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

 

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

(Matthew 22:34-38 NKJV)

 

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

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

 

All Your Heart

 

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

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

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

Angels & Demons 29: Demons as the Communication of False Information

In I John 4:6, the Spirit of Truth is contrasted with the Spirit of Error. The Spirit of Error seems to be connected with false prophets, in I John 4:1. It is clear that the biblical authors believed that God communicated truth, but that there is also the communication of error in the world. I have already equated the terms Spirit, Angel, and Word, in my commentaries. For Kenneth Burke, the relationship between terms that mean roughly the same thing in a certain symbol system is indicated by the use of the equals sign (=). Although Burke correctly teaches that each INDIVIDUAL has his or her own individual symbol system, I think that LANGUAGES WITHIN SPECIFIC MILIEUS approximate Burke’s application in some respects. Therefore, I assert that in the First Century A.D., the Hebrew/Judeo-Christian symbol system contains the following equation: Spirit=Angel=Word. All three terms represent the communication of God, as the Jews and Jewish Christians used the terms. In the New Testament Period, we could also add to this list of equations the following terms: =Bat Qol=prophecy=spiritual gifts (and all of the terms that = spiritual gifts).

While Burke teaches that an equals sign is operative in symbol systems, he teaches that a “vs.” sign is also operative. In other words, while Angel, Spirit, and Word all equal each other, they all also stand in opposition to certain other terms, such as Spirit of Error, Demon, False Prophet, etc. The Spirit of Error is the opposite of the Spirit of Truth, in I John. Likewise, False Prophets are the opposite of Prophets and Spiritual Gifts. Demons are the opposite of Angels. Using Burke’s shorthand, it looks like this: Demons vs. Angels, Spirit of Error vs. Spirit of Truth, and False Prophets vs. Prophets (=Spiritual Gifts). Lest my readers misunderstand, I am not painting a picture of an actual warfare being waged between angelic beings and demonic beings; I am simply pointing out that the list of terms “Spirit=Angel=Word” stand in strict opposition to the list of terms “Spirit of Error=Demon=False Prophet.” The terms in the first group are the opposite of the terms in the second group.

To the list of negative term equations, I add the term “unclean spirit,” since in the synoptic Gospels, Matthew 4:23-25 uses the terminology of demons, while, in a parallel passage, Luke 6:17-19 uses the term “unclean spirit” in place of demon. In another parallel, Matthew 8:28-34 and Luke 8:26-39 use demonic terminology, while Mark 5:1-20 uses the term “unclean spirit” in place of demon. Luke 4:33 even uses the combination: “spirit of an unclean demon.” In Luke 8:2, the term “evil spirit” is used. I, therefore also add the term “evil spirit” to the list of negative term equations. Because Jesus is accused of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebub--and because Jesus responds to this charge (in Matthew 12:26 and Luke 11:18) with the rhetorical question, “If Satan casts out Satan . . . how then shall his kingdom stand?” and (in Mark 3:23-26) with the rhetorical question, “How can Satan cast out Satan?”--we might also add the terms “Beelzebub” and “Satan” to the list of negative term equations. Mark 19:17-25 refers to a “speechless spirit” and Luke 13:11 refers to a “spirit of weakness”--possibly indicating the type of affliction each spirit visited upon its host. Acts 16:16 reports that a girl had a “spirit of Pytho” (meaning, I suppose, she prophesied using the Delphic oracle?). Paul “cured” her of that.

Using Burke’s system of charting, then, I find the following negative list of equations:

Spirit of Error=
Demon=
False Prophet=
Unclean Spirit=
Evil Spirit=
Beelzebub=
Satan

This negative list is the opposite of (or, according to Burke, “vs.”) the following positive list of equations:

Spirit=
Angel=
Word=
Bat Qol=
Prophecy=
Spiritual Gifts (and all of the terms that = spiritual gifts)

Beginning with I John’s contrast between the Spirit of Truth and the Spirit of Error, one can easily see the primary distinction between Demons and Angels. Angels are the personification of TRUTH communication, while Demons are the personification of FALSEHOOD communication. Clearly, “error” is falsehood communication (or the communication of false information). I John links the Spirit of Error to False Prophets, the human “communicators” of FALSE INFORMATION. However, one need not have a human mediator to be given false information. A snake will do nicely. When Jesus brings the word Satan into the discussion of casting out Demons, he draws to mind the primal account of someone communicating false information—the serpent of Eden. I point out in Angels & Demons 5:

“Johns gospel quotes Jesus (8:44): ‘You have the devil for your father and you wish to practice the desires of your father; . . . he could not stay in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks according to his nature; for he is a liar and the father of liars.’ . . . Jesus is probably referring to Satans role as a tempter. If as the New Testament asserts, the serpent of Genesis is actually Satan, it is clear that he lies. He said, ‘You shall not surely die.’ . . . Revelation calls him the ‘deceiver of all humanity.’”

