Excessive Righteousness 6: My Name, Your Tongue

 

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

(Exodus 20:7 NKJV)

 

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

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

(James 3:5-8 NKJV)

 

 

 

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

 

Speech and God’s Image

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

 

Vulgarity

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

 

Cursing

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

 

Swearing

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

 

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

 

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

 

God’s Name

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

 

Ask in My Name

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

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

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

Excessive Righteousness 5: Soul Flakes

 

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

(Matthew 22:34-38 NKJV)

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

(Matthew 22:34-38 NKJV)

 

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

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

 

All Your Heart

 

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

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

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

Excessive Righteousness 3: The Greatest Sin

 

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

(Matthew 22:34-38 NKJV)

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

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

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

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

(Matthew 12:24-32 NKJV)

 

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

 

Beelzebub

 

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

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

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

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

 

Loving God with All Your Mind

 

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

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

 

Christians and Beelzebub

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

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