routes (around other heavenly bodies). The Earth (to put things simply) completes a circular entelechy of locomotion around the sun, once annually, just as the moon orbits the Earth each month (or 28 days). These circular motions starting from one relative location and ending at the same relative location comprise entelechies of locomotion. Not all entelechies of locomotion are circular, however, and not all are matters of “nature.” When God told Abraham to leave his home in Ur of the Chaldees in order to go to the promised land, Abraham began an entelechy of locomotion—motion from one location to another. Likewise, in Exodus, when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt to the promised land, they traveled from an Egyptian location to the land of Canaan location, with various important (middle) stops in the wilderness, in between (such as the Red Sea and Mt. Sinai).

Jesus’ Locomotion Entelechy

The Gospel of John 19:30 (NKJV) indicates the precise end/telos/τέλος of Jesus’ race when Jesus, on the cross, declares “’It is finished [tetelestai/τετέλεσται from the root telos/τέλος]!’ And bowing His head, He gave up His spirit.” John 19:28 (NKJV) had prepared us for this final declaration by Jesus with the observation: “After this, Jesus, knowing that all things were now accomplished [tetelestai/τετέλεσται from the root telos/τέλος], that the Scripture might be fulfilled [teleiōthei/τελειωθῇ from the root telos/τέλος], said, “I thirst!”

When Jesus left Samaria, writes Luke, “it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem” (Luke 9:51 NKJV). This was “purposeful” motion on Jesus’ part. Jesus knew that a telos/τέλος awaited him at the Jerusalem location. So, when Hebrews 12:2 uses a “race” analogy for Jesus, it is not far removed from the actual, literal locomotion entelechy of Jesus going to Jerusalem: “Jesus [was] the author [archēgon/ἀρχηγόν from the root archē/ἀρχή] and finisher [teleiōtēn/τελειωτὴν from the root telos/τέλος] of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame” (NKJV). Jesus’ “race,” like all races had a starting line (archē/ἀρχή) and a goal line (telos/τέλος). We’ll consider his starting line in the next blogpost. Jesus (as he was both archē/ἀρχή and telos/τέλος in Revelation) serves as our paradigmatic example of author (archēgon/ἀρχηγόν from the root archē/ἀρχή) and finisher (teleiōtēn/τελειωτὴν from the root telos/τέλος) of our faith. Paul, who wrote to Timothy that he had “finished [teteleka/τετέλεκα from the root telos/τέλος] the race [and] . . . kept the faith” (2 Timothy 4:7), understood who defined the race for the faith by his own example. Jesus defined the starting line (archē/ἀρχή) and goal line (telos/τέλος) for each Christian. Jesus’ race, therefore, serves as what Kenneth Burke would call our ”representative anecdote.” His “race” entelechy “represents” ours.

In terms of Jesus’ and Paul’s respective races, as well as our own by extension in Hebrews 12:1-2, our “finish line/end/telos” (enduring the cross and sitting down at the throne of God) is implicit at our “starting line/archē.” Hebrews 12:1-2 spells out the entelechy: “[L]et us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author [archēgon/ἀρχηγόν from the root archē/ἀρχή] and finisher [teleiōtēn/τελειωτὴν from the root telos/τέλος] of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God”). Jesus is the archē/ἀρχή and telos/τέλος of our own individual “races.” Paul may well have died a martyr’s death, but (despite church legends from the second century) we do not know for certain when or where that may have occurred. Clearly, not every Christian dies a martyr’s death. Not even will every

Christian “die.” As Paul observes, “We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed . . . the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed” (1 Corinthians 15:51 NKJV). Nevertheless, as Mark sets out the entelechy (See my blogpost The Four Extremist Gospels (Gospels 2), every Christian must be prepared to die a martyr’s death. “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mark 8:34-35 NKJV). This is the entelechy of locomotion. The life of Jesus represents the starting line and the finish line. When one becomes a Christian, one begins the “race.” The point at which Jesus began his “race,” as I mentioned, is grist for the next blogpost.

Your Own Resurrected “Form” and Entelechy (Gospels 8)

2022-10-15T10:37:00.001-07:00

But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?”

. . . So also is the resurrection of the dead

. . .It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body

. . . flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;

nor does corruption inherit incorruption

. . . We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed

. . . the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

(1 Corinthians 15:35-53 NKJV)

To what form will resurrected Christians be changed? As mentioned in the previous blogpost, Paul, in Romans 12:2, uses the verb metamorphoō/μεταμορφόω (the verb of metamorphosis) to indicate the “transformation” that comes about by the renewing of your mind when you are not conformed/συσχηματίζω to this world. Thus, he hints at a “transfiguration”-experience-of-sorts that is available to Christians, not just Christ. In addition to the Romans 12 passage, Paul supplies a seemingly-related Philippians passage: “[W]e also eagerly wait for the Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, who will transform/μετασχηματίζω our lowly body that it may be conformed/σύμμορφος to His glorious body” (Philippians 3:20-21 NKJV). In these two passages, Paul uses the roots of the words μορφή/form/morph and σχῆμα/shape/scheme interchangeably. In the Philippian passage, Paul flip-flops the roots μορφή/form/morph and σχῆμα/shape/scheme, in such a way as to result in a combination of μετα- and μορφ pertaining to “our” resurrected body/sōma/σῶμα that appears to indicate that Christians will experience a metamorphosis similar to that of Jesus’ glorious body/sōma/σῶμα. Paul confirms this doctrine in the 1 Corinthians 15:35-53 passage (printed above). He twice asserts “we shall (all) be changed”—into a spiritual, non-flesh-and-blood, incorruptible, immortal body.

But Jesus Still Had a Physical “Form” After his Resurrection

The many post-resurrection appearances of Jesus demonstrate that he (unlike God?) still had a μορφή/form after he was resurrected. Two times, this μορφή/form was not recognized immediately (with Mary, in the garden, and on the road to Emmaus); at other times, it was completely recognized (as with Thomas, in the upper room). The only instance in which we are told Jesus’ form went unrecognized for an extended period of time was while he was on the road to Emmaus. There, his “other/ἑτέρᾳ/hetera form/μορφῇ” (from Mark 16:12 and Luke 24:13-31) was certainly different from his pre-crucifixion “form/ μορφή” and it was also different from his upper room post-resurrection appearances. Hugo Odeberg (p.68) quotes E. F. Scott: “John involves himself in a view which may fairly be described as semi-physical.” There were indicators (such as the women on his day of resurrection grabbing hold of his feet and worshiping him [Matthew 28:9]) that indicate that he had a definite physical form. This incident appears to me to be the same incident described in John 20:17, where “touching/ἅπτω” Jesus was strangely forbidden to Mary Magdalene because he had not yet ascended to his Father. Since touching his body was not forbidden (and was even encouraged by Jesus) to the eleven, especially Thomas, and since the Matthew 28:9 uses a term for the women who “grabbed hold” of his feet that almost means “to seize forcefully,” we must assume that simple “touching” was not what Jesus was refusing for Mary Magdalene in John 20:17. Although the KJV and ASV translate the term ἅπτω as “touch,” the CEB, NIV, NRSV, and CEV versions translate it as “hold on to.” The NKJV, NASB2020, ESV, and CSB translate the term as “cling to.” One of the latter two translations is preferable, in light of the Matthew 28:9 description.

