The Logos and Entelechy (Gospels 3)

 

In the beginning [of] God created the heavens and the earth . . . And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. Then God said . . .

(Genesis 1:1-3 NKJV, with the addition “[of]”)

 

           

Why isn’t the Logos mentioned in Genesis 1?  Or is it?  Logos is a Greek word and Genesis was written in Hebrew.  Are there any suggestions of the Greek Logos in any Hebrew words in Genesis?  Christian writers have long pursued the connections between John’s Gospel and Plato, Aristotle’s teacher; however, they have not been as interested in pursuing the connections between John and Aristotle (Plato’s student).  

 

Plato and Philo

 

Brittanica.com explains how Philo Judaeus, who was a contemporary of Jesus and lived in Alexandria, Egypt, may have provided some of the backdrop for the first chapter of John:

 

Philo reconciled his Jewish theology with Plato’s theory of Ideas: . . . he posited the Ideas as God’s eternal thoughts, which God then created as real beings before he created the world.  Philo saw the cosmos as a great chain of being presided over by the Logos . . . the mediator between God and the world, though . . . he identifies the Logos as a second God. Philo departed from Plato . . . using the term Logos for the Idea of Ideas . . . In anticipation of Christian doctrine he called the Logos the first-begotten Son of God . . . the image of God, and second to God.

 

In some respects (though, certainly, not exactly), Philo’s notion of God’s thoughts being, in essence, created and personified (“as real beings”) parallels my observations in my book Angels and Demons:  The Personification of Communication (Logology).  I credit the existence of angels to God’s words being personified, in a fashion I deduced from the considerable discussion of the subject in both rabbinic and New Testament texts, but I would never suggest that God somehow “created” his own Spirit.  In contrast to Philo Judeus, the first chapter of John does NOT identify the Logos as an Idea of Ideas, something which God created, or as the mediator between God and the world.  John does NOT see the cosmos as a great chain of being presided over by the Logos. 

 

Genesis Parallel

 

Rather, John sees his Logos as coexistent with (even identical to?) God “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ).  The Greek phrase ἐν ἀρχῇ is virtually always translated “in the beginning,” which (since it sounds like the first word/s of Genesis) conjures up the creation story.  One can easily envision God’s spoken word (=Logos=the fiats of creation, such as “let there be light”) as existing simultaneously with God “in the beginning.”  Was John, then, personifying the spoken word (=the Spirit) of God and naming it Logos?  Not exactly.  On page 150 of my book Angels and Demons:  The Personification of Communication, I write: 

 

Jewish scholar G. F. Moore links . . . three terms . . . together quite easily.  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).

 

Since John himself (quoting 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 Logos being identified as the Spirit of God is a very definite possibility.  Identifying the Logos-become-flesh as Jesus may be a later development in the entelechy, though Jesus is explicit as the beginning (ἀρχῇ) of creation in Revelation 3:14, the verse to which we will return momentarily.

 

Aristotle’s Entelechy

 

            According to John, Logos existed simultaneously with God in the ἀρχῇ of creation.  The terminology --ἐν ἀρχῇ strikes me as more of an Aristotelian-than-Platonic concept, found in Aristotle’s doctrine of entelechy/ἐντέλεχεια—a word coined by Aristotle to describe any process that has a beginning, a middle, and an end implicit throughout the process.  Incidentally, “implicit” is the first word of the title of my book Implicit Rhetoric: Kenneth Burke’s Extension of Aristotle’s Concept of Entelechy.  Although the word ἐν forms the first two letters of the word ἐντέλεχεια, the τέλος root (meaning end or purpose or goal) comes after the ἐν, rather than the ἀρχη root (meaning beginning or that which causes a process to begin).  Aristotle’s entelechy is interested, however, in both beginnings and ends and how they are interrelated.  One might even over-simplify the matter by saying that “the end is implicit in the beginning.”  Kenneth Burke’s handiest example, then, of Aristotle’s entelechy is the “seed,” which even though it has not yet begun to grow holds implicitly within itself the entire history of what the plant will be throughout its lifetime.  Another way to put it is:  the τέλος is implicit in the ἀρχη.  The “explicit” is that which one has specifically heard or seen.  The “implicit” has not yet been heard or seen, but is clearly understood to exist whenever one hears or sees another thing.  For example, when we “explicitly” see a stalk of wheat, “implicitly” we know that a grain of wheat was involved somewhere in a growth process, and conversely, whenever a grain of wheat is “explicitly” seen planted, we know that the root and stalk and leaves and future grains are all “implicit” in the process of the growth of that seed.  Indeed, Aristotle even thinks of the agent/person/individual who begins the process of change as the archê.  The archê (or builder) is separate from the art (or house) that he builds.  Yet, implicit in the builder (agent/person/individual) is his “purpose” or end or goal.  He contains (in his mind) the blueprint and picture of the final design and purpose of the house.  Therefore, archê can be the cause that begins a process.  The archê can be the agent/person/individual—while also containing the agent/person/individual who also contains the purpose or end (telos/τέλος) of the process.