But, is a snake even necessary? James 1:13-14 seems to effectively eliminate the need for the role of a personified Satan in the temptation process. In his place, James seems to suggest that the process of temptation is conducted entirely within the mental processes of the human who is being tempted:

“Let no one who is tempted say, ‘I am tempted of God,’ for He tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is drawn away and enticed by his own lusts. Then when the passion has conceived, it gives birth to sin, and the sin, when it reaches maturity, produces death.” (Berkeley Version)

Despite what James argues, it seems easier for the human to comprehend his or her own intrapersonal struggles by personifying his or her Id, as Freud names that selfish element in the psyche. As I discuss in Angels & Demons 7, Jewish writers name that element the YETZER HA-RA. So, who or what, in fact, induced Eve to eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil? Was it the Serpent? Was it Satan? Was it Eve’s YETZER HA-RA? Was it her Id? Was it primarily just Eve’s own mental processes? Genesis 3:6 discusses those:

“The woman saw the tree as being good for food, delightful to the eye and a tree desirable to render one wise, so she took of its fruit and ate; she also gave to her husband, who ate with her.” (Berkeley Version)

This account of Eve’s thought processes does not even include the FALSEHOOD communicated by the Serpent (“You shall not surely die”). If one suggests that Eve was Demon-possessed, she is effectively let off the hook. How could God hold Eve accountable for an act that she committed while under the control of a Demon? And yet, this is precisely the type of implication that enters into scenarios in which Demon-possession is discussed. Consider, however, this possibility: the term Demon is used not only to indicate that the person is the recipient of false information, but also the term Demon represents a FALSE ENTITY itself. I will follow that thread in my next commentary.

Angels & Demons 8: Sex and the Knowledge of Good and Evil

Jesus, in Matthew 22:36-40, summarized all of the commandments with the one word “love”: Love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself. On these two “love” commands, according to Jesus, hang all of the Law and the Prophets. It is fitting, then, that God waited until humans were capable of love/selflessness until he gave them the ability to reproduce sexually. Animals engage in sex for selfish reasons—they have urges that demand to be met. Many humans, certainly, engage in sex for selfish reasons, as well. Perhaps, virtually all humans engage in sex for selfish reasons, at times. But, at least humans have the option of acting selfishly or unselfishly. This fact relates to the fallen angel issue.

In human beings, the two YETZARIM (inclinations) are closely identified with sexual or reproductive stages of life. The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 91b), Midrash Kohelet Rabbah 4:13, Midrash Ha-Gadol Bereshit 108-109, etc., teach that the YETZER HA-RA‘ (evil inclination) came to man at birth. In his Legends of the Jews (Volume V, p. 81), Louis Ginzberg notes: “the good inclination does not make its appearance before . . . the time of puberty.” The Babylonian Talmud (Yoma 82a) points out that the official age for girls is 12 years. Midrash Kohelet Rabbah 4:13, Midrash Ha-Gadol Bereshit 108-109, and Midrash Tehillim 9,82 place the official age for boys at 13. Interestingly, Adam and Eve did not notice their own sexuality/nakedness until they had eaten of the “Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil.” And they were not commanded to “be fruitful and multiply” until after they had eaten.

It is very significant that the girl of version I of the Sinless Fallen Angel Story (related earlier) is described in Hebrew as a NA‘ARAH (“lass”). According to Marcus Jastrow’s Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, NA‘ARAH is a legal term specially designating a “girl between twelve and twelve and a half years of age.” This incident is very possibly her first real temptation since receiving the YETZER HA-TOV (good inclination). Since she responded righteously in this single instance, it could explain her being permitted to come immediately before the Throne of God, a feat that would have been inconceivable even for angels unless they were sinless.

This indicates that it was necessary for an individual to have both “inclinations” in order to be held accountable for sin (and for that matter, to be deemed righteous for passing the test/temptation). The rich young ruler, with whom Jesus interacts regarding eternal life in Luke 18:18-21, insists that he has kept the “commandments” from his youth up. It is possible that he means from the time of his bar mitzvah forward. Hebrews 4:15 asserts that Jesus himself was tempted in every respect, as we are, but was without sin. We know nothing, however, about the childhood of Jesus. After the birth narratives, there is no discussion of Jesus’ actions until we near his bar mitzvah. Luke picks up the narrative again, in 2:41, when Jesus was age twelve. The same theology that allows Jewish writers to tell a story of a “lass” being righteous in one temptation following her youth and being awarded eternal life is the same theology that allows Christian writers to conclude that the sinless life of Jesus permits him to be transfigured on the mountain, and later, resurrected from the dead.

