The “Form” of God and Entelechy (Gospels 6)

“And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form.”

\(John 5:37 NKJV)

 

 

           

The Importance of “Form” in Entelechy

           

When John calls Jesus and/or God the ἀρχή/”beginning” and the τέλος/”end” (Revelation 21:6, 22:13), he

appears to be tapping into Aristotle’s four causes of entelechy.  The Greek word εἶδος/eidos (translated “form” in the John 5:37 passage, just cited) is one of the four causes of change/kinēsis/κίνησις and of entelechy/entelecheia/ἐντέλεχεια according to Aristotle.  Change/kinēsis/κίνησις, is effected by four potential (dunamis/dunamai) causes:

(1) archē/ἀρχή or “efficient cause,” translated “beginning” in Revelation,

(2) telos/τέλος or “final cause,” translated “end” in Revelation,

(3) eidos/εἶδος (aka, morphē/μορφή) or “formal cause,” and

(4) hulē/ὕλη or “material cause.”

While archē/ἀρχή and telos/τέλος feature prominently in the Book of Revelation (usually translated “the beginning and the end”), the term form/eidos/εἶδος is completely missing from Revelation.  Nevertheless, it is present in Luke’s description of the “form” of the Spirit at Jesus’ baptism (3:22) and in Luke’s description of the transfigured Jesus (9:29) in addition to the John 5:37 discussion of the “form” of God, cited above.  The term material/hulē/ὕλη is also missing from Revelation.  This term only occurs once in the New Testament, in James 3:5, where it refers to the amount of “material/wood/timber” that is kindled by a small fire (in a metaphor of the power of the tongue).  It is never used to refer to the “material” of God.  For the New Testament use of μορφή/form, see μεταμορφόω (metamorphosis/transfiguration) in Matthew 17:2, Mark 9:2, and Romans 12:2, plus μορφή/form  in Mark 16:12 (of Jesus) and Philippians 2:6-7.  Henry A. Fischel frequently asserted that New Testament writers knew Rabbinic teachings, Rabbinic writers knew Christian teachings, and they all knew Greek teachings.  Fischel states: “It is fortunate that at this stage of scholarship no further defense has to be made for the assumption that Greco-Roman situations were well-known.”

 

Why Do “Form” and “Material” Get Overlooked in Revelation?

           

Logically,

the terms “form/eidos/εἶδος” and “material/hulē/ὕλη” should be missing from any discussion of God's characteristics.  The writer of Revelation appears to be aware of that fact.  Even though Jesus as God’s Son (in the flesh) on Earth experienced physical entelechies, God Almighty did not experience a physical entelechy.  It might be useful to point out, here, that Aristotle used the terms “physical” and “physics/φυσική” to refer to any “natural” object or occurrence.  Nature includes not only biology, but also geology, and astrology.  The Logos of God was NOT “natural” or “physical” (yet, Jesus on Earth WAS physical).  The Logos “created” the natural/physical world.  John 1:2-3 (NKJV) says the Logos “was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.”  Hence, all (natural) material/hulē/ὕλη (including “flesh”) was “made” by (or through) the Logos.  At this point, then we are presented with three logical absurdities: (1) If God were composed of material/hulē/ὕλη, God would have been “made” by the Logos.  (2)  Likewise, if the “Logos-become-flesh” were solely composed of material/hulē/ὕλη, the “Logos-become-flesh” would have been “made” by the Logos.  (3)  Furthermore, if we treat the earliest mentions of Logos in John as indicating “Jesus,” we have the strange situation of Jesus creating his own “flesh.”  Now, let’s try to dig our way out of this quandary. 

Absurdity #1 is easily resolved: God is not an entelechy, since God does not consist of material/hulē/ὕλη. Nor has anyone seen His form/eidos/εἶδος, as confirmed by John 5:37.  This is one reason the second Commandment says: “You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them” (Exodus 20:4-5 NKJV).  God is incorporeal.  When the Jews were commanded to build the Ark of the Covenant (containing the Ten Commandments), they made images of Cherubim to place on top of the Ark.  In the “invisible” area just above where the wings of the Cherubim touch each other was what was known as the “mercy seat.”  This invisible area symbolically identified the location of God.  I state on page 64 of my book Disneology: Religious Rhetoric at Walt Disney World:

Logically speaking, a God who created nature cannot be restricted to the laws of nature . . . Judaism adds to the description of God . . . “invisible.”  The Ark of the Covenant (as presented visually in the movie Raiders of the Lost Ark) was designed to symbolically make this point.  All other gods presented at WDW are visible.  The Hebrew God is invisible. 