The Book of Revelation employs the same important terminology that is fundamental to Aristotle's concept of entelechy.  I note, especially, the language of archē/ἀρχή and telos/τέλος, usually translated “the beginning archē/ἀρχή and the end telos/τέλος with which Revelation refers to God and Jesus.  Revelation uses the term archē/ἀρχή in 3:14, referring to Jesus as the archē/ἀρχή of God’s creation.  Revelation uses both terms archē/ἀρχή and telos/τέλος (along with the First and the Last) in 21:6, as a title for God and (along with the Alpha and Omega, the First and the Last) in 22:13, as a title for Jesus. Surely, Revelation is not suggesting that God had a “beginning,” so John must be referring to the process which has the beginning or archē/ἀρχή, namely, “God’s creation” (3:14).  For the author of Revelation, God and Jesus WERE the beginning or archē/ἀρχή of the process of creation.  The beginning or archē/ἀρχή also, in a sense, CONTAINED them.  It is enlightening to examine such entelechial terminology to see how it helps to explain the Apocalypse as well as John’s Gospel (and other New Testament books).  Aristotle coined this extremely significant term:  entelecheia/ἐντέλεχεια.  We know that Aristotle coined the word, because it does not exist in Plato’s writings or any time earlier.  In Implicit Rhetoric:  Kenneth Burke’s Extension of Aristotle’s Concept of Entelechy (pp. 40-41), based on a study of Aristotle’s use of the term, I define Aristotle’s term entelechy/entelecheia as:

 

[T]he started-but-not-completed (atelēs) process of changing (primarily in a kinēsis sense) a substance, object, or being (in one of Aristotle's senses of changing) from what it was into what it by nature (phusis) should become (i.e., its telos or purpose)--which process is characterized by the condition that the substance, object, or being possesses (in one of the four senses of echein) within itself (en-) implicitly the fully-developed goal or end (telos) toward which the change (kinēsis) is progressing explicitly.

Granted, I have just given you a lot of information to unpack, so let me take it bit by bit.  I will return to this definition frequently, as I continue to explain entelechy/entelecheia/ἐντέλεχεια and how Aristotle’s concept helps to understand the Gospel According to John, which I perceive as the Gospel According to Entelechy.  However, for the time being, let’s just consider the seed example and see how this “earthly thing” helps us to understand what John calls “heavenly things.” 

1.      A seed, once it begins to grow has “started-but-not-completed [the] process of changing” from a seed into roots, stalks, leaves, and future grains.  Once the process is “completed” (i.e., once the plant has grown to complete maturity, or telos/τέλος), the entelechy is over.  It is no longer an entelechy, but each seed that has been produced in the previous entelechy is now capable of starting a brand new entelechy (growing roots, stalks, leaves, and more future grains).

2.      Nevertheless, all roots, stalks, leaves, and future grains are already “implicit” in the original seed that was originally planted, even though each stage or part will not become an “explicit” stage or part until sometime later.

3.      The “one of Aristotle's [four] senses of changing” that is involved in the seed entelechy is the sense of “growth” (or, as Aristotle describes it, a “positive” change of “substance” or “form”).  Aristotle’s word for form, here, is morphê, from which we get our word “metamorphosis” as when a caterpillar morphs into a butterfly.  The seed is constantly morphing into a full-grown plant.

