God | CrossWise

The Wonder of the Word

October 3, 2024 5 Comments

Bible While reading Scripture, I’m sometimes encouraged. But sometimes I’m convicted of my shortcomings.

Sometimes I see something new in a passage I’d read many times before. It just seems to read differently than I recall.

Sometimes I’m led to study a passage even more. And sometimes I’m induced to rethink a passage I thought I already knew well enough.

I’ve long ago realized I will never completely mine the depths of this living, breathing Word of God. And this drives me to read and study it all the more.

We might be awed by the Seven Wonders of the World. But nothing tops the wonder of the Word.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Culture, Christian living, Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ, Scripture Tagged with bible, Christianity, God, Jesus Christ, Scripture, The Living Word, THE WORD OF GOD

Dan McClellan’s Faulty Analysis of John 1:1c

August 17, 2024 7 Comments

This post is an extension of my recently published “And the Word was ‘Deity’?” in response to Dan McClellan. And my most recent “What to Believe” serves as a sort of backdrop. That is, I am willing to reassess my positions in light of further study; with regard to John 1:1c, is McClellan similarly inclined?

Below I engage with another McClellan vlog covering much the same ground as the one referenced just above. In each one, he dogmatically declares that John 1:1c does not convey “the Word was God”. And he makes the same faulty claims regarding the use and non-use of the Greek article (~the) to support his position (see bold in quotation below).¹

The end of John 1:1 does not say “the Word was God,” it says “the Word was divine.” Theos is being used qualitatively, as many scholars have recognized. If the author wanted to say “the Word was God,” they would have included the definite article, because in Greek predications, if you have a definite noun preceding the verb, that noun takes the article if its referent is either well-known or has already been mentioned, and both of those are true of Theos in John 1:1.

Having previously studied and written about the Greek article in relation to this specific syntactical ordering, I can only speculate as to where this Bible scholar gets such an erroneous notion.

Continuing where we left off from his vlog:

Now, scholars who acknowledge this still like to avoid the rendering “the Word was divine,” because after John was written that would become a heresy. And so they have to retroject conceptual frameworks into the first century that did not exist when John was written—ideas like God exhausts the category of divinity. Therefore, if anybody has divinity, they have to be God. Additionally, this notion that you can have multiple persons within one Being—that way you can say that “what God was the Word was,” or “the Word was fully God,” or anything to avoid the plain and simple rendering “the Word was divine.”

Essentially, the two separate arguments—the erroneous grammatical/syntactical assertions in the first paragraph and the claims in the second paragraph which rely on the faulty premises of the first—are both examples of the straw man fallacy.² The latter is fabricated from the former’s faulty foundations.

His DOGMA > DATA

In the video above, McClellan wears a hoodie which reads DATA > DOGMA. I like this expression. My contention here, though, is that in the contents of the above he has flipped it to DOGMA > DATA. In other words, it appears he is imposing his preferred dogma onto the related data. To illustrate, below I first shall overturn his Greek grammar assertions by using counter-examples in the Gospel of John. I shall then demonstrate how John’s Gospel and other associated Johannine literature (1 John, Revelation) contain what amounts to “conceptual frameworks” to support the dogma he criticizes.

Despite his faulty reasoning, McClellan arrives at the correct interpretation that “Theos is being used qualitatively” in the context of John 1:1c. I’m reminded of my high school Algebra II class, in which students could lose some or all credit if they failed to provide the proper methodology (‘work’) by which the answer was obtained. The correct answer mattered little or not at all if it was not properly substantiated. Scholarship requires a firm grasp of, and proper presentation of, relevant principles.

Countering His Grammatical/Syntactical Assertions

(It may be helpful to begin with this explanation. “Grammar” is the umbrella term for a set of language rules, which includes “syntax”. “Syntax” specifically refers to the ordering of words in a sentence.)

McClellan is quite dogmatic in his claim: The end of John 1:1 does not say “the Word was God,” it says “the Word was divine.” Is he right? It depends on how the two renderings are individually interpreted.

Before proceeding I must state that it is only fair to take his argument as he intends it so that I don’t straw-man his position. Yet, strictly speaking, it is anachronistic for him to use an English translation of the Greek to state that John’s Gospel does or does not say this or that, because English wasn’t even a language when this Gospel was penned.³ My hunch is he begins in this somewhat provocative manner in order to quickly grab his audience’s attention.

Now, to put his general stance in the way I think he intends it regarding John 1:1c, he is saying that Theos (“God”) cannot be understood in a definite sense, which is how he construes “the Word was God”. Rather, per McClellan, it is qualitative, describing a quality or qualities of the subject nominative (SN) ho Logos (“the Word”), which he thinks should be translated “the Word was divine”. And to advance his claim, he marshals the specific grammatical/syntactical structure of John 1:1c. It is ordered PN (predicate nominative), CV (copulative verb), art (Greek article), SN (subject nominative), PN-CV-art-SN:

Theos (PN) ēn (CV) ho (art) Logos (SN). God-was-the-Word.

For English, we reorder it art-SN-CV-PN: “the Word was God”.

His specific grammatical/syntactical argument—the bolded portion in his first paragraph in the above vlog quote—can be paraphrased: Because the noun Theos (“God”) in John 1:1c lacks the Greek article (~the) in the predicate nominative (PN) which precedes the copular verb (CV, “to be”), this noun Theos cannot be understood in a definite sense. To be definite, McClellan asserts, the article (ho, “the”) must be present before Theos. Therefore, he declares, because the article is absent (-art) in the PN, it must be understood as functioning in a qualitative sense (~“the Word had God qualities”) instead of a definite sense (~“the Word was ‘the’ God”).

He is basically right about Theos functioning qualitatively in John 1:1—but for the wrong reasons.

Comparing John 8:12 (cf. John 1:4) with John 9:5 easily overturns McClellan’s dogmatic stance regarding the absence of the Greek article in the PN of John 1:1c.

8:12 is ordered just like we would in English: subject nominative (SN), copulative verb (CV), article (art), predicate nominative (PN), SN-CV-art-PN:

Egō (SN) eimi (CV) to (art) phōs (PN) tou kosmou. I (SN) am (CV) the (art) light (PN) of-the world.

“I am the light of the world.”

(Before going further, some explanation is in order for the non-Greek reader. Every finite verb in Greek encodes person and number. In other words, finite verbs automatically include a built-in subject. So, in John 8:12 above, eimi is itself a complete sentence: I-am. This particular finite verb form is a first person singular in the present. With that clarified, we can proceed where we left off.)

In 9:5, John records Jesus saying essentially the same thing as 8:12. But it is ordered differently and similar to John 1:1c—without the Greek article before the noun in the PN: PN-[SN]-CV. The subject nominative (SN) “I” is not explicitly expressed but provided in the verb:

Phōs (PN) eimi ([SN]-CV) tou kosmou. Light (PN) I-am ([SN-]CV) of-the world.

For English we would, of course, reorder it and add the English definite article (the) before “light”: “I am the light of the world.”

So, in 8:12 we have the PN “light” with the Greek article and placed after the verb. But in 9:5 we have the PN “light” without the Greek article and placed before the verb. And the noun “light” is clearly functioning in a definite sense in both cases.

Now, going back to McClellan’s assertions and comparing to our findings here: We have in 9:5 an example of a ‘Greek predication’ (PN) in which there is “a definite noun preceding the verb” (PN-CV) and “its referent…has already been mentioned” (in 8:12; cf. John 1:4), yet the definite noun in the PN in 9:5 lacks the Greek article.

McClellan is demonstrably wrong here. A predicate nominative lacking the article (-art) and placed before the copular (“to be”) verb (PN-CV) can certainly be definite.

To provide relevant background, we need to look at what is known as “Colwell’s rule”.⁴ This is variously stated in Greek grammars, so I shall quote directly from E. C. Colwell himself as he phrased his general, tentative findings (bold added): A definite predicate nominative has the article when it follows the verb, it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.⁵ This concurs with our example above. And the bolded portion is the polar opposite of McClellan’s claim.

One of Colwell’s first examples was John 1:49.⁶ Here Nathaniel identifies Jesus in two different ways. His first statement is ordered SN-CV-art-PN, just as we would in English:

Su (SN) ei (CV) ho (art) huios (PN) tou Theou. You-are-the-Son-of-God.

Nathaniel’s second statement is SN-(-art)-PN-CV:

Su (SN) Basileus (PN) ei (CV) tou Israēl. You-King-are-of-Israel.

Proper English would be “You are the King of Israel.”

Both “Son” and “King” are definite nouns in this context, yet “Son” has the Greek article, while “King” does not. Furthermore, “Son” follows the CV, while “King” precedes the CV. Therefore, one might conclude that “Son” has the article specifically because it follows the CV, while “King” lacks the article specifically because it precedes the CV. This concurs with Colwell’s general ‘rule’ as stated above.

But this ‘rule’ is not universally true.⁷ In other words, Colwell found this to be only a guide, not an absolute ‘rule’ that was followed by the Greek writer. And there is some amount of subjectivity involved in making any judgment regarding definiteness when the article is lacking (-art) in a PN-CV ordering.⁸

One more example: Pilate’s sign over the crucified Jesus reading “The King of the Jews” (John 19:19) includes the article before “King” (ho Basileus tōn Ioudaiōn). The High Priests were displeased with the wording, which could be understood as a title proclaiming Jesus really was the King of the Jews (cf. John 18:33)—which, of course He was/is—so they asked Pilate to change it (19:21). They first restated Pilate’s verbiage verbatim (do not write “ho Basileus tōn Ioudaiōn”), and then offered their preferred reading: That man said, “Basileus (PN) eimi ([SN]-CV) tōn Ioudaiōn”, “King-I-am-of-the-Jews.” “King” is surely definite, yet it lacks the Greek article. For English we would reorder it and add the English definite article before “King” to render it “I am the King of the Jews.” So, once again, the definite PN lacks the article and comes before the verb, and the referent is both well-known and had recently been mentioned. And, once again, this is contrary to McClellan’s assertion regarding this syntax.

Qualifying Qualitativeness

This section will further explain how to interpret this particular syntactical ordering and then offer another possible rendering of John 1:1c.

Colwell himself stressed that context would be the primary factor in determining whether or not an anarthrous (-art) preverbal PN (PN-CV) would be definite.⁹ Yet Colwell apparently favored definiteness in such syntactical constructions to the point of bias.¹⁰ This appears to be what led him to conclude that John 1:1c is definite and rendering it “the Word was God”.¹¹ Some others have followed Colwell’s conclusion of definiteness here.¹² Is it possible this contributed to McClellan’s faulty analysis? Might this be why He necessarily interprets “the Word was God” as strictly definite?

Helpfully, Wallace called an anarthrous (-art) PN-CV ordering a “Colwell’s construction” in order to differentiate between “Colwell’s rule” and the syntactical construction he tested.¹³ And this syntactical construction is what Philip Harner had investigated 40 years after Colwell.¹⁴ Harner, and later Dixon, found that a “Colwell’s construction” ([-art]-PN-CV) most often functions qualitatively.¹⁵ And while this syntactical construction can function in a definite sense (depending on context), this is a far second to a qualitative understanding.¹⁶

Moreover, Harner convincingly argued that qualitativeness does not necessarily preclude a further underlying nuance of either definiteness or indefiniteness.¹⁷ Context must decide, yet he admits to a certain amount of subjectivity.¹⁸ Harner concludes 1:1c to be qualitative, with no shade of definiteness: the qualitative force of the predicate is so prominent that the noun cannot be regarded as definite.¹⁹ He suggests a rendering such as “the Word had the same nature as God.”²⁰ His rationale: ho logos, no less than ho theos, had the nature of theos.²¹

With this background, Wallace specifically analyzed John 1:1c as to whether it could be indefinite (“a god”), definite, or qualitative.²² The grammarian ultimately concluded it to be qualitative, adding (bold in original): The construction the evangelist chose to express this idea was the most concise way he could have stated that the Word was God and yet was distinct from the Father.²³

Without stating so explicitly, Bernard, in his ICC commentary, appears to affirm qualitativeness with an underlying nuance of definiteness: [John 1:1c] asserts uncompromisingly the Divinity of the Logos, His Pre-existence and Personality having been first stated [ED: in 1:1a, 1:1b]; cf. 10:30; 20:28; and Philippians 2:6.²⁴

Because of the context, Theos in John 1:1c cannot be construed as strictly definite. John 1:1b already describes the Word in relationship with ho Theos, “’the’ God”. Ho Theos In this context refers to the Father. Thus, if one were to construe Theos in 1:1c as strictly definite (as if the Greek article were present), this would make nonsense of 1:1 generally.²⁵ That is, 1:1c would then imply that the Word is the same entity as ho Theos in 1:1b—that the Word is the Father. This obviously cannot be true.

The main issue for translators here is attempting to best capture the meaning for the average English reader. Rendering the PN of John 1:1c as “was divine” or “was Divine” can be interpreted or misinterpreted in myriad ways. In common English “divine” can refer to a well-made dinner or dessert. It can refer to a beautiful artwork, a beautiful woman, etc. Thus, it is too ambiguous, too weak.

The translation “the Word was God” is an attempt at more closely capturing what is perceived as John the Gospel writer’s intent. It is not perfect. And it is not meant to be understood as definite but, rather, qualitative.²⁶

Alternatively, we might translate John 1:1c And the Word was qualitatively God. And since ho Theos (the Father) is in relationship with the Word (“the Word was with God”), it would seem reasonable to understand the qualitative aspect of Theos for ho Logos (“the Word”) as being equal to that of ho Theos in 1:1b. In other words, given the immediate (and larger) context, there appears to be no reason to deem this qualitative aspect of ‘God-ness’ in the Word as in any way diminished from that of ho Theos (the Father). This concurs with Harner’s rationale above.

Summarizing

In summary, Dan McClellan’s grammatical/syntactical assertions have been shown to be erroneous.

In John 1:1c, the lack of the Greek article in front of Theos in and of itself does not preclude a possible interpretation of definiteness. The same syntactical structure is present in other verses in John’s Gospel, and some of those are definite rather than qualitative. It’s the context that determines the sense. And it’s the context of John 1:1c that eliminates definiteness, not the lack of the Greek article.

Similarly, McClellan’s claim that John 1:1c would be definite only if the article were placed before Theos has also been refuted. Had the Greek article been placed in front of Theos, it would make nonsense of the clause in its larger context. That is, in 1:1b the Word is described as in relationship (“with”) ho Theos, which, in context, is the Father; so, adding the article (ho) to Theos in 1:1c would make the Word and the Father (ho Theos in 1:1b) the same entity (ho Theos was ho Logos).

Generally, the absence of the article in this syntactical structure leaves open three possible interpretive senses: indefinite, definite, and qualitative. The context is the decisive factor.

The John 1:1c translation “the Word was God”, as found in many modern translations, is not to be interpreted in a strictly definite sense. It is qualitative (and perhaps with an underlying nuance of definiteness). While “the Word was Divine” might be considered a suitable substitute, it is too ambiguous and too weak for the immediate context and the larger context of John’s Gospel. This is elaborated upon in the next segment (Interpreting Conceptual Frameworks), which also addresses the content of the second paragraph in the vlog quotation.

________________________

¹ Admittedly, McClellan is more measured in his statement in the vlog referenced in my previous article “And the Word was Deity?”. While he basically makes the same claim about the presence/absence of the Greek article for definite nouns, his complete statement is different there. There he says that to be definite “then it should carry the definite article, and without it, it is most likely being used qualitatively.” The first part of this excerpt (“then it should carry the definite article”) basically mirrors the current blog post in this specific regard. And it is incorrect. The second statement (“without it [the Greek article], it is most likely being used qualitatively”) is not incorrect—in isolation (by itself). In other words, Theos is most likely being used qualitatively in John 1:1c due to: (a) the lack of the article; (b) the context. This will be explained as we progress.

² To be completely fair, I cannot definitively know his intent. Is he erecting a straw man (i.e., knowingly misrepresenting the position in order to more easily tear it down, and thus be able to charge Christian scholars with theological motives for the rendering “the Word was God”), as opposed to simply being mistaken regarding the Greek article’s use and non-use in this specific syntactical construction? From my perspective the latter would be difficult to believe, for he consistently self-identifies as a Bible scholar, claims to have addressed issues in Mormon New Testament translation, and has made a very specific grammatical claim here—all of which lead me to think he has specifically studied this issue before making his assertions. (And see footnote 1 above.) Should he be mistaken instead, I would expect him to make a correction or retraction; and, if he makes such a correction or retraction, I will note it here on the blog.

³ Ironically, McClellan uses this charge of anachronism (retrojection) against those interpreting Trinitarianism in John’s Gospel (or the entire NT—he’s not specific here), while he can be accused with the same in this regard.

⁴ See E. C. Colwell, “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament,” Journal of Biblical Literature 52 (1933): 12-21.

⁵ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, p 13.

⁶ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, p 13.

⁷ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, p 17. According to his analysis, anarthrous definite PNs precede the CV 97 times, they follow the CV 26 times. And arthrous definite PNs precede the CV just 15 times, follow it 229 times.

⁸ Colwell adds: Loosely speaking, this study may be said to have increased the definiteness of a predicate noun before the verb without the article, and to have decreased the definiteness of a predicate noun after the verb without the article (“Definite Rule”, p 21).

⁹ Colwell, “Definite Rule”, pp 20–21.

¹⁰ See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), pp 259–260. Cf. Paul Stephen Dixon, “The Significance of the Anarthrous Predicate Nominative in John” (Th.M. thesis, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1975), pp 11–12. Colwell even claimed the converse of his own ‘rule’ (‘a preverbal PN lacking the article is definite’), which is a non sequitur. The converse states what first needs to be determined!

¹¹ Colwell, “Definite Rule”: [John 1:1c] looks much more like “And the Word was God” than “And the Word was divine” when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or ‘qualitative’ when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the Gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas (John 20:28) (p 21).

¹² See Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp 257–258.

¹³ Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp 262–270.

¹⁴ Philip B. Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns: Mark 15:39 and John 1:1” Journal of Biblical Literature 92 (1973), pp 75–87.

¹⁵ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 75–87; Dixon, “Significance”.

¹⁶ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 75–87; Dixon, “Significance”; cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar, p 262. Contra David L. Mathewson & Elodie Ballantine Emig, Intermediate Greek Grammar: Syntax for Students of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2016), pp 85–86. The authors here are critical of Wallace’s (and, by extension, Harner’s and Dixon’s) approach, finding it too subjective. They agree with Wallace’s expressed Trinitarian theology, yet: …[W]e are not at all convinced that John’s grammar was intended to reflect such fine trinitarian nuances (p 85). The authors believe the structure merely presents “the Word” as the subject with the presence of the article, while they do not proffer a specific verdict on the nuance of the PN, though definiteness may be implied (p 85).

¹⁷ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, pp 80–87; Wallace, Greek Grammar, p 263.

¹⁸ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 83.

¹⁹ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 87.

²⁰ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 87.

²¹ Harner, “Qualitative Anarthrous Predicate Nouns”, p 87.

²² Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp 266–269; cf. 243–247. Wallace also references Dixon “Significance” here.

²³ Wallace, Greek Grammar, p 269.