It is possible that Jesus’ post-resurrection form was very-similar-to-but-not-quite-the-same-as the forms of Adam and Eve before the Fall—not “mortal” (because Adam and Eve had not yet sinned) but still flesh. Apparently, the wild beasts that Adam “named” in Genesis 2:19-20 represented no physical threat to Adam, just as Jesus’ severe wounds in his hands, feet, and side represented no physical threat to Jesus. Perhaps, that is what Paul meant by "incorruptible." Just as Jesus “ate” in the presence of his disciples, Adam and Eve were given every tree in the Garden (except one) as food. It was important to Jesus that he demonstrate by empirical proofs that his resurrected body was still fleshly, not a “spirit” form. Luke 24:36-43 (NKJV) reports:

Jesus Himself stood in the midst of [the twelve minus Judas], and said to them, “Peace to you.” But they were . . . frightened, and supposed they had seen a spirit. And He said to them, “Why . . . do doubts arise in your hearts? Behold My hands and My feet, that it is I Myself. Handle Me and see, for a spirit does not have flesh and bones as you see I have.”

When He had said this, He showed them His hands and His feet . . . He said to them, “Have you any food here?” So they gave Him a piece of a broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence.

While Jesus’ post-resurrection/pre-ascension form, however, changed in its perceptibility from time to time and appeared and disappeared at will, we find no evidence that Adam and Eve experienced similar phenomena. Nevertheless, Adam and Eve, in their pre-Fall naked existence were just exactly as God had created them (seemingly in the prime of life) with no “growth” or other kinds of form changes, such as Jesus experienced, to account for. That might explain some of Jesus’ and Adam’s differences, but not all. Yet, when Paul says that we will be transformed into the likeness of “His glorious body” (Philippians 3:20-21 NKJV), this Adam-esque type of body (immortal, but semi-physical) may be what Paul promised—but with a difference?

On the other hand, all of these pre- and post-resurrection/pre-ascension forms (μορφή) seem to be different from his transfiguration form/μορφή. Nowhere, among the post-resurrection/pre-ascension appearances, do we see Jesus’ form as being shining and white. Nevertheless, at the transfiguration, the form/eidos/εἶδος (Luke 9:29) or morphē/μορφή of Jesus’ face/πρόσωπον was shining like the sun (Matthew 17:2) and his clothes were glisteningly white (Mark 9:2 and Luke 9:29). This same picture of Jesus’ face and clothing being bright and white is found in John’s Revelation (1:12-16 NKJV), describing the “ascended” Jesus: “I saw . . . One like the Son of Man . . . His head and hair were white like wool, as white as snow . . . and His countenance was like the sun shining in its strength.” This post-ascension picture of Jesus that matches his transfiguration picture even smacks of a description of God Almighty. These descriptions in Revelation may have been simply borrowed from Daniel, however. The question remains: Was there a further transformation of Jesus following his ascension that would have been equivalent to his transfiguration appearance? Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:50 (NKJV), “[F]lesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” If there was a further transformation of Jesus following his ascension that would have been equivalent to his transfiguration appearance, would that transfiguration and post-ascension appearance be similar to the picture of Jesus in the loins of his Father before Logos became flesh and dwelt (tabernacled) among us? As I comment in my blogpost Apocalyptic? #14: Morphing Jesus—Which Jesus do YOU see? (Rev. 1:9-20):

To Daniel’s description of the Son of Man, John in Revelation borrows the following element from (Daniel 7:9 NIV): “the Ancient of Days [i.e., God Almighty] took his seat. His clothing was as white as snow; the hair of his head was white like wool.” John, however, in Revelation 1:14, says concerning the Son of man: “The hair on his head was white like wool.” Thus, John describes Jesus after his ascension in language that Daniel had formerly used to describe God Himself (the Ancient of Days).

Viewing Jesus and Our Resurrected Forms Entelechially

Is there a concept that accommodates all of these various “forms” of Jesus? Yes. In a word, it is “entelechy.” Even though Odeberg is unaware of Aristotle’s concept of entelechy, Odeberg (p. 68) recognizes the same phenomenon: “In [John’s] complex of ideas, the dominating notions of the present, preceding, and following contexts are recognizable.” Shall we add to Odeberg’s comment the words “simultaneously and instantly”? Is this not another way of saying that the end and the middle are implicit in the beginning (Entelechy)? As I ask in the afore-mentioned “Morphing Jesus” blogpost,

[W]hen you “see” Jesus, what Jesus do YOU see? . . . a baby in a manger, a carpenter’s assistant, a twelve-year-old boy questioning the Jewish scholars in the Temple, a young man whose mother asked him (before his time) to solve a problem with the lack of wine at a wedding feast in Cana, a man coming to John the Baptist to be baptized, a healer of diseases, a preacher to 5000 on the side of a mountain, a form walking on water at night, an individual being transfigured into a brilliant image, a shamed convict being crucified, a corpse being wrapped in a shroud and laid in a tomb, a resurrected man whose hands, feet, and sides show the crucifixion wounds? Or do you see the “lion from the tribe of Judah” (Revelation 5:3) or the “lamb that had been slain” (Revelation 5:6)? Now, morph your picture of Jesus into what John, in chapter 1 of Revelation, is “seeing.”

Perhaps, the best answer to the question just asked is “Yes!” Looking at all of these descriptions of the “form” of Jesus, we might be able to recognize him instantly and simultaneously in many different forms, just as we are able to recognize our middle-age children in the photos of their childhood. That is the genius of viewing matters entelechially. The final=telos/τέλος form/eidos/εἶδος (along with all middle forms) is implicit in the beginning=archē/ἀρχή form/eidos/εἶδος and vice versa. Aristotle proves that the logic of entelechy is operative in the cosmos by looking at the seed (earthly thing) and understanding that every future “form’ the plant will assume is already implicitly present in the seed. In this way, Jesus’ followers would be able to “see” Jesus, as a baby, a lad of twelve, a form walking on water, a brilliantly transfigured individual, a voice talking to Mary, an ascended Son of Man, or a friend of Thomas with nail and sword wounds, instantly and simultaneously.