4.      The seed develops “by nature” into what it “by nature” is destined to become (“its telos or purpose)—the full-grown plant with its own seeds.  It is a “wheat” seed, so “by nature” it cannot develop into an oak tree.  Its future form was “implicit” in the original wheat seed before it was planted and began the “process” of growing.

5.      Therefore, we can say that the wheat seed “possesses within itself (en-) implicitly the fully-developed goal or end (telos) toward which the change (kinēsis) is progressing explicitly.”

 

Application of Entelechy to Logos in John

 

Think of the archē/ἀρχή of the Creation entelechy in terms of the “process” that was “started-but-not-completed” from John’s perspective.  We, of course, might look forward to a subsequent entelechy (a new creation, with a new heavens and new earth, in Revelation), but considering the original Creation entelechy, certain elements clearly existed implicitly in the process of Creation.  Among those elements that clearly existed in the archē/ἀρχή of Creation were God and His Word (Logos).  By His Word, everything was created:  He spoke everything into existence.

This is not to say that either God or His Word were NOT in existence BEFORE the beginning of the Creation process.  Both God and Jesus identify themselves as “I AM,” implicitly indicating the eternally “present,” as opposed to “past” or “future.”  God is “implicit” in His Word; His Word is “implicit” in God.  You can’t have one without the other.  They don’t disagree or conflict with each other.  Here is absolute monotheism.  Definitionally, God and his Word/Spirit are one and the same.

The end telos/τέλος or purpose of creation was also implicit.  God had a “purpose” (telos) in creating the world.  (This is not to say that either God or His Word will NOT be in existence AFTER the end of the Creation process.)  Even inventors and home builders have a “purpose” in what they make.  The “purpose” of the inventor of the clock was to “keep time.”  This does not mean that the inventor was not in existence BEFORE he began to invent the clock.  Nor does it mean that he was not in existence AFTER the clock was invented.  Likewise, God and his Word (Logos) were in existence BEFORE they began the process of creating the world and will be AFTER it is destroyed, according to Revelation.

The entelechy, then, that John had in mind as he wrote, was, most likely, the “creation” entelechy as signaled by Revelation 3:14.  This would not be news to Christians of the last two thousand years.  We have thought, all along, by translating the first two words of John (ἐν ἀρχῇ) as “In the Beginning” that we were referring to the same subject matter as our translation of the first word of Genesis (בְּרֵאשִׁית) “In the Beginning.”  What IS news is that John may well be focused on the entire entelechy (from beginning to end) when he uses the words ἐν ἀρχῇ.  In an entelechy, the end (telos) is implicit in the beginning and the beginning (ἀρχῇ) is implicit in the end (telos).  What’s more, everything in-between (such as roots, stalks, leaves, etc. in the seed analogy) is implicit in both the beginning (ἀρχῇ) and the end (telos).  That’s why entelechy is Aristotle’s term to “describe any process that has a beginning, a middle, and an end implicit throughout the process.”

If John is (either consciously or unconsciously) relying on Aristotle’s entelechy/entelecheia/ἐντέλεχεια in his use of the phrase ἐν ἀρχῇ, the eventuality of the Word-becoming-flesh is also implicit in the ἀρχῇ.  Also included in the ἀρχῇ will be every single step/development of the entire entelechy, so that, for example, reference to “the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world” (Revelation 13:8) makes sense, entelechially.  Also making sense entelechially are verses such as the following:

·         Ephesians 1:4: “He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world.”

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

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

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

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

·         II Timothy 1:9: “grace which was given to us in Christ Jesus before time began.”

·         Hebrews 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.”

My goal (telos) in the entelechy of this blogpost series is to challenge you to be thinking entelechially, when reading John.  I surmise that John’s original audience consisted of a number of deep thinkers.  You may or may not think of yourself as one, even though farmers and mothers are often far more familiar with the biological/earthly things with which Jesus compares the heavenly than are university professors of theology or philosophy.  Nevertheless, when I suggested, in the previous blogpost, that John’s Gospel was, like Matthew, Mark, and Luke, of an extremist nature, I did not mean to suggest that we should shy away from attempting to develop the extreme faith lauded by John, any more than I would suggest that we shy away from the extreme righteousness lauded by Matthew or the extreme self-denial lauded by Mark or the extreme voluntary impoverishment lauded by Luke.  We should, rather, seek to grow (an entelechial process) in all these areas.  Certainly, as your children attending public schools and universities are constantly exposed to the deep philosophies of Satan, you owe it to them to study deeper, yourselves.  Deeply-rooted parents are the last, best hope of your children.  More of the Gospel According to Entelechy to come, next time.

