SQUANTO – A THANKSGIVING STORY

 

When the Pilgrims left Holland aboard the Mayflower, heading toward the Atlantic coast of America in search of religious freedom, they embarked on a sea voyage marked by danger, misfortune, disappointment and a continuous struggle for survival. Forced to leave sister ship Speedwell behind with its much-needed provisions and burdened with the Speedwell’s passengers in addition to their own, they faced alone the North Atlantic, famous for its awful winter weather and mountainous seas. By the time they reached their destination of Plymouth, situated on the northwest edge of Cape Cod south of Boston in what is now the State of Massachusetts, they were already enfeebled by the rigors of the voyage and short of life-sustaining provisions. The date of their arrival was November 21, 1620 – the middle of a harsh, frigid Northeast winter.

Knowing nothing of the hunting and farming techniques that enabled the natives of this new land to survive, and constructing shelters inadequate to the task of staving off the constant, biting cold, they quickly began to fall sick and die of exposure, compounded by their near-starvation. Yet throughout this ordeal they remained faithful and warm-hearted to their Christian God.

The death rate from scurvy and pneumonia climbed from one to two, and then to three every day. By the middle of the next spring, thirteen of eighteen wives had died; only three families survived without suffering a dead member. Nearly half of their number had died. Yet their faith and love of God failed to be shaken. Nevertheless, as they welcomed the return of Spring, they also knew that they remained on the very edge of survival, a dark understanding thrust into their cold and hungry faces by their inability to obtain food from this strange new land. They prayed fervently to God for His aid.

Unknown to them, God had set in motion their rescue fifteen years before.

Another person had arrived near their colony just six months before the Pilgrims had arrived. He was a Native American named Tisquantum, or Squanto for short. He was a member of the Patuxet tribe, known for its savage, deadly hatred of whites for the abuses the tribe had suffered at the hands of earlier Englishmen who had come to fish these shores. Fifteen years had passed since Squanto had last seen his relatives. He was taken from them in 1605 when he had been abducted and carried off to Europe.

Accounts differ as to what happened to Squanto after his arrival in Europe. One story has him arriving in England, learning the language, and returning to New England, only to be abducted again and carried back off to Europe, this time to Malaga, Spain. There he was bought at a slave auction by kindly monks, who taught him their language and about their Christian God. Later, he went by ship to London, where he was able to obtain passage a second time to New England. Another story has him first being carried off to Malaga and being taken in directly by the monks. Several years thereafter, he managed to get to London, from where he sailed back to New England.

Whatever the version, Squanto arrived back in New England after a lengthy absence just before the arrival of the Pilgrims and equipped with a love of God and a fluent understanding of the English language.

When he came back to his Patuxet home, he was devastated to see that the village no longer existed. It had been wiped out four years earlier by a vicious disease that had claimed the lives of everyone in the village. But he had come back with a friend, an Algonquin chief from Maine. Samoset, ever the wanderer, had a fondness for travel and was given to hitching rides on the ships of Englishmen whom he’d befriended.

Squanto lived alone with his grief for a time, but when the Europeans arrived, Samoset decided to visit them. It was mid-March, and Samoset saw how bad their lot was. Walking into the poverty-stricken village, his first word to them was “Welcome!” His next words were “Have you any beer?” The Pilgrims gaped open-mouthed in astonishment over his command of their language.

The next week he dragged Squanto back with him in an attempt to get him out of his funk. Perhaps at that point he may have recalled the Spanish monks’ words of comfort to him over the pain and abuses he had suffered at the hands of Europeans. As he had questioned the motive of a God who would have let him be kidnapped, they had reassured him that God loved him and knew all the trials Squanto had been subjected to. They promised that if Squanto trusted in Him, God would use his suffering in ways beyond his imagination.

Like the Biblical Joseph, who had emerged from his own undeserved suffering to become through the Hand of God the second most powerful man in Egypt that he might save those who had wrongfully mistreated him, Squanto saw an opportunity in the Pilgrims’ squalor. Adopting them as his own family, he set about to teach them how to survive in America.

Under Squanto’s tutelage, the Pilgrims emerged from want to abundance. That fall they held a feast in thanksgiving to God for blessing them, including the valuable things that Squanto taught them as the living answer to their prayers. They invited the local tribes to join them, and the Native Americans joined in with the transplanted Europeans in praising God for His benevolent love.

NAMING THE ANIMALS

 

In Genesis 2, God pronounces it not good that Adam should be without a mate. But before He proceeds to do something about it, He brings the animals of His Creation to Adam and asks him to name them. Then he forms Eve out of Adam’s rib.

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help fit for him.

“And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help fit for him.

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

This passage raises a number of questions, particularly in the sequence of events, but with other issues besides. Why did God insert the naming of the animals between His concern over Adam being alone and His forming of Eve? What was so important about Adam naming the animals? How could he possibly name all the animals, given the enormous diversity of life?

As to the first issue, the sequence of the Biblical narrative, I like best an answer picked off the Internet on the Creation Moments website: God was using the simple tool of names to teach Adam to communicate, a skill that he would then pass on to Eve, enabling them to bond through joint communication. That answer is appealing, as it would be a valid prerequisite to the event of bringing Adam and Eve together, much to be preferred to the two staring dumbly at each other and at a total loss for words.

This reason also answers in part the second issue, the importance of Adam naming the animals. But there are other important reasons other than helping Adam to communicate with Eve, one of which is that in having Adam name the animals, God was asserting that these creatures were fixed kinds, finished designs whose basic properties would remain intact throughout history. Thus, this episode in Adam’s life is a slap in the face to Darwin’s theory of evolution, which postulates that life is unceasingly undergoing change. In Darwin’s view, all life is in constant transition from one form to another, so that the animals we see now are simply snapshots in time of what may be very different in the future.

Noted biochemist Douglas Axe captures the essence of this contrast between God’s stability of form with Darwin’s corresponding instability in Chapter 6 of his book Undeniable: How Biology Confirms our Intuition that Life is Designed. There, under the heading “Life A La Darwin”, Axe speaks of the salmon and the Orca whale, each very different but “utterly committed to being what it is”. Life, as Axe sees it, magnificently represents completion of form, creatures living precisely as God designed them to live.

This stability of form leads to the next issue, the question as to how Adam could have named all the animals, even within his very long lifetime. If all kinds of life are stable as was asserted above, the very diversity of life would not only indicate that this variety existed at the time of Adam, but also would make his task extremely difficult. At this point I’ll make a statement that appears to directly contradict this supposed stability of life: there were a relatively few “kinds” of animals that Adam was asked to name; first they were limited to birds and the larger animals; second, these “kinds” were the much-fewer basic precursors whose offspring branched out after Noah’s Flood to the diversity we see today. But then one might say, “See? Animals aren’t stable in form at all!” But the post-Flood diversity has much more to do with designed-in adaptability than actual change corresponding to the evolutionary model. The difference is that God’s engine of change is His inclusion in DNA of pre-existing alternate design modifications, whereas Darwin’s “engine” is dumb, random variation.

Take, for instance, the dog. There exists today an enormous variety of dogs of varying shapes, sizes and attributes. But they’re all still dogs, having the wolf as a common ancestor. The DNA of the wolf is information-rich, capable of accommodating plans “B”, “C”, and so on according to environmental conditions or the human interference of breeding. Most common breeds today are the product of the intelligent operation of selective breeding, and some, but not all, of their features would quickly revert back to those of their common ancestor if they were to be divested of their human overseers and go into the wild. It is true the Mexican hairless creature would be in serious trouble in another ice age because some features such as length of hair might be incapable of reversion. But that would be due to DNA information loss arising from forced breeding.

JESUS QUOTES THE PROPHET ISAIAH

 

The prophet Isaiah, who lived in the eighth century B.C., is a prominent source of Old Testament prophecies that address the Jesus to come. Among these prophecies is the passage in Isaiah 7:14 where the prophet describes Jesus as being born of a virgin, and the passage in Isaiah 9:1 and 2, where Isaiah claims that Jesus will come from Galilee. Because so many of his prophecies depict such accurate facts about Jesus, some would-be Bible scholars attempted to claim that the Book of Isaiah was written after Jesus’ first advent. This claim was shown to be false by the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947, the documents of which were dated to before Christ and which contained the complete Book of Isaiah.

Jesus also quoted passages of Isaiah, confirming their truth. Isaiah 61:1-2a reads as follows:

“The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me, because the Lord has anointed me to preach good tidings to the meek; he has sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to those who are bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the

Lord . . .”

Jesus, in Luke 4:16-21, is quoted as saying essentially the same words as Isaiah. And well He should, as He was reading from a scroll.

“And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up; and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet, Isaiah. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he has sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord.

“And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say to them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.”

But what adds authority to Jesus’ words is that in quoting Isaiah, He didn’t finish the entire verse, the rest of which reads:

“. . .and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn; to appoint unto those who mourn in Zion, to give them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness, that they might be called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified.”

Isaiah goes on to describe the blessings with which God will endow the nation of Israel.

Why did Jesus break off Isaiah’s prophecy in mid-sentence? Because in the synagogue He was describing just what He would accomplish regarding Isaiah’s prophecy in His first advent. The remainder of Isaiah’s prophecy was related to Jesus’ Second Coming, as foretold in the Book of Revelation.

Another passage of Isaiah that was quoted by Jesus is in Isaiah 6:9 and 10:

“And he said, Go, and tell this people, Hear you indeed, but understand not; and see you indeed, but perceive not. Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and are converted, and be healed.”

Jesus often spoke of the necessity of having eyes to see and ears to hear what He is teaching. In Mark 4:12, He quotes Isaiah 6:9 and 10 almost verbatim:

“That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them.”

These passages seem to say that God gives a saving knowledge of Him to some people but denies it to others. Is this what He’s really saying? There is another passage, in Matthew 11:25-27 that seems so say just that.

“At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank you, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and have revealed them to babes.

“All things are delivered to me by my Father, and no man knows the Son, but the Father; neither knows any man the Father, but the Son, and Him to whomever the Son will reveal Him.”

Why would God deny knowledge of Him to some, as this passage clearly states? In Matthew 13:11-16, Jesus repeats this denial, and gives us an answer as to why, with a commentary similar to that in His Parable of the Talents (Matthew 25).

“[Jesus] answered and said to them, Because it is given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.

“For whoever has, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance; but whoever has not, from him shall be taken away even what he has.

“Therefore I speak to them in parables, because they seeing, see not, and hearing, they hear not, neither do they understand. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah, which says, By hearing, you shall hear and shall not understand, and seeing, you shall see and not perceive; for this people’s heart is become gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

“But blessed are your eyes, for they see; and your ears, for they hear.”

What Jesus was saying is that some people are so full of selfishness and pride and so caught up in the secular, material world that they don’t think of God as even relevant to their lives. They cannot understand, primarily because they don’t want to. Paul picked up on this failing of secular-minded people in 1 Corinthians 1:18-25:

“For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us who are saved it is the power of God For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them who believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Gentiles seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumbling block, and unto the Gentiles foolishness; but to them who are called, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

THE ROAD TO EMMAUS

 

This touching account in Luke 24:13-22 is notable on several levels. At its most poignant, it shows the loving intimacy with which the risen Jesus associates with the human race. He speaks to the two men as would a loving, compassionate Parent intent on comforting their grieving souls.

The story also shows how closely the Old Testament is associated with the New, and how highly Jesus regarded it. When He revealed to the two travelers how the Scriptures foretold Him, the only Scriptures that were available to them were those of the Old Testament.

“And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about seven and a half miles. And they talked together of all these things which had happened since Jesus’ crucifixion.

“And it came to pass that, while they talked together and thought of these events, Jesus himself drew near, and went with them. But their eyes were prevented from recognizing him. And he said to them, What manner of communications are these that you have one with another, as you walk, and are sad? And one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answered him, saying, Are you only a stranger in Jerusalem, and have hot known the things which are come to pass there in these days? And he said to them, What things? And they replied, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in deed and word before God and all the people; and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered him to be condemned to death, and have crucified him. But we hoped that it had been he who should have redeemed Israel; and, besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done. Yea, and certain women also of our company amazed us, who were early at the sepulcher; and when they did not find his body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive.

“Then he said to them, O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not 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.

“And they drew near to the village, to which they went; and he made as though he would have gone farther. But they constrained him, saying, Abide with us; for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent. And he went in to linger with them. And it came to pass, as he sat eating with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to them. And their eyes were opened, and they recognized him, and he vanished out of their sight. And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us along the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?

Perhaps Jesus explained to the travelers how He had to die for their benefit, presenting that information in terms of Joseph in Genesis, and how Joseph suffered for the salvation of his brothers who hated him, and, in the end, how he did so willingly. He could have added the account of Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac, and of how that story foretold the Father’s suffering as He had to turn His head away in sorrow from the sin that Jesus had become on the cross. He also could have explained how Moses prophesied of Him becoming sin by holding up the bronze serpent on a pole to heal those in the wilderness who had been bitten by snakes. He could have topped that off with Psalm 22, which foretold in agonizing detail how it felt to be crucified.

Maybe Jesus also explained to them why He had to wait for four days before He resurrected Lazarus, and how in doing so he was prophesying of His own resurrection after the fourth millennium from Creation.

It could be that Jesus went on to speak of the love of God toward mankind, quoting from passages of the Song of Solomon to show the exquisitely romantic nature of that love. In looking forward to that day when the Church would become the Bride of Christ, Jesus could have noted His first miracle at the wedding in Cana, where He changed water into wine to make complete the joy of marriage.

RUTH FORETELLS THE CHURCH

 

The Book of Ruth in the Old Testament is another story that is short, almost the size of the tiny book of Jonah. But it is magnificent in its beauty as it describes the future Marriage of Jesus with His beloved Church.

As the story takes place during the barley harvest in the Fall, the Book of Ruth is traditionally recited in the Jewish community during the Feast of Pentecost, which also occurs during the same time. The subject of the story is much the same as the tale of Rebekah in Genesis 24, but fills in some additional details of the romantic relationship between Jesus and His Church.

The grand design of God that included mankind as an eventual member of the Heavenly Family was foreshadowed in the romantic book of Ruth. From the very beginning of man in Adam, God has jealously guarded the bloodline of the Jesus to come. This was well understood by the rulers of this world, from Pharaoh to Herod. At times that were interpreted as Messianic, these rulers were given to killing off the male forebears of Mary. They instinctively knew that the bloodline was intended to remain within the Semites, passing down through the Hebrews to the Israelites under Abraham. It was to rest on the specific tribe of Judah, through whom came King David, his son Solomon, and, finally, both Mary and her husband Joseph.

But an exception was granted, one of a very few in number. There was a gentile woman named Ruth who, after the untimely death of her first husband, demonstrated a godly loyalty to her mother-in-law Naomi, who had lived in Moab with her Israelite husband. After the death of Naomi’s husband as well, Naomi decided to move to her husband’s homeland of Israel, which God had favored with bountiful crops. Because Ruth was a native of Moab, Naomi thought she would be more comfortable staying there, rather than moving to Israel. Or could she have been testing Ruth?

“And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters: why will you go with me? Are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands? Turn again, my daughters, go your way: for I am too old to have a husband. If I should say, I have hope, if I should have a husband also to night, and should also bear sons; Would you wait for them till they were grown? would you stay for them from having husbands? no, my daughters; for it grieves me much for your sakes that the hand of the Lord is gone out against me. And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto her.

“And she said, Behold, your sister in law is gone back unto her people, and to her gods: return you after your sister in law.

“And Ruth said, Intreat me not to leave thee, or to return from following after thee: for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God: Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried: the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.”

So, after making this immortal statement of loyalty, Ruth followed Naomi back to her husband’s people, and in poverty gleaned corn in the field of Naomi’s relative Boaz.

“And Naomi had a kinsman of her husband’s. a mighty man of wealth, of the family of Elimelech; and his name was Boaz. And Ruth, the Moabitess, said unto Naomi, Let me now go to the field, and glean ears of grain after him in whose sight I shall find grace. And she said unto her, Go, my daughter. And she went, and came, and gleaned in the field after the reapers; and she happened to come to a portion of the field belonging to Boaz, who was of the family of Elimelech. And, behold, Boaz came from Bethlehem, and said unto the reapers, The Lord be with you. And they answered him, The Lord bless you. And then said Boaz unto his servant who was over the reapers, Whose lady is this?”

Ruth, being a pretty woman, obviously had caught Boaz’ eye. The feeling was mutual, and out of this first encounter began the first stirrings of a romance. Ruth confided her feelings to Naomi, who advised her to show her interest to Boaz.

“And [Ruth] went down to the [threshing] floor, and did all that her mother-in-law told her to do. And when Boaz had eaten and drunk, and his heart was merry, he went to lie down at the end of the heap of grain; and she came softly, and uncovered his feet, and lay down. And it came to pass at midnight, that the man was startled, and turned himself; and, behold, a woman lay at his feet. And he said, Who are you? And she answered, I am Ruth, your handmaid. Spread, therefore, your skirt over your handmaid; for you are a near kinsman.

“And he said, Blessed be you of the Lord, my daughter: for you have shown more kindness in the latter end than the beginning, as you followed not young men, whether poor or rich. And now, my daughter, fear not; I will do to thee all that you require; for all the city of my people does know that you are a virtuous woman.”

There was a tradition in Israel, instituted by Moses from the Word of God, that if a woman’s husband died, a near kinsman was obligated to marry her and raise up children for her. By lying at Boaz’ feet, Ruth was claiming that obligation to Boaz. Boaz, in turn, enthusiastically agreed to fulfill that obligation. Ruth conceived a child through this man. His name was Obed:

“And Naomi took the child, and laid it in her bosom, and became nurse unto it. And the women her neighbors gave it a name, saying, There is a son born to Naomi; and they called his name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David.

“Now these are the generations of Pharez: Pharez begat Hezron, And Hezron begat Ram, and Ram begat Amminadab, And Amminadab begat Nahshon, and Nahshon begat Salmon, and Salmon begat Boaz, and Boaz begat Obed, and Obed begat Jesse, and Jesse begat David.”

This genealogical record is repeated in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. As noted in Matthew:

“. . .And Salmon begat Booz of Rachab; and Booz begat Obed of Ruth; and Obed begat Jesse; And Jesse begat David the king; and David the king begat Solomon of her that had been the wife of Urias;. . .And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.”

It is striking how the Bible can so dramatically convey passion by means of a simple genealogical list. By the grace of this exception that is immortalized in the begats like a medal of honor, the gentiles were permitted to participate in the creation of the physical Jesus. This gentile participation in the bringing forth of the Jewish Messiah is a type of the participation of man in the Godhead.

As Boaz prefigures Jesus Christ, the marriage between Boaz and Ruth also foretells the union between Jesus and His Church. The hint of this relationship is given substance by Paul in Ephesians 5:22-32:

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, and to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church; and he is the savior of the body.

“Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

“So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loves his wife loves himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, even as the Lord the Church; for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

“This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”

NAMING THE ANIMALS

 

In Genesis 2, God pronounces it not good that Adam should be alone. But before He proceeds to do something about it, He brings the animals of His Creation to Adam and asks him to name them. Then he forms Eve out of Adam’s rib.

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help fit for him.

“And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help fit for him.

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

This passage raises a number of questions, particularly in the sequence of events, but with other issues besides. Why did God insert the naming of the animals between His concern over Adam being alone and His forming of Eve? What was so important about Adam naming the animals? How could he name all the animals, given the enormous diversity of life?

As to the first issue, the sequence of the Biblical narrative, I like best an answer picked off the Internet on the Creation Moments website: God was using the simple tool of names to teach Adam to communicate, a skill that he would then pass on to Eve, enabling them to bond through joint communication. That answer is appealing, as it would be a valid prerequisite to the event of bringing Adam and Eve together, much to be preferred to the two staring dumbly at each other, at a total loss of words.

This reason also answers in part the second issue, the importance of Adam naming the animals. But there are other important reasons, one of which is that in having Adam name the animals, God was asserting that these creatures were fixed kinds, finished designs whose basic properties would remain intact throughout history. Thus, this episode in Adam’s life is a slap in the face to Darwin’s theory of evolution, which postulates that life is unceasingly undergoing change. In Darwin’s view, all life is in constant transition from one form to another, so that the animals we see now are simply snapshots in time of what may be very different in the future.

Noted biochemist Douglas Axe captures the essence of this contrast between God’s stability of form with Darwin’s corresponding instability in Chapter 6 his book Undeniable: How Biology Confirms our Intuition that Life is Designed. There, under the heading “Life A La Darwin”, he speaks of the salmon and the Orca whale, each very different but “utterly committed to being what it is”. Life, as Axe sees it, magnificently represents completion of form, creatures living precisely as God designed them to live.

This stability of form leads to the next issue, the question as to how Adam could have named all the animals, even within his very long lifetime. If all kinds of life are stable as was asserted above, the very diversity of life would not only indicate that this diversity existed at the time of Adam, but also would make this task extremely difficult. At this point I’ll make a statement that appears to directly contradict this supposed stability of life: there were a relatively few “kinds” of animals that Adam was asked to name; first they were limited to birds and the larger animals; second, these “kinds” were the much-fewer basic precursors whose offspring branched out after Noah’s Flood to the diversity we see today. But then one might say, “See? Animals aren’t stable in form at all!” But the post-Flood diversity has much more to do with designed-in adaptability than actual change corresponding to the evolutionary model. The difference is that God’s engine of change is His inclusion in DNA of pre-existing alternate design modifications, whereas Darwin’s “engine” is dumb, random variation.

Take, for instance, the dog. There exist today an enormous variety of dogs of varying shapes, sizes and attributes. But they’re all still dogs, having the wolf as a common ancestor. The DNA of the wolf is information-rich, capable of accommodating plans “B”, “C”, and so on according to environmental conditions or the human interference of breeding. Most common breeds today are the product of the intelligent operation of selective breeding, and many of their features would quickly revert back to those of their common ancestor if they were to be divested of their human overseers and go into the wild. It is true the Mexican hairless creature would be in serious trouble in another ice age because some features such as length of hair might be incapable of reversion. But that would be due to DNA information loss arising from forced breeding.

TO WHOM SHALL WE GO? (CONTINUED

TO WHOM SHALL WE GO? (CONTINUED)

This post is a continuation of my previous post, in which I gave one of three reasons for my faith in response to another WordPress blogger’s question “How do you keep God in your life?” The question was raised after the blogger noted how many people have left their Churches and their faith behind.

The first reason for my maintaining my faith in God was what I called the direct and obvious intervention of God to get me out of jams. I covered that in my previous posting.

The second reason for my faith is the supernatural character of Scripture, including its amazing consistency and prophetic accuracy. Understanding this feature takes more than a superficial glance at the Bible (I’m sure you’re well beyond that), and explaining it fully would be beyond the scope of this posting. I have posted many articles on this topic, and have addressed it in my book writings as well. For a more detailed development I’ll simply point to the appendices in my book Marching to a Worthy Drummer, and particularly to Appendix 4: The Inerrancy of Scripture. Here I’ll highlight a few basic reasons and some Biblical zingers that really grabbed me.

Scripture is a supernaturally beautiful document that identifies itself as inspired and inerrant. Paul, in 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17, and Peter, in 2 Peter 1:20 and 21, both make that claim. Despite what at least one group of pseudo-intellectuals asserts, the Bible is amazingly self-consistent, including the manner in which the two Testaments support each other.

Time and again, where my first impression was of Scriptural inconsistency, the resolution in favor of consistency gave me a deeper understanding of God. An example of this is the difference in the account of the birth of Jesus between Matthew and Luke. Matthew has Herod so jealous of Jesus that Joseph and Mary had to escape with him into Egypt until the ruler’s death. Luke, in contrast, describes a peaceful setting for Jesus’ birth. The culprit here is the tradition of having the Wise Men come to the manger where Jesus was born. That wasn’t the case, as is obvious, from Matthew’s account of Herod’s slaughtering of children two years and younger, that the Wise Men came to Israel at least a year after Jesus was born. Another tipoff is Matthew’s having the Wise Men come to Jesus’ house rather than the manger in Bethlehem.

The Old Testament description of the Passover (Exodus 12) correlates perfectly with the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ sacrifice of Himself for our salvation. Adding weight to this correlation is the account of Migdal Edar (watchtower of the flock) that places the manger of Jesus’ birth as the very same birthing place for the special lambs to be sacrificed in the nearby Jerusalem temple. That the lambs were wrapped in swaddling clothes at their birth to maintain their ritual perfection adds yet more weight.

In the sixth century B.C., the prophet Daniel (Daniel 9) foretold Jesus’ triumphant entry into Jerusalem to the very day from Artaxerxes Longimanus’ decree to rebuild Jerusalem in 445 B.C. (years after Daniel’s death) to His entry on an ass as recorded in Matthew 21. This entry wasn’t unique; it was prefigured by Solomon, who entered Jerusalem as king of Israel on his father David’s donkey (1 Kings 1:33-38 and Zechariah 9:9).

Ezekiel 4:5 and 6, in combination with Leviticus 26:18, foretells the return of Israel to its homeland on May 14, 1948. This was discovered by the late Biblical scholar Grant Jeffrey, who claimed that the ancient prophecy was accurate to the very day; I have personally verified it to the year 1948, to my astonishment.

The third reason for my faith, like the first, is personal, involving the love of God toward me, and my responsive love toward Him. It makes me a bit of a pariah, as the intimacy I feel is related to my belief that the Holy Spirit is feminine. I’ve written much about that in postings and books, and again I point to my book Marching to a Worthy Drummer, which presents the logic behind that belief. In the context of the family-based Godhead supported by a feminine Holy Spirit, I view the future marriage of the Church to Jesus to be both substantive and productive, a re-enactment of the divine union of Father and Holy Spirit.

My Baptist pastor kind of looks at me sideways sometimes, but he’s managed to convince himself that my views aren’t so far outside the box that they represent heresy. In fact, Scripture itself, other than a few masculine pronouns that I suspect were inserted later to replace the feminine ones associated with the Holy Spirit, consistently points to Her femininity. I don’t understand how that escapes the Church in general. It appears that the early Church did indeed understand that. More recently, the Moravian Church of the 1740s, established in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, held to that view during her most successful and productive period.

The bottom line is that with this view I am able not only to maintain my faith, but to love God with the fervor He commands in Matthew 22:35-38, which echoes Deuteronomy 6:4 and 5:

“Then one of them, who was a lawyer, asked [Jesus] a question, testing Him, and saying, Master, which is the great commandment in the law? Jesus said to him, You shall love the Lord your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the first and great commandment.”

This kind of love is akin to the fervor with which I love my own wife, Carolyn. It’s a beautiful thing, and I wouldn’t give it up for anything.

TO WHOM SHALL WE GO?

 

This posting will depart a little from my usual, in that here I’m responding to a question posed by a fellow WordPress blogger, Beauty Beyond Bones. Hoping I won’t offend her, I’ll shorten her handle to BBB.

Despite the fact that she’s at least three generations younger than me, I greatly enjoy her postings. Perhaps her health problems have given her a maturity that goes beyond her years.

In her latest posting BBB spoke of her Christian faith, describing how the misery of her health situation left her with no choice but to hold fast to that faith. It’s a valid reason. As she continued, she noted that God can take it from there, dealing with pride issues.

Her thoughts remind me of Peter, and of how he responded to Jesus in John 6:63-68 after He spoke to them of the Spirit:

“It is the Spirit who gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life. But there are some of you who don’t believe. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were who didn’t believe, and who should betray Him. And He said, Therefore I said to you that no man can come to Me, except it were given to him of my Father.

“From that time many of His disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then Jesus said to the twelve, Will you also go away? Then Simon Peter answered Him, Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.”

Peter knew that there was nowhere else for him to turn – that he would be desolate without Jesus.

Some very wonderful Christians have come to God in ways that are close to BBB’s. Among them is the late Charles Colson, a brash ex-Marine (Semper Fi) a member of President Nixon’s staff who went to jail for his part in the Watergate fiasco. Stripped of his pride there and in emotional desolation, he turned to God. In his book Born Again, he described his coming to Christ as a “foxhole conversion”. From the remarkable life that followed, people the world over saw in him the love of God. Like Peter and BBB, he came to God under stressful conditions, but then God took it from there to place His love into Colson’s heart. And that reminds me of the immortal words of Ruth:

“And Ruth said, entreat me not to leave thee, or to turn away from following after thee; for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God, my God. Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried; the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.”

At the end of her post, BBB raised a question, inviting her readers to respond. Her question was this: “How do you keep God in your life?”

BBB, I respond to you by claiming three basic reasons for my Christian faith in the face of a family for the most part committed to agnosticism at best, and of my living in a world committed to secularism. The first of these reasons is personal, being the direct and obvious intervention of God to get me out of some serious jams. The second is the supernatural character of Scripture, including its amazing consistency and prophetic accuracy. The third, like the first, is personal, involving the love of God toward me, and my responsive love toward Him.

As for the first reason, I have always had a love for adventure but, unfortunately, I’m rather clumsy. I have a history of getting into difficulty with devices that move, with the result that I’ve gotten into a lot of jams. The good part of that is that I’ve given God a whole lot of chances to intervene to the rescue. God has handled many of these opportunities with a good dose of humor.

In my college years I commuted on a motorcycle, a Triumph 650, the precursor to the popular Bonneville. One day a car turned left in front of me, causing me to crash into her grille. Helmetless, I flew off the bike, leaving my shoes behind and heading directly toward a fire hydrant. My journey there was interrupted by a telephone pole, which I grazed with my chin. Although that encounter did nothing but break off a chip of bone, it put me into a flat spin that caused me to land on a grass strip and roll into the hydrant with my side instead of my head. The entire incident involved a millimeter-level precision that allowed me to live instead of die. In my mid-thirties I tried to carry a log much too big for me, with the result that for three years I was virtually a cripple, suffering under an almost unbearable back pain. One day I decided to go skiing anyway, which led to an excess of pain and caution causing me to go down the slope in a straight line, building up so much speed that when I crashed I cratered in like a bomb. Rather than aggravating my pain, it healed me. I’m pretty sure that God had a hand in that. My wife Carolyn and I still have a bike, a Goldwing, on which we have taken several major trips. On one such trip we found ourselves next to an ancient dump truck. Its worn out rear tire couldn’t handle the weight of the load and it exploded, sending shrapnel in all directions our way. We could see pieces whizzing past us, but not one piece hit Carolyn or me. On that same freeway, a car suddenly swerved to the right in front of us, exposing us to a ladder on the roadway. There was a jerk on the handlebars, and we missed the ladder by less than an inch. The jerk didn’t come from me. I know my limitations. In my early thirties, I took up flying. Among other things, I had an engine-out on takeoff on a very busy airfield in the middle of a very crowded city. I’m still here. Later I borrowed my twin brother’s ultralight and ran into a wind shear where I became the ball in an intense and protracted game of ping-pong. I don’t know how the craft remained intact. In the hang gliding community the phrase “Oh SHIT!” is repeated with distressing frequency. These words are mostly shouted when failing to hook in before launching off, looking at the face of a cliff, approaching a fence, landing on a cow or, like me, tumbling down to earth in a rotor. The glider hit the ground head-first, ripping my hands off the downtubes and crashing my head into the keel. It was eleven weeks before I could raise my arms above the horizontal, and there’s a bulb on my left arm where the tendons separated from the bones and left a useless muscle. But I’m still here. And I had taken Carolyn flying with me before that incident where she realized that I wasn’t to be trusted.

There have been many other incidents, in all of which I’ve seen the Hand of God along with a gentle chuckle. It’s a wonderful intimacy.

I’ll continue with my response in the next posting.

[to be continued]

THE PASSOVER LAMB

 

As the fifteenth century B.C. drew to a close, the nation of Israel had been living in Egypt for over four hundred years. During that time, there had been a descent from friendly relations with the Egyptians, even the elevation of the Israelite Joseph to second in command of Egypt, to slavery under ever-harsher conditions.

God had selected Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, which would take place four hundred thirty years after they came into that land, to the very day. In preparation for that momentous event, which foreshadowed every Christian’s exodus from the slavery of sin, God through Moses instituted a custom that has become a tradition observed by Jews and handed from generation to generation down to today.

This observance is called the Passover; it is detailed in Exodus Chapter Twelve:

“And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be to you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak you to all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: and if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.

“Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: you shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats. And you shall keep it until the fourteenth day of the same month; and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it.

“And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs shall they eat it. Eat not of it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roast with fire; its head with its legs, and with the inwards parts thereof. And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn with fire. And thus shall you eat it: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and you shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord’s Passover.

“For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where you are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.”

God through Moses commanded that this observance be a memorial forever. The Israelites left Egypt the next morning, after the Lord had stricken the firstborn of Egypt, passing over without harm those houses which had the blood of the Passover Lamb on their lintels and doorposts.

The significance of this Passover observance is that it is all about Jesus. It foreshadowed Jesus’ shed blood on the cross in our behalf. Jesus was crucified at the same time that the religious elite, totally unaware of the custom’s significance, killed their Passover lambs as they had done in the same manner every year before. The difference this time was that the real Passover died once for all for our sins, fulfilling the ritual for which the sacrificial lambs were but a shadow.

John the Baptist knew that this was the very reason that God became a man and lived among us: God Himself in selfless, noble love atoned for our shortcomings, knowing that we were helpless to do it for ourselves. John 1:29 relates John’s greeting of Jesus as he was baptizing all who came to him in repentance:

“The next day John saw Jesus coming to him, and said, Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.”

In Chapter 9, the writer of the New Testament Book of Hebrews explained beautifully this significance of Jesus as the Passover Lamb:

“But Christ being come a high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building, neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God? And for this cause he is the mediator of the New Testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they who are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.”

THE GREAT I AM

 

The Egyptian government was so deep into the oppression of the Israelites when Moses was born that midwives had been commanded to kill the male children at birth. Moses was saved from that fate by the compassion of a succession of women. His mother had waterproofed a basket, placed the three-month-old child in it and put it into the water in the hopes that God somehow would save the baby.

God did. He had big plans for Moses, and for the fulfillment of them, Moses needed to remain alive. Pharaoh’s daughter came upon the basket and, having compassion on the baby within, adopted him.

For the first forty years of his life, Moses was a member of Pharaoh’s household, enjoying the same privileges and education as a native Egyptian. But he knew that he was an Israelite, and when he saw an Egyptian overseer abusing a slave, he killed him. Rather than appreciating Moses’ intervention on their behalf, they accused him of murder. Pharaoh himself got wind of what Moses had done, and sought to slay him as well. Moses fled Egypt, and for the next forty years of his life led a pastoral existence in the land of Midian, east of the Red Sea. There he married and had a son.

As the second forty years of his life drew to a close, God appeared to him from within a bush that burned without wasting away. Declaring His compassion on the Israelites for the suffering they were experiencing under the harsh hands of the Egyptians, God informed Moses that He had chosen him for the task of delivering his nation from slavery in Egypt and of bringing them into the land that He had promised Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Being alarmed at the magnitude of this task, Moses questioned whether his people would buy into this plan. He no doubt remembered how he already had been rejected by his people when he had tried to help them, and now God was asking him to do it again, but this time on a vastly larger scale of intervention. As related in Exodus 3:13, Moses peppered God with a series of questions:

“And Moses said to God, Behold, when I come to the children of Israel, and shall say to them, The God of your fathers has sent me to you; and they shall say to me, What is his name? What shall I say to them?”

In response, God gave him His name, an enigmatic one indeed:

“And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and He said, Thus shall you say to the children of Israel, I AM has sent me to you. And God said moreover to Moses, Thus shall you say to the children of Israel, The Lord God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you; this is my name forever, and this is my memorial to all generations.”

For the next forty years Moses, having received abundantly of the indwelling Holy Spirit, struggled to fulfill God’s plan for him and His people Israel, the entire journey representing every Christian’s path through Jesus Christ from sin to salvation.

At first glance, this name that God gave Himself seems to emphasize His majesty and power, as if to challenge the right of mere man to question His authority.

Perhaps that is what God intended to convey, but Jesus, when He came in the flesh, took that name for Himself and embellished upon to give it a far different meaning.

That Jesus referred to Himself as the great I AM, and that the Father honored His assertion, is documented in John 8:56-58 and 18:3-6

“Then said the Jews to him, You art not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham? Jesus said to them, Truly, truly I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”

“Judas then, having received a band of men and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, came there with lanterns and torches and weapons. Jesus, therefore, knowing all things that should come upon him, went forth, and said to them, Who are you looking for? They answered him, Jesus, of Nazareth. Jesus said to them, I am he. And Judas also, who betrayed him, stood with them. As soon, then, as he had said to them, I am, they went backward, and fell to the ground.”

As for Jesus’ own interpretation of what this name meant, His descriptions are given in John 6:35, 8:12, 10:7 and 11, 11:25, and 14:6:

“And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life; he that comes to me shall never hunger, and he that believes on me shall never thirst.”

“Then spoke Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world; he that follows me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.”

“Then said Jesus unto them again, Truly, truly I say to you, I am the door of the sheep.”

“I am the good shepherd; the good shepherd gives his life for the sheep.”

“Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life; he that believes in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live.”

“Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father, but by me.”

These beautiful self-descriptions depict our God as loving and compassionate, much to our good fortune.

SQUANTO

 

When the Pilgrims left Holland aboard the Mayflower, heading toward the Atlantic coast of America in search of religious freedom, they embarked on a sea voyage marked by danger, misfortune, disappointment and a continuous struggle for survival. Forced to leave sister ship Speedwell behind with its much-needed provisions and burdened with the Speedwell’s passengers in addition to their own, they faced alone the North Atlantic, famous for its awful winter weather and mountainous seas. By the time they reached their destination of Plymouth, situated on the northwest edge of Cape Cod south of Boston in what is now the State of Massachusetts, they were already enfeebled by the rigors of the voyage and short of life-sustaining provisions. The date of their arrival was November 21, 1620 – the middle of a harsh, frigid Northeast winter.

Knowing nothing of the hunting and farming techniques that enabled the natives of this new land to survive, and constructing shelters inadequate to the task of staving off the constant, biting cold, they quickly began to fall sick and die of exposure, compounded by their near-starvation. Yet throughout this ordeal they remained faithful and warm-hearted to their Christian God.

The death rate from scurvy and pneumonia climbed from one to two, and then to three every day. By the middle of the next spring, thirteen of eighteen wives had died; only three families survived without suffering a dead member. Nearly half of their number had died. Yet their faith and love of God failed to be shaken. Nevertheless, as they welcomed the return of Spring, they also knew that they remained on the very edge of survival, a dark understanding thrust into their cold and hungry faces by their inability to obtain food from this strange new land. They prayed fervently to God for His aid.

Unknown to them, God had set in motion their rescue fifteen years before.

Another person had arrived near their colony just six months before the Pilgrims had arrived. He was a Native American named Tisquantum, or Squanto for short. He was a member of the Patuxet tribe, known for its savage, deadly hatred of whites for the abuses the tribe had suffered at the hands of earlier Englishmen who had come to fish these shores. Fifteen years had passed since Squanto had last seen his relatives. He was taken from them in 1605 when he had been abducted and carried off to Europe.

Accounts differ as to what happened to Squanto after his arrival in Europe. One story has him arriving in England, learning the language, and returning to New England, only to be abducted again and carried back off to Europe, this time to Malaga, Spain. There he was bought at a slave auction by kindly monks, who taught him their language and about their Christian God. Later, he went by ship to London, where he was able to obtain passage a second time to New England. Another story has him first being carried off to Malaga and being taken in directly by the monks. Several years thereafter, he managed to get to London, from where he sailed back to New England.

Whatever the version, Squanto arrived back in New England after a lengthy absence just before the arrival of the Pilgrims and equipped with a love of God and a fluent understanding of the English language.

When he came back to his Patuxet home, he was devastated to see that the village no longer existed. It had been wiped out four years earlier by a vicious disease that had claimed the lives of everyone in the village. But he had come back with a friend, an Algonquin chief from Maine. Samoset, ever the wanderer, had a fondness for travel and was given to hitching rides on the ships of Englishmen whom he’d befriended.

Squanto lived alone with his grief for a time, but when the Europeans arrived, Samoset decided to visit them. It was mid-March, and Samoset saw how bad their lot was. Walking into the poverty-stricken village, his first word to them was “Welcome!” His next words were “Have you any beer?” The Pilgrims gaped open-mouthed in astonishment over his command of their language.

The next week he dragged Squanto back with him in an attempt to get him out of his funk. Perhaps at that point he may have recalled the Spanish monks’ words of comfort to him over the pain and abuses he had suffered at the hands of Europeans. As he had questioned the motive of a God who would have let him be kidnapped, they had reassured him that God loved him and knew all the trials Squanto had been subjected to. They promised that if Squanto trusted in Him, God would use his suffering in ways beyond his imagination.

Like the Biblical Joseph, who had emerged from his own undeserved suffering to become through the Hand of God the second most powerful man in Egypt that he might save those who had wrongfully mistreated him, Squanto saw an opportunity in the Pilgrims’ squalor. Adopting them as his own family, he set about to teach them how to survive in America.

Under Squanto’s tutelage, the Pilgrims emerged from want to abundance. That fall they held a feast in thanksgiving to God for blessing them, including the valuable things that Squanto taught them as the living answer to their prayers. They invited the local tribes to join them, and the Native Americans joined in with the transplanted Europeans in praising God for His benevolent love.

WHY THE CHURCH’S SPIRITUAL MARRIAGE TO JESUS IS SUBSTANTIVE

 

Ephesians 5:31 and 32

Paul’s stunning statement in Ephesians 5:31,32 regarding Jesus’ marriage to His Church contains multiple elements that identify this marriage as much more than merely a figure of speech.

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

“So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

“This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”

Beyond the direct statement in this passage that Jesus Christ will wed His Church, Paul’s comment that this event is a “great mystery” identifies it was being a substantial issue. Moreover, throughout the passage there are hints of romantic love, and that in a highly possessive sense, on the part of Jesus. Possessive love and its attendant sense of ownership between persons is most pronounced in the marital union. The passage also includes the notion, in the words that a man shall leave his Father and Mother, that the event is also of life-changing significance. Furthermore, in identifying the Church as consisting of Jesus’ own members, Paul explains Scriptural references to the attribute of the Church as the “Body of Christ” as being of Christ’s substance in a possessive sense, in perfect harmony with the account in
Genesis 2:18-22 of the creation of Eve out of Adam’s flesh and bone, excerpts of which are given below.

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help fit for him. . . And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

In repeating the words of Adam in the Garden and of Jesus in Matthew 19, both in the context of marriage and the physical union between a man and his wife, Paul, by placing this marital union in the context of Jesus and His Church, plainly stated that the Church will be the spiritual Bride of Christ.

In developing in more detail the interpretation of the Church as being “the Body of Christ”, in Paul’s commentary in Ephesians 5: 28, that So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies, Paul emphasizes the image developed in the restatement of Adam’s commentary regarding Eve of two becoming one flesh such that in the marital union the wife is considered to be the man’s body. Here Paul extends the image of the wife being the body of the man to Christ and His Church, in line with an alternate description of the Church as the Body of Christ.

Romans 7:4 and elsewhere

Multiple passages in Romans 7:4 and elsewhere, including 1 Corinthians 2:15-20, corroborate Jesus’ marriage to His Church; beyond that, they identify the union as creatively productive.

“Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.”

“Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I, then, take the members of Christ, and make them into the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? Know ye not that he who is joined to a harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is outside the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price; therefore, glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.”

These passages of Romans 7:4 and 1 Corinthians 2:15-20 echo the numerous allusions in addition to Ephesians 5:31 and 32 that Jesus and those closest to Him made to His own future marriage. They describe the spiritual nature of the Church and her intimate relationship to Jesus as both a feminine spouse and the spiritual Body of Christ through the union of gendered complements capable of bearing fruit.

Another passage of that nature is John 3:29, which quotes John the Baptist in reference to Jesus’ spiritual marriage.

“He that hath the bride is the bridegroom; but the friend of the bridegroom, who standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice; this my joy, therefore, is fulfilled.”

In addition to New Testament pointers to Church in a bridal/marital context, there are at least two strong indicators of the same in the Old Testament in Genesis 24 and the Book of Ruth.

Genesis 24 describes the betrothal and marriage of Rebekah to Isaac. In Genesis 22 God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, which identifies Isaac as a type of Jesus Christ. In line with that identification, Isaac’s marriage to Rebekah identifies her as a type of Christ’s bride. According to Galatians 3:28, in which spiritual individuals do not possess gender, this bridehood cannot be fulfilled in individuals: the fulfillment must come for a collection or aggregate of individuals, which would suggest the Church. This identification of the Church as the Bride of Christ is strengthened by Paul’s characterization of the Church in 1 Corinthians 12 as a collection of individuals, each possessing specific gifts of the Holy Spirit.

In the Book of Ruth, Ruth’s husband Boaz is routinely identified by the Church as the Kinsman-redeemer, a type of Christ. It follows that Ruth, a female, represents His spiritual Wife, the Church.

Not only is the future bride of Jesus feminine, but she is a living being, as clearly stated in Matthew 22: 31, 32:

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

John 2:1-12

Jesus first miracle described in John 2:1-12, the wedding in Cana wherein He changed water into wine, is prophetic of His own future marriage to His Church. The prophetic nature of the passage is emphasized in Jesus’ words that “Mine hour is not yet come”. The event identifies Jesus as anticipating with joy His own future spiritual marriage. The fact that this was Jesus’ first miracle highlights its significance.

“And the third day there was a marriage in Cana, of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there. And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they lacked wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatever he saith unto you, do it.

“And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw some out now, and bear it unto the governor of the feast. And they bore it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not from where it was (but the servants who drew the water knew), the governor of the feast called the bridegroom. And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine and, when men have well drunk, that that which is worse; but thou hast kept the good wine until now.

“This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana, of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him. After this he went down to Capernaum, he, and his mother, and his brethren, and his disciples; and they continued there not many days.”

In the parables of the marriage feast (Matthew 22) and the ten virgins (Matthew 25), Jesus further describes His own future marriage without ambiguity as an important and joyful occasion.

Isaiah 54, as a follow-on to the great messianic Chapter 53, is another passionate statement of Jesus’ future marriage and is summarized as such by Paul in Galatians 4:27.

“For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not; for the desolate hath many more children than she who hath an husband.”

In Isaiah 54, from which this passage was extracted, verses 5 through 7 amplify its meaning:

“For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall he be called. For the Lord hath called thee like a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God. For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies with I gather thee.”

Song of Solomon

The Song of Solomon is a romantic, explicit depiction of the bonding between male and female; Chapter 5:10-16 typify the romantic flavor of this book:

“My beloved is white and ruddy, the chiefest among ten thousand. His head is like the most fine gold, his locks are bushy and black as a raven. His eyes are like the eyes of doves by the rivers of waters, washed with milk, and fitly set. His cheeks are like a bed of spices, like sweet flowers; his lips like lilies, dropping sweet-smelling myrrh. His hands are like gold rings set with the beryl; his belly is like bright ivory overlaid with sapphires. His legs are like pillars of marble, set upon sockets of fine gold; his countenance is like Lebanon, excellent as the cedars. His mouth is most sweet; yea, his is altogether lovely. This is my beloved, and this is my friend, O daughters of Jerusalem.”

