Transgender Terrorists, Demons, and Psychotic Entelechy

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

Is Baphomet a Demon?

Brittanica.com states:

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

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

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

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

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

On page 203, I point out:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is Psychotic Entelechy?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is there a cure?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Can Jews Accept Jesus?

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

My Years Immersed in Judaism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What About Jews Accepting Jesus?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jews Can Accept Both God and Logos as Preexisting

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consubstantiality

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

Transcendence

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

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

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