The Four Extremist Gospels (Gospels 2)

Inasmuch as many have taken in hand to set in order a narrative of those things which have been fulfilled among us, just as those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word delivered them to us, it seemed good to me also . . . to write to you an orderly account . . . that you may know the certainty of those things in which you were instructed.

(Luke 1:1-4 NKJV)

 

           

Barry Goldwater, the 1964 Republican nominee for President, was labeled by his opponent, Democrat President Lyndon Baines Johnson (LBJ), an “extremist.”  Goldwater famously retorted: “Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in pursuit of justice is no virtue.”  This retort by Goldwater seems to have foreshadowed the current divide, often along extremist lines, between the Republican and Democrat parties.  Will Wilkinson points out in his blog: “As Karl Hess noted in his memoirs, shortly after Goldwater delivered his famous speech, Malcolm X . . . connected ‘extremism in defense of liberty’ to the idea of black Americans defending their rights by ‘any means necessary.’”

When I refer to the Gospels as being extremist, I do not interpret the term “extremist” in the same way Malcolm X or Will Wilkinson did.  The Gospels do not incite anyone to use violence.  Quite to the contrary, Jesus and his followers (the deacon Stephen, the Apostle James, Jesus’ brother James, the Apostle Paul, et. al.) willingly became the victims of violence, often as martyrs.  TheFreeDictionary.com defines an “extremist” as “a person who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm.”  Indeed, willing acceptance of martyrdom is much more extreme (beyond the norm) than is murder or mayhem.  Those activities (murder and mayhem) have increasingly become the “norm” in many American cities, such as Chicago.

 

Mark’s Gospel of Extreme Self-Denial

 

Indeed, extreme self-denial (martyrdom) is the ideal value to which the Gospel of Mark points its readers. While I certainly do not accept the premises of the redaction critics—especially, the premise that the Gospel writers felt free to “compose” sections of their gospels in order to support their individual theologies—I do think that there is merit in the observation by various redactionists, including Norman Perrin, citing H. E. Tödt, that in Mark (beginning with his account of the Caesarea Philippi incident of “the confession of Peter and the subsequent teachings of Jesus on

discipleship (Mark 8:27-9:1 with its parallels, Matt. 16:13-28 and Luke 9:18-27),” Jesus began to teach his disciples that the Son of man must suffer, be killed, and rise again.  Prior to this point in Mark, there is no hint of a suffering Savior—only a remarkably gifted man who performs a myriad of progressively more impressive healings and miracles.  This culminates, in Mark 8:29, as Peter concludes/confesses that Jesus is the Christ, but nothing further.  Peter seems to be unaware of what his confession had entailed.  Jesus, then, for the first time in Mark, speaks in third person of the “Son of man” who will die and rise again.  What is extreme in Mark is that Jesus, after revealing his own coming suffering and death on the cross, asks his disciples to willingly follow him in that self-denial: “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it” (Mark 8:34-35 NKJV).  This message in Mark is one of EXTREME SELF-DENIAL.  Perrin writes: “[I]t reflects the Marcan conviction that, as went the master, so must go the disciple, with all that this implies.”  If an otherwise strong Christian, today, experiences stress concerning the prospect of becoming a martyr for Christ, he is experiencing the stress of following Mark’s EXTREME SELF-DENIAL value.  Of course, other New Testament books testify to this value, but for Mark, it is essential to his Gospel.  Read through Mark again, looking for the extreme self-denial value.  You will not find it before Mark 8:27, but after that, it is the whole point of the Gospel.