            Absurdities #2 and #3 are more difficult, but might be resolved by understanding that God is spirit, not flesh.  I had mentioned in my blogpost The Logos and Entelechy (Gospels 3):

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 [of creation].

Identifying the Logos as the Spirit of God seems to have some corroboration in Matthew’s description of the virgin birth.  Matthew 1:18 (NKJV) states: “His mother Mary . . . was found with child of the Holy Spirit.”  Matthew 1:20 (NKJV) has the angel saying: “Joseph . . . do not be afraid to take to you Mary your wife, for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit.” Luke 1:35 agrees: “And the angel . . . said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.”  If the Logos is the Spirit of God, the Holy Spirit, then the statement that the Logos/Spirit of God/Holy Spirit “became flesh and dwelt among us” would be very consistent.  The logic would look like this:

Premise 1: The Logos discussed by John in 1:1-5 is the incorporeal Word or Spirit of God that existed simultaneously with God.   

Premise 2: The Logos was God and the Logos (God’s Word) created all matter (=material), including “flesh.”  

Premise 3: “Flesh” was what the Logos, in the fullness of time, “became” (an entelechial action) during the time God’s Son dwelt on Earth. 

Deduction: In contrast to the absurdity #2 listed above, the “Logos-become-flesh” would NOT entirely have been “made”

by the Logos; only his “flesh” would have been made by the Logos.  The Logos, then, would only have “dwelt” (an entelechial action) in the fleshly (material) tabernacle, which he had created (just as humans dwell in houses those humans have made).  The only part of Jesus that was corporeal was the “flesh” (material/hulē/ὕλη) that he acquired from his mother, Mary, while he was growing in her womb and up until the time he was resurrected.  In contrast to the absurdity #3 listed above, we would NOT have the strange situation of Jesus creating his own “flesh.”  This view is entirely “monotheistic” in the sense that God and His Word are a unity (just as my words that come out of my mouth are a part of me); whatever Word/Logos God speaks is very much a part of Him.  For example, my words have a power of their own.  If I severely criticize someone, but not to his/her face, my words might still be very damaging to that person when someone else conveys my words to that person.  Just so, God’s Words (Logos), once they leave His mouth have tremendous power, in themselves, to create light, firmament, seas, vegetation, etc.  Now, we find God’s Word (Logos) has the power to not only create “flesh” but also to “become (or put on) flesh.” In view of the use of the “tabernacle” metaphor, it might be preferable to translate the words “became flesh” as “put on flesh” (i.e., in the sense of becoming one who came to exist in a fleshly tabernacle).

 

The Tabernacle of Flesh/Material/Hulē/ὕλη

           

John 1:14 says that God’s Word/Logos (having become or put on flesh) “dwelt among us.”  Picture this:  God’s Word (Logos) dwelling in a fleshly “tabernacle.”  That is how John describes Jesus.  The Greek word translated “dwelt” actually means “tabernacled” (σκηνόω).  Jesus “dwelt” in a tabernacle, just as God “dwelt” in a tabernacle, following the Exodus.  It does not diminish the divinity of either God or Jesus to say that they “dwelt” in “tabernacles.”  Yet, the tabernacles of both God and Jesus

were constructed of physical/earthly/material/hulē/ὕλη.  One difference between God’s tabernacle and Jesus’ tabernacle is that, despite both of them being composed primarily of organic matter/material/hulē/ὕλη. Jesus’ tabernacle was living (his flesh), while God’s tabernacle was built of no-longer-living timbers, flax fibers/linen, etc. and also included such non-living geological materials as gold overlays.  Another difference is that, God’s tabernacle was made “with human hands” in the wilderness, whereas Jesus’ tabernacle was not made with human hands.  It was made by the Logos. 

In a possibly-related passage, Hebrews 9:11 (NKJV) reports: “Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands.”  Even so, Stephen, in Acts 7:48-50 (NKJV), says:

“The Most High does not dwell in temples made with hands, as the prophet says: ‘Heaven is My throne, And earth is My footstool.  What house will you build for Me? says the Lord, Or what is the place of My rest? Has My hand not made all these things?’

