Communion: Not Transubstantiation but Consubstantiality

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Metaphor

 

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

 

Transubstantiation

 

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

 

Consubstantiation

 

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

Consubstantiality

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

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

Excessive Righteousness 2: Monotheism

 

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

(Matthew 22:34-38)

 

Matthew 5:20 (NKJV) records Jesus’ warning: “Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.” If one would have righteousness that exceeds the righteousness of the Pharisees (and righteousness can be defined as “fulfilling the commandments”), it is prudent to begin with what both Jesus and the Pharisees agree is the greatest commandment. Matthew 22:37, Mark 12:30, and Luke 10:27 all record the saying of Jesus cited at the first of this post. While the saying of Jesus in Matthew and Luke is truncated from the full command from Deuteronomy, Mark and the Jews emphasize the full text of what they call the Shema. The term Shema is translated “Hear!” and the entire Shema is as follows: “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your strength” (Deuteronomy 6:4-5 NKJV). Jews believe that their righteousness with regard to this command exceeds the righteousness of Christians because of the emphasis of the Shema on monotheism: The LORD our God … is one. They suggest that Christian teachings of the Trinity set up three Gods, rather than just the one. Before we consider how to fulfill the greatest commandment, we need to, first, tackle the question of who God is.

 

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit

 

Henry Fischel, my (Jewish) major professor of Hebrew at Indiana University pointed out to me that the word “Trinity” appears in neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament. Nevertheless, the words “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” do appear together in the baptismal formula of Matthew 28:19 (NKJV): “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” On the day of Pentecost, Peter, however, used a somewhat different baptismal formula: “Then Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit’” (Acts 2:38 NKJV). Paul was told by Ananias in Acts 22:16 (NKJV) “Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” And, Paul simply mentions baptism into “Christ Jesus” in Romans 6:3-4 (NKJV): Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore, we were buried with Him through baptism into death.” It seems to me that any of these baptismal formulas is acceptable—so long as it is Jesus into whom one is baptized. Acts 19:1-5 recounts Paul’s rebaptism of twelve individuals in Ephesus who were baptized only with John the Baptist’s baptism—a baptism of repentance, with no reference to Jesus or the Holy Spirit. Paul baptized them “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Then Paul (an apostle) laid hands on them and they received gifts of the Holy Spirit—tongues and prophecy. Spiritual gifts were conferred only by the laying on of the hands of apostles (Google: “Stan.Point Logic of Christianity 17”). Yet, all Christians who are baptized “in the name of Jesus Christ … receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38 NKJV). What exactly that “gift of the Holy Spirit” is will be considered momentarily.

Another passage that uses the words meaning Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together is actually not in the earliest texts; it is a later textual addition—1 John 5:7 (NKJV): “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.” Although Christians often cite this passage as evidence of a doctrine of Trinity, the words “the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit” are not in the earliest texts of 1 John. The vast majority of recent translations recognize this fact by excluding the terminology from this passage--Holman Christian Standard Bible, English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New International Version, New Living Translation, New Revised Standard, American Standard Version, Common English Bible, The Complete Jewish Bible, The Darby Translation, Good News Translation, GOD'S WORD Translation, Lexham English Bible, New Century Version, New International Reader's Version, Revised Standard Version, World English Bible, and Weymouth New Testament. The SBL Greek New Testament and even The Latin Vulgate have also eliminated the language.

As cited above, the New King James Version retains the language, as it seeks to remain close to the old King James Version, published in 1611 (before modern textual criticism demonstrated that the words were a late addition). Other old translations--Wycliffe published from 1382 to 1395, Tyndale published c. 1522–1535, the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible published 1582, and the Webster Bible published 1833—have the Trinitarian language, along with lesser known recent translations--Jubilee Bible 2000, Third Millennium Bible, and Young's Literal Translation. One should not base one’s Trinitarian doctrine on the 1 John 5:7 passage. It was not in the original text.