Why, if the spiritual domain is genderless, would this overtly sexual document be a part of the Bible? This imagery would have no place in the canon of Scripture if gender was not a vital attribute in the spiritual realm. If such were to be the case, the entire Song would be utterly superfluous.

AND HE DID THAT WHICH WAS EVIL . . .

 

When Israel was torn from Judah after Solomon’s reign, its leadership failed to follow God, giving rise to a familiar litany regarding its kings, as is exemplified in 2 Kings 13:2a:

“And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.”

This litany is frequently accompanied by the mention of King Jeroboam of Israel as being a prominent example of evildoing. What did Jeroboam do to so thoroughly offend God? According to 1 Kings 12 and 13, he made two golden calves, reminiscent of what Aaron did to evoke the wrath of God when Moses remained in communication with God on Mount Sinai; he also set up altars for the worship of these abominations in two cities of Israel. In Exodus 22:20, God made plain His displeasure with that practice:

“He that sacrificeth to any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed.”

Moreover, he set up as priests people of poor character, unqualified for that office, and who were actively and deliberately disobedient to God.

This accusation of God against the leaders of Israel sounds strangely familiar. We now have a man sitting in the office of the president of the United States who refuses to personally participate in a national day of prayer, who has removed all evidence of our Judeo-Christian God from the venues that he selects to speak to the American public, who celebrates, the Muslim feast of Ramadan at the White House to the exclusion of similar Jewish and Christian observances, who grants sanctuary to Muslim refugees from the Mideast to the exclusion of persecuted Christian refugees from that area, and, in general, exhibits at best a cold indifference and, behind the scenes, a teeth-gnashing hostility against our Christian God.

This hostility is evidenced by the individuals of poor character whom he has selected to oversee his interests in matters of government related to the public worship of God: Mikey Weinstein, who, as overseer of chaplains in our armed forces, has prohibited at the threat of court-martial mention by a chaplain of the name of Jesus Christ; Loretta Lynch, who as United States Attorney General has promoted laws regarding the gay and transsexual agendas in opposition to the Word of God, and the punishment of Christians who attempt to hold fast to their faith in response to these new and obscene laws; the White House staff and advisors, who actively work to marginalize Christians; and Hillary Clinton, who as Secretary of State has supported, through her work and example, the undermining of the nobility so closely associated with the Jewish and Christian faiths.

It wouldn’t surprise me if God has already written Obama’s epitaph:

“And he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord.”

ARK OF THE COVENANT IN THE HOLY OF HOLIES

 

The Ark of the Covenant has an interesting and rather enigmatic history. Its fabrication was commanded by God to Moses at the time that Moses went up to Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments. God issued very specific instructions as to how it was to be constructed. It had an intimate connection to the tabernacle in the wilderness and to Solomon’s Temple, where it occupied the Holy of Holies in both temples. It was above the ark that the Shekinah Glory indwelt both houses of the Lord.

Details of the ark of the covenant are presented in Exodus 24:15-18, 25:1-22:

“And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered the mount. And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days; and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud. And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel. And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and got up into the mount; and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.

“And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering. And this is the offering which ye shall take of them: gold, and silver, and bronze, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair, and rams’ skins dyed red, and badgers’ skins, and acacia wood, oil for the light, spices for anointing oil and for sweet incense, onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod and in the breastplate.

“And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them. According to all that I show thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the furnishings thereof, even so shall ye make it.

“And they shall make an ark of acacia wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a rim of gold round about. And thou shalt cast four fings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners thereof; and two rings shall be in one side of it, and two rings in the other side of it. And thou shalt make staves of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold. And thou shalt put the staves into the fings by the sides of the ark, that the ark may be borne with them. The staves shall be in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it. And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee. And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof. And thou shalt make two cherubim of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat. And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubim on the two ends thereof. And the cherubim shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be. And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee. And there I will meet with thee, and I will communewtih thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.”

The testimony referred to in this passage consists of the stone tablets upon which God had written the Ten Commandments. According to Hebrews 9:4, the ark also contained the golden pot of manna and Aaron’s rod. These artifacts spoke of the intimacy of God’s relationship with mankind, and of His power in fulfilling His Word. According to 2 Chronicles 5:10, the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were later removed.

The ark was captured by the Philistines during one of Judah’s frequent fallings away from God. During its return, it was touched with the result that the offender died. Some Christians speculate that the man died not because of the touching, but because he was filled with sin.

The ark’s fate becomes murky after that; Isaiah was said to have buried it at the time that the ten northern nations of Israel were assaulted by Assyria and dispersed. Other legend has it that King Menelek of Ethiopia, who was the offspring of Solomon’s romance with the Queen of Sheba, stole it after having replaced it with an imitation and took it with him back to Ethiopia. To this day either the real ark of the covenant or its duplicate is under heavy guard in the Ethiopian city of Axum. The ark is mentioned in the Bible a final time in Revelation 11, but this ark is probably a much different one, the nature of which will be explored in the next posting.

THE SEVEN DAYS OF CREATION

 

The Bible, in Genesis, claims that the act of creation occupied God for six days, after which He rested on the seventh. The Bible also claims, in 2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 and in 2 Peter 1:20 and 21 that the Bible is inspired by the Holy Spirit and is inerrant in the original.

In the face of these claims, secular science and a number of Christian seminaries deny them both loudly and vehemently.

Yet science itself has been forced to backtrack from a number of its former assertions, including evolution and uniformitarianism, leaving the door open for a rethinking of its previous claims regarding the time frame of the earth’s creation and population with life. Whether it chooses to do so or not remains questionable; in the meantime, the Creation Epic in Scripture has gained a notch or so in status, at least to Christians who are committed to viewing it as truthful.

But how long is a “day” in the Bible? In the context in which the word “day” is written, it makes sense in many such instances to assign a longer time period than twenty-four hours to the word. Several eminent Bible scholars of the nineteenth century devoted much time to answering that question, among them being Sir Edward Denny, BART, who published The Seventy Weeks of Daniel in 1849, and Dr. Henry Grattan Guinness, who published The Approaching End of the Age in 1878. Guinness argued rather convincingly that equating a “day” with a year often yields information consistent with the surrounding verses. All of them, however, find it most satisfactory, when referencing the history of the earth since its creation, to equate a “day” with a thousand years in accordance with Psalm 90 and 2 Peter 3:8. To them, analogous with the seven days of creation, the history of the earth from Creation to the Second Coming of Christ will occupy six thousand-year periods of human-dominated activity, followed by a millennium (thousand-year period) of peace with Jesus Christ as the world’s leader. Interestingly, this assignment says nothing about the length of each day of Creation.

In the context of a seven-thousand year history of mankind covered in Scripture wherein a day equates to a millennium, two signposts of note are the time frames of Jesus’ resurrection and of His Second Coming. The approximate time of His first advent (and resurrection), worked out by Guinness and others by referencing the genealogies given in the Bible, was a little over four thousand years after Creation, or on the fourth day. As for His second advent, most modern interpretations of the Bible, which take the premillennial viewpoint, place it at the beginning of the millennium, which would be the start of the seventh day of humanity’s existence, or on the third millennium after His resurrection.

Jesus Himself appears to corroborate this timing. According to John 11:1 and 11-17:

“Now a certain man was sick, named Lazarus, of Bethany, the town of Mary and her sister, Martha. . . These things said he; and after that he saith unto them, Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; but I go, that I may awake him out of sleep. Then said his disciples, Lord, if he sleep, he shall do well. However, Jesus spoke of his death; but they thought that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Then said Jesus unto them plainly, Lazarus is dead. And I am glad for your sakes that I was not there, to the intent that ye may believe; nevertheless, let us go unto him. Then said Thomas, who is called Didymus, unto his fellow disciples, Let us also go, that we may die with him. Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already.”

In waiting four days to resurrect Lazarus, Jesus may well have prophesized of His own resurrection on the fourth day from Creation.

Regarding Jesus’ second coming, in John 2:18-22, Jesus speaks of His resurrection:

“Then answered the Jews, and said unto him, What sign showest thou unto us, seeing that thou doest these things? Jesus answered, and said unto the, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up. Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou raise it up in three days? But he spoke of the temple of his body. When, therefore, he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said.”

Jesus’ resurrection three days after His crucifixion certainly fulfilled this prophecy. However, I believe that it has a longer-term fulfillment as well, also speaking of Jesus return to reign on earth in the third millennium after His resurrection.

THE BRIDE OF CHRIST

 

The beautiful mystery explained by Paul in Ephesians 5:25-32 has instilled in me the wonderful and moving view of the Church as the Bride of Christ:

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of the water by the Word; that He might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the Church; for we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of his bones.

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.

In repeating the words of Adam in the Garden and of Jesus in Matthew 19, both in the context of marriage and the physical union between a man and his wife, Paul, by placing this marital union in the context of Jesus and His Church, plainly stated that the Church will be the spiritual Bride of Christ in an intimate relationship with a meaning that extends far beyond that of a mere figure of speech.

This statement of Paul’s echoes the numerous allusions that Jesus made to His own future marriage, including the parable of the marriage feast in Matthew 22, the parable of the ten virgins in Matthew 25, and, of course, his first miracle at Cana recorded in John 2, wherein He changed water into wine in anticipation of the joy of His own future wedding. Further identification of Jesus as a Bridegroom of a feminine entity is furnished by John in John 3:29.

In addition to New Testament pointers to Church in a bridal/marital context, there are at least two strong indicators of the same in the Old Testament in Genesis 24 and the Book of Ruth.

Genesis 24 describes the betrothal and marriage of Rebekah to Isaac. In Genesis 22 God commands Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, which identifies Isaac as a type of Jesus Christ. In line with that identification, Isaac’s marriage to Rebekah identifies her as a type of Christ’s bride. According to Galatians 3:28, in which spiritual individuals do not possess gender, this bridehood cannot be fulfilled in individuals: the fulfillment must come for a collection or aggregate of individuals, which would suggest the Church. This identification of the Church as the Bride of Christ is strengthened by Paul’s characterization of the Church in 1 Corinthians 12 as a collection of individuals, each possessing specific gifts of the Holy Spirit.

In the Book of Ruth, Ruth’s husband Boaz is routinely identified by the Church as the Kinsman-redeemer, a type of Christ. It follows that Ruth, a female, represents His spiritual Wife, the Church.

Relating again to the Old Testament, it would be extremely difficult, if the Church was not a feminine entity, to justify the inclusion of the Song of Solomon in the canon of Scripture. Why, if the spiritual domain is genderless, would this overtly sexual document be a part of the Bible?

Not only is the future bride of Jesus feminine, but she is a living being, as clearly stated in Matthew 22: 31, 32:

But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Note also in Paul’s commentary in Ephesians 5: 28, that So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies, Paul emphasizes the image developed in the restatement of Adam’s commentary regarding Eve of two becoming one flesh such that in the marital union the wife is considered to be the man’s body. This is a possessive concept: the wife’s body doesn’t replace that of the husband, but belongs to him in addition to his own body. Here Paul extends the image of the wife being the body of the man to Christ and His Church, in line with an alternate description of the Church as the Body of Christ.

Paul alludes to this equivalence earlier in Romans 7: 4 and 1 Corinthians 2:15-20, where he describes the spiritual nature of the Church at Rome and Ephesus as both a feminine spouse and the spiritual body of Christ through the union of gendered complements capable of bearing fruit:

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I, then, take the members of Christ, and make them into the members of an harlot? God forbid. What? Know ye not that he who is joined to a harlot is one body? For two, saith he, shall be one flesh. But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is outside the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. What? Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a price; therefore, glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

The plurality of the members of the Church, hinted at in the passages above, raises another issue, one that was touched on before. In Matthew 22: 28-30 and Galatians 3:28, both Jesus and Paul characterize the individual Christian as without gender in the spiritual realm:

Therefore, in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? For they all had her. Jesus answered and said unto the, Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven.

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Note, however, that in both these cases the subject is the individual. But in 1 Corinthians 12: 4-28 and elsewhere in Scripture, Paul very plainly develops the idea that the individual is not the Church, but rather just a component of her, and a rather small element at that:

Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit. And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord. And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God who worketh all in all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit. For to one is given, by the Spirit, the word of wisdom; to another, the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another, faith by the same Spirit; to another, the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another, the working of miracles; to another, prophecy; to another, discerning of spirits; to another, various kinds of tongues; to another, the interpretation of tongues. But all these worketh that one and the very same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.

For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Greeks, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it, therefore, not of the body? And if the ear shall say, Because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it, therefore, not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath god set the members every one of them, in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, where were the body? But now are they many members, yet but one body. And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee; nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. Nay, much more those members of the body which seem to be more feeble, are necessary. And those members of the body, which we thin to be less honorable, upon these we bestow more abundant honor; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. For our comely parts have no need; but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honor to that part which lacked, that there should be no schism in the body, but that the members should have the same care one for another. And whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it; or one member be honored, all the members rejoice with it.

Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. And God hath set some in the Church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Are all workers of miracles? Have all the gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? But covet earnestly the best gifts; and yet show I unto you a more excellent way.

The Church, then, as a single spiritual entity comprising a multiplicity of components, is fully capable of being endowed with gender, in exactly the same manner that while the eyeball of a person is genderless, the entire person is indeed either a male or a female. Furthermore, just as Jesus is always identified as male, Scripture always identifies the Church as either a functional female or its equivalent as the spouse of Christ.

The gendered nature of the relationship between Jesus Christ and His Church is suggested in the strongest terms in the Song of Solomon, for why would this romantic, even erotic, relationship be included in the canon of Scripture if such was not the case? This remarkable passage has been equated by several respected Bible commentators as representing the eventual marital relationship between Jesus and the Church. A typical example follows, taken from Song of Solomon 1: 14, 15:

My beloved is unto me as a cluster of henna flowers in the vineyards of Engedi. Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves’ eyes.

Scripture also describes the individuals comprising the Church as living human beings. Examples include Matthew 9:15 (also Mark 2:19 and Luke 5:34) and Ephesians 2: 4-7:

Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the Bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the Bridegroom will be taken from them, and then shall they fast.

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love with which He loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath made us alive together with Christ (by grace ye are saved), and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus; that in ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of His grace in His kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.

To this point, Scripture has shown that the Church is a feminine living body comprised of a multitude of genderless spiritual human souls which, in the aggregate is espoused to Jesus Christ as her future husband. Uniting spiritually through the marital union in the spiritual realm, the Church becomes the Body of Christ precisely as the wife is considered integrated into the body of the man in the material realm. But Revelation 21: 2, 9 and 10 paint an alternate picture of the wife of Christ that easily can be construed to represent an altogether different picture of this Bride:

And I, John, saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her Husband. . .And there came unto me one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come here, I will show thee the bride, the Lamb’s wife. And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great and high mountain, and showed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God.

The passage above can readily be interpreted to suggest that the Bride of Christ is a building, albeit a beautiful and magnificent one, rather than the Church, which, as has been noted, is comprised of living souls. Several Scriptural passages that suggest the same thing come to mind, of which the following three are prominent:

1 Corinthians 3:9, 10 and 16:

For we are laborers together with God; ye are God’s cultivated field, ye are God’s building. According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth on it. But let every man take heed how he buildeth upon it. . . Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Ephesians 2:19-22:

Now, therefore ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner stone, in whom all the building fitly framed together growth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are built together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Revelation 3:12, in Jesus’ message to the Church at Philadelphia:

Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out; and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from My God; and I will write upon him My new name.

But note from these three examples that while the imagery is one of a building or components thereof, the components themselves are living human souls, all redeemed by Jesus Christ and therefore identical to the components of the Church. Given that identity, the imagery in Revelation 21 of the new Jerusalem is not mutually exclusive with the imagery of the Church. Indeed, the two images are entirely compatible with each other and mutually supportive, each adding color to the understanding of the Church as the spiritual Bride of Christ. This understanding brings this commentary full circle through Revelation 19: 7-9 back to the character of the Church as not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing:

Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honor to Him; for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and His wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white; for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints. And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they who are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.

SEPARATION FROM GOD

 

One concept that is stressed within the Reformed Baptist community is the transcendence of God. The Christian understanding of the word “transcendence” is that God is separate from and above His Creation. Unlike the god of some other religions, our Judeo-Christian God is not Himself a part of His creation. This concept is softened and balanced somewhat by the companion term “immanence”, which essentially means “God with us”.

Transcendence is an important notion. It should remain in the Christian’s vocabulary. The separation of our transcendent Judeo-Christian God from His creation emphasizes His superiority over it. Creation didn’t make God, but rather God made creation.

The emphasis sometimes made by preachers of transcendence over immanence, however, needs to be curbed. When it is not, the transcendent nature of God is used to contrast God’s greatness, His magnificence over mere humanity. We all know that to be the case; we don’t need to be hammered on the head over its truth.

We do need to know our place in God’s scheme of things. We don’t need to go off the reservation by thinking of ourselves more than we ought. We don’t need to play god by attempting to decide on our own what we think represents truth in Scripture, or whether God embraced evolution as a working tool, or whether our science is more authoritative than His Word, or the like. The notion of God’s transcendence helps us realize that we ourselves are beneath our God.

But we need balance in the matter. The beautiful wonder of what God desires in our relationship with Him is that despite His magnificent greatness, He wants to have a loving connection with us, and in the process to actually elevate us to a level closer to His. We don’t need to wag our tails in self-serving abject sycophantic fawning. God doesn’t want His boots licked. He doesn’t want His ego stroked. He wants to love us, and for us to love Him back, as Jesus told us in Matthew 22:37 and 38, repeating Moses’ exhortation to the Israelites in Deuteronomy 6:5:

“Jesus said unto [the lawyer], Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment.”

As John said in 1 John 4:8: “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.”

It’s just as simple and profound as that: God is love. Even the negatives that are thrown our way, properly interpreted, are intended to develop our capacity to love Him back.

Transcendence over-emphasized stands in direct opposition to the love of God. It does nothing but separate us from Him with the feeling that if we are so very different (read “lower”) than Him, we have nothing in common with His nature. Consequently, He is alien to us. How in the world are we supposed to love an alien Being? He might as well drive a UFO and we might as well bury ourselves underground so He can’t reach us with His impossible (read “alien”) demands on our lives.

GENDER MISMATCH

 

The other day I read the transcript of a speech given by a pastor to a Christian women’s group. I found it to be fascinating, particularly the relationship between the topic and its Baptist source.

The pastor was attempting to uplift the women by addressing the importance of femininity to the economy of God, even to the extent of including the feminine element in the nature of the Godhead Itself.

The human family, he began, is itself a representation of the Godhead. In that correspondence, the human father is an obvious type of the Divine Father. The human child, to continue in that context, is just as obviously a type of the Divine Son, Jesus Christ. By a process of elimination, he said, the human wife and mother must typify the nature of the Holy Spirit. He ticked off some of the feminine virtues that typify the Holy Spirit’s role within the Divine Godhead: compassion, comfort, support and the like, all of which we typically associate with femininity.

I was delighted with that comparison, having made it myself long ago and written much about its implications regarding the nature of the Godhead after having researched what Scripture had to say about the dots I had connected in that regard. I was particularly pleased to note that these words were penned from a Baptist hand.

But then I encountered a difficulty, one that represented a discrepancy between what the pastor was implying in his description of the woman Christian’s role and what he actually wrote. What he wrote, when referring directly to the Holy Spirit, was the pronoun “He”, implying, as Church authorities usually do, that the Holy Spirit is either genderless or a weakly-gendered male. In making that overt gender assignment in direct contradiction to the association he had made to the women, the minister was simply following the party line begun centuries ago in the translations available to the Christian community, all of them using either the male or the neuter pronoun to reference the Holy Spirit in opposition to what was said in the original manuscripts.

I suspect that, along with a large number of his predecessors, this minister attempted to avoid the inevitable condemnation of his peers that would have been his lot had he used a feminine pronoun in reference to the Holy Spirit in keeping with the association he was attempting to illustrate between womanhood and the functional role of the Holy Spirit.

The man should have read Joshua 1:6-9 and acquired some backbone before delivering his ultimately confusing message to those women in the conference:

“Be strong and of good courage; for unto this people shalt thou divide for an inheritance the land which I swore unto their fathers to give them. Only be strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses, my servant, commanded thee; turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper wherever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein; for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

“Have I not commanded thee? Be strong and of good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed; for the Lord thy God is with thee wherever thou goest.”

Let me complete the pastor’s message for him a little more boldly than he did, as I have done previously in many places. The association between femininity and the Holy Spirit is correct; in fact, given the entirety of what Scripture has to say about that association, it is the only correct one that can be made. The obvious implication, that the Holy Spirit also has a feminine role within the Godhead, is just as correct: the Holy Spirit is feminine in nature, being the complementary Other to the Divine Father. In every case where Scripture associates man and the Godhead, the woman is a type of the feminine Holy Spirit.

Genesis 1:26a and 27 can only rationally be interpreted in the context of human womanhood representing the Holy Spirit:

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness . . . So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

Genesis 2:18, 21 and 22 can only rationally be interpreted in the context of a reprise of the formation of the Godhead out of the Father, the feminine Holy Spirit having Herself been fashioned out of the Father’s essence in conformance with His selfless nobility:

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help fit for him.

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

The repetitive statement of Genesis 2:23 and 24 in Matthew 19:4-6 (Jesus’ pronouncement of the godliness of human marriage) and Ephesians 5:31 and 32 (Paul’s statement that the Church will participate in an intimate spiritual marital relationship with Jesus) underscores the importance of marriage to the extent that it also represents the relationship within the Godhead between the Father and the Holy Spirit:

“And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh.”

In what alternate context would Proverbs 8, the Song of Solomon, John 2 (the wedding at Cana), and John 3 (spiritual rebirth) even make sense?

The pastor also tried to gain the affection of his feminine audience by claiming that Woman was created out of Man (Genesis 2:22) last because this final act of creation, that of Woman, was the most perfect of all, surpassing even the creation of Man. That might be the case – or it may not be. The real issue regarding Woman’s formation out of Man, in consistency with the femininity of the Holy Spirit, is that this final act of creation itself was a reprise of the Holy Spirit’s formation out of the Father.

Many of the Church’s problems with indifference and poor attendance could readily be mitigated through a deepening of our pastors’ understanding of Scripture and their acquisition of bones to replace the jelly in their backs. Their position regarding the gender of the Holy Spirit is not only indefensible, but places a stumbling block in the way of the Church members’ love of God. Church members are not blameless either. They could read Scripture on their own more than they do and use their own minds in the process to the extent that they could hold their pastors accountable to what the say.

NAMING THE ANIMALS

 

In Genesis 2, God pronounces it not good that Adam should be alone. But before He proceeds to do something about it, He brings the animals of His Creation to Adam and asks him to name them. Then he forms Eve out of Adam’s rib.

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help fit for him.

“And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help fit for him.

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

This passage raises a number of questions, particularly in the sequence of events, but with other issues besides. Why did God insert the naming of the animals between His concern over Adam being alone and His forming of Eve? What was so important about Adam naming the animals? How could name all the animals, given the enormous diversity of life?

As to the first issue, the sequence of the Biblical narrative, I like best an answer picked off the Internet on the Creation Moments website: God was using the simple tool of names to teach Adam to communicate, a skill that he would then pass on to Eve, enabling them to bond through joint communication. That answer is appealing, as it would be a valid prerequisite to the event of bringing Adam and Eve together, much to be preferred to the two staring dumbly at each other, at a total loss of words.

This reason also answers in part the second issue, the importance of Adam naming the animals. But there are other important reasons, one of which is that in having Adam name the animals, God was asserting that these creatures were fixed kinds, finished designs whose basic properties would remain intact throughout history. Thus, this episode in Adam’s life is a slap in the face to Darwin’s theory of evolution, which postulates that life is unceasingly undergoing change. In Darwin’s view, all life is in constant transition from one form to another, so that the animals we see now are simply snapshots in time of what may be very different in the future.

Noted biochemist Douglas Axe captures the essence of this contrast between God’s stability of form with Darwin’s corresponding instability in Chapter 6 his book Undeniable: How Biology Confirms our Intuition that Life is Designed. There, under the heading “Life A La Darwin”, he speaks of the salmon and the Orca whale, each very different but “utterly committed to being what it is”. Life, as Axe sees it, magnificently represents completion of form, creatures living precisely as God designed them to live.

This stability of form leads to the next issue, the question as to how Adam could have named all the animals, even within his very long lifetime. If all kinds of life are stable as was asserted above, the very diversity of life would not only indicate that this diversity existed at the time of Adam, but also would make this task extremely difficult. At this point I’ll make a statement that appears to directly contradict this supposed stability of life: there were a relatively few “kinds” of animals that Adam was asked to name; first they were limited to birds and the larger animals; second, these “kinds” were the much-fewer basic precursors whose offspring branched out after Noah’s Flood to the diversity we see today. But then one might say, “See? Animals aren’t stable in form at all!” But the post-Flood diversity has much more to do with designed-in adaptability than actual change corresponding to the evolutionary model. The difference is that God’s engine of change is His inclusion in DNA of pre-existing alternate design modifications, whereas Darwin’s “engine” is dumb, random variation.

Take, for instance, the dog. There exist today an enormous variety of dogs of varying shapes, sizes and attributes. But they’re all still dogs, having the wolf as a common ancestor. The DNA of the wolf is information-rich, capable of accommodating plans “B”, “C”, and so on according to environmental conditions or the human interference of breeding. Most common breeds today are the product of the intelligent operation of selective breeding, and many of their features would quickly revert back to those of their common ancestor if they were to be divested of their human overseers and go into the wild. It is true the Mexican hairless creature would be in serious trouble in another ice age because some features such as length of hair might be incapable of reversion. But that would be due to DNA information loss arising from forced breeding.

MORE GENDER THOUGHTS

MORE GENDER THOUGHTS

The issue of the Holy Spirit’s gender is important enough to continue pursuing it a bit. If, for example, the first chapters of Genesis as noted in my blog posting Significance of a Feminine Holy Spirit do indeed suggest gender-based facts regarding the nature of the Godhead, why doesn’t the rest of the Bible go along with the understanding hinted at there?

But the Bible does go along with it. In their haste to cleanse the Church of gender, the Church Fathers glossed over those passages in Scripture that seem to have confirmed this beginning overview of God’s nature, not recognizing them for what they may have intended to convey. Expositions of the Old Testament book of Ruth, for example, routinely assign the person of Naomi as representing Israel. They do the same with the Woman of Revelation 12, except that the Catholic Church insists instead that the Woman represented there is Mary. In both cases, the recognition of the Holy Spirit as feminine makes Her by far the best candidate.

The Glory of God (Shekinah) who indwelt the Tabernacle of the Wilderness Exodus 40) and Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 8) at their dedications, and who foreshadowed the Holy Spirit who indwells Christians as living temples of God (1 Corinthians 2:19-22 and Ephesians 3:16), was always considered by the Jews to be feminine. Incidentally, I wonder whether many theologians have understood the connection between the Shekinah of the temple dedications and the Holy Spirit of the Pentecost. I have never heard of that link being made in the many Church sermons and Bible studies that I have been privy to. Again, understanding the Holy Spirit as feminine puts a whole new slant on the Word of God.

Despite the many allusions to The Holy Spirit as the subject of the Book of Proverbs, particularly in Chapter Three and Eight, the mainstream interpretation of the feminine persona in Proverbs is simply that of a mere literary device. That viewpoint changes instantly with the recognition of the Holy Spirit as possessing a feminine gender.

How do the mainstream theologians handle the overtly erotic content of The Song of Solomon? I don’t know, because I’ve never heard a pastor or a Bible study leader mention the topic. The commentaries I’ve read do acknowledge the sexual nature of the book and, in line with Ephesians 5:31 and 32, they often directly link the subject with the future marriage of Christ with His Church. Regarding the implications of that association with respect to the gendered nature of the Godhead in general, commentaries of that flavor truly open a can of worms that most pastors wouldn’t touch with a ten-foot pole. One of the pastors of my acquaintance indirectly acknowledges the viability of such commentaries, but then turns around and claims that God is genderless. Another example of Orwell’s doublethink.

The Pharisee Nicodemus had a hard time wrapping his arms around Jesus’ claim in John 3 that entrance into the kingdom of heaven required a person to be born again of the Holy Spirit. To this day, theologians have a hard time wrapping their arms around the implications of Jesus’ talk to Nicodemus, which is that His association of spiritual birth with the Holy Spirit automatically confers the role of femininity upon Her.

Taken on an individual basis, some of the associations that I’ve noted above between Biblical passages and the Holy Spirit, like in Ruth and Proverbs, wouldn’t be readily apparent to the person who doesn’t share my vision of the Holy Spirit. I get that. But in the aggregate, the sheer number of associations like that which can be extracted from Scripture add much weight to my point of view. Moreover, there are passages like John 3 that are so obvious in that association that I simply can’t conceive how a viewpoint that excludes the femininity of the Holy Spirit is possible to a logical mind.

Is it really a good idea to pursue a contentious issue regarding Church doctrine at a time when the Church is faced with such a rapid falling away from Scriptural truths and indifferent laypersons are leaving the Church behind in droves? I think so, because I perceive that the very difficulties that the Church is now facing are directly connected to the basic misunderstanding of Scripture that I’m attempting to address.

DOES LEAVEN ALWAYS REPRESENT SIN?

DOES LEAVEN REPRESENT SIN?

Does Leaven, according to Scripture, represent sin? The answer is yes and no. More definitively, the appropriate Scripturally-based answer for the use of leaven as a metaphor is yes, often, but sometimes no. The metaphor of leaven must be qualified as to source and age, as there are Scriptural references both to leaven as sinful and as welcome to believers.

Metaphorically, leaven in the context of Scripture represents the multiplication through propagation of something such as a spoken word that spreads through a crowd from mouth to mouth. The bread in Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes was itself a metaphor for the spread of His Word; in that event, the metaphorical leaven was the hand-to-hand distribution of the bread as well as the mouth-to-mouth distribution of His Word. (Refer to Part Five of Family of God, Appendix 2 of Marching to a Worthy Drummer, or Chapter Eighteen of the novel Cathy for details of Jesus’ feeding process.)

Jesus’ comments to His disciples in Mark 8:13-21 regarding the feeding of the multitudes includes mention of leaven, illustrating the importance of the qualifier He used with respect to that word:

“And [Jesus] left them and, entering into the boat again, departed to the other side. Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the boat with them more than one loaf. And he charged them, saying, Take heed. Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have no bread. And when Jesus knew it, he saith unto them, Why reason ye, because ye have no bread? Perceive ye not yet, nor understand? Have ye your heart yet hardened? Having eyes, see ye not? And having ears, hear ye not? And do ye not remember? When I broke the five loaves among five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? They say unto him, Twelve. And when the seven among four thousand, how many baskets full of fragments took ye up? And they said, Seven. And he said unto them, How is it that ye do not understand?”

Jesus had just fed the multitudes. In doing so, He metaphorically demonstrated the leaven-like multiplication of His Word along with the physical multiplication of bread. The leaven in that sense was of God, and so was anything but evil. In talking with His disciples, His also used the word “leaven” in a negative sense, connoting evil. But in doing so, He specifically qualified that word with “of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod”. Like old leaven, the teachings of the Pharisees and of Herod were contaminated versions of the Word of God.

In Leviticus 23:6 is found another indication of bad leaven:

“And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of unleavened bread unto the Lord: seven days ye must eat unleavened bread.”

Indeed, Jewish tradition called for a thorough housecleaning prior to this feast, where every nook and cranny would be swept clean of all traces of the old leaven. But throughout the year before this event the leaven in the house had aged and probably was contaminated with many airborne substances.

This tradition probably contributed much to the notion that a lack of leaven represented purity. Many Christian “authorities” are prone to proclaiming that leaven across the board is symbolic of sin. They go too far, overgeneralizing a frequent but not exclusive representation, neglecting for example the very important passage in Leviticus 23:15-17:

“And ye shall count unto you from the next day after the sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven Sabbaths shall be complete: even unto the next day after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days and ye shall offer a new meal offering unto the Lord.

“Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth parts; they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baked with leaven; they are the first fruits unto the Lord.”

This is the feast of Pentecost, which looked forward to the filling of the new Church with the indwelling Holy Spirit fifty days after Jesus’ resurrection. The account of this blessed event is given in Acts 2:1-8:

“And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly here came a sound from heaven like a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because every man heard them speak in his own languate. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all these who speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born?”

It is possible that here the leaven represents the propagation of the Gospel through Spirit-filled Christians, a context in which leaven is far removed from sin.

IS PASSION INTRINSIC TO GOD?

IS PASSION INTRINSIC TO GOD?

Having swept the Church clean of all matters involving the hint of sexuality, the post-Nicaean Church leadership preserved this sterilization through the expedient of canonizing its dogma, thereby avoiding further dispute over the matter. At the time, given the rampant sexual immorality of the pagan society surrounding the Christian community, it made perfect sense to divorce sexuality from their religion. Despite intimations of romance and sexuality within Scripture itself, the obvious nobility of God as depicted in Scripture demanded in the Christian mind the equation of holiness to chastity, at least in the Christian understanding of God.

Yet some persistent contradictions remained under this regime of sterilization: marriage was ordained and blessed by God; notions of gender differentiation within the Godhead kept emerging; the attempt to reconcile God as One with God as Trinity led to confusion and uncertainty; and the Song of Solomon stood out in open opposition to the thought that the Godhead lacked a romantic element.

Nevertheless, a neutered Mary was held up as the standard of Christian sexual morality. Then, during the turbulent years of the fifteen hundreds when, driven by Martin Luther and John Calvin, the Protestant arm separated itself from the Mother Church and Mary’s influence waned within it, Jerome Zanchius emerged to formalize the idea of God’s distance from romance and passion.

Right up to the present time the Catholic Church continued to have Mary as her standard, and the Protestant Church was heavily influenced by medieval theologian Jerome Zanchius and his pseudo-rigorous but extra-Scriptural development of a concept of God in which He is said to be void of passion.

It was in reference to this source that I was brought to heel after having written Family of God. I was told rather sternly that God is generally not assumed to possess passion, certainly not of a nature that would admit of a romantic union between Father and Holy Spirit.

But Scripture portrays God as possessing passion, even romantic ardor. The notion that God is above love of a passionate nature violates Scripture, the most obvious case being the passion intricately woven into the Song of Solomon, otherwise known as the Song of Songs or the Canticles. At least two Bible commentaries (in the Reformation Study Bible, New King James Version and in the New Schofield Reference Bible, both as introductions to the Song of Solomon, consider the Song to be an allegory of the future union of Jesus Christ with His Church.

A host of Christian authorities readily acknowledge that it speaks of marital love in terms of passion and ardor. The same authorities admit even the erotic nature of some of its verses. The 1995 Reformation Study Bible (New King James Version), for example has this to say of the subject matter of the Song of Solomon:

“The beauty and worth of sexual love is affirmed at the beginning of the Bible, where the difference and relationship of the sexes is associated with the creation of humanity in God’s image (Gen. 1:27; cf. 2:19-25) If sexual love were evil in itself, it would be inappropriate as an allegory of Christ’s love for His church.”

Here Editor R. C. Sproul and his associates not only acknowledge the sexuality of the topic, but link it to both the nature of the Godhead and with the relationship between Christ and His Church. Indeed, in their same introductory commentary, the editors make the following statements:

“The Song of Solomon reveals three qualities of love between a man and a woman: self-giving, desire, and commitment. In all these ways love reflects the greater love of God our Creator. God delights in us and gives Himself to us. . . Christian marriage, according to Paul, should be modeled on the most perfect expression of such love, the self-giving love of Christ for His church and its willing response (Eph. 5:22, 23). The climax of the Song of Solomon is the praise of vehement and faithful love (8:6,7). The Song of Solomon. . .looks back to the gift of love in creation, and forward to the perfection of love in One greater than Solomon, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Obviously I perceive an intimate connection in the Song of Solomon regarding the relationship between the Father and the Holy Spirit as well as that between Jesus and His Church. Connected with that perception is my belief that the Holy Spirit essentially forms the subject matter of the Book of Proverbs. The commentary on the Song of Solomon in the Reformation Study Bible hints of this same connection in its acknowledgement of the Book’s emphasis on marital love:

“Many interpreters, both Jewish and Christian, have regarded the Song as an allegory of God’s love for Israel or the Church. The association of the book with Solomon, however, points us in the direction of the wisdom literature of the Old Testament. Wisdom literature is distinguished, among other things, by its focus on the common sphere of human relationships. The Book of Proverbs uses language similar to that of the Song of Solomon in talking about marital love (Prov. 5:15-19), the subject of the Song. This love must finally be seen in the context of the even greater love of God.”

The commentary on the Song of Solomon presented in the New Schofield Reference Bible (1967 Edition edited by C. I. Schofield) echoes, but even more forcefully, that given in the Reformation Study Bible:

“Nowhere in Scripture does the unspiritual mind tread upon ground so mysterious and incomprehensible as in this book, whereas saintly men and women throughout the ages have found it a source of pure and exquisite delight. That the love of the divine Bridegroom, symbolized here by Solomon’s love for the Shulamite maiden, should follow the analogy of the marriage relationship seems evil only to minds that are so ascetic that marital desire itself appears to them to be unholy.

“The book is the expression of pure marital love as ordained by God in creation, and the vindication of that love as against both asceticism and lust – the two profanations of the holiness of marriage. Its interpretation is threefold: (1) as a vivid unfolding of Solomon’s love for a Shulamite girl; (2) as a figurative revelation of God’s love for His covenant people, Israel, the wife of the Lord (Isa. 54:5-6; Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 16:8-14, 20-21, 32, 38; Hos. 2:16, 18-20); and (3) as an allegory of Christ’s love for His heavenly bride, the Church (2 Cor. 11:1-2, refs., Eph 5:25-32).”

As there appears to be a general agreement among established Biblical authorities regarding the relevance of this openly passionate Book to Christ and His Church, and there appears to be a similarly general agreement among established Biblical authorities regarding the Diety of Jesus Christ, an inescapable observation must be made: At least one Member of the Divine Godhead is openly acknowledged to be fully capable and willing to (passionately) exercise His male gender. That said, why would one Member of the Godhead be endowed with such an attribute while the other two would not be? That utterly confusing and contradictory state of affairs could be acceptable only to an avowed ascetic, an attribute which I concur with the editors of the Schofield Bible to be a profanation of God and His Creation.

The Song of Solomon itself establishes, if somewhat indirectly, a female gender of the Holy Spirit by associating in no less than three verses (2:14, 5:2 and 6:9) the nature of the (eminently female) Shulamite with that of a dove. Actually, where a dove is noted in Scripture (KJV) and associated with a specific gender, that gender invariably is female. The particular verses where gender is described are: Genesis 8:9, 11; Psalm 68:13; Song of Solomon as noted above; and Jeremiah 48:28. The dove, of course, is a well-known symbol of the Holy Spirit as presented, for example, in Matthew 3:16:

“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water; and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him.”

The bottom line is, of course, what Scripture has to say about the notion that the Godhead might Itself be a family, a characteristic that would make sense only if God the Son had a Holy Mother, a functionally feminine complement to the Holy Father. Can this notion be found anywhere in Scripture? Indeed it can, in Ephesians 3:14 and 15:

“For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, . . .”

JESUS’ FULFILLMENT OF THE SPRINGTIME FEASTS

JESUS’ FULFILLMENT OF THE THREE SPRINGTIME MOSAIC FEASTS

At the time of Jesus’ crucifixion, three events occurred in rapid succession: His crucifixion, His resurrection, and the Pentecost. All three of these events were imprinted in the minds of the Israelites over a millennium earlier by Moses in terms of feasts and observances.

The first event, Jesus’ crucifixion, was initially foreshadowed in detail by God’s call to Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, as related in Genesis 22. But the commemorative feast for this event is the Passover, as instituted by Moses just before the Israelites were to cast off their enslavement and depart for Egypt. The account of the institution of this feast is given in Exodus 12:1-14:

“And the Lord spoke unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: and if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your cnd they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with fire and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs they shall eat it. Eat not of it raw, nor boiled at all with water, but roast with fire; its head with its legs, and with the inward parts thereof. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire. And thus shall ye eat it: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord’s Passover.

“For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and willsmite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

“And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever.”

The lamb was kept in the house for four days, just long enough for it to become a household pet with the formation of a loving bond between the people and this innocent creature. Then it was slain and its blood spread on the doorposts and lintel as a sign to God to spare the occupants within as He went out to slay the firstborn of Egypt.

The Passover Lamb was a type of Jesus, who was crucified on the day of preparation for the Passover, the exact time when the lambs were traditionally slain. He was described as the Lamb of God by the Apostle John, first in John’s Gospel and then in the Book of Revelation. Christians claim the remission of their sins and their spiritual salvation by the washing of Jesus’ blood: He is our Passover Lamb. Revelation 5 presents a particularly poignant identification of Jesus as the Lamb of God:

“And I saw in the right hand of him that sat on the throne a scroll written within and on the back, sealed with seven seals. And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the scroll, and to loose its seals? And no man in heaven, nor in the earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the scroll, neither to look on it.

“And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the scroll, neither to look on it.

“And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not; behold the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the scroll, and to loose its seven seals. And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the scroll out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne. And when he had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and four and twenty elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of saints. And they sang a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the scroll, and to open its seals; for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; and hast made us unto our God a kingdom of priests, and we shall reign on he earth.

“And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the living creatures and the elders, and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing. And every creature that is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever. And the four living creatures said, Amen. And the four and twenty elders fell down and worshiped him that liveth forever and ever.”

The second event that was linked to a feast was Jesus’ resurrection after three days and three nights in the grave following His crucifixion. The corresponding feast established by Moses is the wave offering of first fruits of the barley harvest, traditionally held during the week of the Feast of Unleavened Bread from the 15^th to the 21^st of Nisan. The exact day is given in Leviticus 23:11 as the day following the Sabbath. The Sabbath after Jesus’ crucifixion was Saturday, Nisan 16, making the Feast of First Fruits the following day, or Sunday, Nisan 17. The account is given in Leviticus 23:9-14:

“And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye are come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the first fruits of your harvest unto the priest, and he shall wave the sheaf before the Lord, to be accepted for you: on the next day after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. And ye shall offer that day when ye wave the sheaf an he-lamb without blemish of the first year for a burnt offering unto the Lord. And the meal offering thereof shall be two tenth parts of fine flour mixed with oil, an offering made by fire unto the Lord for a sweet savor: and the drink offering thereof shall be of wine, the fourth part of an hin. And ye shall eat neither bread, nor parched corn, nor green ears, until that same day they ye have brought an offering unto your God: it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings.”

The wave offering was intended to commemorate Jesus’ resurrection from the dead, as Jesus was the first fruit of resurrected mankind.

The third feast is related in Leviticus 23:15-21:

“And ye shall count unto you from the next day after the Sabbath, from the day that ye brought the sheaf of the wave offering; seven sabbaths shall be complete: even unto the next day after the seventh sabbath shall ye number fifty days; and ye shall offer a new meal offering unto the Lord. Ye shall bring out of your habitations two wave loaves of two tenth parts; they shall be of fine flour; they shall be baked with leaven; they are the first fruits unto the Lord. And ye shall offer with the bread seven lambs without blemish of the first year, and one young bullock, and two rams: they shall be for a burnt offering unto the Lord, with their meal offering, and their drink offerings, even an offering made by fire, of sweet savor unto the Lord. Then ye shall sacrifice one kid of the goats for a sin offering, and two lambs of the first year for a sacrifice of peace offerings. And the priest shall wave them with the bread of the first fruits for a wave offering before the Lord, with the two lambs: they shall be holy to the Lord for the priest. And ye shall proclaim on that same day, that it may be an holy convocation unto you: ye shall do no servile work therein: it shall be a statute forever in all your dwellings throughout your generations.”

As it traditionally occurred fifty days after the Feast of First Fruits, this event is called the Feast of Pentecost. It is named after the root word pente, which means fifty.

Pentecost is known by Christians as the mighty presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit that took place fifty days after Jesus’ resurrection. The precursor to the event is described in Acts 1:1-9:

“The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach. Until the day in which he was taken up, after he, through the Holy Spirit, had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen; to whom also he showed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen by them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God; And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard from me. For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.

“When they, therefore, were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel? And he said unto them, It is not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father hath put in his own power. But ye shall receive power, after the Holy Spirit is come upon you; and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth. And, when he had spoken these things, while they beheld, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight.”

The event itself is described in Acts 2:1-21:

“And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place. And suddenly here came a sound from heaven like a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues as of fire, and it sat upon each of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.

“And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded, because every man heard them speak in his own language. And they were all amazed and marveled, saying one to another, Behold, are not all those who speak Galilaeans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judaea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and sojourners of Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans, and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God. And they were all amazed, and were perplexed, saying one to another, What meaneth this? Others, mocking, said, These men are full of new wine.

“But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and said unto them, Ye men of Judaea, and all ye that dwell at Jerusalem, be this known unto you, and hearken to my words; for these are not drunk, as ye suppose, seeing it is but [nine o’clock in the morning]. But this is that which was spoken through the prophet, Joel: And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh; and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams; and on my servants and on my handmaidens I will pour out in those days of my Spirit, and they shall prophesy: and I will show wonders in heaven above, and signs in the earth beneath: blood, and fire, and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, and the moon into blood, before that great and notable day of the Lord come; and it shall come to pass that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved.”

We can glean a number of facts from this correspondence between the Mosaic feasts of the spring and major events associated with Jesus’ crucifixion.

First, Jesus’ crucifixion was a preplanned event. Some false theologians are fond of asserting that Jesus was caught unawares by His arrest. That notion violates the clear teaching of the Old Testament.

Second, Scripture is not only truthful, it is precise. It is truthful in every detail. The days of Jesus’ crucifixion, His resurrection, and the birth of the Church were set with precision over a thousand years before the events took

place.

Third, the Church is an integral part of God’s master plan. The mystery of Ephesians 5:25-31 wherein the Church is defined as the Bride of Christ is not trivial. It is essential.

THE REAL MEANING OF THE GLORY OF GOD

THE REAL MEANING OF THE GLORY OF GOD

It’s tempting to describe God in superlative terms. Common appellations include the words magnificent, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscent. God does indeed possess these qualities, but they fall far short of actually describing God’s glory.

Being limited to this world and without access to heaven except possibly in some extremely rare and predominantly life-threatening circumstances, we have little understanding of God’s domain. But we do have His Word, and through that Word we can catch glimpses of heaven’s treasures. Among these jewels that Scripture points to are vignettes of God’s character – things that He seems to consider to be of the utmost importance. God’s apparent character suggests that His glory consists of qualities quite different than the superlatives we like to trot out when we worship Him.

The true glory of God is His selfless, noble love as John declared in 1 John 3:16 and 4:7 and 8:

“By this perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us; and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.”

“Beloved, let us love one another; for love is of God, and everyone that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.”

Phrased differently, the real glory of God is His willingness to give up what the secular world might think of as His glory, His superlative features, in favor of love, to humble Himself by becoming human and experiencing the painful shame of the cross on our behalf.