            Paul and Peter both understood their own bodies to be “tabernacles.”  Peter, in 2 Peter 1:13-14 (NKJV), anticipating his own death, described his impending death as a putting off of his tabernacle: “I think it is right, as long as I am in this tent [tabernacle], to stir you up by reminding you, knowing that shortly I must put off my tent [tabernacle], just as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.”  Paul’s comments in 2 Corinthians 5:1-4 (NKJV) are further instructive. Although Paul is speaking of his own body (=tabernacle), which he predicts will be “destroyed” and in which he now “groan[s],” he looks forward to having God’s new kind of tabernacle—one not made with human hands, in which mortality is swallowed up by life (i.e., immortality/“eternal in the heavens”).

For we know that if our earthly house, this tent [tabernacle], is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.  For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed with our habitation which is from heaven, if indeed, having been clothed, we shall not be found naked.  For we who are in this tent [tabernacle] groan, being burdened, not because we want to be unclothed, but further clothed, that mortality may be swallowed up by life.

Surely, in the heavens, Jesus is no longer living in a fleshly/physical/earthly/material/hulē/ὕλη tabernacle.  How his new body (and/or “form/eidos/εἶδος”) is apprehended and experienced will be grist for the next blogpost.  Rather, as Paul suggests for himself, Jesus is now clothed with a habitation immortal, “eternal in the heavens.”  Having undergone the earthly entelechies of growth, learning, and authority (and even birth and death), the Son has reverted to the heavenly majesty he experienced as part of God and His Word/Logos (in the beginning) “en archē/ἐν ἀρχῇ.”

This entelechial understanding of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as all one person “en archē/ἐν ἀρχῇ” in John 1—illustrates how there can be one monotheistic God whose Son pre-existed with him (and “acted” with Him) in His loins and whose Word/Logos/Spirit created all things.  His Word/Logos/Spirit, then “tabernacled” with us in a fleshly/physical/earthly/material/hulē/ὕλη body made by the Logos.  The Logos, while dwelling in that tabernacle, took on Earthly “entelechies” in his “flesh.”  As I mentioned in the previous post, “‘Sonship’ is Not an Entelechy . . . one does not gradually ‘become’ a son; one ‘is’ a son.  The son even has a pre-existence in the loins of his father . . . Sonship . . . is a state of being (not a ‘process,’ with a beginning, middle, and end).  One NEVER STOPS being a son.”  Therefore, Jesus’ “entelechies” were limited to the time when he was on Earth in his fleshly/physical/earthly/material/hulē/ὕλη “tabernacle.”  There remain undiscussed, so far, some embryological issues in Jesus’ “male” existence that should be considered.  For example, Mary could not have contributed a Y chromosome to Jesus’ flesh, thus, making him a male embryo.  Such entelechial matters pertaining to Jesus’ earthly form/morphē/μορφή will be addressed in the next blogpost.  Also, next time, we will consider what Paul means when he says that Jesus was found “in the form/morphē/μορφή of God” in Philippians 2:6-7.

Sonship and “Learning” and “Authority” Entelechies (Gospels 5)

And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.

(Luke 2:52 NKJV)

 

 

           

The Learning Entelechy

           

Did Jesus (on Earth) have less knowledge than God?  I have never yet met a person who argues that Jesus understood and spoke perfect Aramaic on the day he was born—the day when the Logos “became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father” (John 1:14 NKJV).  Not only did Jesus not know Aramaic at birth, neither did he know and speak every other language and dialect ever spoken in the world.  Nevertheless, there is no evangelical Christian alive who would suggest that the Father THEN and Jesus NOW do not understand and communicate in every language and dialect ever spoken in the world, since they hear and answer the prayers of all. Why did Jesus say, in Mark 13:32 (NKJV): “But of that day and hour [of his Second Coming] no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father”?  There was, therefore, something that Jesus did NOT know concerning his Coming; yet, Jesus DID know that “this generation will by no means pass away till all these things take place” (Mark 13:30 NKJV). Was Jesus’ knowledge “partial” at this point in his life?  Hebrew 5:8 (NKJV) states: “though He was a Son, yet He learned obedience by the things which He suffered.”  Jesus’ “suffering” was at the end of his earthly life.  Was he still “learning” at that point? 