 

Luke’s Gospel of Extreme Impoverishment

 

In my article in the 2016 KB Journal, available online, I introduce Epideictic criticism of the Gospels.  That article was my first criticism and response to what I see as the incorrect premises of redaction criticism.  Genre studies in the Gospels have long considered literary genres, but Kenneth Burke pointed to the “rhetorical” element in literature. Which rhetorical element, then, could he have had in mind? Aristotle offered three rhetorical genres: judicial, deliberative, and epideictic. Of these, the gospels relate primarily to epideictic rhetoric.  Epideictic rhetoric views its audience as composed of “theorists” who decipher the “values” that are implicit in the narratives of epideictic rhetoric.  Just as Mark’s audience could decipher the value of EXTREME SELF-DENIAL pointing toward martyrdom in Mark’s Gospel, I demonstrated that the extreme value in Luke is the value of EXTREME (voluntary) IMPOVERISHMENT.  Twentieth Century rhetorician Chaim Perelman observes that “Epideictic oratory . . . strengthens the disposition toward action by increasing adherence to the values it lauds.”  Thus, Mark lauds the value of EXTREME SELF-DENIAL and Luke lauds is the value of EXTREME IMPOVERISHMENT.  By comparing the Beatitudes as Luke presents them with the Beatitudes as Matthew presents them, we see that Luke lauds poverty more than does Matthew.  Luke 6:20 quotes Jesus as saying “Blessed are you who are poor.”  Matthew quotes the words as “poor in spirit.”  Luke quotes Jesus as saying “Blessed are you who are hungry now.”  Matthew adds the words “after righteousness.”  That Luke is emphasizing the “literally” poor is demonstrated by the fact that he follows-up his Beatitude with the statements, “Woe to you who are rich . . . woe to you who are full now.”  Luke is the only gospel to provide the Good Samaritan parable.  Acts (also written by Luke) tells of Christians like Barnabas who sold their possessions and brought the money to the apostles.  If an otherwise strong Christian, today, experiences stress concerning the prospect of actively becoming impoverished for Christ, he is experiencing the stress of following Luke’s EXTREME IMPOVERISHMENT value.  Read through Luke-Acts again, looking for the extreme poverty value. It is the major “values” point of the Gospel and Acts.

 

Matthew’s Gospel of Extreme Righteousness

 

When Matthew quotes Jesus as saying “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness” (5:6 NKJV) rather than Luke’s version, “Blessed are you who are hungry now,” he signals his extreme value:  EXTREME RIGHTEOUSNESS.  Since it is aimed at males, how many male Christians have experienced stress when reading “whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (5:28 NKJV)?  And, Jesus’ solution?  Pluck out your eye and cast it from you in order to avoid hell!  Or, what Christian of either sex doesn’t experience stress at the thought of going to hell (not for committing murder) but for calling someone a fool or a moron (5:22).  Who doesn’t chafe when commanded by Jesus to love, not just your friends, but also your enemies (5:44)?  Matthew’s (and Jesus’) point is that you are the light of the world (5:14).  If you don’t allow your light (extreme righteousness) to shine, the world will not see your “good works” and glorify God (5:16).  The scribes and the pharisees, with whom Jesus and Matthew’s audience interacted, were extremely concerned with righteousness, so Jesus (and Matthew) says “unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven (5:28 NKJV).  If an otherwise strong Christian, today, experiences stress concerning the difficulty of living an extremely moral life, he is experiencing the stress of following Matthew’s

EXTREME RIGHTEOUSNESS value.  Read through Matthew again, looking for the extreme righteousness value.  “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (6:33 NKJV) is the major “values” point of the Gospel.

 

John’s Gospel of Extreme Faith

 

It is, perhaps, the best-known verse in the New Testament, if not the Bible, altogether:  John 3:16 (KJV): “For God so loved the world that He gave his only-begotten Son that whosoever believeth on Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.”  Faith is the key value in John’s Gospel.  John 20:31 (NKJV) spells out John’s entire purpose in writing his Gospel: “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name.”  As I wrote in my blogpost Apocalyptic?  #19:  Does Absolute Truth Exist? (Rev. 3:14), I owe my brother Dennis for producing the groundwork for seeing the connection between “faith” and “truth” or “knowledge” in Johannine literature.  What seems to count as “faith,” however, for many, today, is NOT John’s EXTREME FAITH.  There have even been “evangelists” who walk the streets and ask people (in a fashion similar to a political poll), “Do you believe in God and Jesus?”  If the answer is yes, they say: “Praise God!  You are saved!”  Without rehashing all of my commentary from Apocalyptic? #19 (Google it, if you want to rehash!), I will point out: “Dennis indicates (p. 188) “the line of