The Third Type of Entelechy: Quality

With the possibility that Jesus’ post-ascension existence, like his transfiguration existence, might be on a still-different level, we consider our own resurrected bodies. If our bodies will be changed to be like his glorious body, which Paul says will not be flesh and blood, Jesus’ existence at the right hand of God may, again, be “qualitatively” different from his post-resurrection/pre-ascension existence, which was, itself, “qualitatively” different from his earthly/fleshly/servant form For now, we simply observe that the transformations of Jesus from the Logos (en archē/ἐν ἀρχῇ) to the Logos-become-flesh to the transfiguration form to the servant form to the resurrected form to the ascended form are neither of the two types of entelechy we have considered, thus far—neither substance (growth) nor quantity (filling). Rather, these transformations are a third type of entelechy—quality. Aristotle’s Physics lists the four types of entelechy as: (1) in substance [such as the “growth” examples]; (2) in quality, white and black; (3) in quantity [such as the “filling” examples], (4) in respect of locomotion [which we will consider in the next blogpost]. (Physics 201a5ff.). The change of quality (as in white to black) occurs whenever a Caucasian gets a suntan. There is neither “growth” nor “filling” involved in the “process.” Yet there IS change/kinēsis/κίνησις. A Caucasian’s tanned legs are “qualitatively” different from his/her pasty white legs. (Trust me, I live in Florida and am an eye witness of such qualitative phenomena.) Nevertheless, the legs are neither larger nor smaller when they are tanned, so there is no change/kinēsis/κίνησις in substance. Furthermore, there are no additional legs or reduced number of legs when they are tanned, so there is no change/kinēsis/κίνησις in quantity. Instead, the legs have simply changed in quality (from lighter to darker). Similarly, when Jesus’ form changed from the Logos-become-flesh form to the transfiguration form to the servant form to the resurrected form to the ascended form, his form/morphē/μορφή changed in “quality.”

When Christians are resurrected, their bodily forms (morphē/μορφή) will also be changed (kinēsis/κίνησις) in “quality.” It is possible that, in the world to come, we will recognize (know) each other “entelechially.” That is to say, we might be able to see in a split second, so to speak, any or all the variations of form of anyone, just as we recognize all the snapshot variations of form for each of our children, regardless of their current ages. Past, present, and future forms converge, in entelechy, into a single essence that might well be fully comprehensible to us in the world to come. For the time being, as Paul comments in I Corinthians 13:9-12 (NKJV): “For we know in part . . . But when that which is perfect (τέλειον, from the same root as τέλος) has come, then that which is in part will be done away. For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.” In their mortal bodies, Jesus’ followers were not always capable of seeing the full entelechial picture of Jesus’ form (perhaps, only various synecdochic parts at different times). Hence, the two on the road to Emmaus and Mary in the Garden did not, at first, know Jesus, but at a later point, they did, even as his “twelve” (sans Judas) disciples did. When the final τέλος arrives in the world to come, entelechial knowledge will be perfected. Whatever “form/s” our resurrected bodies assume, we will know fully, even as we also are known.

Jesus, Entelechy, and the “Form” of God (Gospels 7)

2022-09-29T14:13:00.001-07:00

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Who, being in the form (morphē/μορφή) of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form (morphē/μορφή) of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

(Philippians 2:5-8 NKJV)

Does God Have a “Form”?

If God has no “form/eidos/εἶδος” (or, at least, no one has seen His form/eidos/εἶδος, as confirmed by John 5:37), how can Paul say that that Jesus was “in the form/morphē/μορφή of God” in Philippians 2:6-7? First, one easily notes that John and Paul use two different words for “form” (eidos/εἶδος and morphē/μορφή), which Aristotle’s "entelechy" vocabulary, at times, uses interchangeably (as synonyms). For example, in the previous blogpost, I commented that change/kinēsis/κίνησις or entelechy/entelecheia/ἐντέλεχεια is effected by four potential causes:

(1) archē/ἀρχή or “efficient cause,”

(2) telos/τέλος or “final cause,”

(3) eidos/εἶδος (aka, morphē/μορφή) or “formal cause,” and

(4) hulē/ὕλη or “material cause.”

With respect to the use of eidos/εἶδος in John 5:37 and the use of morphē/μορφή in Philippians 2:6-7, I believe that the two terms are fundamentally interchangeable (synonyms), with only a slight differentiation by Aristotle: When Aristotle discusses the change/kinēsis/κίνησις or entelechy/entelecheia/ἐντέλεχεια of substance (i.e., usually “growth”) he makes this distinction: “substance--the one is positive form (morphê), the other privation (sterêsis)” (Physics 201a5ff.). In other words, when a plant is changing its substance by “growing” (positive), morphê is involved; when the plant is changing its substance by “withering away” (privation), sterêsis is involved. Another example of sterêsis (besides a plant withering) would be a body decaying; whereas, when it was alive and growing, it was in the process of positively increasing in morphê. Since, in addition to discussing Jesus being in (“the form/morphē/μορφή of God) in Philippians 2:6-7, Paul also discusses Jesus taking on him “the form/morphē/μορφή of a servant” (susceptible to death), we begin discussing this issue in terms of Jesus’ human body, his physical/fleshly form/morphē/μορφή.

Embryology: How Was Jesus’ Human “Form” Generated?

We, here, face a difficulty with the Athanasian Creed. It states that Jesus (while he is “God from the essence of the Father, begotten before time”) is “human from the essence of his mother.” R. C. Sproul, a Reformed leader who embraces this creed, states that his co-religionists are willing to allow for errors in creeds. He writes in The Last Days According to Jesus (p. 168): “[S]trong advocates of [the Reformation principle of] sola Scriptura historically have had great respect for the historic creeds. These advocates have not considered the creeds infallible, but . . . held in . . . high esteem.” This may be one situation in which the Athanasian Creed was fallible. The phrase “begotten before time” can be easily dealt with, using an entelechial perspective (since the beginning, middle, and end are all implicit in each other), but the “human” part is problematic. No one in the first century AD, when the gospels were written (or even in the fourth century AD, when the Athanasian Creed was formed) knew anything about X and Y chromosomes and, therefore, no explanation is offered in the Bible concerning the chromosomal issue. We now know that a Y chromosome is required in order for the child to be born a male, as Jesus was, and the female Mary could have only (due to the laws of nature/phusis) contributed an X chromosome to the embryo. Furthermore, there is the complication that Jesus is frequently called the son of David. Luke 1:32 says that David is Jesus’ father and Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies trace Jesus’ lineage back to David and beyond. Since Matthew’s and Luke’s genealogies trace, respectively, Joseph’s and Mary’s lineage, the point at which the two genealogies diverge is at David himself. Matthew follows the lineage of David’s son Solomon; Luke follows the lineage of David’s son Nathan. Therefore, somehow the addition of a sperm from David himself (or, at least, a Y chromosome from David, created by the Logos) would appear to have been necessary. Possibly countering this conclusion, it is noted that Jesus, in Matthew 22:42-45, Mark 12:35-37, and Luke 20:41-44, questions the idea of calling the Christ the “son of David” and John (7:42) is the only gospel that specifically mentions the Messiah as being of the “seed/sperm/σπέρματος” of David. Even at that point in John’s gospel, the issue is presented as a question asked by participants in an argument, suggesting that Jesus might not qualify as Messiah, if he were not of the “seed/sperm/σπέρματος” of David. Nevertheless, Acts 13:22-23, Romans 1:3, and 2 Timothy 2:8 all affirm that Jesus was of David’s “seed/sperm/σπέρματος.”