Since the “lass” possessed only the “evil inclination” prior to her twelfth birthday, any selfish behavior committed prior to this time must not have been considered “sinful.” This is precisely the view (the sinlessness of children) that prevailed at this time. Even the second book of Maccabees 8:4 speaks of the “sinless infants.” And the Mishnah (Yoma 8:4) says, concerning the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur): “Little children [anyone just born through 13 years for boys and 12 years for girls] are not made to fast on the Day of Atonement; however, we should be initiating them beforehand one or two years in order that they will be in the habit of [following] the commandments.” It is a simple deduction that, if little children are not required to participate in the yearly atonement exercise, they must not be held guilty of any “sins” for which they would need atonement.

Albrecht Oepke, a German Christian scholar, writing in Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, debates the assertion that Judaism accepted “the innocence of children” because, he says, “the evil impulse is there from conception or birth.” That much I readily concede, but in light of the passage just quoted from the Mishnah, which we may definitely call “authoritative,” little children must in some way be considered sinless, or at least not responsible for their sins. I suspect that the Lutheran Oepke may have his own axe to grind, since Lutherans baptize babies for the forgiveness of their sins. If babies are actually sinless, there would be no need to forgive any sins. Perhaps, that’s the point of Jesus’ comment concerning little children that “of such is the kingdom of heaven.”

Even if children are simply not responsible for their sin, possessing only the evil inclination, we may very easily suspect that angels who possess only the good inclination would probably be considered sinless, too. Such is the case. I will present the pertinent proof of that assertion, next time.

Angels & Demons 7: Can Animals, Children, or Angels SIN?

Is it possible for my little dog Nicolete to sin? Not according to official Jewish teachings. Why? Nicolete does not possess both the good and evil inclinations. She possesses only the “evil inclination”—what Jews call the YETZER HA-RA. Although we sometimes anthropomorphize animals—such as Lassie (the canine movie star), Trigger (Roy Rogers’ horse), and Flipper (the dolphin)—to make them appear to have a good inclination, animals do things for essentially SELFISH reasons. Ask any animal trainer how one secures desired behavior on the part of an animal and you will find that selfishness prevails on the part of the animal. Whenever the desired behavior occurs, the animal is rewarded, using the pleasure principle. Continual training using this selfish reinforcement is called “operant conditioning.” Eventually, animal trainers train dogs, horses, dolphins, birds, etc., to behave in ways that “can be interpreted” by anthropomorphizing humans as conforming to a “good inclination”—what Jews call the YETZER HA-TOV—but these “good” behaviors are actually selfish behaviors, induced by reward or punishment.

Is it possible for children to sin? Not according to official Jewish teachings—for the same reason animals cannot sin. Children do not possess the YETZER HA-TOV, according to the Jewish Mishnah, until they reach the age of 12 or 13 (12 for girls, 13 for boys). Prior to that age, they possess only the YETZER HA-RA. They—like animals—are essentially selfish. This is why at age 13, Jewish boys are given a BAR MITZVAH (literally: “son of the commandment”). Girls, at the age of 12, have a BAT MITZVAH (“daughter of the commandment”). They are not even expected to be able to live according to the Commandments until that age. They are considered sinless, even though they are (like animals) essentially selfish. However, the Mishnah suggests that we begin training children to keep the commandments, a few years before they reach the age of accountability. The young girl who tricked the angels in my previous commentary had just reached the age of 12. There is a specific Hebrew word that indicates the fact. She had been sinless prior to this encounter with the angels, due to her age. Since she passed her first specific test and avoided the transgression, she was rewarded by God (with eternal life?).

Is it possible for adult humans to sin? To quote Governor Palin, “You betcha!” Adult humans have both the YETZER HA-RA and the YETZER HA-TOV. They have the knowledge of both good and evil. They have a measure of free will that animals and children do not. They are capable of freely choosing to be either selfish or selfless. Virtually all (but not actually ALL) adult humans have sinned and come short of the glory of God. Even though we, at times, act unselfishly (in accordance with the YETZER HA-TOV), every one of us has also, at times, acted selfishly (in accordance with the YETZER HA-RA). Once humans reach the age of accountability, they are held responsible for their sins. ONLY BEINGS POSSESSING BOTH THE YETZER HA-RA AND THE YETZER HA-TOV ARE CONSIDERED CAPABLE OF SIN. If a being (such as a child or an animal) does not have the full capability to choose freely between good and evil alternatives, that being is not held “accountable” for any sins. God does not hold a being responsible for doing something that being was incapable of doing.

So, is it possible for angels to sin? Not according to official Jewish teachings. This is not because, like animals and children, angels possess only the YETZER HA-RA. On the contrary, angels do not have the evil inclination at all! They possess only the YETZER HA-TOV. They do not have selfish motives whatsoever. Everything they do is what is commanded by the One who created them. They are totally selfless. But, they are not considered as high in God’s hierarchy as are humans. This is because SOME humans who are capable of sinning CHOOSE NOT TO SIN. Angels never even have the opportunity to prove that they would choose correctly. They have no choice. They have no free will. The reason you will find no commandments in the Bible directed at angels (as we considered two weeks ago) is that there would be no point. Angels have no commandments because they are not free moral agents. They cannot sin.