 

The Holy Spirit

 

It is not blasphemous to suggest to a Jew that the Holy Spirit exists. There are more than sixty passages in the Hebrew Old Testament explicitly mentioning the Holy Spirit (aka the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the LORD, Your [i.e., God’s] Spirit, the Spirit, My [i.e., God’s] Spirit, Your [i.e., God’s] good Spirit, a new Spirit, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and the fear of the Lord). These passages mentioning the Holy Spirit begin in Genesis 1:2 with the Spirit of God hovering over the face of the waters at the beginning of Creation. Furthermore, Jews understand that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of prophecy. That means the Holy Spirit is that which God placed in His prophets to deliver His messages to humans. The Pharisees believed that the operation of God’s Holy Spirit to inspire prophecy ceased with Malachi—which they assumed to be the last inspired book of the Bible. For this reason, they could not accept John the Baptist as a prophet, let alone accept the early Christian prophets. Nevertheless, they still believed that God could speak to humans through the occasional words of children and the mentally handicapped (indelicately called “fools” by the Jews). This was still the Holy Spirit operating. Jesus alluded to this phenomenon on Palm Sunday in Matthew 21:15-16 (NKJV): “But when the chief priests and scribes saw … the children crying out in the temple and saying, ‘Hosanna to the Son of David!’ they were indignant and said to Him, ‘Do You hear what these are saying?’ And Jesus said to them, ‘Yes. Have you never read, “Out of the mouth of babes and nursing infants You have perfected praise” [Psalm 8:2]?”

Pharisees also believed that God’s spirit continued to speak to humans through what they called a Bat Qol (or Bat Kol: a mysterious voice from Heaven). According to “Bat Kol: A Divine Voice | My Jewish Learning”:

 

[B]at kol, literally “daughter of a voice,” refers to a heavenly voice that proclaims God’s will or a divine judgment in a matter of legal dispute. The term itself doesn’t appear anywhere in the Hebrew Bible, though God’s voice is heard frequently in the Bible. Later sources indicate that there were bat kols in biblical times that were not recorded in the text, as in the Talmud’s declaration that a bat kol announced the death of Moses. The clearest statement of the nature of the bat kol is the Talmud’s declaration that the bat kol served as a means of communication between God and humankind after the end of the prophetic era. Though this teaching clearly connects a bat kol to the prophecies of the Bible, instances of the latter indicate explicitly in the text that it is God speaking, while the language of “daughter of a voice” concerning a bat kol suggests it is some sense a lesser (yet still divinely originating) voice. The Tosafot, commenting on a passage concerning a bat kol in Tractate Sanhedrin, distinguishes it from a voice that descends directly from heaven (which might refer to traditional prophecy), comparing it instead to an echo, a voice that emerges from within another voice. 

The term appears only twice in the Mishnah, but it is found frequently in the Talmud.

 

Bottom Line:  Pharisees also believed that God’s Spirit was/is active in the Bat Qol. Christians will note: a Bat Qol occurs at Jesus’s baptism and another at his transfiguration. Furthermore, a Bat Qol of Jesus’s voice speaks to Saul of Tarsus at his conversion. The fact that Christians believe that the Holy Spirit is still active (though, like the Jews, believing that the age of prophecy is now ceased) does not suggest that Christian doctrine concerning the Holy Spirit is blasphemous or even inferior to the views of the Pharisees. The Jews have no problem believing that the existence of the Spirit of God does not compromise their doctrine of monotheism. Why should they contend that Christian belief in the Holy Spirit would compromise a doctrine of monotheism?