Needless to say, Jesus apparently experienced a “learning” entelechy while on Earth.  Learning is an entelechy of

the same variety as filling the grain tank at the top of the combine and filling time, described in the previous post.  Learning involves “filling” something up to completeness—namely, the mind.  I observe on page 31 of my book Implicit Rhetoric:  Kenneth Burke’s Extension of Aristotle’s Concept of Entelechy: 

Aristotle offers examples of entelecheia:  "When the buildable [oikodomêton] . . . is fully real [entelecheia], it is being built [oikodomeitai], and this is building [oikodomêsis]" (201a16-18).  Likewise, he offers the terms learning (mathêsis), doctoring (iatreusis), rolling (kulisis), leaping (alsis), ripening (andrunsis), and aging (gêransis) (cf. also Metaphysics 1065b20).  All of these examples of entelecheia end in -sis as does the term kinêsis, itself.  The Greek term kinêsis (which Hardie and Gaye have translated "motion") is Aristotle's key term for describing something that is in a continuous process of change.

When Luke 2:52 states that “Jesus increased in wisdom,” Luke indicates that Jesus was in a continuous process of changing (kinêsis) from less wisdom to more wisdom—filling up his mind with wisdom and knowledge.  Luke makes the just-mentioned observation following Jesus’ trip to the temple, as a twelve-year-old, where Luke 1:46-47 (NKJV) reports: “Now so it was that after three days they found Him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the teachers, both listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard Him were astonished at His understanding and answers.”  This point in time, recorded by Luke, is somewhere in the “middle” of the learning entelechy for Jesus—with the Logos becoming flesh at the archē/ἀρχή and Jesus’ resurrection and/or ascension to Heaven at the telos/τέλος.  Once Jesus was resurrected and ascended, he is presented by John in Revelation as knowing all truth.  (See my blogpost Apocalyptic?  #19:  Does Absolute Truth Exist?)

“Sonship” is Not an Entelechy

                                            

In the Jewish mind, one does not gradually “become” a son; one “is” a son.  The son even has a pre-existence in the loins of his father.  Refer back to my previous blogposts, Amoeba/Protozoa Theology (Gospels 1) and Genealogies and Entelechy (Gospels 4).  Sonship, on the other hand, is a state of being (not a “process,” with a beginning, middle, and end).  One NEVER STOPS being a son, for example.  Therefore, sonship is not an entelechy, yet, all “sons” go through entelechial processes.  Human sons go, of course, through the growth entelechy, just the same as grains of wheat do, when planted.  You will recall that growth is an entelechy of substance (morphê), and, once Mary became pregnant, Jesus’earthly body morphed in utero, until he became an infant at Bethlehem.  Then, just as Luke reports, “And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men” (Luke 2:52 NKJV).  Therefore, the

entelechy of substance (morphê) was a first type of entelechy that Jesus experienced on Earth.  Physical growth is almost entirely devoid of “free will,” except for such matters as intentionally getting proper nutrition, exercise, and sleep.  Kenneth Burke would call growth an entelechy of “motion,” as opposed to “action.”  No thought process is necessary in “motion”; whereas, “action” requires thought and conscious purpose.  One can “grow” while one is asleep or unconscious.  Jesus begins “growing” from the point of his conception in Mary’s womb.  As an aside, this discussion of the growth entelechy is also an argument that Aristotle’s entelechy supplies for the pro-life position.  As I discuss on page 67 (and elsewhere) in my book Implicit Rhetoric: “Once kinêsis [growth] begins (at conception), I believe that Aristotle would classify the entity as entelecheia.”  In other words, life begins at conception, according to Aristotle.  Remember, however, that Jesus, in the Jewish mind, existed in the (metaphorical) loins of his father.  It was only his earthly, human, body that experienced growth.

 

The Authority Entelechy

As discussed in the first section of this post, a second type of entelechy that Jesus experienced on Earth was the entelechy of “learning”—something that definitely involves “action.”  One “chooses” to learn.  Learning is one example of an entelechy of quantity (completeness or filling), as was the grain tank “filling” on the combine.  Another example of an entelechy of quantity experienced by sons, to which we now turn, is the entelechy of “authority.”  Did Jesus exercise control over his own bodily functions as a baby?  Did Jesus exercise authority over Mary and Joseph from the point of his birth?  No.  Did he exercise authority over them from the time he was twelve years old?  No.  Luke 2:48-51 (NKJV) reports on the situation:

His mother said to Him, “Son, why have You done this to us? Look, Your father and I have sought You anxiously.”  And He said to them, “Why did you seek Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?”  But they did not understand the statement which He spoke to them.  Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them. 