²⁴ J.H. Bernard, The Gospel According to John, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary; ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles A. Briggs; Accordance electronic ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1928), para 11469. He seems to assert a qualitativeness with an underlying definiteness by his added cross-references that: (a) more unambiguously assert that the Incarnational Jesus (Logos-become-flesh) is (ho) Theos (John 10:30 and 20:28) in an undiminished sense, and (b) forthrightly claim His preexistence as Theos (Philippians 2:6: en morphē Theou hyparchōn, “in (the) form of God existing”) in conjunction with his verbiage “asserts uncompromisingly the Divinity of the Logos”. In other words, the local context seems to indicate a qualitative-definite understanding of Theos in John 1:1c, and when considering the larger context of John’s Gospel (10:30, 20:28) and the even larger corpus of the New Testament (Philippians 2:6), this stance is bolstered.

²⁵ And it would amount to what became known as Sabellianism; cf. A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4^th ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934 {1914}), pp 767-768.

²⁶ I would judge qualitative with an additional nuance of definiteness. Cf. Wallace, Greek Grammar: “…anarthrous pre-verbal predicate nominatives usually fall within the qualitative-definite range” (p 263; emphasis in original).

Filed under Bible, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Dan McClellan, Greek Language studies, Incarnation, Jesus, Jesus Christ, logical fallacies, Pop Culture, Scripture, Trinity Tagged with anachronism, anarthrous, And the Word was God, arthrous, Christianity, Colwell, context, copulative verb, Dan McClellan, Dan Wallace, DATA > DOGMA, definite article, definiteness, Divine, Dixon, english, God, Grammar, Greek article, interpretation, John 1:1c, King of the Jews, logos, Philip Harner, predicate nominative, qualitative, qualitativeness, right for the wrong reasons, scholarship, straw man fallacy, subject nominative, syntax, Theos

And the Word was ‘Deity’?

July 28, 2024 5 Comments

Dan McClellan—an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (aka Mormon Church, LDS Church)—is a well-credentialed Bible scholar and a relatively popular social media personality. I’ve recently stumbled across a number of his YouTube vlogs, having never heard of him previously.

In this blog post I will partly engage with his short vlog on John 1:1c. Most Christian Bibles render this and the Word was God (e.g., KJV, NASB, ESV, NIV). Over against this translation, McClellan claims it should be and the Word was deity instead.

My focus here will be on the grammar and syntax, as well as the local and larger context of John 1:1c. In Greek this is καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ Λόγος, and transliterated (exchanging Greek characters for English letters) kai Theos ēn ho Logos. I shall forgo comment on his claims regarding the Christian Trinity.

I begin here with where we agree. I agree with McClellan’s claim Theos in John 1:1c should be understood as qualitative. John the Gospel writer, by way of his use of syntax (ordering of words), is stating that the Logos inherently possesses the quality, or qualities, of Theos. In terms of essence, the Logos is Theos.

But I challenge part of McClellan’s reasoning and, more pointedly, the validity of the claim that Theos here should be “deity” instead of “God”. I also take exception to him calling the Greek article “the definite article”. Some may see this as quibbling (as many Christian scholars indeed do the same as McClellan here), but with no corresponding indefinite article in Greek, it seems best to call it simply ‘the article’.¹ In English, we have both a definite article (the) and an indefinite article (a/an); however, we should be mindful of not subconsciously imposing English grammar concepts upon the Greek.²

To explain the Greek syntax of John 1:1c, we will begin with a brief refresher course of English. Let’s assume Fred has recently been promoted to President of ZYX, Inc. following Ed’s retirement. So we can say:

Fred became President.

Here Fred is the subject, became is the verb, and President is the predicate. Both Fred and President are nouns. So, more specifically, Fred is the subject nominative (SN), while President is the predicate nominative (PN). The verb became (become, to become) is a copulative verb (CV), along with other verbs such as be, seem, etc.

In John 1:1c (kai Theos ēn ho Logos) Logos is determined to be the subject by both the local context—the Logos is the subject of the two previous sections (1:1a and 1:1b) as well as John 1:2—and, more importantly, by the presence of the article in front of Logos (making it arthrous) and the corresponding lack of the article in front of Theos (making it anarthrous). Thus, the ordering of 1:1c is PN (Theos), CV (ēn), SN (ho Logos).

Taking this in syntactical order and translating word-for-word, as literally as possible, we have God-was-the-Word. For English translation we would reorder SN-CV-PN: the-Word-was-God.

As one can readily see, Greek word order is flexible. Word order in Greek can be formatted to emphasize a particular word or clause and/or to signify a particular nuance.

With this background in mind, below I quote McClellan, beginning at 0:19 in his vlog:

The noun Theos there does not have the definite article and it is occurring before the ‘to be’ verb in a predicate nominative clause—an X-is-Y clause. And in the Greek of this time period, if a noun is referring to a specific agent that is either well known or has already been mentioned in close context, and both of these things would be true of the use of Theos in reference to the God of Israel, then it should carry the definite article, and without it, it is most likely being used qualitatively—in other words, to refer to some quality of the subject of the clause. And so here probably the best interpretation would be “and the Word was deity”.

If the Greek article had been present before both nouns in 1:1c, we would have a convertible proposition in which the SN = PN and the PN = SN. In other words, ho Logos would be identified as identical and interchangeable with ho Theos.³ Using our English example, it would be like stating Fred’s entire identity is wrapped up in being President of ZYX, Inc. But in 1:1b the Gospel writer had already established that there was another entity present with ho Logos, specifically ho Theos (in the accusative, direct object form ton Theon)—and the Word was with [‘the’] God. Thus, John did not use the article in front of Theos in 1:1c so as not to confuse with or contradict the use of ho Theos (again, in the accusative ton Theon) in 1:1b.

John’s ingeniousness is evident in his formatting of 1:1c. By ‘fronting’ Theos he emphasizes it, and without the article he makes Theos qualitative (anarthrous PN-CV-arthrous SN). As Westcott states:

The predicate (θεός) stands emphatically first . . . It is necessarily without the article (θεός, not ὁ θεός), inasmuch as it describes the nature of the Word and does not identify His Person . . . No idea of inferiority of nature is suggested by the form of expression, which simply affirms the true deity of the Word.⁴

Now I wish to address McClellan’s implicit claim that ho Theos in 1:1b (again, as ton Theon) is “in reference to the God of Israel”. I find this woefully deficient. In considering merely the prologue (John 1:1–18), it is clear that [ho] Theos generally refers to God the Father and that John’s focus is on the special relationship between the Father and the Son of God. This is especially evident in 1:14 (doxan hōs monogenous para patros, “glory as of a one-in-kind from [the] Father”) and, most of all, in 1:18 (Theon oudeis heōraken pōpote; monogenēs Theos[/Huios], ho ōn eis ton kolpon tou Patros ekeinos exēgēsato, “No one has ever seen God; the one-in-kind, God[/Son], who is in the bosom of the Father, that-one has revealed [Him]”).

Therefore, John 1:1c should be understood within this framework—ho Logos has the same essence/nature as ho Theos in 1:1b.

But perhaps I’m overreacting through misunderstanding? Maybe McClellan would agree with me on the above (while remaining in opposition to any Trinitarian understanding)?

Whatever the case, his rendering and the Word was deity has problems. A qualitative understanding is akin to the anarthrous noun Theos as acting adjectivally. As such, a possible rendering would be and the Word was Divine—with the capital “D” in “Divine” understood as connoting exclusivity over and differentiation from any other “divine” beings (or things). McClellan’s preferred “deity”, even if changed to “Deity” is problematic because this word is not ever used adjectivally. But, then again, “God” is not understood to function adjectivally in standard parlance either.

Yet, had John the Gospel writer wanted to use an adjective related to ho Theos, he could have used Theios (“D/divine”), which is found in Acts 17:29 and 2 Pet 1:3, 1:4. But that would have fallen short of the force of the construction John ultimately used.

Perhaps if McClellan would render ho Theos in 1:1b “the Deity”, I would be more inclined to accept “Deity” (capitalized) in 1:1c. As it stands right now, I stand with Wallace: “Although I believe that θεός in 1:1c is qualitative, I think the simplest and most straightforward translation is, ‘and the Word was God.’”⁵ Elsewhere, I render this “and the Word was by nature God.”⁶

_______________________________________

¹ Quoting Rodney J. Decker (Reading Koine Greek: An Introduction and Integrated Workbook [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2014]), “There is no such thing as a definite article in Greek—only an article that may or may not express definiteness. Likewise, the lack of an article is not necessarily an expression of indefiniteness but may express a qualitative meaning or some other nuance” (p 39). Cf. Wallace (Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996]) notes, “No one questions that the article is used frequently to definitize, but whether this captures the essential idea [of the article] is another matter” (p 209).

² See footnote above!

³ See A. T. Robertson (A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4^th ed. [Nashville, TN: Broadman, 1934], pp 767-768) who references this very clause, adding: “[W]hen the article occurs with the subject . . . and predicate, both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable” (p 768). Cf. Wallace, Grammar, pp 258, 268.

⁴ B. F. Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, Vol. 1 (London: John Murray, 1908), p 6 [http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015026844228;view=1up;seq=210;size=125].

⁵ Wallace, Grammar, p 269, note 31.

⁶ See The Son of God Given Authority to Judge Because He is ‘Human’: A Study in John 5:27, pt 6, Conclusion and Probing the Prologue in The Gospel According to John: John 1:1-2.

Filed under Bible, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Dan McClellan, Greek Language studies, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Pop Culture, Scripture, Trinity Tagged with anarthrous, And the Word was God, arthrous, B. F. Westcott, Christian Apologetics, Christianity, context, copulative verb, Dan McClellan, Daniel Wallace, english, God, Grammar, Greek article, John 1, John 1:1c, LDS, logos, predicate nominative, qualitative, qualitativeness, subject nominative, syntax, The Word, Theos, translation, Writing

Presently

January 28, 2024 5 Comments

We live in the ever-fleeting present.

As I type out the letters of the words in this sentence, each letter displays on the page, yet the action of typing each one recedes increasingly to the past. With each keystroke, previous strokes become further and further distant.

How can we graphically represent the present?

Imagine a number line. To the left of 0 (zero) are negative numbers, and to its right are positive numbers. Positive numbers indicate the future, negative the past. You and I are on zero on this ever-moving number line. We remain perpetually on zero—in the present.

We are never in the past or in the future. We may presently reminisce about the past or presently ponder the future. But we are always in the present—on zero.

God is omnipresent, everywhere present. There is nowhere God is not.

Omnipresence implies omnitemporality. In other words, God is not only everywhere present, God has been and will always be omnipresent. Thus, God is omnitemporal. God has been and will be omnipresent for all time. God exists omnitemporally.

God exists at everyplace on the number line all the time!

Filed under Bible, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Devotional, Philosophy, Scripture Tagged with Christianity, future, God, omnipresence, omnipresent, omnitemporal, omnitemporality, past, Present, presently, temporal, Time

For Whom the Bells Toll

November 17, 2023 1 Comment

The church bells suspend
yet the sound keeps blooming
out of the flowers

Throughout the West, in select towns and villages large and small, church bells beckon congregants on Sundays and Holy Days. The ringing bells reverberate down the streets and corridors, the streams and river beds, and in and through creation—both God’s and man’s.

Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad; let the sea and all it contains roar; let the fields and all that’s in them exult: then all the trees in the forest will joyfully shout before the LORD (Ps 96:11–13).

The bells toll for whom?

The heavens declare the glory of God; the sky proclaims His handiwork (Ps 19:1).

Opening this post is an adaptation of a Matsuo Bashō haiku.¹ Imbued with God’s radiance, the flowers, as all God’s creation, wait in anticipation for the coming emancipation—the glorious Day of the Lord (Rom 8:18–25).

For from the creation of the world, God’s invisible attributes—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made (Rom 1:20).

__________________________

¹ As translated by Robert Bly: The temple bell stops, but the sound keeps coming out of the flowers. The idea for this blog post arose from reading the liner notes to Arvo Pärt’s Arbos, ECM NEW SERIES 1325 (831-959-1), ©1987 ECM Records GmbH.

Filed under Bible, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Devotional, Eschatology, Faith, Gospel, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Redemption, Resurrection, Scripture Tagged with Bells, Creation, Creation groaning, Creation redeemed, Creation rejoicing, Day of the Lord, God, God's children, God's glory, Haiku, Matsuo Bashō, poetry, Robert Bly

Today an Eternal Present was Unveiled in the City of David

December 24, 2020 29 Comments

Merry Christmas!

₁₀ . . . The angel said to them, “Do not be afraid! Listen closely, for I proclaim to you good news of great joy for all the people: ₁₁ Today your Savior—Who is Christ the Lord—was born in the city of David.”¹

This is the day we celebrate the birth² of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ,³ Jesus the Christ, the Messiah.⁴

Joy to the world! / The Lord is come! / Let earth receive her King. / Let every heart prepare Him room / and heaven and nature sing.

A bit over two millennia ago, the eternal Word⁵ became the eternal-temporal Theanthrōpos,⁶ the God-man.⁷ Deity came in humility, clothed in humanity, born in Bethlehem. God the Father loved the world so much that He provided His one, unique Son⁸ as a sacrifice for us all, by ‘lifting Him up’ on the cross,⁹ so that everyone who believes in Him would not perish, but would gain eternal life,¹⁰ adopted as God’s children.¹¹ This entrance into eternality begins the very moment of initial belief¹² and will remain for the overcomers—those enduring until the end.¹³

This day we should, in reverential awe, commemorate this glorious, eternally present,¹⁴ eternal gift.¹⁵ We should remember this selfless, sacrificial gift¹⁶ every day—but especially today. Those temporal gifts we give and receive—largely in celebrations overshadowing the true meaning of this season, this day—those temporal gifts we exchange, some by compulsion, will perish. But not this gift. This gift, available to all, has already been given—at such cost!¹⁷ The Giver of this gift is Himself the Gift,¹⁸ Who seemingly perished forevermore after being crucified.¹⁹ Yet He rose again!²⁰ And He lives yet still.²¹

But this gift is more of an exchange—though a very one-sided one at that. To receive the gift of Jesus’ substitutionary atonement²²—in which He has already paid the due penalty for all mankind’s sins past, present, and future²³—one must repent,²⁴ turn to Jesus as Lord and Savior,²⁵ and then ‘take up one’s cross daily’.²⁶ This means obeying Jesus’ commandments²⁷ and following His path, to the point of physical death, if necessary.²⁸ However, even if following Christ directly results in temporal death (which is an inevitable eventuality whether following Him or not) one receives the much more valuable eternal life. Yet, even more, as part of this exchange one receives God’s indwelling Spirit²⁹—the Holy Spirit, the paraklētos,³⁰ the Spirit of Truth³¹—in Whom one possesses both the navigational compass and the strength to endure His pathway.

Yet Jesus’ requirements are not burdensome.³² When the Christ-follower inevitably sins³³—and one easily does so when living by one’s own strength rather than by and in the Spirit³⁴—He is quick to forgive the penitent.³⁵

To those who believe in and follow the Messiah, His Resurrection guarantees this eternal present;³⁶ but, it was the conception³⁷ and subsequent birth³⁸ of the Eternal-temporal³⁹ providing the necessary precursor. As Christians, as Christ-followers, let us remember this day for the momentous and joyous occasion it was and is: the arrival of the Gospel in the Gift wrapped in strips of cloth lying in a manger.⁴⁰ To those with opened eyes He was unveiled.⁴¹ To the blind He remained veiled, but to those blind subsequently receiving sight He was revealed.⁴²

Let us not be side-tracked by the temporality of contemporary glitz and glamour. Let us not take this day for granted. Let us take it to heart. Let us take its inherent message to the outer extremities.⁴³ Let us be God’s instruments through which this Gift is unveiled, blind eyes opened.

The world awaits.⁴⁴

——–

(If you think you might be experiencing a case of déjà vu, you are not exactly wrong. This is a lightly revised and slightly expanded version of an article I posted on Christmas day last year.)

__________________________

¹ Luke 2:10-11, my translation.
² It is very unlikely, though, that December 25 is the actual day Jesus was born. See When was Jesus Born?
³ Luke 2:10-11; Matthew 1:25; cf. Micah 5:2.
⁴ John 1:41; 4:25.
⁵ John 1:1.
⁶ From Theos = God, anthrōpos = man.
⁷ John 1:14.
⁸ John 1:14; 3:16.
⁹ John 3:14 (cf. Numbers 21:8-9); John 12:32-33.
¹⁰ John 3:16-17; Romans 5:8; Ephesians 2:4; 1John 4:9-10.
¹¹ John 1:12.
¹² John 5:24-25.
¹³ Matthew 24:13; Revelation 2:7, 10-11, 17, 26-28; 3:5, 10-12, 19-21; 14:12.
¹⁴ John 1:1-3; Colossians 1:16-17; Hebrews 1:2-3.
¹⁵ Revelation 13:8; cf. Revelation 17:8. There is ambiguity in the syntax of the Greek in 13:8. Is it that the Lamb was slain before the foundation of the world (KJV, NIV, e.g.), or is it that certain names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world (ESV, NASB, e.g.)? [This implies there are yet others who were written in the book of life from the foundation of the world (cf. Rev 3:5).] One could harmonize this with the words whose names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world from 17:8 to resolve this, yet it seems difficult to have a book of life without the Life Giver’s substitutionary atonement (Hebrews 2:17) having been provided first. So maybe both are true? Resolution is not even found in John the Baptizer’s words in John 1:29 regarding the “Lamb of God” (cf. Rev 5:6-14), for the verb airōn, takes away, is a present active participle, which grammatically indicates durative action (imperfective aspect), but the temporal reference is unclear. Is it yet-future from the Baptizer’s words (in then-current context looking forward to the cross), or is John stating that it is already in effect? Relatedly, this verb airō can connote being taken ‘up’ as well as taken away, which can provide a bit of—likely intended—double entendre, polysemy. In other words, sins are taken up/away as He is taken up/away. This double meaning likely applies—unknowingly by the speakers and in ironical fashion with the benefit of hindsight—in John 19:15 when “the Jews” (hoi Ioudaioi) responded to Pilate’s statement “Here is your king!” with aron aron, staurōson auton, “Take up/away, take up/away; crucify him!” Their command resulted in Him being glorified (John 12:23; 13:31-32; 17:1) and thereby receiving the name above every name (Philippians 2:9-11; cf. What Did Pilate State in John 19:22?: Conclusion).
¹⁶ Philippians 2:5-8.
¹⁷ Hebrews 2:9-18; 4:15. Each and every one of us—at and beyond the age of accountability, at the least—has played his/her part in lifting Him up on that cross.
¹⁸ John 11:25; 14:6.
¹⁹ Matthew 27:48-50; Mark 15:36-37; Luke 23:36; John 19:28-30.
²⁰ Matthew 28:1-15; Mark 16:1-8[20]; Luke 24:1-49; John 2:19-22; 10:17-18; 20:1-31; 1Corinthians 15:1-4.
²¹ Revelation 1:18.
²² Hebrews 2:14-18.
²³ Romans 3:25-26; Hebrews 9:11-15, 26-28; 10:12, 19-24.
²⁴ Matthew 4:17; Luke 3:8-14; Acts 2:38; 3:19; Romans 2:4.
²⁵ But this cannot be done in one’s own strength; see the words of Jesus in John 6:44: No one is able to come to Me unless the Father, the One Who sent Me, draws him[/her].
²⁶ Matthew 10:38-39; 16:24-26; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23-24; 14:27; John 12:25-26.
²⁷ Matthew 4:17; 22:37-39; Mark 12:30-31; John 8:31-32; 13:34/15:12; 15:10; James 2:8-11; 1John 5:3.
²⁸ Matthew 16:24-26. See What did Jesus mean when He said, “Take up your cross and follow Me”?
²⁹ John 3:3-8; 14:17; Romans 8:15-17; 1Corinthians 2:12; 3:16; 6:19; 2Corinthians 6:16.
³⁰ John 14:15-16:15; Acts 1:8; 2:1-39; 1John 4:1-6. See also Who is the Holy Spirit?
³¹ John 14:17; 15:26; 16:13; 1John 4:6; 5:6.
³² Matthew 11:28-30; 1John 5:3.
³³ 1John 1:8-10.
³⁴ Galatians 5:16-26; 1John 1:6-8.
³⁵ Hebrews 10:22-23; 1John 1:9-2:2.
³⁶ 1Corinthians 15:20-23.
³⁷ Luke 1:34-35.
³⁸ Luke 2:1-7.
³⁹ John 1:1, 14.
⁴⁰ Luke 2:10-12.
⁴¹ Luke 2:8-20.
⁴² John 9:1-41; 2Corinthians 3:14-18.
⁴³ Matthew 28:19-20.
⁴⁴ John 3:16-21, 31-36; Romans 8:18-27.