The “Talmud’s declaration that the bat kol served as a means of communication between God and humankind” (emphasis mine) is a fair description of all activity of the Holy Spirit (not just the Bat Qol). The Holy Spirit spoke through prophets, children, the Bat Qol, angels, the written word, and directly (from God to humans). Jewish scholar G. F. Moore links three terms together in his chapter entitled, "The Word of God:  The Spirit," Moore states, "God's will is made known or effectuated in the world not only through personal agents (ANGELS), but directly by his WORD or by his SPIRIT" (emphases mine). The Apostle Paul, in Ephesians 6:17 (NKJV), is in agreement with Moore’s observation: “And take … the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.” Although the English is confusing, the word “which” in this passage cannot be referring back to the term “sword,” since, in the Greek, “sword” is a feminine noun and “which” is a neuter pronoun. The only neuter noun “which” could refer back to is the neuter noun “Spirit.” The Spirit is the word of God, just as Moore demonstrates. (Incidentally, the Greek word for “word,” here, is not logos, but rhēma, from the same root as “rhetoric.” This might indicate that in the armor of God, His Spirit of persuasion is the sword we wield; whereas, God’s Word/Logos in John’s Gospel might refer more to His powerful spoken fiats of creation. (Since my Ph.D. is in Communication, I pay close attention to such distinctions.)

Since Jesus emphasizes that God is spirit (John 4:24) and the facts that the “Spirit of God” is hovering over the face of the waters and God is speaking “words” are all found in Genesis 1:1-3, the possibility of the Word/Logos of John chapter 1 being identified as the Spirit of God is a distinct possibility.  God and His Word are one and the same. There is no threat to the doctrine of monotheism when God and His Spirit are mentioned as existing together any more than there would be the implication that my words when uttered are somehow different from me as a single human being. Later in the first chapter of John, the Logos-becomes-flesh (as Jesus) and dwells among us.

The fact that God (His Spirit) speaks to the darkness (creating light), to the waters (creating a firmament and, later, creating sea creatures, birds, beasts, cattle, and creeping things), to the land (creating vegetation), etc., does not preclude God from communicating with humans, as well, through His Holy Spirit. 2 Corinthians 13:13 (NKJV) states: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen.” While Jesus purchased “grace” for us, and God so “loved” the world that He gave Jesus to us, the Holy Spirit offers us “communion with Him.” The word translated “communion” is the Greek word koinōnia (frequently, translated “fellowship”). It means, sharing or having things in common. The English words “common,” “communion,” and “communication” have the same root. As a professor of “communication,” I can assure you that you will have great difficulty in “communicating” with another human, unless you have things in common with that individual (especially, a common language). Japanese-speaking and English-speaking individuals have great difficulty communicating until they learn each other’s language. In John 14:16-18 (NKJV), Jesus promises: “I will pray the Father and He will give you another Helper [paraclete, literally: one whom you call alongside you, such as a friend or companion], that He may abide with you forever—the Spirit of truth … you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you.” This is what Peter meant on the day of Pentecost, when he promised that those who are baptized will receive the “gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38 NKJV). God doesn’t need to give you miraculous gifts of prophecy, healing, miracles, tongues, etc. for you to simply enjoy His company and communicate with Him. Everything you would hope to find when communicating with your best friend—liberty, righteousness, peace, and joy—you will find in God’s companionship through His Holy Spirit. “Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty” (2 Corinthians 3:17 NKJV). Romans 14:17 (NKJV) states that there is “righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Galatians 5:22-23 (NKJV) even adds to the benefits of being the companion of the Holy Spirit: “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” The words of the genie in the Disney movie “Aladdin” should more accurately be applied to the Holy Spirit: “You ain’t never had a friend like me!” Not only is He our friend, He is our teacher, the One who reminds us of things God has commanded us. “He will teach [us] all things, and bring to [our] remembrance all things that [Jesus] said to [us].” (John 14:26 NKJV). He will guide us “into all truth” (John 16:12). That’s true communication. That’s communion. That’s the Holy Spirit.

