Excessive Righteousness 7: A Fence for the Torah

 

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

(Matthew 23:1-4, 15 NKJV)

 

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

(Mishnah 1(a))

 

 

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

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

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

 

Sabbath Fences

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

 

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

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

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

 

Washing-hands-before-Eating

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

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

Eve’s Fence

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

 

Jesus’s Fences

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Pink Elephant in the Room/Modern-day Fences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Conclusion

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

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).