Filed under Bible, born again, Christ, Christian Apologetics, Christian Culture, Christian living, Christology, Eschatology, Gospel, Holy Spirit, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Missions, Passion, Repentance, Resurrection, Salvation, Scripture, sin, The Cross Tagged with Bethlehem, Christ, Christ the Lord, Christmas, City of David, eternal life, God, Great Commission, Joy to the World, King, Lamb of God, Merry Christmas, Messiah, paraklētos, Savior, Spirit of Truth, Substitutionary Atonement, Take up your Cross, The Word, Theanthrōpos

Who Led the Exodus? – A Text Critical Study in Jude 5

May 10, 2014 29 Comments

18 So God led the people around by the desert road toward the Red Sea. The Israelites went up out of Egypt ready for battle.
19 Moses took the bones of Joseph with him because Joseph had made the Israelites swear an oath. He had said, “God will surely come to your aid, and then you must carry my bones up with you from this place.”
20 After leaving Sukkoth they camped at Etham on the edge of the desert 21 By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night. 22 Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people. [Exodus 13:18-22, NIV]

In reading the Scripture above, it is clear that it was God / the LORD (YHWH) who led the nation Israel out of Egypt “in a pillar of a cloud” by day and “in a pillar of fire” by night. The New Testament book of Jude makes reference to this same event, with the author using it to make his own theological point in his short epistle:

5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. [NIV]

5 But I want to remind you, though you once knew this, that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe. [NKJV]

5 Now I desire to remind you, though you know all things once for all, that the Lord, after saving a people out of the land of Egypt, subsequently destroyed those who did not believe. [NASB]

These translations all vary a bit but are consistent in their use of “the Lord.” Here “the Lord” is (seemingly) used just like it is in Exodus 13:21 above as another designation for God / YHWH. But let’s look at this same verse in Jude in the English Standard Version (ESV):

5 Now I want to remind you, although you once fully knew it, that Jesus, who saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed those who did not believe.

How can it be that Jesus led the Exodus? He wasn’t even to be incarnated/born until many years later! The ESV (as well as NLT and NET) must be wrong, right? Not necessarily. This is where the discipline of NT textual criticism (TC) comes into play.

Noted in a few other articles on this site is the fact that there are upwards of 6000 extant NT manuscripts (hereafter mss for plural; ms for singular), from scraps to complete New Testaments. Yet there are some variations due to scribal error or well-meaning “corrections.” We must keep in mind that up until the advent of the printing press in the mid-15th century the only way to copy any document was by hand, and this is where variations have occurred (not that even modern day printing processes are immune from errors, of course).

Following is a brief investigation of this variant in Jude 5. First we’ll assess the external evidence, the task of comparing extant mss with each other, with a focus on date, character and text-type. Then we’ll proceed to the internal evidence – (1) looking at transcriptional probabilities related to scribes, endeavoring to determine the reading most likely original, and (2) assessing the feasibility of the chosen variant’s originality in view of its suitability with the author of Jude’s style, the context, etc.

External Evidence

While there are other textual variations within this same verse (as one can see from the four different translations cited above which vary at points), of more importance theologically is the focus of this current article, namely the main subject of this verse. Following is a brief rundown of the known variants:¹

• ὁ κύριος (ho kyrios), the Lord (two mss delete the article ὁ)

• Ἰησοῦς (Iēsous), Jesus (two mss include ὁ)

• ὁ θεός (ho Theos), {the} God

• θεὸς Χριστός (Theos Christos), God Christ/Messiah, or Christ/Messiah God (which may have been intended as θεοῦ χριστός (Theou Christos), God’s anointed one)

How does the text critic choose? We’ll perform an abbreviated investigation by looking at some of the more important mss. In general, earlier mss are to be preferred over later ones within a given text-type, though there are many other factors too numerous to enumerate for our limited purposes here.

The mss reflecting ὁ κύριος (the Lord) are the most numerous. The large majority of mss evidencing this reading is from what is known as the Byzantine (Byz) text-type, dated 5th century and later, though here none are earlier than the 9th century.² The relative consistency in this particular text-type, especially later mss, however, may well be attributed to copyists being more careful in their transcriptional habits during the Byzantine era, replicating more faithfully both presumably correct readings and earlier errors. Another characteristic of the Byz is a smoother text grammatically (presumed purposefully amended by scribes, according to some text critics). There are two mss omitting the article ὁ (the) in front of κύριος, both of which are of the Alexandrian text-type, the one typically asserted to be superior to the other texts by NT textual critics (rightly or wrongly). One of these is the ms designated ℵ (Aleph, the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet), aka Sinaiticus (01), dated to the 4th century (perhaps approx. 325 – 375). The other is Ψ (044) from the 9th c. A reading including ℵ (01) is generally considered to be reliable by many text critics. In addition, there is one extant Syriac version (translation from the Greek) with this reading (7th c.). Overall, this is good, or very good evidence.

The mss with the reading of Ἰησοῦς (Jesus) include A (02), aka Alexandrinus (5th c.), B (03), aka Vaticanus (4th c., perhaps 325 – 375), 33 (9th c.), 1739 (10th c.), 1881 (14th c.). These five are Alexandrian, with B considered by many to be superior to all or most other extant mss.³ Two readings in the Western text-type are extant, though both include the article (88, 12th c.; 915, undated). Importantly, Ἰησοῦς is also included in Coptic versions dated to the 4th – 5th and 9th centuries, and this reading is included in the Latin Vulgate as well. There are also a few early church figures whose works include this reading: Origen, Cyril, Jerome, and Bede.⁴ This is very good evidence, and arguably stronger than the evidence for κύριος by most standards of TC, in view of its multiple Alexandrian mss support, particularly B (02) and A (01), early versional evidence, and its more diverse geographical distribution.

The other two readings are not well attested and will not be specifically delineated. The θεὸς Χριστός (God Christ) variant is an anomaly, an obvious blunder, extant solely in one ms, while ὁ θεός (God) is found only in a relative few mss, most of which are late.

As stated, on the whole, the mss evidence slightly favors Ἰησοῦς as original. However, it needs to be mentioned that many would find an agreement of the Alexandrian B (03) with ℵ (01) by itself fully persuasive (rightly or wrongly), and obviously the two have contradictory readings here. Moreover, there’s a very small minority of NT text critics who place a greater value on the Byz mss than the generally more highly lauded Alexandrine, and with the split readings of Ἰησοῦς and κύριος within the Alexandrian mss, one with this view may well favor ὁ κύριος instead.⁵

This concludes our brief survey of the external evidence, now we’ll turn to the internal evidence, first investigating how nomina sacra, Latin for sacred names (singular nomen sacrum), may have influenced copyists in our chosen passage.

Internal Evidence: Habits of Scribes

Nomina sacra were used for certain names or epithets such as God, Jesus, Christ, Lord, etc. A typical practice was to take the first letter of the word reflecting the sacred name, pair it with the last letter or the second letter of the word (and sometimes more than two characters were used), and add a straight line over the resulting contractions. This practice began in the early church, adopted when the Greek text was written in majuscule – essentially all capital letters. The text itself was handwritten in block letters with no breaks between words, sentences, or even paragraphs. This would provide a real challenge for the copyist (and the reader)!

However, though NT mss are in evidence with nomina sacra, we’ve no basis to assert with any certitude that the original NT text actually contained these designations. It could be that these iconic contractions were in fact original to the NT text, or it could be that the nomina sacra were introduced by later copyists, perhaps as a way of displaying reverence.

Following are the relevant nomina sacra for our chosen text in Jude 5:

Jesus: Ίησου̃ϛ, ΊΗCΟΥC = Ι͞C

Lord: κύριοϛ, ΚΥΡΙΟC = K͞C

God: θεός, ΘΕΟC = Θ͞C

As Metzger notes, F. J. A. Hort (of Westcott and Hort fame) hypothesized that “the original text had only ὁ (the article, the), and that OTIO was read as OTIΙ͞C and perhaps as OTIK͞C…”⁶ To explain, ὅτι (OTI) is the Greek word translated that (or because), which precedes the article ὁ (O) in this context, and Hort conjectured that the article was alone in the original text either as a substantive (with the verb σώσας, sosas, from sozo, as in “He who redeems”⁷), or with the subject assumed given the context (with the referent going back to Jude 4’s κύριοϛ / Ίησου̃ϛ Χριστός⁸).⁹ Let’s try to work out Hort’s hypothesis:

• OTIO {OTI | O } (that the) was misread as OTII̅C̅ {OTI | Ι͞C}, with the combination “IO” (the “I” being the last letter of “OTI” in combination with the following “O,” the article) read as “IIC” as a result of dittography – the error of reading an extra character through duplication – in which an extra “I” was placed between “I” and “O” and with the final “O” mistaken for a “C,” resulting in OTI + I + C = OTIIC, transcribed as OTIΙ͞C, thereby erroneously dropping the original O (article) by replacing it with Ι͞C.

• OTIO {OTI | O} was misread as OTIK͞C {OTI | K͞C}, perhaps with the following or similar scenario: the combination “IO” was read with an extra “I” in the middle through dittography (OTIIO) (or a previous copyist had already inadvertently added the “I”) while assuming, in addition, that this second “I” was the vertical portion of a split “K” and the following “O” read as the remainder of this split “K”¹⁰ plus a “C” was also added in a second mistake of dittography (OTI + K + C). In other words, OTI + O was read with an extra “I” in the middle resulting in OTI + I + O plus an extra C was added at the end resulting OTI + I + O + C, which was read as OTI + (I+C) + C = OTI + K + C, resulting in OTIKC, and then transcribed as OTIK͞C, thereby erroneously dropping the O (article) by replacing it with K͞C. [WHEW!]

Of the two, the first of these seems more plausible, for it requires a lesser amount of mistakes (the addition of one “I” through dittography while mistaking the article “O” for a “C”). The second appears to require quite a ‘comedy of errors’ in order achieve the result; however, this second scenario could more easily arise from the error of the first, with a subsequent copyist mistaking OTIΙ͞C for OTIK͞C (seeing “IC” as a “K”, then the “C” duplicated through dittography), resulting in a compounding of mistakes.

Of course, the much less complex, and more likely argument could be made that a copyist simply erroneously or purposely substituted the Ι͞C in his exemplar (the ms from which he was copying) for K͞C, or the reverse of K͞C for Ι͞C, whether or not the article (O) was preceding the nomen sacrum. (The O could have been inadvertently added or deleted, or purposely added in any of the variants above – scribes were less likely to purposely delete the article.) This then would more easily account for the variant readings of Ίησου̃ϛ and κύριοϛ. A similar error can account for the reading of θεὸς (Θ͞C), with Θ͞C substituted for either Ι͞C or K͞C (and Θ͞C could feasibly be factored into Hort’s conjecturing above).

As for determining which individual reading is likely original, there are a few tenets in TC such that the text critic should prefer:

(a) the more ‘difficult’ reading
(b) shorter readings over longer ones, except in the case of presumed or obvious intentional or unintentional omission (and, possibly, unless the longer is more difficult)
(c) a verbally dissident reading (one not harmonizing well with other associated text) as compared to a verbally consonant one
(d) the reading which most likely accounts for the arising of the others.

Clearly Ίησου̃ϛ (Ι͞C) is the more difficult reading, i.e., the harder reading from the scribe’s perspective, as the more natural reading would be either κύριοϛ (K͞C) or θεός (Θ͞C). With Ίησου̃ϛ in the text, we have Jesus leading the Exodus – a ‘difficult’ reading, most certainly.

One variant is not demonstrably longer or shorter than another (save the longer θεὸς Χριστός, which is an obvious anomaly), so this tenet does not come into play. We’ve covered some potential omissions and/or additions, but nothing seems to present itself as more obvious than another, including the presence or absence of the article, which is not an uncommon variant in general. Item (c) is much like (a) here, as Jude 5 is, as mentioned just above, an obvious paraphrasing of the Exodus, and Ίησου̃ϛ (Ι͞C) is clearly a verbally dissident reading.

If the difficult reading of Ίησου̃ϛ (Ι͞C) is original, it is easy to conceive of subsequent copyists amending the text to something more ‘probable,’ assuming their exemplar was in error, thereby accounting for κύριοϛ and θεός cropping into the text (and even θεὸς Χριστός). It is much less probable for a scribe to change either κύριοϛ (K͞C) or θεός (Θ͞C) to Ίησου̃ϛ (Ι͞C), because Ίησου̃ϛ (Ι͞C) would be perceived as too difficult, unless it was changed due to a very thoughtless transcriptional error. Therefore, Ίησου̃ϛ is most likely the reading from which the others arose (d).

However, the UBS (United Bible Society) committee – the committee which determines the text of the UBS, the Greek text underlying most modern Bible translations (though translation committees can and do override some selections) – largely felt that Ίησου̃ϛ, though well attested externally, was “difficult to the point of impossibility,” explaining that K͞C must have been misread as Ι͞C.¹¹ But this begs the question: Wouldn’t a scribe most likely have been taken aback by the difficult reading of Ι͞C, and, hence, double-checked his exemplar before placing it into his copy? In fact, two (Bruce Metzger and Alan Wikgren) of the five members dissented from the majority opinion regarding this variant, stating in a bracketed note in the associated commentary:

Critical principles seem to require the adoption of Ίησου̃ϛ, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses…Struck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt (yet compare Paul’s use of Χριστός in 1 Cor 10.4), copyists would have substituted (ὁ) κύριος or ὁ θεός…¹²

This lack of agreement among the committee members resulted in a “D” rating given for the variant, meaning “that the Committee had great difficulty in arriving at a decision” over which reading should be placed into the text.¹³

On the other hand, one may argue that it is possible that a scribe had amended a reading to reflect his own theological view. For example, upon seeing K͞C in the text, the scribe could have changed it to Ι͞C in order to promote a higher Christology, perhaps, e.g., due to a then-current heresy denying Jesus Christ’s preexistence. However, it would seem that if a scribe were inclined to take this sort of liberty he may well place the complete Ι͞CΧ͞C (Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Jesus Christ) in the text instead, in order to increase the likelihood that his change would continue on, rather than leaving open the possibility of a future scribal error of confusing Ι͞C for K͞C, thus reverting back to the reading initially found in his exemplar.¹⁴ In any case, though this scenario is possible it is not likely, as most text critics have found that deliberate emendations were well-meaning “corrections,” not purposeful distortions to further individual agendas.¹⁵ Generally, as noted above, most agree that scribes were not likely to place more difficult readings into the text.

Considering all the mss evidence, particularly scribal transcriptional probabilities, Ἰησοῦς (Ι͞C) is most likely the original reading for Jude 5.

Internal Evidence: Style of Jude and Fittingness to the Context

Now, having concluded that Ίησου̃ϛ is the most probable original reading by analyzing both the external evidence and the internal evidence of the mss, we turn to whether the writer of Jude would have used this admittedly difficult text. We’ll look at the overall context and Jude’s style to make our determination, first looking at the immediate context, going back to verse 4 and its relation to verse 5. However, there’s an important variant in Jude 4 commanding our brief attention, though it is beyond the scope of this article to conduct a full investigation.

Immediate Context

A typical reading in the Byz text in translation in verse 4 is “who turn the grace of our God into lewdness and deny the only Lord God and our Lord Jesus Christ” (NKJV), with “God” just after the first “Lord.” This first “Lord” is δεσπότηϛ (despotēs) in the Greek, and usually refers to God in the NT, though, importantly, 2 Peter 2:1 applies this to Jesus Christ as Redeemer, and Luke (13:25) puts the very similar οἰκοδεσπότης¹⁶ on Jesus’ lips in a parable obviously referring to Himself in a similar fashion. The second “Lord” (kύριοϛ) is the one most usually associated with Jesus in the NT, though it is also used for “God.” There are many extant Alexandrian mss containing this passage, with none evidencing the second “God” (θεός) in the text; in fact, by current TC practices the reading is overwhelmingly decisive (mss include: P⁷⁸ {3rd to 4th c.} ℵ A B C Ψ 33 81 1739 + cop {Coptic}) against the Byz (with the earliest ms from the 9th c.). Most textual critics are of the opinion that the Byz text added “God” to alleviate referring to Jesus by this particular term.

A representative Alexandrian reading is reflected in the ESV: “who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.” Note that in place of two separate Members of the Trinity (or the Trinity and Jesus) in the latter part of this verse as in the NKJV, the ESV associates the two epithets “Master” (δεσπότηϛ) and “Lord” (κύριοϛ) with Jesus Christ instead. The difference, then, is of significance. For our purposes here we’ll adopt the NA²⁸/UBS⁴ text, as reflected in the ESV and most modern translations.

To add credence to our position that Jude ascribed δεσπότηϛ to Jesus, the term is defined in the BDAG as one who has legal control and authority over persons, such as subjects or slaves.¹⁷ Of course, the NT is abounding with references to Christians as slaves, and Jude refers to himself as a slave/servant (δοῦλος, doulos) of Jesus Christ in his introduction, as was common. Bauckham notes that the term “is appropriate to the image of Jesus as the Master of his household of slaves,” citing the 2 Peter and Luke verses above, though also noting that κύριοϛ was more numerously applied to Jesus Christ, having “acquired much broader and more exalted connotations” including possessing the authority for divine judgment.¹⁸ Applying both terms to Jesus Christ would provide a powerful means of conveying His divine power and authority as Lord/Master, Redeemer, Keeper, and Judge – all functions the author of Jude applies to Jesus, as we shall see.

With this established as our base text for verse 4, it is plausible, if not probable, that the writer of Jude was carrying over the subject – Jesus Christ – from verse 4 into verse 5. However, in verse 5 the context demands an interpretation such that the subject was present during the Exodus, meaning that placing Ίησου̃ϛ into the text would explicitly assert that the pre-incarnate Jesus was the instrument of the nation Israel’s deliverance out of Egypt. This, of course, would necessarily include the claim of Jesus’ preexistence. Is this really probable in the immediate context and the whole of Jude’s epistle? Let’s investigate further.

Verse 5’s initial subordinate clause “though you already know all this” (NIV) may refer, not just to the Exodus passage, but to Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 10:1-5 corresponding to the Exodus passage – or at least the theology behind that passage.¹⁹ More specifically, the writer of Jude may have verse 10:4 in mind, “…for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ” (NIV).