When Mary stated to Jesus, “your father and I have sought you,” Jesus discreetly corrected his mother’s explicit mis-identification of his father as Joseph: “Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?”  Jesus knew who his Father was by age twelve.  Nevertheless, Jesus “actively chose” to be subject to his mother and her husband, Joseph.  At the beginning of his ministry, Jesus was still demonstrating submission to his mother.  John 2:3-7 (NKJV) records the account of the wedding feast at Cana of Galilee:   

[W]hen they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, “They have no wine.”  Jesus said to her, “Woman, what does your concern have to do with Me? My hour has not yet come.”  His mother said to the servants, “Whatever He says to you, do it.”  Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of purification of the Jews, containing twenty or thirty gallons apiece. Jesus said to them, “Fill the waterpots with water.”

Though Jesus (remaining totally in character with his twelve-year-old incident) is still gently resisting his mother’s implicit commands, he complies.  Why does an earthly mother appear to be exercising authority over her thirty-year-old son, who is the Son of God?  It probably has something to do with the Fifth Commandment: “Honor your father and mother” (Exodus 20:12, Deuteronomy 5:16, Matthew 15:4 and 19:19, Luke 18:20, and Ephesians 6:1) even if your father and mother are not completely wise in certain matters.  Jesus is voluntarily “choosing” to submit.  Does it not, then, make sense that, as a Son, Jesus would also voluntarily “choose” to submit to his true Father?  Therefore, Jesus defers to his Father’s authority in the matter of who would sit on his right and left hands, in Matthew 20:23 (ESV): “to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”  He also, in John 12:49 (ESV) asserts: “For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak.”  Of course, since Jesus IS God’s Word/Logos-become-flesh, his “words” ARE God’s Words.  Even though Jesus chose to submit to his mother and to his Father, his own personal “authority,” by the time he began his ministry, was very much in evidence. 

Jesus had power over the winds and waves; “even the wind and the sea obey[ed] him” (Matthew 28:27).  He had the power to “bring forth bread from the earth” (feeding of 5000) and he “created the fruit

of the vine” (at the wedding feast in Cana).  These two feats (creating bread and wine) are the basis of the Jewish prayer at meals in the Mishnah—capabilities that are attributed only to God, whom the Jews bless.  He had the power to heal the sick, raise the dead, curse the fig tree, walk on water, etc.

Matthew 7:29 (NKJV, also Mark 1:22 and Luke 4:32) observes: “He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.”  Jesus, in Matthew 9:6, Mark 2:10, and Luke 5:24 (NKJV) asserts: “the Son of Man has power [authority] on earth to forgive sins.”  In Mark 1:27 (NKJV, also Luke 4:36) bystanders observed, “For with authority He commands even the unclean spirits, and they obey Him.  Then, in Matthew 10:1 (NKJV, also Mark 3:15 and 6:7 and Luke 9:1 and 10:19), Jesus gave his twelve apostles “power [authority] over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all kinds of sickness and all kinds of disease.”  John 5:27 (NKJV) reports that God “has given Him authority to execute judgment.”  Jesus even has the authority/power over his own life, according to John 10:17-18 (NKJV): “I lay down My life that I may take it again.  No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power [authority] to lay it down, and I have power [authority] to take it again. This command I have received from My Father.”  These actions are matters of “choice” and “free will” for Jesus.  He is not the passive victim of someone else’s will.  He is “voluntarily” submitting to death, even though Jesus prayed in Matthew 26:39 (NKJV): “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”  Jesus had the authority and free will to forego the crucifixion, but he executed the plan as the Father designed it.  It clearly was a very gut-wrenching choice. 

Certainly, by the end of his ministry, Jesus was claiming complete authority.  In John 17:2, towards the end of his life, Jesus prayed to God: “You have given Him [God’s Son] authority over all flesh.”  In Matthew 28:18, Jesus asserts: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.  The telos/τέλος of the entelechy of quantity (the filling up of Jesus’ authority) had now been reached.