Jesus turned the value system of the secular world on its head by declaring that a true leader must be a servant and backing it up as noted in John 13:3-5:

“Jesus, knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God; He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments, and took a towel, and girded himself. After that he poureth water into a basin, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel with which he was girded.”

After correcting Peter for first refusing to allow Him to wash his feet, Jesus made a statement regarding the sharing of even this act:

“If I, then, your lord and Master, have washed your feet, ye also ought to wash one another’s feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him.”

As the resurrected Jesus, in Luke 24, spoke on the road to Emmaus to the persons who lamented His passing, He connected His glory to His suffering:

“Then he said to them, O fools and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?”

A magnificent part of God’s glory is His willingness, regardless of the involvement of suffering, to share it with us.

THE CHURCH FORETOLD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

THE CHURCH FORETOLD IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

There are so many instances in the Old Testament in which people responsive to God prefigured Jesus that it’s difficult to find cases among Jesus’ words and acts that weren’t prefigured before by such people. The Patriarch Isaac, for example, is most well-known among Christians for the drama enacted by Abraham in responding to God’s command to him to sacrifice his son. The tale is presented in Genesis 22:

“And [God] said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer his there for a burns offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.”

Abraham responded in faith to that command, placing the obedient Isaac on a bed of kindling, drawing out his knife, and preparing to thrust it into his beloved son. He was prevented from completing the act by God, who substituted a ram for Isaac in the sacrifice.

Interestingly, on the way to the place of sacrifice Abraham lifted up his head and saw his destination:

“Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.”

The “third day” may have another meaning in addition to the obvious one of denoting the third day of Abraham’s travel to the place of sacrifice. It also may be a cryptic reference to a vision by Abraham of Jesus’ resurrection on the third day after His crucifixion on Golgotha, the same place where the sacrifice of Isaac was to take place.

A complete listing of Old Testament references to Jesus could occupy a large book. But there are references there to the other Members of the Godhead as well. And to the Church.

In one such reference to the Church, the relationship between Jesus and His Church is foretold in Isaiah 54:1-7:

“Sing, O barren, thou who didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou who didst not travail with child; for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the Lord. Enlarge the place of thy tent, and let them stretch forth the curtains of thine habitations; spare not, lengthen thy cords, and strengthen thy stakes; for thou shalt break forth on the right hand and on the left, and thy seed shall inherit the Gentiles, and make the desolate cities to be inhabited. Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed, neither be thou confounded; for thou shalt not be put to shame; for thou shalt forget the shame of thy youth, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more.

“For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts is his name; and thy Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel; the God of the whole earth shall he be called. For the Lord hath called thee like a woman forsaken and grieved in spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou was refused, saith thy God. For a small moment have I forsaken thee, but with great mercies will I gather thee.”

This passage in Isaiah 54 immediately follows the great Messianic passage of Isaiah 53, and, both by its content and its relative placement, can be considered to be a sequel to it. Yet, except for the hint in John 2 regarding the wedding in Cana where Jesus performed His first miracle, the Gospels are silent with respect to that subject.

Details that are missing in the Gospels are supplied not only by Paul in Ephesians 5, but in the Old Testament as well, in Genesis 24. In that passage Isaac, who prefigured Jesus during Abraham’s attempted sacrifice, in now foretelling Jesus’ marriage to His Church.

The account in Genesis 24 of Isaac’s marriage is rich in detail, particularly the influence of the Holy Spirit on the entire transaction. It’s a good read as well as being instructive in filling in some of the blanks of the Church’s epic future:

“And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age: and the Lord had blessed Abraham in all things. And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh; And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell. But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac. . .And the servant put his hand under the thigh of Abraham, his master, and swore to him concerning that matter. And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and departed; for all the goods of his master were in his hand: and he arose, and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor.

“And he made his camels to kneel down outside the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that the women go out to draw water. And he said, O Lord God of my master, Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and show kindness unto my master, Abraham. Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water; and let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also; let her be the one whom thou hast appointed for thy servant, Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shown kindness unto my master.

“And it came to pass, before he had finished speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, with her pitcher on her shoulder. And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water from thy pitcher. And she said, Drink, my Lord: and she hastened, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink. And when she had finished giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have finished drinking. And she hastened, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels. And the man, wondering at her, held his peace, to learn whether the Lord had made his journey prosperous or not. And it came to pass, as the camels had finished drinking, that the man took a golden ring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her wrists of ten shekels of weight of gold; and said, Whose daughter art thou? Tell me, I pray thee: is there room in thy father’s house for us to lodge in? And she said unto him, I am the daughter of Bethuel, the son of Milcah, whom she bore unto Nahor. She said moreover unto him, We have both straw and fodder enough, and room to lodge in.

“And the man bowed down his head, and worshiped the Lord. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of my master, Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way, the Lord led me to the house of my master’s brethren. And the damsel ran, and told them of her mother’s house these things.”

The servant then was warmly welcomed into Rebekah’s house by her brother Laban, who had been impressed by the finery that Rebekah was now wearing. The adornments represented obvious wealth. After introducing himself as the servant of Abraham, the uncle of Bethuel, the man explained his mission of obtaining a wife for Abraham’s son Isaac out of his kin. He went on to recount how he prayed to God to select this bride through her specific response to his request for water, and of how Rebekah, through the Holy Spirit, had responded exactly as he had prayed. After hearing this, both Bethuel and his son Laban accepted this event as having come from God, making her the one that God Himself had chosen as wife for her kin Isaac.

“Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said, The thing proceedeth from the Lord: we cannot speak unto thee bad or good. Behold, Rebekah is before thee, take her, and go, and let her by thy master’s son’s wife, as the Lord hath spoken. And it came to pass that, when Abraham’s servant heard their words, he worshiped the Lord, bowing himself to the earth. And the servant brought forth jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment, and gave them to Rebekah: he gave also to her brother and to her mother precious things. And they did eat and drink, he and the men that were with him, and tarried all night; and they rose up in the morning, and he said, Send me away unto my master. And her brother and her mother said, Let the damsel abide with us a few days, at the least ten; after that she shall go. And he said unto them, Hinder me not, seeing the Lord hath prospered my way; send me away that I may go to my master.”

Up to this point Rebekah apparently had little to say about the matter, her brother and mother having spoken for her. Now, however, at what almost seems like an afterthought in the wake of this last-minute tug-of-war, Rebekah is given a say in the proceedings:

“And they said, We will call the damsel, and inquire at her mouth. And they called Rebekah, and said unto her, Wilt thou go with this man? And she said, I will go. And they sent away Rebekah, their sister, and her nurse, and Abraham’s servant, and his men. And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those who hate them. And Rebekah arose, and her damsels, and they rode upon the camels, and followed the man: and the servant took Rebekah, and went his way.

“And Isaac came from the way of the well Lahairoi; for he dwelt in the Negev. And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide: and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, the camels were coming. And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a veil, and covered herself. And the servant told Isaac all the things that he had done. And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after Rebekah’s death.”

As we have noted, the Church and her relationship to Jesus was clearly foretold in the Old Testament. Among the most obvious representations is the beautiful story of Ruth. The magnificent story of her loyalty to Naomi begins at verse 10, following the death of Naomi’s husband and two sons, who had married the Moabite (Gentile) women Orpah and Ruth:

“And Naomi said, Turn again, my daughters. Why will ye go with me? Are there yet any more sons in my womb, that they may be your husbands? Turn again, my daughters, go your way; for I am too old to have an husband. If I should say, I have hope; if I should have an husband also tonight, and should also bear sons, would ye tarry for them till they were grown? Would ye refrain from marrying? Nay, my daughters; for it grieveth me much for your sakes that the hand of the Lord is gone out against me. And they lifted up their voice, and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clave unto her. And she said, Behold, thy sister-in-law is gone back unto her people, and unto her gods; return thou after thy sister-in-law.”

How little did Naomi appear to understand, at this point, the great blessing the Lord was showering upon her, and upon her daughter-in-law Ruth! Through this circumstance not only would the Gentile Ruth be integrated into the bloodline of Jesus Christ, but she would prefigure His future Bride. In response to Naomi’s reluctant advice, Ruth voices her timeless expression of devotion:

‘And Ruth said, Entreat me not to leave thee, or to return away from following after thee; for whither thou goest, I will go; and where thou lodgest, I will lodge: thy people shall be my people, and thy God, my God. Where thou diest, will I die, and there will I be buried; the Lord do so to me, and more also, if ought but death part thee and me.”

Naomi and Ruth returned to Israel, arriving in Bethlehem at the time of the barley harvest. Under circumstances directed by God, Ruth gathered food for herself and Naomi by gleaning in the fields of the wealthy Boaz, who became attracted to her. Boaz, of the tribe of Judah and in the bloodline to Christ, also typified Christ as a spiritual precursor. His marriage to Ruth gave them a child who eventually was a grandfather of David and thus an ancestor of Jesus Christ through both Mary and her husband Joseph.

Just as importantly, Ruth, in marrying Boaz, represented the Church as the Bride of Christ. Significantly, Ruth’s Gentile roots represented the Gentile nature of the Church during the Church age. It is also significant that the Book of Ruth is traditionally read at the Feast of Pentecost linking Ruth in that additional manner with the birth of the Church at the first Pentecost following Jesus’ resurrection, that wonderful time that the Holy Spirit came upon the body of believers and transformed them into spiritual warriors.

Both of the Old Testament accounts of Ruth and Rebekah cited above represent the Church as a female married to Christ. The accounts also hint of romantic involvement. Are they just hints, or is there real substance to the thought that the relationship between Jesus and His Church might be a romantic one?

UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE ROMANTIC BOND

UNIQUE FEATURES OF THE ROMANTIC BOND

Of all the possible relationships people may have among each other, the romantic bond uniquely involves three features harmoniously and synergistically combined: functional unity, mutual possession, and shared intimacy.

Of itself, the feature of functional unity is common among relationships. It is the essence of teamwork, wherein individuals, each having specialized tasks, operate together in coordinated fashion to achieve higher-level objectives. Functional unity serves as the most sought-after expectation of armies, factories, sports teams and virtually every human endeavor that requires multiple persons working toward a common goal. Most relationships, however, require instruction and training to achieve that feature of human interaction, and firm supervision to maintain it.

In a good romance, however, teamwork is achieved far more naturally than in other relationships, requiring neither instruction, training, nor coercion. Gender-based specialization automatically delineates the normal roles of the participants, enabling them to interact together in complementary fashion without giving much thought to the process. Moreover, this functional synergism within the romantic bond uniquely complements the other two distinctive features, mutual possession and shared intimacy.

Outside of romance, possession is essentially off the table for normal human relationships. As in slavery or prison, possession of one human being by another is always, with but one exception, unhappy and forced. That exception is a passionate romance, which involves mutual possession as not only a voluntary act by the partners, but a comfort as well, and an expectation that each places on the other. Any situation that threatens that possessive bond, such as a potential romantic interest outside that relationship, is seen in a vehemently negative light. Two of God’s Ten Commandments address that very issue.

Scripture itself sometimes conveys that same sense of possession regarding relationships within the Godhead, between God and humanity, and between individuals. Unfortunately, instances in which possession is the topic is very often misinterpreted by Christians as meaning something entirely different than what the text plainly states. An example of that is found in Jeremiah 10:12:

“[God] hath made the earth by his power; he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion.”

This passage has often been interpreted to mean the essential opposite of what it intended to convey. In the common misinterpretation, the words “power”, “wisdom” and “discretion” are taken as attributes of the Father. As this interpretation applies these claims to the Father alone, it effectively denies their potential application to the other Members of the Godhead. In other contexts within Scripture, and particularly throughout the Book of Proverbs, all three of these so-called “attributes” are associated with the Holy Spirit rather than the Father. In an alternate interpretation these “attributes” can be taken to be possessive in nature toward the Holy Spirit. In that context the “attributes” belong to the Father’s Holy Spirit and it is the Holy Spirit who belongs to the Father. Under that very natural alternate interpretation a completely different understanding of that passage results, one with romantic implications.

Another example tends to corroborate the possessive interpretation of the passage noted above, wherein the object of the possession is an Entity rather than a mere thing or attribute. The Scriptural passage for this example is Ephesians 5:25-28:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such things; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

“So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.”

In verse 28 of this passage, the body of the wife is possessively related to the man. The man owns his wife’s body, just as she owns his. Paul was very explicit in this connection in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5:

“Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence; and likewise also, the wife unto the husband. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband; and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”

The possessive ownership of each others’ bodies, while taken for granted in romantic relationships within humanity, is often avoided in the context of the relationship between Jesus and His Church. Yet Paul was quite explicit in his establishment of that as well, as Ephesians 5 continues in verses 29 through 32:

“For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church; for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”

Ephesians 5:28 is often misinterpreted as supporting the common claim that the Church is the one and only spiritual body of Christ, inferring that the Church is the exclusive repository of that body. In the more natural context of possession, however, the Church belongs to Jesus as a body integral with His own, in the same sense that a wife’s body belongs to her husband as an integral component of his own body, just as Adam (Genesis 2:24), Jesus (Matthew 19:5) and Paul (Ephesians 5:31) directly stated.

Of the three features of romantic love, the third, shared intimacy, is the strongest bonding agent to unite the couple. Other human relationships can involve intimacy, but never to the extent of the sexual union between a man and a woman in their romantic partnership. God designed it that way to impart to the gender-based relationship its unique fullness, to set the couple apart from others as a special inviolate unity. It is the intimacy of their shared sexuality, or the promise of it, in synergy with their shared possession of each other, that gives their romance its very strength of passion. Nothing other than that intimacy provides individuals with a bonding force of that strength or beauty.

The pervasive notion of a genderless God denies that beauty to Him and the other Members of the Godhead and renders him alien to us in blatant contradiction to Genesis 1:26 and 27, and in his elaboration over the creation of Eve in Genesis 2:21-25:

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thinkg that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

“And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife; and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

And to what end have we denied this beautiful attribute to God? So that we may maintain a distance from Him in direct opposition to what He desires in His relationship with us? So that we can equate purity with chastity, when the two are manifestly different concepts? The key to this blatant falsehood is found in the end of the passage above: . . . “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

As I had noted in Marching to a Worthy Drummer, it is the shame, not the act, that has driven us to think of gender as inappropriate to God. And the shame came not from God but from Adam’s fall. It persists to this day, and prevents us from perceiving the Trinitarian Godhead in all its beauty and glory.

GOD’S RESPONSE TO CONSPIRACIES

GOD’S RESPONSE TO CONSPIRACIES

Previous postings have asserted that a conspiracy exists, one with the intent to replace national governments with a multi-region, tightly-interconnected, essentially totalitarian governmental system.

God, however, has other plans. These plans involve His own conspiracy. One might be attempted to argue with the term “conspiracy” as it would apply to God, as God has laid His plans out quite clearly in Scripture. That open depiction of our future would seem not to qualify as a conspiracy, as the meaning of a conspiracy involves secret knowledge that only the elect are privy to.

But the Bible has been so maligned and generally avoided in our society that it might as well contain secrets to which only an ever-smaller minority has access to. In brief, society shot itself in the foot by making information in the Bible a secret, and thus that information, to all intents and purposes, describes a conspiracy to which only committed Christians have access.

God’s response is previewed in Daniel 2, which is summarized in Daniel 2:44:

“And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed; and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.”

The Book of Revelation gets into details. After a series of awesome judgments of God in which a large percentage of the world’s population is killed through disease and warfare, in Chapter 17 a specific prophecy is pronounced against a harlot, taken by many to be the end-time apostate Church of Laodicea, of which Jesus spoke against in Chapter 3.

“And there came one of the seven angels who had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come here; I will show unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters; with whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication. So he carried me away in the Spirit into the wilderness and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet-colored beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns. And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet color, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication; and upon her forehead was a name written Mystery, Babylon The Great, The Mother Of Harlots And Abominations Of The Earth. And I saw the woman drunk with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus; and when I saw her, I wondered with great awe.

“And the angel said unto me, Why didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, whichhath the seven heads and ten horns. The beast that thou sawest was, and is not, and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition; and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in gthe book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth. And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come, and when he cometh, he must continue a short space. And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition. And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, who have received no kingdom as yet, but receive power as kings one hour with the beast. These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

“These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them; for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings, and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful. And he said unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues. And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naket, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire. For God hath put in their hearts to fulfill his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled. And the women whom thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.”

Given the use of purple garments by Catholic bishops and of scarlet ones by cardinals, many people place this melancholy pronouncement onto the Catholic Church. It need not be the present one, but a future one that may be a chrislam conglomeration consisting of the most watered-down elements of Islam and Christianity. This association might seemingly be strengthened by the identification of seven heads with seven mountains, Rome being called the City of Seven Hills, but note that heads in Scriptural prophecy usually depict rulers rather than geographical features.

Revelation Chapter 18 addresses next the judgment upon and demise of a mysterious Babylon:

And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power, and the earth was lightened with his glory. And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues; for her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities. Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works; in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her; for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine, and she shall be utterly burned with fire; for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

“And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning, standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, Babylon, that mighty city! For in one hour is thy judgment come. And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more. The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and al thyine wood, and all manner of vessels of ivory, and all manner of vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble, and cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men. And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thoushalt find them no more at all. The merchants of these things, who were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing, and saying, Alas, alas, that great city that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls! For in one hour so great riches are come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off. And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying What city is like unto this great city? And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas, that great city, in which were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! For in one hour is she made desolate.

“Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her. And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus wil violence shall that great city, Babylon, be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all. And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee; and the light of a lamp shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee; for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived. And in her was found the blook of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.”

Some eschatologists claim that Babylon is indeed the Babylon of old, situated in Iraq. That association was most popular under the regime of Saddam Hussein, who had reconstructed that city and vowed to restore it to its former greatness. But the Babylon of Revelation 18 also can be a suggestive reference, the name of some other great community whose characteristics followed those of the original Babylon.

Note the suggestion in Revelation 18:17 that it is a seaport. Mighty as is the River Euphrates, I doubt that it properly meets the description of Babylon as a seaport in Revelation 18. Note also that every time the word fallen is used, it is used twice, and that its destruction occurs in an hour. These items mesh disturbingly well with the events of 911, in which Manhattan’s twin towers, representing the ultimate in commerce, were destroyed, virtually within an hour. Equally disturbing is Manhattan’s long-standing nickname, “Babylon by the sea”. Regardless of its identification, this great center of commerce and corruption is destroyed.

In the very next chapter is rejoicing in heaven over the judgments that have destroyed the kingdoms of mankind, and the war of Armageddon, and the return of Jesus Christ to reign on earth and to marry His wife, the Church.

CONSPIRACY – REAL OR IMAGINED? (CONTINUED)

CONSPIRACY – REAL OR IMAGINED? (CONTINUED)

Daniel actually had been describing the composite modern beast of Revelation Thirteen as well as the sequence of world kingdoms which had led up to the modern world. This can be seen even more clearly as the passage in Daniel Seven continues: the modern incarnation of the Persian bear would be Russia, whose icon is indeed the bear, and Germany of the Grecian leopard. Daniel continues, in verse 7, to flesh out the modern world government:

“After this I saw in the night visions, and, behold, a fourth beast, dreadful and terrible, and strong exceedingly, and it had great iron teeth; it devoured and broke in pieces, and stamped the residue with its feet; and it was diverse from all the beasts that were before it, and it had ten horns. I considered the horns, and, behold, there came up among them another little horn, before which there were three of the first horns plucked up by the roots; and, behold, in this horn were eyes like the eyes of man, and a mouth speaking great things.”

Daniel’s mention of a “little horn” introduces a probable feature of the coming world government that most eschatologists tend to overlook. The horn is indisputably a leader, but of what? As Bible scholar Daymond Duck proposed, the final world government may well be composed of ten regions, rather than of ten nations. In that context, the “little horn” of Daniel Seven may refer to a nation, a smaller entity than a region, which would place the “little horn” as the president of a nation. One could then speculate that perhaps this president may be a president of the United States, for example, who would, in Daniel’s parlance, pluck up the presidents of the United States, Canada and Mexico to become leader of what would then be the North American Region, a supranational entity composed of those three former nations. In my novel Home, Sweet Heaven, as a matter of fact, I describe just that scenario. This regional leader would then go on to be head of the world government comprised of those ten regions.

The Christian doesn’t have to go as deeply into the weeds as we have just trekked to perceive from the Bible that a world government will become a reality. It’s not a question of whether, but of when. In that sense, virtually all Christians with any interest whatsoever in eschatology could be labeled as conspiracy theorists.

Are there other indications, aside from Scripture, that a conspiracy is underway to integrate nations into a larger governmental system, indications that might move more individuals to perceive that the notion of a conspiracy might be more than a paranoia-fed myth?

One simply has to make a quick glance around at the various problems that exist in our modern world to appreciate that society the world over is encumbered with a number of negative issues, each of which represents a very real threat of turning our present order into a chaotic mess from which we have the possibility of emerging only through a centralized system of government that possesses the will and the strength to impose the harsh measures required to restore order. To enumerate just a few: the terror threat from radicalized Muslims; the terror threat from society’s misfits; the terror threat from rogue nations motivated either by unreasoning hatred or the desire to call forth the Mahdi; the increase in natural disasters, exacerbated by the unwise location of populations, the over-use of available resources, and the decay of infrastructures; environmental pollution leading to disease and degeneracy of living conditions; overcrowding; and loss of survivability due to substandard schooling and training and political corruption.

This partial list can easily be expanded, but one item that probably doesn’t belong on it is global warming, which points to what may be the most important item on the list – the manufactured issue that can only be resolved by a more powerful government. Some may argue that there are very real indicators that global warming is a real and important issue. But even if it is a real issue, it may not be caused by man – off the top of my head I can point to at least one potential source other than man – and the issue may not be permanent or life-threatening. Furthermore, if it is a real issue, the motivation for labeling it as threatening may be a primarily political one.

Given all these potential causes of disaster and chaos, most of which are solvable only by God or a centralized government that has the will and means to impose harsh controls over its subjects, it isn’t difficult to perceive that if a cadre of exceedingly wealthy and powerful individuals exist, and further that if these individuals have no understanding of or faith in God, such people would be more than willing to create such a government.

We do know of the existence of such a cadre of people, and we also know that, like bugs that hide under rocks and logs, they are prone to conducting meetings away from the public spotlight.

Moreover, we can infer from the conscious effort to discredit the notion of our Judeo-Christian God and to remove all references to Him from society that the most powerful of this cadre of individuals has absolutely no truck with this God. Moreover, we have clear evidence that this group already has exercised a heavy-handed influence over society to worsen rather than mitigate our problems. We can see this by observing the atrocious mishandling of our public education systems from kindergarten all the way through college and beyond; the ineffective manner in which terrorism is addressed; the enormous effort expended to propagate godless myths such as macroevolution in the face of scientific findings to the contrary; the attempt to prohibit the chaplains of our armed forces from uttering the name of Jesus Christ; the characterization of Christians as “disturbed malcontents”; and the use of the gay agenda to label portions of Holy Scripture as “hate-inciting”.

Given, then, the numerous paths to disaster that exist in the world today, the cadre of immensely wealthy, powerful and godless individuals that exist as well, and clear evidence that this group is fomenting issues rather than attempting to control them, it is only a matter of common sense, driven by the obvious issues and the equally obvious reluctance to mitigate them, to perceive that a conspiracy to form a totalitarian one-world government is indeed afoot.

Why, in the face of the Bible’s forecast of just such a conspiracy, and the obvious indicators of the same, have we been led to view those who have simply connected the dots as being dangerously removed from reality?

The mere fact that “conspiracy theorists” are commonly thought of as dangerous misfits may actually be the most powerful indicator of its reality. Why else would a common-sense conclusion be labeled as dangerously wrong?

HOLY WEEK

HOLY WEEK

As this is the week that the Church observes Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection, and as that event is the most significant in mankind’s history, I’ll interrupt the topic I was engaged in to observe it here as well. Although I am basically a Protestant (the Church my wife and I attend is Baptist), I have a running dialogue with a dear friend, a Catholic priest. Today we shared our own thoughts on Jesus’ crucifixion and resurrection. The traditional Catholic and Episcopalian re-enactment of the Holy Week is quite moving, as was my friend’s description of if. I’d like to share with you below some highlights of our reflection on this terrible and blessed event.

I have a favorite hymn, penned by Charles Wesley, that starts with the line And can it be that I should gain an interest in the Savior’s blood? with the first stanza ending in Amazing love! How can it be that thou, my Lord, shouldst die for me? We sing this hymn often in our Church services, and it remains moving to me every time we sing it.

We shared a conversation between Earl Cook and his wife Joyce that I lifted from Chapter 24 of my novel Buddy. Earl is telling Joyce about a book he’d read, written by Dominican Fr. Gerald Vann around the close of World War II.

“’The book was called Mary’s Answer for our Troubled Times. Like the title suggests, he wrote about Mary’s own suffering while Jesus was on the cross. I can’t say that Father Vann was always Scripturally accurate down to the last degtail in all he wrote about Mary, but I do think that he captured the essence of Scripture in a magnificent way in presenting a stunning demonstration of nobility on Mary’s part during that time. It deeply moved me.’

“’So share it.’

“’He talked of Mary’s concentration of gaze and rapt, exclusive focus on Jesus as He endured His suffering. He contrasted the mutual sorrow-laden silence between her and Jesus with the noisier, more self-serving lamentations of the other women, developing a picture of Mary of stoic determination. She had a task, Vann claimed. This task involved the double sorrow of the mother as she watched the torments of the Son, and of the girl who flinched at the sight of naked evil and cruelty destroying innocence and beauty and love. She remained silent, because it was not for her to find an emotional outlet for her grief, for she is here because of Him, to fulfill her vocation as mother by helping Him to fulfill His as Savior. In her, as Vann claims, there are two conflicting agonies: the longing to save Him from His agony and the effort to help Him to finish His work. It is the second that she must do, giving Him to the world on the Cross as she has given Him to the world in the stable.’”

As Chapter 22 of Genesis so vividly points out, our Holy Father also shared in Jesus’ suffering. As I visualize it, God’s call to Abraham to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac was a depiction of the Father’s own terrible grief in abandoning His Son on the cross as He ultimately prevented Abraham from doing.

“And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: and he said, Behold, here I am. And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.

“And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and saddled his ass, and took two of his young men with him, and Isaac his son, and clave the wood for the burnt offering, and rose up, and went unto the place of which God had told him. Then on the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off.

“And Abraham said unto his young men, Abide ye here with the ass; and I and the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you. And Abraham took the wood of the burnt offering, and laid it upon Isaac his son; and he took the fire in his hand, and a knife; and they went both of them together. And Isaac spoke unto Abraham, his father, and said, My father: and he said, Here am I, my son. And he said, Behold the fire and the wood: but where is the lamb for a burnt offering? And Abraham said, My son, God will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they sent both of them together. And they came to a place which God had told him of; and Abraham built an altar there, and laid the wood in order, and bound Isaac, his son, and laid him on the altar upon the wood. And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son.

“And the angel of the Lord called unto him out of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I. And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him; for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me.

“And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and, behold, behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovah-jireh, as it is said to this day, In the mount of the Lord it shall be seen.”

I believe that we have another name of that place, Golgotha. When Abraham lifted up his eyes on the third day and saw the place afar off, I also believe that he saw the resurrected Jesus. Note also that Abraham had Isaac carry the wood that was to sacrifice him, just as Jesus was commanded to carry His cross. Understanding that Isaac strongly represents Jesus, you may wish to read Genesis 24 regarding the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah, and see, in Ephesians 5:31 and 32, who Rebekah represents.

That the ram represented Jesus as the Lamb of God is beyond question. This association between Jesus and a sacrificial lamb is observed today by Messianic Christians who, as both Jews and Christians, see the special meaning of the Jewish Passover as intended by God. The first account of the Passover is in Exodus 12:

“And the Lord spoke unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of heir fathers, a lamb for an house: and if the household be too little for the lamb, let him and his neighbor next unto his house take it according to the number of the souls; every man according to his eating shall make your count for the lamb.

“Your lamb shall be without blemish, a male of the first year: ye shall take it out from the sheep, or from the goats. And ye shall keep it unto the fourteenth day of the same month; and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two side posts and on the upper door post of the houses, wherein they shall eat it. And they shall eat the flesh in that night, roast with the fire and unleavened bread; and with bitter herbs shall they eat it. Eat not of it raw, nor sodden at all with water, but roast with fire; its head with its legs, and with the purtenance thereof. And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; and that which remaineth of it until the morning ye shall burn with fire. And thus shall ye eat it: with your loins girded, your shoes on your feet, and your staff in your hand; and ye shall eat it in haste: it is the Lord’s Passover.

“For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord. And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are; and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

“And this day shall be unto you a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance forever.”

Jesus was crucified on the Passover day of preparation. Jews throughout the world continue to observe Passover, which this year falls on sundown of April 22.

Have a wonderful observance of this great event, both this week according to the Church calendar, and on April 22 according to the Jewish calendar.

POLITICS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN

POLITICS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF A CONSERVATIVE CHRISTIAN

In this presidential election cycle, one candidate is openly socialist and another is following closely on his heels. Moreover, the openly socialist candidate already has attracted a loyal following that, for the more conservative voters, appears to be surprisingly large. The older of the conservatives shake their heads in wonder as they recall how recently the label of communism and its socialism brother had evoked feelings within a large part of the American public akin to those associated with criminals. For those born in the American heartland older than the millennial generation and residing outside the larger cities, this attitude remains prevalent.

Socialism isn’t a new idea. It’s at least as old as the Christian Church. And, for a time following the Pentecost, it worked beautifully, as described in Acts Chapter 2. The only problem with it is that it only worked that one time in history, and it worked then only because of the massive infusion of the Holy Spirit into the newly-birthed Christian community.

Outside of that one instance in the distant past, modern socialist/communist governments have uniformly turned into repressive, dictatorial regimes that have caused enormous human suffering. There’s a reason for that. Without the direct involvement of God, socialist/communist systems of government rapidly degenerate into self-service on the part of government officials and bondage for the rest. We’d turn into a nation of apathetic, indolent and lazy seekers of handouts, as a good percentage of us already are, and our leaders would manage to turn the system into a huge windfall for them, like Putin has done with Russia. Socialism apart from God is evil, and we in America, having in large part discarded God, are certainly not exempt. The biggest problem with us as a nation is that we’ve collectively tossed God into the dumpster.

George Orwell once wrote a novel, entitled Animal Farm, that has become a classic. It used to be required reading in school. I doubt that it is now. Simply written, it almost reads like a childrens’ book. The theme is that the animals, led by the pigs, revolt against the farmer who owns them. Their battle cry is “All animals are equal!” After the revolt succeeds, the pigs take over and, of course, grab all the goodies to be had, making the others more destitute than they were before they revolted. They complain to the pigs, attempting to remind them that all animals are equal. “Of course all animals are equal,” the head pig responds, “but we pigs are more equal than others!”

Another person besides the American candidate is attempting to resurrect socialism, and since he’s doing so within a Christian setting, there’s more hope of his being capable of installing a successful system. Pope Francis appears to be a socialist at heart, and he’s also the leader of the Catholic Church, which, on the surface, would seem to grant him sufficient authority to handle the task. But look at the opposition he’s getting from the thoroughly-entrenched Vatican leadership. If he survives the next two years and manages to sweep the Vatican clean of the moneychangers, I’ll be more than willing then to grant that he represents the second successful instance of socialism/communism. But I wouldn’t bet on it at this point.

I certainly wouldn’t want to bet that here in America Bernie Sanders would, if president, be capable of implementing a successful socialism. We fallen humans simply can’t be trusted with that kind of society.

The sad truth is that we don’t reside in heaven. We live on Earth, which is kind of a tough neighborhood. It’s getting more evil and dangerous every day. Part of why so many Christians don’t understand the real situation is that for centuries elements of the Church have embraced a philosophy in which the Bible’s Book of Revelation is interpreted allegorically as opposed to literally, and as a result views the role of the Church as cleansing the world of evil on its own and handing over a pristine world to a passive Jesus. Augustine championed that view because he couldn’t understand Revelation in a literal sense. Of course he couldn’t understand it! The book wasn’t intended for his generation.

Daniel 12:4-9 refutes those who would argue that the books of the Bible were intended to apply to the generation in which they were written, or that they applied to all generations:

“But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

“Then I, Daniel, looked and, behold, there stood two others, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. And one said to the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and swore by him who liveth forever, that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished the breaking up of the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

“And I heard, but I understood not. Then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel; for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.”

The Books of Daniel and Revelation appear to have been intended for our generation because now, with our technical knowledge, Revelation is readily understandable to us in a literal sense. As you look around, do you see the world getting better? It’s more like the exact opposite is happening. It may not be what we’d like to believe, but it’s right in line with a literal reading of Revelation.

We do have a chance at an election cycle that will be benign for conservatives. But first we’ll have to include God in the game. Without Him, it won’t matter what flavor of politician we’ll have for our next president.

A NEW BREED OF AMERICAN

A NEW BREED OF AMERICAN

Many years have passed since I was the age of the current crop of American Millennials. I’m tempted to think back on that time of my youth as being different, perhaps more Christian, with the qualities that are implied by that label: self-disciplined, considerate of others, loving, maybe even noble.

When I think back on my teenage years and young adulthood, however, the hoped-for memories don’t surface; others crowd in unbidden: instances of gross disobedience to my parents; underage drinking (lots of that); reckless driving; wild parties; poor grades (mainly due to a pronounced lack of self-discipline and the prioritizing of parties over studies); and the supremacy of self and personal welfare over thought of others.

God? What God? It would be another two decades before God came into my vocabulary.

If I want to be honest about my past, I basically followed the traits outlined by Paul in 2 Timothy 3:1-5. At least that’s what came to mind as this bleak recollection proceeded. I decided to give the passage another review:

“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God, having a form of godliness, but denying the power of it; from such turn away.”

The score wasn’t pretty: out of the nineteen traits that Paul had listed in that passage, I was guilty of possessing fourteen of them. But it wasn’t a completely devastating hundred percent. There were some characteristics that didn’t fit me, and for that small comfort I could thank the influence of society at large, which at the time had maintained some semblance of the Christian influence that had prevailed at the founding of our country.

It was that small but persistent influence that separated my youth from the Millennial generation, which seems to possess all nineteen of the negative traits listed by Paul in the passage cited above, with each trait being embraced in more generous measure than was the case for me and my generation.

That sorry state of affairs was exemplified recently by scenes on the news that graphically depicted college boys and girls at the beach during spring break engaging in unrestrained drinking, open sex and general mayhem. They had abandoned all sense of responsibility. Most of them, at least those who had managed to maintain some minimum level of consciousness, behaved as one might expect of third-graders who had been granted adult privileges.

More recently yet, the news described a movement that is spreading among universities around the country that’s demanding administrators to resign over their failures to enforce the “well-being” of the students. In this case, one egregious wrong that had been perpetrated by the culprits was their allowance of the use on campus of certain politically-incorrect words that have been considered offensive and thus have intruded upon the students’ bubbles of controlled mental and emotional environment in sufficient measure as to cause them distress. Other offenses included student loans and other negative circumstances that had threatened their sense of entitlement.

Developments such as these indicate that a fairly substantial portion of Millennials represent a generation of perpetual babies who have abandoned all semblance of the nobility and selflessness that was associated with the Christianity of our forefathers. Some day soon we will necessarily look to them in increasing measure for the continuation of our society. When they do, if their collective mindset isn’t preempted by outside events, we shall almost certainly drift into a socialistic form of government intended to perpetuate and expand upon existing entitlements. That will pass quickly, however, morphing into a more permanent dictatorial regime that will impose upon the public a measure of distress that will be unimaginable to the coddled and privileged students who comprise today’s academia.

SCRIPTURAL SUGGESTIONS OF THE FEMININITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (CONTINUATION #3)

SCRIPTURAL SUGGESTIONS OF THE FEMININITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (CONTINUATION #3)

The Holy Spirit Identified as Feminine in Revelation 12 (an update of the previous item: The Holy Spirit Identified as Feminine in Original Scripture)

Revelation 12 reads as follows:

“And there appeared a great wonder in heaven – a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. And she, being with child, cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

“And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and, behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven and did cast them to the earth; and the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to be delivered, to devour her child as soon as it was born.

“And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. And there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

“And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ; for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea! For the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

“And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman who brought forth the man child. And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent. And the serpent cast out of his mouth water like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth. And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

Who is this marvelous woman? Catholics claim that she is Mary, while Protestants lean toward Israel. But this passage becomes far more awesome and beautiful with an identification of this Woman as the Holy Spirit. Moving beyond aesthetic considerations to the logical, both Mary and Israel lack credibility, as neither would be appropriate candidates for the heavenly clothing with which She is adorned, which imply Her role as Co-Creator with the Father. Her spiritual station among the Highest, including the account herein of Her birth of Jesus Christ, is also implied.

According to her thoroughly researched book God is Not Alone – Our Mother the Holy Spirit, Marianne Widmalm references passages in Isaiah 66 to support the identification of this Woman as the Holy Spirit.

The timing of the events in Revelation 12 have led me to speculate, without definitive justification at this point in time, whether the birth of Jesus referred to in this passage might relate to the possibility that Jesus did indeed die on the cross thoroughly and completely, demanding that His resurrection involved the Holy Spirit’s laboring over a complete reconstruction of Him, including the imprint in His mind of every memory and every event that took place during His sojourn on Earth. At this point, this is just an idea, but a very moving one.

The Holy Spirit Identified as Feminine in Early Post-Resurrection Christian Writings (an update of the previous item: The Holy Spirit Identified as Feminine in Original Scripture)

In her book God is Not Alone, noted above, Marianne Widmalm goes to great lengths to show that The Gospel of the Hebrews, written in the Hebrew language, preceded and influenced the writing of Matthew’s Gospel. The importance of this precursor Gospel is that it described the Holy Spirit as feminine. Widmalm cites early Church Father Origin (185-254 A.D.) as declaring from the Gospel of the Hebrews that Jesus Himself called the Holy Spirit His Mother (see pp. 172,173 of The Gospel of the Hebrews). Widmalm cites several other notable Christian writers of the first through fourth centuries, including Jerome, who also alluded to a feminine Holy Spirit. She speculates that in the movement of the Church toward a Trinitarian formula defining a genderless or masculine Holy Spirit, The Gospel of the Hebrews was destroyed by well-meaning but terribly misguided individuals as being inconsistent with the emerging theological direction of the Church. This situation may be similar to the wholesale destruction of ancient Mayan documents as presided over by the Spaniard Diego de Landa. Because of his acts, almost all our knowledge of early Americans was lost forever.

The Feminine Nature of the Holy Spirit in the Book of Wisdom

The Book of Wisdom, which is canonical in the Catholic Bible, presents the Holy Spirit as feminine and directly links Her to Wisdom as presented in the Book of Proverbs.

On the other hand, the Catholic Church, by elevating Mary as she did, did not completely deny the family of God the balancing femininity it so badly needs, so maybe Irenaeus should be respected a bit more in the Protestant community. Another thing the Catholic Church did for the feminine which the Protestant Church did not was to include the Book of Wisdom within the body of canonical, and therefore considered to be inspired, Old Testament books. This beautifully-written book furnishes several interesting passages suggestive of the identity of Wisdom as the feminine Holy Spirit. Selected passages are presented below:

“And in your wisdom have established humankind . . .Give me Wisdom, the consort at your throne . . . Now with you is Wisdom, who knows your works and was present when you made the world; Who understands what is pleasing in your eyes and what is conformable with your commands. Send her forth from your holy heavens and from your glorious throne dispatch her that she may be with me and work with me, that I may know what is pleasing to you. For she knows and understands all things, and will guide me prudently in my affairs and safeguard me to her glory . . . Or who can know your counsel, unless you give Wisdom and send your holy spirit from on high?

– Wisdom 9:2, 4, 9-11, 17

The Identification of the Holy Spirit with Birth in John 3

Chapter 3 of the Gospel of John describes the Holy Spirit as possessing the function of spiritual birth. Birth, of course, is an eminently feminine attribute.

“There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered, and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born?

“Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound of it, but canst not tell from where it cometh, and where it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit.”

SCRIPTURAL SUGGESTIONS OF THE FEMININITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (CONTINUATION #2)

SCRIPTURAL SUGGESTIONS OF THE FEMININITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (CONTINUATION #2)

Inclusion of Gender in the Creation of Man in God’s Image

Genesis 1:26 and 27 links the creation of man in God’s image as possessing gender:

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

An alternative interpretation of this passage would not only attempt to split an intimately interconnected verse with no substantive justification, but it would also demonstrate an indifference to God’s aversion to the practice of homosexuality (as well as other sexual sins), as may be found in Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 and Romans 1. This strong antipathy of God toward sexual sin would more properly be indicative of misrepresenting man’s creation in God’s gendered image.

In Genesis 2 verses 18, 21 and 22 the detail of Eve’s formation out of Adam is highly suggestive of the counterpart formation of the Holy Spirit out of the Father.

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.”

A shallow interpretation of this passage would suggest that since it follows the story of the creation of Adam and Eve sequentially, the creation of Eve was removed from that of Adam by a significant amount of time. A more logical interpretation would view the insertion of this passage as a matter of emphasis, suggesting perhaps that this extraction of Eve out of Adam was illustrative of the extraction of the Holy Spirit out of the Father.

The Embedding of Feminine within the Masculine

In Genesis 5:1 and 2, Adam and Eve are both named Adam, suggesting that Eve, while being functionally feminine, is also named after her masculine counterpart.

“This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him; male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”

This naming convention furnishes some justification for describing the Holy Spirit with masculine pronouns, although it should be kept in mind that the original Hebrew described the Holy Spirit in feminine terms.

The Femininity of the Executive Function

It is generally recognized and specifically noted by Bible scholars that Scripture depicts the Holy Spirit as operating in an executive function, responsive to the Father’s Will. A responsive nature is distinctly feminine. Genesis 1:1,2 furnishes a specific example of the Holy Spirit operating responsively to the Father.

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.”

Although I prefer to remain entirely within Scripture in my responses, I also could cite Benjamin Warfield’s commentary in page 122 his book The Holy Spirit that “In both Testaments the Spirit of God appears distinctly as the executive of the Godhead [italics in the original].” This reference is particularly appropriate, in that Benjamin Warfield is held in high esteem within the Christian community. I also point to Warfield’s more lengthy discussion on pages 124 and 125 that elaborated on the role of the Holy Spirit in the act of creation in responsive fashion to the Will of the Father, therefore representing a feminine role.

The linkage given in Proverbs with Wisdom in an executive role, as well as its personification of Wisdom as a complement to God the Father amply justifies the inclusion of the Holy Spirit in that linkage.

Furthermore, in Ephesians 5, Paul repeats Adam’s words to the effect that a man shall leave his father and mother and join his wife, and they two shall become one flesh. In applying this entire passage to Jesus, does not Paul imply that Jesus had a Mother to leave? As there is a general consensus that Jesus existed long before He came in the flesh, we also must agree that here Paul is not speaking of Mary as Jesus’ Mother.

It may be the case that most theologians don’t perceive any compelling reason to equate Christ and the Church to Adam’s words regarding leaving father and mother and joining unto his wife to become one flesh. But Jesus Himself as quoted in Matthew 19:4-8 appears to attach a significance to Adam’s words that transcends a mere man-woman relationship. In addition, there are other passages in Scripture, including Genesis 24 and Isaiah 54, that tend to confirm the notion that in the spiritual realm the Church shall indeed serve in a female role as the Bride of Christ.

The Holy Spirit Identified as Feminine in Original Scripture

It is an undeniable fact that with regard to Scripture, “Church authorities” did indeed engage in a sexual cleansing operation, for not only were the Godhead and Mary stripped of their sexuality, but there is indisputable evidence that Scripture itself was altered to sexually mutilate the Godhead by substituting a weak all-male congress for what always was perceived by the Jews and also by the earliest Christians as a Divine Family consisting of Father, Mother and Son.

It wasn’t always that way. In the Hebrew Old Testament, the Holy Spirit, as the Ruah or Shekinah, was viewed as feminine. The switch to masculinity occurred in the New Testament.

In Isaiah 51:9 and 10, for example, the King James Version reads:

“Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it who hast cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon? Art thou not it who hast dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; who hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?”

The original, however, read as follows, and some Bible scholars assert that the neutering was deliberate, for there is no way that the original can be construed as depicting other than femininity, in opposition to the oft-mentioned comment that some grammatically feminine words in Hebrew don’:

“Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not She who hast cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon? Art thou not She who hast dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; who hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?”

According to an Internet search of “feminine Holy Spirit in the Hebrew Scriptures”, multiple modern, deeply serious theologians and ancient language scholars share the view that the earliest Hebrew Christians had access to Scripture that presented the Holy Spirit as a feminine Persona; this feminine persisted within the Syriac and other Eastern branches of Christianity and within the Gnostic sect as well. A prime example of this is the Scriptural passage known as the Siniatic Palimpsest (a palimpsest is a recycled writing medium, wherein a second layer of writing was applied over the original, the original usually consisting of more important information) uncovered toward the end of the nineteenth century by Agnes Lewis. The original writing included portions of the Gospel of John of which a quote from Jesus Himself in John 14:26 asserts the following (translation attributed to Danny Mahar):

“But She – the Spirit – the Paraclete whom He will send to you – my Father – in my name – She will teach you everything; She will remind you of what I have told you.”

There is a suggestion, from a comparative review of this text with Paul’s letters that Paul, among the numerous early Hebrew Christians, used the version of John’s Gospel from which this passage came. References to the Siniatic Palimpsest may be found on the Internet. Unfortunately, many of the translations into English found under the search phrase “Siniatic Palimpsest” apply without justification the more conventional “he” rather than the “she” of the original language. Some Internet references, however, do acknowledge the proper “she”.

The identification of the Holy Spirit as feminine in the Siniatic Palimpsest is no small matter, for this document is the oldest of all copies of the Gospels, being dated to the second century A.D. It is a recognized principle of textual interpretation, even by the most conservative of Biblical scholars, that the older the text, the closer it is thought to be to the original Scripture. This is particularly important in light of the fact that there are no other Scriptural texts between it and the oldest Greek text dated to the fourth century A.D. One can only surmise that between the second and fourth centuries Scripture had been altered to substitute “he” for “she” in references to the Holy Spirit. Even then, at least one reference to the Holy Spirit as “she”, apparently having been overlooked in the switch, was allowed to remain. As Romans 9:25 reads in our King James Bible,

“As he saith also in Osee [Hosea], I will call them my people, who were not my people; and her beloved, who was not beloved.”

Despite the overt mistranslation of the pronoun “She” to “It” or “He” in modern English translations of Scripture, these modified versions still provide sufficient evidence of the feminine nature of the Holy Spirit to convince all but the most reactionary of individuals. Among the most assertive in that regard is the Glory of God, the Hebrew feminine Shekinah, who indwelt the temples at their dedication. The obvious connection between the feminine Shekinah described in Exodus 40 and 1 Kings 8 and the indwelling Holy Spirit described in the Book of the Acts of the Apostles and referred to by Paul is, of itself, overwhelming evidence of the feminine gender of the Holy Spirit. The link between the Holy Spirit and the Shekinah Glory is also supported as well by the many references to “Eloah”, a feminine term for God in the Hebrew Scriptures, and the recognition of feminine expressions of God in the books of Job and Judges, as acknowledged by at least one expert in the specialized field of ancient Hebrew.