Michael Pope, in a 2019 article in the Journal of Biblical Literature, explores “Luke’s Seminal Annunciation: An Embryological Reading of Mary’s Conception.” While not seeming to be aware that he is dealing with entelechial terminology (even though his article is, certainly, replete with entelechial terminology), Pope discusses dynamis/δύναμις (also transliterated dunamis) in connection with sperma/σπέρμα and pneuma/πνεῦμα (spirit). The two terms dynamis/δύναμις and pneuma/πνεῦμα, he points out, are “the named agents of conception in Luke 1:35” (p. 791). I can definitely see that pneuma (spirit) is an “agent” of conception/change in Luke, and therefore, it would be classified as a dynamis/δύναμις. I would classify it as the dunamis/δύναμις archē/ἀρχή. In other words, the Holy Spirit (pneuma/πνεῦμα) was the “agent” or “efficient cause” of the conception. In the previous blogpost, I identified dunamis as the entelechial term describing any one of the four causes of change: “Change/kinēsis/κίνησις, is effected by four potential (dunamis/dunamai) causes: archē/ἀρχή . . . telos/τέλος . . . eidos/εἶδος (aka, morphē/μορφή) . . . hulē/ὕλη.” While, Pope attempts to pull the term sperma/σπέρμα into the Luke account (suggesting that Jesus’ conception was, somehow, a normal human conception), he is ultimately unsuccessful. The term sperma/σπέρμα is simply not there. He states: “In the end, we cannot know whether Luke’s inclusion of the impregnating agents πνεῦμα and δύναμις is meant to induce his audience to consider σπέρμα as well” (p. 805). We could, however, speculate that the Logos either specially created the material/hulē/ὕλη of a complete biological embryo (combining both Mary’s ovum and a sperm from David) or just a sperm/sperma/σπέρμα[τος] from David (or, at least, the Y chromosome to be added to Mary’s genetic makeup in the ovum). If the Logos supplied the entire biological embryo, we have a scenario similar to what is produced in in vitro fertilization. This problem is certainly not insurmountable from Matthew’s, Luke’s, and John the Baptist’s perspectives. In Matthew 3:9 and Luke 3:8, the Baptist informs those (Pharisees and Sadducees) who come out to his baptism and are proud to be children of Abraham that God is able to raise up children to Abraham out of stones. It is possible that this comment of the Baptist is a play on words in the Hebrew, since the Hebrew words for “stones” and “sons” very closely resemble each other, but the point regarding God’s ability is a valid one, nevertheless, reported by both Matthew and Luke. Whether God used “stones” or gold coins or thin air, it is definitely within the capability of God to raise up children to Abraham long after the death of Abraham. So, what would be the problem with the Holy Spirit/πνεῦμα raising up a Davidic sperm, if that is indeed what He did?

Metamorphosis: When Was Jesus in the “Form” of God?

Although it is commonplace for Christian exegetes to assume that the scene in which Jesus was “in the form (morphē/μορφή) of God,” in Philippians 2:5-8, was “the (pre-creation) beginning,” before Jesus came to Earth, the possibility of that being the case seems to fly in the face of logic, if God has no form/eidos/εἶδος or morphē/μορφή. As mentioned in the previous blogpost, the term eidos/εἶδος is missing from

Revelation—but present in Luke’s (3:22) description of the “form” of the Spirit at Jesus baptism and Luke’s (9:29) description of the transfigured Jesus’ form/eidos/εἶδος, as well as in John’s (5:37) discussion of the form/eidos/εἶδος of God. Of those mentions of the term eidos/εἶδος, the John 5:37 mention establishes that no one has seen God’s form/eidos/εἶδος. This is due to the fact that God cannot be limited to a form/eidos/εἶδος. Luke’s (3:22) description of the “form” of the Spirit at Jesus baptism refers to a visible form (the form/eidos/εἶδος of a “dove”), not actually the form/eidos/εἶδος of “God,” since no one has seen God’s form/eidos/εἶδος. In Luke’s (9:29) description of the transfiguration, Jesus’ face is called a form/eidos/εἶδος: the form/eidos/εἶδος “of his face was altered” (NKJV) and “his robe became white and glistening.” Compare Matthew’s (17:2) and Mark’s (9:2) discussion of the transfiguration. They both use the other term for “form” (μεταμορφόω from the root μορφή/form) when referring to Jesus’ “form” being changed. They say his face shone like the sun (in Matthew); his clothing became exceedingly white (in Mark). The word metamorphosis IS the noun translated “transfiguration,” corresponding to the verb metamorphoō/μεταμορφόω.

A final mention of μορφή/form occurs in Mark 16:12 (NKJV), pertaining to the form of Christ in a post-resurrection appearance: “After that, He appeared in another form [μορφῇ] to two of them as they walked and went into the country.” What did Mark mean by “other/ἑτέρᾳ/hetera form/μορφῇ”? The word “other/ἑτέρᾳ/hetera”appears in the English word “hetero-sexual.” As opposed to a “homo-sexual,” who is attracted to the “same” sex, a “hetero-sexual” is attracted to the “different/other” sex. Likewise, Jesus’ μορφή/form was not the same μορφή/form he had been in; it was a different/other/ἑτέρᾳ/hetera form/μορφῇ (but not a different sex, lest the reader become confused by my illustration of the meaning of the term other/ἑτέρᾳ/hetera). Luke describes the post-resurrection appearance in more detail. While not using the term μορφή/form, Luke 24:13-31 (NKJV) supplies elaboration of the very same incident, which helps to explain the resurrected “form” of Jesus:

[T]wo of them were traveling . . . to a village called Emmaus . . . And they talked together of all these things which had happened . . . while they conversed . . . Jesus Himself drew near and went with them. But their eyes were restrained, so that they did not know Him. And He said to them, “What kind of conversation is this that you have with one another as you walk” . . . Cleopas answered and said to Him . . . “have You not known the things which happened . . . in these days? . . . The things concerning Jesus of Nazareth . . .and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be . . . crucified . . . today is the third day since these things happened . . . and certain women of our company, who arrived at the tomb early, astonished us. When they did not find His body

, they came saying that they had also seen a vision of angels who said He was alive. And certain of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said; but Him they did not see.” Then He said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not the Christ to have suffered these things and to enter into His glory?” And beginning at Moses and all the Prophets, He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself. Then they drew near to the village where they were going, and . . . they constrained Him, saying, “Abide with us, for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.” And He went in to stay with them. Now it came to pass, as He sat at the table with them, that He took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to them. Then their eyes were opened and they knew Him; and He vanished from their sight.