 

The Father and the Son

The Pharisees would have no problem believing in God the Father. Several Old Testament passages—Deuteronomy 32:6, Isaiah 64:8, Jeremiah 3:19, Psalm 68:5, Jeremiah 31:9, Isaiah 63:16, and Malachi 2:10—all refer to God as Father. Several other passages refer to (especially Israel as) His son/s. To say that Christians believe in God the Father is not problematic, although, most frequently, the father-son relationship of God in the Old Testament is with Israel as His son. Perhaps, the reason some Jews might shy away from the “Father” language—except to say that Abraham is their father—is that Christians use the terminology in connection with His relationship to Jesus. This is the stumbling block over which two millennia of Jews have tripped. When the New Testament refers to Jesus as the Son of God, Jews consider that to be polytheistic rather than monotheistic. This Pharisaic thought process is encapsulated in John 10:33-36 (NKJV):

The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.” Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods”’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

 

Jesus is, here, defending Himself for claiming to be the “Son of God.” To defend Himself, Jesus cites Psalm 82 (NKJV):

 

God stands in the congregation of the [gods, re: LXX];
He judges among the gods.

 How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked? …

I said, “You are gods,
And all of you are [sons] of the Most High.

But you shall die like men.

 

Michael S. Heiser (2008, page 3) states: “many scholars consider Psalm 82 to be either a vestige of polytheism overlooked by monotheistic redactors or perhaps a deliberate rhetorical use of Israel’s polytheistic past to declare the new outlook of monotheism. After the exile, so it is put forth, the gods of the nations are relegated to the status of angels.” Jesus and John, apparently, did not get that memo. Even “angels” is not an appropriate translation for “gods” in this passage for Jesus, John, and, implicitly, their Jewish audience. I discuss both the John 10 and Psalm 82 passages in my book Angels and Demons (page 82):

 

Jesus is quoted in John 10:33-36 as clearly implying that the term “sons of the Most High” (from Psalm 82:6 …) refers to “human judges.” Human judges are even called “gods/ELOHIM” in both Psalm 82:6 and Exodus 22 ... Jesus was making the point that it was not blasphemous for him to be called “god” or “son of God,” if even humans (judges) could be called “gods” and “sons of the Most High.”

 

Those whom God has called “gods” and “sons of the Most High” in Psalm 82 will “die like men.” There are no accounts in the Bible of gods or angels dying.” Isaiah 14:15 does say that Lucifer will die, but Lucifer is not an angel or any kind of divine being. In Angels and Demons (page 96), I observe: “Granted, if we begin reading in the middle of [Isaiah chapter 14], at verse 12, Lucifer can appear to be a powerful angel who has fallen because of his attempt to rebel against ‘the Most High.’ That is, until we reach verse 16 (where it is clear that Lucifer is a man): ‘They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, [and] consider thee, [saying, Is] this the MAN that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms?’  Verses 18-20 (KJV), furthermore, point out that Lucifer is a ‘king.’”

On page 108 of his book, Bauckham states: “Jewish, Christian and Islamic traditions … always accepted the existence of … [other] supernatural beings: angels … demons.” Without further belaboring this point, I will direct any interested readers to my book Angels and Demons, where I dispute the unambiguous existence of fallen angels in the Bible and point out that the Gospel representations of demons are misunderstood. Fallen angels and demons exist in non-canonical writings between the Old and New Testament and (later) in the patristic writings, however. Jewish scholar Bernard Bamberger admits that point, but concludes in his book Fallen Angels (page 55): “The astounding thing is that, after some centuries of experimentation with this idea, [by the first century AD] the authoritative teachers of Judaism dropped it altogether.  … The main line of Jewish thought returned to an uncompromising monotheism in which there was no room for satanic rebels.”

Certainly, according to Jesus and John, the 82^nd Psalm is not to be taken to suggest that there are other “gods”—the various gods of the nations who meet from time-to-time in congregation with God Almighty. Such an interpretation is polytheistic; it also would make absolutely no sense for Jesus to use such a passage (with such a doctrine) to defend himself against a charge of blasphemy. From Jesus’s statement in the John 10 passage, alone, one might even infer that Jesus saw Himself as a mere human (judge?) and not as a divine being at all. However, John who records the event, sees something quite beyond a mere human judge in Jesus. John chapter 1 will be discussed momentarily.