distinction . . .  between the biblical . . . faith and the secular . . . faith” is that the New Testament CANNOT adopt a stance that “Christic Faith” could be only “probable” truth.  Instead, if faith/PISTIS “denot[es] an attitude and manner of steadfastness, confidence and trust in the midst of a life-threatening situation,” one’s faith must be an absolute faith.  One must believe that Jesus and God are “absolutely true.”  If, therefore, both God and Jesus know absolute truth, concerning everything, there is no point of disagreement between them concerning anything.  People do not disagree about things that are considered “facts.”  If people have trouble understanding how God and Jesus can BOTH rule the universe, without any conflict, it is because they never argue; they never disagree, they don’t have differing opinions, because they both know “absolute truth” for certain.

While God and Jesus know everything absolutely, we humans do not.  How can we have EXTREME FAITH in something/someone we do not know absolutely?  So, John’s Gospel takes on the task of explaining who God and Jesus TRULY are, so that we may believe in them.  This brings us back to the topic of the previous blogpost and the Gospel According to Entelechy.  In order to have EXTREME FAITH in Jesus, one must KNOW who he is.  And, beginning with the first verse of the first chapter of his Gospel, John starts to unpack the identity of Jesus and his relationship to God.  There are some EXTREME FAITH assertions in John:

·         The Logos is God “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ) and the Logos took on flesh,

·         He is the Light of the World who made all things,

·         He was before John the Baptist and, even, Abraham,

·         The angels of God ascend and descend upon him,

·         Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you,

·         He is the way, the truth, and the life, the only way to the Father,

·         The Father is in Jesus and Jesus in Him; The Spirit of Truth will be in you; I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you,

·         Jesus had glory with God before the world was.

Even so, John’s Jesus asserts: 

·         “My father is greater than I” (14:28),

·         “I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God” (20:17),

If an otherwise strong Christian, today, experiences stress concerning the difficulty of believing in Jesus and what exactly that means, he is experiencing the stress of following John’s EXTREME FAITH value.  Read through John again, looking for the extreme faith value.

           

Why Are There Four Gospels?

 

As we have seen, there is always room for growth in one’s Christian life.  If one is EXTREMELY RIGHTEOUS, one might still need to grow in the Lukan value of EXTREME IMPOVERISHMENT (as did the Rich Young Ruler).  If one has become voluntarily EXTREMELY IMPOVERISHED, one might still need to grow in Mark’s value of EXTREME SELF-DENIAL.  If one is facing the prospect of martyrdom, one might still need to grow in John’s value of EXTREME FAITH in who Jesus is.  If one has EXTREME FAITH, one might still need to grow in Matthew’s EXTREME RIGHTEOUSNESS.  While plucking out one’s eye may well be hyperbole, the goal is to be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect.  None of us are there yet. 

We will resume the entelechial study of who Jesus is and his relationship to God in the next blogpost.

Amoeba/Protozoa Theology (Gospels 1)

 

If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?  (John 3:12 NKJV)

                                                                                                                                              

Here is the great theological puzzle: Ever since the second century, Christian theologians have tried to reconcile scriptures that appear to present Jesus as subject to or subsequent to God the Father with scriptures that appear to present Jesus as equal to or preexistent with God the Father.  This post begins to take another stab at that issue, this time, based on extending Aristotle’s concept of entelechy, his concept of what happens in the physical world.  We begin with a consideration of one-celled plants and animals.

What happens when an asexual protozoa (one-celled animal) or an amoeba (one-celled plant) reproduces?  The single-celled organism splits into two separate single-celled organisms.  The process is called “binary fission.”  Biologists term these two newly produced single-celled organisms both “daughter cells,” perhaps, because there is no way of knowing which of the two thus-produced organisms should be considered the parent and which the offspring.  There is, of course, no sexual identification to be attached to the term “daughter cell,” since the protozoa (and the amoeba) are asexual.  

These issues, then, exist:  Which resultant organism can claim prior existence over the other?  Did not both new organisms preexist simultaneously in the original organism?  A similar point could be made when one considers identical twins, since they both have preexistence in a single zygote.