“Sonship” is the Key to Understanding these “Filling” Entelechies

            Paul’s comment in Galatians 4:1-2 (NKJV) is very helpful in understanding these entelechies: “Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child, does not differ at all from a slave, though he is master of all, but is under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the father.”  When the Logos “became flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld his glory . . . as of the only-begotten of the Father,” he voluntarily entered into some earthly entelechies.  Among those entelechies were the “growth” entelechy, what Aristotle called a change of “substance” or “form,” as he “grew” in stature.  The second kind of entelechy, what Aristotle called a change of “quantity, complete and incomplete,” was the “filling”

entelechy.  Jesus’ mind “filled” with knowledge, as he “grew” in wisdom.  Meanwhile, his power/authority was also increasing until, ultimately, he claimed that “all authority” had been given to him.  As Paul observes, when Jesus was “a child, [he did] not differ at all from a slave, though he [was] master of all, but [was] under guardians and stewards until the time appointed by the Father.”  Indeed, Jesus saw his role on earth as that of a servant.  Entelechially speaking, the “essence” of his Sonship –being master of all (based on his preexistence “in” the Father)—was “spread out” over time.  Kenneth Burke refers to such a factor in entelechy as the “temporizing [the process of spreading out over time] of essence” (See Philosophy of Literary Form, 19).    While the growth (in stature) entelechy and the filling entelechy (learning wisdom and gaining authority) occur gradually over time, entelechially, one sees them as a time-condensed snapshot of sorts, all existing “en archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ).  Refer back to the first post in this series.  Hence, entelechially-speaking (since the end/telos/τέλος is implicit in the beginning/ἐν ἀρχῇ), Jesus has always possessed (entelechially) all wisdom, knowledge, and power/authority.  The “earthly” concept of entelechy helps us to understand the “heavenly” concepts of theology, just as Jesus was teaching Nicodemus (John 3:12).

Genealogies and Entelechy (Gospels 4)

 

The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ, the Son of David, the Son of Abraham.

(Matthew 1:1 NKJV)

Now Jesus . . . being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, the son of Heli . . . the son of Adam, the son of God.

(Luke 3:23-38 NKJV)

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.

(John 1:14 NKJV)

 

           

Preachers joke that the genealogies are the part of the gospels that people like to skip over.  The audience

usually laughs, knowingly.  Yet, there is much gold to be mined concerning entelechy in the genealogies.  We’ll look at the four gospels, individually, as we mine.

 

Mark

Textual critics have debated whether the words “Son of God” were in the original text of Mark 1:1 (“the gospel of Jesus Christ [son of God].”  The United Bible Societies’ Greek text produced by Aland, Black, Metzger, and Wikgren (1966) includes the words [but, in brackets]; the United Bible Societies’ Greek text produced by Nestle and Aland (1969) excludes them, but both show that the language existed in many ancient copies of the text.  Based on their conclusion that the words “Son of God” are textual additions, some skeptical scholars suggest that Mark did not view Jesus as being God’s Son—only as the messiah/Christ. (Mark does not include in his gospel an elaborate genealogy.)  As we pointed out, however, in the blogpost before the last, Mark is not even disposed in his narrative to identify Jesus as the “Christ/Messiah” until after Peter’s confession in 8:29.  It must be noted, however, that, very early in his gospel, Mark has God speaking in a mysterious voice (what Jews call a “bat qol”) on two occasions—once, in 1:11 (paralleled by Matthew 3:17 and Luke 3:22), at Jesus’ baptism and again, in 9:7 (paralleled by Matthew’s account in 17:5 and Peter’s testimony in 2 Peter 1:17), on the Mount of Transfiguration—making the assertion: “You are (this is) My beloved Son.”  In these two accounts, an implicit genealogy might exist in God’s assertion:  that Jesus traced his genealogy directly to God Himself (“My Son”), unless when Luke 9:35 adds “whom I have chosen” indicates, somehow, that Jesus is only “chosen” to be God’s Son, not genealogically “begotten” as God’s Son.  Some translators, attempting to explain these words, use the terminology “my chosen one,” instead of “whom I have chosen.”  Hebrews 5:5 complicates the idea of what is meant by “begotten-ness” by citing Psalm 2:7, from which these sayings may derive, more fully, saying “You are My Son; today I have begotten you.”  Note the word “today.”  Was Mark suggesting that Jesus was the Son of God in the sense of having been designated as such just “today” (as opposed to eternally)?