From Mark’s and Luke’s account of the Road to Emmaus incident, we see that Jesus’ resurrected μορφή/form was, at first, unrecognizable to his disciples (as it was when Mary Magdalene encountered Jesus after his resurrection in the garden, John 20:14-15). Incidentally, we recognize individuals not only by “sight,” but by all five sense perceptions. We, like the blind, recognize individuals by the sound of their voices. Dogs recognize individuals by their smell and taste. Isaac attempted to recognize Jacob and Esau by touch. So it was with Jesus. Jesus spoke to the two in Emmaus in such a way that he was recognized (as he was when he addressed Mary Magdalene by name in the garden, John 20:16). Then Jesus disappeared completely. Just as Jesus disappeared at Emmaus, Jesus suddenly appeared in the upper room on Easter evening, even though the door was closed (John 20:19). At that time, he also ate food (Luke 24:41-43)—whereas, he had blessed the food for the Emmaus travelers and cooked the food for his disciples, later, at the Sea of Galilee—and, in the upper room, he had a body that was completely recognizable to his closest disciples, even down to the nail holes in his hands and the sword wound in his side. Even Thomas, who at first doubted, could not resist this demonstrable evidence, addressing Jesus as “my Lord and my God” (John 20:28). Strangely, Jesus had forbidden Mary Magdalene to touch him in the garden, because he had not yet ascended to his Father (John 20:17), even though he permitted his eleven disciples to touch him (John 20:27, Luke 24:38). Had these individuals encountered Jesus “in the μορφή/form of God”? The μορφή/form of Jesus following his resurrection was certainly different (other/ἑτέρᾳ/hetera) from the earthly μορφή/form into which he was born. Nevertheless, these post-resurrection appearances cannot account for Paul’s comment about Jesus being in the μορφή/form of God in Philippians 2:6-7, because Paul says that Jesus exchanged that μορφή/form of God for the μορφή/form of a servant, and was obedient to death on the cross. The preponderance of textual evidence favors neither a pre-creation form nor a post-resurrection form, but an understanding that the point at which Jesus was in the μορφή/form of God was at his transfiguration. I explain on pages 75-76 of my book The Logic of Christianity: A Syllogistic Chain:

The Greek word . . . translated “form” . . . is . . . [μορφή], as in the word METAMORPHOSIS . . . translated TRANSFIGURED in Matthew 17:2 and Mark 9:2. Reading the Philippians Hymn from this interpretive perspective, we are encouraged to be SELFLESS, as Jesus was when he found himself transfigured into an immortal form. But, unlike Moses and Elijah, Jesus did not consider this immortal form something to be grasped, but returned to his earlier [μορφή] (that of a servant, a mortal), thus humbling himself and becoming obedient to death—EVEN THOUGH HE HAD PERSONALLY ACHIEVED IMMORTALITY! Furthermore, his death was not an ordinary death . . . His death was the long, painful, excruciating death on a cross—the sentence of the very worst of criminals. And, therefore, because Jesus had paid the death penalty of even the worst criminals known to man, since he himself was worthy of immortality, the payment was not needed for his own account. It was applied to the account of EVERY SINGLE SINNING HUMAN FROM THE TIME OF ADAM TO THE END OF THE WORLD. That’s why God exalted him. That’s why every knee bows. That’s why every tongue confesses that Jesus is Lord, to the glory of God the Father!

Notice that in the passage just cited, I used the following terminology: “Jesus did not consider this immortal form (i.e., equality with God) something to be grasped,” rather than the NKJV translation cited above: “thought it not robbery.” The Greek word translated “robbery” in the NKJV is the word ἁρπαγμόν. This is the only occurrence of this word in the New Testament. Foerster, writing in Volume I, pages 473-474 of Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament offers the translation “to grasp eagerly.” He adds: “[W]e are not to link ἁρπαγμός with any thought of robbery or seizure by force. Against all expectation, Jesus did not regard equality with God as a gain to be utilised.”

As an aside, Paul, in Romans 12:2, uses the verb metamorphoō/μεταμορφόω to indicate the “transformation” that comes about by the renewing of your mind when you are not conformed to this world. Thus, he hints at a “transfiguration”-experience-of-sorts that is available to Christians, not just Christ, but this use may be metaphorical. More about that and our own resurrected μορφή/form next time.

The “Form” of God and Entelechy (Gospels 6)

2022-09-24T13:21:00.002-07:00

“And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.”

\(John 5:37 NKJV)

The Importance of “Form” in Entelechy

When John calls Jesus and/or God the ἀρχή/”beginning” and the τέλος/”end” (Revelation 21:6, 22:13), he

appears to be tapping into Aristotle’s four causes of entelechy. The Greek word εἶδος/eidos (translated “form” in the John 5:37 passage, just cited) is one of the four causes of change/kinēsis/κίνησις and of entelechy/entelecheia/ἐντέλεχεια according to Aristotle. Change/kinēsis/κίνησις, is effected by four potential (dunamis/dunamai) causes:

(1) archē/ἀρχή or “efficient cause,” translated “beginning” in Revelation,

(2) telos/τέλος or “final cause,” translated “end” in Revelation,

(3) eidos/εἶδος (aka, morphē/μορφή) or “formal cause,” and

(4) hulē/ὕλη or “material cause.”