Why would Church authorities be so boldly heretic as to deliberately alter Scripture as to mislead the Church regarding the gender of the Holy Spirit and to remove all traces of sexuality from God? A number of possibilities have been raised by multiple scholars, among which two stand out as particularly plausible candidates. First, the Gnostic Christian community, which adhered to a feminine Holy Spirit, went overboard on some of its misunderstandings of Christianity, and was considered to be a dangerously heretic sect; in its attempt to stamp out this notion of God, the community that eventually came to represent mainstream Christianity engaged in a wholesale rejection of its precepts, in effect throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Second, the presence of femininity within the Godhead came perilously close to pagan theology, which involved the worship of divine families consisting of father, mother and son, and was often given to lewd ritualistic behavior, as lamented by Augustine among others. Here again, in her attempt to separate herself from these other religions, mainstream Christianity rejected the notion of a divine family out of hand, once more tossing the baby out with the bathwater.

A number of modern Bible scholars agree as to Old Testament references to the Holy Spirit in unambiguously feminine terms. This goes beyond grammatical considerations. R. P. Nettelhorst, for example, Professor of Bible and Bible Languages at Quartz Hill School of Theology in Antelope Valley, California, who is an expert in the Hebrew language, changed his thinking on the gender of the Holy Spirit upon coming across undeniably feminine references to the Holy Spirit in the Book of Judges. After further research, he found the femininity to be scattered about in various locations in the Old Testament, beginning at Genesis 1. Other scholars have found the same feminine descriptors elsewhere, including the Book of Job.

[to be continued]

SCRIPTURAL SUGGESTIONS OF THE FEMININITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (CONTINUATION #1)

SCRIPTURAL SUGGESTIONS OF THE FEMININITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (CONTINUATION #1)

Link Between Proverbs and the Holy Spirit

In passages that describe Her presence alongside the Divine Father during the creation epic, the female Persona in the Book of Proverbs is identified as the Holy Spirit. Throughout Proverbs, Wisdom acquires a distinct Personhood and is cast in the role of complementary companion to the Father in the act of creation, which is a distinctly female role.

The prevailing understanding of the Book of Proverbs is that its personification of Wisdom is simply a literary device and was never intended to represent an actual Person. But in opposition to this view, Wisdom in the original Greek has a name of a person, and that name is Sophia. Sophia has a history of being linked, in the Jewish and early Christian religions, with the Personhood of the Holy Spirit.

Jesus Himself, in Luke 7:35, associates Wisdom with motherhood, an eminently personal attribute.

“But wisdom is justified of all her children.”

While that verse possibly could be interpreted as being merely a figure of speech, Jesus in Luke 11:49 and 50 more emphatically personifies Wisdom:

“Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute, that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation.”

I also disagree with the associated prevailing Protestant presupposition that Proverbs 8 refers to Jesus Christ, as well as the prevailing Catholic presupposition that Proverbs 8 refers to Mary, because in both cases the presuppositions simply don’t fit the context of that chapter. I also could cite Proverbs 9 and 31 in that regard, and Psalm 104:30 which links creation with the Holy Spirit. (Job 26:13 is similar in that regard.)

The Persona of the Holy Spirit is female throughout; an attempt to assign some of these passages to Jesus Christ, as many do, would constitute an unnatural force-fit, most obviously in the issue of gender, but also with respect to function and role. The frequent Catholic attribution of Wisdom to Mary faces the equally grave difficulty of linking Mary with capabilities such as creation that are reserved for God alone. The attempt to link Wisdom with the Virgin Mary is unsustainable in the light of Mary’s full humanity and consequent absence in the creation epic, wherein according to Chapter 8 Wisdom was at the side of the Father during the process of creation.

On the other hand, the Book of Proverbs beautifully and harmoniously supports a female functional designation for the Holy Spirit. Of particular interest in this regard are Proverbs 3 and 8, from which the following excerpts are taken:

“Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. . .She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. . .The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. . .Doth not wisdom cry? And understanding put forth her voice? . . .The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favor of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.”

These passages suggest a connection between Wisdom and the Holy Spirit as furnishing the most likely Person to which a female function may be assigned; they also suggest that the Holy Spirit was active in creation itself, as summarized in Genesis 1:1-3:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”

In the context of Scripture’s general treatment of the Holy Spirit, the passage in Genesis quoted above more than suggests that the Father was assisted by or in union with the Holy Spirit in the act of creation, the result being, as Jesus Himself suggested in Revelation 3:14 in declaring Himself the beginning of the creation of God, a manifestation of the Son.

In further support of my equation of Wisdom with the Holy Spirit, I cite Isaiah 11:1 and 2:

“And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots; And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord,. . .”

Any attempt at a rebuttal to the association of Proverbs with the Holy Spirit must address Proverbs 3:19 in the context of Genesis 1:1-5, Proverbs 8:22-36, Job 26:13 and Psalm 104:30. The attempt to attribute Proverbs 8 to Jesus rather than the Holy Spirit must explain the out-of-context insertion into material descriptive of Wisdom, as well as the feminine description of Wisdom throughout the Book of Proverbs as opposed to the depiction of Jesus throughout Scripture as strongly masculine and the image of the Father.

Wisdom, as depicted in Proverbs, is strongly female and only female. The attempt at rebuttal to the contrary must also avoid taking the Jungian notion of the human psyche, both male and female, as containing both masculine and feminine elements, and extrapolating it to his notion of the Trinity. There are logical difficulties in doing so, as described below.

Scripture rather exclusively associates the Father with the Divine Will, which, as an initiating role, also is exclusively masculine. Similarly, Jesus the Son is presented in Scripture as the Divine Representation which, as the perfect image in reality of the Father would also be predominantly masculine. The masculine predominance of Jesus is given further weight by Paul’s characterization in Ephesians 5 of Jesus as the Bridegroom of the (functionally feminine) Church. In Family of God I simply noted what to me was an obvious connecting function of the Holy Spirit between Father and Son: the Divine Means which, in union with the Divine Will, gave birth to the Divine Implementation in reality (Divine Representation). Obviously, this Divine Means, being so closely linked with the other two Members, is also Deity. Because the Divine Means performed a function that was responsive to the Will, an obviously female role, I attached a female gender to this Person. Scripture and Christian tradition both understand this third Member of the Trinity to be the Holy Spirit.

Another item that presents itself in a reading of Proverbs with an eye to the Personhood of Wisdom is the implied intimacy between mankind and Wisdom in the warning given in Proverbs 8:36: he that sins against Wisdom wrongs his own soul. Could this imply that our own purpose and function in the spiritual realm might actually parallel that of the Holy Spirit? There may well be a correlation between this caution and the one expressed by Jesus in Matthew 12:31 and 32:

“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”

These are strong words, and they make a strong connection between Wisdom and the Holy Spirit. Perhaps theologians instinctively sense this correlation. Perhaps also not wishing to shoot themselves in the foot and instead of attempting to truly understand what is being said here, they duck away from presenting anything controversial regarding the Holy Spirit. Historically, that has certainly been the situation with numerous theological expositions regarding the Holy Spirit, all of which end up complicating an extremely simple understanding of the nature of the Trinity by claiming that ultimately man is unable to grasp it.

As a final comment regarding my association of Proverb’s Wisdom with the Holy Spirit, I note that Church Father Irenaeus of the second century A.D., commonly accepted as a respected Church Father, also directly equated Wisdom with the Holy Spirit. That he seems not to have made the obvious connection of Wisdom with femininity may be attributed to his strong aversion to Gnosticism, whose adherents generally believed in a feminine Holy Spirit. His attack of Gnosticism in his tome Against Heresies is quite humorous at times, as I described in my novel Buddy. A sample is offered below:

“’Now what follows from all this [description of some of Marcion’s more outlandish claims]? No light tragedy comes out of it, as the fancy of every man among them pompously explains, one in one way, and another in another, from what kind of passion and from what element being derived its origin. They have good reason, it seems to me, why they should not feel inclined to teach these things to all in public, but only to such as are able to pay a high price for an acquaintance with such profound mysteries. For these doctrines are not at all similar to those of which our Lord said, ‘Freely ye have received, freely give.’ They are, on the contrary, abstruse, and portentous, and profound mysteries, to be got at only with great labour by such as are in love with falsehood. For who would not expend [all] that he possessed, if only he might learn in return, that from the tears of the enthymesis of the AEon involved in passion, seas, and fountains, and rivers, and every liquid substance derived its origin; that light burst forth from her smile; and that from her perplexity and consternation the corporeal elements of the world had their formation?

‘I feel somewhat inclined myself to contribute a few hints towards the development of their system. For when I perceive that waters are in part fresh, such as fountains, rivers, showers, and so on, and in part salt; such as those in the sea, I reflect with myself that all such waters cannot be derived from her tears, inasmuch as these are of a saline quality only. It is clear, therefore, that the waters which are salt are alone those which are derived from her tears. But it is probable that she, in her intense agony and perplexity, was covered with perspiration. And hence, following our notion, we may conceive that fountains and rivers, and all the fresh water in the world, are due to this source. For it is difficult, since we know that all tears are of the same quality, to believe that waters both salt and fresh proceeded from them. The more plausible supposition is, that some are from her tears, and some from her perspiration. And since there are also in the world certain waters which are hot and acrid in their nature, thou must be left to guess their origin, how and whence. Such are some of the results of their hypothesis.’”

Jesus’ Marital Relationship with His Church

This relationship, which was explored in the posting “Why the Spiritual Marriage Between Jesus and His Church is Substantive and Fully Functional”, demonstrates the existence of gender and its associate romance in the spiritual domain. A summary of the topics covered in that posting are noted below. The reader can refer to the posting itself for more details.

Paul’s stunning statement in Ephesians 5:31,32 regarding Jesus’ marriage to His Church contains multiple elements that identify this marriage as much more than merely a figure of speech.

Romans 7:4 corroborates Jesus’ marriage to His Church; beyond that, it identifies the union as creatively productive.

Jesus first miracle described in John 2, the wedding in Cana, identifies Jesus as anticipating with joy His own future spiritual marriage.

In the parables of the marriage feast (Matthew 22) and the ten virgins (Matthew 25), Jesus describes His own future marriage without ambiguity as an important and joyful occasion.

Isaiah 54, as a follow-on to the great messianic Chapter 53, is a passionate statement of Jesus’ future marriage and is summarized as such by Paul in Galatians 4:27.

The Song of Solomon is a romantic, explicit depiction of the bonding between male and female; it would not belong in the Bible if gender had no place in the spiritual realm.

[to be continued]

SCRIPTURAL SUGGESTIONS OF THE FEMININITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

SCRIPTURAL SUGGESTIONS OF THE FEMININITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

The Shekinah Glory

The Shekinah Glory who indwelt the Tabernacle in the Wilderness (Exodus 40) and Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 8) is recognized as feminine. This same Shekinah Glory is intimately linked to the Holy Spirit through the corresponding indwelling of Christians who are described in 1 Corinthians 3 and Ephesians 2 as living temples of God.

That the Old Testament Shekinah is the New Testament’s Holy Spirit is manifestly evident in the precursor role to the indwelling Holy Spirit of the Shekinah Glory who indwelt both the Tabernacle in the wilderness and Solomon’s Temple at their dedications. Since it has been claimed that the word Shekinah does not exist in the Hebrew Scriptures in its noun form (the situation there being similar to the absence in the Bible of a noun form of the word baptize), the following commentary will be made regarding its origin before proceeding with examples of the Shekinah presence.

In the Hebrew Targum, the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, the word Shekinah is used as a noun. It means “intimate dwelling” or “the presence of the Glory of the Lord”. Justification for the use of this word is the use in the Hebrew Scriptures of its root word “shachan”, referring particularly to the pillars of cloud and fire that accompanied the Israelites in their journey from Egypt to the Promised Land through the wilderness. The prophet Isaiah referred to it quite graphically in Isaiah 4:5 and 6, linking this pillar of cloud and fire to a covering presence. It is generally understood that this same pillar is referenced in Isaiah 51:9 and 10, where the prophet goes out of his way to describe by feminine pronouns the same pillar of cloud and fire that accompanied the Israelites on their journey from Egypt. The Targum interpretation leaves no doubt that the Shekinah Glory is a feminine presence, and represents an equivalence with a feminine Holy Spirit. Isaiah 4:5 and 6, and 51:9 and 10 read as follows:

“And the Lord will create upon every dwelling place of Mount Zion , and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for upon all the glory shall be a defense. And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain.”

“Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not she who hast cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon? Art thou not she who has dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; who hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?”

Exodus 40 and 1 Kings 8 provide prominent examples of the Shekinah as a precursor to the indwelling Holy Spirit of the New Testament. Exodus 40:33-38 describes the indwelling of the Tabernacle in the wilderness:

“And [Moses] reared up the court round about the tabernacle and the altar, and set up the hanging of the court gate. So Moses finished the work.

“Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And when the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward in all their journeys; but if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up. For the cloud of the Lord was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys.”

The description “cloud of the Lord” , “fire by night” and “taken up” leaves no doubt that this “cloud” is equivalent to the Shekinah of the Red Sea adventure and of Isaiah 4:5. The corresponding incident with respect to Solomon’s Temple, taken from 1 Kings 8:6-13, is given below:

And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord unto its place, into the inner sanctuary of the house, into the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubim. For the cherubim spread forth their two wings of the place of the ark, and the cherubim covered the ark and its staves above. And they drew out the staves, that the ends of the staves were seen out in the holy place before the inner sanctuary, but they were not seen outside; and there they are unto this day. There was nothing in the ark except the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord. Then spoke Solomon, The Lord said he would dwell in the thick darkness. I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in forever.”

In this passage the meaning of “cloud” is closely linked with “dwelling place” and “glory of the Lord”, which again point to the phrase Shekinah Glory.

The connection between these precursor events and the Holy Spirit who indwells Christian believers is given in 1 Corinthians 3:16 and Ephesians 2:19-22, wherein Paul asserts that the Church herself, through her constituents, is a temple indwelt by the Holy Spirit:

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are built together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

The facts embedded in these passages are no surprise to Christians, who generally accept without question that believers are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and comprise, as the Church, a holy temple. What some of us may not be aware of is that this temple and its indwelling by the Holy Spirit was represented numerous times as the Glory of God in the Old Testament. Turning to the Internet, the Wikipedia entry for “Shekinah” begins as follows:

“Hebrew [Shekinah] is the English spelling of a grammatically feminine Hebrew ancient blessing. The original word means the dwelling or settling, and denotes the dwelling or settling of the divine presence of God, especially in the temple in Jerusalem.” An accompanying figure shows the Shekinah, or the Glory of God, indwelling the temple as described in 1 Kings 8.”

Noting the female gender of this indwelling Shekinah, we find here by comparing the indwelling presence of the Glory in Solomon’s temple with the description in Ephesians 2 of the Holy Spirit indwelling the human temple that Scripture itself, by furnishing this direct comparison, supports an interpretation of the Holy Spirit as a female Entity in the face of conventional Christian thought, as driven by the use in Scripture of the male pronoun in reference to the Holy Spirit.

This feminine gender attribute in Exodus 40 and 1 Kings 8 may have been simply lost in the translation from Hebrew (Aramaic) to English, which could have been a result of the lack of gender precision in the English language. (Actually, the first transference from feminine to masculine occurred in the Latin, for which the Holy Spirit was definitely presented as male.) But there is an associated gender misrepresentation in Isaiah 51:9, 10 that appears to be more deliberate. What the translators did in that passage was to substitute the grammatically incorrect ‘it’ for the gender-correct ‘she’ in reference to Shekinah. In their desire to maintain a fully masculine Godhead, they neutered the female.

Reconciliation of Monotheism with the Holy Trinity

The only logical way that the Judeo-Christian monotheism may be reconciled to the general Judeo-Christian understanding of the Godhead as being a Trinity is to perceive the Godhead as representing a tightly-knit Family. The issue arises through the identification of the Trinitarian Godhead as one in Deuteronomy 6:4 and 5:

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.”

It is quite difficult, if not impossible, given the prevailing understanding of the Godhead, to reconcile a Trinitarian Godhead with the oneness of God as given in Deuteronomy 6. The prevailing view of a genderless fellowship simply doesn’t evoke the notion of unity demanded in the above passage, or of Jesus’ description of it as the greatest commandment of God toward mankind.

How could three be considered as one? Even Islam struggles with that, to the extent that this religion is so strictly monotheistic as to deny the Christian Trinity as being fully God. Within Christianity, the ‘Jesus Only’ Church does the same, as did some early heresies within the Christian Church, including Arianism.

Actually the only way that the Trinity can be reconciled intuitively with monotheism is in the context of a Divine Family. I noted in my book Family of God the dramatic change in comprehension of the Godhead that resulted from this insight:

“Surely by raising this issue [of monotheism in a Trinitarian setting] we have placed ourselves in the midst of a basic conflict, one that was not resolved when Jesus came to the earth in the flesh, nor has it been settled in the two millennia since that event. Perhaps, given the assault on family values experienced by our generation, the timing is appropriate for God to favor this same generation with an understanding, rich in information as to His own nature, which will lead to a resolution of this conflict. It is with this hope that we continue our review, searching Scripture for something we may have missed before.”

“As would be expected, God furnished man with His own straightforward answer to the paradox of His triune nature. It is profound in its simplicity and astonishingly beautiful in form. In the second chapter of Genesis, Adam speaks thus:

“’And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.’

“The essence of this passage was repeated by Jesus and later by Paul. In the contexts in which it was presented, it is obviously of importance to God. Could there be a significant relation between the unity of flesh in marriage and the unity of spirit, as was often claimed by Jesus, between the Father and Him, and in fact, among the three Members of the Holy Trinity?”

[to be continued]

REBUTTALS TO CLAIMS THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NOT FEMININE (CONTINUED)

REBUTTALS TO CLAIMS THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NOT FEMININE (CONTINUED)

Lingering references in modern Bibles of a feminine Holy Spirit

There actually are references in current mainstream Bible translations to the Holy Spirit by the pronoun “She”. In Romans 9:25 of the King James Version, Paul uses “her” in referring to the Holy Spirit:

“As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, who were not my people; and her beloved, who was not beloved.”

Again, in Romans 1:20, Paul’s reference to the Godhead is made in the feminine derivative of the word “theos”.

Furthermore, it is known that in Scriptural translations of Isaiah 51:9 and 10 in the Nicene era and later, the reference to the feminine Arm of the Lord was deliberately switched from “she” to the neuter “It”.

In Isaiah 51:9 and 10, for example, the King James Version reads:

“Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not it who hast cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon? Art thou not it who hast dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; who hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?”

The original, however, read as follows, and some Bible scholars assert that the neutering was deliberate, as the grammatical construction of the original text prohibits any other interpretation of it than a feminine description:

“Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not She who hast cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon? Art thou not She who hast dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; who hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?”

Claims that romance and passion are not intrinsic to God or the spiritual realm

Scripture itself contradicts claims that God might be above the romance and passion intrinsic to a fully-functional spiritual marriage. Examples include the Song of Solomon, Jesus’ passion in the Garden of Gethsemane, and Jesus’ discourse on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24).

Many theologians insist upon interpreting the feminine imagery in the Book of Proverbs as simply figures of speech. Correspondingly, Proverbs is depersonalized, being considered at most an attribute of the Godhead. This view is contradicted by the intensely personal nature of Proverbs 3 and 8 and their link to the role of the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1:1,2. It is further disallowed by the direct personalization of Wisdom and the equation of Wisdom with the Holy Spirit in the Book of Wisdom, which is canonical in the Catholic religion.

Many pastors, having interpreted 1 Timothy 2 as limiting the role of women in Church, shy away from the thought of conferring Godhood on a female. Given the general responsive role of women as described in Scripture and Eve’s obvious misapplication of that role, Paul’s commentary in 1 Corinthians 2 actually supports the notion of a feminine Holy Spirit.

Some pastors point to mention of the Church as the Body of Christ in Ephesians 5 and elsewhere as conflicting with a meaningful role for the Church as the Bride of Christ. A careful reading of Ephesians 5 contradicts this apparent conflict: Ephesians 5:31 directly identifies the male/female union as a mutual ownership of each other. This ownership, in a possessive sense, assigns the wife’s (Church’s) body as the body of her husband.

There is a centuries-long tradition within virtually all Western Churches of a male Holy Spirit. A feminine Holy Spirit would go against the grain of this tradition. However, tradition isn’t Scripture, there are readily understandable reasons as to why the switch from the original was made, and there are understandable, albeit selfish, reasons as to why there haven’t been more disputes in that regard over the years.

It wasn’t always that way. In the Hebrew Old Testament, the Holy Spirit, as the Ruah or Shekinah, was viewed as feminine. Aided by Justin Martyr, the early Gnostic controversy within Christianity, Augustine and Jerome Zanchius, the switch to masculinity occurred in the New Testament.

Foremost in the minds of many of the new Christians were the lewd and disgusting bacchanalias associated with the devotions to the Greek and Roman gods, who themselves were prone to bouts of lust and sexual perversions. In sharp contrast to the gross depravity of these gods, Jesus stood apart, radiant in shining moral splendor. At a time of rampant sexual excess, Jesus’ Words sparkled like swords of righteousness and were taken deeply to heart. Among these were His own pronouncements of the place of sexuality within the Christian economy, which were immortalized in Scripture. His Words that are handed down to us in Matthew 19 must have been very important to the new Christians:

“The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause? And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read that he who made them at the beginning, made them male and female; and said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore, they are no more twain, but one flesh. What, therefore, God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? He saith unto them, Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to put away your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery; and whosoever marrieth her who is put away doth commit adultery.

“His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry. But he said unto them, All men cannot receive this saying, except they to whom it is given. For there are some eunuchs, who were so born from their mother’s womb; and there are some eunuchs, who were made eunuchs by men; and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

The new Christians, in overlooking much of what Jesus actually was teaching, placed a heavy emphasis on the latter part of this saying by Jesus, the part that dealt with eunuchs. It may have called to mind a piece of Old Testament Scripture, verse five of David’s fifty-first Psalm, attaching to it a meaning that went beyond the words:

“Behold, I was shaped in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.”

This passage was written after Nathan confronted David with a scathing rebuke over David’s murderous lust for Uriah’s wife Bathsheba, and was an expression of guilt, which very much included his own, over the baseness of motivation behind some sexual unions.

Paul, too, in support of the Christian desire for moral cleanliness and writing to a Church that was in danger of returning to the materialism of society at large, added his obviously conflicted opinion of the meaning of sexual purity and the role of women within the Christian economy, but questioning himself as he did so as to whether he was writing on behalf of the Holy Spirit, or whether his was doing so entirely on his own. In 1 Corinthians 7:1 and 2, 25-40, he said this:

“Now concerning the things about which ye wrote unto me, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. . . .
“Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment of the Lord; yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful. I suppose, therefore, that this is good for the present distress, I say, that it is good for a man so to be. Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? Seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless, such shall have trouble in the flesh; but I spare you. But this I say, brethren, The time is short; it remaineth that both they that have wives be as though they had none; and they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; and they that use this world, as not abusing it; for the fashion of this world passeth away. But I would not have you without care. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is a difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit; but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction. But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not; let them marry. Nevertheless, he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will, and hath so decreed in his heart that he will keep his virgin, doeth well. So, then, he that giveth her in marriage doeth well; but he that giveth her not in marriage doeth better. The wife is bound by the law as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to when she will, only in the Lord. But she is happier if she so abide, after my judgment; and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.”

Although Paul repeatedly noted that the union between man and wife is not sinful, it was his admonition that life as a eunuch was better, in that it permitted undiluted focus to the Lord. It was that sentiment which stood out in the early Christian mind as the golden standard of behavior.

That standard was expressed, for example, by Justin the Martyr in his first apology for (defense of) Christianity, as compiled in the book Early Christian Fathers, edited by Cyril C. Richardson. This commentary was written around the middle of the second century A.D., about a half century after the Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation. In it, Justin echoed the sentiment of Paul regarding sexual circumspection:

“About continence [Jesus] said this: ‘Whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart before God.’ And: ‘If your right eye offends you, cut it out; it is better for you to enter into the kingdom of Heaven with one eye than with two to be sent into eternal fire.’ And: ‘Whoever marries a woman who has been put away from another man commits adultery.’ And: ‘There are some who were made eunuchs by men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake; only not all [are able to] receive this.

“And so those who make second marriages according to human law are sinners in the sight of our Teacher, and those who look on a woman to lust after her. For he condemns not only the man who commits the act of adultery, but the man who desires to commit adultery, since not only our actions but our thoughts are manifest to God. Many men and women now in their sixties and seventies who have been disciples of Christ from childhood have preserved their purity; and I am proud that I could point to such people in every nation. . . But to begin with, we do not marry except in order to bring up children, or else, renouncing marriage, we live in perfect continence. To show you that promiscuous intercourse is not among our mysteries – just recently one of us submitted a petition to the Prefect Felix in Alexandria, asking that a physician be allowed to make him a eunuch, for the physicians there said they were not allowed to do this without the permission of the Prefect. When Felix would by no means agree to endorse [the petition], the young man remained single, satisfied with [the approval of] his own conscience and that of his fellow believers.”

Two and a half centuries later Augustine experienced much the same revulsion as Justin did over the moral tawdriness of the Roman society in which he lived. Having become a Christian thirty two years after his birth in 354 A.D., Augustine had spent much of his dissolute pre-Christian years in the enjoyment of the depravity of the society in which he lived. The shame and regret of these early years served to drive Augustine into a passionate rejection of loose morality and unbridled lust. The strength of his feelings in that regard are demonstrated throughout his book City of God, an example of which is given in Chapters 4 and 5 of Book II:

“When I was a young man I used to go to sacrilegious shows and entertainments. I watched the antics of madmen; I listened to singing boys; I thoroughly enjoyed the most degrading spectacles put on in honour of gods and goddesses – in honour of the Heavenly Virgin, of of Berecynthia, mother of all. On the yearly festival of Berecynthia’s purification the lowest kind of actors sang, in front of her litter, songs unfit for the ears of even the mother of one of those mountebanks, to say nothing of the mother of any decent citizen, or of a senator; while as for the Mother of the Gods – ! For there is something in the natural respect we have towards our parents that the extreme of infamy cannot wholly destroy; and certainly those very mountebanks would be ashamed to give a rehearsal performance in their homes, before their mothers, of those disgusting verbal and acted obscenities. Yet they performed them in the presence of the Mother of the Gods before an immense audience of spectators of both sexes. If those spectators were enticed by curiosity to gather in profusion, they ought at least to have dispersed in confusion at the insults to their modesty.

“If these were sacred rites, what is meant by sacrilege? If this is purification, what is meant by pollution? And the name of the ceremony is ‘the fercula’, which might suggest the giving of a dinner-party where the unclean demons could enjoy a feast to their liking. Who could fail to realize what kind of spirits they are which could enjoy such obscenities? Only a man who refused to recognize even the existence of any unclean spirits who deceive men under the title of gods, or one whose life was such that he hoped for the favour and feared the anger of such gods, rather than that of the true God.

Augustine was enormously influential to the Christian Church at a time when Church doctrine was still being formulated and heresies were still emerging, to be debated upon and rejected. In his wake, the Church charted a course that polarized itself away from any hint of the depravities associated with the corrupt gods and goddesses of the world about her. This extremity of purification, for which purity was equated with chasitity, cleansed the Judeo-Christian God of any taint of sexuality.

A thousand years later, this insistence upon purity had not only remained, but had crystallized into a rigid perfectionism, enshrined by the medieval cleric Jerome Zanchius, a rigid adherent of the heavenly perfection envisioned by Aristotle and Ptolemy. Zanchius, in his rather pretentious work Absolute Predestination Stated and Defined, included some Scripturally unjustified statements regarding the nature of God, of which the following excerpts are representative:

“I.—When love is predicated of God, we do not mean that He is possessed of it as a passion or affection. In us it is such, but if, considered in that sense, it should be ascribed to the Deity, it would be utterly subversive of the simplicity, perfection and independency of His being. Love, therefore, when attributed to Him, signifies—
“(l) His eternal benevolence, i.e., His everlasting will, purpose and determination to deliver, bless and save His people. Of this, no good works wrought by them are in any sense the cause. Neither are even the merits of Christ Himself to be considered as any way moving or exciting this good will of God to His elect, since the gift of Christ, to be their Mediator and Redeemer, is itself an effect of this free and eternal favour borne to them by God the Father (John 3.16). His love towards them arises merely from “the good pleasure of His own will,” without the least regard to anything ad extra or out of Himself.
“(2) The term implies complacency, delight and approbation. With this love God cannot love even His elect as considered in themselves, because in that view they are guilty, polluted sinners, but they were, from all eternity, objects of it, as they stood united to Christ and partakers of His righteousness.
“(3) Love implies actual beneficence, which, properly speaking, is nothing else than the effect or accomplishment of the other two: those are the cause of this. This actual beneficence respects all blessings, whether of a temporal, spiritual or eternal nature. Temporal good things are indeed indiscriminately bestowed in a greater or less degree on all, whether elect or reprobate, but they are given in a covenant way and as blessings to the elect only, to whom also the other benefits respecting grace and glory are peculiar. And this love of beneficence, no less than that of benevolence and complacency, is absolutely free, and irrespective of any worthiness in man.
Given this unnecessary but historical antagonism between Christianity and gender, one may readily perceive how tempting it must have been to downplay gender in Scripture by “correcting” certain references to it.

REVISITING FRIEND OF THE FAMILY

REVISITING FRIEND OF THE FAMILY

Several years have passed since I posted my initial Friend of the Family entries on this blog site. My motivation at the time for those postings was my conviction, in the face of general Church tradition to the contrary, that the Holy Spirit possessed a gender, and that moreover that gender was feminine.

Back then I included several Scripturally-based reasons for my contention of the femininity of the Holy Spirit. Now, several years later, that conviction remains. It is, in fact, stronger than ever. Over the years since those initial postings, a number of additional Scriptural suggestions of that femininity have come to my attention. In the next few postings I’ll share with you a more comprehensive set of Scriptural suggestions that point to a feminine Holy Spirit. But first, before developing them in logical fashion, I’ll summarize here all the suggestions that come to mind at this point in time.

These suggestions are developed in three phases. In the first phase, the full functional nature of Jesus’ spiritual marriage to His Church is presented as a means of countering the prevailing Christian misunderstanding of that marriage as being without significant substance, as that marriage is an important element of the association of the Holy Spirit with femininity. In the second phase, rebuttals are presented against claims that the Holy Spirit is not feminine. Thirdly, overt Scriptural suggestions of the femininity of the Holy Spirit are presented.

FUNCTIONAL MARRIAGE BETWEEN JESUS AND HIS CHURCH

Paul’s stunning statement in Ephesians 5:31,32 regarding Jesus’ marriage to His Church contains multiple elements that identify this marriage as much more than merely a figure of speech.

Romans 7:4 corroborates Jesus’ marriage to His Church; beyond that, it identifies the union as creatively productive.

Jesus first miracle described in John 2, the wedding in Cana, identifies Jesus as anticipating with joy His own future spiritual marriage.

In the parables of the marriage feast (Matthew 22) and the ten virgins (Matthew 25), Jesus describes His own future marriage without ambiguity as an important and joyful occasion.

Isaiah 54, as a follow-on to the great messianic Chapter 53, is a passionate statement of Jesus’ future marriage and is summarized as such by Paul in Galatians 4:27.

The Song of Solomon is a romantic, explicit depiction of the bonding between male and female; it would not belong in the Bible if gender had no place in the spiritual realm

SUMMARY OF REBUTTALS TO CLAIMS THAT HOLY SPIRIT IS NOT FEMININE

The claim has been made that since Galatians 3:28 and Matthew 22:29,30 describe humans in the spiritual realm as being gender-neutral, the spiritual realm doesn’t involve gender. This myopic and unjustified extension of statements beyond their meanings fails to take into account that whereas spiritual individuals will not be gendered, the Church, as an aggregate of individual components, will be gendered.

Jeremiah 10:12, in which God describes power and wisdom as belonging to Him, is cited as indicative that these are God’s own attributes. This claim fails to comprehend that the union between God and the Holy Spirit, being a romantic one, is also possessive. God here is speaking of the mutually possessive nature of marriage.

The “He” issue, for which the Holy Spirit is referred to in Scripture by masculine pronouns, may be resolved in two distinct ways, both of which permit the Holy Spirit to be viewed as functionally feminine while being composed of a masculine or neuter substance. Scripture’s treatment of spiritual humanity furnishes ample justification for viewing the HolyH Spirit to be functionally feminine and compositionally masculine, as suggested by Paul’s description of spiritual mankind as genderless in the face of his description of mankind’s aggregate as the Church as the wife of Christ. In the alternate but equally valid view there is also ample justification for appreciating that in the original autographs in the Hebrew and Aramaic languages, the Holy Spirit was perceived as feminine. Examples include John 14:26 in the version recorded in the Siniatic Palimpsest, Isiah 51:9,10 and Romans 9:25.

Scripture itself contradicts claims that God might be above the romance and passion intrinsic to a fully-functional spiritual marriage. Examples include the Song of Solomon, Jesus’ passion in the Garden of Gethsemane, and Jesus’ discourse on the road to Emmaus (Luke 24).

Many theologians insist upon interpreting the feminine imagery in the Book of Proverbs as simply figures of speech. Correspondingly, Proverbs is depersonalized, being considered at most an attribute of the Godhead. This view is contradicted by the intensely personal nature of Proverbs 3 and 8 and their link to the role of the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1:1,2. It is further disallowed by the direct personalization of Wisdom and the equation of Wisdom with the Holy Spirit in the Book of Wisdom, which is canonical in the Catholic religion.

Many pastors, having interpreted 1 Timothy 2 as limiting the role of women in Church, shy away from the thought of conferring Godhood on a female. Given the general responsive role of women as described in Scripture and Eve’s obvious misapplication of that role, Paul’s commentary in 1 Corinthians 2 actually supports the notion of a feminine Holy Spirit.

Some pastors point to mention of the Church as the Body of Christ in Ephesians 5 and elsewhere as conflicting with a meaningful role for the Church as the Bride of Christ. A careful reading of Ephesians 5 contradicts this apparent conflict: Ephesians 5:31 directly identifies the male/female union as a mutual ownership of each other. This ownership, in a possessive sense, assigns the wife’s (Church’s) body as the body of her husband.

There is a centuries-long tradition within virtually all Western Churches of a male Holy Spirit. A feminine Holy Spirit would go against the grain of this tradition. However, tradition isn’t Scripture, there are readily understandable reasons as to why the switch from the original was made, and there are understandable, albeit selfish, reasons as to why there haven’t been more disputes in that regard over the years.

SUMMARY OF SCRIPTURAL SUGGESTIONS OF THE FEMININITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

The Shekinah Glory who indwelt the Tabernacle in the Wilderness (Exodus 40) and Solomon’s Temple (1 Kings 8) is recognized as feminine. This same Shekinah Glory is intimately linked to the Holy Spirit through the corresponding indwelling of Christians who are described in 1 Corinthians 3 and Ephesians 2 as living temples of God.

The only logical way that the Judeo-Christian monotheism may be reconciled to the general Judeo-Christian understanding of the Godhead as being a Trinity is to perceive the Godhead as representing a tightly-knit Family.

Through passages that describe Her presence alongside the Divine Father during the creation epic, the female Persona in the Book of Proverbs is identified as the Holy Spirit.

Jesus’ fully functional marriage to His Church demonstrates the existence of gender and its associate romance in the spiritual domain.

Genesis 1:27 and 28 links the creation of man in God’s image as possessing gender; in Genesis 2 verses 18, 21 and 22 the detail of Eve’s formation out of Adam as being highly suggestive of the counterpart formation of the Holy Spirit out of the Father.

In Genesis 5, Adam and Eve are both named Adam, suggesting that Eve, while being functionally feminine, is also named after her masculine counterpart. This naming convention furnishes some justification for describing the Holy Spirit with masculine pronouns, although it should be kept in mind that the original Hebrew described the Holy Spirit in feminine terms.

It is generally recognized and specifically noted by Bible scholars that Scripture depicts the Holy Spirit as operating in an executive function, responsive to the Father’s Will. A responsive nature is distinctly feminine.Executive. Genesis 1:1,2 furnishes a specific example of the Holy Spirit operating responsively to the Father.

There are indications that the original Hebrew and Aramaic Scriptural texts depicted the Holy Spirit as feminine. Of particular interest in that regard is the Siniatic Palimpsest, in which Jesus describes the Holy Spirit as feminine.

The Book of Wisdom, which is canonical in the Catholic Bible, presents the Holy Spirit as feminine and directly links Her to Wisdom as presented in the Book of Proverbs.

Chapter 3 of the Gospel of John describes the Holy Spirit as possessing the function of spiritual birth. Birth, of course, is an eminently feminine attribute.

ARK OF THE COVENANT IN FLESH AND SPIRIT

ARK OF THE COVENANT IN FLESH AND SPIRIT

 

 

 

The Ark of the Covenant has an interesting and rather enigmatic history. Its fabrication was commanded by God to Moses at the time that Moses went up to Mount Sinai to receive the Ten Commandments.  God issued very specific instructions as to how it was to be constructed.  It had an intimate connection to the tabernacle in the wilderness and to Solomon’s Temple, where it occupied the Holy of Holies in both temples.  It was above the ark that the Shekinah Glory indwelt both houses of the Lord.

 

Details of the ark of the covenant are presented in Exodus 24:15-18, 25:1-22:

 

“And Moses went up into the mount, and a cloud covered the mount. And the glory of the Lord abode upon Mount Sinai, and the cloud covered it six days; and the seventh day he called unto Moses out of the midst of the cloud.  And the sight of the glory of the Lord was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.  And Moses went into the midst of the cloud, and got up into the mount; and Moses was in the mount forty days and forty nights.

 

          “And the Lord spoke unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering.  And this is the offering which ye shall take of them: gold, and silver, and bronze, and blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats’ hair, and rams’ skins dyed red, and badgers’ skins, and acacia wood, oil for the light, spices for anointing oil and for sweet incense, onyx stones, and stones to be set in the ephod and in the breastplate.

 

          “And let them make me a sanctuary, that I may dwell among them.  According to all that I show thee, after the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the furnishings thereof, even so shall ye make it.

 

          “And they shall make an ark of acacia wood: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof.  And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, within and without shalt thou overlay it, and shalt make upon it a rim of gold round about.  And thou shalt cast four fings of gold for it, and put them in the four corners thereof; and two rings shall be in one side of it, and two rings in the other side of it.  And thou shalt make staves of acacia wood, and overlay them with gold.  And thou shalt put the staves into the fings by the sides of the ark, that the ark may be borne with them.  The staves shall be in the rings of the ark; they shall not be taken from it.  And thou shalt put into the ark the testimony which I shall give thee.  And thou shalt make a mercy seat of pure gold: two cubits and a half shall be the length thereof, and a cubit and a half the breadth thereof.  And thou shalt make two cherubim of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat.  And make one cherub on the one end, and the other cherub on the other end: even of the mercy seat shall ye make the cherubim on the two ends thereof.  And the cherubim shall stretch forth their wings on high, covering the mercy seat with their wings, and their faces shall look one to another; toward the mercy seat shall the faces of the cherubim be.  And thou shalt put the mercy seat above upon the ark; and in the ark thou shalt put the testimony that I shall give thee.  And there I will meet with thee, and I will communewtih thee from above the mercy seat, from between the two cherubim which are upon the ark of the testimony, of all things which I will give thee in commandment unto the children of Israel.”

 

The testimony referred to in this passage consists of the stone tablets upon which God had written the Ten Commandments. According to Hebrews 9:4, the ark also contained the golden pot of manna and Aaron’s rod.  These artifacts spoke of the intimacy of God’s relationship with mankind, and of His power in fulfilling His Word.  According to 2 Chronicles 5:10, the pot of manna and Aaron’s rod were later removed. 

 

The ark was captured by the Philistines during one of Israel’s frequent fallings away from God.  During its return, it was touched with the result that the offender died.

 

The ark’s fate becomes murky after that; Isaiah was said to have buried it at the time that the ten northern nations of Israel were assaulted by Assyria and dispersed.  Other legend has it that King Menelek of Ethiopia, who was the offspring of David’s romance with Queen Sheba, stole it after having replaced it with an imitation and took it with him back to Ethiopia.  To this day either the real ark of the covenant or its duplicate is under heavy guard in the Ethiopian city of Axum.  The ark is mentioned in the Bible a final time in Revelation 11, but this ark is probably a much different one.

 

In my novel Jacob, book three of the four-book Buddy series, Earl Cook connects this later ark with the earlier one in his talk to fellow Christians in a Bible study:

 

“This one’s about the Ark of the Covenant. This ark was a wooden box, overlaid with gold and topped with two cherubs.  Inside the box were relics of past interactions between God and man, including the staff that Aaron used, the one that turned into a snake in front of pharaoh, and a sample of the life-sustaining bread that fell from heaven during the great exodus from Egypt and, most important, the tablets upon which God had written the Ten Commandments and which he gave to Moses on the mountain.  These tablets of the Law represented the first Word of God covenant between God and man, or the Old Testament.  The Ark of the Covenant was placed within the Holy of Holies of the Tabernacle in the wilderness, and later in Solomon’s temple.  At the dedication of both of these temples the glory of God, called the Shekinah, descended in a cloud and dwelt within the temples.  There is a great significance to this indwelling of the Shekinah glory, and I’ll probably go into it in another sermon.  But for now I want to focus on the Ark, which has had a very colorful history.  There’s a question as to whether Menelek, the queen of Sheba’s son with Solomon, went back to Ethiopia with a copy of it or actually had stolen the real thing.  To this day, that version is jealously guarded by Ethiopians.  Nevertheless, it was eventually lost.  Apparently, the prophet Jeremiah buried it in a cave toward the end of the sixth century B.C. when Jerusalem was in danger of being overrun by enemy forces.  There’s another story in that too, but to forge ahead, the Ark of the Covenant is finally mentioned again toward the end of the Bible, in the Book of Revelation, where John sees it in heaven.  But this may be a different Ark altogether.

 

“Let me tell you why. In Revelation 12, immediately after John’s sighting of the Ark in heaven, he goes on to describe another heavenly wonder: a woman clothed with the sun, who gives birth to a man-child who is to rule the world, obviously Jesus.  This woman has variously been identified as several different personages by people of differing faiths, each one being the favorite of one faith or another.  Many have thought of this woman as representing Israel.  Catholics have picked up on this passage, claiming her to be Mary.  For reasons that I won’t go into now, I don’t think that’s quite accurate.  But it’s very close.  Whether this woman actually is Mary or not, it does evoke an image that makes me want to say, ‘Of course!  It can be no other way.’  That image, which I cherish now with all my heart, I know to be true, and I want to share it with you now.  Mary herself, in containing the Word of God in her womb, was herself the flesh-and-blood Ark of the New Covenant in Jesus Christ.  That may well have been the Ark that John saw in heaven.”

 

But there may also be a yet greater Person to whom this later ark may be attributed, wherein the connection is spiritual rather than fleshly. The Biblical account of this ark is presented in Revelation 11:19 through 12:17:

 

          “And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his covenant; and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderclaps, and an earthquake, and great hail.

 

          “And there appeared a great wonder in heaven – a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.  And she, being with child, cried, travealing in birth, and pained to be delivered.

 

          “And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and, behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.  And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven and did cast them to the earth; and the dragon stood before the worman who was ready to be delivered, to devour her child as soon as it was born.

 

          “And she brought forth a male child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.  And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

 

          “And there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven.  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil and Satan, who deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.  And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ; for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, who accused them before our God day and night.  And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.  Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them.  Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and of the sea!  For the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.

 

          “And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman who brought forth the male child.  And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.  And the serpent cast out of his mouth water like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood.  And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.  And the dragon was angry with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, who keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.”

 

The possible spiritual connection is described in Chapter 8 of my nonfiction book Marching to a Worthy Drummer, wherein I link the Shekinah Glory to the Holy Spirit, noting that this connection is a very direct suggestion to the Holy Spirit’s femininity:

 

“Exodus 40 and 1 Kings 8 provide prominent examples of the Shekinah as a precursor to the indwelling Holy Spirit of the New Testament.  Exodus 40:33-38 describes the indwelling of the Tabernacle in the wilderness:

 

“And [Moses] reared up the court round about the tabernacle and the altar, and set up the hanging of the court gate. So Moses finished the work.

 

          “Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.  And when the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward in all their journeys; but if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up.  For the cloud of the Lord was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys.”

 

“The description “cloud of the Lord” , “fire by night” and “taken up” leaves no doubt that this “cloud” is equivalent to the Shekinah of the Red Sea adventure and of Isaiah 4:5. The corresponding incident with respect to Solomon’s Temple, taken from 1 Kings 8:6-13, is given below:

 

And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord unto its place, into the inner sanctuary of the house, into the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubim. For the cherubim spread forth their two wings of the place of the ark, and the cherubim covered the ark and its staves above.  And they drew out the staves, that the ends of the staves were seen out in the holy place before the inner sanctuary, but they were not seen outside; and there they are unto this day.  There was nothing in the ark except the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt.  And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord.  Then spoke Solomon, The Lord said he would dwell in the thick darkness.  I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in forever.” 

 

“In this passage the meaning of “cloud” is closely linked with “dwelling place” and “glory of the Lord”, which again point to the phrase Shekinah Glory.

 

“The connection between these precursor events and the Holy Spirit who indwells Christian believers is given in 1 Corinthians 3:16 and Ephesians 2:19-22, wherein Paul asserts that the Church herself, through her constituents, is a temple indwelt by the Holy Spirit:

 

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

 

          Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are built together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

 

“The facts embedded in these passages are no surprise to Christians, who generally accept without question that believers are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and comprise, as the Church, a holy temple. What some of us may not be aware of is that this temple and its indwelling by the Holy Spirit was represented numerous times as the Glory of God in the Old Testament.  Turning to the Internet, the Wikipedia entry for “Shekinah” begins as follows:

 

“Hebrew [Shekinah] is the English spelling of a grammatically feminine Hebrew ancient blessing. The original word means the dwelling or settling, and denotes the dwelling or settling of the divine presence of God, especially in the temple in Jerusalem.” An accompanying figure shows the Shekinah, or the Glory of God, indwelling the temple as described in 1 Kings 8.”

 

“Noting the female gender of this indwelling Shekinah, we find here by comparing the indwelling presence of the Glory in Solomon’s temple with the description in Ephesians 2 of the Holy Spirit indwelling the human temple that Scripture itself, by furnishing this direct comparison, supports an interpretation of the Holy Spirit as a female Entity in the face of conventional Christian thought, as driven by the use in Scripture of the male pronoun in reference to the Holy Spirit.”