Taking this more broadly, 1 Corinthians 10:3-4 speaks of spiritual food (manna) and spiritual drink (the water from the rock), with this sustenance provided by Christ (cf. John 6 for Jesus Himself as the manna). As Blomberg expounds, “From a Christian perspective, Paul recognizes Christ as the pre-existent Son of God, active with God the Father in creation and redemption, and hence the agent of both physical and spiritual nourishment for his people in the desert (v. 4b).”²⁰ If this is Jude’s referent, then this correlates quite nicely with his greeting to those who “are kept by Jesus Christ”²¹ (v 1), as well as his closing doxology (vv 24-25) “to him who is able to keep you…through Jesus Christ our Lord” – thus bookending his epistle with an emphasis on Jesus Christ’s power, as agent, to redeem and sustain His people.

Certainly we can see a correlation between Paul’s use of Christ as Sustainer and Jude’s use of Christ as Keeper; but, does Jude expressly proclaim Jesus’ preexistence elsewhere in his epistle? Yes he does. In the doxology, we find Jude explicitly calling God “our Savior” (σωτήρ, sotēr) (v 25) with Jesus Christ the mediator of that salvation (vv 24-25) before all time. Murray J. Harris translates verse 25 as: to the only God, our Savior, is glory, majesty, power, and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all time, and now, and for ever and ever.²² Harris then adds:

“Glory, majesty, power, and authority” belonged to God through Jesus Christ “before time began”…that is, in eternity past, and these attributes belong to God at present (νῦν) and will do so “to all eternity”…/”for evermore.” This unique eternal mediatorial work of Christ in ascribing all glory, majesty, power, and authority to God implies both his preexistence and his deity.²³

We’ve now established how Jude proclaims Jesus’ preexistence elsewhere in his epistle, thereby removing this particular barrier for placing Ίησου̃ϛ into Jude 5; but, if Jesus was ‘merely’ the agent of the Father in the nation Israel’s redemption (as Blomberg asserts above) as well as our own, is Ίησου̃ϛ still too strong for the context of verse 5? In other words, given that Jesus is acting as agent of the Father, is it improper to state that it was Jesus who led the Exodus? No it is not. As an analogy, under US contract law an employee given the authority to sign contracts for the business owner is acting “as agent” for the owner. Any agreement entered into by this employee is legally binding on the owner and third parties to the contract, as long as the employee is acting within the scope of authority given by the owner. The owner’s power and authority has been conferred onto the employee in such instances. Under the eyes of the law, this signor is seen as having the same authority and power as the owner, which is then binding on all parties to the contract. In the same way, Jesus Christ, as agent of the Father, has the same authority and power as the Father and is, in effect, acting as the Father.

Having illustrated that the immediate context does not preclude the use Ίησου̃ϛ in verse 5, and, in fact, can be supported by Jude’s proclamation of Jesus’ preexistence in the doxology, along with a proper understanding of Jesus’ acting “as agent” of the Father, we turn to the larger context and overall style of this epistle.

Overall Context and Style of Jude

A particularly important theme of the book of Jude is judgment, both its positive aspect of redemption, and its negative aspect of destruction. That Jesus would be portrayed as both the Redeemer and the Judge dispensing eternal judgment is consistent with NT theology (cf. Mat 24:30-31; John 5:21-22, 24-25, 27-30; etc.). As noted above, in Jude Jesus Christ is both the Redeemer and the one who keeps the redeemed (vv 1, 24-25), though some are want to rebel against His authority (v 8), mixing in with those He is ‘keeping’ (v 4). Yet Jesus Christ allows, by His mercy, through the vessels of the redeemed (v 22-23), those of these who repent to become part of the fold. This brings us to a very important point in our analysis, which is found in verse 14, for it’s those who yet continue to rebel who will reap eschatological judgment by the eternal Judge.

Jude references the well-known (at that time) pseudepigraphical work known as 1 Enoch in Jude 14-15.²⁴ In verse 14 the text is changed from θεὸς in its source (1 Enoch 1:9) to kύριοϛ, “…the Lord is coming…”²⁵ This is significant, as Jude uses kύριοϛ exclusively for Jesus Christ in his epistle, as opposed to God, meaning that Jude has most likely changed 1 Enoch’s eschatological Judge from a Jewish monotheistic conception of God to Jesus Christ here.²⁶ To see how Jude reserves kύριοϛ for Jesus Christ, observe how he uses this term in conjunction with the full designation of Jesus Christ in verses 4 (along with δεσπότηϛ), 17, 21, and 25, yet in these very same verses Jude references God, but not as kύριοϛ.²⁷ Thus, while in verse 14 kύριοϛ stands alone, almost assuredly Jesus is the intended referent.²⁸ Given the other evidence presented above, such as Jesus being portrayed as eternal Keeper, Redeemer, etc. we’ll adopt the position that Jude’s intention was, in fact, to make this distinction, as this appears the most probable understanding, given the full context of his epistle.

Looking at verses 5 through 19 as a whole, we will see how Jude has masterfully taken OT and extra-biblical references and (re)interpreted them Christologically, i.e., Jude has changed the referent in the original works from God to Jesus Christ.²⁹ First, it’s important to understand that, by the full context of verses 5 through 19, the main subject is Jesus Christ (carried over from verse 4). That is, the subject of verse 5 runs through the intervening context, and that subject is Jesus Christ (see v 17), as confirmed through Jude’s alteration of θεὸς in 1 Enoch to kύριοϛ in Jude 14. And, of course, we’re arguing in the current article that Jude has changed the reference in Exodus from God / the Lord / YHWH to Ίησου̃ϛ in verse 5.³⁰ In verse 9 there is a presumed reference to an apocryphal (non-canonical) book known as The Assumption of Moses, in the words regarding the dispute between Michael the archangel and the devil over the body of Moses;³¹ and it stands to reason that Jude refers to Jesus in verse 9 as well with “The Lord rebuke you!”³² That is, Jude here likely means for us to understand “the Lord” as referencing Jesus, since the overall context of this section strongly implies such an interpretation.³³

Having found both the immediate context of Jude 5, and the larger context of Jude’s epistle as a whole, as well as the style of the writer (his altering of “God” in ~~OT and~~ an extra-Biblical text to kύριοϛ, coupled with his exclusive usage of kύριοϛ for Jesus Christ, for example) consistent with a reading of Ίησου̃ϛ for verse 5, there is good reason to accept Ίησου̃ϛ as the original text.

Conclusion

The mss evidence indicates that either Ίησου̃ϛ or kύριοϛ is original to the text of Jude 5, with Ίησου̃ϛ slightly favored. However, by our analysis, employing common principles of TC, the internal evidence of the mss points rather decisively to Ίησου̃ϛ as the original reading. Taking the immediate and larger context of Jude’s epistle, it’s clear that Jesus is the subject of verse 5; hence, we could conclude that Ίησου̃ϛ is most likely the original reading.

On the other hand, Jude also uses kύριοϛ exclusively for Jesus; in fact, as noted above, in four separate contexts the terms kύριοϛ and Ἰησοῦς Χριστός are used together (vv 4, 17, 21, 25), underscoring this. This means that either Ίησου̃ϛ or kύριοϛ would be appropriate in the context. Moreover, kύριοϛ is employed in two other instances as a stand-alone term for Jesus (v 14 assuredly and v 9 presumably). If we accept our conclusion above that Ίησου̃ϛ is original, this would leave only one instance of Jude’s usage of Ίησου̃ϛ as a stand-alone. While this is certainly possible, as one cannot dogmatically assert that Jude could not have done so, the aforementioned can cast a bit of doubt over just which term Jude placed in the text originally.³⁴ Thus, while we’ve argued here for the originality of Ίησου̃ϛ for Jude 5, it seems that others could argue for kύριοϛ, based on different TC practices,³⁵ and on the presumed difficulty of placing Ίησου̃ϛ in the text,³⁶ as evidenced by the split in the UBS committee above.

However, F. F. Bruce puts everything in proper perspective, so we’ll quote him at some length:

…[S]ome authorities read “the Lord”, others “God” and yet others, giving us no name at all, read “he who saved….”…But the principle that the more difficult reading is to be preferred points to “Jesus” as the original, and indeed the variety of other readings can best be explained as substitutions for “Jesus”…It was Moses who led his people out of Egypt, but Moses did so under superior leadership. It was the Lord who “brought the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt by their host”, it was the Lord who “went before them”, and it was by the decree of the Lord that the “evil generation” that came out of Egypt died in the wilderness. While Yahweh stands in the Hebrew text, the Greek version used by Jude, as by other New Testament writers, had Kyrios in its place, and for Greek-speaking Christians to whom Jesus was the kyrios or Lord par excellence it was an easy matter to understand Kyrios in the Greek Old Testament to refer to Him…³⁷

Ίησου̃ϛ IS the Kύριοϛ and the Kύριοϛ IS Ίησου̃ϛ! Also, in the relevant Exodus passages, the original Hebrew alternated between Elohim and YHWH, with the LXX (Septuagint, Greek translation of the OT) alternating between ~~Kύριοϛ and θεὸς~~ θεὸς and Kύριοϛ; therefore, it could well be that Jude used Ίησου̃ϛ in order to alleviate any ambiguity that kύριοϛ may have caused, especially among his Jewish readers and congregants.

In conclusion, had the UBS committee been consistent in employing its own tenets of TC, their “great difficulty in arriving at a decision” would have been alleviated, and Ίησου̃ϛ would have been firmly placed into the text.³⁸

– “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one” (Deuteronomy 6:4 / Mark 12:29)

_____________________________________

¹ The information here is, as is most of the technical information contained in this article, culled from Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 2008); Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2nd ed. (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1994); B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, et. al. eds. The Greek New Testament, 4th rev. ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society), 2004), hereafter UBS⁴; and Eberhard and Erwin Nestle Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th rev. ed., B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, et. al. eds. (Münster: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society), 2012), hereafter NA²⁸.
Information of a more general nature relies in part on J. Harold Greenlee, Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995) and idem. The Text of the New Testament: From Manuscript to Modern Edition (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2008).
² This includes the uncials (majuscules) K (018) and L (020), both dated 9th c., mss identified specifically in the UBS⁴ but not listed in the NA28. Majuscules were eventually superseded by miniscules – scripted, lower-case writing. Majuscules (uncials) are weighted more heavily than miniscules in TC due to their earlier provenance. It’s important to note that about 80% of the Byz text mss are miniscules dated later than the 11th century, of course, well after – over 1000 years after – the initial transmission of the NT documents. This 80% figure is found in Maurice A. Robinson, “Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the ‘Test Tube’ Nature of NA²⁷/UBS⁴ Text: A Byzantine-Priority Perspective,” in Translating the New Testament: Text, Translation, Theology, Stanley E. Porter and Mark J. Boda, eds. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2009), p 57 n 102.
³ An example of this preference may be found in what seems to be a general rather than specific statement, at least with respect to the Gospels, by Barbara Aland (“The Text of Luke 16” in Translating the New Testament): “…the Byzantine text is…a good old text, but it has a number of bad readings and we have to eliminate them and then the text is a good old text. That means that if the Byzantine text agrees with P⁷⁵ and Vaticanus, then it’s a trustworthy witness. That’s my position” (p 93). Of course, P⁷⁵ does not include our selection in Jude, or anything in this epistle, as it contains solely portions of the Gospels.
⁴ Though one must be careful not to put too much weight on patristic sources, since all extant mss are themselves copies of copies. In addition, we do not know if the patristic writer had an actual NT Greek mss in front of him, or if he was quoting from memory (correctly or not), loosely translating, paraphrasing, etc. Moreover, it’s more probable (as compared to NT scribes) that copyists of patristic exemplars made changes to the documents in Scriptural passages, conforming them to the individual copyist’s perspective of what the NT text should be. In short, until the patristic sources themselves have been submitted to the tenets of TC, they should only be used for NT TC with an appropriate amount of caution. See Greenlee Introduction, pp 46-47; cf. idem. Text of the New Testament, pp 34-35. However, the UBS⁴ claims to have been careful in this area, including only those fulfilling qualifying criteria: “…The citation must be capable of verification…” and it “must relate clearly to a specific passage in the New Testament…” (p 30*). Cf. pp 30* – 38*.
⁵ The most notable text critic adhering to this position is Maurice A. Robinson, who would certainly assert that the evidence for ὁ κύριοϛ is stronger. Robinson goes so far as to argue for Byzantine priority, i.e., that the Byz is superior to the Alexandrine, with the Byz more likely closer to the original text. See Robinson, “The Case for Byzantine Priority” in Rethinking New Testament Textual Criticism, David Alan Black, ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2002), pp 125-139; idem. “Rule 9, Isolated Variants, and the ‘Test Tube’ Nature of NA²⁷/UBS⁴ Text,” pp 27-61.
⁶ Metzger, TCGNT, p 657. Parenthetical remark added for clarity. For one example of a position against such conjecturing, specifically addressing Matthew but which can be applied more broadly, see David Alan Black, “Conjectural Emendations in the Gospel of Matthew,” Novum Testamentum XXXI (1989), pp 1-15.
⁷ Here the article takes on a pronoun function. See Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), pp 231, 233-234. Cf. David Alan Black, It’s Still Greek To Me (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1998), pp 76-79, esp. 79, item 8; Wallace, GGBTB, pp 211-213.
⁸ One such example of NT usage of an article with the subject assumed anaphorically (from a previous reference) is in Matthew 24, verses 17 and 18, in which the referent is verse 16’s οἱ ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ (those who are in Judea, more literally, the ones in (the) Judea). In addition, all three (vv 16, 17, & 18) are examples of nominalizing prepositional phrases; see Wallace, GGBTB, p 236. Many thanks are due to Jacob Cerone, Dr. David Alan Black’s assistant, for finding this.
⁹ Ironically, Hort’s conjecture here militates against his own assertion (with Westcott) that the Alexandrian text is the “Neutral text” (a position that is claimed to have been abandoned by modern text critics), given that the article is missing in all the Alexandrian witnesses above.
¹⁰ See the following for an example of a ‘split K’ (ms X, aka 033, 10th c.): http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_033/GA_033.pdf
Go to page 7, to find the English cursive handwriting “Joh. Cp. 1”. To the left of that English is John 1:1 written in majuscule (uncial) – though most of the accompanying text is in miniscule. In this first line (and also the second) of John 1 is “KAI” (and, in this context) with a disconnected “K” (there is a dot just before this split “K”), appearing like “IC” instead. The line reads:
ΕΝΑΡΧΗΗΝΟΛΟΓΟCΚΑΙΟΛΟΓΟCHN
which, separated into words is:
ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ΗΝ Ο ΛΟΓΟC ΚΑΙ Ο ΛΟΓΟC HN
Transliterated:
en archē ēn ho logos kai ho logos ēn
Translated:
In (the) beginning was the Word and the Word was
In addition, the second line illustrates examples of nomina sacra for θεὸς: Θ͞N (θεόν, the accusative / direct object case) and Θ͞C (the nominative / subject case).
¹¹ Metzger, TCGNT, p 657
¹² Ibid.
¹³ Ibid, p 14*. It should be noted that in the first edition of TCGNT (London/New York: United Bible Societies, 1971 (corrected ed. 1975)) the D rating is the stronger: “that there is a very high degree of doubt concerning the reading selected for the text” (p xxviii). While this rating system had changed from the first to the second edition, the commentary itself regarding Jude 5 (and others) is identical.
¹⁴ Note the θεὸς Χριστός variant above, plus there is one ms which reads κύριος Ἰησοῦς, though this is likely an amalgamation of the two prominent readings.
¹⁵ Bauckham (Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter: Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville, Thomas Nelson, 1983), p 43) opines that a 2nd century scribe could have changed κύριοϛ to Ίησου̃ϛ because of a then-present prevalent Jesus/Joshua typology, with the scribe presumably assuming his exemplar contained a mistake.
¹⁶ The term δεσπότηϛ is prefixed by οἰκοϛ (“house”/”dwelling”) here. Early 3rd c. ms p⁷⁵ reads δεσπότηϛ instead in the Luke passage. See Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p 39. This variant is not annotated in the UBS⁴ or the Comfort, but only in the NA²⁸. Matthew 10:25 uses οἰκοδεσπότης similarly, with Jesus applying the term somewhat obliquely to Himself.
¹⁷ A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (rev. and ed. F. W. Danker; Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press, 2000), (3rd ed.), based on W. Bauer’s Griechisch-deutsches Wörterbuch (6th ed.) and on previous English editions by W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker, p 220. Commonly known as “BDAG.”
¹⁸ Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, p 39.
¹⁹ Though Paul’s first epistle to the Corinthian church was specific to the church at Corinth, it seems possible that the letter was circulated; but, even if not, it’s entirely plausible that Paul’s teaching on this matter was known to Jude and his audience. Part of this may hinge on how one views the relationship of Jude to 2 Peter, as Peter makes specific mention of Paul’s letters in 2 Peter 3:15-16, though it’s unclear to which letters (all?) Peter refers. However, accepting that all Scripture is “God-breathed” (2 Tim 3:16 – though the specific context here may strictly be OT, certainly this can be applied more broadly to the NT), we cannot discount the Holy Spirit’s role in Jude’s epistle.
F. F. Bruce (The New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock, 2004, © 1968 Paternoster; formerly This Is That), pp 34-36) recognizes Ίησου̃ϛ as being original to Jude 5; yet, while understanding the importance of these verses in 1 Corinthians 10 as applying to Jesus Christ’s preexistence, he does not explicitly relate Jude 5 to the Corinthian passage directly, though this can be inferred from the context. However, in another work of Bruce (1 and 2 Corinthians: The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990, © 1971 Marshall, Morgan & Scott), p 91), he comes closer yet, explaining that the Hebrew (not LXX) has YHWH as ‘The Rock,’ with Christ identified as such in 1 Cor 10:4, and “if not indeed with ‘the Lord’ (LXX kyrios) who went before his people, rescued them from their enemies and healed them in the wilderness…” (p 91).
²⁰ Craig Blomberg, 1 Corinthians: The NIV Application Commentary, Terry Muck, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), pp 191-92. Cf. Gordon D. Fee (The First Epistle to the Corinthians: NICNT, Ned. B. Stonehouse, F. F. Bruce, & idem., gen. eds. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1987), pp 443-451.
²¹ The perfect participle τετηρημένοις (kept) indicates a continuous keeping, being kept. The NIV 1984 interprets this as a dative of agency (by Jesus Christ); however, the NIV 2011 changes it to a dative of advantage (for Jesus Christ, i.e., for the advantage of “those who have been called”), with the dative of agency interpretation relegated to a footnote (along with the possible interpretation as a dative of instrumentality (in)), thereby corresponding to the general consensus among translators/translations; cf. Daniel B. Wallace, GGBTB, pp 144, 165; Peter H. Davids, II Peter and Jude: A Handbook on the Greek Text, (Waco, TX: Baylor Univ. Pr., 2011), pp 1, 2. However, the interpretation as a dative of agency (which is closely related to instrumentality) in v 1 (Wallace recognizes this possibility) seems to correspond better with διὰ (through) in v 25: “to him who is able to keep you…through Jesus Christ our Lord…”
²² Murray J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology in the Greek New Testament: An Essential Reference Resource for Exegesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2012), p 96. Emphasis added.
²³ Ibid, p 97. Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter, pp 123-124) is more tentative, viewing the context, as with doxologies in general, as possibly, if not likely, “deliberately ambiguous” in this regard.
²⁴ The Pseudepigrapha is a collection of individual works circa 2nd century BC to 2nd century AD, with each falsely attributed to various important Biblical figures. The work 1 Enoch is also known as “the Book of Enoch,” but there are two other pseudepigraphical works attributed to Enoch, hence, they are differentiated thusly: 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch, and 3 Enoch. 1 Enoch is the one with which most are familiar, and the one Jude is referencing here.
²⁵ See Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter), p 94. Verification of the Greek text (θεὸς as opposed to κύριος) for 1 Enoch sourced from Accordance software (Version 5.2), Pseudepigrapha Tagged: The Greek Pseudepigrapha (PSEUD-T), © 2013 by OakTree Software, Inc. (Electronic text entered by Craig A. Evans, Acadia Divinity College, Wolfville, Nova Scotia CANADA; Morphologically tagged by Rex A. Koivisto, Multnomah University, Portland, Oregon USA with the assistance of Marco V. Fabbri, Pontificia Università della S. Croce, Rome, Italy (Sibyllines tagged by Marco V. Fabbri; 3 and 4 Maccabees entered and tagged by Rex A. Koivisto).
²⁶ Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter) notes that this is “probably…a Christological interpretation” (p 94).
²⁷ Credit for this insight must be given to Risto Saarinen, The Pastoral Epistles with Philemon & Jude (Brazos Theological Commentary on the Bible: Grand Rapids, MI: Brazos/Baker, 2008), p 218. Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter) is more tentative here noting that the evidence “may not be sufficient” (p 49).
²⁸ See Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter), pp 94, 96-97.
²⁹ Cf. ibid, pp 3-8.
³⁰ Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter) agrees that the reference is to Jesus Christ, but only in a typological sense, as in the Lord Jesus will be the future Judge of the apostates (p 49). Therefore, his opinion is that the text should be κύριος instead because “it is not likely that Jude would have used Ίησου̃ϛ of the preexistent Christ” because “…other NT examples…have the Incarnation directly in view” (p 43); yet Bauckham cites only strictly incarnational Scriptures which specify Ίησου̃ϛ (2 Cor 8:9; Philippians 2:5-6) as opposed to Χριστός, thereby omitting 1 Cor 10:4. Reading between the lines, it seems Bauckham may be less reluctant if the choices were between Χριστός and kύριοϛ instead. However, see F. F. Bruce, New Testament Development, pp 35-36. Also see Murray J. Harris’ exegesis and exposition of the doxology above for an understanding of Jesus Christ as preexistent, as well as our mediator during the entire temporal realm. Though see also note 23 above.
³¹ Michael Green (2 Peter & Jude (Tyndale New Testament Commentary, gen. ed. Leon Morris: Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 1987), pp 57, 183-184) is sure of the reference, noting it is “openly asserted by Origen, Clement and Didymus” (p 57). However, there are no extant mss of the text, though parts may exist as fragments. Some think this text was conflated or made into a recension with the pseudepigraphical Testament of Moses (see Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter, pp 7, 59-64). Cf. J. Priest “Testament of Moses,” in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha: Apocalyptic Literature & Testaments (ed. James H. Charlesworth, New York: Anchor Bible/Doubleday, 1983), pp 924-925. Also, of great assistance is Steve Delamarter A Scripture Index to Charlesworth’s The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York: Sheffield, 2002), p 47. Delamarter’s work is a cross-reference for all quotes and allusions from the works contained in Charlesworth’s two-volume set to Biblical texts.
³² It is reasonable to assume that the original author of the extra-biblical work The Assumption of Moses had Elohim or YHWH in mind, just as in I Enoch. The words “The Lord rebuke you!” are then apparently appropriated from Zechariah 3:2 in The Assumption of Moses, with Jude, in turn, re-appropriating them in yet another way. However, it must be understood that Jude’s other purpose here, which could well be his main purpose (vv 8-9), is to illustrate that even Michael appealed to the higher authority of the Lord, as opposed to the apostates who “slander celestial beings” on their own authority.
³³ Saarinen (Pastoral Epistles, p 215) seems to affirm this, but the context is ambiguous; Bauckham (Jude, 2 Peter) is clearer, stating “it is probable that Jude interpreted the term as a reference to Jesus…” (pp 62, cf. 49).
³⁴ There is also the matter of Hort’s conjecture that the original text merely contained the article, ὁ, with neither Ίησου̃ϛ nor kύριοϛ following, with the subject either substantivized (“He who redeemed”), or assumed from earlier usage (see notes 7 and 8 above). However, this is doubtful, as this would allow too much ambiguity (was it YHWH from Exodus, or is the referent from verse 4?). This is especially so given that Jude purposely changed ~~the OT and~~ an extra-Biblical reference of God to kύριοϛ ~~or Ίησου̃ϛ~~ instead. However, that aside, my personal position is that such conjecturing as Hort’s, being arguments from silence, should never be undertaken, for it can lead to a lack of confidence in any and all Scripture. In TC we must always take the extant evidence and work from there.
³⁵ See H. A. G. Houghton, preprint version of “Recent Developments in New Testament Textual Criticism” (Early Christianity 2.2 (2011)), pp 1-10. There are a number of different methods mentioned including the “Coherence Based Genealogical Method (CBGM).” Tommy Wasserman’s monograph on Jude is noted (The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission (ConBNT 43: Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2006) which is a continuous text of all the known variants in Jude’s epistle, providing an “interesting comparison with the ECM (Editio Critica Maior),” with the ECM purporting to contain a “fuller critical apparatus than any previous editions” (p 7).
³⁶ However, see notes 21, 22, and 29 above and the associated texts.
³⁷ F. F. Bruce, New Testament Development, pp 35-36. Italics in original, bold added for emphasis.
³⁸ While the NA²⁷ had text identical with the UBS⁴ (together known as “NU” for shorthand), the NA²⁸ includes the reading of Ίησου̃ϛ, while the UBS⁴ contains kύριοϛ. It seems likely that the forthcoming UBS⁵ will conform to the NA²⁸, to include amending this particular variant.