Another tack one might make concerning a Christology of Jesus is found in Revelation 4-5. While Jesus identifies Himself as the “Son of God” to the church at Thyatira in Revelation 2:18, typically Revelation refers to Him as the Lamb. (Note that Revelation 14:1 refers to the Lamb and His Father.) Just looking at Revelation 4-5, however, Jesus is presented as newly worthy of praise along with the Father—a new development in Heaven. I point out on pages 116-118 of my book Apocalyptic Apologetic:

 

No Jew would object [to Revelation chapter 4] … All are agreed that all creation should “worship” the Lord God Almighty because of his creation of all things. The Baruch Atah prayer of the Jews from the time of the Mishnah (Ber. 6:1) unto the present time attests to that. The Shema of Israel attests that the Lord our God is One.

Then comes Jesus, in chapter 5 … the great stumbling block for many Jews. Chapter 5 has the audacity to explain how Jesus, like the Lord God Almighty, is now also “worthy” of praise and worship and blessing. … “every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea” [Revelation 5:13] … say: “Blessing, and honor, and glory, and power, be unto him that sits upon the throne, and to the Lamb forever and ever” (KJV).

…

What made him worthy? He “was slain and … redeemed us to God by [his] blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation” (verse 9). Therefore, … angels, living creatures, and elders … proclaimed: “Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honor, and glory, and blessing” (verse 12).

Jesus and God are, thus, now both worthy of worship. This is what Jews stumble over. Christians worship both God and Christ.

 

Even so, perhaps, these two chapters could be taken to suggest that God Almighty is the only God. In my book Revelation: The Human Drama (page 127), I point out: “Jesus is never referred to as pantokratôr (the Almighty)” in Revelation. Perhaps, it could be argued that Jesus (as a man) is worthy of worship because He “was slain and … redeemed us to God by [His] blood out of every kindred and tongue and people and nation” (Revelation 5:9). God is worshiped as Creator. Jesus is worshiped as our supreme sacrifice who redeemed us.

On the other hand, Jesus is explicitly identified as the “beginning (archē) of the creation of God” in Revelation 3:14. Some translators interpret this passage to suggest that Jesus was the first being whom God created. Possibly, sensing that viewing Jesus as the “beginning” of the creation of God, in Revelation 3:14, presents problems for Christology, G. K. Beale (p. 298), elaborately takes archē in the verse as the equivalent of prōtotokos [first-born] of all creation in Col 1:15 and prōtotokos [first-born] from the dead in Col 1:18). Beale admits that “most commentators think … the titles in 3:14 … link Jesus to the original creation.” Nevertheless, Beale argues, that the beginning of God’s creation in Rev 3:14, instead, designates “Christ as the sovereign inaugurator of the new creation … not over the original creation.”  However, the terms archē/beginning and telos/end, are used by Revelation to refer to both God and Jesus (21:6, 22:13). In 21:6, the archē and the telos is a title for God. In 22:13, the archē and the telos is a title for Jesus. Since Revelation would never suggest that God had a “beginning/efficient cause” or an “end/final cause,” John is probably referring in these archē and telos formulas, instead, to a process that has a beginning/efficient cause [archē], namely, God’s creation (3:14).

Jesus is not just a man—He is the archē of creation, for John. What does that mean? Craig Koester tries a translation taking archē to mean “ruler” (of creation), but that does not work, because John’s word for “ruler” is archōn (see Revelation 1:5), not archē. Furthermore, since John employs the polar opposites archē and telos in 21:6 and 22:13 in parallel with the polar opposites alpha and the omega, plus in parallel with the polar opposites first and last in 22:13, John’s use of archē as “ruler” does not make sense. What would be the polar opposite of ruler? Servant, perhaps, but not telos/end.