 

Just as Revelation 11 and 12 symbolize Mary as the ark of the covenant in flesh, so do those same passages symbolize God the Holy Spirit as the ark of the Word, God’s covenant to mankind, in spirit.

 

WHAT’S REALLY WRONG WITH AMERICA

 

 

WHAT’S REALLY WRONG WITH AMERICA

 

 

Sincere as our presidential hopefuls may be about “fixing” America’s woes, their focus on the fundamental cause of our problems isn’t quite laser-sharp.   Perhaps the reason for this is that their first objective is to get elected, and they’re attempting to appeal to what the majority of Americans perceive to be the basic problem.  The drawback of this is that mainstream America seems to be as clueless of the real issue as Germany was back in Hitler’s heyday.

 

Whatever the reason for their avoidance of the most pressing problem with America, the fundamental issue with America is crystal-clear to a segment of our population that now finds itself to be in the minority: committed Christians.  As they well know, things started to fall apart when God was dismissed from the public conscience, and the only way that America can retrieve its former glory is to invite God back into the public square.  Knowing their Bibles, they can point to the precedent of Israel’s decline from her former greatness following her public rejection of God.

 

I had addressed this issue in my novel Jacob, the third in the four-book Buddy series.  I’ll let Earl, one of my main characters, do the talking here as he did in Chapter Nineteen of that novel.

 

“Hi, everybody,” he began.  “I already had a talk on my mind for this morning, but I suddenly realized that there’s a more important topic that needs to be addressed.  So if you’ll bear with me, I’m going to speak out of my heart, calling upon support from the Holy Spirit rather than my usual notes.  If I were going to give the subject a title, I guess that ‘What’s Really Wrong with America’ would be as good a one as any.  I don’t need to tell anyone here that there’s something wrong.”  His statement of the obvious brought a few half-hearted laughs, but the mouths of most turned grim.

 

“What really happened to America started before most of us were born,” Earl continued.  “Like a serious disease such as cancer, it started slowly, with hardly any symptoms at all.  Only when it got to the terminal stage did we all become aware of what had happened, but by then it was too late.

 

“What was this dreadful disease?  I’ll tell you what it wasn’t.  It wasn’t a failure of leadership.  Nor was it a takeover by unprincipled, self-absorbed rulers who cared nothing for our God-given American constitution.  The sickness is a disease of the heart, of our indifference toward the Judeo-Christian God who played such a vital part in the founding of the American dream.  This disease didn’t turn our leaders into evil, vicious persons.  It infected us instead, creating the environment in which evil people could thrive and prosper.

 

“The sickness began within four of the institutional systems upon which we base our understanding of the world around us.  The first of these is the secular media, which provide us with news and entertainment; the second is the scientific community; the third is our schools, wherein our children are supplied with a formalized version of knowledge; and the fourth is our seminaries, which supposedly offer us a specialized knowledge of God.  These institutions were the first to get sick, and then the disease metastasized from there, branching out to infect the general public.

 

“The secular media was infiltrated long ago by selfish, godless people, to whom the physical world in which we reside is the only world there is because that’s the way they want it to be.  They were repulsed by the thought of some higher being looking over their shoulders, or knowing their thoughts, which probably did run into some colorful fantasies and mean-spirited notions.  But in their torrid love affair with their own minds, they embraced the ever-expanding world of science as much as they were put off by religion.  In their wholesale rush to glorify mankind’s scientific achievements, they bought into some very bad and very false ideas, being so incredibly shallow of mind as to unthinkingly accept these ideas simply because they were generated by so-called experts in the field.

 

“The sources of these very bad and very false ideas were people of the same kind of godless self-absorption as the media representatives.  Encouraged by the adoring media, they assumed the intellectual authority of the God they had in mind to replace.  The only difference between these self-styled scientists and their media counterparts is that the scientists possessed some knowledge of the subject upon which they made such weighty pronouncements.  But their education in some cases actually was as sparse or nearly so, as that of the public at large, because the scientific disciplines were in their infancy, with very little knowledge to be obtained through formal training.  Such was the case in the fields of natural history, geology, and biology.   I could go into a very detailed expose of the reasons why, for example, the theory of evolution is a misleading, dead-end path, but time doesn’t permit that.  The reasons involve some very important and revealing scientific discoveries in the field of biology by Darwin’s far more knowledgeable modern counterparts.  If any of you are truly interested, see me after this meeting and we’ll set up a workshop on the subject.

 

“But just as the media controllers bought into false scientific notions that confirmed and increased their distance from God, so did the educators, who also infiltrated the school system all the way from kindergarten to the great universities.  John Dewey was among the worst of that lot.  After assuming dictatorial power over the machinery of public education, this godless Marxist developed curricula that opposed Christianity at every turn.  His ideas also began to sway students away from nationalism into a world citizenry, and fostered quasi-scientific notions that supported our alienation from God.  His most devastating weapon was his appreciation that he wouldn’t accomplish his objectives in a day, or even in a decade or a generation.  His gradual insertion of bad ideas into the classroom began in the classrooms of the teaching colleges, infecting the teachers first with false notions, and letting them be his unwitting tools in disseminating his notions to the public at large.

 

“The same thing happened in our seminaries, the schools that supposedly train men and women for Christian service as pastors, chaplains and religious instructors.  Just as John Dewey infiltrated the secular teaching system, so did self-centered and basically godless men invade the seminaries, attempting to turn theology into a strictly intellectual endeavor.  They elbowed God aside with their false theories that the Bible was nothing more than a work of man, and attempted to strengthen that assertion on the basis of literary reviews that claimed various books to be written by several authors and at widely different dates, all of which were established on the false presupposition that prophesies could not have involved a God-given knowledge of the future.  Not all, but way too many of the pastors that came out of these wicked seminaries were just as self-centered as the secular educators.  After having avidly internalized the false teachings to which they were exposed, they lost their focus on God, which was tenuous to begin with, and concentrated instead on the task of creating successful income-producing congregations based on the false pictures of God which they had uncritically embraced.

 

“So what?  What is the bottom line in all this?  It is that the public at large perceives that the Bible was a work of man and riddled with errors and fuzzy, unsophisticated and basically meaningless passages.  In line with that understanding, the God of that Bible is seen as either imaginary or a very distant and essentially alien being.  Considering the Bible to be less than profound, the general public long ago released itself from the odious task of attempting to read it.  Refusing to understand the Bible as the only reliable Word of God, these same people lost most of their knowledge and understanding of God.  In the end, God became to them at best a stern taskmaster and at worst a distant, alien being who was entirely indifferent to the daily affairs of mankind.   Perceiving God in that way, they themselves distanced and alienated themselves from Him.

 

“But as history has demonstrated time and again, mankind needs God.  We certainly need God for the salvation that offers us a ticket into the next world, for which there’s reason to believe that it’s much more colorful and real than this one.  But we also need God’s Word and the Holy Spirit to impart to us the selfless nobility that is so necessary for us to get along with each other in this lesser world.  Without the lofty standards established by God for human interaction, the world quickly descends into mean-spirited, selfish, hate-driven acts of people showing unkindness toward each other for their own profit.  It becomes an insane hell of our own making.  Does anyone doubt that this is exactly what has happened outside these doors?

 

“I’ll wind up today’s talk on that sour note.  But think about the implications.  The solution of our present distress isn’t about patriotism or patriotic acts.  We lost our patriotism to America when we lost our patriotism toward God.  Our forefathers knew their God in an intimate way that is almost completely lost to us.  They had their eyes on a greater world than our material realm.  They knew, for example, what Paul had to say about that other, better world.”  Earl picked up his Bible from the upended box beside him and turned to First Corinthians Chapter 2.

 

“’But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him.  But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit; for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.  For what man knoweth the things of a man, except the spirit of man which is in him?  Even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.  Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.  Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Spirit teacheth, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.  But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him, neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.’

 

“That, my friends,” Earl said as he looked out to the audience, “is what we have lost in maintaining our focus on the material world to the exclusion of the spiritual realm.  But it is in the spiritual world that the biggest battle is being waged.  Paul was very clear about that.”  He turned to Ephesians Chapter 6 and continued reading from it.

 

“’For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.  Wherefore, take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.  Stand, therefore, having your loins girded about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness, and your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith, with which ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.  And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spriti, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints; and for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in bonds; that in this I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.’

 

“Now, after hearing that, let me ask you: is it better to contribute our own violence to the mess we are surrounded with, or rather should we turn back to God and, as Jesus said in His Sermon on the Mount, show our love of God to the world by loving our enemies, no matter what that might cost us?  While you’re thinking about that, you might offer a prayer for me and all your fellow Christians that, like Paul, we may receive from the Holy Spirit the courage to continue speaking out about our convictions.”

 

 

UFOs CONTINUATION #4

CONTACT, COMMUNION AND CHRISTIANITY CHAPTER 7 (CONTINUATION #4)

 

 

Chapter 7: Biblical Accounts of UFOs (Continued)

 

 

Example 18 – Luke 24:1-7:

 

“Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.  And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcherRemember how he spoke unto you when He was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” 

 

 

Example 19 – Luke 24:13-32:

 

“And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.  And they talked together of all these things which had happened.  And it came to pass that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus Himself drew near, and went with them.  But their eyes were holden that they should not recognize him.  And He said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one with another, as ye walk, and are sad?  And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering, said unto Him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast no known the things which are come to pass there in these days?  And He said unto them, What things?  And they said unto Him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in deed and word before God and all the people; and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and have crucified Him.  But we hoped that it had been He who should have redeemed Israel; and, besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done.  Yea, and certain women also of our company amazed us, who were early at the sepulcher; and wen they found not His body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels, who said that He was alive.

 

“And certain of those who were with us went to the sepulcher, and found it even as the women had said; but Him they saw not.  Then he said unto them, O foolishe ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!  Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?  And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them, in all the Scriptures, the things concerning Himself.

 

“And they drew near unto the village, to which they went; and He made as though He would have gone farther.  But they constrained Him, saying Abide with us; for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.  And He went in to tarry with them.  And it came to pass, as He sat eating with them, He took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to them.  And their eyes were opened, and they recognized Him; and He vanished out of their sight.  And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while He talked with us along the way, and while He opened to us the Scriptures?”

 

Example 20 – Acts 8:1-4, 9:1-1-9

 

“And Saul was consenting unto [Stephen’s] death.  And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judah and Samaria, except the apostles.  And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.  As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.  Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.”

 

“And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

 

“And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

 

“And he said, Who art thou, Lord?  And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

 

“And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do?  And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

 

“And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man.  And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.  And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.”

 

The following excerpts from the Bible, which are merely ‘tips of the iceberg’, demonstrate how thoroughly this encounter turned Paul’s life around.

 

Example 21 – Acts 9:10-20, Romans 1:1-8:

 

“And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias.  And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

 

          “And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

 

          “Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

 

          “But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel; For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.”

 

          “Paul [Saul], a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy Scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

          “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.”

         

Here again we see evidence that the encounter imparted wisdom; it totally and permanently changed Saul’s mentality and his life.

 

Example 22 – Hebrews 13:2:

 

“Be not forgetful to entertain strangers; for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

 

Example 23 – Revelation 1:9-20:

 

“I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

          “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

 

          “And I turned to see the voice that spake with me.  And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the food, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.  His head and his hairs were white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.  And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

 

          “And when I saw him, I fell at his feed as dead.  And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and death.

 

          “Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks.  The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.”

 

This close encounter follows a pattern that is seen throughout the Bible, that of an apparition who imparts wisdom and understanding that reaches out beyond our human abilities and our conception of time.  In every case, the knowledge and information dovetails perfectly with other parts of the Bible, contributing to a consistent whole.

 

The involvement of past UFOs in Scripture should not be surprising.  Given our faith in the God of Judeo-Christian tradition, we must necessarily assume that if UFOs exist, God is involved.  As Creator of the universe He created all that exists within it, including the things we call UFOs regardless of whether they exist within or outside our imaginations.  It matters very little whether these objects are primarily physical or spiritual, for even the casual reader of the Bible knows that God’s domain includes both.  In that sense, our own technological wonders, our Mars rovers and space shuttles, including their operators, belong to God.  This is anything but a trivial issue.  The notion of UFOs as technology-adept aliens comes straight out of the more far-reaching notion that God as an Entity who is personally involved in and relevant to our lives does not exist.  The fact that most of us fail to appreciate is that our understanding of the ultimate ownership of our universe is perhaps the most influential element of how we have perceived UFO events in the past, and of whether we consider them to be basically good or evil.

 

Regardless of their origin, however, their current reputation is not so good, and at least part of the blame can be placed on their behavior toward us.   Based on their perceived secrecy, apparent indifference toward humans, and the terror which they evoke in those whom they abduct, it would seem reasonable to suggest that they come from the wrong side of the good-bad line.   Perhaps some of them do.  But as one reviews the many abduction accounts and their supposed horrors, one gets the unmistakable impression that the most terrifying aspect of these encounters is the lack of control experienced by the abductees: being under the absolute dominance of their captor conflicts sharply with their materialistic, probably godless view of life and their place in it.  Accustomed to perceiving themselves as self-driven, they are forced to confront an absolute powerlessness to escape the situation or to influence the unfolding of the event.  In Witnessed, Budd Hopkins captures the essence of this aspect:

 

“When UFO abductees come upon evidence that, for them, confirms the physical reality of their encounters, their reactions are invariably shock and depression.  No one I have ever worked with has indicated pleasure or relief at any kind of confirming news.  Treating their UFO memories as earthly, explainable dreams or fantasies is for abductees a necessary hope, a bulwark of denial against the unthinkable.  But when that protective dam bursts and the abductees’ tightly held systems of defense are swept away, they are left with a frightening and intolerable truth.”

 

For many ‘victims’, the experience flies in the face of the way they were taught to believe regarding the ultimate independence of the individual, their understanding of themselves as being masters of their own destinies.  Most of us, whether our backgrounds were religious or not, tend to compartmentalize our religious meditations, separating them from the everyday reality of our lives.  When we think of God, we perceive our thoughts to be of our own volition, another exercise of free will.  We rarely perceive our relation with God in terms of His absolute dominance over our lives.  For the most part, God appears to be content with this arrangement.

 

But there are significant exceptions.  A review of the encounters experienced by Daniel, Paul, and John, for example, demonstrates quite clearly that they were life-altering events.  The experiences had many of the same characteristics of modern UFO abductions.  They involved discomfort and terror as well, even for these individuals who had an unusually intimate relationship with God.

 

I would suggest that if the modern abduction experience is perceived as a negative one, it is because the absolute dominance of the ‘occupants’ over their subjects conflicts so greatly with the secular world view held by most of us.  Should we blame the UFOs for this, or should we instead understand how far from God we have put ourselves?  Having made that general commentary, we shall turn next to specific details of UFO involvement in our secularly-described history, and of how these details relate to our religious past.

 

 

 

 

UFOs CHAPTER 7 (CONTINUATION #3)

 

CONTACT, COMMUNION AND CHRISTIANITY CHAPTER 7 (CONTINUATION #3)

 

 

Chapter 7: Biblical Accounts of UFOs (Continued)

 

 

Example 13 – Ezekiel 2:1-3:

 

“And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee.  And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me.  And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day.”

 

A great many present-day Jews and Christians consider Ezekiel’s ‘dry bones’ prophecy in the 36^th chapter to have had a remarkably accurate fulfillment in the restoration of the State of Israel following World War II.

 

Example 14 – Daniel 10:5-21, 12:1-13:

 

“Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

 

“And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves.  Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned into corruption, and I retained no strength.  Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground. 

 

“And, behold, a hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and upon the palms of my hands.  And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am I now sent.  And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling.

 

“Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel; for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.  But the prince of Persia withstood me for one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

 

“Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the visions is for many days.

 

“And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the ground, and I became dumb.  And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips: then I opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength.  For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? For as for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me.

 

“Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me, And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee; be strong, yea, be strong.  And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me.

 

“Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.  But I will show thee that which is noted in the Scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.”

 

 

“And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.  And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall, awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.  And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever.

 

“But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

 

“Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river.  And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?  And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever, that it shall be for a time, times, and a half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

 

“And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

 

“And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.  Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.  And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.  Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

 

“But go thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.”

 

The ‘angel’ who appeared to Daniel would be treated as a ‘Close Encounter of the Third Kind’ today. These passages in Daniel were so prophetically accurate that they have come under severe attack by secular skeptics over the past century with respect to their actual dating.  There is much reason, as developed in detail by Grant Jeffrey and other theologians, to consider these attacks to be void of any merit whatsoever.

 

Example 15 – John 24-29:

 

“But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, as not with them when Jesus came.  The other disciples, therefore, said unto him, We have seen the Lord.  But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.  And, after eight days, again hi disciples were inside, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

 

“Then said He to Thomas, Reach here thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach here thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.  And Thomas answered, and said unto Him, My Lord and my God.

 

“Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

Example 16 – John 21:4-14:

 

“But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore; but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus.  Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any food? They answered Him, No.  And He said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the boat and ye shall find.  They cast, therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fish.  Therefore, the disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord.  Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the lord, he girt his fisher’ coat unto him (for he was naked), and did cast himself into the sea.  And the other disciples came in a little boat (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits), dragging the net with fish.  As soon, then, as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid on it, and bread.  Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.  Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fish, an hundred and fifty and three; and although there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

 

“Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine.  And none of the disciples dared ask Him, who art thou? Knowing that it was the Lord.  Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.  This is now the third time that Jesus showed Himself to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead.”

 

Example 17 – Luke 1:26-38:

 

“And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary.  And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

 

“And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

 

“And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God.  And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

 

“Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

 

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.  And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.  For with God nothing shall be impossible.

 

“And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word.  And the angel departed from her.”

 

It would be interesting to know what these angels actually looked like to Daniel and Mary.  What is certain is that they both perceived these apparitions to be other than merely human.

 

[to be continued]

 

 

UFOs CHAPTER 7 (CONTINUATION #2)

CONTACT, COMMUNION AND CHRISTIANITY CHAPTER 7 (CONTINUATION #2)

 

CHAPTER 7: Biblical Accounts of UFOs (Continued)

 

 

 

Example 13 – Ezekiel 2:1-3:

 

“And he said unto me, Son of man, stand upon thy feet, and I will speak unto thee. And the spirit entered into me when he spake unto me, and set me upon my feet, that I heard him that spake unto me.  And he said unto me, Son of man, I send thee to the children of Israel, to a rebellious nation that hath rebelled against me: they and their fathers have transgressed against me, even unto this very day.”

 

A great many present-day Jews and Christians consider Ezekiel’s ‘dry bones’ prophecy in the 36^th chapter to have had a remarkably accurate fulfillment in the restoration of the State of Israel following World War II.

 

Example 14 – Daniel 10:5-21, 12:1-13:

 

“Then I lifted up mine eyes, and looked, and behold a certain man clothed in linen, whose loins were girded with fine gold of Uphaz: His body also was like the beryl, and his face as the appearance of lightning, and his eyes as lamps of fire, and his arms and his feet like in color to polished brass, and the voice of his words like the voice of a multitude.

 

“And I Daniel alone saw the vision: for the men that were with me saw not the vision; but a great quaking fell upon them, so that they fled to hide themselves. Therefore I was left alone, and saw this great vision, and there remained no strength in me: for my comeliness was turned into corruption, and I retained no strength.  Yet heard I the voice of his words: and when I heard the voice of his words, then was I in a deep sleep on my face, and my face toward the ground. 

 

“And, behold, a hand touched me, which set me upon my knees and upon the palms of my hands. And he said unto me, O Daniel, a man greatly beloved, understand the words that I speak unto thee, and stand upright: for unto thee am I now sent.  And when he had spoken this word unto me, I stood trembling.

 

“Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel; for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words. But the prince of Persia withstood me for one and twenty days; but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

 

“Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the visions is for many days.

 

“And when he had spoken such words unto me, I set my face toward the ground, and I became dumb. And, behold, one like the similitude of the sons of men touched my lips: then I opened my mouth, and spake, and said unto him that stood before me, O my lord, by the vision my sorrows are turned upon me, and I have retained no strength.  For how can the servant of this my lord talk with this my lord? For as for me, straightway there remained no strength in me, neither is there breath left in me.

 

“Then there came again and touched me one like the appearance of a man, and he strengthened me, And said, O man greatly beloved, fear not: peace be unto thee; be strong, yea, be strong. And when he had spoken unto me, I was strengthened, and said, Let my lord speak; for thou hast strengthened me.

 

“Then said he, Knowest thou wherefore I come unto thee? and now will I return to fight with the prince of Persia: and when I am gone forth, lo, the prince of Grecia shall come.  But I will show thee that which is noted in the Scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince.”

 

 

“And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall, awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.  And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever.

 

“But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

 

“Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders?  And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever, that it shall be for a time, times, and a half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

 

“And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things?

 

“And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end. Many shall be purified, and made white, and tried; but the wicked shall do wickedly: and none of the wicked shall understand; but the wise shall understand.  And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, and the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand two hundred and ninety days.  Blessed is he that waiteth, and cometh to the thousand three hundred and five and thirty days.

 

“But go thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days.”

 

The ‘angel’ who appeared to Daniel would be treated as a ‘Close Encounter of the Third Kind’ today. These passages in Daniel were so prophetically accurate that they have come under severe attack by secular skeptics over the past century with respect to their actual dating. There is much reason, as developed in detail by Grant Jeffrey and other theologians, to consider these attacks to be void of any merit whatsoever.

 

Example 15 – John 24-29:

 

“But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, as not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples, therefore, said unto him, We have seen the Lord.  But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.  And, after eight days, again hi disciples were inside, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.

 

“Then said He to Thomas, Reach here thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach here thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered, and said unto Him, My Lord and my God.

 

“Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

 

Example 16 – John 21:4-14:

 

“But when the morning was now come, Jesus stood on the shore; but the disciples knew not that it was Jesus. Then Jesus saith unto them, Children, have ye any food? They answered Him, No.  And He said unto them, Cast the net on the right side of the boat and ye shall find.  They cast, therefore, and now they were not able to draw it for the multitude of fish.  Therefore, the disciple whom Jesus loved saith unto Peter, It is the Lord.  Now when Simon Peter heard that it was the lord, he girt his fisher’ coat unto him (for he was naked), and did cast himself into the sea.  And the other disciples came in a little boat (for they were not far from land, but as it were two hundred cubits), dragging the net with fish.  As soon, then, as they were come to land, they saw a fire of coals there, and fish laid on it, and bread.  Jesus saith unto them, Bring of the fish which ye have now caught.  Simon Peter went up, and drew the net to land full of great fish, an hundred and fifty and three; and although there were so many, yet was not the net broken.

 

“Jesus saith unto them, Come and dine. And none of the disciples dared ask Him, who art thou? Knowing that it was the Lord.  Jesus then cometh, and taketh bread, and giveth them, and fish likewise.  This is now the third time that Jesus showed Himself to his disciples, after he was risen from the dead.”

 

Example 17 – Luke 1:26-38:

 

“And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin’s name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

 

“And when she saw him, she was troubled at his saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this should be.

 

“And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favor with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name Jesus.  He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end.

 

“Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

 

“And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee; therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.  For with God nothing shall be impossible.

 

“And Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word. And the angel departed from her.”

 

It would be interesting to know what these angels actually looked like to Daniel and Mary. What is certain is that they both perceived these apparitions to be other than merely human.

 

Example 18 – Luke 24:1-7:

 

“Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulcher, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them. And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcherRemember how he spoke unto you when He was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.” 

 

 

Example 19 – Luke 24:13-32:

 

“And, behold, two of them went that same day to a village called Emmaus, which was from Jerusalem about threescore furlongs.  And they talked together of all these things which had happened.  And it came to pass that, while they communed together and reasoned, Jesus Himself drew near, and went with them.  But their eyes were holden that they should not recognize him.  And He said unto them, What manner of communications are these that ye have one with another, as ye walk, and are sad?  And the one of them, whose name was Cleopas, answering, said unto Him, Art thou only a stranger in Jerusalem, and hast no known the things which are come to pass there in these days?  And He said unto them, What things?  And they said unto Him, Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, who was a prophet, mighty in deed and word before God and all the people; and how the chief priests and our rulers delivered Him to be condemned to death, and have crucified Him.  But we hoped that it had been He who should have redeemed Israel; and, besides all this, today is the third day since these things were done.  Yea, and certain women also of our company amazed us, who were early at the sepulcher; and wen they found not His body, they came, saying that they had also seen a vision of angels, who said that He was alive.

 

“And certain of those who were with us went to the sepulcher, and found it even as the women had said; but Him they saw not. Then he said unto them, O foolishe ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken!  Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?  And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He expounded unto them, in all the Scriptures, the things concerning Himself.

 

“And they drew near unto the village, to which they went; and He made as though He would have gone farther. But they constrained Him, saying Abide with us; for it is toward evening, and the day is far spent.  And He went in to tarry with them.  And it came to pass, as He sat eating with them, He took bread, and blessed it, and broke it, and gave it to them.  And their eyes were opened, and they recognized Him; and He vanished out of their sight.  And they said one to another, Did not our heart burn within us, while He talked with us along the way, and while He opened to us the Scriptures?”

 

Example 20 – Acts 8:1-4, 9:1-1-9

 

“And Saul was consenting unto [Stephen’s] death. And at that time there was a great persecution against the church which was at Jerusalem; and they were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judah and Samaria, except the apostles.  And devout men carried Stephen to his burial, and made great lamentation over him.  As for Saul, he made havoc of the church, entering into every house, and haling men and women committed them to prison.  Therefore they that were scattered abroad went every where preaching the word.”

 

“And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.

 

“And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?

 

“And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.

 

“And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

 

“And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a voice, but seeing no man. And Saul arose from the earth; and when his eyes were opened, he saw no man: but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus.  And he was three days without sight, and neither did eat nor drink.”

 

The following excerpts from the Bible, which are merely ‘tips of the iceberg’, demonstrate how thoroughly this encounter turned Paul’s life around.

 

Example 21 – Acts 9:10-20, Romans 1:1-8:

 

“And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias; and to him said the Lord in a vision, Ananias.  And he said, Behold, I am here, Lord.

 

          “And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight.

 

          “Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name.

 

          “But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel; For I will show him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.”

 

          “Paul [Saul], a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy Scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name: Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ: To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace, from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

          “First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.”

         

Here again we see evidence that the encounter imparted wisdom; it totally and permanently changed Saul’s mentality and his life.

 

Example 22 – Hebrews 13:2:

 

“Be not forgetful to entertain strangers; for thereby some have entertained angels unawares.”

 

Example 23 – Revelation 1:9-20:

 

“I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

          “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day, and heard behind me a great voice, as of a trumpet, Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea.

 

          “And I turned to see the voice that spake with me.  And being turned, I saw seven golden candlesticks; And in the midst of the seven candlesticks one like unto the Son of man, clothed with a garment down to the food, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle.  His head and his hairs were white as snow; and his eyes were as a flame of fire; And his feet like unto fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace; and his voice as the sound of many waters.  And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

 

          “And when I saw him, I fell at his feed as dead.  And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and death.

 

          “Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter; The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks.  The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.”

 

This close encounter follows a pattern that is seen throughout the Bible, that of an apparition who imparts wisdom and understanding that reaches out beyond our human abilities and our conception of time.  In every case, the knowledge and information dovetails perfectly with other parts of the Bible, contributing to a consistent whole.

 

The involvement of past UFOs in Scripture should not be surprising.  Given our faith in the God of Judeo-Christian tradition, we must necessarily assume that if UFOs exist, God is involved.  As Creator of the universe He created all that exists within it, including the things we call UFOs regardless of whether they exist within or outside our imaginations.  It matters very little whether these objects are primarily physical or spiritual, for even the casual reader of the Bible knows that God’s domain includes both.  In that sense, our own technological wonders, our Mars rovers and space shuttles, including their operators, belong to God.  This is anything but a trivial issue.  The notion of UFOs as technology-adept aliens comes straight out of the more far-reaching notion that God as an Entity who is personally involved in and relevant to our lives does not exist.  The fact that most of us fail to appreciate is that our understanding of the ultimate ownership of our universe is perhaps the most influential element of how we have perceived UFO events in the past, and of whether we consider them to be basically good or evil.

 

Regardless of their origin, however, their current reputation is not so good, and at least part of the blame can be placed on their behavior toward us.   Based on their perceived secrecy, apparent indifference toward humans, and the terror which they evoke in those whom they abduct, it would seem reasonable to suggest that they come from the wrong side of the good-bad line.   Perhaps some of them do.  But as one reviews the many abduction accounts and their supposed horrors, one gets the unmistakable impression that the most terrifying aspect of these encounters is the lack of control experienced by the abductees: being under the absolute dominance of their captor conflicts sharply with their materialistic, probably godless view of life and their place in it.  Accustomed to perceiving themselves as self-driven, they are forced to confront an absolute powerlessness to escape the situation or to influence the unfolding of the event.  In Witnessed, Budd Hopkins captures the essence of this aspect:

 

“When UFO abductees come upon evidence that, for them, confirms the physical reality of their encounters, their reactions are invariably shock and depression. No one I have ever worked with has indicated pleasure or relief at any kind of confirming news.  Treating their UFO memories as earthly, explainable dreams or fantasies is for abductees a necessary hope, a bulwark of denial against the unthinkable.  But when that protective dam bursts and the abductees’ tightly held systems of defense are swept away, they are left with a frightening and intolerable truth.”

 

For many ‘victims’, the experience flies in the face of the way they were taught to believe regarding the ultimate independence of the individual, their understanding of themselves as being masters of their own destinies.  Most of us, whether our backgrounds were religious or not, tend to compartmentalize our religious meditations, separating them from the everyday reality of our lives.  When we think of God, we perceive our thoughts to be of our own volition, another exercise of free will.  We rarely perceive our relation with God in terms of His absolute dominance over our lives.  For the most part, God appears to be content with this arrangement.

 

But there are significant exceptions.  A review of the encounters experienced by Daniel, Paul, and John, for example, demonstrates quite clearly that they were life-altering events.  The experiences had many of the same characteristics of modern UFO abductions.  They involved discomfort and terror as well, even for these individuals who had an unusually intimate relationship with God.

 

I would suggest that if the modern abduction experience is perceived as a negative one, it is because the absolute dominance of the ‘occupants’ over their subjects conflicts so greatly with the secular world view held by most of us.  Should we blame the UFOs for this, or should we instead understand how far from God we have put ourselves?  Having made that general commentary, we shall turn next to specific details of UFO involvement in our secularly-described history, and of how these details relate to our religious past.

 

 

 

 

UFOs Chapter 7 (Continuation #1)

 

CONTACT, COMMUNION AND UFOS CHAPTER 7 (CONTINUATION #1)

 

 

CHAPTER 7: Biblical Accounts of UFOs (Continued)

 

Example 7 – Exodus 40:34-38:

 

“Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode thereon, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle.

 

“And when the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward in all their journeys; but if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up. For the cloud of the Lord was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys.”

 

This event occurred again when Solomon dedicated the first temple, as recorded in 1 Kings 8:10-13:

 

“And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord.

 

“Then spoke Solomon, The Lord said that he would dwell in the thick darkness. I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in forever.”

 

 

Example 8 – Joshua 1:1-11:

 

          “Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord, it came to pass, that the Lord spake unto Joshua the son of Nun, Moses’ minister, saying, Moses my servant is dead; now therefore arise, go over this Jordan, thou, and all this people, unto the land which I do give to them, even to the children of Israel.

 

          “Every place that the sole of your foot shall tread upon, that have I given unto you, as I said unto Moses.  From the wilderness and this Lebanon even unto the great river, the river Euphrates, all the land of the Hittites, and unto the great sea toward the going down of the sun, shall be your coast.

 

          “There shall not any man be able to stand before thee all the days of thy life: as I was with Moses, so I will be with thee: I will not fail thee, nor forsake thee.

 

          “Be strong and of a good courage: for unto this people shalt thou divide for and inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them.  Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn no from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest.

 

          “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.

 

          “Have I not commanded thee?  Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee whithersoever thou goest.

 

          “Then Joshua commanded the officers of the people, saying, Pass through the host, and command the people, saying, Prepare you victuals; for within three days ye shall pass over this Jordan, to go in to possess the land, which the Lord your God giveth you to possess it.”

 

Example 9 – Joshua 5:13-15:

 

“And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, Art thou for us, or for our adversaries?

          “And he sad, Nay; but as captain of the host of the Lord am I now come.  And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my lord unto his servant?

          “And the captain of the Lord’s host said unto Joshua, Loose thy shoe from off thy foot; for the place whereon thou standest is holy.  And Joshua did so.

 

Example 10 – Joshua 6:2-5, 15,16,20:

 

“And the Lord said unto Joshua, See, I have given into thy hand Jericho, and the king thereof, and the mighty men of valor.  And ye shall compass the city, all ye men of war, and go round about the city once.  Thus shalt thou do six days.  And seven priest shall bear before the ark seven trumpets of rams’ horns: and the seventh day ye shall compass the city seven times, and the priests shall blow with the trumpets.  And it shall come to pass, that when they make a long blast with the ram’s horn, and when ye hear the sound of the trumpet, all the people shall shout with a great shout; and the wall of the city shall fall down flat, and the people shall ascend up every man straight before him.”

 

“And it came to pass on the seventh day, that they rose early about the dawning of the day, and compassed the city after the same manner seven times: only on that day they compassed the city seven times. And it came to pass at the seventh time, when the priests blew with the trumpets, Joshua said unto the people, Shout; for the Lord hath given you the city.”

 

“So the people shouted when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city, every man straight before him, and they took the city.”

 

As in the case with Moses before him, Joshua’s adventures were accompanied with signs and miracles. Also as with Moses, his adventures were preceded by the sighting of an apparition, who commanded him to display courage.

 

Example 11 – 2 Kings 2:1-13:

 

“And it came to pass, when the Lord would take up Elijah into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elijah went with Elisha from Gilgal. And Elijah said unto Elisha, Tarry here, I pray thee; for the Lord hath sent me to Bethel.  And Elisha said unto him, As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee.  So they went down to Bethel.  And the sons of the prophets that were at Bethel came forth to Elisha, and said unto him, Knowest thou that the Lord will take away thy master from thy head today?  And he said, Yea, I know it; hold ye your peace.

 

          “And Elijah said unto him, Tarry, I pray thee, here; for the Lord hath sent me to Jordan.  And he said, As the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee.  And they two went on.  And fifty men of the sons of the prophets went, and stood to view afar off: and they two stood by Jordan.

 

          “And Elijah took his mantle, and wrapped it together, and smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither, so that they two went over on dry ground.

 

          “And it came to pass, when they were gone over, that Elijah said unto Elisha, Ask what I shall do for thee, before I shall be taken away from thee.  And Elisha said, I pray thee, let a double portion of thy spirit be upon me.  And he said, thou hast asked a hard thing: nevertheless, if thou see me when I am taken from thee, it shall be so unto thee; but if not, it shall not be so.

 

          “And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

 

          “And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof!  And he saw him no more: and he took hold of his own clothes, and rent them in two pieces.  He took up also the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and went back, and stood by the bank of Jordan.”

 

Here is what we would call a classic UFO abduction case, complete with the UFO itself. Did this encounter affect Elisha thereafter?  We see in 2 Kings 2:14, 15 the answer:

 

“And he took the mantle of Elijah that fell from him, and smote the waters, and said, Where is the Lord God of Elijah? And when he also had smitten the waters, they parted hither and thither: and Elisha went over.

 

“And when the sons of the prophets which were to view at Jericho saw him, they said, The spirit of Elijah doth rest on Elisha.  And they came to meet him, and bowed themselves to the ground before him.

 

Example 12 – Ezekiel 1:1-28:

 

“Now it came to pass in the thirtieth year, in the fourth month, in the

fifth day of the month, as I was among the captives by the river of Chebar, that the heavens were opened, and I saw visions of God. In the fifth day of the month, which was the fifth year of king Jehoiachin’s captivity, The word of the Lord came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the Lord was there upon him.

 

          “And I looked, and, behold, a whirlwind came out of the north, a great cloud, and a fire infolding itself, and a brightness was about it, and out of the midst thereof as the color of amber, out of the midst of the fire.  Also out of the midst thereof came the likeness of four living creatures.  And this was their appearance; they had the likeness of a man.  And every one had four faces, and every one had four wings.  And their feet were straight feet; and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf’s foot: and they sparkled like the color of burnished brass.  And they had the hands of a man under their wings on their four sides; and they four had their faces and their wings.  Their wings were joined one to another; they turned not when they went; they went every one straight forward.  As for the likeness of their faces, they four had the face of a man, and the face of a lion, on the right side: and they four had the face of an ox on the left side; they four also had the face of an eagle.  Thus were their faces; and their wings were stretched upward; two wings of every one were joined one to another, and two covered their bodies.  And they went every one straight forward: wither the spirit was to go, they went; and they turned not when they went.  As for the likeness of the living creatures, their appearance was like burning coals of fire, and like the appearance of lamps: it went up and down among the living creatures; and the fire was bright, and out of the fire went forth lightning.  And the living creatures ran and returned as the appearance of a flash of lightning.

 

“Now as I beheld the living creatures, behold one wheel upon the earth by the living creatures, with his four faces. The appearance of the wheels and their work was like unto the color of beryl: and they four had one likeness: and their appearance and their work was as it were a wheel in the middle of a wheel.  When they went, they went upon their four sides: and they turned not when they went.  As for their rings, they were so high that they were dreadful; and their rings were full of eyes round about them four.  And when the living creatures went, the wheels went by them: and when the living creatures were lifted up from the earth, the wheels were lifted up.  Whithersoever the spirit was to go, they went, thither was their spirit to go; and the wheels were lifted up over against them: for the spirit of the living creature was in the wheels.

 

“And the likeness of the firmament upon the heads of the living creature was as the color of the terrible crystal, stretched forth over their heads above. And under the firmament were their wings straight, the one toward the other: every one had two, which covered on this side, and every one had two, which covered on that side, their bodies.

 

“And when they went, I heard the noise of their wings, like the noise of great waters, as the voice of the Almighty, the voice of speech, as the noise of a host: when they stood, they let down their wings. And there was a voice from the firmament that was over their heads, when they stood, and had let down their wings.

 

“And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as the appearance of a man above upon it. And I saw as the color of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of his loins even upward, and from the appearance of his loins even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about.  As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about.  This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord.  And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.”

 

This event has been thoroughly revisited by modern writers, who note the obvious correspondence with recent UFO sightings. Here again, as in modern sightings with a religious flavor, the sighting had a long-term impact on the witness.  There is abundant evidence in the chapters in Ezekiel that follow that great prophetic wisdom was imparted to Ezekiel.  His life was changed forever as he followed the prophetic command noted below.

 

[to be continued]

 

 

UFOs CHAPTER 3

CONTACT, COMMUNION AND CHRISTIANITY CHAPTER 3

Chapter 3: The Historical Alien Presence – Or Was It Something Else?

Among the most spectacular of extraterrestrial accounts from the past is the collection of religious beliefs of the Dogon tribe in Mali, West Africa. It is an astonishing story of information this tribe possesses that should never have been available to them in their isolation and primitive state of existence. As related by Scott Alan Roberts in Chapter 5 of his book The Rise and Fall of the Nephilim, French anthropologists Marcel Griaule and Germaine Dieterlen extracted from their religious mythology a wealth of information regarding the star Sirius and its associated system the accuracy of which is simply beyond the tribe’s powers of observation. A brief summary of Roberts’ account of their incredible customs and the information they represent is given below.

The Dogon people have a tradition, reaching into the unknown past, of worshiping beings they call the Nommos. These froglike creatures aren’t local to the area, but reside somewhat farther away, within hailing distance of the star Sirius B. They recognize Sirius B as one member of a dual-star system, and depict in their drawings the two stars, Sirius A and Sirius B as rotating about each other in an elliptical pattern. Western society figured out elliptical orbits only after the pioneering work of German astronomer Johannes Kepler in the seventeenth century. The Dogons probably beat him to the concept as there was no known modern interaction between the Dogons and the Western world until the 1920s.

The Dogon legend describes the Nommos as having lived on a planet that orbits Sirius B. They arrived on Earth in a craft that we would describe as an ark, which descended in a spin and landed with a big commotion.

The Nommo furnished information to the Dogons; eventually, one of them was crucified on a tree, was resurrected, and returned to the Sirius star system.

A more detailed view of the Dogons and their strange religion is presented by Robert Temple in his 1998 book The Sirius Mystery.

As explained by Temple, there’s a mystery indeed about the Dogon knowledge of the Sirius star system. Sirius A is visible, but Sirius B is much smaller, being a dwarf star, and is invisible to the observer on earth, even with a decent telescope. Yet, as it is very dense, it possesses an appreciable gravitational field. The Dogons know that it is comparably tiny, because they named the star after the seed of an indigenous plant, the botanical name of which is digitaria. The seed of the digitaria is minute, being the smallest seed of which the Dogon are aware. Yet the Dogon consider the much larger star Sirius A to be unimportant to them next to their home star of Sirius B.

Moreover, the Dogons have the orbital period of Sirius B, which is fifty years, pegged with precision to its actual period, and understand that it rotates about its own axis, a common characteristic of stars.

The Dogons are also aware of planetary features within our own solar system. For example, they know that the moon is dead, that a ring encircles Saturn, and that Jupiter possesses four major moons. As for the Earth, it is understood to turn on its own axis and to make a great circle around the sun.

Temple’s book includes other knowledge possessed by the Dogons. This additional information is simply too extensive for the scope of this book. Temple also apeculates, like Zecharia Sitchin who published The Twelfth Planet in 1976, that the evidence of the aliens’ visitation is encoded in the traditions and literature of the ancient Mediterranean region, from which the Dogons, as well as the Greeks and Romans, borrowed from a common source.

Other societies, considered by us to be primitive, also worshiped what we like to label as “alien”. Erich Von Daniken was the earlies of the modern investigators to popularize this practice. In his book Chariots of the Gods? Published in 1976, the same year that Sitchin published The Twelfth Planet, he cites many artifacts of unknown antiquity which don’t fit into mainstream assumptions of man’s history, noting that these oddities are either ignored by scientists or suffer the application of unsatisfactory reasons for their existence. Among these artifacts scattered about the world are structures of sophisticated design and immense proportions, the components of which are of equally impressive size. There are also, in widely scattered locations, structures, objects, and patterns on the ground with evident links to air or space travel.

The enigmatic straight lines in Nazca, Peru are quite ancient. Yet investigators can comprehend no useful purpose for them other than aircraft runways. There are also huge figures cut into the surface in the vicinity which are not recognizable on the ground, but are readily understood for what they are from an aerial perspective.

An abundance of enormous stone structures can be found high in the Andes Mountains of Peru and Bolivia and elsewhere in South and Central America. Von Daniken describes monolithic stone blocks weighing 10, 20, and 100 tons, with precisely defined edges, used in the construction of these structures. Some of the blocks are engraved with figures. Other figures are themselves carved out of stone. But the figures aren’t quite human. Some have four fingers; others wear what appear to be helmets. Still others are depicted as flying.

In addition to artifacts which display a sophistication quite beyond what mainstream archaeologists are willing to attribute to the peoples of antiquity, there is an apparent knowledge itself that runs counter to our perception of ancient man and his lack of sophistication: maps, calendars and astronomical tables, texts, and even artifacts which demonstrate a knowledge of electricity and electro-chemical processes.

Maps of world scope found in the possession of 18th Century Turkish Admiral Piri Reis were not only amazingly accurate but depicted the Antarctic Continent as if it was ice-free, showing land boundaries and mountain ranges in their proper relative locations, although such boundaries were not known in modern times until the middle of the twentieth century. As Von Daniken pointed out, some of the maps appeared to researchers to represent data taken from aerial photographs. Believed to be of still greater antiquity than the sea captain to whom they belonged, the originals from which they were copied were probably created long before the time when the world thought that the earth was flat.

A calendar of impressive sophistication was found in Tiahuanaco. This device gave the equinoxes, seasons, and hourly positions of the moon. Halfway around the world, archaeologists digging at the Mesopotamian site of Nineveh found a mathematical calculation carried out to 15 digits, when, as Von Daniken pointed out, mathematicians of the much-later Greek civilization couldn’t count above 10,000.

Artifacts found in the Middle East and China whose fabrication required a knowledge of electricity and electrochemistry include batteries and battery electrodes, crystal lenses which we can make only with the electrochemically-produced cesium oxide, and objects fashioned of platinum and aluminum.

Where did this enigmatic ancient knowledge come from? Von Daniken asserts that it came from visitors to Earth from space. He speculates briefly at one point that these visitors may have come from the planet Mars before its surface was destroyed by some cosmic event. Elsewhere he places their origin farther afield, among one of the star systems in our Milky Way Galaxy. He claims that we can see depictions of these beings in ancient artwork, from cave drawings scattered throughout the world to Sumerian cylinder seals and South American stone carvings.

But above all the mute artifacts we find scattered about the earth, we have the ancient literature that brings these visitors to life. All we have to do, Von Daniken asserts, is to discard the mundane, inaccurate interpretation of these tales that was first initiated by scholars of the 18th and 19th centuries, a time when the technology to which they pointed was simply inconceivable. Less than two centuries ago, the notion of traveling about the Earth in flying vehicles was considered an absurdity by all but a few visionaries. The thought of traveling among the planets in space vehicles was at the far end of science fiction well into the last century.

Now that we ourselves possess much of the technology described in the ancient literature, however, we can see these texts as representing potential truth rather than necessarily depicting flights of fancy. In line with a more technically-orientated interpretation of these ancient tales, flights of the ‘gods’ in aircraft and space vehicles appears to have been a common theme.

Von Daniken notes that the Bible itself is a part of that ancient literature which describes flying machines driven by ‘gods’. He refers to the multi-winged, multi-wheeled flying vehicle described by the prophet Ezekiel as what modern man would call a ‘UFO’. The prophet Elijah may have ascended to heaven in a similar vehicle. Whatever these vehicles were, they certainly represented a technology far in advance of what we consider the peoples of that day to have possessed. The only other alternative to the physical reality of those vehicles described in the Bible is that they were dreams or visions of Ezekiel and others. But if that is the case, from whence did these highly-detailed visions come? It is absurd to think that they were simply figments of active imaginations. To deny that the vehicles actually existed is equivalent to asserting that the visions came from God. Consequently, in either case there is some truth to their existence.