Filed under Christ, Christology, Greek Language studies, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Judgment, mercy, Redemption, Resurrection, Textual Criticism Tagged with 1 Enoch, Book of Enoch, Book of Jude, Bruce Metzger, Craig Blomberg, Exodus, F. F. Bruce, God, Hort, Iesous, Kyrios, Murray J. Harris, nomen sacrum, nomina sacra, Pseudepigrapha, Richard Bauckham, The Assumption of Moses, the Lord, UBS, Westcott-Hort

“Christ” in the New Age

May 9, 2011 42 Comments

“The Christian church in its many branches can serve as a St. John the Baptist, as a voice crying in the wilderness, and as a nucleus through which world illumination may be accomplished…The church must show a wide tolerance, and teach no revolutionary doctrines or cling to any reactionary ideas. The church as a teaching factor should take the great basic doctrines and (shattering the old forms in which they are expressed and held) show their true and inner spiritual significance. The prime work of the church is to teach, and teach ceaselessly, preserving the outer appearance in order to reach the many who are accustomed to church usages. Teachers must be trained; Bible knowledge must be spread; the sacraments must be mystically interpreted, and the power of the church to heal must be demonstrated.” [1]

— Alice A. Bailey, The Externalisation of the Hierarchy; 1919

The Christian life is a life of war as we continually fight against the flesh (our own sinful desires) and the attacks of the enemy (Satan and his minions). During wartime, one method of attack is the attempt to destroy the enemy from within by chicanery – using deception as a strategy to infiltrate the opposing camp. Satan, our enemy, has employed this method from the very beginning. A particularly effective means to accomplish this goal is to redefine standard orthodox Christian terms and concepts in a way which permits those in the Church to understand them as seemingly orthodox resulting in – to borrow words from Hannah Newman, author of The Rainbow Swastika – a “Trojan Horse of semantics.”[2] This article will focus on the word “Christ” illustrating some of the various ways it is used within the New Age and occult.

Who (or what) is “Christ” according to the New Age / New Spirituality? It all depends on context. There are at least seven different meanings/aspects. Obviously, this can lead to confusion both to the insider and the outsider; however, it is especially confusing to those of orthodox Christian persuasion. And, it’s that way by design according to Alice A. Bailey (AAB), who acted as a medium through which “Master D. K.” (Djwhal Khul a/k/a The Tibetan) would channel, according to the opening quote. The Bailey books and other New Age/occult literature are available through Lucis Trust (formerly Lucifer Publishing[3]).

Given that, “…The church as a teaching factor should take the great basic doctrines and (shattering the old forms in which they are expressed and held),” the goal of redefining concepts is clear. The occult/esoteric teachings of the New Age are to be expressed in such a way that the unsuspecting church attendee does not catch on right away, if at all. This goal must be accomplished by, “…preserving the outer appearance in order to reach the many who are accustomed to church usages….” And, the greatest “basic doctrine” is, of course, that of the person of Jesus Christ Himself.

“Christ” in Christian Orthodoxy

It would be prudent to first provide the established orthodox Christian definition of “Christ.” The term comes from the Greek transliterated Christos which is defined “Christ,” “Messiah,” or “Anointed One.”[4] Christos itself is derived from chrio, “to anoint.”[5] From the Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, here’s the definition of Christos:

“Christ, Anointed One, Messiah, the Greek translation of the Hebrew 4899 (cf. Greek 3323). The Messiah is the Son of David, an anointed leader expected to bring in an age of peace and liberty from all oppression. In the NT, the Messiah is Jesus, who came first to bring liberty from sin and peace with God and who will come again to bring all things under His control [6]

In the New Testament, chrio is used five times, two of which refer to Jesus’ Baptism [Luke 4:18, Acts 10:38], another most likely to His Baptism [Acts 4:27][7], and once at or after His Resurrection or Ascension [Heb 1:9; cf. Ps 45:6-7, Isa 61:3, Php 2:9][8]. In the remaining instance, chrio is used to refer to Holy Spirit-endued Christians [II Cor 1:21]. The noun form of chrio is chrisma, “anointing,”[9] which is used only three times, and each time in John’s first epistle to denote the Holy Spirit anointing of believers [once in I John 2:20, twice in 2:27].

Both chrio and chrisma are always used in a sacred and symbolic sense; whereas, the Greek words aleipho [Matt. 6:17; Mark 6:13, 16:1; Luke 7:38,46; John 11:2, 12:3; James 5:14], epichrio [John 9:6,11], enchrio [Rev 3:18], and murizo [Mark 14:8], which are also translated anoint/ed/ing, are always used in a physical sense [10] in the NT.

The word “Messiah” is only used twice in the New Testament although it is derived from the Aramaic rather than the Hebrew [11]. This term is used solely in the Gospel of John [1:41, 4:25] and each time it is used in conjunction with Christos presumably for emphasis of Jesus Christ’s deity. It is therefore noteworthy that when the word “Christ,” (Christos) is used in the NT, it is exclusively for the person of Jesus Christ and nothing or no one else (except when Jesus Himself is referring to false Christs as in Matthew 24). As both Louis Berkhof and Wayne Grudem illustrate in each of their respective Systematic Theology’s, “Christ” is a term denoting His divinity.[12][13]

Unfortunately, many online lexicons define Christos as Christ = “anointed” which is misleading and confusing. In the NT, Christos, though derived from chrio which means “to anoint” as noted above, is defining the unique Christ, Messiah, Son of God and He is thus the “Anointed One” as per the two sources for definitions above. While Christians are anointed by the Holy Spirit at baptism, we are obviously not referred to as “Christ” (Christos) upon baptism; and, furthermore, Jesus was described as “Jesus Christ” at the virgin birth which means the term was applied to Him prior to Baptism (of course, He was always Christ as noted above) rather than later at His Baptism by John as these online definitions would suggest. The importance of these distinctions will be made more obvious a bit later in this article.

The confusion likely stems from the Septuagint (LXX), the Greek translation of the Hebrew Old Testament from which early Catholic Bibles have been translated. (Interestingly, many NT quotes from the OT are taken from the Septuagint rather than the Hebrew Masoretic Text.) The term christos is rendered as “anointed” in Lev 4: 4, Lev 6:22, 1 Samuel 2:10 (appropriate by the contexts) as well as a few other passages[14] and designated with a lower case rather than a capital “c.” In Psalm 2:2, the “C” in this term is capitalized (Christos) since this is considered a Messianic passage (prophecy about the coming Messiah). This distinction in uncapitalization/capitalization is illustrated in Brenton’s The Septuagint with the Apocrypha: Greek and English[15]. In the NT, I’m reasonably sure the convention of capitalizing Christos in each and every instance is followed in both the NA27 Novum Testamentum Graece and the UBS4 The Greek New Testament. [I’ve not checked all the references; so, if a reader finds an exception, please let me know.]

Glossary of New Age/Occult Terms and Concepts

This section and the remaining sections constitute my current understanding of New Age doctrine and concepts. Likely, at least some parts of individual sections will be amended in the future as my understanding grows. I welcome any comments which could shed further light in this area.

It will be helpful to define some other New Age terms and concepts before we go on to define “Christ” in New Age/occult teachings. Terms may be added, again, as my knowledge increases. I want to caution readers that this is occult teaching and the goal is to confuse the reader into believing this is Biblical truth which, of course, it is not. It is a ‘spin’ on orthodox Christian truth. My reasoning for bringing forth this information is educational because, alarmingly, there are parallels of some of the following concepts with doctrines currently taught in quite a few of our churches!

Probably the most important doctrine in the New Age/occult is the belief that all humans have two natures, one human (of course) and one latent divine nature.

Initiation:

“…an expansion of consciousness – a means of opening the mind and heart to a recognition of what already exists in reality.”[16] Also known as overshadowing. With each successive overshadowing the initiate is brought to increasing levels of soul-control, or, in other words, demonic possession. While there are five initiations in total for the human, each overshadowing does not necessarily equate to one of these five ‘milestones’ of initiations.[17] [Note: I personally do not believe true Christians can be demonically possessed although they may be oppressed.]

Evolution:

Evolution is a central tenet of occultism partly because, of course, it is in opposition to the creation account of Genesis 1 & 2. The New Age belief is that mankind has been evolving over millions of years and we are now on the cusp of the next great evolutionary leap – from homo sapiens to homo universalis.[18] On the macro level, this evolution will come forth as the collective “consciousness” of human minds expands to a certain “tipping point,” or “critical mass.” On a micro level, individuals themselves “evolve” by the “expansions of consciousness” from man into godhood as Ascended Masters by taking all five initiations. [19][20]

This ascendance to godhood is the ultimate goal of all. Unity is of primary importance since, without it, this “evolution” of the human race will not be possible. Disunity or, the refusal to go along with New Age ideals, therefore, is considered the only real “sin” – the “sin of separation” or “sin of separatism.” [See “Evil of Separatism” section of this Lucis Trust article.[21]]

Reincarnation:

Once an individual dies, his soul returns to the physical realm by reincarnating into a body with the same atomic makeup but with different outward physical characteristics as the previous one as determined by his birth parents. This is also known as rebirth or being born again. Therefore, death is not seen as a negative thing at all as it provides another chance at life in which the individual may reach a state of perfection ascending into godhood and thereby becoming an Ascended Master. So, the ‘removal’ of those who will not unify would be seen as best not just for the common good but for the individual ‘removed’ as well. “Resurrection is the keynote of nature; death is not.”[22] Souls reincarnate in groups.

Ascended Master:

An Ascended Master is a former human who, through extreme self-effort, enabled himself to transcend humanity by attaining divinity. This is done when the “higher self” (Christ within or Inner Christ) transcends the “lower nature”, (human), or Ego, so that the individual becomes a god. This results in “the body of flesh” changing to the “body of bliss.”[23] This requires five initiations. One does not have to make all five in one incarnation as these initiations are cumulative carrying over from previous lives to subsequent ones. Ascended Masters live in the Fifth Kingdom which is a spiritual state and these Masters have the ability to travel between the spiritual and physical planes at will [24].

This ‘ascent into godhood’ teaching is similar to Manifest sons of God doctrine which has been taught in some Christian churches [see Kris Vallotton and the “Mantle of Jesus Christ” / Bill Johnson on Corporate Anointing and Bill Johnson’s ‘Born Again Jesus, part II at the “Manifest Sons of God: The New Breed” section (especially Todd Bentley’s four floors/levels teaching) and Bethel to Feature Bob Jones at Upcoming Prophetic Conference under “The New Breed of the Elected Seeds” section]. At the fourth initiation one becomes a Manifested son of God with the ability to travel between the astral and physical planes at will[25].

Fifth Kingdom in Nature:

There are five kingdoms in nature, the first four of which are: mineral, vegetable, animal and human, respectively[26]. The Fifth Kingdom is a spiritual state and is only fully visible by those who’ve taken the fifth initiation. This Fifth Kingdom will eventually materialize as the forthcoming Kingdom of God. [27] The following quote captures the essence of this doctrine:

“Emphasis should be laid on the evolution of humanity with peculiar attention to its goal, perfection. …man in incarnation, by the indwelling and over-shadowing soul…. …The relation of the individual soul to all souls should be taught, and with it the long-awaited kingdom of God is simply the appearance of soul-controlled men on earth in everyday life and at all stages of that control. …The fact will appear that the Kingdom has always been present but has remained unrecognized, owing to the relatively few people who express, as yet, its quality….” [28]

Kingdom of God:

The goal is “[t]hat the Kingdom of God, the Spiritual Hierarchy of our planet, can and will be materialized on earth.”[29] This “Hierarchy” (of fallen angels) will be “externalized” on the physical plane, on earth, when the human race has fully evolved into homo universalis. This will be a “return” to “the Garden of Eden” in which ‘gods walked with men’ and ‘men walked with gods.’ However, the “men” in this case will be “gods” also ( as Ascended Masters following the attainment of Manifested sons of God[30]). One method to facilitate this is to “bring heaven to earth” as in Hermeticism[31] using ritual magick which can best be described by the phrase “as above, so below;” i.e., what happens in the spiritual (above) affects the natural (below) and vice versa. The following explains this:

“Instruction is being given at this time to a special group of people who have come into incarnation at this critical period of world’s history. They have come in, all at the same time, throughout the world, to do the work of linking up the two planes, the physical and the astral, via the etheric. [emphasis in original][32]

These individuals are using the spiritual, or etheric, realm in order to link the physical plane (that which we see) to the astral plane (the unseen) which is the place of the Spiritual Hierarchy. This is the purpose as exemplified in the title of AAB’s book The Externalisation of the Hierarchy – to bring the astral plane to the physical plane while simultaneously bringing the physical to the astral through the merging of the two together using the etheric/spiritual by “expanding consciousness.” Bringing ‘heaven to earth’:

“It is time that the Church woke up to its true mission, which is to materialise the kingdom of God on earth, today, here and now…” [33]

“…A new kingdom is coming into being: the fifth kingdom in nature is materialising, and already has a nucleus functioning on earth in physical bodies.” [34]

Spiritual Hierarchy; also simply the Hierarchy:

A hierarchy of spiritual entities claiming to be divine influencers in world and individual affairs which are, in reality, demons. These include Sanat Kumara / Lord of this World (The Ancient of Days, The One Initiator), Ascended Masters, the Manu, the Bodhisattva (the Christ*, the World Teacher), the Mahachohan, and even a Solar Trinity. For more about the Hierarchy, see “Descent and Sacrifice.”[35] (*“The Christ” will be defined more fully below.)