While archē/ἀρχή and telos/τέλος feature prominently in the Book of Revelation (usually translated “the beginning and the end”), the term form/eidos/εἶδος is completely missing from Revelation. Nevertheless, it is present in Luke’s description of the “form” of the Spirit at Jesus’ baptism (3:22) and in Luke’s description of the transfigured Jesus (9:29) in addition to the John 5:37 discussion of the “form” of God, cited above. The term material/hulē/ὕλη is also missing from Revelation. This term only occurs once in the New Testament, in James 3:5, where it refers to the amount of “material/wood/timber” that is kindled by a small fire (in a metaphor of the power of the tongue). It is never used to refer to the “material” of God. For the New Testament use of μορφή/form, see μεταμορφόω (metamorphosis/transfiguration) in Matthew 17:2, Mark 9:2, and Romans 12:2, plus μορφή/form in Mark 16:12 (of Jesus) and Philippians 2:6-7. Henry A. Fischel frequently asserted that New Testament writers knew Rabbinic teachings, Rabbinic writers knew Christian teachings, and they all knew Greek teachings. Fischel states: “It is fortunate that at this stage of scholarship no further defense has to be made for the assumption that Greco-Roman situations were well-known.”

Why Do “Form” and “Material” Get Overlooked in Revelation?

Logically,

the terms “form/eidos/εἶδος” and “material/hulē/ὕλη” should be missing from any discussion of God's characteristics. The writer of Revelation appears to be aware of that fact. Even though Jesus as God’s Son (in the flesh) on Earth experienced physical entelechies, God Almighty did not experience a physical entelechy. It might be useful to point out, here, that Aristotle used the terms “physical” and “physics/φυσική” to refer to any “natural” object or occurrence. Nature includes not only biology, but also geology, and astrology. The Logos of God was NOT “natural” or “physical” (yet, Jesus on Earth WAS physical). The Logos “created” the natural/physical world. John 1:2-3 (NKJV) says the Logos “was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.” Hence, all (natural) material/hulē/ὕλη (including “flesh”) was “made” by (or through) the Logos. At this point, then we are presented with three logical absurdities: (1) If God were composed of material/hulē/ὕλη, God would have been “made” by the Logos. (2) Likewise, if the “Logos-become-flesh” were solely composed of material/hulē/ὕλη, the “Logos-become-flesh” would have been “made” by the Logos. (3) Furthermore, if we treat the earliest mentions of Logos in John as indicating “Jesus,” we have the strange situation of Jesus creating his own “flesh.” Now, let’s try to dig our way out of this quandary.

Absurdity #1 is easily resolved: God is not an entelechy, since God does not consist of material/hulē/ὕλη. Nor has anyone seen His form/eidos/εἶδος, as confirmed by John 5:37. This is one reason the second Commandment says: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them” (Exodus 20:4-5 NKJV). God is incorporeal. When the Jews were commanded to build the Ark of the Covenant (containing the Ten Commandments), they made images of Cherubim to place on top of the Ark. In the “invisible” area just above where the wings of the Cherubim touch each other was what was known as the “mercy seat.” This invisible area symbolically identified the location of God. I state on page 64 of my book Disneology: Religious Rhetoric at Walt Disney World:

Logically speaking, a God who created nature cannot be restricted to the laws of nature . . . Judaism adds to the description of God . . . “invisible.” The Ark of the Covenant (as presented visually in the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark) was designed to symbolically make this point. All other gods presented at WDW are visible. The Hebrew God is invisible.

Absurdities #2 and #3 are more difficult, but might be resolved by understanding that God is spirit, not flesh. I had mentioned in my blogpost The Logos and Entelechy (Gospels 3):

On page 150 of my book Angels and Demons: The Personification of Communication, I write:

Identifying the Logos as the Spirit of God seems to have some corroboration in Matthew’s description of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18 (NKJV) states: “His mother Mary . . . was found with child of the Holy Spirit.” Matthew 1:20 (NKJV) has the angel saying: “Joseph . . . do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” Luke 1:35 agrees: “And the angel . . . said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.” If the Logos is the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, then the statement that the Logos/Spirit of God/Holy Spirit “became flesh and dwelt among us” would be very consistent. The logic would look like this:

Premise 1: The Logos discussed by John in 1:1-5 is the incorporeal Word or Spirit of God that existed simultaneously with God.

Premise 2: The Logos was God and the Logos (God’s Word) created all matter (=material), including “flesh.”

Premise 3: “Flesh” was what the Logos, in the fullness of time, “became” (an entelechial action) during the time God’s Son dwelt on Earth.

Deduction: In contrast to the absurdity #2 listed above, the “Logos-become-flesh” would NOT entirely have been “made”

by the Logos; only his “flesh” would have been made by the Logos. The Logos, then, would only have “dwelt” (an entelechial action) in the fleshly (material) tabernacle, which he had created (just as humans dwell in houses those humans have made). The only part of Jesus that was corporeal was the “flesh” (material/hulē/ὕλη) that he acquired from his mother, Mary, while he was growing in her womb and up until the time he was resurrected. In contrast to the absurdity #3 listed above, we would NOT have the strange situation of Jesus creating his own “flesh.” This view is entirely “monotheistic” in the sense that God and His Word are a unity (just as my words that come out of my mouth are a part of me); whatever Word/Logos God speaks is very much a part of Him. For example, my words have a power of their own. If I severely criticize someone, but not to his/her face, my words might still be very damaging to that person when someone else conveys my words to that person. Just so, God’s Words (Logos), once they leave His mouth have tremendous power, in themselves, to create light, firmament, seas, vegetation, etc. Now, we find God’s Word (Logos) has the power to not only create “flesh” but also to “become (or put on) flesh.” In view of the use of the “tabernacle” metaphor, it might be preferable to translate the words “became flesh” as “put on flesh” (i.e., in the sense of becoming one who came to exist in a fleshly tabernacle).

The Tabernacle of Flesh/Material/Hulē/ὕλη

John 1:14 says that God’s Word/Logos (having become or put on flesh) “dwelt among us.” Picture this: God’s Word (Logos) dwelling in a fleshly “tabernacle.” That is how John describes Jesus. The Greek word translated “dwelt” actually means “tabernacled” (σκηνόω). Jesus “dwelt” in a tabernacle, just as God “dwelt” in a tabernacle, following the Exodus. It does not diminish the divinity of either God or Jesus to say that they “dwelt” in “tabernacles.” Yet, the tabernacles of both God and Jesus

were constructed of physical/earthly/material/hulē/ὕλη. One difference between God’s tabernacle and Jesus’ tabernacle is that, despite both of them being composed primarily of organic matter/material/hulē/ὕλη. Jesus’ tabernacle was living (his flesh), while God’s tabernacle was built of no-longer-living timbers, flax fibers/linen, etc. and also included such non-living geological materials as gold overlays. Another difference is that, God’s tabernacle was made “with human hands” in the wilderness, whereas Jesus’ tabernacle was not made with human hands. It was made by the Logos.

