Communion: Not Transubstantiation but Consubstantiality

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Metaphor

 

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

 

Transubstantiation

 

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

 

Consubstantiation

 

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

Consubstantiality

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

Excessive Righteousness 8: The Antichrist(s)

 

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

 

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

(1 John 4:2-3 NKJV)

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

NOT the Man of Lawlessness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Who is/are the Antichrist/s?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Antichrist: a Judas Typology

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

 

Similar to the Unforgiveable Sin

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

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

 

How Does This Understanding Contribute to Excessive Righteousness?

The two great (unforgiveable) sins are:

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

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

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

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

Excessive Righteousness 7: A Fence for the Torah

 

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

(Matthew 23:1-4, 15 NKJV)

 

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

(Mishnah 1(a))

 

 

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

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

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

 

Sabbath Fences

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

 

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

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

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

 

Washing-hands-before-Eating

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

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

Eve’s Fence

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

 

Jesus’s Fences

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Pink Elephant in the Room/Modern-day Fences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Conclusion

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