Some New Testament passages suggest that Jesus was the creator of the universe. Related to 1 Corinthians 8:6, Richard Bauckham (Jesus and the God of Israel, p. 29) sees something entelechial in his discussion of Rom 11:36a, wherein “from him, and through him, and to him [are] all things”  “refers to God.” Yet, “in 1 Corinthians 8:6, Paul has divided it between God and Christ, applying to God two of the prepositions that describe God’s relationship as Creator (“from” and “for” or “to”) and the third of these prepositions (“through”) to Christ. …That God is not only the agent or efficient cause [understand: archē]  of creation (“from him are all things”) and the final cause or goal [understand: telos] of all things (“to him are all things”), but also the instrumental cause [which also figures in entelechy] (“through him are all things”) well expresses the typical Jewish monotheistic concern that God used no one else to carry out his work of creation, but accomplished it alone, solely by means of his own Word … Paul’s reformulation in I Corinthians 8:6 includes Christ in this exclusively divine work of creation by giving to him the role of instrumental cause.” Similar language is also used in Colossians 1:16-17, with the agent or efficient cause (understand: archē), the instrumental cause, and the final cause (understand: telos) all being applied to Christ.

Furthermore, that most important Logos Hymn of John states that all things were made by the Logos. As discussed earlier in this blogpost and quite frequently in several of my previous posts, I am inclined to understand Logos as the Holy Spirit or Word of God. But God’s Holy Spirit also took on flesh and dwelt among us in the person of Jesus (John 1:14). How is it possible that Jesus took on flesh somewhere around 4-6 BC and yet was present en archē to create the universe? Through the principle of entelechy:

 

1.      Consider the way that one-celled amoeba/protozoa reproduce by simply dividing themselves. There is no way of knowing which of the two “daughter cells” thus produced is the parent and which is the child, and yet both of them were active in the actions of the original amoeba/protozoa. If God and Jesus were active together “as one” en archē, they both participated in creation, even if Jesus took on flesh at a later date.

2.      Consider the various passages that suggest that children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, and beyond are active in the loins of their fathers (John 3:3-4, Hebrews 7:1-10, Romans 5:12-21, and 1 Corinthians 15:22). If all of Adam’s offspring preexist in the loins of Adam and are somehow held accountable for the actions of their father Adam, because they participated in his sin, then God and Jesus were active together “as one” en archē, as they both participated in creation even if Jesus took on flesh at a later date.

3.      Consider that, mystically, when they become husband and wife, two individuals—man and woman—become one flesh. In like fashion, when Jesus’s life in the flesh is completed, He returns to God and becomes “one” with Him again (John 10:30, 14:10-11, 20).

 

Since entelechy observes that all endings (telos) are implicit in their beginnings (en archē), and since the Father and Son are both called archē by John in Revelation, and the Logos is present en archē  in John 1, verses such as the following are much easier to understand from the perspective of entelechy: 

 

•      Eph 1:4: “He chose us ἐν [en] Him before the foundation of the world.”

•      John 17:24: “You loved Me before the foundation of the world.”

•      1 Pet 1:20: “He indeed was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times.”

•      Matt 25:34: “inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world.”

•      Matt 13:35: “I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.”

•      2 Tim 1:9: “grace which was given to us ἐν [en] Christ Jesus before time began.”

•      Heb 9:26: “He then would have had to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now, once at the end of the ages, He has appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”

•      Acts 15:18:  "Known to God from eternity are all His works.”

 

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.”  (The only room for rhetoric—the art of persuading someone that something is “probably or possibly” true, as opposed to simply stating that something is “definitely” true—is if there are questions that have at least two possible-but-unknown answers.) If people have trouble understanding how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can rule the universe, without any conflict among them, it is because they never argue; they never disagree, they don’t have differing opinions, because they know “absolute truth” for certain. The great theological danger of polytheism is not the idea that God has a Son and a Spirit (explainable by entelechy). It is that he had a divine rival, an opponent, a Lucifer, a Beelzebub. This is where one’s theology begins to approach committing the “unforgiveable sin” (Matthew 12:24-32, Mark 3:22-30, Luke 11:15-20).  This is a very important area in which one’s righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees. More on that in my next post: “How to Love God.”