To accomplish and even hasten their plans[36] on earth, the Spiritual Hierarchy needs the cooperation of humans who act as “co-laborers”[37] with them. Communication arrives from the Hierarchy to humans on the physical plane as “inspiration”[38] and “impressions.”[39]

Sanat Kumara, Lord of this World (The Ancient of Days, The One Initiator):

He is at the top of the Planetary Hierarchy and is better known, of course, as Lucifer. He is never referred to as “the Devil” as this is instead used as a pejorative term sometimes describing the true Jehovah God, Christians, and Jews or Judeo-Christian principles and others who refuse to ‘evolve’ (sometimes “Satan” is used as well, although Blavatsky has used “Satan” as an alternate for Lucifer). Notice how “Ancient of Days” has been reappropriated [see Daniel 7:9,13,22]. He is known as “the Great Hierophant,” “KING,” “Youth of Endless Summers,” “Fountainhead of the Will,” “the ineffable Ruler,” [40] “Great Lord,”[41] “Lord Maitreya,” and “Morning Star” [see Revelation 22:16 as reference for Jesus Christ] as well.[42] In the context of some of the other writings, he is referred to as “the Christ,” the Son, and it appears he may also be the ‘Father’ as well as the ‘Holy Spirit.’

Solar Logos:

Made up of the Solar Trinity consisting of: The Father (Will), The Son (Love-Wisdom) and The Holy Spirit (Active Intelligence). The Father is also known as “the first Logos” which is also claimed to be the “ONE ABOUT WHOM NAUGHT MAY BE SAID.”[43] This is obviously a distortion of the True Holy Trinity of orthodox Christianity. In the diagrams on pages 48-49 [44] in the Bailey book Initiation, Human and Solar, the Solar Logos may appear as though it rules over Sanat Kumara but, this seems to be just a concession to make it look “Christian.” It really depends on how one views the diagrams. The way I interpret them, Sanat Kumara and the Solar Logos are one and the same. This makes sense within the contexts of some other writings and in light of the fact that Lucifer wants to be God – his goal from the time of his initial rebellion.

Shambhala or Shamballa:

The place where the Planetary Hierarchy currently dwells. It is said to be in the Gobi desert. However, mere mortals cannot see the Hierarchy until the five initiations are completed.

Age of Aquarius:

Our current era/aeon is the Age of Pisces which is now coming to a close and giving way to the next one – the Age of Aquarius.[45] Each age has its World Teacher. This will be explained in more detail below.

The next few sections will describe the various ways in which “Christ” is used – distorted – in the New Age/occult.

“Christ Consciousness”

“Christ consciousness” is the current state of an individual’s progress towards attaining Manifested Sons of God / Ascended Master status[46] and even higher states via initiations or, to phrase another way, the extent of one’s overshadowing or soul-control. The goal in increasing “Christ consciousness” is to evolve from individual to group consciousness and thus be united with other “gods.” Each successive initiation brings the individual in increasing alignment with New Age goals; i.e., group-think and unity. Bailey defines the term:

“The evolutionary force to which we give the name ‘the Christ consciousness’…focused itself in the person of the Christ* in a manner hitherto unknown. This is the potency, latent in every human heart which is described by St. Paul as “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col I.27), and is that which, under evolutionary law, brings man eventually into the Kingdom of God and “unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.” (Eph. IV.13.) Of this potency and glory, Christ has ever been the symbol…” [47] [*see below for explanation of “the Christ” as the “Christ within”]

Transcendental Meditation (TM) in the East is a way to expand one’s “Christ consciousness.” In Hinduism, for example, the aspirant chants “OM” repeatedly in attempts to unite with Brahma and thus achieve “at-one-ment” with the divine. In the West, some churches are using Contemplative Prayer or “soaking prayer” with a goal to “experience God’s presence” and this practice bears a remarkable resemblance to TM, or, the expansion of the “Christ consciousness.” This pursuit of “at-one-ment,” or unity with the divine, as exemplified in Christian Science, Unity and Divine Science and other metaphysical schools of thought is a New Age goal for the Christian Church[48].

Another way to effect change, to further goals of New Age “Christ Consciousness,” is to alter ‘outmoded’ procedures:

“It is not easy for the average person to be fluid and to change details and methods in relation to that which has been taught in the past about which he has evolved definite and distinct ideas. Are you, therefore, prepared to throw these overboard and work in the way which will meet the new world need under the new incoming influences?

“ The disciple upon whom the Master can most confidently depend is the one who can – in periods of change – preserve that which is good and fundamental while breaking from the past and add to it that which is of immediate service in the present. An attitude of spiritual compromise is right, needed and very rare to find. Most of the things about which there may be argument and contention among disciples concern methods and relative non-essentials: they deal with points of organization. They are not so important as the inner unity of vision and the ability to concede where no wrong is involved and where a fellow worker fails to see the point. Disciples need to see to it that they do not hinder by any form of self-assertion, or by imposition of their own ideas or by any authoritarianism, based on past procedure. Ponder on this…The task of the disciple is to sense need and then to meet it and this, again, is part of the new emerging technique of invocation and evocation.” [49] [emphasis added]

As noted above in the Spiritual Hierarchy section, new revelation; i.e., communication from the Hierarchy, comes in the form of “inspiration” and “impressions.”

The “Christ Within” or “Inner Christ”

As noted above, the New Age/occult view is that all individuals have two natures: one human and one of latent divinity. The former is also known as the “lower self” [sometimes identified as “Satan”], or Ego, while the latter is the “higher self,” Christ within, or inner Christ. Realizing one’s own inherent divinity is the first step on the path to actualizing godhood. For this reason, a New Ager can say with a straight face “I am a god” – we are all gods even if we’ve not yet fully attained godhood.

In Gnosticism and some forms of the Kabbalah this is called a “divine spark.” New Agers, Gnostics, and these Kabbalists (generally) believe everything – including minerals, plants, animals, as well as humans – has a Christ within, inner Christ or “divine spark” respectively. This belief system is known as panentheism (God is in all). Accordingly, their “god” is not omnipresent (present in all places at once) but rather immanent (within all), however, in addition, this “god” is also said to be transcendent (transcending the universe – the other aspect of panentheism: “all is in God”) being both impersonal and unknowable.[50] [See Spiritual Hierarchy and Solar Logos above.]

From this panentheistic viewpoint springs the “green” movement, the belief in the “oneness” of all, etc. The eventual goal is the release of these “Christs” within or ‘sparks’ so that the “reintegration” of all these ‘pieces’ of the ‘divine’ can be one again. Once this occurs, “god” will be complete yet again after having scattered part of himself throughout the solar system in past millennia; and, simultaneously, all will be “god” and all matter, or “not-self” (which is evil), will be destroyed. This stems from 2^nd century (or 1^st century depending on whose viewpoint we accept) Gnosticism or perhaps even earlier.

Of humanity’s “inherent divinity” which we must work towards achieving full actualization (think Maslow’s hierarchy of needs theory), AAB explains:

“…Inherent in the human consciousness…is a sense of divinity…‘As He is, so are we in this world.’ (1 John IV:17) is another Biblical statement…“Christ in us, the hope of glory’ is the triumphant affirmation of St. Paul.” [51]

This “Christ within” becomes fully manifested by taking all five initiations.

The “Christ Anointing”

In the introduction to Levi Dowling’s well known New Age book, originally written in 1907, The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ is a list of questions with corresponding answers to aide the reader in understanding terms and concepts in the book. Question 4 reads: “What is meant by ‘the Christ,’ as the Word is used in this book?” The answer:

“The word Christ is derived from the Greek word Kristos [ed: actually “Christos”] and means anointed. It is identical with the Hebrew word Messiah. The word Christ, in itself, does not refer to any particular person; every anointed person is christed. When the definitive article ‘the’ is placed before the word Christ, a definite personality is indicated, and this personality is none other than a member of the Trinity, the Son…” [52]

Here, Dowling is referring specifically to the occult meaning in which individuals are “anointed,” or “christed” (initiated) by “the Christ” [which Dowling refers to as the “definite personality” and “member of the Trinity, the Son” above] as “Head of Hierarchy” or by one acting on “the Christ’s” behalf, i.e., other demons. While, according to the occult, every individual has the “Christ within” (inherent but not necessarily active divinity), not all have received the “Christ anointing,” and it’s this “Christ anointing” one needs in order to receive the five required initiations to reach Manifested sons of God and eventually Ascended Master status.

As noted above in the “‘Christ’ in Christian Orthodoxy” section, Christos always refers to the person of Jesus Christ in the New Testament; whereas, in the Old Testament Christos/christos would be defined as either “anointed” or “Christ” depending on context. In the book of First John, the word for “anointing,” chrisma, denotes those endued by the Holy Spirit – Holy Spirit-indwelled Christians.

In hyper-charismatic circles the term “Christ anointing” or, simply, “the anointing” is used. Is the Dowling book, or one like it, the root for this teaching?

“The Christ” as “Head of Hierarchy”

“The Christ” as “Head of Hierarchy” is “an official name” or title[53]. The current “Head of Hierarchy” is the one who has been assigned to be “the Christ” of the current age/aeon. He is directly subordinate to “the Great Hierophant,” aka “Lord of the World,” [54] aka Lucifer who is, confusingly, also known as “the Christ,” the Son. [See the Dowling quote above in “The ‘Christ’ Anointing” section.] The “Head of Hierarchy” is also the “Great World Teacher” and “Firstborn among many brethren.” The “Head of Hierarchy” administers the first two initiations; whereas, the three others available to humankind are provided by “the Great Hierophant,” “the One Initiator,” “Lord Maitreya,” Lucifer, himself.[55]

The “Head of Hierarchy” for the Age of Pisces, our current age, is the “Master Jesus” [see below]. He will be succeeded in the forthcoming Age of Aquarius by the new “World Teacher.” From an orthodox Christian perspective, he will be the Antichrist.

Here’s an explanation of this aspect/function from World Service Intergroup, a New Age website:

“Christ, in this aspect, is a name that is considered to be a title or office. When the present head of Hierarchy surpasses Himself and moves on to a greater position, the One who will replace Him will also be called “the Christ.” The Head of Hierarchy does not belong to any one religion but to all religions, to the whole of humanity.” [56]

Historical Christ

In the New Age/occult teachings, the “Historical Christ” is the Son, the one of the “Trinity.” He is referred to as “the Christ,” and, although listed separately in the Solar Logos above the Planetary Hierarchy, it seems that this “Christ” is one and the same [as is the rest of the “Trinity”] with Sanat Kumara, Lord of this World, The One Initiator, Lord Maitreya, etc.

Sanat Kumara, the One Initiator, provides the third through fifth initiations in humans whereas the subsequent sixth and seventh initiations of Masters in the Planetary Hierarchy are administered by “that One of Whom Sanat Kumara is the manifestation, the Logos of our scheme on His own plane” who “becomes the Hierophant”[57] which I assume to be “the Historical Christ.” This seems to create a logical incongruity since it is claimed that when Jesus of Nazareth received His fourth initiation at the Crucifixion en route to becoming “Master Jesus,” simultaneously “the Christ” received the seventh from “the Father.” [58] Further, as quoted above, “the One of Whom Sanat Kumara is the manifestation…” is referred to as “the Hierophant” yet Sanat Kumara himself is referred to as “the great Hierophant” [59] in the same book a few pages earlier.

Jesus of Nazareth / Master Jesus

With many previous incarnations including as Joshua, the son of Nun, Jesus of Nazareth was merely a man who had volunteered Himself to be used as a vehicle through which “the Christ,” as Sanat Kumara / Lord of this World, the One Initiator, manifested although He did eventually achieve “Master” status and is now an Ascended Master[60].

In Levi Dowling’s The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ are the “Akashic Records” which purport to detail some of Jesus’ so-called ‘lost years’ between the ages of twelve and thirty[61], Jesus passed the “seventh brotherhood test;” and, in so doing, received the “highest degree, THE CHRIST.” This title and degree had to be conferred upon Him by “God himself” at Baptism[62]. Prior to this, Jesus could not rightly be called “the Christ” or “Jesus Christ” as He was merely Jesus of Nazareth; however, after Baptism He was on His way to become “the Christ” as “Head of Hierarchy” for the Piscean Age. Dowling’s book is in chapter/verse format so that it looks like a “Bible”:

“…and now you stand ready to take the last degree. 6 Upon your brow I place this diadem, and in the Great Lodge of the heavens and earth you are THE CHRIST. 7 This is your great Passover rite. You are a neophyte no more; but now a master mind. 8 Now, man can do no more; but God himself will speak, and will confirm your title and degree. 9 Go on your way, for you must preach the gospel of good will to men and peace on earth; must open up the prison doors and set the captives free. 10 And while the hierophant yet spoke the temple bells rang out; a pure white dove descended from above and sat on Jesus’ head. 11 And then a voice that shook the very temple said, THIS IS THE CHRIST; and every living creature said, AMEN.” [63]

Dowling explains further about how Jesus received His title of Christ in the Introduction:

“The word Christ means “the anointed one,”* and then it is an official title. It means, The Master of Love. When we say ‘Jesus, the Christ’ we refer to the man and to his office; just as we do when we say…Lincoln, the President…Lincoln was not always President, and Jesus was not always Christ. Jesus won his Christship by a strenuous life, and in chapter 55 [of Dowling’s book], we have a record of the events of his christing, or receiving the degree Christ. Here is where he was coronated by the highest earth authorities as the Christ-King; properly speaking, ‘the Master of love;’ and after this was done he entered at once upon his Judean and Galilean ministry.

“We recognize the facts that Jesus was man and that Christ was God, so that in very truth Jesus the Christ was the God-man of the ages.” [64] [*This contradicts his assertion above as quoted in “The ‘Christ Anointing’” section that Kristos [sic] means simply “anointed.” Further, Dowling stated that “the Christ” is part of the ‘Trinity,’ whereas Jesus of Nazareth is not, although he was anointed by “the Christ” and subsequently became “the Christ” as “Head of Hierarchy” for the Piscean Age which is what he’s trying to explain here. My point is to show the logical incongruity in some of these teachings.]

Alice A. Bailey, in her 1937 book From Bethlehem to Calvary states essentially the same thing:

“This initiation [Baptism] marked a tremendous change in the life of Jesus of Nazareth. Up to that time, for thirty years, He had simply been the carpenter of the little town, and the son of His parents. He was a personality doing much good in a small sphere. But after the purification in Jordan, having ‘fulfilled all righteousness,’ He became the Christ…” [65]

“The Christ,” as Sanat Kumara / Lord of this World, the One Initiator, which provided this initiation, remained with Jesus until the Crucifixion at which point “the Christ” left him:

“The Christ is an immortal being transcending all laws of nature and it is not possible for anyone to crucify or kill the Christ. They killed his disciple Jesus through whom the Christ was speaking by crucifying him…” [66]

This is apparently where the “Jesus Died Spiritually” teaching of Kenyon/Hagin/Copeland, etc. originates [see also point 4 below: “Crucifixion on Mount Golgotha”].

The view that the “divine Christ” joined the human Jesus at Baptism and left him before His death is essentially the same view espoused by Cerinthus as noted in Bill Johnson’s ‘Born Again’ Jesus, Part I.

When Jesus was raised from the dead following His crucifixion it was not by his own power but by “the Christ”:

“Jesus was raised from the dead by his teacher the Christ who entered his body 3 days after his death. Jesus was no longer in that body and it was the Christ whose personal name Lord Maitreya who lived in that body for the 41 days after the resurrection.” [All as per original][67]

In the New Age/occult view Jesus did not provide Atonement on the Cross as the propitiation for our sins. Rather, He provided a pattern/model for each of us to follow in order to actualize our own divinity and thus save ourselves (auto-soterism). Dowling’s book claims to speak for Jesus post-Resurrection:

“My human life was wholly given to bring my will to tune to the deific will; when this was done my earth-tasks all were done.

“You know that all my life was one great drama for the sons of men; a pattern for the son’s of men. I lived to show the possibilities of man.

“What I have done all men can do, and what I am all men shall be.” [68]

Jesus’ life is mapped out as symbolically (not actually) representing the five initiations:

1) Birth at Bethlehem – “the birth of Christ in the cave of the human heart.”[69] Recognizing the “Christ in you, the hope of glory” – your inherent but latent divinity (duality) [70][71]. “Freedom from the control of the physical body and its appetites.” [72]

2) Baptism in Jordan – Water baptism “purifies the emotional nature” which precedes the “purification of the mind by fire,” [73] or the “baptism of spirit and fire aka baptism of the Holy Spirit,” thus providing the ability to consciously reject all evil [74]. “What therefore lies ahead for the initiate who has entered the purificatory water, or rather fire?”[75] Jesus became “the Christ”[76] having received this title and name at Baptism [77][78] in working His way towards becoming “Head of Hierarchy” for our Age; and, similarly, we can receive the “Christ anointing” on our way to becoming Ascended Masters.

3) Transfiguration on Mount Carmel – “transfiguration of the [human] nature” into “full-grown man in Christ” – learning to “die to self;” i.e., working towards overcoming the ‘lower, human nature.’ “Develops “fourth dimensional vision.”[79] Full-grown man working towards manifested son of God. [80]. Receives “terrific voltage” of Kundalini[81] “…the mind… …begins its true task as an interpreter of divine truth…” (i.e., new revelations)[82] “Third eye” is opened. [83]

4) Crucifixion on Mount Golgotha –“The Great Renunciation.”[84]The “sacrifice of humanity” by totally “dying to (lower, human) self” in order to achieve divinity and to arise as fully manifested son of God [85] Sin becomes impossible [86] Moving towards attainment of full ‘group consciousness.’[87] Soul (spiritual) death “and the causal body, the soul body is relinquished and disappears.” [88][89]. “Liberated from the form side of life, of religion and matter, and demonstrated to us the possibility of being in the world and yet not of the world, living as souls, released from the trammels and limitations of the flesh, while yet walking on earth.” [90] = manifested sons of God.

5) Resurrection and Ascension – “The cave of the tomb into the fullness of the resurrection life.” [91] Attainment to full status of Ascended Master in which the individual can move between and live in either the physical and the astral realms[92]. [93]

It’s important to stress that the above is only a symbolic representation of how we can attain divinity. Jesus Himself did not actually achieve all five initiations in His lifetime as the following explains:

“…He [Master Jesus] is well known in the Bible History, coming before us as Joshua the Son of Nun, appearing again in the time of Ezra as Jeshua, taking the third initiation as related in the book of Zechariah, as Joshua, and in the Gospel story He is known for two great sacrifices, that in which He handed over His body for the use of the Christ [ed: at Baptism], and for the great renunciation [ed: the Cross] which is the characteristic of the fourth initiation. As Appollonius [sic] of Tyana, He took the fifth initiation and became a Master of the Wisdom. From that time on He has stayed and worked with the Christian Church, fostering the germ of true spiritual life which is to be found amongst members of all sects and divisions, and neutralising as far as possible the mistakes and errors of the churchmen and the theologians…” [94]

Jesus of Nazareth, reincarnated as Apollonius of Tyana, lived as a manifested Son of God having achieved this status as a result of His Crucifixion. At the death of Apollonius of Tyana, according to this New Age/occult teaching, Jesus ascended and now this “Master Jesus” is “the Christ” as “Head of Hierarchy” who guides the Christian Church as well as all of humanity in this Age of Pisces.