Interestingly, “unclean spirits” (3:11, 5:7) address Jesus as the “son of God,” but we might be inclined to be suspicious as to whether Mark accepted the word of “unclean spirits.”  Jesus’ neighbors in Galilee identify him as the “son of Mary” (6:3) and the blind man Bartimaeus called him “son of David” (10:47-48), indicating an earthly genealogy.  Jesus seems to self-identify simply as “the Son” but he identifies in this way in the context of the “Father” and the “angels” (13:32).  Even though Jesus almost always identifies himself as the “Son of man,” his association of the terms Son, Father, and angels is repeated as Jesus says that the Son of man will come “in the glory of his Father with the holy angels” (8:38).  In Mark 14:61, Jesus is at his trial.  The High Priest asks him point blank: “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?”  Jesus replies explicitly: “I am.”  That would seem to settle the matter, for Mark.  In the final mention of “son of God” in Mark’s gospel (15:39), the centurion at the cross remarks, “Truly, this man was the son of God.”  It seems clear that Mark understood Jesus to be the Son of God, whether by human genealogy or by divine genealogy, leaving further discussion of both of these genealogical possibilities to the other evangelists (i.e., gospel writers).

 

Matthew

Matthew begins his gospel with an elaborate genealogy, but he sets the limits of his genealogy to tracing Jesus’ lineage only back to David, and thence, to Abraham, whereas Luke traces through those important figures plus on back to Adam, and thence, to God.  Matthew is not attempting to make the same argument with his genealogy that Luke makes.  Matthew’s purposes in using a genealogy were (1) to demonstrate Jesus’ thorough-bred nature as a Jew by tracing him all the way back to the father of the Hebrews, Abraham, and (2) to demonstrate his genealogical bona fides, his messianic credentials, as the offspring of David. In the previous blogpost, I had identified “Aristotle’s doctrine of entelechy/ἐντέλεχεια . . . [as] describe[ing] any process that has a beginning, a middle, and an end implicit throughout the process.”  I gave the example of the seed in a “growth” entelechy and compared it with the “creation” entelechy, that had a beginning, a middle, and will have an end, as the old heaven and earth are destroyed.  Now, we are looking at a second kind of entelechy.  The first (“growth”) entelechy is what Aristotle called a change of “substance” or “form.”  This second kind of entelechy is what Aristotle called a change of “quantity, complete and incomplete.” 

To explain what a complete “quantity” entelechy would be, we might return to that seed entelechy and advance to the entelechy of the harvest stage.  As a kid who grew up on a farm, I can testify that the harvest process contained many “quantity” entelechies.  My dad would operate his combine in the fields, with the grain that was being picked and processed flowing into a grain tank at the top of the combine.  Once that grain tank was full, one could say that an entelechy had been completed.  In the “beginning,” the grain tank was empty.  In the “middle,” the grain tank was filling (in quantity).  Once the grain tank could hold no further quantity, one could say that the quantity was complete—the entelechy had ended.  Nevertheless, two other quantity entelechies were about to begin.  Once the grain tank was full, it had to be emptied using an auger in a side pipe called an unloader.  The side pipe was positioned over the bed of a truck or trailer that would be able to hold several grain tanks full of grain.  The grain was augered out until the grain tank was empty, thus preparing the grain tank for a new entelechy of harvesting and filling.  Meanwhile, the “quantity” entelechy of filling the truck or trailer for transportation to the grain elevator had just begun.  Load after load of grain from the grain tank on the combine were deposited into the truck or trailer, until it was full; the truck/trailer-filling entelechy was now complete.  Then the truck was driven to the grain elevator where a third “quantity” entelechy would be in-process as the various trucks from multiple farmers waited in line to pull up to unload their cargos into the grain elevator—until the grain elevator was full and had completed its own filling entelechy.  Then the grain was loaded onto a barge or into train cars, etc. as new quantity entelechies were generated.

So, back to Matthew, but using some texts from Paul.  “Time” (like grain) is also a quantity.  Every employee who has punched in a time clock at 8 a.m. and punched out at 5 p.m. knows that an entelechy (even if s/he has not called it by that term) has just been completed.  The time for working has been completed.  So, Paul, in Galatians 4:4-5 (NKJV) says: “But when the fullness of the time had come, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.”  In Ephesians 1:10 (NKJV), he says that in “the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.”  Similarly, Matthew 1:17 (NKJV) seems to think in terms of a fullness of time entelechy as he concludes his genealogy: “So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations, from David until the captivity in Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the captivity in Babylon until the Christ are fourteen generations.”  Jesus was born in the fullness of time.