[to be continued]

UFOs CHAPTER 2 (CONTINUED)

CONTACT, COMMUNION AND CHRISTIANITY CHAPTER 2 (CONTINUED)

Some secularly-oriented UFO spokespersons are fence-sitters. While they either explicitly or indirectly equate their extraterrestrial visitors with the Biblical God, they almost invariably follow a mechanistic mindset for which the Biblical God is demoted to the status of a mere extraterrestrial. In the most fundamental sense, the Judeo-Christian God is obviously and unequivocally a space being: by common understanding, as Creator and Master of the universe, He owns it. Space is a large part of His turf. But that is not the sense in which the UFO fence-sitter implicitly defines the Judeo-Christian God. The alien deities as depicted by these authors differ substantially from that God with respect to capabilities, morals, and, above all, intent. These alien beings may have come from a distant planet, and they may have possessed a superior technology, and perhaps even a more highly-developed intellect. They may have created man as a hybrid of their own genetic material and that of some subhuman species extant on earth at the time. Nevertheless, they appear to be remarkably similar in their nature and temperament to mankind itself. This is especially true with regard to their moral character, which included venality, uncontrollable sexual urges, and petty jealousies. Nor are these beings omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent. As pilots of spacecraft, mine supervisors, and genetic manipulators, they were subject to the same limitations in time and space as humanity. They are perceived as a plurality, not as a Triune Godhead but as a number of individuals who belonged to some other planet and relied on vehicular devices to arrive on the Earth. From that perspective, they were much too small to come even close to representing the Judeo-Christian God, both in their moral stature and capabilities, and in their self-serving natures. Instead, it is stated in all seriousness with no intent of mockery, the god who comes to mind in their writings is very much like the Wizard of Oz. This Cosmic Wizard is endowed perhaps with a superior intellect, certainly possesses a superior technology, and is capable of putting on a good dog-and-pony show to impress us less sophisticated earthlings with his divine attributes. But in the end he his much like us, having a mixture of good and bad qualities. This extraterrestrial had the same potential as man to strive for nobility and to fail in the attempt.

A ‘god’ of such limited attributes would be more like a cousin to humanity than a God. He would certainly lack the moral authority to exercise absolute control over our lives. His motives toward mankind would be limited as well, in all probability being directed toward self-service, as Zecharia Sitchin suggests in his Twelfth Planet series regarding his supposition that man was created for utilitarian purposes. In that context, Sitchin’s explanation of our origins as being motivated by the need for labor in the aliens’ mines is entirely consistent with his view of ‘god’ as a construct of man inspired by his utilitarian interaction with visitors from another planet. But to carry this consistency of thought to its logical conclusion would not only force us to deny the strong theme of sacrificial love that runs throughout the entirety of Scripture; it would also require us to consider our Judeo-Christian Scripture to represent myth more than truth. The mythical elements might indeed be based on factual events, but the mythical would have to be invoked to blow up the main player(s) to the status of godhood. It indeed appears that secularists prefer to view the Bible in a mythical context. In developing their own picture of god, those of the alien presuppositions also refer to the Bible, but not in the same way as the traditional Christian community. While they, like Christians, consider it to be a valuable historical document, it is just that to them and nothing more. It is treated as no more inspired than other ancient literature and is usually regarded as a Hebrew version of an earlier (and therefore supposedly more accurate) original.

Moreover, a mythical interpretation of the Bible which the secular UFO believers appear to favor of itself requires a corresponding ‘god’ to be of limited abilities and probably (although not necessarily) less than selfless intent. This viewpoint not only opens the door to the selective acceptance and rejection of arbitrary portions of Scripture, but also leads directly to the interpretation of any specific creative acts noted therein as being of limited scope and probably originating from self-serving motives. A good example of this is found on page 191 of Sitchin’s Divine Encounters, where Sumerian king Gudea is commanded through visions from the deity Enlil to build a temple. The detail of construction he is given through the series of visions is highly reminiscent of the Biblical instructions God gives to Moses and, later to David, regarding the construction of the places of worship and the artifacts that are to be used therein. But with respect to intent the similarity ends. Whereas Gudea’s temple has a utilitarian significance for the deities, God’s temples were intended as models to communicate God’s relationship with mankind and especially to instruct man on the nature of the Messiah to come.

The general lack of humanity associated with Sitchin’s beings is common to the viewpoint of the secular UFO buff: the beings are irretrievably alien, a notion that carries with it a strong element of fear. To many people, the intrusion of anything into the physical world not perceived as compatible with it as defined by current science is a very scary thought. It is perhaps this fear of control more than any other that separates the Christian from the secular UFO buff. A popular theme, around which a number of recent movies and television serials have been based, is the alien takeover. Through the use of superior technology, the alien race indwells the bodies of selected humans. From that beachhead, the aliens push outward in their diabolical attempt to make their conquest complete. The situation is made all the more terrifying by the fact that to outward appearances the infected, traitorous humans are indistinguishable from the normal remnant.

Given their common insistence on treating the Bible in the same manner as other ancient documents, it is inevitable that the proponents of the alien thesis should come to regard it from a mythical perspective, even while placing a literal interpretation on many of its passages. Sitchin and other writers of the alien visitation genre develop their theses from an interpretation of ancient texts that is driven by the alien notion. While their interpretations may be literal, the orientation remains secular with a rational, causal flavor. Sitchin, for example, follows precisely the same standard with respect to his interpretation of Hebrew Scripture as he does with the Sumerian texts. This approach may be justified with respect to the Sumerian literature, which seems to possess, to a large degree, an intrinsically secular, sometimes even a technical or social, basis. Scripture, on the other hand, has a different orientation. While its ultimate Author claims to have created the physical universe and everything within it, and while Scripture furnishes essential background information relating to secular matters, its emphasis is not on the secular but on God and His relationship with mankind. When a materialistic concern is presented at all in Scripture, it is usually included only when such background is necessary to provide an appropriate setting for its major theme, which is the presentation of God to man. While Sitchin is to be commended for the consistency of his approach, it may be suggested that perhaps the specifics of the approach to interpreting text should take this difference in orientation into account. There is no question but that a literal interpretation of Scripture is justified in all cases by the richness of the corresponding information it produces. But whereas it would also be appropriate to apply a strictly rational, technical, and causal approach to the exposition of secular material, an interpretation of Scripture should recognize in the omniscience of God His ability to transcend our ideas of causality, limited as we are in time and space. In this context, the possibility of miracles should be recognized, as should the ability of God, through the Holy Spirit, to influence man in both the writing and the interpretation of Scripture. When we attempt to interpret His Word, Scripture itself implies that we should recognize the influence of our own limitations as well as the power of God in the successful execution of this endeavor.

Zecharia Sitchin demonstrates that a strictly secular interpretation of Scripture can lead to a radically different outcome than that of historical understanding. On pages 30 through 33 of Divine Encounters, Sitchin discusses the rift between Cain and Abel, attributing it to their rivalry over the legal heirdom of the patriarchy and paralleling the rivalry between the gods Enlil and Enki. Christians, on the other hand, in the light of a different understanding of the intimacy of God’s interaction with man, see an entirely different cause of the animosity, one that is clearly implied in the Book of Genesis and which is fundamental to their faith. Cain was a farmer, whereas Abel was an animal husbandman. When they brought offerings to the Lord, they each did so in the context of their respective functions: Cain offered the fruits of the harvest, and Abel offered an animal. God viewed these offerings for how they represented man’s attempt to regain His favor after the expulsion from Eden. Whereas Cain offered the work of his own hands, Abel offered the blood of an innocent victim, acknowledging his own inability to please God and foreshadowing the work of Jesus Christ on the cross on behalf of mankind. Cain’s subsequent jealousy over God’s preference of Abel’s sacrifice led to his murder of Abel. Interestingly, on page 40 of Divine Encounters, Sitchin implies, in direct opposition to the Scriptural account, that the farmer enjoyed Enlil’s favor over the herdsman.

This radical difference in interpretation necessarily leads to the perception of inconsistencies throughout the Bible, self-fulfilling the initial assumption that Scripture is less than inspired. The inevitable conclusion that one might make from this viewpoint of the Judeo-Christian Scripture, and especially its regard for the Bible as less than inspired of God is that our ancient forebears were duped into submission, even slavery, to other beings of perhaps superior intellect but less than honorable motives. Our inferior society, according to this view, went along with their functional imprisonment out of their lack of sophistication. To this very day, according to the adherents to this alien genre, the less intellectually endowed among us who attempt to follow the teachings of their religions remain trapped in subjugation to an evil fable.

The result of this trend toward the self-reinforcement of entry presuppositions is that the group of secular believers in UFOs, unlike those who deny their existence, will tend to stand firm in their particular visions of what UFOs represent. If they maintain an assumption of Scriptural errancy, however, their reasoning about the relevance of God to the UFO situation will tend to be circular: they will take out of their mental exercises with respect to God exactly what they came in with. There is thus a rather extreme and irreconcilable divergence of views between the Christian believer in UFOs and their secular counterparts regarding any link between so-called aliens and God. The net outcome of this difference is an implacably dark assignment to UFO occupants of either evil intent or alien indifferene.

This outlook, in turn, has heavily influenced the ongoing government policy of inhibiting the public awareness of UFOs to maintain control over the human population while seeking a better understanding and control over the phenomenon itself.

UFOs CHAPTER 1 (CONTINUED)

CONTACT, COMMUNION AND CHRISTIANITY CHAPTER 1 (CONTINUED)

Accepting the reality of UFOs is comparable to believing in near-death experiences: people can indulge in endless speculation about them, but the truth of the matters can be fully understood only by those who have had actual experience with the events and their aftermaths. As for UFOs, their reality to me is a given, because I personally have experienced the event, and the aftermath, to me, has been a glorious, life-changing journey. Apparently, the same can be said about many of those who have been on the edge between life and death and have returned back to this side.

Actually, there are at least seven important commonalities between UFO encounters and near-death experiences (NDEs). The first of these, at least to those who see a religious connotation to the UFO encounter, is the angelic involvement in both. Second, both kinds of events include both positive and negative encounters. Third, many people, both those involved and their investigators, interpret the experiences as exclusively negative. The account below involving the nun may be distressingly typical. Fourth, the experiences are other-worldly; they don’t fit into the pattern of what we consider to be normal. Fifth, the capabilities of spiritual entities, including those who experience an NDE, extend beyond those of us who are confined to the material world. These super-powers include the ability to travel at will through the air without supporting devices, invisibility, and lack of solidity. Jesus’ post-resurrection encounter with Timothy as described in John 20:24-29, were of this flavor. Sixth, both types of experiences imparted knowledge that would be unobtainable through normal channels of information. The seventh is the most important of all: to those who experienced positive encounters, there was a deep sense of loss at leaving behind the encounter environment.

These commonalities deserve to be addressed in greater detail. As for the angelic quality of the experiences, John Burke describes in his 2015 book Imagine Heaven multiple cases where the person involved was met by beings who were intuitively sensed to be angels. Of course, the “light at the end of the tunnel” that is included in so many of these events almost invariably was associated with Jesus Christ. The same may be said regarding those UFO encounters that were experienced or interpreted as having religious components – the occupants of these craft were thought to be angelic in nature, whether the experience itself was positive or negative. In fact, both the NDE and UFO experiences included both positive and negative instances, where the negative NDE experience was often interpreted as being in hell, and the negative UFO event was attributed to demonic beings. The negative UFO interpretation is addressed elsewhere in this work. As for the interpretation of an NDE experience as negative, John Burke relates one incident that may be more typical than we’d like to imagine. On page 41 of Imagine Heaven he quotes a woman who had her NDE experience in a Catholic hospital. After overcoming her fear of rejection over the matter, she shared her experience with a nurse. Just as she’d imagined, the nurse was horrified and sent for a nun to counsel her. The nun attributed the experience to the work of the devil. This reminds me of several Christian spokespersons who also attribute demonic inspiration to the UFO phenomenon. On the positive side, if the NDE subject went somewhere, that ‘somewhere’ was heaven, and for the ‘religious’ UFO encounter where knowledge was imparted, the subject in at least one case was instructed about or given visions of heaven. That particular case happened to be mine. Regarding the other-worldly nature of both types of experiences, this quality is evidenced by the large number of people who prefer to deny the reality of the events as delusional. It is common knowledge that UFO occupants and their craft perform maneuvers that are quite beyond the capabilities of mankind. Those involved in NDE experiences also claim to possess capabilities that go beyond the normal range of human experience. It’s not always appreciated that Jesus Himself demonstrated super-normal capabilities in addition to His healings, both before and after His resurrection. John 8:59 and 20:24-29 illustrate this quality of Jesus:

“Then took they up stones to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.”

“But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples, therefore, said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, will not believe. And, after eight days, again his disciples were inside, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you. Then saith he to Thomas, Reach here thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach here thny hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing. And Thomas answered, and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed; blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.”

Regarding the impartation of knowledge, I detail in Chapter 5 below my own experience which not only gave me the desire to acquire knowledge of Scripture but the actual understanding that was given to me that can’t be explained in any other way. In Chapter 7, I expand on that single incident by describing the prophetic knowledge that was given to a number of Biblical figures. Some of it is spectacular, including Daniel’s forecast in Daniel 9:24-27 of the timing of critical events that would occur in the future, including Jesus’ entrance as King into Jerusalem a certain time from a predicted event. This prophecy was fulfilled to the exact day hundreds of years in the future from Daniel! Another prophetic event that was precisely fulfilled was Ezekiel’s forecast of Israel’s return to statehood in 1948, as demonstrated by the late Bible scholar Grant Jeffrey.

Some very impressive knowledge, beyond what humans are capable of acquiring, comes out of NDE experiences as well. On pages 35 and 36 of Imagine Heaven, Burke relates how people who have been blind from birth emerge from their NDE episodes with descriptions of persons and objects that would be accessible only to those with the ability to see. He presents a particularly poignant example on page 48 of how a Dutch couple had a daughter they named Reitje who had died while a child. Eventually, after a period of grieving, they had a son. They refrained from telling him about their daughter, wishing to wait until he was older and could better handle the topic of death. When he was five, the son contracted meningitis and died. When he was rescuscitated, his greatly-relieved parents came to his hospital bedside to shower him with their love, whereupon he told them that he had gone to heaven. He told them that he had met his sister there, and gave them her name of Reitje. He asked them why they had never told him about her, saying that she had hugged him and was very loving toward them all. It blows my mind how the boy’s parents must have reacted to that news.

A very lovely lady with whom I had worked at one time confided in me her own near-death experience. While giving birth to her last baby, she succumbed to uncontrollable bleeding, and died on the hospital bed. She recalled hovering under the ceiling above her body, where they were working to resuscitate her. One of the doctors was talking to the nurse assisting him, and happened to make some inappropriate remarks about her. When she regained consciousness, she called him to her bedside and, as the astonished man began to melt down, redressed him sharply for what he had said.

I seem to have acquired some knowledge about heaven. In my most recent novel Home, Sweet Heaven I continue with the adventures of Earl and Joyce Cook, some of which involve the spiritual realm of heaven. An excerpt of their first encounter with that realm is given below; I was comfortable with the writing, as if I was happily recalling it directly from memory.

“They entered the light and emerged into a scene of awesome splendor. It was familiar, even homey, as if she’d been here before, long before her journey on earth. She was surrounded by greenery more vivid and lusher than what she’d been used to on earth. The trees appeared to be alive, their leaves flashing with emerald sparkles in the light breeze. They cast soft background glows that blended smoothly into a warm powder blue sky at the horizon that gradually deepened into a midnight blue at the zenith. This visual experience is a beautiful song, Joyce marveled. Even the grass seemed to be participating harmoniously in the joyful singing that surrounded her both visually and aurally. She rapidly began to view the dimensional restriction of her past life on earth as an irritating encumbrance. As she looked around, Joyce thrilled to the softly harmonious blend of colors. It was like the transition between black-and-white and color TV. Beyond the grandness of the visual experience, love was in the very air, so immense that it seemed to have a palpable presence. Her sense of familiarity strengthened as, mingled with the love was the growing knowledge that this was her real home.

“Yes!” a laughing angel affirmed to her without speaking. The presence of this being, Joyce realized with shock, was not outside her own soul. The being was within her, part of her own self and anything but an invasion of her privacy. Privacy here was meaningless, her spiritual intuition told her, as unwelcome as such an intrusion would have represented in the material world from which she had so recently departed. The intimacy was akin to romance with perhaps even an implication of sensuality in its connectivity, but extended vastly beyond the earthly experience. Another spiritual being entered their domain, extending the joy of intimate communion.

“’Oh!’ Joyce exclaimed to her new companion. ‘Oh my, I recognize you! You’re Cathy!’ The recognition of the soul who in earth had inhabited the severely crippled body of a girl afflicted with cerebral palsy overwhelmed her and she began to cry. Cathy joined in, weeping with joy and tightening their spiritual bond. ‘Look at me!’ she cried, moving outside Joyce’s domain momentarily to prance. ‘I’m whole!’ She skipped away, and then returned to Joyce, laughing. Joyce continued to cry as she looked with wonder at her adopted daughter who had been so cruelly mishandled at the hands of the prison guards. After a time of silent, heartfelt communion, Cathy began to instruct her about heaven. ‘The spiritual realm is our normal home, Joyce,’ she told her earthly guardian. ‘I chose to spend some time on earth, and I chose the body and circumstances under which that time would be spent. We were given that choice as an opportunity to grow in our love of God and to help others grow as well. You were one of my primary assignments, although I wasn’t aware of it while I was on Earth.’

“’Me? You were to help me?’ Joyce responded in surprise.

“’Yes. You thought it was the other way around, but I was placed into your life to help you grow in love and compassion. A big part of that growth involved your becoming more selfless in your interaction with others. But there were others with the same mission, like Earl and Sam.’”

Much as the NDE experience overlaps that of the UFO encounter, they are far from identical. There is at least one major difference as well. Whereas the UFO phenomenon quite often evokes secular, materialistic interpretations and notions of government cover-ups, there is no counterpart to these interpretations in the NDE cases, which invariably are interpreted in religious terms. Government involvement there is simply not contemplated, nor should it be. As far as I’m aware, nobody on the brink of death has been escorted to a group of bug-eyed Greys. I wouldn’t reject the possibility of something like that happening, but if I ever heard of such a thing, I’d be laughing a lot.

UFOs Chapter One

CONTACT, COMMUNION AND CHRISTIANITY CHAPTER 1

Copyright © 2015 by Arthur Perkins Wordcount: approx. 61,045
12010 Clearlake North Road East 170 pages
Eatonville, WA 98328
(360) 832-6099

CONTACT, COMMUNION AND CHRISTIANITY

What’s the End Game?

CONTENTS

Chapter 1: A Change of Heart

Chapter 2: The Secular Perception of UFOs

Chapter 3: The Historical Alien Presence – Or Was It Something Else?

Chapter 4: The Christian Assessment of UFOs Part One – The Negative Take

Chapter 5: The Christian Assessment of UFOs Part Two – the Positive Take

Chapter 6: Extra-Biblical Christian-Related Accounts of UFOs

Chapter 7: Biblical Accounts of UFOs

Chapter 8: Commonalities Associated With Modern UFO sightings

Chapter 9: Fraudulent Debunking – Methodology and Famous Episodes

Chapter 10: An Integration of UFO Lore Into a Coherent Christian
Understanding

Appendix 1: The Inerrancy of Scripture

Appendix 2: A Commentary on the Incompatibility of Macroevolution with Both Judeo-Christian Scripture and Physical Reality.

Chapter 1: A Change of Heart

When Dr. J. Allen Hynek agreed to work for the Air Force, he had no concept of the ride he had signed up for. Hired on in the ‘50s as a scientific consultant for Project Bluebook, the government-run clearing house for UFO incidents, he began delving into sighting reports with the materialistic no-nonsense mindset so common among scientists.

At first Dr. Hynek fit in perfectly with the prevailing skepticism of the project leaders, enthusiastically furnishing a number of highly creative quasi-scientific rational explanations for UFO sightings, all of which were meant to quell any notion that the phenomenon had a basis in the reality perceived by those who were making otherworld claims. Indeed, his ‘swamp gas’ explanation of some sightings became famous for arousing angry responses from UFO buffs and, for its basic unbelievability, implanting in their minds the first tangible indication of the possibility of a government cover-up.

Dr. Hynek didn’t deserve their wrath. He was basically an honest and forthright man who understood the enormous potential impact of the UFO phenomenon on the prevailing naturalistic paradigm of the universe. He addressed his work with the utmost integrity; at the time he simply refused to believe in the supernatural which, to him, was an essential feature of the sightings he had investigated. He had to furnish answers that made sense to him, and ‘swamp gas’ and the like were the best explanations he could come up with.

As he continued to pursue his investigations, however, his mind underwent a process of change. The witnesses were too credible to discount, their information too consistent, and their stories possessed a richness of new and unique information that smacked of truth. As Dr. Hynek began to understand the total inadequacy of his earlier explanations he listened with new ears to witness accounts. As time went on, he became a convert to the cause.

His intellect and scientific training led him to approach the UFO issue at a deeper level than many investigators. After he left Project Bluebook, he continued to pursue the UFO topic with great interest and wrote books on the subject. In his studies of UFO dynamics and behavior, he eventually reached a remarkable conclusion: in essence, the phenomena could not be understood or explained in terms of conventional physics: whatever was behind it must be spiritual in nature.

Of one thing Dr. Hynek was absolutely certain: whatever they might be, UFOs were real.

A large number of books have been written over the past several decades from the late 1940s up to the present on the topic of extraterrestrial visitations. Through these years of our modern exposure to this phenomenon, public acceptance has often been enthusiastic but fleeting, being strongly influenced by media bias. Interest has waxed and waned periodically just like the UFO flaps which the books describe. But even during the quiet times the public never entirely forgot the fact that something did happen in the skies, and that the mundane explanations just didn’t account for what took place. By the turn of the century polls discovered that a significant percentage of the public believed in the existence of UFOs. The belief itself, however, has been weak and fuzzy until recently for two primary reasons: first, because it didn’t fit well with the system of thought with which we perceived the world about us; and second, because the notion itself had been trivialized, falsely- and under-reported, and otherwise discouraged by what we consider to be ‘official’ sources of information. Given that disconnect, we had tended to compartmentalize whatever knowledge we might have possessed regarding the phenomenon away from our bases of everyday reality. Reality existed over here. The UFO issue was over there. With few exceptions, even those who have had first-hand experience with the objects or their occupants had performed this mental process of separation in the past.

The barriers which historically have served to impose this separation not only remain in place, but are more firmly entrenched than ever. The issue is not with the UFO phenomenon itself. Despite the media trivialization and official denials, interactions between people and UFOs continue unabated, often involving mass sightings which are difficult to deny.

The real separation issue resides in the power of the media over the public mind, supported by the increasing regression of our ability to think and act for ourselves. We the public expect the media to do the thinking for us, and the media have been all too happy to oblige, to the extent that social engineering is now an integral part of the media agenda. As for the UFO situation, at infrequent intervals the public is treated to a particularly spectacular or undeniable sighting event, but the coverage rarely continues beyond a day. With no subsequent media follow-up, the event rather rapidly departs from the public awareness, with much of the public assessment of it being consigned to the hoax category despite the existing cynical attitude toward both the media and government spokespersons. If the media do not constantly remind us of them, UFOs gravitate quickly back to the dusty, lonely and rarely-visited recesses of the public mind.

Regardless of what point of view, if any, we might choose to take regarding the existence of UFOs or their intent regarding the human race, a very large number of people already have been impacted by them, and the number grows larger every year. They avoid categorization; for every trait a sighting might possess, there seems to be an exception. Some are perceived as good, but more are viewed as evil. Yet others are seen as pursuing a specific mission, and there are alien counterparts that are branded as irrational. Most are rather shy- sightings of them are rare enough that the majority of us are lucky to see one in a lifetime. But there are exceptions to that, too, a famous example being the Gulf Breeze Sightings that took place on the southern Florida panhandle near the Alabama border over a period of several years beginning November 11, 1987.

Ed Walters, a local building contractor, was a respected member of that residential community of about 6,000, which is situated on the western tip of a spit of land south of Pensacola. On that day in 1987 he happened to not only see the UFO but received esoteric information. He took Polaroid pictures of the device. The pictures were subsequently published in the Gulf Breeze Sentinel, which gave the event heavy local coverage. The sighting event included his getting zapped by a light beam from the craft that temporarily paralyzed him and lifted him off the ground, accompanied by a voice that said “don’t worry, we won’t harm you.”

It would have been a fairly normal kind of UFO encounter if that had been all there was to it. But the sightings refused to stop. He had another one a week later. Then another. In fact, the number of sightings between November 1990 and July 1992 grew to over 150. The UFO occupants wouldn’t let him alone, but continued to hound him until he became sick of the sightings and the attention he was getting and moved away.

That didn’t end his involvement in the sightings. A model of a UFO was found in the attic of his old home. The “discovery” caused him to suddenly fall into disrepute. Subsequent findings led investigators away from seeing him in terms of culprithood. Instead, they began to sense his victimhood, perceiving him to be the subject of a well-planned attempt to discredit him, as discrepancies were found between the model and the photographs. In addition, he was investigated by Budd Hopkins and MUFON, respected UFO researchers who concluded that his sightings were not hoaxes. The investigation included two polygraph tests, the use of a tamper-proof camera, and investigation of corroborating witnesses, one of whom was an investigative psychologist and another of whom was an independent source of more pictures of the UFO.

Regardless of whether or not UFOs are accepted without doubt as real, the public attitude toward them is almost uniformly negative. But that is not always the case. What is certain is that the secular and Christian communities perceive UFOs in very different ways. And well they should, because some UFO sightings possess a religious element, particularly in the after-effects.

[to be continued]

GOD, FACE TO FACE CHAPTER EIGHT (CONTINUED)

CHAPTER EIGHT (CONTINUED) The Meaning of Biblical Morality

It has been said, in defense of Zanchius, that in describing God as above passion, he was referring exclusively to God transcendent, a state of being connoting God separate from and above His creation. God immanent, on the other hand, referring to God among us, would indeed possess passion.

This defense is weakened by the fact that it puts words into the mouth of Zanchius that the gentleman never put there himself. Nevertheless, the assumption shall be made herein that Zanchius meant this all along.

It will also be presumed, so that the discussion might proceed without immediately being cut off, that somehow the following Scripture verse, namely Hebrews 13:8, can be interpreted to be not applicable to a change in God’s personality from ‘God transcendent’ to ‘God immanent’.

“Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever.”

It will yet further be presumed, for the sake of initial argument, that ‘God immanent’ refers exclusively to Jesus in the flesh. But since Jesus preexisted His sojourn in the flesh, his or any other Member of the Trinity’s existence prior to that event would necessarily be ‘God transcendent’. But Exodus 32:7-14, for example, describes that same God, who is, by our initial definition ‘transcendent’ at that point in history, as possessing passion in abundance:

“And the Lord said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, whom thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves. They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made a molten calf, and have worshiped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These are thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
“And the Lord said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiff-necked people. Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.
“And Moses besought the Lord his God, and said, Lord why doth wrath wax hot against thy people, whom thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou didst swear by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed, and they shall inherit it forever.
“And the Lord repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.”

Perhaps, then, lest we find immediate fault with this notion that ‘God transcendent’ differs with respect to nature than ‘God immanent’, the term ‘God immanent’ would better be defined as ‘God interacting with man’. But that doesn’t work because the creation itself of man is one aspect of God interacting with man, whereas it is the very endeavor of creation that defines “God transcendent’.

We could narrow the definition of ‘God immanent’ further to mean ‘God communicating with man’. As redeemed mankind will be communicating with Jesus as His Bride throughout eternity, that raises a very strange and difficult, if not blasphemous theological issue: Jesus as God was once transcendent before He came in the flesh, but never shall be again.

We could narrow the definition still further to mean ‘God communicating with man while He is in the flesh’ But that doesn’t work either, because Ephesians 5 demands that in His spiritual form, Jesus will be communicating quite intimately with His Church, to whom he is Husband. By this new definition, Jesus shall no longer assume the role of ‘God immanent’, but instead shall be ‘God transcendent’. Shall we then insist upon a passionless marriage, one that violates the whole concept of marriage as God Himself in both Scripture and creation has presented it to us?

In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul’s mystery in Chapter 5 gives us a very different message than this. It speaks of hope and joy to which Zanchius’ definition of God simply doesn’t do justice. It is to be treasured not only for its contribution to our future hope and expectation, but also to clarify our understanding of our God. This mystery is encapsulated in Ephesians 5:25-32:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
“So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth it and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
“This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”

A devoted Christian condensed this beautiful statement into the following magnificent observation: “Just as Adam’s side was opened for Eve, so Jesus’ side was opened for His Church.”

In dwelling upon this wonderful notion, we also anticipate a God who is capable of passion toward us regardless of whether His presence is transcendent or immanent. In recognizing this fact, we can return to the assurance in Hebrews 13:8 of God’s unchanging nature.

What might change in God between transcendence and immanence is the dimensional constraint that Jesus experienced in becoming flesh. But that implies a limitation on His attributes rather than His basic nature, where passion belongs. Furthermore, it would be a limitation on His immanent form, not His transcendent form, which demands that His immanent form involves a subset of the attributes associated with His transcendent form, not the other way around. Therefore, even if one should insist in opposition to logic that passion was an attribute rather than an element of His basic nature, passion would be part of His transcendent form and not His immanent form, in contradiction to the argument that attempted to support Zanchius’ omission of passion in God’s nature.

Having refuted Zanchius’ assertion on this point, we can state without restraint that God, regardless of whether His form or state of being is immanent or transcendent, is capable of possessing passion. An immediate implication of this is that God is not alien to us.

The notion that God is above love of a passionate nature appears to violate Scripture, the most obvious case being ardor and passion intricately woven into the Song of Solomon, otherwise known as the Song of Songs. At least two Bible commentaries (in the Reformation Study Bible, New King James Version and in the New Schofield Reference Bible), both as introductions to the Song of Solomon, consider the Song to be an allegory of the future union of Jesus Christ with His Church.

My perception of the glory of God in all three Persons of the Godhead is far more the quality of their selfless willingness to give up the majesty than the grandeur of their possession of it. Connected with that perception I view the Members of the Godhead as capable of experiencing love with intensity and passion, which to me includes love of the romantic kind. Otherwise, the Song of Solomon would seem to be a wholly gratuitous insertion into Scripture of material extraneous to the Word if it didn’t speak either of Jesus’ future relationship with the Church or of the inter-Member relationship within the Godhead or both. Even more telling in this regard is the Shema of Moses, which Jesus presents as the greatest commandment in Matthew 22:36-38, and which demands a passionate commitment to the Lord. In light of the fact that Jesus, as a superlative Leader, never asked of His disciples anything that He wouldn’t do of Himself, it would seem to be contradictory to His character for Him to ask of us a passion that He Himself was incapable of exercising or even possessing.

The Song of Solomon raises issues in that regard that are worth addressing in detail. A host of Christian authorities readily acknowledge that it speaks of marital love in terms of passion and ardor. The same authorities admit even the erotic nature of some of its verses. The 1995 Reformation Study Bible (New King James Version), for example has this to say of the subject matter of the Song of Solomon:

“The beauty and worth of sexual love is affirmed at the beginning of the Bible, where the difference and relationship of the sexes is associated with the creation of humanity in God’s image (Gen. 1:27; cf. 2:19-25) If sexual love were evil in itself, it would be inappropriate as an allegory of Christ’s love for His church.”

Here Editor R. C. Sproul and his associates not only acknowledge the sexuality of the topic, but link it to both the nature of the Godhead and with the relationship between Christ and His Church. Indeed, in their same introductory commentary, the editors make the following statements:

“The Song of Solomon reveals three qualities of love between a man and a woman: self-giving, desire, and commitment. In all these ways love reflects the greater love of God our Creator. God delights in us and gives Himself to us. . . Christian marriage, according to Paul, should be modeled on the most perfect expression of such love, the self-giving love of Christ for His church and its willing response (Eph. 5:22, 23). The climax of the Song of Solomon is the praise of vehement and faithful love (8:6,7). The Song of Solomon. . .looks back to the gift of love in creation, and forward to the perfection of love in One greater than Solomon, the Lord Jesus Christ.”

The editors, after implying a gender attribute of Jesus and the Godhead Itself, back off from openly declaring a sexuality of God:

“Although it is not proper to attribute sexuality to God, there is an analogy between the love we experience in marriage and the love that God has for us.”

While I would have wished that the editors, after having stated here what easily could be interpreted as the essential opposite of what they presented elsewhere in their introductory remarks, might have explained to us what they meant by the words ‘not proper’ and ‘sexuality’ and how they might justify using these words, their comment here may be reconciled with their other insinuations while leaving intact the notion of gender in the Godhead by considering the word ‘sexuality’ to refer to the human-specific form in which the function of gender has been implemented. If that indeed is what the editors had in mind, then I would be somewhat in agreement with them (while, with one eye fixed on the Song, wondering if they hadn’t been a bit hasty themselves in this declaration) and be tempted to applaud their discernment in declaring ‘sexuality’ to be an inappropriate attribute of the Godhead.

The commentary on the Song of Solomon presented in the New Schofield Reference Bible (1967 Edition edited by C. I. Schofield) echoes, but even more forcefully, that given in the Reformation Study Bible:

“Nowhere in Scripture does the unspiritual mind tread upon ground so mysterious and incomprehensible as in this book, whereas saintly men and women throughout the ages have found it a source of pure and exquisite delight. That the love of the divine Bridegroom, symbolized here by Solomon’s love for the Shulamite maiden, should follow the analogy of the marriage relationship seems evil only to minds that are so ascetic that marital desire itself appears to them to be unholy.

“The book is the expression of pure marital love as ordained by God in creation, and the vindication of that love as against both asceticism and lust – the two profanations of the holiness of marriage. Its interpretation is threefold: (1) as a vivid unfolding of Solomon’s love for a Shulamite girl; (2) as a figurative revelation of God’s love for His covenant people, Israel, the wife of the Lord (Isa. 54:5-6; Jer. 2:2; Ezek. 16:8-14, 20-21, 32, 38; Hos. 2:16, 18-20); and (3) as an allegory of Christ’s love for His heavenly bride, the Church (2 Cor. 11:1-2, refs., Eph 5:25-32).”

As there appears to be a general agreement among established Biblical authorities regarding the relevance of this openly passionate Book to Christ and His Church, and there appears to be a similarly general agreement among established Biblical authorities regarding the Diety of Jesus Christ, an inescapable observation must be made: At least one Member of the Divine Godhead is openly acknowledged to be fully capable and willing to (passionately) exercise His male gender.

GOD, FACE TO FACE CHAPTER EIGHT

CHAPTER EIGHT: The meaning of Biblical Morality

General

According to Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance for the King James Bible, there is no Biblical reference to either morality or immorality.  There are, however, multiple passages in the Bible that essentially equate our notion of the word “morality” to other common terms.  These will be explored below.

There are numerous discussions on the Internet regarding Biblical morality, two of which reference a number of Bible verses the authors thought to be appropriate to the topic.  Many of these verses reference notions that are thought to be equivalent to our basic understanding of what Biblical morality might represent.  They are arranged below according to their commonality of these alternate expressions.

Morality as fulfillment of the Law (sometimes equated with love, other times equated with doctrine, most dealing with sexual deviation): Genesis 19:1-38; Exodus 20:13; Leviticus 18 and 20; Deuteronomy 23; 1 Kings 14:24; 2 Kings 23:7; Proverbs 20, 23; Matthew 5:27, 28; Matthew 7:12; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 5:17; 1 Timothy 1:10; Revelation 21:8; Revelation 22:15;

Morality as righteousness, which is most used in terms of our obedience to the call from God to love our neighbors and most specifically for our honesty in dealing with others, our responsibility toward those under our control or supervision and for our compassion toward those hurting or less fortunate than ourselves:  Isaiah 64:6; Matthew 6:33; Matthew 25; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 2 Timothy 3:16

Morality as love of God: Romans 13:8-10; Matthew 22:37-40; Mark 12:30, 31;

Morality as obedience to God: references under fulfillment of the Law; references to righteousness; Proverbs 6:23-25; Proverbs 12:1; Matthew 6:24; Matthew 24:44-46; Acts 5:29; 1 Corinthians 2:13; Ephesians 6:4; James 1:22-25

Morality as good manners (responsible, thoughtful conduct): 1 Corinthians 15:33

Morality as harmonious with man’s creation: Genesis 1:27

Sexual Morality

The issue of sexual morality, and in particular the Biblical implications regarding it, is so important and so generally misunderstood that it deserves a separate discussion.

Webster’s New American Dictionary, 1956 Edition, defines “morality” as follows: “right living, virtue; conformity to generally accepted standards of conduct. “ Virtue, in turn, is defined therein as: “moral excellence, chastity”.  Continuing on, chastity is defined therein as: “the state of being chaste; purity”, where the word “purity” is defined as: “the quality of being free of blemishes and without admixture; chastity”.  Despite this unhelpful circularity of definition, chastity is commonly equated with virginity, which, in that dictionary, is defined as: “the quality of being a virgin; celibacy; chastity”.  Therefore, according to this dictionary, the term “morality” is equated, in a roundabout way, with celibacy.  There certainly are other, nonsexual, connotations of morality as well, but the sexual connotation takes center stage.

This linkage of morality with sexual purity, most commonly interpreted as strict celibacy, has been with the Church virtually since its beginning.   The implication is that sexuality of any nature, is at best a diversion preventing full intimacy with God and, at worst, a sin.  This notion is sometimes taken to the extreme of pronouncing as sinful passion of any kind.  This notional attitude is common in both Protestant and Catholic denominations, the Catholic expression of it being the most open.   As demonstrated in numerous Catholic publications, and particularly in those that deal with Mary, this equivalence is quite pronounced.  As an example is the Catholic insistence upon Mary’s perpetual virginity, despite the clear contradiction in Matthew 13 of that notion.  (The Catholic answer to Matthew 13 is her interpretation of the terms “brothers” and “sisters” is that of close relatives rather than siblings.)  It is true that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7, describes celibacy as a desirable objective with the intent that the virgin may place all his or her affection on God undiluted, but note in verses 6 and 25 his acknowledgment that virginity is not a commandment from God.  Note also in verse 40 that Paul seems unsure as to how much of the call to celibacy of which he speaks is actually of God.  Nowhere in the Bible outside of Paul’s discussion in 1 Corinthians 7 is there a hint that celibacy is a desirable practice.  There is no commandment that says “Thou shalt not lie with a woman.”  To the contrary, in Genesis 1:28 God told them to be fruitful and multiply.  Furthermore, Deuteronomy 23:1 insists that full masculinity is required for service to the Lord by stating that “He who is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord.”  As a final point on the sexuality issue is the presence of the overtly sexual Song of Solomon in the canon of Scripture.

On the other hand, there are a host of abuses of normal sexuality that are proscribed in the Bible (especially in Exodus 20:14 and 17 and Leviticus 18 and 20) as abominations, or as one might otherwise put them, as immoral acts, such as adultery, homosexuality and bestiality, all of which represent violations of the way that God designed us, and consequently are in disharmony with our basic (unfallen) natures.  Adultery, in particular, also directly violates God’s second greatest commandment (Matthew 22:39), which is to love our neighbor as ourselves.

Additional  Comments on the Church’s Notion of Sexual Morality

Perhaps the most intellectually theological expression of the notion of sexuality or even passion as being beneath God is the virtually Gnostic pronouncement given by Jerome Zanchius in his tome “Absolute Predestination Stated and Asserted”.  The first of these statements may be found on p. 40 as “Position 2” under the heading “The Mercy of God”.  In that statement Zanchius says “Mercy is not in the Deity, as it is in us, a passion or affection, everything of that kind being incompatible with the purity, perfection, independency and unchangeableness [immutability] of His nature; . . .”  The second of his statements is on pp. 43 and 44 under headings I and II of chapter 1.  Therein he fleshes out his concept of God’s love, as the following excerpts show: “When love is predicated of God, we do not mean that He is possessed of it as a passion or affection.  In us it is such, but if, considered in that sense, it should be ascribed to the Deity, it would be utterly subversive of the simplicity, perfection and independency of His being. . .”;  “. . .His love towards them arises merely from ‘the good pleasure of his own will,’ without the least regard to anything ad extra or out of Himself.”; “When hatred is ascribed to God, it implies (1) a negation of benevolence, or a resolution not to have mercy on such and such men. . .”

Zanchius thus defines a God whose primary attribute is his majestic greatness.  Had his mind access to expressions denoting higher level superlatives, he certainly would have included them.  In defining God in this way, he automatically makes love a secondary attribute, despite John’s emphatic identification of God as the very embodiment of love.  Zanchius’ passionless God, in fact, is alien to the God of Scripture.  This is to be expected, as he assigns attributes to God without any reference whatsoever to Scripture itself.

Zanchius’ God, then, being positionally remote from and by nature very different from the mankind of His creation, is alien to it as well.

In opposition to Zanchius, Scripture paints a far more beautiful picture of God, depicting His majestic glory as His willingness to give up the majesty of greatness and power in favor of a love of great fullness and depth.  The Gospels appear to support this view, depicting Jesus Christ (as God) as a Being full of the attributes of love as we know it, including passion.  Examples that come to mind include His weeping over Jerusalem and Lazarus and His ordeal in the garden of Gethsemane.  It is difficult to picture the risen Jesus talking to His followers on the road to Emmaus in the context of Zanchius’ notion of God’s remote perfection.

Zanchius’ definition of God not only suppresses His most important attribute, but inhibits those to whom Scripture was written from loving Him back.  This is a serious issue because it runs counter to His Great Commandment to love Him with all our hearts, and our souls and our minds.

[to be continued]

GOD, FACE TO FACE CHAPTER SEVEN (CONTINUED)

CHAPTER SEVEN (CONTINUED): The issue extends beyond the gender of the Holy Spirit

One further Biblical suggestion needs to be addressed regarding the importance of gender in the relationships within Godhead and between the spiritual Church and Jesus Christ.  In Genesis 17, God talks to Abraham, telling him of a blessing that he will receive that will greatly impact the future of mankind:

“And when Abram was ninety years old and nine, the Lord appeared to Abram, and said unto him, I am the Almighty God; walk before me, and be thou perfect.  And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly.  And Abram fell on his face: and God talked with him, saying, As for Me, behold, My covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations.  Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.  And I will make thee exceedingly fruitful, and I will make nations of thee, and kings shall come out of thee.  And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.  And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a sojourner, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God.

 

          “And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep My covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations.  This is My covenant, which ye shall keep, between me and you and thy seed after thee.  Every male child among you shall be circumcised.  And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a sign of the covenant between Me and you.  And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every male child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any foreigner who is not of thy seed.  He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.  And the uncircumcised male child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken My covenant.

 

          “And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai, thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be.  And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.  Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old?  And shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?  And Abraham said unto God, Oh, that Ishmael might live before thee!  And God said, Sarah, thy wife, shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac; and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.”

 

          The primary theme of this passage continues in Genesis 18:11-14:

“Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women.  Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I have become old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also?  And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying Shall I of a surety bear a child, who am old?  Is anything too hard for the Lord?  At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.”

I now present the gender issue to the reader by way of a question involving the passage above that requires nothing more or less than a common-sense answer:  Why, if God isn’t intimately and personally involved in gender, would He present one of the most important transactions between Him and the human race in terms of a sexual miracle?

As God had suggested, nothing is too hard for Him to accomplish.  If God were indeed above gender, as many past and present theologians insist, He certainly could have altered the story line and associated miracle to remove sexuality from it.

Sarah would bear their son Isaac the next year.  Why indeed would God demand a token response of Abraham and his offspring in the form of the sexual ritual of male circumcision?  This ritual had little or nothing to do with cleanliness.  The human race had survived for centuries before the ritual was established.  In Acts 7:51, Paul echoes Ezekiel 36:26 in furnishing a hint as to the real purpose of the ritual:

“Ye stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Spirit; as your fathers did, so do ye.”

 

In a very graphic way, Paul used the term to chastise his audience for their lack of sensitivity toward God.  That was indeed the imagery that God intended to convey to the nation of Israel through the institution of the rite.

Isaac was the son of Abraham through his lifelong marital partner, as God had intended marriage to be.  Through Abraham’s intended sacrifice of Isaac later, Abraham became a strong type of God the Father, while Isaac represented the Jesus as Lamb of God who was obedient to the cross.  Years later, Abraham sought a suitable wife for Isaac, one who would maintain Isaac as a strong type of Christ.  The account is in Genesis 24:10-32:

“And the servant took ten camels of the camels of [Abraham], and departed; for all the goods of his master were in his hand: and he arose, and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor.  And he made his camels to kneel down outside the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water.  And he said, O Lord god of my master, Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and show kindness unto my master, Abraham.  Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water; and let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also; let her be the one whom thou hast appointed for thy servant, Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shown kindness unto my master.

 

          “And it came to pass, before he had finished speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder.  And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her; and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up.  And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water from thy pitcher.  And she said, Drink, my lord: and she hastened, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink.  And when she had finished giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have finished drinking.  And she hastened, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels.  And the man, wondering at her, held his peace, to learn whether the Lord had made his journey prosperous or not.

 

‘And it came to pass, as the camels had finished drinking, that the man took a golden ring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her wrists of ten shekels weight of gold; and said, Whose daughter art thou?  Tell me, I pray thee: is there room in thy father’s house for us to lodge in?  And she said unto him, I am the daughter of Bethuel, the son of Milcah, whom she bore unto Nahor.  She said moreover unto him, We have both straw and fodder enough, and room to lodge in.  And the man bowed down his head and worshiped the Lord.  And he said, Blessed be the Lord God  of my master, Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way, the Lord led me to the house of my master’s brethren.  And the dams and he ungirded his camels, and gave straw and fodder for the camels, and water to wash his feet, and the men;s feet that were with him.  And there was set food before him to eat: but he said, I will not eat, until I have told mine errand.”

 

The man related to Laban and the others the unique way that God had precisely answered his elaborate test for the suitability of Rebekah for marriage to Isaac.  Then the man gave Laban the riches he had brought with him on the camels.  Laban responded by consenting to the marriage.  But as the man prepared to return to Abraham with Rebekah, Laban backed off somewhat, asking for another ten days before giving up his sister.  At that point, almost as an afterthought, they decided to ask for Rebekah’s consent as well.  (As a side point, I see some implication in that regarding the issue of free will, most often expressed as the Calvinist/Arminian divide among Christians)

After receiving Rebekah’s consent to the marriage, they journey back to Abraham’s home, where Isaac marries Rebekah.  She gives birth to Jacob and Esau.  Jacob is renamed Israel by God, continuing on the bloodline to Jesus Christ.

I offer another question to the reader: What was so important about Isaac’s marriage to Rebekah that it involved such an intricate selection process that was so detailed in Scripture?  Permit me to answer that one:  Isaac, who was a strong type of Christ, continued to be a type in this marital relationship, anticipating the future role of the Church as the Bride of Christ.  Paul expressed this blessed hope quite boldly in Ephesians 5:31 and 32:

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.  This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.”

 

Christians sometimes claim that Jesus never married, nor ever will marry, perceiving Him to be “above” sexual matters.  Others claim that He did marry, to Mary Magdalene.  I would claim that both these presuppositions are wrong with immense implications regarding our understanding of God, suggesting instead that Jesus never married on Earth because He already is betrothed to his future wife, the Church.  I see Jesus’ first miracle at the wedding in Cana as anticipating the joy of that future marriage.               

           

GOD, FACE TO FACE CHAPTER SEVEN

CHAPTER SEVEN: The issue extends beyond the gender of the Holy Spirit

It is a left-handed tribute to the thoroughness by which the Church was cleansed of all matters sexual to appreciate that not only was the Holy Spirit stripped of gender, but that this wholesale gender denial extended to our future spiritual relationship with Jesus Christ.  Even today, pastors who should know their Scripture better downplay Paul’s beautiful presentation in Ephesians 5 of our future spiritual relationship with Jesus as His wife.