“Cosmic Christ”

“The cosmic Christ has existed from all eternity. This cosmic Christ is divinity, or spirit, crucified in space…” [95]

“The Cosmic Christ [is] the soul of the Universe. The Cosmic Christ can be recognized as the link standing between matter and spirit. The Cosmic Christ is not only the bridge between Hierarchy and humanity but also the bridge between Hierarchy and Shambhala.” [96]

The following article from an online source explains the “Cosmic Christ” and at the same time delineates some of the other meanings of “Christ”:

“This does involve the recognition of the Christos as a vast spiritual principle which narrowed Himself to make entry through the prepared and perfected vehicle of Jesus, 2000 years ago. Thus Jesus and the Christ are not identical. The Master Jesus is now the Head of Hierarchy who work[s] to prepare the way for the Great Coming of the Lord.

“This lifting and thinking of the Cosmic Christ helps to clear much confusion about the relation of the Christianity to the other great religions. All the great religions, as we have said before, foretold the descent of the Exalted Lord of the Spiritual Sun. None could know precisely when and how the event would happen. Spiritual knowledge reveals that the descent of the I AM took place at Baptism on Jordan, at the deepest point on the surface of the Earth. [97]

The “Great Coming of the Lord” is also known as “the reappearance of the Christ,” or, in actuality, the coming Antichrist.

“Reappearance” of the Christ

New Agers are waiting for the new “World Teacher,” Lord Maitreya to “reappear.” They use the word “reappear” as the belief is that he never really left. He has been initiating other “World Leaders” throughout the ages and dwells in Shambhala. And, while Christians await the Second Coming of Christ, Muslims await the Imam Mahdi, Jews await the Messiah, and Buddhists are watching for the Fifth Buddha, this new “World Teacher” will fulfill all these roles, according the New Age religion.

The Christ expressed Himself as Jesus. But it is not Jesus who will be reappearing, but rather Christ, the head of Hierarchy, Who is coming… [98]

This will culminate in the end of the Piscean Age and the beginning of the Age of Aquarius, also known as the Kingdom of God. AAB in From Bethlehem to Calvary states:

“…We can produce, and as a [human] race, give birth to, the next kingdom in nature, which Christ called the kingdom of God; this is the kingdom of souls, the kingdom of spiritual lives, and herein, uniquely, Christ emerges…” [99]

Here Bailey is referring to the “reappearance” of “the Christ,” or Lord Maitreya. Note her words: “give birth to.” This sounds eerily similar to what is known as “Birthing the Man-Child” in some hyper-charismatic circles:

“The key event toward which all of today’s world events as well as all of earth history has been working since the cross is a birthing of a first generation of believers directly into a place of immortal union with Christ. It is by this birthing that heaven will definitively declare that the kingdoms of this world have at last come under actualized captivity to the Lord and His church.” [all emphasis in original] [100]

And, here are some excerpts from Todd Bentley’s monologue from May 28, 2008 at the Lakeland ‘Revival.’ Notice the New Age references:

“’Tonight is a crossing over and we have a moment,’ says the Lord, ‘where we can labor and travail until Christ is formed in you…’

“…I feel if we gave it a big push that we can literally form Christ – Christ in you. I’m talking about a maturing of what God has placed on the inside of your spirit. It’s gonna come out of the birth canal – it’s gonna come out of the womb – because there is a labor and there is a travailing that is going on in the spirit…

“…And, we are saying LET THERE BE LIFE. And, there was life—speaking things into existence. I am talking about a creative realm… …Under the anointing you make a declaration and it forms tonight…

“…We’re going to go back into travail right now until Christ is formed. God promised a day where heaven and earth must retain Him until the restoration of all things. Heaven will hold back the coming of Jesus Christ until sons and daughters come into maturity. It’s called the Manifestation of the sons of God.

“Heaven will hold back the Second Coming… A mature church manifests the glory of God. A mature church manifests the Word of God in truth and power. A mature church walks in holiness and character. A mature church walks in miracle, signs, and wonders.

“I’m talking about a maturity tonight – and it’s being formed in you. Let Christ be formed in maturity. Let the full man, let the fullness of God come forth, and let the womb open tonight… and let there be a great birthing…” [101]

Also, as part of the “Birthing the Man-Child” doctrine is the belief that Christ will return in “His body, the Church.” This is what Bob Jones was speaking of in his monologue on August 8, 2008 at the Rick Joyner’s MorningStar Ministries when he proclaimed there will be “’Jesuses’ all over the world”:

The New Breed will be those that are partaker of the divine nature. As you begin to grow into the likeness of Christ you’re gonna begin to partake of the divine nature. And, once you begin to grow up in that-away you’ll continue to mature until you look like Christ all over the world. Jesus was one person. Now get ready for Jesuses [sic; plural of “Jesus”] all over the world.” [102]

According to New Age, when “The Christ” “reappears,” he will also have the ability to manifest through many at one time:

“The Christ, when He comes into incarnation, will most likely project himself into many parts and be where he wants to be. This is called the Law of Divisibility, a term used in Agni Yoga that means a highly developed spirit—one who is able to contact, simultaneously, various people in various locations. For example, a Master can be seen in various groups at the same time. He can even be in different planes serving and teaching on different levels to meet various needs of the people. He can do different jobs in different places at one time. He impresses the space with his images, and so forth.” [103]

In the following, “Christ” refers to the coming antichrist which will be empowered by “the Christ” aka Lucifer:

“Christianity will not be superseded. It will be transcended, its work of preparation being triumphantly accomplished, and Christ will again give us the next revelation of divinity….” [104]

Contrary to AAB and the New Age, Christianity will not be transcended!

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. [Hebrews 13:8, NIV 1984]

But you remain the same and your years will never end. [Psalm 102:27, NIV 1984]

God is not a man that He should lie or a son of man that He should change his mind. [Numbers 23:19, NIV 1984]

In my opinion, by distorting the Christian faith, specifically the person of Jesus Christ, the New Age/occult is not only trying to “transcend” Christianity (its primary goal with respect to Christianity), it wants to deny seekers the true salvation through the atoning work of Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, and/or to render Christians ineffective by the resulting confusion.

20 May the God of peace, who through the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great Shepherd of the sheep, 21 equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen [Hebrews 13:20-21, NIV 1984]

The following is how it is really going to end:

20 The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. [Romans 16:20, NIV 1984]

12 “Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.” [Revelation 22:12-13, NIV 1984]

[This article will likely be changed/updated with new information as my understanding grows of the different terminology and aspects of the term “Christ” in the New Age religion. This may include adding quotes and accompanying footnotes].

[1] Bailey, Alice A. The Externalisation of the Hierarchy. 1957 Lucis, NY, 6^th printing 1981; Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; p 510-511; [underlining from emphasis in original; bolding added.] While the book was not published until 1957, most sections within the book have corresponding dates. The portion quoted here is from 1919, some of the earliest writings of Bailey/The Tibetan.

[2] Newman, Hannah. The Rainbow Swastika: A Report to the Jewish People about New Age Antisemitism. <http://philologos.org/__eb-trs/naC.htm> Quote taken from section C: “The Gods of the New Age.” par 1; as accessed 05/08/11. Excellent expose of the New Age movement especially from a Jewish perspective even though I disagree with some of her conclusions with respect to “Master Jesus” and the “Planetary Hierarchy.”

[3] Lucis Trust website. The Esoteric Meaning of Lucifer. <http://www.lucistrust.org/en/arcane_school/talks_and_articles/the_esoteric_meaning_of_lucifer>; as accessed 05/08/11

[4] Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 1958, 2^nd edition; Chicago, Chicago, IL; pp 886-87. Also known as “BAGD.”

[5] Bauer, p 887

[6] Strong, James, Dr. The Strongest Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. fully revised by John R. Kohlenberg III and James A. Swanson; 2001, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI; Strong’s #5547; p 1542

[7] Bruce, F.F. The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary. 1990, 3^rd Revised and Enlarged Edition, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI; p 157

[8] Bruce, F.F. The Epistle to the Galatians: A Commentary on the Greek Text; NIGTC. 1982, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI; p 20

[9] Bauer, p 888

[10] Vine, W.E., Unger, White. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words. 1996, Thomas Nelson, Nashville, TN; p 28 New Testament Section

[11] Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Volume One. 2003, 1^st Softcover Ed, 2010, Hendrickson, Peabody, MA; p 619. Reference from Gustof Dalman’s Jesus-Jeshua: Studies in the Gospels. 1929; p 13

[12] Berkhof, L. Systematic Theology. 1941, 4^th revised and enlarged ed, 1991, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI; pp 91-5, 312-13, 356-66

[13] Grudem, W. Systematic Theology. 1994, Inter-Varsity, Grand Rapids, MI; pp 233-38, 543-554, 624-33

[14] Thayer, J. H. Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament. 1979, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI; p 672

[15] Brenton, C. L. The Septuagint with Apocrypha: Greek and English. 1851, 11^th printing, 2005, Hendrickson

[16] Bailey, Alice A. Initiation, Human and Solar. 1951 Lucis, NY, 4^th paperback ed, 1980, Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; back cover. First printing 1922.

[17] Bailey, Initiation.

[18] Hughes, Dennis. Share Guide: The Holistic Health Magazine and Resource Directory. Interview with Barbara Marx Hubbard. 2004, par 6; as accessed 05/08/11

[19] Bailey, Alice A. The Consciousness of the Atom. 1961 Lucis, NY, 2^nd paperback ed, 1974, Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY. First printing 1922.

[20] Bailey, Initiation.

[21] Lucis Trust website. <http://www.lucistrust.org/en/arcane_school/talks_and_articles/descent_and_sacrifice> par 8; as accessed 05/08/11

[22] Bailey, Externalisation. p 469

[23] Bailey, Alice A. From Bethlehem to Calvary. Copyright 1937 by Alice A. Bailey, renewed 1957 by Foster Bailey; Lucis, NY, 4^th paperback edition, 1989; Fort Orange Press, Inc., Albany, New York; p 237

[24] Bailey, Bethlehem. p 51

[25] Bailey, Bethlehem. p 187

[26] Bailey, Consciousness. p 58

[27] Bailey, Bethlehem. p 185

[28] Bailey, Externalisation. p 588

[29] Bailey, The Unfinished Biography. 1951 Lucis, NY, George S. Ferguson, Philadelphia, PA; p 294

[30] Bailey, Bethlehem. pp 57-58

[31] Discernment Research Group. “Yoism: Creating Heaven on Earth” <http://herescope.blogspot.com/2006/05/yoism-creating-heaven-on-earth.html> as accessed 05/08/11

[32] Bailey, Initiation. p 67

[33] Bailey, Bethlehem. p 210

[34] Bailey, Bethlehem. p 254

[35] Lucis, Descent.

[36] Bailey, Bethlehem. pp 262-63

[37] Bailey, Discipleship in the New Age, Volume I. 1972 Lucis, NY, 8^th printing, 1972, Fort Orange Press, Inc., Albany, New York; p 32. First printing 1944.

[38] Bailey, Bethlehem. pp 268-69

[39] Bailey, Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle. 1950 Lucis, NY, 2^nd printing, 1957, George S. Ferguson, Philadelphia, PA

[40] Bailey, Initiation. pp 38, 88

[41] Bailey, Initiation. p 93

[42] Newman, Rainbow Swastika. “The Gods of the New Age.” Part 4

[43] Bailey, Alice A. A Treatise on Cosmic Fire. 1925 Lucis, NY, 4^th edition, 1951, George S. Ferguson, Philadelphia, PA; pp 146-48

[44] Internet Sacred Text Archive website. Bailey, Initiation, Human and Solar. <http://www.sacred-texts.com/eso/ihas/ihas09.htm> diagrams of pp 48-49; as accessed 05/08/11.

[45] Bailey, Alice A. The Destiny of the Nations. 1949 Lucis, NY, 2^nd paperback ed, 1974, Fort Orange Press, Inc., Albany, New York; p 149

[46] Center for Christ Consciousness website. “What is Christ Consciousness?” <http://www.ctrforchristcon.org/christ-consciousness.asp> as accessed 05/08/11

[47] Bailey, Alice A. The Reappearance of the Christ. 1948 Lucis, NY, 4^th paperback ed, 1979, Fort Orange Press, Inc., Albany, New York; p 75

[48] Bailey, Alice A. Esoteric Psychology, Volume II. 1970 Lucis NY, 6^th printing (paperback), 1971, Fort Orange Press, Inc., Albany, New York; p 100. First printed in 1942.

[49] Bailey, Discipleship I. pp 681-82

[50] Bailey, Bethlehem. pp 181, 185-86

[51] Bailey, Reappearance. P 145

[52] Dowling, Levi. The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ. 1907, 1935, 1964, 11^th printing, 1987, DeVorss, Marina del Rey, CA; p 6.

[53] Bailey, Externalisation. p 588

[54] Bailey, Initiation. p 88

[55] ibid.

[56] World Service Intergroup website. Dubois, J.D. “The Christ, His Reappearance, and the Avatar of Synthesis” <http://www.worldserviceintergroup.net/#/christ-reappearance/4543145171> Point 3; as accessed 05/08/11

[57] Bailey, Initiation. p 92

[58] Bailey, Alice A. The Rays and the Initiations. 1960 Lucis, NY, 2^nd paperback ed, 1976, Fort Orange Press, Inc., Albany, New York; p 697

[59] Bailey, Initiation. p 88

[60] Bailey, Initiation. pp 56-57

[61] Dowling, Aquarian. Back cover

[62] Dowling, p 82.

[63] Dowling, pp 82-83

[64] Dowling, p 8

[65] Bailey, Bethlehem. pp 100-101

[66] einterface website. “The Master Jesus” taken from Benjamin Crème’s works Maitreya Mission, Volumes 1, 2, and 3. <http://www.einterface.net/gamini/indexju.html> par 5; as accessed 05/08/11

[67] einterface, par 3; as accessed 05/08/11

[68] Dowling, Aquarian. pp 7-8, 255

[69] einterface, par 2; as accessed 05/08/11

[70] Bailey, Bethlehem. pp 26, 47

[71] Bailey, Initiations. pp 114-15

[72] Bailey, Rays. pp 685, 664-673

[73] Bailey, Bethlehem. p 99

[74] Bailey, Bethlehem. pp 27, 47-48

[75] Bailey, Rays. pp 677, 673-687

[76] Bailey, Bethlehem. p 100

[77] Dowling, Aquarian. p 83

[78] einterface, par 2; as accessed 05/08/11

[79] Bailey, Initiations. p 89

[80] Bailey, Bethlehem. pp 26, 48

[81] Bailey, Rays. pp 687, 688-89, 367

[82] Bailey, Rays. pp 688

[83] Bailey, Rays. pp 689-91, 368

[84] Bailey, Initiations. pp 56-57

[85] Bailey, Bethlehem. pp 28, 48-49, 184-85, 206-207

[86] Bailey, Bethlehem. p 202

[87] Bailey, Rays. pp 694

[88] Bailey, Rays. pp 695-699

[89] Bailey, Bethlehem. pp 178, 184, 186

[90] Bailey, Bethlehem. p 187

[91] Bailey, Externalisation. p 597

[92] Bailey, Bethlehem. pp 28, 49-51

[93] Bailey, Externalisation. p 468-71

[94] Bailey, Initiations. pp 56-57

[95] Bailey, Bethlehem. p 181

[96] World Service Intergroup; Dubois; point 4; as accessed 05/08/11

[97] Trevelyan, George. The Cosmic Christ in the New Age: A Wrekin Trust Lecture, 1977. <http://www.sirgeorgetrevelyan.org.uk/tht-cosmicchrist2.html> par 34-35; as accessed 05/08/11

[98] World Service Intergroup; Dubois; par 8; as accessed 05/08/11

[99] Bailey, Bethlehem. p 259

[100] Anderson, Chris. “Revelation 12: A Paradigm for Understanding the End Times” endtimespropheticvision website <http://www.etpv.org/2009/rev12.html> October, 2000; par 7; as accessed 05/08/11

[101] Bentley, Todd. Monologue from Lakeland Revival, Day 57 May 28, 2008. Originally accessed here: <http://injesus.com/index.php?module=message&task=list&GroupID-WB0062AX> access date unknown, website link no longer available.

[102] MorningStar Ministries, Media Store, VS19-000D. “Todd Bentley Healing and Impartation Service, 08-08-08” DVD. Starting at 1934:39.

[103] World Service Intergroup; Dubois; par 5; as accessed 05/08/11

[104] Bailey, Bethlehem. p 20

Filed under Alice A. Bailey, antichrist, Aquarian Age, Ascended Masters, Barbara Marx Hubbard, Bob Jones, Christ, Contemplative Prayer, Divine Spark, false teaching, Gnosticism, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Kingdom Now, Kingdom of God, Kundalini, Latter Rain, Lucifer, Lucis Trust, Manifest Sons of God, Master Jesus, New Age, New Breed, New Spirituality, Piscean Age, Resurrection, sin, Spiritual Hierarchy, spiritual mapping, spiritual warfare, The Cross, Theosophy, Tibetan Master, Todd Bentley Tagged with Age of Aquarius, Akashic Records, anointing, antichrist, Apollonius of Tyana, as above so below, at-one-ment, Baptism of Spirit and fire, Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Bill Johnson, birthing the man-child, Bob Jones, born again, Cerinthus, Christ, Christ anointing, Christ consciousness, Christ within, Christianity, Christology, Christos, Contemplative Prayer, Cosmic Christ, demons, divine spark, Djwhal Khul, Dominionism, E. W. Kenyon, Ego, esoteric, evolution, false gospel, false teacher, false teaching, fifth kingdom, fourth dimensional vision, Gnosticism, God, Great Hierophant, great renunciation, Head of Hierarchy, Heresy, Hermeticism, Historical Christ, homo universalis, initiation, inner Christ, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Jesus Died Spiritually, Kabbalah, Kenneth E. Hagin, Kingdom of God, Latter Rain, Levi Dowling, Lord Maitreya, Lord of this World, lower nature, Lucifer, LXX, Manifest Sons of God, NAR, New Age Religion, New Apostolic Reformation, New Breed, occult, overshadowing, panentheism, Reappearance of the Christ, reincarnation, Salvation, Sanat Kumara, Scripture, Shambhala, signs and wonders, sin, so below, Solar Logos, spiritual warfare, The Christ, The Cross, the ineffable Ruler, third eye, Todd Bentley, Word of Faith, World Teacher

Open Challenge to Bill Johnson/Bethel Supporters

March 21, 2011 528 Comments

[Here’s Another Challenge to Bill Johnson/Bethel Supporters.]
[2/27/13: Here’s another challenge: Open Challenge to Fans and Critics of Bill Johnson/Bethel Church.]

The following is based on an original idea of and primarily written by W B McCarty in conjunction with Craig who provided minor additions, changes and editing.

Many have charged that the teaching of Bill Johnson is unbiblical and wrong. Not a few have charged that his teachings violate orthodoxy – the ancient, common theological understanding of the Christian Church – and therefore entail or promote heresy. On the other hand, no small number of Bill Johnson supporters have denied these charges.

This brief article challenges Johnson supporters to reconcile just one of Bill Johnson’s statements in his book When Heaven Invades Earth (WHIE) with Christian orthodoxy. The article does not address all the suspect statements in that book or suspect statements in other books, sermons, or talks.