In a possibly-related passage, Hebrews 9:11 (NKJV) reports: “Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands.” Even so, Stephen, in Acts 7:48-50 (NKJV), says:

“The Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says: ‘Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool. What house will you build for Me? says the Lord, Or what is the place of My rest? Has My hand not made all these things?’

Paul and Peter both understood their own bodies to be “tabernacles.” Peter, in 2 Peter 1:13-14 (NKJV), anticipating his own death, described his impending death as a putting off of his tabernacle: “I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent [tabernacle], to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that shortly I must put off my tent [tabernacle], just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.” Paul’s comments in 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 (NKJV) are further instructive. Although Paul is speaking of his own body (=tabernacle), which he predicts will be “destroyed” and in which he now “groan[s],” he looks forward to having God’s new kind of tabernacle—one not made with human hands, in which mortality is swallowed up by life (i.e., immortality/“eternal in the heavens”).

For we know that if our earthly house, this tent [tabernacle], is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked. For we who are in this tent [tabernacle] groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.

Surely, in the heavens, Jesus is no longer living in a fleshly/physical/earthly/material/hulē/ὕλη tabernacle. How his new body (and/or “form/eidos/εἶδος”) is apprehended and experienced will be grist for the next blogpost. Rather, as Paul suggests for himself, Jesus is now clothed with a habitation immortal, “eternal in the heavens.” Having undergone the earthly entelechies of growth, learning, and authority (and even birth and death), the Son has reverted to the heavenly majesty he experienced as part of God and His Word/Logos (in the beginning) “en archē/ἐν ἀρχῇ.”

This entelechial understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as all one person “en archē/ἐν ἀρχῇ” in John 1—illustrates how there can be one monotheistic God whose Son pre-existed with him (and “acted” with Him) in His loins and whose Word/Logos/Spirit created all things. His Word/Logos/Spirit, then “tabernacled” with us in a fleshly/physical/earthly/material/hulē/ὕλη body made by the Logos. The Logos, while dwelling in that tabernacle, took on Earthly “entelechies” in his “flesh.” As I mentioned in the previous post, “‘Sonship’ is Not an Entelechy . . . one does not gradually ‘become’ a son; one ‘is’ a son. The son even has a pre-existence in the loins of his father . . . Sonship . . . is a state of being (not a ‘process,’ with a beginning, middle, and end). One NEVER STOPS being a son.” Therefore, Jesus’ “entelechies” were limited to the time when he was on Earth in his fleshly/physical/earthly/material/hulē/ὕλη “tabernacle.” There remain undiscussed, so far, some embryological issues in Jesus’ “male” existence that should be considered. For example, Mary could not have contributed a Y chromosome to Jesus’ flesh, thus, making him a male embryo. Such entelechial matters pertaining to Jesus’ earthly form/morphē/μορφή will be addressed in the next blogpost. Also, next time, we will consider what Paul means when he says that Jesus was found “in the form/morphē/μορφή of God” in Philippians 2:6-7.

Sonship and “Learning” and “Authority” Entelechies (Gospels 5)

2022-09-12T13:06:00.003-07:00

And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

(Luke 2:52 NKJV)

The Learning Entelechy

Did Jesus (on Earth) have less knowledge than God? I have never yet met a person who argues that Jesus understood and spoke perfect Aramaic on the day he was born—the day when the Logos “became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14 NKJV). Not only did Jesus not know Aramaic at birth, neither did he know and speak every other language and dialect ever spoken in the world. Nevertheless, there is no evangelical Christian alive who would suggest that the Father THEN and Jesus NOW do not understand and communicate in every language and dialect ever spoken in the world, since they hear and answer the prayers of all. Why did Jesus say, in Mark 13:32 (NKJV): “But of that day and hour [of his Second Coming] no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”? There was, therefore, something that Jesus did NOT know concerning his Coming; yet, Jesus DID know that “this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place” (Mark 13:30 NKJV). Was Jesus’ knowledge “partial” at this point in his life? Hebrew 5:8 (NKJV) states: “though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.” Jesus’ “suffering” was at the end of his earthly life. Was he still “learning” at that point?

Needless to say, Jesus apparently experienced a “learning” entelechy while on Earth. Learning is an entelechy of

the same variety as filling the grain tank at the top of the combine and filling time, described in the previous post. Learning involves “filling” something up to completeness—namely, the mind. I observe on page 31 of my book Implicit Rhetoric: Kenneth Burke’s Extension of Aristotle’s Concept of Entelechy:

Aristotle offers examples of entelecheia: "When the buildable [oikodomêton] . . . is fully real [entelecheia], it is being built [oikodomeitai], and this is building [oikodomêsis]" (201a16-18). Likewise, he offers the terms learning (mathêsis), doctoring (iatreusis), rolling (kulisis), leaping (alsis), ripening (andrunsis), and aging (gêransis) (cf. also Metaphysics 1065b20). All of these examples of entelecheia end in -sis as does the term kinêsis, itself. The Greek term kinêsis (which Hardie and Gaye have translated "motion") is Aristotle's key term for describing something that is in a continuous process of change.

When Luke 2:52 states that “Jesus increased in wisdom,” Luke indicates that Jesus was in a continuous process of changing (kinêsis) from less wisdom to more wisdom—filling up his mind with wisdom and knowledge. Luke makes the just-mentioned observation following Jesus’ trip to the temple, as a twelve-year-old, where Luke 1:46-47 (NKJV) reports: “Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers.” This point in time, recorded by Luke, is somewhere in the “middle” of the learning entelechy for Jesus—with the Logos becoming flesh at the archē/ἀρχή and Jesus’ resurrection and/or ascension to Heaven at the telos/τέλος. Once Jesus was resurrected and ascended, he is presented by John in Revelation as knowing all truth. (See my blogpost Apocalyptic? #19: Does Absolute Truth Exist?)

