Excessive Righteousness 8: The Antichrist(s)

 

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

 

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

(1 John 4:2-3 NKJV)

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

NOT the Man of Lawlessness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Who is/are the Antichrist/s?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Antichrist: a Judas Typology

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

 

Similar to the Unforgiveable Sin

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

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

 

How Does This Understanding Contribute to Excessive Righteousness?

The two great (unforgiveable) sins are:

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

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

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

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

Excessive Righteousness 7: A Fence for the Torah

 

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

(Matthew 23:1-4, 15 NKJV)

 

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

(Mishnah 1(a))

 

 

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

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

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

 

Sabbath Fences

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

 

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

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

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

 

Washing-hands-before-Eating

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

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

Eve’s Fence

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

 

Jesus’s Fences

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

The Pink Elephant in the Room/Modern-day Fences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Conclusion

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

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.