In a “binary fission” analogy, just cited, Jesus and God might have been “one” in the Beginning; then have become “two,” with each retaining His preexistent claim and His equality claim.  Would such a biological phenomenon (“earthly thing”) solve the theological riddle (“heavenly thing”) pertaining to Jesus’ and God’s equality/subjection or preexistence/subsequence in John’s Gospel?  No, because it does not account for the “Father-Son” terminology applied throughout the New Testament.  Nevertheless, it might serve as a first step of a type of explanation Jesus used with Nicodemus, as cited in John 3:12 (above) to the effect that we may understand heavenly things by understanding earthly things.  For our discussion of “earthly things,” we will consult Aristotle, who is considered the father of biology (the study of “earthly things,” i.e., biological life forms) and who was certainly well-known at Jesus’ and John’s time, even in a Jewish milieu.  However, before we get to Aristotle and his term entelechy, we move to a discussion of the Jewish view of Father-Son relationships in human reproduction in John’s milieu and Gospel, whence I have retrieved the verse highlighted at the first of this blogpost.

Nicodemus and New Birth

The Pharisee Nicodemus comes to Jesus by night (a non-controversial setting), presumably, in order to honestly pick Jesus’ brain (John 3:1-2), since he believes that God is “with” Jesus.  On that occasion, Jesus attempts to explain spiritual life (the heavenly) using the linguistic terms of biological life (the earthly), telling Nicodemus that, in order to see the Kingdom of God, one must be “born again” (3:3).  Nicodemus counters: “Can [a grown man] enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born?” (3:4 NKJV).  This very question of Nicodemus introduces a foundational Jewish concept of human birth and progeny, which most interpreters overlook.  Since Nicodemus’s proposed scenario refers to the “second time” the man “enter[ed] . . . into his mother’s womb,” there is the definite hint that the “first time” he “enter[ed] . . . into his mother’s womb,” as Nicodemus understood it, he had had a prior existence (before he entered his mother’s womb).  More specifically, though alas, less delicately, the man was already considered a man (in the sense of a separate agent) even when he “enter[ed] . . . into his mother’s womb” in the semen produced in the loins of his father.  This concept of the preexistence of humans BEFORE they enter into the womb of their mothers is consistent with other statements in the Bible regarding the preexistence of humans in the loins of their human fathers.  The other

statements will be considered, momentarily.

In answering Nicodemus, Jesus compares and contrasts being born of the water (the earthly) with being born of the spirit (the heavenly).  John Marsh’s translation of Rudolph Bultmann’s The History of the Synoptic Tradition (p. 43) explains that God “creates a man out of water (human semen).”  Although Bultmann is, here, illustrating an argument used in the Babylonian Talmud regarding resurrection, not the John 3 passage, he equates “water” with “semen.”  Hugo Odeberg in his 1929 book The Fourth Gospel (p. 48) agrees: “[The phrase Nicodemus uses] does not mean ‘return to’, but ‘enter a second time’ . . . in other words, what is to enter a second time is not the child that has once been born, but the semen that is to give birth to the child.”  Nicodemus (not understanding Jesus’ teaching) is asking Jesus if a man must return to “water” (=semen) and reenter his mother’s womb.  Jesus’ response to Nicodemus seems to indicate that there are two separate births—one the result of water/semen (the earthly), the other the result of spirit (the heavenly).  While there is much theology to be mined from Jesus’ teaching of the new birth, to pursue this discussion of the new birth further, at this point, would take us far afield from the primary issue I am getting at:  that Jews understood that an individual has a preexistence in the loins of his father before he is even conceived.  Now, we shall corroborate that point with two additional examples.

Melchizedek, Abraham, and Levi

Hebrews 7:1-10 (NKJV) states: 

Melchizedek . . .  to whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all, . . . remains a priest continually.  Now consider how great this man was, to whom even the patriarch Abraham gave a tenth of the spoils.  . . .  Even Levi, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham . . . for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him.

Levi, being the son of Jacob, who was the son of Isaac, who was the son of Abraham, not only had a preexistence in the loins of his father Jacob, but also in the loins of Jacob’s father Isaac, as well as in the loins of

Isaac’s father Abraham.  And, even in that historically remote preexistent past, Levi engaged in ACTION.  He paid tithes to Melchizedek.  What Hebrews seems to suggest is that Levi is JUST AS RESPONSIBLE for the action of paying tithes to Melchizedek as is Abraham.  Therefore, Levi recognizes long before his birth that the priesthood of Melchizedek is superior to his own priesthood.  (Levi is the tribe from which all priests in the Jewish system come.)  But, why stop with Abraham and Levi?  All of mankind is represented in the Adam example.