“Sonship” is Not an Entelechy

In the Jewish mind, one does not gradually “become” a son; one “is” a son. The son even has a pre-existence in the loins of his father. Refer back to my previous blogposts, Amoeba/Protozoa Theology (Gospels 1) and Genealogies and Entelechy (Gospels 4). Sonship, on the other hand, is a state of being (not a “process,” with a beginning, middle, and end). One NEVER STOPS being a son, for example. Therefore, sonship is not an entelechy, yet, all “sons” go through entelechial processes. Human sons go, of course, through the growth entelechy, just the same as grains of wheat do, when planted. You will recall that growth is an entelechy of substance (morphê), and, once Mary became pregnant, Jesus’earthly body morphed in utero, until he became an infant at Bethlehem. Then, just as Luke reports, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52 NKJV). Therefore, the

entelechy of substance (morphê) was a first type of entelechy that Jesus experienced on Earth. Physical growth is almost entirely devoid of “free will,” except for such matters as intentionally getting proper nutrition, exercise, and sleep. Kenneth Burke would call growth an entelechy of “motion,” as opposed to “action.” No thought process is necessary in “motion”; whereas, “action” requires thought and conscious purpose. One can “grow” while one is asleep or unconscious. Jesus begins “growing” from the point of his conception in Mary’s womb. As an aside, this discussion of the growth entelechy is also an argument that Aristotle’s entelechy supplies for the pro-life position. As I discuss on page 67 (and elsewhere) in my book Implicit Rhetoric: “Once kinêsis [growth] begins (at conception), I believe that Aristotle would classify the entity as entelecheia.” In other words, life begins at conception, according to Aristotle. Remember, however, that Jesus, in the Jewish mind, existed in the (metaphorical) loins of his father. It was only his earthly, human, body that experienced growth.

The Authority Entelechy

As discussed in the first section of this post, a second type of entelechy that Jesus experienced on Earth was the entelechy of “learning”—something that definitely involves “action.” One “chooses” to learn. Learning is one example of an entelechy of quantity (completeness or filling), as was the grain tank “filling” on the combine. Another example of an entelechy of quantity experienced by sons, to which we now turn, is the entelechy of “authority.” Did Jesus exercise control over his own bodily functions as a baby? Did Jesus exercise authority over Mary and Joseph from the point of his birth? No. Did he exercise authority over them from the time he was twelve years old? No. Luke 2:48-51 (NKJV) reports on the situation:

His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.” And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them. Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them.

When Mary stated to Jesus, “your father and I have sought you,” Jesus discreetly corrected his mother’s explicit mis-identification of his father as Joseph: “Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” Jesus knew who his Father was by age twelve. Nevertheless, Jesus “actively chose” to be subject to his mother and her husband, Joseph. At the beginning of his ministry, Jesus was still demonstrating submission to his mother. John 2:3-7 (NKJV) records the account of the wedding feast at Cana of Galilee:

[W]hen they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.” Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.” Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.”

Though Jesus (remaining totally in character with his twelve-year-old incident) is still gently resisting his mother’s implicit commands, he complies. Why does an earthly mother appear to be exercising authority over her thirty-year-old son, who is the Son of God? It probably has something to do with the Fifth Commandment: “Honor your father and mother” (Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16, Matthew 15:4 and 19:19, Luke 18:20, and Ephesians 6:1) even if your father and mother are not completely wise in certain matters. Jesus is voluntarily “choosing” to submit. Does it not, then, make sense that, as a Son, Jesus would also voluntarily “choose” to submit to his true Father? Therefore, Jesus defers to his Father’s authority in the matter of who would sit on his right and left hands, in Matthew 20:23 (ESV): “to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” He also, in John 12:49 (ESV) asserts: “For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak.” Of course, since Jesus IS God’s Word/Logos-become-flesh, his “words” ARE God’s Words. Even though Jesus chose to submit to his mother and to his Father, his own personal “authority,” by the time he began his ministry, was very much in evidence.

Jesus had power over the winds and waves; “even the wind and the sea obey[ed] him” (Matthew 28:27). He had the power to “bring forth bread from the earth” (feeding of 5000) and he “created the fruit

of the vine” (at the wedding feast in Cana). These two feats (creating bread and wine) are the basis of the Jewish prayer at meals in the Mishnah—capabilities that are attributed only to God, whom the Jews bless. He had the power to heal the sick, raise the dead, curse the fig tree, walk on water, etc.

Matthew 7:29 (NKJV, also Mark 1:22 and Luke 4:32) observes: “He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” Jesus, in Matthew 9:6, Mark 2:10, and Luke 5:24 (NKJV) asserts: “the Son of Man has power [authority] on earth to forgive sins.” In Mark 1:27 (NKJV, also Luke 4:36) bystanders observed, “For with authority He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him. Then, in Matthew 10:1 (NKJV, also Mark 3:15 and 6:7 and Luke 9:1 and 10:19), Jesus gave his twelve apostles “power [authority] over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease.” John 5:27 (NKJV) reports that God “has given Him authority to execute judgment.” Jesus even has the authority/power over his own life, according to John 10:17-18 (NKJV): “I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power [authority] to lay it down, and I have power [authority] to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.” These actions are matters of “choice” and “free will” for Jesus. He is not the passive victim of someone else’s will. He is “voluntarily” submitting to death, even though Jesus prayed in Matthew 26:39 (NKJV): “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” Jesus had the authority and free will to forego the crucifixion, but he executed the plan as the Father designed it. It clearly was a very gut-wrenching choice.

Certainly, by the end of his ministry, Jesus was claiming complete authority. In John 17:2, towards the end of his life, Jesus prayed to God: “You have given Him [God’s Son] authority over all flesh.” In Matthew 28:18, Jesus asserts: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. The telos/τέλος of the entelechy of quantity (the filling up of Jesus’ authority) had now been reached.

“Sonship” is the Key to Understanding these “Filling” Entelechies

Paul’s comment in Galatians 4:1-2 (NKJV) is very helpful in understanding these entelechies: “Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.” When the Logos “became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory . . . as of the only-begotten of the Father,” he voluntarily entered into some earthly entelechies. Among those entelechies were the “growth” entelechy, what Aristotle called a change of “substance” or “form,” as he “grew” in stature. The second kind of entelechy, what Aristotle called a change of “quantity, complete and incomplete,” was the “filling”

entelechy. Jesus’ mind “filled” with knowledge, as he “grew” in wisdom. Meanwhile, his power/authority was also increasing until, ultimately, he claimed that “all authority” had been given to him. As Paul observes, when Jesus was “a child, [he did] not differ at all from a slave, though he [was] master of all, but [was] under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the Father.” Indeed, Jesus saw his role on earth as that of a servant. Entelechially speaking, the “essence” of his Sonship –being master of all (based on his preexistence “in” the Father)—was “spread out” over time. Kenneth Burke refers to such a factor in entelechy as the “temporizing [the process of spreading out over time] of essence” (See Philosophy of Literary Form, 19). While the growth (in stature) entelechy and the filling entelechy (learning wisdom and gaining authority) occur gradually over time, entelechially, one sees them as a time-condensed snapshot of sorts, all existing “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ). Refer back to the first post in this series. Hence, entelechially-speaking (since the end/telos/τέλος is implicit in the beginning/ἐν ἀρχῇ), Jesus has always possessed (entelechially) all wisdom, knowledge, and power/authority. The “earthly” concept of entelechy helps us to understand the “heavenly” concepts of theology, just as Jesus was teaching Nicodemus (John 3:12).