Claiming, no, demanding rather, that procreation doesn’t exist in the spiritual realm, they prefer to perceive the Church’s future bridehood as nothing more than a figure of speech intended to convey the greatness of Jesus agape love toward mankind.  As to what the actual relationship consists of, they refuse to extend their imaginations beyond some kind of bright light in heaven and go no further, their impassible mental wall being their equation of purity with chastity.  In doing so, they miss the boat on the Godhead’s involvement in the entire creation epic.

It is common knowledge that Scripture describes the Church as the Bride of Christ.  But Scripture also describes us as Jesus’ spiritual wife, which defines the relationship as having been consummated.  Examples include Revelation 19:7 and 21:9.  Romans 7:4 is even more explicit in that regard, going beyond describing our relationship with Jesus as a marital one to identifying it as bearing fruit:

Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ, that ye should be married to another, even to Him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

It is an undeniable fact that consummation and birth go hand-in-hand.  The insistence upon its denial in the face of its obvious truth reminds me of an incident in which my brother and I were involved in junior high.  Regrettably, our involvement was thoughtless, causing us to engage in some soul-searching afterward.

There is a saying in the Marine Corps that there are always the ten percent who never get the word.  This is true not only in the service but in all walks of life.  In the particular case that I’m recalling here, the fourteen-year-old classmate of ours had no knowledge whatsoever regarding the birds and the bees.  My brother and I, upon discovering this oddity, proceeded to explain to him that his very presence on earth required his mother and father to have engaged in sex.  He subsequently displayed, in very rapid succession, all the stages of grief.  He went into denial, but then his mind caught up with that and his face turned quite red.  He wept crocodile tears and, bawling, he got up and rushed out the classroom door while the rest of the class snickered.  I imagine that he went directly home thereafter to confront his parents with their disgrace.

That poor unfortunate kid reminds me a lot of our mainstream Church leadership, both Catholic and Protestant.  The main difference is the probability that over ninety percent of them never got the word.  The problem is not that God has engaged in disgraceful behavior, but that the Church leadership now and in the past has insisted upon perceiving all sexual conduct as dirty.  They need to grow up.

With that thought in mind, I present the following questions to them:

QUESTIONS FOR THE MAINSTREAM THEOLOGIAN WHO INSISTS UPON THE LACK OF GENDER IN THE SPIRITUAL REALM

All of the following issues have straightforward, Scripturally-compatible answers.

Please explain the mechanics of Jesus’ birth in the flesh, with reference to Luke 1:26-35 and “the seed of the Woman” in Genesis 3:15.  Regarding this issue, the proper interpretation of “seed” is the male contribution to life, as opposed to “egg”, which is the female contribution to life.  Also, in Luke 1, the “highest” is the Father.  Putting these facts together in the context of a feminine Holy Spirit who is creatively responsive to the Father’s will leads to a conclusion that is very different, less self-contradictory, fully intuitive and eminently more logical than the mainstream views of both Catholic and Protestant Churches on this topic.

Please cite Scriptural descriptions of the spiritual Church that are not relevant to depictions of Jesus’ marital relationship to the spiritual Church.  Do not include references to the Church as the Body of Christ, as that is explained in Ephesians 5:28 as integral to the marital union.

Please explain, with reference to John 3 and Revelation 12, how Scripture denies the possibility of procreation in the spiritual realm.

Please explain the relevance to the body of Scriptural canon the presence in Scripture of the following books and chapters: Genesis 2 and 24; Song of Solomon; Isaiah 54; Jesus’ first miracle described in John 2 – the wedding in Cana; 1 Corinthians 6 and 7; Ephesians 5; and Revelation 19-21.

Please explain Scripture’s emphasis and often continuous focus in both Testaments on gender, marriage, birth and offspring.

Please account for Scriptural references to feminine characteristics, including executive roles and the portrayal of Wisdom in Proverbs as feminine, within the Godhead in the face of the strong masculinity of both the Father and Jesus Christ and the anti-Scriptural notion of both masculinity and femininity residing within the same Being.

Please point to those passages in Scripture that label gender or sexuality as beneath God.  Please include those passages that describe the only purpose of the marital union as the begetting of children.  Such would appear to contradict 1 Corinthians 7:9.

Please explain why Jesus remained celibate during His time on earth.

Please explain the difficulty of mainstream theology in its understanding of the Holy Spirit and its perception of the issue as complex, and why, in the face of a simple, intuitive answer to the issue given a feminine Holy Spirit, it is necessary to suggest that an answer is unknowable and can be resolved only through a face-to-face meeting with God.

Please explain the attachment in Genesis 2:18 to the notion of complementary otherness and why that doesn’t apply to the Godhead.

Those who found that they couldn’t answer all of the questions with reference to Scripture should get the hint that maybe their understanding of God needs some extensive revision with respect to gender and love within the Judeo-Christian Godhead.  Perhaps some re-examination of the meaning of sexual purity also would be in order.  The following chapter addresses that issue.

GOD, FACE TO FACE CHAPTER SIX

CHAPTER SIX: A summary of the God that the mainstream Christian Church refuses to see

 

This God, unlike the one addressed in the previous chapter, corresponds more closely to Scripture.  That is a most fortunate circumstance, as this God is One whom we can understand with full intuition and share a substantial measure of intimacy.  We can worship this God with fervor, because we share in many of His attributes and, more importantly, we can see this God as noble.  If there is any attribute of this God that stands out above omniness, it is the majesty of His selfless nobility.

This God of Scripture consists, at the present time, of Father, Mother and Son, constituting a perfectly functioning gender-inclusive Family enjoying perfect intra-Godhead intimacy, communication and, most of all, love on a scale so grand as to be beyond our perception.  It is the Godhead – Family – that bestows oneness on the Holy Trinity.  Within that Trinity the Members are differentiated by function: Kingdom, Power and Glory.  The characterization of the Godhead as Trinitarian is qualified as pertaining to the present, as there is every hope, within Scripture, of the spiritual Church eventually joining the Godhead.

The feature that drives this separation of the Godhead away from the God of mainstream understanding is the femininity of the Holy Spirit.  This feature instantly transforms a loose, agape-based amalgam of vaguely-defined Beings into a tightly-coupled, eros-based Family whose Members enjoy complementary, mutually-supportive functions.  Moreover, even with our fallen natures and dimensional limitations, their Holy natures, being Family-based, are accessible to our understanding, even to the extent that we can worship this God with the fervor demanded of us by Jesus in Matthew 22.

Given the notions of family and its associated features of unity of purpose, selfless participation, complementary otherness, it is a matter of simple logic to attach functionality to each of the Members within the Godhead.  As described in Marching to a Worthy Drummer, to the Father would apply the attribute of Divine Will, or the initiating thought.  Corresponding to the complementary otherness of the Will, the functional attribute of the Holy Spirit would be the execution of the Father’s will, or the Divine Means that enables the initiating thought belonging to the Will to assume reality.  To the Son, then, would be the Divine Result, the glory in reality of the initiating thought.

Where would the Church fit in?  As the spouse of Christ, of course, just as Paul hinted in so many passages, including 2 Corinthians 11:2 and Galatians 4:27 (which itself echoes Isaiah 54), and he so directly stated in Ephesians 5:25-32.  In Revelation 19:7 and 21:9, John echoes Paul’s assertion, claiming the Church to be the wife of Christ.  Given this wonderful relationship, it is only natural that Paul’s would note in Galatians 3:29, 4:5 and elsewhere that the Church is the in-law child of the Father and the Holy Spirit.

The existing relationship within the Godhead and the promised future relationship between man and God places our present relationship with God on an entirely different plane than that which is perceived by the mainstream Church.  No longer must we worship God as groveling dogs or as beggars for scraps but as future members of the Divine Family, adored and treasured by a God who knows intimacy and wants the same for us.  Of course God is superior to us in a great number of very important traits, such as character, abilities, and mind.  But it is His superiority in one trait that gives us hope and allows us to adore Him in sincerity.  That trait is His superlative love, which extends even to us.

As a beautiful token of our betrothal to Jesus Christ, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit, forecast millennia before our time at Her indwelling of the Tabernacle in the wilderness (Exodus 40), and at Solomon’s dedication of the first Temple (1 Kings 8).  The connection between these precursor events and the Holy Spirit who indwells Christian believers is given in 1 Corinthians 3:16 and Ephesians 2:19-22, wherein Paul asserts that the Church herself, through her constituents, is a temple indwelt by the Holy Spirit:

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

 

          Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are built together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

We know from this parallelism of the Holy Spirit’s indwelling of the Jewish Temples and the temples of our bodies that we the Church all have available to us the guidance of God, our future Mother-in-law, directing us as we allow toward the characters that will be pleasing to our future Spouse, Jesus Christ.  All we have to do is accept that supporting direction, scary or unpleasant as it may seem at first.  But what loving intimacy!  What hope for our future spiritual companionship with our Lord and our Spouse, Jesus Christ!

GOD, FACE TO FACE CHAPTER 5

 

CHAPTER FIVE: A summary of the mainstream Christian Church’s view of God

Extracting the essence of the previous four chapters, one readily can summarize the nature of God, as viewed by mainstreamWestern Christianity, as embracing the following attributes:

God is perceived to be majestic, all-seeing, all-powerful, and all-knowing.  These attributes are contained in the familiar omni-descriptions: omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient.  If other omni-attributes are found, they would apply to God as well, as the mainstream God is all about omniness.

Unlike us lesser beings inhabiting the material world, God is genderless, being above matters sexual.  He is also without passion in general, including love and hatred.  To be sure, He is merciful, but in a vague, largely undefined way.  Passion, gender and the intimacy of possessive love are prohibited by the Western Mainstream Church from encroaching upon His omni-qualities.

Given these general characteristics, the Godhead is found to be a Trinity, consisting of a common essence and three vaguely-defined “personalities”.  His Trinitarian constitution is considered to exist from forever in the past to forever in the future.  The intra-Trinitarian relationship consists of a supposedly benign fellowship of three characteristically male personalities who lack the function of gender, bonded together in love restricted to an agape form; love in an eros form with its possessive and romantic qualities is considered unthinkable.

The general implication of this view of God and the Godhead is that God represents an essential alien quality, one of being inexplicably different from us: He is genderless whereas we are fully gendered; He is unattainably far above us; His relationship with us is said to consist of love, but it is the sparing love of a stern, commanding Presence, constantly kicking over those of our works that don’t meet with His stratospheric standards of behavior.

Because of God’s lack of gender, we are commanded to obey his several prohibitions of sexual deviation from His established norm of a lifetime-long single marital relationship between one male and one female without understanding why that is such an important standard.  While unequivocal obedience without the necessity of knowledge is a reasonable expectation of God toward mankind, many of His other commandments are amenable to common-sense understanding.  On the other hand, it is apparent that at least in our present societies worldwide, people including Christians violate the sexual commandments with indifference toward God.

If anything affirmative can be said of the various Church authorities’ treatment of the Holy Spirit as noted in the previous chapters, it is their consistency with each other in fostering the view of God as expressed above.

Our worship of this Being must consequently consist of fear tempered by love, rather than love tempered by fear.  We worship Him as would tiny ants, looking up an enormous leathery sole poised to come down hard, smashing all below into pulp.  We appease this harsh God, either to avoid punishment or to curry favor and to obtain subsequent gifts.

In the wake of this description of our common understanding of God I offer a question: Is this the God defined in Scripture?  To that question, I respond with a resounding “no”, for the reasons explained herein.

Instead, this God is a diety of man’s own making.  Usually, when referring to a false god, the conservative Christian will point to that god’s indulgences toward a fallen Church.  The most recent examples of that attitude include the conservative Church’s denunciation of those Churches that attempt to accommodate the secular world’s insistence upon political correctness in the matters of homosexual marriages, homosexual participation in Church leadership, the Muslim view of God, or that worship the benevolent God who sheds health, wealth and happiness to those who, with itching ears, fervently believe in such.  But the conservative view of God, while residing at the opposite end of the belief spectrum from Santa Claus, is every bit as much a god constructed by man, because that god, like the others, fails to correspond to Scripture.

GOD, FACE TO FACE CHAPTER FOUR

CHAPTER FOUR: How modern theologians attempt to explain the Holy Spirit while excluding sexuality from God
For the most part the Protestant Church, in contrast with her Catholic sister, simply accepts the lack of the feminine and ignores the issue altogether, treating it as beyond the pale of appropriate intellectual investigation. Despite this general official refusal of the Protestant Churches to address the void caused by the removal of functional gender from God, a number of interested theologians have attempted to explain the nature of the Holy Spirit in a way that, while conforming to Church doctrine, makes an effort to present the Holy Spirit in a logical and, as they struggle to achieve, a warm manner.

Yet both Catholic and Protestant Churches have in common a view of the Trinity in which sexuality is at most a superficial feature even for birth and in which vital aspects of femininity are denied altogether. This view leads most investigators into the nature of the Trinity into an admission that the topic is very complex, to the extent that in the end they admit further that. like attempting to understand the duality of light or the logic behind quantum mechanics, they can’t comprehend it completely. This limitation has and continues to have a profound influence on the entire nature of Christianity. Didn’t any of these investigators grasp a hint in the wake of this inability to comprehend such an important topic that perhaps the standard view of the Trinity might need some revision?

Both the Father as the divine Will and the Son as Jesus Christ, the divine Word, are well-defined in Scripture as to their general natures and their functional roles. Of the three Members of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit is by far the most enigmatic. It is the lack of understanding, or perhaps simply the misunderstanding, of the nature of this divine Member from which the confusion and apparent complexity of the Trinity has arisen. A substantial part of this confusion is the obviously apparent but discomforting feature of the Holy Spirit’s Scripturally-defined character as embracing specifically feminine elements in contradiction to the general view of the Trinity as being either gender-neutral or masculine.

Many expositors of the Holy Spirit see in Genesis 1 the active participation of the Holy Spirit in the act of creation. This is the position taken by respected scholar of Scripture Benjamin B. Warfield, who describes this functional attribute of the Holy Spirit in Chapter Seventeen of his book The Holy Spirit:

“His offices in Nature – The ‘Spirit’ or personal ‘Breath’ is the Executive of the Godhead, as the ‘Son’ or ‘Word’ is the Revealer. The Spirit of God moved upon the face of chaos and developed cosmos (Gen. 1:2). Henceforth he is always represented as the author of order and beauty in the natural as of holiness in the moral world. He garnished the astronomical heavens (Job 26:13). He is the organizer and source of life to all provinces of vegetable and animal nature (Job 33:4; Ps. 104:29, 30; Isa. 32:14, 15), and of enlightenment to human intelligence in all arts and sciences (Job 32:8; 35:11; Ex 31:2-4).”

Dr. H. A. Ironside, in a little tome first printed in 1941 entitled The Holy Trinity, also interprets Genesis 1:2 as asserting that the Holy Spirit, in concert with the Father, was actively involved in creation. Interestingly, in referencing Isaiah 66 as an Old Testament reference to the Trinity he quotes from verse 13:

“As one whom his mother comforteth so will I comfort you.”

Although Ironside invariably interprets the Holy Spirit in terms of the masculine pronoun ‘he’, he also confesses a lack of full understanding of the nature of the Trinity. Yet the passage quoted above, by associating the word ‘mother’ with ‘comfort’, furnishes a key argument for the feminine function of the Holy Spirit. For Jesus, in John 14:16 and 17, directly links the Holy Spirit with the name (implying role) Comforter:

“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; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.”

Dedicated theologian Dr. Bruce A. Ware makes similar statements to Warfield regarding the executive (implementation of will) role of the Holy Spirit in his work Father, Son, & Holy Spirit. In fact, this executive role of the Holy Spirit is a general theme among theologians. In his own work, Ware encapsulates the roles of Father, Son and Holy Spirit as follows: Father – Grand Architect; Son – Submission to the Father in doing (displaying) His Will; Holy Spirit – Carrying out the work of the Father.

Alister McGrath, who wrote the work Understanding the Trinity, provides a representative viewpoint of this genre, yet also furnishes some remarkably fresh insights. He stands on what I humbly perceive as firm soil in his eloquent and moving descriptions of God and the incarnate Jesus in chapters 1 through 6. In reading it for a second time quite recently I realized afresh how his treatment of the Trinity had influenced my own work Family of God. It was Dr. McGrath, in fact, whom I mentioned on pages 24 through 26:

“Some theologians, having briefly noted the one intuitively satisfactory functional description of the Trinity, reject this particular answer quite abruptly, justifying their rejection on the basis of insufficient logic. They proceed from there to hammer out tortuously-derived and ultimately insufficient, emotionally empty alternatives. One such expositor, who otherwise paints with highly readable and insightful words a delightful description of God, mentions the Trinity with profound understanding and then quickly discards it as a misapplication of a familiar model in an attempt to apply too much of what is, after all, just a simplistic and imperfect model to the reality of God Himself. In his haste to reject that application, however, he violates the same logical guidelines which he carefully presented in the immediately preceding pages of his discussion.

“This same theologian, in viewing the Trinity in the uncontroversial terms of man’s encounters with God, explains it as different facets of His nature through which God has chosen to reveal Himself to man. God, he asserts, is altogether too vast for man, with his limitations in time and space, to acquire a complete picture of His entire nature. We can sample portions of this Divine Entity, however, and by thinking through the implications of the composite picture that He has given us through Scripture, we perceive His Trinitarian nature and the necessity for it. This experiential description is, I think, a valid one and has the advantage of being safely neutral with respect to gender. It is certainly the most intuitively satisfying characterization of the Trinity that I have seen to date. Yet such an exclusively man-centered description yields a disappointing poverty of information about God Himself, leaving the reader to ask why, if God does indeed have a Trinitarian nature, He is so reluctant to share a picture of that characteristic with us in terms of His intrinsic functional attributes. It would seem, after all, that a God-centered intuitive understanding would naturally lead to a greater appreciation of Him, and consequently a greater love toward Him on the part of His subjects. One might easily suspect, as a matter of fact, that those individuals in the past who were named in the Book of Hebrews, did indeed have personal insights into the nature of God beyond those which the usual churchgoer might have access to via his pastor or his reading of Scripture.”

The description of the Trinity that Dr. McGrath presented with profound understanding and subsequently discarded in haste begins on page 57 of Understanding the Trinity. An important continuation is presented twelve pages later, where the author appears to wish to tone down his rejection of the earlier model by presenting some qualifying remarks which suggest that perhaps he himself had some persistently lingering thoughts about the nature of the Holy Spirit that he didn’t wish to assert directly:

“It was therefore assumed that light also needed to travel through something [as was the case for sound, upon which light was modeled], and the word ‘aether’ was coined to describe the medium through which light waves traveled. If you read old radio magazines, or listen to old radio programmes, you’ll sometimes find people referring to ‘waves traveling through the aether’. But by the end of the century it had become clear that light did not seem to need any medium to travel through. What had happened was simply that the logical necessity of one aspect of the model (sound) had initially been assumed to apply to what was being modeled (light), and this assumption was gradually recognized to be incorrect as the experimental evidence built up.

“And so it is with models of God. For example, we often use ‘father’ as a very helpful model of God, emphasizing the way in which we are dependent upon God for our existence. But for every human child there is a human mother as well as a human father. This would seem to imply that there is a heavenly mother in addition to a heavenly father. But this assumption rests upon the improper transfer of the logical necessity of an aspect of the model (father) to what is being modeled (God), in just the same way as the necessity of one aspect (the need for a medium of propagation) of the model (sound) was transferred to what was being modeled (light). . .”

“. . . Although the strongly patriarchal structure of society of the time inevitably meant that emphasis was placed upon God as father (e.g., Jeremiah 3:19; Matthew 6:9), there are several passages which encourage us to think of God as our mother (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:18). We shall be considering these two images together, and ask what they tell us about God.

“The first, and most obvious, point is that God is understood as the one who called us into being, who created us. Just as our human parents brought us into being, so God must be recognized as the author and source of our existence. Thus at one point in her history, Israel is chided because she ‘forgot the God who gave [her] birth’ (Deuteronomy 32:18; cf. Isaiah 44:2, 24; 49:15).

“The second point which the model of God as parent makes is the natural love of God for his people. God doesn’t love us because of our achievements, but simply because we are his children. ‘The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you’ (Deuteronomy 7:7-8). Just as a mother can never forget or turn against her child, so God will not forget or gturn against his people (Isaiah 49:15). There is a natural bond of affection and sympathy between God and his children, simply because he has brought them into being. Thus God loved us long before we loved him (1 John 4:10, 19). Psalm 51:1 refers to God’s ‘great compassion, and it is interesting to note that the Hebrew word for ‘compassion’ (rachmin) is derived from the word for ‘womb’ (rechmen). God’s compassion towards his people is that of a mother towards her child (cf. Isaiah 66:12-13). Compassion stems from the womb.”

A delightful feature of his discourses, remarkable for its rarity, is a description of God’s loving relationship to mankind in romantic terms. Another feature of his presentation is his lengthy discussion of the necessities of Jesus’ essence as both man and God, and of His resurrection.
Unfortunately, Dr. McGrath appears to be on less stable ground in his discussion of the Trinity. In his presentation of this dogma he avoids delving too deeply into God’s intrinsic nature or attributes by substituting in its place a lengthy experientially-based account of Him in terms of His interaction with mankind. He is careful near the outset of his discourse, however, to distance himself from any notion that the Trinity includes a female Persona. He does so in his chapter entitled Thinking About God by noting that intellectual models are subject to misapplication through the improper assumption that every attribute of a model must apply to its counterpart in reality. As already noted, he cites as an example the wave characteristic of sound as a model for light, as was quoted directly from his work above.

But is the assumption of a Divine Mother in the economy of God necessarily a misapplication of the human parent model? It could be, but that’s a long way from must be. Nowhere does Dr. McGrath justify the necessity that he associates with that application. Instead, he elevates a mere illustrative example to the status of a law.

Moreover, and again as we have already noted, a short twelve pages further along, Dr. McGrath equivocates a bit regarding the possibility of motherhood in God’s economy, citing a number of Scriptural passages that describe God in a role more appropriate to motherhood than to fatherhood.

Almost at the end of his book it can be seen how Dr. McGrath rescues himself from this apparent inconsistency: as discussed in more detail below, he does not posit a distinct member of the Godhead who possesses the attributes of femininity; instead, he attributes this characteristic to the same Person as the Father. But rather than solving the problem of the feminine side of God, he comes dangerously close both to ultra-monotheism and modalism. Beyond that, he defines a God with gender characteristics indeed, but in the same Person. According to 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, this suggests a model for a human malady known as hermaphroditism, which is contrary to Scripture, even to the extent of being labeled as unrighteous:

“Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”

I find it hard to believe, given its treatment in Scripture, that in His own organization God would wish even to hint at sexual perversion, or even sexual difficulty.

The essence of McGrath’s description of Jesus may be encapsulated in this passage, found in his chapter entitled God as Three and God as One: “The difficulties really begin with the recognition of the fundamental Christian insight that Jesus is God incarnate: that in the face of Jesus Christ we see none other than the living God himself. Although the New Testament is not really anything like a textbook of systematic theology, there is nothing stated in the great creeds of the church which is not already explicitly or implicitly stated within its pages. Jesus is understood to act as God and for God: whoever sees him, sees God; when he speaks, he speaks with the authority of God; when he makes promises, he makes them on behalf of God; when he judges us, he judges as God; when we worship, we worship the risen Christ as God; and so forth.” Dr. McGrath goes on to characterize Jesus in his incarnate form as not actually comprising the fullness of God, but merely as a representative sample of God suitable for furnishing humanity with some comprehension, consistent with their limitations, of the far more complete spiritual God who resides in heaven. He claims in a similar vein that the Holy Spirit, like Jesus, is another manifestation of God, in this case one that indwells the believer, that furnishes another way by which redeemed mankind can encounter, or experience, God.

Dr. McGrath ends with this commentary:

“We can now see why Christians talk about God being a ‘three-in-one’. One difficulty remains, however, which must be considered. How can God be three persons and one person at the same time? This brings us to an important point which is often not fully understood. The following is a simplified account of the idea of ‘person’ which may be helpful, although the reader must appreciate that simplifications are potentially dangerous. The word ‘person’ has changed its meaning since the third century when it began to bed used in connection with the ‘threefoldness of God’. When we talk about God as a person, we naturally think of God as being one person. But theologians such as Tertullian, writing in the third century, used the word ‘person’ with a different meaning. The word ‘person’ originally derives from the Latin word persona, meaning an actor’s face-mask – and, by extension, the role which he takes in a play.

“By stating that there were three persons but only one God, Tertullian was asserting that all three major roles in the great drama of human redemption are played by the one and the same God. The three great roles in this drama are all played by the same actor: God. Each of these roles may reveal God in a somewhat different way, but it is the same God in every case. So when we talk about God as one person, we mean one person in the modern sense of the word, and when we talk about God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word. It is God, and God alone, who masterminded and executes the great plan of salvation, culminating in Jesus Christ. It is he who is present and active at every stage of its long history. Confusing these two senses of the word ‘person’ inevitably leads to the idea the God is actually a committee, which, as we saw earlier, is a thoroughly unhelpful and confusing way of thinking about God.”

One certainly could not accuse Dr. McGrath of being a tritheist. On the other hand, despite his denial on the back cover of the book that he entertains the heretical notion of modalism, he’s on shaky ground there, being right on the edge or over it according to his own words.

Dr. Mcgrath is somewhat unique among other well-established theologians in that his scientific training has furnished him with an ability to be objective in his presentation and make use of useful intellectual tools such as models to make his points. Further, he at least addresses some notions that others avoid like the plague, as if they themselves might be infected by ideas they may have been taught were close to blasphemous. He has in common with the others, however, several notions regarding the Holy Spirit that are generally accepted within faithful Christendom: while all Members of the Trinity possess the same substance and are fully and equally God, they differ with respect to functional role; the role for the Holy Spirit conforms most closely to that associated with executive companion and motherhood; the Holy Spirit is a background Entity, more self-effacing than Father and Son; the Trinity (as confessed by the Church) is a mystery beyond man’s comprehension. The ‘others’ who share these particular view with Drs. McGrath and Ware include Dr. Peter Masters (The Faith) and James R. White (The Forgotten Trinity).

I agree quite thoroughly with all of these points except the last, regarding the mystery which appears to be beyond comprehension, with which I disagree quite thoroughly. To me, the incomprehensibility in understanding the Trinity is another typical case of man’s brain outsmarting his heart. What should be an extremely simple and intuitive understanding, man has turned into a riddle, in the process wrapping himself tightly around the intellectual axle.

A case could be made that in the many attempts made by scholars of Scripture to describe the Holy Spirit, they end up implying an association of the Holy Spirit with Wisdom. Wisdom, of course, is given a lengthy treatment in Proverbs, with a female gender association.

It must be noted that in every case, these respected theologians are consistent with each other and with general Church dogma, represented by the early Church Fathers, Zanchius, and Catholic theology concerning the absence of gender within the Godhead.

GOD, FACE TO FACE CHAPTER THREE

 

 

CHAPTER THREE: How the modern Catholic Church excludes sexuality from the attributes of God

As was noted above in the context of Father MacQuarrie’s view of the distribution of secondary gender characteristics within the Godhead, the Catholic Church responds to a genderless God in a unique way.  Having removed the female gender from the Holy Spirit, the Catholic Church, to her credit, understands that an unnatural gap was thereby created in its sterilized perception of the Godhead.  She has filled the perceived and all-too-real void of a genderless or (mostly) all-male God with Mary, the mother of Jesus, whom she has elevated to a superhuman status that falls just short of deity.  It is Mary upon whom the Catholic Church places her love and devotion, restoring a semblance of the fervor of worship commanded by both Moses and Jesus in asking of us the entirety of our hearts, souls and mind in our love toward Him.  To most Catholic laypersons, Mary’s position of subordination to diety is so minuscule as to be nonexistent, wherein the veneration of her is indistinguishable from worship.

The Catholic text Mary in the Church Today, a compilation by Father Bill McCarthy of papal pronouncements and other official Catholic teachings regarding Mary, mother of Jesus, is an excellent source book for the understanding of the Catholic position regarding Mary.  The teachings, from which the following entries are gleaned, speak for themselves.

“’For,’ the text [Lumen Gentium, 62] goes on, ‘taken up to heaven, [Mary] did not lay aside this saving role, but by her manifold acts of intercession continues to win for us gifts of eternal salvation.’  With this character of ‘intercession,’ first manifested in Cana in Galilee, Mary’s mediation continues in the history of the Church and the world.  We read that Mary ‘by her maternal charity, cares for the brethren of her Son who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led to their happy homeland.’  In this way Mary’s motherhood continues unceasingly in the Church as the mediation which intercedes, and the Church expresses her faith in this truth by invoking Mary ‘under the title of Advocate, Auxiliatrix, and Mediatrix.’

“Through her mediation, subordinate to that of the Redeemer, Mary contributes in a special way to the union of the pilgrim Church on earth with the eschatological and heavenly reality of the Communion of Saints, since she has already been ‘assumed into heaven’.  The truth of the assumption defined by Pius XII, is reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council, which thus expresses the Church’s faith: ‘Preserved free from all guilt of original sin, the Immaculate Virgin was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory upon the completion of her earthly sojourn.  She was exalted by the Lord as Queen of the Universe, in order that she might be the more thoroughly conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords (cf. Rv 19:16) and the conqueror of sin and death.’  In this teaching Pius XII was in continuity with Tradition, which has found many different expressions in the history of the Church, both in the East and in the West.”

-exerpted from Redemtoris Mater, Articles 40 and 41

“Subsequently, in 1962, on the feast of the Purification of Mary, Pope John set the opening of the Council for 11 October, explaining that he had chosen this date in memory of the great Council of Ephesus, which precisely on that date had proclaimed Mary ‘Theotokos’, Mother of God . . . “

“2. At the second session of the Council it was that the treatment of the Blessed Virgin Mary be put into the Constitution of the Church.  This initiative, although expressly recommended by the Theological Commission, prompted a variety of opinions.

“Some, who considered this proposal inadequate for emphasizing the very special mission of Jesus’ Mother in the Church, maintained that only a separate document could express Mary’s dignity, pre-eminence, exceptional holiness and unique role in the Redemption accomplished by the Son.  Furthermore, regarding Mary as above the Church in a certain way, they were afraid that the decision to put the Marian teaching in the treatment of the Church would not sufficiently emphasize Mary’s privileges and would reduce her role to the level of other members of the Church. . .”

• excerpted from the ninth of Pope John Paul II’s series of catecheses on the Blessed Virgin

“Mary’s fundamental dignity is that of being ‘Mother of the Son’, which is expressed in Christian doctrine and devotion with the title ‘Mother of God’.

“This is a surprising term, which shows the humility of God’s only-begotten Son in his Incarnation and, in connection with it, the most high privilege granted a creature who was called to give him birth in the flesh.

“Mother of the Son, Mary is the ‘beloved daughter of the Father’ in a unique way.  She has been granted an utterly special likeness between her motherhood and the divine fatherhood.  And again, every Christian is a ‘temple of the Holy Spirit’, according to the Apostle Paul’s expression (1 Cor 6:19).  But this assertion takes on an extraordinary meaning in Mary: in her the relationship with the Holy Spirit is enriched in a spousal dimension,  I recalled this in the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater:  ‘The Holy Spirit had already come down upon her, and she became his faithful spouse at the Annunciation, welcoming the Word of the true God. . .’ (n. 26).”

– excerpted from the eleventh of Pope John Paul II’s series of catecheses on the Blessed Virgin

“The freedom ‘from every stain of original sin’ entails as a positive consequence the total freedom from all sin as well as the proclamation of Mary’s perfect holiness, a doctrine to which the dogmatic definition makes a fundamental contribution.  In fact, the negative formulation of the Marian privilege, which resulted from the earlier controversies about original sin that arose in the West, must always be complemented by the positive expression of Mary’s holiness more explicitly stressed in the Eastern tradition.

“Pius XII’s definition refers only to the freedom from original sin and does not explicitly include the freedom from original concupiscence [generally, the desires of the flesh in the Catholic vernacular].  Nevertheless, Mary’s complete preservation from every stain of sin also has as a consequence her freedom from concupiscence, a disordered tendency which, according to the Council of Trent, comes from sin and inclines to sin (DS 1515).”

-excerpted from the twenty third of Pope John Paul II’s series of catecheses on the Blessed Virgin

“In recounting the birth of Jesus, Luke and Matthew also speak of the role of the Holy Spirit.  The latter is not the father of the Child.  Jesus is the son of the Eternal Father alone (cf. Lk 1:32-35), who through the Spirit is at work in the world and begets the Word in his human nature.  Indeed, at the Annunciation the angel calls the Spirit ‘the power of the Most High’ (Lk 1:35), in harmony with the Old Testament, which presents him as the divine energy at work in human life, making it capable of marvelous deeds.  Manifesting itself to the supreme degree in the mystery of the Incarnation, this power, which in the Trinitarian life of God is Love, has the task of giving humanity the Incarnate Word.”

-excerpted from the twenty eighth of Pope John Paul II’s series of catecheses on the Blessed Virgin

“1. The intention to remain a virgin, apparent in Mary’s words at the moment of the Annunciation, has traditionally been considered the beginning and the inspiration of Christian virginity for the Church.

“St. Augustine does not see in this resolution the fulfillment of a divine precept, but a vow freely taken.  In this way it was possible to present Mary as an example to ‘holy virgins’ throughout the Church’s history.  Mary ‘dedicated her virginity to God when she did not yet know whom she would conceive, so that the imitation of heavenly life in the earthly, mortal body would come about through a vow, not a precept, through a choice of love and not through the need to serve; (De Sancta Virg. IV. PL 40 398).

“The angel does not ask Mary to remain a virgin, it is Mary who freely reveals her intention of virginity.  The choice of love that leads her to consecrate herself totally to the Lord by a life of virginity is found in this commitment.

“In stressing the spontaneity of Mary’s decision, we must not forget that God’s initiative is at the root of every vocation.  By choosing the life of virginity, the young girl of Nazareth was responding to an interior call, that  is, to an inspiration of the Holy Spirit that enlightened her about the meaning and value of the virginal gift of [sic, substitute ‘chasitity’] heresy.  No one can accept this gift without feeling called or without receiving from the Holy Spirit the necessary light and strength.”

-excerpted from the twenty ninth of Pope John Paul II’s series of catecheses on the Blessed Virgin

“2. It may be presumed that at the time of their betrothal there was an understanding between Joseph and Mary about the plan to live as a virgin.  Moreover, the Holy Spirit, who had inspired Mary to choose virginity in view of the mystery of the Incarnation and who wanted the latter to come about in a family setting suited to the Child’s growth, was quite able to instill in Joseph the ideal of virginity as well.”

-excerpted from the thirtieth of Pope John Paul II’s series of catecheses on the Blessed Virgin

This view of Mary, as described by the highest Catholic authority and seconded by the entire Church, presents Mary with the warmth of humanity.  But she, like the Godhead Itself, has been stripped clean of all sexual experience except for the pain of childbirth.  In thinking about that rampant sexual housecleaning, it seems strange indeed that Peter, the iconic and revered founder of the Catholic Church, was himself married, according to Matthew 8:14 and 15, while his successors and the entire body of clergy were and continue to be prohibited from doing so:

“And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw that his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.  And he touched her hand, and the fever left her; and she arose, and ministered unto them.”

We all know how that worked out in practice: instead of taking wives and thereby participating in a relationship established and condoned by God, the clergy instead took the wives of other men, prostitutes and, ultimately, altar boys.

If anything can be said in favor of the Catholic view of God, it is consistent with the views expressed by the early Church Fathers.  It is consistent as well as with the views of Zanchius, although considerably softened by the treatment of Mary.

GOD, FACE TO FACE CHAPTER TWO

 

CHAPTER TWO: How the removal of sexuality from God propagated into the Middle Ages and beyond

A thousand years after the Church had formalized its dogma, her insistence upon purity had not only remained, but had crystallized into a rigid perfectionism.  This absolutely flawless state was enshrined by the medieval cleric Jerome Zanchius, a strict adherent of the heavenly perfection envisioned by Aristotle and Ptolemy.  To this day, Zanchius is held in high esteem by many mainstream Church leaders.  And why not?  Zanchius’ vision of God is perfectly compatible with the omniness, perfection and asexuality of the mainstream God.

In his rather pretentious sixteenth century work Absolute Predestination Stated and Defined, Zanchius included some Scripturally unjustified statements regarding the nature of God, of which the following excerpts are representative:

“VI.—I shall conclude this introduction with briefly considering, in the sixth and last place, THE MERCY OF GOD.

“POSITION 1.—The Deity is, throughout the Scriptures, represented as infinitely gracious and merciful (Exod. 34.6; Nehem. 9.17; Psalm 103.8; 1 Peter 1.3).

“When we call the Divine mercy infinite, we do not mean that it is, in a way of grace, extended to all men without exception (and supposing it was, even then it would be very improperly denominated infinite on that account, since the objects of it, though all men taken together, would not amount to a multitude strictly and properly infinite), but that His mercy towards His own elect, as it knew no beginning, so is it infinite in duration, and shall know neither period nor intermission.

“POSITION 2.—Mercy is not in the Deity, as it is in us, a passion or affection, everything of that kind being incompatible with the purity, perfection, independency and unchangeableness of His nature; but when this attribute is predicated of Him, it only notes His free and eternal will or purpose of making some of the fallen race happy by delivering them from the guilt and dominion of sin, and communicating Himself to them in a way consistent with His own inviolable justice, truth and holiness. This seems to be the proper definition of mercy as it relates to the spiritual and eternal good of those who are its objects.”

Zanchius continues as follows in his Chapter 1, entitled in grandiose manner “Wherein the Terms Commonly Made Use of in Treating of this Subject are Defined and Explained”:

“HAVING considered the attributes of God as laid down in Scripture, and so far cleared our way to the doctrine of predestination, I shall, before I enter further on the subject, explain the principal terms generally made use of when treating of it, and settle their true meaning. In discoursing on the Divine decrees, mention is frequently made of God’s love and hatred, of election and reprobation, and of the Divine purpose, foreknowledge and predestination, each of which we shall distinctly and briefly consider.

“I.—When love is predicated of God, we do not mean that He is possessed of it as a passion or affection. In us it is such, but if, considered in that sense, it should be ascribed to the Deity, it would be utterly subversive of the simplicity, perfection and independency of His being. Love, therefore, when attributed to Him, signifies—

“(l) His eternal benevolence, i.e., His everlasting will, purpose and determination to deliver, bless and save His people. Of this, no good works wrought by them are in any sense the cause. Neither are even the merits of Christ Himself to be considered as any way moving or exciting this good will of God to His elect, since the gift of Christ, to be their Mediator and Redeemer, is itself an effect of this free and eternal favour borne to them by God the Father (John 3.16). His love towards them arises merely from “the good pleasure of His own will,” without the least regard to anything ad extra or out of Himself.

“(2) The term implies complacency, delight and approbation. With this love God cannot love even His elect as considered in themselves, because in that view they are guilty, polluted sinners, but they were, from all eternity, objects of it, as they stood united to Christ and partakers of His righteousness.

“(3) Love implies actual beneficence, which, properly speaking, is nothing else than the effect or accomplishment of the other two: those are the cause of this. This actual beneficence respects all blessings, whether of a temporal, spiritual or eternal nature. Temporal good things are indeed indiscriminately bestowed in a greater or less degree on all, whether elect or reprobate, but they are given in a covenant way and as blessings to the elect only, to whom also the other benefits respecting grace and glory are peculiar. And this love of beneficence, no less than that of benevolence and complacency, is absolutely free, and irrespective of any worthiness in man.

“II.—When hatred is ascribed to God, it implies (1) a negation of benevolence, or a resolution not to have mercy on such and such men, nor to endue them with any of those graces which stand connected with eternal life. So, “Esau have I hated” (Rom. 9.), i.e., “I did, from all eternity, determine within Myself not to have mercy on him.” The sole cause of which awful negation is not merely the unworthiness of the persons hated, but the sovereignty and freedom of the Divine will. (2) It denotes displeasure and dislike, for sinners who are not interested in Christ cannot but be infinitely displeasing to and loathsome in the sight of eternal purity. (3) It signifies a positive will to punish and destroy the reprobate for their sins, of which will, the infliction of misery upon them hereafter, is but the necessary effect and actual execution.”

We observe in these few excerpts from his book Absolute Predestination Stated and Defined that Zanchius’ God, while exhibiting the stability of a rock, does not indulge in excesses of emotion such as fervor would induce.  Fervor, on the other hand, is precisely what God demands of us in our relationship with Him.  As Jesus declared in Matthew 22:37 and 38:

“Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord, thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.”

Zanchius repeatedly cites like a mantra his justification for his view: God’s purity, perfection, independency and the unchangeableness of His nature.  But where in Scripture can we find such descriptors of God other than His constancy of nature?  Where in Scripture is purity defined in the manner that Zanchius intended to convey or in the manner that mainstream Churches presume to interpret?  More importantly, how can these attributes furnish justification for an assumed lack of passion that directly contradicts Jesus’ call for our fervor of worship?

In His absolute perfection, this God of Zanchius was of a remote grandeur.  This notion, which the Church leaders of that time and since rather naively bought into, gave rise to a God whose primary attribute is his majestic greatness.  By defining God with majesty in mind, love became a secondary attribute, despite John’s emphatic identification of God as the very embodiment of love.  They went (and go) too far.  The perfection embodied in their eulogies renders them sterile.  In defining God in this way, love automatically becomes a secondary attribute, despite John’s emphatic identification of God as the very embodiment of love.  Zanchius’ passionless God, in fact, is alien to the God of Scripture.  This is to be expected, as he assigns attributes to God without any reference whatsoever to Scripture itself.

Zanchius’ God, then, being positionally remote from and by nature very different from the mankind of His creation, is alien to it as well.  This perception of remoteness is evident in modern Churches, where pastors complain, with some justification, that mankind has a proclivity toward defining God according to what he wants God to represent.  In noting the truth of this objection by observing the numerous ways in which the modern Church has created gods that deviate quite strongly from the God of Scripture, we also note that the early Church did its share of creating a God apart from Scripture by the simple expedient of performing a hasty castration while maintaining a complete oblivion to its long-term collateral consequences.

Downplaying Scripture’s instruction to us in Genesis 1:27 that mankind was made in the image of the plural Godhead, Zanchius and his followers emphasize God’s difference from us.  While mankind may share some of the more superficial features of living beings with God such as our rationality and moral sense, the basic concept of gender is seen as over-the-top and a plainly inappropriate attribute of God.  But gender represents far more than mere sexuality.  It also involves the notion of complementary otherness, the idea that a team consisting of complementary others synergistically supports both love and function.  Without the sharing intrinsic to otherness, unlimited power automatically fosters narcissistic self-adoration.  The sharing of power with a complementary Being requires each Partner to contribute something lacking in the Other.  It is the self-humbling lack of completeness that so beautifully endows each Partner with adoration toward the Other rather than to Self.

It has been standard practice, to those who bother to think about the fact that some attributes of God are feminine in nature, to assign elements of both genders to each Member of the Godhead.  Such was the path taken by the prominent Catholic theologian John MacQuarrie.  I wrote of his approach in my book Marching to a Worthy Drummer:

One of the more intelligent discussions of the Godhead that remains within the Church-imposed boundary of asexuality has been supplied by Catholic Father John Macquarrie in his book Mary for all Christians.  In his chapter entitled “God and the Feminine”, he acknowledges the incompleteness of male alone or female alone without its complement.  While touching on the all-important notion of complementary otherness, he goes on to other topics rather quickly, largely overlooking the most important aspect of otherness, which is its necessity in supporting the noble selflessness intrinsic to God as emphasized throughout the Bible.

Father Macquarrie also openly states, reminiscent of medieval theologian Jerome Zanchius, that God transcends sex.  How does he apply that concept that God is above matters of gender to his perception of the incompleteness of a single-gender Godhead?  He does so in distressingly extra-Biblical fashion.  Being well-read in psychology, Macquarrie turns to C. J. Jung and his concept of shared gender.  In that context, Macquarrie asserts, all the Members of the Trinity share both male and female characteristics.

Many Catholic theologians, perceiving despite the Church’s grand elevation of Mary that there were some elements of the feminine within the all-male Godhead, grasped onto the Jungian notion that each of the divine Entities possessed both male and female attributes.  Here again is a view that suggests gender weakness in contradiction to Scripture.  In addition to promoting a divine narcissism in distinct opposition to the general tenor of Scripture, this notion is logically untenable in the face of the pronounced masculinity of both the Father and Jesus Christ and the proscription against male neutrality in Leviticus 21:20 and against male femininity in 1 Corinthians 6:9.  That leaves the Holy Spirit alone as the possible embodiment of the female gender.

As if the direct problems associated with the gender-neutral or all-male viewpoints of the Godhead aren’t bad enough of themselves, they sometimes create collateral difficulties.  Among some Christian communities the ever-present threat that these viewpoints will inhibit ardor in worship has led to further misunderstandings that are intended to correct their deficiencies and restore the fervor suggested by Scripture.  One such compensating offshoot practice is the Catholic veneration of Mary as the primary female persona of our religion.  Despite protestations to the contrary from Catholic authorities from the Pope down to the pastoral level, this veneration, as was noted in Chapter 4, approaches actual worship to such a degree that it represents a de facto integration of Mary into the Godhead.  Indeed, Mary is endowed in the Catholic Church with a number of attributes that rightly belong within the Godhead, specifically the Holy Spirit.

In opposition to Zanchius, Macquarrie and their numerous followers, Scripture paints a far more beautiful picture of God, depicting His majestic glory as His willingness to give up the majesty of greatness and power in favor of a love of great fullness and depth.  The Gospels appear to support this view, depicting Jesus Christ (as God) as a Being full of the attributes of love as we know it, including passion.  Examples that come to mind include His weeping over Jerusalem and Lazarus and His ordeal in the garden of Gethsemane.  It is difficult, for example, to picture the risen Jesus talking to His followers on the road to Emmaus in the context of Zanchius’ notion of God’s remote perfection.

Zanchius’ definition of God as remote from and alien to us not only suppresses His most important attribute of love, but inhibits those to whom Scripture was written from loving Him back.  This is a serious issue because it runs counter to His Great Commandment to love Him with all our hearts, and all our souls and all our minds.

One thing can be said regarding Zanchius’ view of God: it is certainly consistent with the alteration of Scripture performed by some of our respected Church Fathers under the motive of stripping sexuality from all things associated with God.

Our brief review of Zanchius and MacQuarrie can be summarized by the notion that God is an omni-everything, kind of a super-superman, complete with x-ray vision to peer into the hearts, minds and actions of His subjects.  Given Zanchius’ vision of the absolute nature of His mastery over our lives, we need to obey Him, because otherwise we can get into some very deep trouble.  Beyond this control, God differs from us in so many ways that we’d best not try to approach Him from the standpoint of shared weakness.  We must instead resign ourselves to the bleak fact that His majestic betterness can be used against us if we don’t toe the line.  We ourselves should pray with fervor that we will be undeserving recipients of His benevolence rather than deserving objects of His wrath.