Adam and the Original Sin

Paul explains in Romans 5:12-21:

[J]ust as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men . . . death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of the transgression of Adam . . . For if by the one man’s offense many died . . . if by the one man’s offense death reigned through the one . . . the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ . . . For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man’s obedience many will be made righteous.

As I understand Paul’s teaching, the sin of Adam produced death, and Adam’s offspring until the time of Moses, even though they did not possess the Law and, therefore, “had not sinned according to the likeness of

the transgression of Adam,” continued to pay the “death” penalty for that original sin.  Of course, Paul is comparing and contrasting the sin of Adam (and its consequences to all Adam’s “earthly” offspring) to the righteous act of Jesus, dying on the cross (and its consequences to all Jesus’ “heavenly” offspring).  The penalty for Adam’s original sin was not, incidentally, hell, but rather, death—a penalty that is still being paid by every one of Adam’s earthly offspring, to this day—those who are born of the water (semen).  Jesus, on the other hand, according to I Peter 3:18 (NKJV), “suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust . . . being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the Spirit.”  I Corinthians 15:22 (NKJV) states: “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.” 

The most important term in the I Corinthians passage is the word “in” (“in Adam” and “in Christ”).  The Greek word for “in” is spelled “en/ἐν.”  This two-letter Greek word forms the first part of the Greek word entelechy/ἐντέλεχεια, where it indicates “preexistence.”  The way Paul seems to describe it, we all ACTIVELY participated in the sin of Adam (when we were “in” his loins) in the same way Levi paid tithes “in” the loins of his Great-Grandfather Abraham.  In the “semen existing in the loins of the father” analogy, just cited, Jesus and God might have been “one” (“in” God the Father) in the Beginning; then have become “two,” with each retaining His preexistent claim but not necessarily an equality claim.  The argument advanced by Jesus in Mark 12:35-37 (also in Matthew 22:41-45 and Luke 20:41-44, NKJV) seems, however, to convey an equality or even superiority by a “son” over his “father”:  

How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the Son of David? For David himself said by the Holy Spirit: “The Lord said to my Lord, ‘Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool.’” Therefore, David himself calls Him ‘Lord’; how is He then his Son?”

For that matter, it is clearly taught that Jesus, the “son of Adam, the son of God” (Luke 3:38) is far superior to his “father” Adam, but not to his Father God?  Would such a biological phenomenon (“earthly thing”) solve the theological issue (“heavenly thing”) pertaining to Jesus’ and God’s equality/subjection or preexistence/subsequence in John’s Gospel?  Not completely.  Let’s look at John 1.

ἐν

The Logos Hymn in John 1

The Greek word “en/ἐν” is also the first word of the Gospel of John, which I think relies on Aristotle’s “earthly” concept of entelechy/ἐντέλεχεια.  I will be explaining entelechy/ἐντέλεχεια in future posts.  For now, I point to the fact that, according to John 1, both God and the Logos existed simultaneously in a scene that has been (incorrectly, I think) translated “in the Beginning.”  Keep in mind that John did not use the explicit term “Jesus” or “son” when he first said that “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ) was the Logos.  The first two words of John’s Gospel are the Greek words “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ).  While a word study of “Logos” is also needed, the words “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ) have very deep meaning in Aristotle’s concept of entelechy/ἐντέλεχεια.  I will consider the meaning of all of these terms (and, certainly, others, such as “light” and “only begotten”), in future posts, as we progress in this series.  For now, consider the amoeba/protozoa analogy alongside the “loins of the father” analogy.  Just as both “daughter cells” preexisted as one amoeba/protozoa, and were ACTIVE together, so God and the Logos are presented as being preexistent together and equal “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ).  The Father/Son relationship, however, is not introduced until the 14^th verse of chapter one. There, the “loins of the father” analogy may contribute to an understanding.  We have just begun to scratch the surface of the Gospel According to Entelechy.  Stay tuned.