Besides completing requisite “time,” Matthew argues that the appropriate list of individuals (especially Abraham and David) have also been completed in Jesus’ lineage.  But, then, Matthew faces a problem.  He soon indicates that Mary became pregnant while she was betrothed to Joseph, but before they “came together.”  So, genetically, Joseph could not have been in Jesus’ lineage.  This is a problem because, as pointed out three posts ago, Jews understood that humans preexisted “in the loins of their human fathers.”  But, Jesus DIDN’T HAVE a human father, did he?  Matthew may have reasoned that, having been “betrothed” to Joseph, the biblical principle from Genesis, repeated by Matthew in 19:5-6 NKJV—"'a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  So then, they are no longer two but one flesh.”—applies.  So, Matthew traces the lineage of Jesus through Mary’s other half of “one flesh,” Joseph.  Thus, Matthew 1:16 (after having included the parentage of David and Abraham) completes the genealogy with these words (NKJV): “And Jacob begot Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus who is called Christ.”  Matthew uses the term “begat” for every transitional person in the genealogy, except the Joseph/Mary to Jesus transition.  There, he simply states that Jesus “was born” of Mary.

 

Luke

As opposed to Matthew’s genealogy, Luke avoids the “begat” terminology altogether, starting from the end product (Jesus) and (seeming to use “[the son] of” terminology) works backward in 3:38 to “[the son] of Enosh, [the son] of Seth, [the son] of Adam, [the son] of God.”  Actually, the words “the son” are implied at each transition, not explicitly stated, except in 3:23, where Luke states that Jesus being “the son AS WAS THOUGHT [of] Joseph,” (implied:  was actually) “of Matthat, [the son] of Levi, [the son] of Melchi,” etc.  Luke may have reasoned that, since Jesus was not actually the son of  Joseph “AS WAS THOUGHT,” would have been considered to be of the seed of Mary’s father, Matthat.

Of course, Luke (and Matthew and Mark) knows all along that Jesus is actually the son of God.  It is no accident that Luke places his genealogy immediately following the mysterious voice (bat qol) at Jesus’ baptism, at which time God says, “You are My beloved son.” (3:22).  By continuing the earthly genealogy all the way back to “Adam, [the son] of God,” Luke displays his purpose as indicating not simply (as Matthew did) that Jesus is the son of David and Abraham, but also that Jesus was related to gentiles (before the Hebrew people began) and, especially that Jesus’ ultimate father was God Himself.

 

John

This brings us to the Gospel According to John, who understands that we can dispense with human genealogies, altogether.  The issue that none of the evangelists disputes is “who Jesus’ father is.”  The answer is resounding: “God.”  So, John introduces us to the creation entelechy.  He does not go back to a time before creation, because it is unnecessary.  “En archē” (ἐν ἀρχῇ) refers to the time when the “grain tank” was empty, using the harvest entelechy as a metaphor.  The process of creation had not yet begun. 

Nevertheless, in the emptiness of the grain tank, certain things were implicit.  It was implicit that the “purpose” or “end” or telos/τέλος of what was about to begin was to “fill it up with grain.”  It was implicit that an agent would be needed (my father) to operate the combine.  It was implicit that an agency (the combine) would be used to accomplish the “purpose” or “end” or telos/τέλος.  It was implicit that a scene in which ripe grain had grown in the field would be needed.  It was implicit that the process of harvesting the grain would require a certain amount of time to complete.  It was implicit that various harvesting processes were incorporated into the overall activity of the combine, such as cutting grain stalks, feeding them through the combine, threshing, separating, chopping the straw, cleaning the fan, and auguring the grain. Not all of these processes would occur simultaneously.  Some would occur in the “middle” of the process.

Likewise, in the archē of the creation entelechy, certain things were implicit.  It was implicit that the “purpose” or “end” or telos/τέλος of what was about to begin was, as Paul said, that in “the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.”  It was implicit that an agent would be needed (God) to begin and complete the process.  It was implicit that the means (the spoken word, or Logos, or Spirit of God) by which God accomplished His purpose existed with God and was God.  It was implicit that that Logos would “become flesh and dwell among us”—that we would know him as Jesus Christ, the Son of God.  It was implicit that in him was life (as opposed to the machinery made by humans) and that that life was the light of man.  It was implicit that man would sin and fall (Adam) and need a savior (Jesus).  It was implicit that death was necessary to pay for sins and that Jesus would voluntarily take on that task, due to the implicit love of God and the Logos.

Jesus’ human body can be traced to Mary, and by extension, through Mary’s husband, Joseph and through Mary’s father, Matthat.  Jesus’ true genealogy, however, ultimately must be traced to God, as the son always pre-exists in the loins of his father.  Why, then, do we find that the Bible sometimes limits Jesus’ status, or knowledge, or will, or authority?  That will be the subject of the next blogpost.