Along with our prayers, we’d do well to read what Scripture has to say about God’s relationship with us, which pretty much contradicts just about everything in Zanchius’ and MacQuarrie’s views of God.  We should be particularly careful to understand God’s willingness to become a man, subject to every temptation we possess, for the sake of His great, overwhelmingly fervent and loving passion toward us.

 

 

 

GOD, FACE TO FACE CHAPTER ONE (CONTINUED)

CHAPTER ONE (continued): How some eminent early Church Fathers set the stage for the removal of sexuality from God

As the story of Abraham unfolds from Genesis 12 through 25, the narrative stresses the importance of his natural wife Sarah to God’s promises to him. It is in Sarah that the covenant promises reside through Isaac and then Jacob. The poignant account of Sarah’s death in Hebron is given in Genesis 23, where Abraham came “to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her.” Abraham honored her memory by purchasing a cave in Hebron for her burial. It is the resting place for all the patriarchs, including Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their three primary wives.

Virtually every Christian recognizes that the story of Abraham’s attempted sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22 represents a forecast of Jesus’ sacrifice on the cross for our salvation. This event in Abraham’s life immediately and quite strongly identifies Isaac as a precursor to Jesus. Isaac is mentioned again in Genesis 24, this time in the context of his betrothal to Rebekah, which turns out to be an elaborate affair. The imagery in this prolonged event speaks quite plainly of another betrothal, that of Jesus to His Church, as described by Paul in Ephesians 5:25-32:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word; that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but noourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church; for we are members of his body. Of his flesh, and of his bones.

 

          “For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and his church.”

 

This passage so plainly states the spiritual role of the Church as the Wife of Christ that any negation of gender in the spiritual realm speaks only of the poverty of the skeptic’s understanding of God and Scripture, and of the blindness and deafness of his anti-gender presuppositions.

It has been argued in the past that Matthew 22:29 and Galatians 3:28 preclude the role of procreation in the heavenly realm:

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God in heaven.”

 

          “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

The key phrase here is “power of God”. In other words, if you subscribe to the notion that the spiritual realm doesn’t involve reproduction, lift your eyes from the mundane, thoroughly shallow little details and look at the big picture. Paul even spells it out for you in 1 Corinthians 12:12-20:

“For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. For by one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. For the body is not one member, but many. If the foot shall say, Because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it, therefore, not of the body? If the whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where were the smelling? But now hath God set the members, every one of them, in the body, as it hath pleased him. And if they were all one member, were were the body. But now are they many members, yet but one body.”

Paul couldn’t have said it plainer than that: we as individuals are a tiny element of the Church, not the whole. Our being spiritually genderless doesn’t make the Church genderless, just like my genderless toenail doesn’t make me genderless in the flesh. Yet there are many people in the mainstream Church, even some who consider themselves to be among the spiritual elite, who are so blind to Scripture’s account of the Church’s future spiritual role as to be unable to differentiate the individual from the whole.

Beyond the Book of Genesis, there are a multitude of Scriptural corroborations of the essential role of gender in the spiritual realm. Among these is one of my favorites, the Shekinah Glory who inhabited the temples of Moses in the wilderness, as described in Exodus 40:34-38 and I Kings 8:10 and 11:

“Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter into the tent of the congregation, because the cloud abode therein, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And when the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward in all their journeys; but if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up. For the cloud of the Lord was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys.”

 

          “And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the Lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord.”

 

It is generally acknowledged by Christian experts in the matter that the Hebrew word Shekinah is equivalent to the phrase glory of the Lord. It is also generally acknowledged that the word Shekinah is feminine. Furthermore, this indwelling function of the Shekinah has a counterpart, the indwelling of Christians upon their acceptance of Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. According to Acts 2, this indwelling is the Holy Spirit, as promised by Jesus in John 14. The parallelism of the Shekinah with the indwelling Holy Spirit is vividly described by Paul in 1 Corinthians 3:16 and Ephesians 2:19-22 wherein Paul asserts that the Church herself, through her constituents, is a temple indwelt by the Holy Spirit:

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

 

          Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are built together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”

Another favorite indication of feminine gender in the spiritual realm, again of the Holy Spirit, is the passage of spiritual birth in John 3:

“There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered, and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto you, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound of it, but canst not tell from where it cometh, and where it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered, and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered, and said unto him, Art thou a teacher of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that which we do know, and testify to that which we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.”

But there’s plenty more regarding spiritual gender in the Old Testament. How about the Book of Proverbs, particularly in Proverbs 3 and 8, where the feminine Wisdom is personified as a Helper at the side of the Father in the creation of the world? According to those who take issue with the association of gender with God, the personification of Wisdom typically is explained away as merely a literary device. This attribution is an arbitrary claim without Scriptural support that does nothing more than identify the claimant as biased against gender in the spiritual realm. In contrast to this lack of Scriptural support against the personification of Wisdom, the notion that Wisdom is indeed personified by the Holy Spirit enjoys support from the Book of Wisdom, which is included in the Catholic canon but was deleted from the Protestant canon in 1827 by the British and Foreign Bible Society.

I noted in Marching to a Worthy Drummer in support of the Personhood of Wisdom the following statements by Jesus in Luke 7:35 and 11:49, 50 that associate Wisdom with motherhood, which is an eminently personal attribute:

“But wisdom is justified of all her children.”

“Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute, that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation.”

In addition, Proverbs 8:22-36 and 9:1-6 directly link the act of creation to Wisdom, whereas the act of creation is also linked to the Holy Spirit in Genesis 1:1-5, Job 26:13 and Psalm 104:30. This functional parallelism strongly suggests the equivalence of Wisdom to the Holy Spirit.

Then there’s the explicitly romantic Song of Solomon, which would be extraneous to the Bible if gender is missing from the spiritual realm.

This sampling of Scriptural support for a gendered heaven illuminates a face of God that is altogether more lovely, compassionate, firm in the intra-Godhead bond of family than the sterner, informationally-poor and remote face as understood by the mainstream Church.

But there is yet more: evidence that the Church was cleansed of sexuality through the tampering of Scripture

According to an Internet search of “feminine Holy Spirit in the Hebrew Scriptures”, multiple modern, deeply serious theologians and ancient language scholars share the view that the earliest Hebrew Christians had access to Scripture that presented the Holy Spirit as a feminine Persona; this feminine persisted within the Syriac and other Eastern branches of Christianity and within the Gnostic sect as well. A prime example of this is the Scriptural passage known as the Siniatic Palimpsest (a palimpsest is a recycled writing medium, wherein a second layer of writing was applied over the original, the original usually consisting of more important information) uncovered toward the end of the nineteenth century by Agnes Lewis. The original writing included portions of the Gospel of John of which a quote from Jesus Himself in John 14:26 asserts the following (translation attributed to Danny Mahar):

“But She – the Spirit – the Paraclete whom He will send to you – my Father – in my name – She will teach you everything; She will remind you of what I have told you.”

There is a suggestion, from a comparative review of this text with Paul’s letters that Paul, among the numerous early Hebrew Christians, used the version of John’s Gospel from which this passage came. References to the Siniatic Palimpsest may be found on the Internet. Unfortunately, many of the translations into English found under the search phrase “Siniatic Palimpsest” apply without justification the more conventional “he” rather than the “she” of the original language. Some Internet references, however, do acknowledge the proper “she”.

The identification of the Holy Spirit as feminine in the Siniatic Palimpsest is no small matter, for this document is the oldest of all copies of the Gospels, being dated to the second century A.D. It is a recognized principle of textual interpretation, even by the most conservative of Biblical scholars, that the older the text, the closer it is thought to be to the original Scripture. This is particularly important in light of the fact that there are no other Scriptural texts between it and the oldest Greek text dated to the fourth century A.D.

On the other hand, it is not really necessary to assert that Scripture was altered to change the references to the Holy Spirit from “she” to “he” to justify a feminine function of the Holy Spirit. As I had noted in both Family of God and Marching to a Worthy Drummer, it is more a matter of recognizing the Holy Spirit as functionally feminine in the face of the possibility that She may share in the masculine substance of the Father. This is certainly the case with the Church, in that Scripture describes her as functionally feminine, being the Bride of Christ, while the aggregate of individuals that describe her are collectively described as masculine, as in the term “mankind”. This view of collective masculinity and functional femininity is supported in Genesis 5:2:

“Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”

This differentiation between substance and function, in fact, is suggested by the Nicene Creed, in which in the original version the Holy Spirit is referred to as follows:

 

“And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son together is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets.”

Around the sixth century A.D. the filioque (the words “and the son”) were inserted into the Nicene Creed after the phrase “who proceeds from the Father”. This insertion was finally approved by the pope in 1014, an act that contributed to an uproar among the faithful that led in 1054 to the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western branches of the Church. The insertion of the filioque into the creed suggests the loss of the Church’s initial understanding of the Holy Spirit’s role within the Godhead.

 

 

 

 

GOD, FACE TO FACE CHAPTER ONE

CHAPTER ONE: How some eminent early Church Fathers set the stage for the removal of sexuality from God

In the book Early Christian Fathers, edited by Cyril C. Richardson may be seen Justin Martyr’s attitude toward the place of sexuality within the Christian faith This commentary was written around the middle of the second century A.D., about a half century after the Apostle John wrote the Book of Revelation. In it, Justin clearly expressed his view of the importance of sexual circumspection:

“About continence [Jesus] said this: ‘Whoever looks on a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery in his heart before God.’ And: ‘If your right eye offends you, cut it out; it is better for you to enter into the kingdom of Heaven with one eye than with two to be sent into eternal fire.’ And: ‘Whoever marries a woman who has been put away from another man commits adultery.’ And: ‘There are some who were made eunuchs by men, and some who were born eunuchs, and some who have made themselves eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven’s sake; only not all [are able to] receive this.

“And so those who make second marriages according to human law are sinners in the sight of our Teacher, and those who look on a woman to lust after her. For he condemns not only the man who commits the act of adultery, but the man who desires to commit adultery, since not only our actions but our thoughts are manifest to God. Many men and women now in their sixties and seventies who have been disciples of Christ from childhood have preserved their purity; and I am proud that I could point to such people in every nation. . . But to begin with, we do not marry except in order to bring up children, or else, renouncing marriage, we live in perfect continence. To show you that promiscuous intercourse is not among our mysteries – just recently one of us submitted a petition to the Prefect Felix in Alexandria, asking that a physician be allowed to make him a eunuch, for the physicians there said they were not allowed to do this without the permission of the Prefect. When Felix would by no means agree to endorse [the petition], the young man remained single, satisfied with [the approval of] his own conscience and that of his fellow believers.”

In writing about the sexual purity of Christians, Justin intended to contrast this behavior with that associated with the false gods and the rampant and often cruel immorality that not only was involved in the worship of them, but which had infected secular life as well:

“Far be it from every sound mind to entertain such a concept of deities as that Zeus, whom they call the ruler and begetter of all, should have been a parricide (killer of a relative) and the son of a parricide, and that moved by desire of evil and shameful pleasures he descended on Ganymede and the many women whom he seduced, and that his sons after him were guilty of similar actions. But, as we said before, it was the wicked demons who did these things. We have been taught that only those who live close to God in holiness and virtue attain to immortality, and we believe that those who live unjustly and do not reform will be punished in eternal fire.”

“Secondly, out of every race of men we who once worshiped Dionysus the son of Semele and Apollo the son of Leto, who in their passion for men did things which it is disgraceful even to speak of, or who worshiped Persephone and Aphrodite, who were driven made by [love of] Adonis and whose mysteries you celebrate, or Asclepius or some other of those who are called gods, now through Jesus Christ despise them, even at the cost of death, and have dedicated ourselves to the unbegotten and impassible God. We do not believe that he ever descended in mad passion on Antiope or others, nor on Ganymede, nor was he, receiving help through Thetis, delivered by that hundred-handed monster, nor was he, because of this anxious that Thetis’ son Achilles should destroy so many Greeks for the sake of his concubine Briseis. We pity those who believe [such stories], for which we know that the demons are responsible.”

“That we may avoid all injustice and impiety, we have been taught that to expose the newly born is the work of wicked men – first of all because we observe that almost all [foundlings], boys as well as girls, are brought up for prostitution. As the ancients are said to have raised herds of oxen or goats or sheep or horses in their pastures, so now [you raise children] just for shameful purposes, and so in every nation a crowd of females and hermaphrodites and doers of unspeakable deeds are exposed as public prostitutes. You even collect pay and levies and taxes from these, whom you ought to exterminate from your civilized world. And anyone who makes use of them may in addition to [the guilt of] godless, impious, and intemperate intercourse, by chance be consorting with his own child or relative or brother. Some even prostitute their own children or wives, and others are admittedly mutilated for purposes of sodomy, and treat this as part of the mysteries of the mother of the gods – while beside each of those whom think of as gods a serpent is depicted as a great symbol and mystery. You charge against us the actions that you commit openly and treat with honor, as if the divine light were overthrown and withdrawn – which of course does no harm to us, who refuse to do any of these things, but rather injures those who do them and then bring false witness [against us].”

Two and a half centuries later Augustine experienced much the same revulsion as Justin did over the moral tawdriness of the Roman society in which he lived. Having become a Christian thirty two years after his birth in 354 A.D., Augustine had spent much of his dissolute pre-Christian years in the enjoyment of the depravity of the society in which he lived. The shame and regret of these early years served to drive Augustine into a passionate rejection of loose morality and unbridled lust. The strength of his feelings in that regard are demonstrated throughout his book City of God, an example of which is given in Chapters 4 and 5 of Book II:

“When I was a young man I used to go to sacrilegious shows and entertainments.  I watched the antics of madmen; I listened to singing boys; I thoroughly enjoyed the most degrading spectacles put on in honour of gods and goddesses – in honour of the Heavenly Virgin, of of Berecynthia, mother of all. On the yearly festival of Berecynthia’s purification the lowest kind of actors sang, in front of her litter, songs unfit for the ears of even the mother of one of those mountebanks, to say nothing of the mother of any decent citizen, or of a senator; while as for the Mother of the Gods – ! For there is something in the natural respect we have towards our parents that the extreme of infamy cannot wholly destroy; and certainly those very mountebanks would be ashamed to give a rehearsal performance in their homes, before their mothers, of those disgusting verbal and acted obscenities. Yet they performed them in the presence of the Mother of the Gods before an immense audience of spectators of both sexes. If those spectators were enticed by curiosity to gather in profusion, they ought at least to have dispersed in confusion at the insults to their modesty.

“If these were sacred rites, what is meant by sacrilege? If this is purification, what is meant by pollution?  And the name of the ceremony is ‘the fercula’, which might suggest the giving of a dinner-party where the unclean demons could enjoy a feast to their liking.  Who could fail to realize what kind of spirits they are which could enjoy such obscenities?  Only a man who refused to recognize even the existence of any unclean spirits who deceive men under the title of gods, or one whose life was such that he hoped for the favour and feared the anger of such gods, rather than that of the true God.

Augustine went on to lament, as he called them, the obscenities performed in the worship of the “Mother of the Gods”:

 

            “The last people I should choose to decide on this matter are those who are more eager to revel in the obscene practices of this depraved cult than to resist them. I should prefer the decision of Scipio Nasica, the very man whom the Senate chose as their best man, whose hands received this devil’s image and brought it to Rome. Let him tell us whether he would wish his mother to have deserved so well of her country that she should be accorded divine honours. For it is well known that the Greeks and the Romans, and other peoples, have decreed such honours to those whose public services they valued highly, and that such people were believed to have been made immortal and to have been received among the number of the gods. No doubt he would desire such felicity for his mother, if it were possible. But let me go on to ask him whether he would like such disgusting rites as those to be included among the divine honours paid to her? Would he not cry out that he would prefer his mother to be dead, and beyond all experience, than that she should live as a goddess, to take pleasure in hearing such celebrations?   It is unthinkable that a senator of Rome, of such high principles that he forbade the erection of a theatre in a city of heroes, should want his mother to be honoured as a goddess by such propitiatory rites as would have scandalized her as a Roman matron. He would surely have thought it quite impossible for a respectable woman to have her modesty so corrupted by the assumption of divinity that her worshipers should call upon her with ritual invocations of this sort. These invocations contained expressions of such a kind that had they been hurled at any antagonist in a quarrel, during her life on earth, then if she had not stopped her ears and withdrawn from the company, her friends, her husband and her children would have blushed for her. In fact the ‘Mother of the Gods’ was such a character as even the worst of men would be ashamed to have for his mother. And when she came to take possession of the minds of the Romans she looked for the best man of the country, not so as to support him by counsel and help, but to cheat and deceive him, like the woman of whom the Bible says, ‘she ensnares the precious souls of men’. Her purpose was that a mind of great endowments should be puffed up by this supposedly divine testimony and should think itself truly exceptional, and therefore should cease to follow the true religion and piety – without which every national ability, however remarkable, disappears in the ruin which follows on pride. And thus that goddess should seek the support of the best men only by trickery, seeing that she requires in her worship the kind of behaviour which decent men shrink from even in their convivial moments.”

Augustine was enormously influential to the Christian Church at a time when Church doctrine was still being formulated and heresies were still emerging, to be debated upon and rejected. In his wake, the Church charted a course that polarized itself away from any hint of the depravities associated with the corrupt gods and goddesses of the world about her. This extremity of purification, for which purity was equated with chastity, cleansed the Judeo-Christian God of any taint of sexuality.

This view of sexuality as representing a taint frowned upon by God raises an issue that was brought up at the end of the Introduction: is the view Scriptural?

According to Genesis, it is not. Right at the beginning of Genesis, the creation epic describes the reproductive process extending even into the domain of plant life, wherein the fruit of the tree yields trees of its kind. Moreover, God saw this as good. Reproduction becomes more overtly sexual in the created animal life, wherein this life bore young after its kind. God also saw this as good. In the creation of man as described in Genesis 1:26 and 27, their gender differentiation now extends beyond mankind himself to hint of a like feature within the Godhead, here specifically described as plural:

“And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”

 

In blessing Adam and Eve, He specifically told them to multiply.

This time God saw His creative act as not only good, but very good.

Many theologians down through the centuries have attempted to separate the gender differentiation of Genesis 1:26 and 27 from the creation in God’s image. All such discourses, at least the ones of which I am aware, are logically weak and based on the unbiblical presupposition that God is “above that kind of thing”. The passage says what it says, and does so without ambiguity. Moreover, if this gender differentiation is not to represent the image of God, then the feminine half of the human race would have no representation in God. Some religions take that notion to its logical extreme, its male members treating women as animals.

[to be continued]

GOD, FACE TO FACE INTRODUCTION

The she-wolf lay trembling but still in a dark cold cave, her eyes blinking in the face of a harsh wind that ruffled her fur, seeking to expose her flesh to its frigid bite. The cave itself was surrounded by a bleak and hostile universe, its antipathy to life as immense as its vast scale.

 

Nested underneath her was a pack of cubs, warmed and fed by the suffering body above them and oblivious to the stress she was facing to ensure their survival. They fought for the warmest spot and the most milk, thinking only of their own well-being within their tiny universe beneath her sheltering underside.

 

I realized with a shock that the cubs represented us and that the life-giving body above was the Holy Spirit.

Many years after I became a Christian, God granted me two insights, profound in their influence on my experience as a believer: the first was a mathematically-based understanding of details associated with the events of Jesus’ feeding of the multitudes¹; the second was an understanding of the nature of the Holy Spirit and of the Spirit’s role within the Trinitarian Godhead.

1. A presentation of the feedings is furnished in Appendix 2 to Marching to a Worthy Drummer

 

The former insight, once established, was easily verifiable, and thus provided a means to strengthen my faith in the divine Source of the latter. As such, it was instrumental in the maintenance of my confidence in the gifts that God so graciously handed me. The importance of this confirmation was made manifest by the severity of the criticism against my insight into the nature of God.

I had been aware from the very receipt of this insight that it didn’t square with the conventional understanding of God as professed by the mainstream Churches, both Catholic and Protestant, for the insight itself was consistent with the vision of the wolf and cubs I had received many years previous upon accepting Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior.

I was given to understand the relationship between the wolf and her cubs in that vision as symbolic of that which existed between God and the human race, the wolf representing the Holy Spirit. The vision awakened in me a hunger for the knowledge of God.

Why a wolf? I don’t know the answer to that, but to me a wolf is emblematic of nobility and strength.

The bigger question is why I was favored with the two insights that I acquired much later. I don’t know that either, but maybe it’s simply because I asked for it.

Attempting to share this vision with other Christians in my enthusiasm as a newly-minted Christian, I was quickly confronted with the displeasure of my peers. I kind of suspected that, because the image of a wolf can be taken by some as inappropriate and demeaning to God. But that wasn’t the problem at all. The problem was gender. The vision couldn’t be correct, because the Holy Spirit was referred to in Scripture as masculine rather than feminine. Given this negative reaction, I proceeded no further with the sharing, completely avoiding the pastoral staff in the matter. Until I was given further insight into the issue many years later, I put the vision out of my mind and focused instead on understanding Scripture. This in-depth review served me well upon receiving the gift of insight, as I was then able to confirm my understanding of the Holy Spirit’s gender through Scripture.

I subsequently wrote about the insight in my book Family of God, after which I submitted the book to a friend who possessed impressive theological credentials. As before, I was criticized for the view, but with a twist: the Holy Spirit was not considered by him to be feminine, but neither was this Divine Entity masculine; the entire Godhead was considered to be void of gender in the sense of participating in a procreative function. The entire Creation, in his view and in the view of the seminary from which he emerged with a degree in theology, and, in fact, in the view of virtually every Western denomination acknowledged to be Christian, was accomplished by some pure Godly process in which gender differentiation was not involved.

The form of my friend’s displeasure exposed the heart of the matter: sex. Sexuality was forbidden within the Godhead. The entire Church denomination to which he belonged viewed sex as basically evil and too earthy for God. His denomination was not alone in this dim view, which represents the official public assessment of the mainstream Church regarding all matters sexual in nature. In privacy, it’s an entirely different matter, as the world discovers in recurring episodes of sexual excesses within the Christian clergy and laypersons. A lesser-known manifestation of this sordid business among Christians is the startling estimate that 80% of Christian males regularly view pornography, a good half of them being full-blown addicts to this form of voyeurism.

In a subsequent book Marching to a Worthy Drummer, in which I enlisted the aid of Scripture to rebut the mainstream view of the genderless Godhead, I made in the Introduction the following commentary regarding the source of this mainstream viewpoint:

Love was in the air at the time of the Pentecostal birth of the Church. And hope besides, a freshness of season, a joyful anticipation. Despite the anger and persecutions of those who knew not Christ against those who did, the Church willingly, thankfully and even possessively took up the Cross, marching boldly toward a paradise restored.

A few short centuries later the Western Church, greatly enlarged and enjoying the status of a state religion, had lost its newness and its joy. It was an institution now, a secular power. In the acquisition of this comfort and lofty position it now stood as a receiver of service, having forsaken the love of serving others. Far worse than that, it had lost the joy of loving God at the most basic and important level, that of natural intuition.

Some might think that this loss was an inevitable consequence of the easing of conditions for the Christians. No longer faced with persecution, they became soft of spirit and their fervor of worship decayed into indifference toward God.

Indeed, that was part of the problem. The Church always has been at her best when forced to face suffering and persecution. But looming over that external nudge toward decline was a much bigger dilemma, an internally-caused one that drove Christians away from their love of God because they could no longer see God with the intuitive clarity they possessed earlier.

This urge for reformation that stripped them of their knowledge of God was a desire to distance the Church from the sea of false notions and pagan beliefs with which she was surrounded. Sensing the great danger their Church faced from these competing ideas, many of which were lewd and corrupt, the leaders among the faithful strove to set their faith apart from the baser systems of belief in order to ensure its uniqueness and, above all, its purity. They intended to accomplish this with a thorough housecleaning and, energized with this objective, they pursued this task as if on a sacred mission.

By the time they were finished their objective was achieved beyond all rational expectations. Sexuality was completely divorced from the Christian faith as practiced by the mainstream Church. If the realization of that objective required a certain “correction” of Scripture in a few critical places, well, so be it. God certainly wouldn’t frown on the desire to purify Christianity. Not only were Mary and Joseph purged of sexual experience beyond the pain of childbirth and the necessity of breast-feeding, but God Himself, being considered above the baseness of sexual experience, was neutered. The Holy Spirit was changed from a feminine Being to a weakly masculine one, and, as a consequence, the Godhead was stripped of its family context and instead came to be viewed as a fellowship of brothers.

Gone was the intuitive basis for love, as represented by the Christian’s own family and spousal experience. In seeking God, the believer was forced to approach Him with agape love, having been made to forsake any hint of eros and the possessive love it engendered. From this complete lack of understanding of who God actually was, it was only a matter of time before indifference toward Him set in.

All one has to do to verify the anti-sexual bias of the early Christian Church is to read what the Church Fathers themselves, including Justin Martyr and Augustine, had to say about the place of sexuality within Christianity. There also is much evidence that Scripture was tampered with to disassociate sexuality from God.

Like most committed Christians, I believe in the inerrancy of Scripture in the original autograph, and its inspiration, again in the original, by the Holy Spirit. But, having been exposed to numerous off-the-wall interpretations of Scripture, I certainly don’t have any faith in the ability of mankind to maintain that Scripture in its original, pristine state.

On the last go-around on this subject with my friend, he again responded negatively to the clear Scriptural evidence of the femininity of the Holy Spirit as well as the equally clear evidence of Scripture having been tampered with regarding gender and God. He said, in effect, that he would produce Scriptural evidence that was thoroughly contradictory to mine.

Now, as I eagerly await his substantiation of his claim, I cannot help but to anticipate what this evidence might look like. I sincerely want to see the face of this more appropriate God. And the Source of this picture had better be Scripture.

Why is that? According to John 1:18, we have not and indeed cannot directly see the face of God the Father.

“No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.”

 

Nevertheless, we understand from Scripture that Jesus (Col 1:15) is the very image of the Father, so that we know from John 14:9 that if we see Jesus, we also see the Father:

“Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Show us the Father?”

 

How can we see Jesus, and thus the Father? Many great artists have attempted to paint his features, but we have no assurance of their resemblance to the actual Jesus. But Jesus wasn’t speaking of what He looks like, but what His heart looks like, and we have Scripture to show us that. His most preeminent attribute, according to John 1:1 and 14, is His role as the Word of God:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . .And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father), full of grace and truth.”

Having access to this picture of God in Scripture, it is incumbent upon us to adhere to it, understanding any view of God that contradicts His portrait in Scripture to be false and unworthy of our attention.

A SUMMARY OF THE FEMININITY OF THE HOLY SPIRIT

 

 

 

Direct Scriptural support

 

 

The Siniatic Palimpsest

 

According to an Internet search of “feminine Holy Spirit in the Hebrew Scriptures”, multiple modern, deeply serious theologians and ancient language scholars share the view that the earliest Hebrew Christians had access to Scripture that presented the Holy Spirit as a feminine Persona; this feminine persisted within the Syriac and other Eastern branches of Christianity and within the Gnostic sect as well. A prime example of this is the Scriptural passage known as the Siniatic Palimpsest (a palimpsest is a recycled writing medium, wherein a second layer of writing was applied over the original, the original usually consisting of more important information) uncovered toward the end of the nineteenth century by Agnes Lewis. The original writing included portions of the Gospel of John of which a quote from Jesus Himself in John 14:26 asserts the following (translation attributed to Danny Mahar):

“But She – the Spirit – the Paraclete whom He will send to you – my Father – in my name – She will teach you everything; She will remind you of what I have told you.”

There is a suggestion, from a comparative review of this text with Paul’s letters that Paul, among the numerous early Hebrew Christians, used the version of John’s Gospel from which this passage came. References to the Siniatic Palimpsest may be found on the Internet. Unfortunately, many of the translations into English found under the search phrase “Siniatic Palimpsest” apply without justification the more conventional “he” rather than the “she” of the original language. Some Internet references, however, do acknowledge the proper “she”.

The identification of the Holy Spirit as feminine in the Siniatic Palimpsest is no small matter, for this document is the oldest of all copies of the Gospels, being dated to the second century A.D. It is a recognized principle of textual interpretation, even by the most conservative of Biblical scholars, that the older the text, the closer it is thought to be to the original Scripture. This is particularly important in light of the fact that there are no other Scriptural texts between it and the oldest Greek text dated to the fourth century A.D.

 

 

The nature of the spiritual birth by the Holy Spirit points directly to a feminine Holy Spirit

 

Quoting from John 3:

There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; the same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God; for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him. Jesus answered, and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? Can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born? Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto you, Ye must be born again. The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound of it, but canst not tell from where it cometh, and where it goeth; so is every one that is born of the Spirit. Nicodemus answered, and said unto him, How can these things be? Jesus answered, and said unto him, Art thou a teacher of Israel, and knowest not these things? Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that which we do know, and testify to that which we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Dr. McGrath on the Protestant side and John MacQuarrie on the Catholic side, among many other theologians on both sides, argue that each Member of the Godhead has both a masculine and a feminine side enabling each and every Member of the Godhead to perform that birth function. This argument is negated not only by the strong maleness of the Father and Son as presented in the Bible, the proscription against effeminate males in Deuteronomy 23:1 and 1 Corinthians 6:9.

Acts Chapter 2 makes a singular association between this rebirth described in John 3 and the Holy Spirit, identifying the Holy Spirit as the Birther. Because gender weakness is frowned upon in the passages cited above as well as the proscription against homosexuality in both Testaments, the Holy Spirit must be identified as functionally feminine.

 

 

A Feminine Church suggests a feminine Holy Spirit

 

The femininity of the spiritual Church was established in the article entitled The Church, the Bride, the Body and the New Jerusalem. The spiritual Church, being a feminine entity and the Bride of Christ, requires Jesus Christ to be gendered. This was the great mystery of which Paul spoke in Ephesians 5:31 and 32:

For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and His Church.

 

This relationship between Christ and His Church elicits a profound question, one that can be answered rationally only one way: why, if Jesus partakes of both gender and marriage, would the Father and the Holy Spirit not?

Given the male gender of the Father, the obvious answer is that the Holy Spirit is the feminine Spouse of the Father.

The feminine Shekinah Glory points to a feminine Holy Spirit

 

Perhaps the most significant suggestion of femininity in the Bible may be found in the property of indwelling, a characteristic of the Holy Spirit that strongly connects the New Testament with the Old.

That the Old Testament Shekinah is the New Testament’s Holy Spirit is manifestly evident in the precursor role to the indwelling Holy Spirit of the Shekinah Glory who indwelt both the Tabernacle in the wilderness and Solomon’s Temple at their dedications. Since it has been claimed that the word Shekinah does not exist in the Hebrew Scriptures in its noun form (the situation there being similar to the absence in the Bible of a noun form of the word baptize), the following commentary will be made regarding its origin before proceeding with examples of the Shekinah presence.

In the Hebrew Targum, the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Old Testament, the word Shekinah is used as a noun. It means “intimate dwelling” or “the presence of the Glory of the Lord”.   Justification for the use of this word is the use in the Hebrew Scriptures of its root word “shachan”, referring particularly to the pillars of cloud and fire that accompanied the Israelites in their journey from Egypt to the Promised Land through the wilderness. The prophet Isaiah referred to it quite graphically in Isaiah 4:5 and 6, linking this pillar of cloud and fire to a covering presence. It is generally understood that this same pillar is referenced in Isaiah 51:9 and 10, where the prophet goes out of his way to describe by feminine pronouns the same pillar of cloud and fire that accompanied the Israelites on their journey from Egypt. The Targum interpretation leaves no doubt that the Shekinah Glory is a feminine presence, and represents an equivalence with a feminine Holy Spirit. Isaiah 4:5 and 6, and 51:9 and 10 read as follows:

“And the Lord will create upon every dwelling place of Mount Zion , and upon her assemblies, a cloud and smoke by day, and the shining of a flaming fire by night; for upon all the glory shall be a defense. And there shall be a tabernacle for a shadow in the daytime from the heat, and for a place of refuge, and for a covert from storm and from rain.”

 

          “Awake, awake, put on strength, O arm of the Lord; awake, as in the ancient days, in the generations of old. Art thou not she who hast cut Rahab, and wounded the dragon? Art thou not she who has dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; who hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?”

Exodus 40 and 1 Kings 8 provide prominent examples of the Shekinah as a precursor to the indwelling Holy Spirit of the New Testament. Exodus 40:33-38 describes the indwelling of the Tabernacle in the wilderness:

“And [Moses] reared up the court round about the tabernacle and the altar, and set up the hanging of the court gate. So Moses finished the work.

 

          “Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the Lord filled the tabernacle. And when the cloud was taken up from over the tabernacle, the children of Israel went onward in all their journeys; but if the cloud were not taken up, then they journeyed not till the day that it was taken up. For the cloud of the Lord was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by night, in the sight of all the house of Israel, throughout all their journeys.”

 

The description “cloud of the Lord” , “fire by night” and “taken up” leaves no doubt that this “cloud” is equivalent to the Shekinah of the Red Sea adventure and of Isaiah 4:5. The corresponding incident with respect to Solomon’s Temple, taken from 1 Kings 8:6-13, is given below:

And the priests brought in the ark of the covenant of the Lord unto its place, into the inner sanctuary of the house, into the most holy place, even under the wings of the cherubim. For the cherubim spread forth their two wings of the place of the ark, and the cherubim covered the ark and its staves above. And they drew out the staves, that the ends of the staves were seen out in the holy place before the inner sanctuary, but they were not seen outside; and there they are unto this day. There was nothing in the ark except the two tables of stone, which Moses put there at Horeb, when the lord made a covenant with the children of Israel, when they came out of the land of Egypt. And it came to pass, when the priests were come out of the holy place, that the cloud filled the house of the lord, so that the priests could not stand to minister because of the cloud; for the glory of the Lord had filled the house of the Lord. Then spoke Solomon, The Lord said he would dwell in the thick darkness. I have surely built thee an house to dwell in, a settled place for thee to abide in forever.”

In this passage the meaning of “cloud” is closely linked with “dwelling place” and “glory of the Lord”, which again point to the phrase Shekinah Glory.

The connection between these precursor events and the Holy Spirit who indwells Christian believers is given in 1 Corinthians 3:16 and Ephesians 2:19-22, wherein Paul asserts that the Church herself, through her constituents, is a temple indwelt by the Holy Spirit:

Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

 

          Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone, in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord; in whom ye also are built together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

The facts embedded in these passages are no surprise to Christians, who generally accept without question that believers are indwelt with the Holy Spirit and comprise, as the Church, a holy temple. What some of us may not be aware of is that this temple and its indwelling by the Holy Spirit was represented numerous times as the Glory of God in the Old Testament. Turning to the Internet, the Wikipedia entry for “Shekinah” begins as follows:

“Hebrew [Shekinah] is the English spelling of a grammatically feminine Hebrew ancient blessing. The original word means the dwelling or settling, and denotes the dwelling or settling of the divine presence of God, especially in the temple in Jerusalem.” An accompanying figure shows the Shekinah, or the Glory of God, indwelling the temple as described in 1 Kings 8.”

Noting the female gender of this indwelling Shekinah, we find here by comparing the indwelling presence of the Glory in Solomon’s temple with the description in Ephesians 2 of the Holy Spirit indwelling the human temple that Scripture itself, by furnishing this direct comparison, supports an interpretation of the Holy Spirit as a female Entity in the face of conventional Christian thought, as driven by the use in Scripture of the male pronoun in reference to the Holy Spirit.

This feminine gender attribute in Exodus 40 and 1 Kings 8 may have been simply lost in the translation from Hebrew (Aramaic) to English, which could have been a result of the lack of gender precision in the English language. (Actually, the first transference from feminine to masculine occurred in the Latin, for which the Holy Spirit was definitely presented as male.) But there is an associated gender misrepresentation in Isaiah 51:9, 10 that appears to be more deliberate. What the translators did in that passage was to substitute the grammatically incorrect ‘it’ for the gender-correct ‘she’ in reference to Shekinah. In their desire to maintain a fully masculine Godhead, they neutered the female. In the process, they inadvertently managed also to castrate their masculine God. As just one example of this removal of gender, Isaiah 51:9 and 10 refers to a neuter Arm of the Lord rather than the original feminine gender.

Proverbs points to the femininity of the Holy Spirit

 

The Book of Proverbs beautifully and harmoniously supports a female functional designation for the Holy Spirit., as the subject of this book is uniformly feminine, and whose functionality closely parallels that of the Holy Spirit. Of particular interest in this regard are Proverbs 3 and 8, from which the following excerpts are taken:

“Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding. . .She is more precious than rubies: and all the things thou canst desire are not to be compared unto her. . .The Lord by wisdom hath founded the earth; by understanding hath he established the heavens. . .Doth not wisdom cry? And understanding put forth her voice? . . .The Lord possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was. When there were no depths, I was brought forth; when there were no fountains abounding with water. Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth: While as yet he had not made the earth, nor the fields, nor the highest part of the dust of the world. When he prepared the heavens, I was there: when he set a compass upon the face of the depth: When he established the clouds above: when he strengthened the fountains of the deep: When he gave the sea his decree, that the waters should not pass his commandment: when he appointed the foundations of the earth: Then I was by him, as one brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth; and my delights were with the sons of men. Now therefore hearken unto me, O ye children: for blessed are they that keep my ways. Hear instruction, and be wise, and refuse it not. Blessed is the man that heareth me, watching daily at my gates, waiting at the posts of my doors. For whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favor of the Lord. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death.”

Several items come to mind from the above review of these passages in Proverbs. The first is that the Persona is female throughout; an attempt to assign some of these passages to Jesus Christ, as many do, would constitute an unnatural force-fit, most obviously in the issue of gender, but also with respect to function and role. The second is directly related to function, wherein the passages suggest a connection between Wisdom and the Holy Spirit as furnishing the most likely Person to which a female function may be assigned; the third is that the Holy Spirit was active in creation itself, as summarized in Genesis 1:1-3:

“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”

 

The frequent Catholic attribution of Wisdom to Mary faces the equally grave difficulty of linking Mary with capabilities such as creation that are reserved for God alone.

 

In the context of Scripture’s general treatment of the Holy Spirit, the passage in Genesis quoted above more than suggests that the Father was assisted by or in union with the Holy Spirit in the act of creation, the result being, as Jesus Himself suggested in Revelation 3:14, a manifestation of the Son. I am not alone in this assertion regarding the active participation of the Holy Spirit in the creation event. As a matter of fact, I simply repeat the position of Benjamin B. Warfield, a noted Bible scholar who is well-respected among conservative theologians.

 

Any attempt at a rebuttal of this association must address Proverbs 3:19 in the context of Genesis 1:1-5, Proverbs 8:22-36, Job 26:13 and Psalm 104:30. The attempt to attribute Proverbs 8 to Jesus rather than the Holy Spirit must explain the out-of-context insertion into material descriptive of Wisdom, as well as the feminine description of Wisdom throughout the Book of Proverbs as opposed to the depiction of Jesus throughout Scripture as strongly masculine and the image of the Father. Furthermore, the attempt to link Wisdom with the Virgin Mary is unsustainable in the light of Mary’s full humanity and consequent absence in the creation epic, wherein according to Chapter 8 Wisdom was at the side of the Father during the process of creation.

Wisdom, as depicted in Proverbs, is strongly female and only female. The attempt at rebuttal must also avoid taking the Jungian notion of the human psyche, both male and female, as containing both masculine and feminine elements, and extrapolating it to his notion of the Trinity. There are logical difficulties in doing so, as described below.

Scripture rather exclusively associates the Father with the Divine Will, which, as an initiating role, also is exclusively masculine. Similarly, Jesus the Son is presented in Scripture as the Divine Representation which, as the perfect image in reality of the Father would also be predominantly masculine. The masculine predominance of Jesus is given further weight by Paul’s characterization in Ephesians 5 of Jesus as the Bridegroom of the (functionally feminine) Church. In Family of God I simply noted what to me was an obvious connecting function of the Holy Spirit between Father and Son: the Divine Means which, in union with the Divine Will, gave birth to the Divine Implementation in reality (Divine Representation). Obviously, this Divine Means, being so closely linked with the other two Members, is also Deity. Because the Divine Means performed a function that was responsive to the Will, an obviously female role, I attached a female gender to this Person. Scripture and Christian tradition both understand this third Member of the Trinity to be the Holy Spirit.

Another difficulty, and it is a big one, that I see in the notion of each Member of Godhead possessing elements of both genders is that such a state of affairs would promote self-adoration, a characteristic that I sincerely hope is lacking within the Godhead. Love and adoration require otherness. The alternative is narcissism.   I truly believe (and hope) that both Father and Holy Spirit are as selflessly noble as the Son demonstrated on the cross.

Indirect Scriptural support

 

 

The personhood of Wisdom in Proverbs

As for the interpretation of the association of femininity with the subject of Proverbs as being nothing more than a literary device, the same is no more consistent with the general tone of Scripture than Zanchius’ removal of passion from God.

Jesus Himself, in Luke 7:35, associates Wisdom with motherhood, an eminently personal attribute.

“But wisdom is justified of all her children.”

 

While that verse possibly could be interpreted as being merely a figure of speech, Jesus in Luke 11:49 and 50 more emphatically personifies Wisdom:

“Therefore also said the wisdom of God, I will send them prophets and apostles, and some of them they shall slay and persecute, that the blood of all the prophets, which was shed from the foundation of the world, may be required of this generation.”

In further support of my equation of Wisdom with the Holy Spirit, I cite Isaiah 11:1 and 2:

“And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots; And the Spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord,. . .”

Another item that presents itself in a reading of Proverbs with an eye to the Personhood of Wisdom is the implied intimacy between mankind and Wisdom in the warning given in Proverbs 8:36: he that sins against Wisdom wrongs his own soul. Could this imply that our own purpose and function in the spiritual realm might actually parallel that of the Holy Spirit? There may well be a correlation between this caution and the one expressed by Jesus in Matthew 12:31 and 32:

“Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.”

These are strong words, and they make a strong connection between Wisdom and the Holy Spirit. Perhaps theologians instinctively sense this correlation. Perhaps also not wishing to shoot themselves in the foot and instead of attempting to truly understand what is being said here, they duck away from presenting anything controversial regarding the Holy Spirit. Historically, that has certainly been the situation with numerous theological expositions regarding the Holy Spirit, all of which end up complicating an extremely simple understanding of the nature of the Trinity by claiming that ultimately man is unable to grasp it.

I must express my disappointment with all such expositors for allowing this unjustified fear to prevent them from furnishing a richer, more love-inducing understanding of their God to the Christian community. How can we possibly fulfill God’s greatest commandment to us to love Him with all our hearts if we cannot understand Him? How can we truly worship God if we turn our hearts away from His own Word? I assert with the Revised Westminster Confession that the three Persons of the Trinity have but one substance – that of the Father, shared among them, and three distinct Personalities, or roles. I identify those roles as Father, Mother, and Son, wherein the Three constitute one God in the context of Family, by virtue of the love intrinsic to that structure which, of course, is idealized in its application to God. This identification I make does not represent any cleverness on my part; rather, its very simplicity gives me cause to suspect that many followers of God would do well to actually follow God in love tempered by fear instead of fear tempered by love, and to follow God Himself instead of adhering so stubbornly to the traditions of man.

Moreover, I would suggest that in a functional sense an all-male Godhead represents a model that can be construed with little difficulty to support homosexuality, in opposition to God’s detestation of that practice, as may be found in Genesis 19, Leviticus 18 and Romans 1.

Something the Catholic Church did for the feminine which the Protestant Church did not was to include the Book of Wisdom within the body of canonical, and therefore considered to be inspired, Old Testament books. This beautifully-written book furnishes several interesting passages suggestive of the identity of Wisdom as the feminine Holy Spirit. Selected passages are presented below:

“And in your wisdom have established humankind . . .Give me Wisdom, the consort at your throne . . . Now with you is Wisdom, who knows your works and was present when you made the world; Who understands what is pleasing in your eyes and what is conformable with your commands. Send her forth from your holy heavens and from your glorious throne dispatch her that she may be with me and work with me, that I may know what is pleasing to you. For she knows and understands all things, and will guide me prudently in my affairs and safeguard me to her glory . . . Or who can know your counsel, unless you give Wisdom and send your holy spirit from on high?

– Wisdom 9:2, 4, 9-11, 17

 

A family-based Godhead in which the Holy Spirit is functionally female, united in love, naturally and intuitively resolves the apparent discrepancy between monotheism and a Trinitarian Godhead.

In Matthew 22:37, Jesus identifies the greatest commandment as the one Moses gave in Deuteronomy Chapter 6: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. Being the greatest of commandments, it is not one to be trifled with to anyone who wishes to be obedient to God. But its fulfillment requires one to seek intimate knowledge of the entire Godhead, including the nature of the Holy Spirit and of the intra-Godhead union. It certainly demands that one satisfactorily resolve the enigma of oneness in a Trinitarian setting.

Assuredly, a union within the Godhead involving love of a non-romantic nature can be proposed. However, a rebuttal alternative should carry as much intuitive and love-inspiring force as a relationship in which a family setting is central. A rebuttal should also explain in functional terms why there is a proscription against the gay lifestyle as presented in Leviticus 18 and Romans 1. Furthermore, a rebuttal should also address the centrality of family in Scripture as well as in life in general.

Linkage of the Holy Spirit with an executive function

 

This executive nature of the Holy Spirit was proposed by respected theologian Benjamin Warfield as well as others. It is certainly suggested in Scripture. An executive office is responsive to higher orders, this being within the Godhead the initiative of the Father, or Divine Will. A responsive office, in turn, is a distinctly feminine one. This creative response is distinctly different than Jesus’ role as the Divine Representation, or Divine Implementation, which is, as a perfect Image of the Will, the result of creative response to the Will.

The possessive nature of Jeremiah 10:10-13

 

In Jeremiah 10:10-13, God describes His creative accomplishments in a possessive way:

“But the Lord is the true God; he is the living God, and an everlasting king; at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation. Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. He hath made the earth by his power; he hath established the world by his wisdom, and hath stretched out the heavens by his discretion. When he uttereth his voice, there is a multitude of waters in the heavens, and he causeth the vapors to ascend from the ends of the earth; he maketh lightnings with rain, and bringeth forth the wind out of his treasures.”

 

Wisdom, certainly, and often also power, are routinely linked to the Holy Spirit. To the person who views the Holy Spirit as feminine and bound to the Father in a family relationship in which romance is a major factor, this passage brings out the possessive nature of romance. In that context, the Holy Spirit belongs to the Father, as does the Father to the Holy Spirit. The passage above fits harmoniously into that supposition.

If, on the other hand, one presupposes that the Father and the Holy Spirit are more loosely bound in an agape relationship appropriate to an all-male Godhead, this passage would not speak of a possessive relationship between the two, and the attribute of wisdom would more appropriately be one possessed by the Father Himself. Of course, that assignment would create the collateral difficulty of rendering the Holy Spirit far less understandable as to function and attributes.