Here is the selected statement of Bill Johnson:

“Jesus lived His earthly life with human limitations. He laid his [sic] divinity aside as He sought to fulfill the assignment given to Him by the Father: to live life as a man without sin, and then die in the place of mankind for sin. This would be essential in His plan to redeem mankind. The sacrifice that could atone for sin had to be a lamb, (powerless), and had to be spotless, (without sin)” [When Heaven Invades Earth, Shippensburg, PA: Destiny Image, 2003, p. 79].

And, here are the questions that comprise the challenge:

1. To what “limitations” does Bill Johnson refer? Does he mean that the God-man Jesus, in His divine nature, lacked divine attributes such as omniscience (possessing all knowledge) and omnipotence (being all powerful)?

a.)    If so, how could God relinquish divine attributes and yet remain God? In what sense might a limited, finite man be considered God, when the very term “God” denotes infinity?

b.)    If so, given that all things consist in Jesus (Col. 1:17) who upholds all things by the word of His power (Heb. 1:3), why did the world not cease to exist during His Incarnation?

c.)    If so, how did Jesus regain His divine status? Can other non-divine beings gain divine status?

d.)    If so, how could the finite sacrifice of a non-divine man pay the infinite penalty of the sins of humankind?

2. What does Bill Johnson mean when he writes that Jesus “laid his [sic] divinity aside?”

a.)    What, exactly, was laid aside? That is, what does Bill Johnson mean by “divinity?”

b.)    Did Jesus cease to be God at the time of His Incarnation?

c.)    If Jesus was not God in His Incarnation, what is the significance of his name Emmanuel [“God is with us” (also Immanuel)]?

d.)    If Jesus was not God in His Incarnation, how was he able to forgive the sins of the paralytic man (Mk. 2:9)? Can anyone other than God actually forgive sins?

e.)    If Jesus was not God in His Incarnation, how could John’s account of His ministry have as its purpose the affirmation that “Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God” [John 20:31, emphasis added]?

3. When Bill Johnson writes “He laid his [sic] divinity aside,” why does he write “his” rather than “His?”

a.) Does “his” refer to a non-divine Jesus?

b.) If “his” refers to a non-divine Jesus, how and at what point did Jesus regain divine status?

4. As a sacrifice, was Jesus “powerless?”

a.) That is, was He or was He not in possession of the divine attribute of omnipotence even as He hung on the Cross?

b.) If He was not in possession of omnipotence during His time on the Cross, and was therefore unable to free Himself, in what sense was His sacrifice willing?

For those who lack training in the Scriptures and Christian theology, here is a summary of the main points of orthodoxy at issue in Bill Johnson’s statement:

A. Jesus is the eternally pre-existent, second member of the divine Trinity.

B. At His Incarnation, Jesus took on a second, human nature in addition to His divine nature.

C. Since the beginning of His Incarnation, Jesus has been at all times fully God and fully man (known as the hypostatic union).

D. God possesses a number of divine attributes, such as omniscience and omnipotence.

E. By definition, divine attributes are a necessary and sufficient condition of divinity. That is, no one but God may possess divine attributes. And, if God were hypothetically to cease to possess any divine attribute, He would cease to be God.

Note: For further exposition of these points, including biblical references, see any good discussion of the Nicene and Chalcedonian creeds, which are common to the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Protestant Church. No one who rejects these creeds has any reasonable basis to claim to be Christian in the usual, historical sense of that term.

Finally, here are some ground rules for the discussion that the authors of this article hope will ensue:

1. It isn’t intended that the statement/answer/response be selectively cited. Those who wish to support Johnson by bringing in other explanatory material from the book WHIE are free to do so. However, those who challenge the orthodoxy of the statement should not bring in new material. Let’s keep the discussion as focused as possible.

2. Bringing in explanatory material from sources other than the book is prohibited, as doing so would unduly widen the discussion. If this challenge proves popular, the authors may find time to offer similar challenges based on other statements within WHIE and other of Bill Johnson’s books and sermons. The authors believe there is no shortage of suspect statements requiring explanation by Bill Johnson’s supporters or ideally by Bill Johnson himself. Those who are unfamiliar with the works of Bill Johnson should not suppose that the offered statement is the only of his statements that seems unorthodox or heretical.

3. To respond, copy both the corresponding number and its question followed by the corresponding letter and question. For example, if responding to “2b)” then copy and paste from the article the following with your response following that:

2. What does Bill Johnson mean when he writes that Jesus “laid his [sic] divinity aside?”

b.) Did Jesus cease to be God at the time of His Incarnation?

[your response]

Who will take the challenge?

_______________________________________________________________________________

Here’s a new challenge.

Filed under anointing, Bethel Church, Bill Johnson, Christ, Christology, False Gospel, false teaching, Gnosticism, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Kenosis, Latter Rain, Word of Faith Tagged with Bill Johnson, Christian theology, God, Incarnation, Jesus, Trinity, When Heaven Invades Earth, WHIE

Misplaced Trust, part II

December 13, 2010 169 Comments

[Part I here]

Spirituality and the United Nations

The UN is “an international organization formed after World War II in 1945 to promote international peace, security and cooperation under the terms of the Charter of the United Nations.”[1] On a website detailing the “Evolution of The Great Invocation“[2,3] – a prayer for the New World Religion (and to Lucifer and his demons) – is found the following:

“…The United Nations Conference on International Organization convened on April 25, 1945 in San Francisco, for five days right at the time of the Wesak. (That year the Taurus full moon fell on April 27.)” [4] [Emphasis mine]

The Wesak Full Moon Ritual[5] is a celebration of the ‘birth and enlightenment of Buddha.’[6] It is one of three major festivals known in the occult and all three are centered around full moons. The other two are the Easter Festival (Aries full moon of late March into April) and The Christ’s Festival (Gemini full moon – late May into June). It’s interesting that this initial meeting of the UN was held right smack in the middle of an important occult/esoteric holiday celebrated by the New Age / New Spirituality.

The Charter of the United Nations was signed on June 26 (exactly one month after the Gemini full moon of 1945, on May 26) and enacted on October 24, 1945, with the 51 signatures representing all sections of the planet.[7]

Since 1952, World Invocation Day[8] has been observed during the “Festival of the Christ” (or Festival of Humanity / Festival of Goodwill) “to invoke and evoke healing energies for the United Nations and Planet Earth.”[9] According to the spokesperson of the 2010 event, Ida Urso, Phd., World Invocation Day is “a culminating point – providing a crescendo of revelation which can lead to transformative planetary changes.”[10] Obviously, New Agers hold the United Nations in high regard and hopes or expects the UN to play a key role in the future of our planet’s “healing.”

“In complete, focused silence, visualize the United Nations’ General Assembly, overshadowed by the Avatar of Synthesis and infused by the Love of the Hierarchy and the Christ. Meditate on the Purpose that seeks to guide the ‘little wills of men.’” [11] [as per original]

“Overshadowed” is a euphemism for demonic control/possession, the “Hierarchy” in this context is the collective of Satan’s demons and “the Christ” is Lucifer who will likely embody the coming antichrist. The “little wills of men” is taken from The Great Invocation.

The UN has its own meditation room:

“We all have within us a center of stillness surrounded by silence. This house, dedicated to work and debate in the service of peace, should have one room dedicated to silence in the outward sense and stillness in the inner sense.” [12]

The above quote is by Dag Hammarskjold, former Secretary-General of the United Nations from 1953 to 1961. The Meditation Room opened in 1957.

Beginning in 1970, the late Sri Chinmoy began leading “The Peace Meditation at the United Nations.” [See Chinmoy’s influence on guitarists John McLaughlin and Carlos Santana below in the “New Age / New Spirituality in Contemporary Culture” section.] This group consisted of UN staff, UN-accredited journalists, delegates, and representatives of NGOs (non-governmental organizations recognized by the UN).[13] Chinmoy, from his book The Garland of Nation-Souls: Complete Talks at the United Nations, is quoted:

“…Man has to realize what he eternally is: God Himself. Man is now God veiled; with patience-light man will unveil his inner divinity. Man is God yet to be consciously and constantly realized, and God is man yet to be manifested totally, completely and unmistakably here on earth.” [14]

“In the evolutionary process of human life, the first rung of the ladder is the United Nations, the second rung is world-union and the third rung is man’s total and perfect Perfection.” [15]

Lucis Trust enjoys “consultative status” with the UN as an NGO[16] – an organization which was “placed on the roster by virtue of action taken by the Economic and Social Council on the recommendation of the Committee on Non-Governmental Organizations” — since 1989[17]. One of Lucis Trust’s affiliates, World Goodwill, is recognized by the UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service as having provided assistance (and I assume ongoing assistance) in “Consultation on the Commission of Experts of the President of the UN General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System.” World Goodwill provided opinion in three areas:[18] “Financial regulation, macroeconomic issues and addressing the crisis.”[19] Obviously, Lucis Trust wields a fair amount of influence at the United Nations

Eugene Peterson’s Message

It seems Lucis Trust’s influence has even, perhaps indirectly, extended to at least one ‘rendition’ of the Holy Bible. Eugene Peterson’s The Message “paraphrase” of the Bible is littered with references to New Age Spirituality and the occult. While I’m certainly not of the ‘King James only’ persuasion (obviously not, as I quote primarily from the NIV), this website[20], which appears to be of the KJB-only camp, quite thoroughly displays the obvious Theosophical/New Age/occult backdrop of Peterson’s “paraphrase.” (To be clear: I’m not fully endorsing this website as I believe every Bible translation has strengths and weaknesses – some more so than others – however, I cannot, in good conscience, extract the information from this article without providing proper attribution to the source.) The next two paragraphs will illustrate just a fraction of the information gleaned and verified from this article.

The Message (TMsg) not once puts the words “Lord” and “Jesus” together as in “Lord Jesus,” yet the other translations I checked contain at least 100 different references to our Lord Jesus. Instead, TMsg has “Master Jesus” 73 times; whereas, the others have no references like this with the exception of the NCV with one. The obvious question is: why? As discussed in part I of this article in “The ‘Master Jesus’ and the ‘Christ’ of Lucis” section, to the New Ager, Jesus was a man who attained the title of “Master” through self-effort by the “Christ” within Him and “the Christ” which overshadowed Him. [See “Christ” in the New Age article for more ‘illumination.’] He is now an Ascended Master along with Buddha among others; and, we too have the potential to attain to “master” level. This is a consistent theme in the Alice Bailey books.

“There is a growing and developing belief that Christ is in us, as He was in the Master Jesus…” [21]

Similarly, TMsg uses “the one” and “oneness” – terms and their particular usage of which are foreign to other translations. And, once again, these are common New Age / New Spirituality terms. Peterson even stoops so low as to gratuitously use the Lord’s name in vain in Micah 3:5. I will let the reader investigate this as I cannot bring myself to display its usage here.

TMsg absolutely butchers the “Lord’s Prayer” as Berit Kjos identifies (and much more) in her post from 1993 What kind of message is THE MESSAGE?[22–error in link, but see here] Of particular note is Peterson’s “paraphrase” of ‘on earth as it is in heaven’ which he renders “as above, so below.” The passage, to me, is quite fine on its own in standard Bible translations. In contrast, the paraphrase adds more ambiguity rather than clarity since “above” could mean any number of things (clouds, atmosphere, sun, moon, etc.) as could “below” (depths of the sea, underground, the underworld). Isn’t the main purpose of paraphrasing to clarify rather than obfuscate?

Unfortunately, there’s a much more sinister application of the words “as above, so below.” A former occultist and Temple Master in the “Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn” designated with the pseudonym “Peter Lanz” to protect his identity, is quoted from Kjos’ site:

“‘I was taught in ritual magick how to go to different planes of existence outside the physical body,’ continued Peter. ‘I could create a realm there in which I could practice ritual magick and perfect my magical skills. What I did on the physical plane was what I practiced on the astral plane through creative visualizations. Through my will and imagination, I made things happen on the physical plane. As above, so below! This ritual magick is a manifestation of the power of your will.’” [23] [bolding added]

The bolded portion above should be very familiar to many from a charismatic background although it’s usually rendered something like, “What happens in the spiritual affects the natural” or vice versa and variations thereof. Here is one such usage by Lou Engle from September, 2009 on the Elijah List:

“…The natural things speak of the invisible. Natural happenings on the earth are revealing something that is going on in the spiritual realm….” [24] [emphasis in original]

“As above, so below.” This phrase comes from Hermeticism — the name of which is taken from the Greco-Egyptian god Hermes Trismegistos, the god of wisdom and magic, or Thoth[25] – and which in turn is taken from a document known as The Emerald Tablet.[26]

Here is co-founder of the Theosophical Society’s Helena Petrovna Blavatsky’s (HPB) paraphrase of The Emerald Tablet:

“What is below is like that which is above, and what is above is similar to that which is below to accomplish the wonders of the one thing.

“…Ascend with the greatest sagacity from earth to heaven, and unite together the power of things inferior and superior….” [27]

If this is the sort of thing Peterson is promoting I think it best to stay away from this “paraphrase.”

Mixed Messages

Chuck Swindoll of Insight For Living is a teacher whom I generally admire; however, I’ve been concerned over his occasional use of The Message for some time. Almost a year ago, in one of his sermons on false teaching, he again quoted a bit from Peterson’s paraphrase (he also spoke of Rick Warren in a positive light to my dismay); so, as a result I sent an email of concern to the ministry.

In the email, I quoted the “Lord’s Prayer” and some other Scripture from The Message and I also mentioned the fact that Peterson highly endorsed William P. Young’s book The Shack despite its numerous unorthodox themes. I received a response from one of the IFL staff claiming that Swindoll was aware of some of the problems with The Message. The staff member went on to say that there are those who are trying to discredit Peterson who is “not a new age advocate.” Here’s part of my response:

“…It is absolutely clear that some passages are blatantly New Age in The Message. When you add to this Peterson’s endorsement of the heretical novel by William P. Young The Shack with its blasphemous depiction of the Trinity (Father God as “Papa” — an African American woman — which has an uncanny resemlance to “Goddess PAPA” of Polynesian lore, Jesus as a carpenter in a plaid shirt, the Holy Spirit as “Sarayu,” or Sophia), I would question his motives further.

“…It’s a real shame that some who’ve been solid in their teaching have slid into a bit of error. Left unchecked, this can lead to more error which can lead to blatant apostasy. While I seriously doubt Mr. Swindol is heading in this direction, I am concerned that he would use “The Message” if he truly understands some of these very questionable passages…

“… While I certainly understand having to paraphrase bible passages in order to reach certain segments of the population… …certainly one could do this without the use of Peterson’s book.”

In his reply to my second email he offered that he hoped Peterson had not moved to the new age camp. The IFL staff member also noted they have some critique of The Shack on their website regarding the Trinity and how Jesus is depicted among other things[28]. Further critique was done [29] which I found encouraging. But, shouldn’t this induce the staff and Swindoll to look further into Peterson since he enthusiastically raves about Young’s book? While I remain hopeful that Swindoll will cease quoting from TMsg, to my disappointment, I did recently hear him use it a few weeks ago on local Christian radio (KDRY).

Similarly, Max Lucado has a penchant for promoting Peterson’s paraphrase (I couldn’t resist using alliteration – a literary device Lucado enthusiastically employs). I have two of his books given to me by a friend, one from 2002 (A Love Worth Giving) and one from 2005 (Cure for the Common Life); and, he definitely quotes from The Message more in the latter and quite a bit less as a percentage in the former. The “Master” Jesus is referenced at least three times by Lucado in his use of Peterson’s TMsg[30].

It has been reported that Lucado has gone progressively into promoting contemplative spirituality. In Cure for the Common Life, Max quotes from contemplatives Peterson, Richard Foster and even Carl Jung[31] (Jung is claimed to have been indebted to Hermetic Tradition[32]); however, perhaps more alarming is Lucado’s explicit quote of Martin Buber. (Coincidentally, Buber’s I and Thou was a favorite of former UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjold.[33])

Divine Spark

Martin Buber broke from his family’s relatively orthodox Jewish tradition and began writing secular philosophical works influenced by Kant and Nietzsche[34]. He later adopted Hasidic Judaism which promotes mysticism with roots in a form of Kabbalah[35]. A central tenet of this belief is that God permeates all matter with a “divine spark” which may be redeemed to perfection[36]. Here’s Lucado’s quote:

“You have one [unique gifting]. A divine spark. An uncommon call to an uncommon life….” [37] [emphasis added]

Blavatsky (HPB) recognized that this ‘divine spark’ comes from Kabbalist teaching (she spells it “kabalist”) [38]. She also writes:

“…The Hermetists and the later Rosicrucians held that all things visible and invisible were produced by the contention of light with darkness, and that every particle of matter contains within itself a spark of the divine essence – or light, spirit…” [39]

This can be viewed as pantheism (God is all) or panentheism (God is in all) depending on the particular Kabbalistic viewpoint of which the individual adheres (there are many different forms and variations of the Kabbalah). The panentheistic aspect of Hasidism is explained in this excerpt on Martin Buber’s Hasidic belief system[40] which is itself an extension and refinement of Isaac Luria’s Kabbalah. Another source for the Kabbalah explains “sparks” in the teachings of Isaac Luria:

“…Much of Lurianic Kabbalah is concerned with corrective actions designed to bring about the repair or restoration (tikkum) of the creation, so that the sparks of light trapped in the realm of the shells can be freed.” [41]

This is essentially what Buber speaks of as Lucado quotes him directly in the endnote corresponding to the “divine spark” reference:

…Jewish theologian Martin Buber writes: “The world is an irradiation of God, but as it is endowed with an independence of existence and striving, it is apt, always and everywhere, to form a crust around itself. Thus, a divine spark lives in every thing and being, but each such spark is enclosed by an isolating shell. Only man can liberate it in a holy manner, that is, so that his intention in doing so remains directed towards God’s transcendence. Thus the divine immanence emerges from the exile of the ‘shells.’” [42] [emphasis in original]

Incidentally, I used to attend the church in which Max Lucado is a pastor (Oak Hills Church in San Antonio). I can personally attest that he is one of the nicest guys you’re likely to meet (although that quality does not necessarily indicate a person’s ultimate standing in the Kingdom of God). And, it’s important to note that Lucado is not paid by the church as he earns his living from profits from his book sales.

I really want to believe that Max Lucado was merely trying to make a point in his book; but, I would have to question why he would use a decidedly non-Christian source without researching the full meaning of terms within the source before referencing it in his book. Perhaps Lucado knows nothing of the Kabbalah; however, that in no way excuses sloppy journalism. Certainly, his publisher – W Publishing, a division of Thomas Nelson – should have caught this. In any case, the term itself – divine spark – implies some sort of latent inherent divinity which is an obvious red flag. True Christians are partakers of the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4) ONLY because we have the indwelling Holy Spirit. We do not have a “divine spark.”

In Constance Cumbey’s second book A Planned Deception, she quotes Swinburne Clymer of the Rosicrucians who identifies the “Divine Spark” as the Christos, or Christ within:

“The ‘Great Work’ is devoted especially and directly to Emotional and Spiritual developments, to the awakening of the Godly love nature, the Divine Spark or Christos, which must become the Conscious Soul or Christic nature as a means to return to the Elysian fields and the becoming of a Son of God, a co-worker with him….” [43] [emphasis and caps in original]

Alice A. Bailey speaks of “divine life” which is obviously just a variation on the Kabbalistic “divine spark.” In the book From Bethlehem to Calvary from 1937:

“…The germ of divine life is in us, but we ourselves have something to do about it, and the time has come when humanity as a whole must apply itself to the fostering of the divine life…” [44]

Richard Elliot Friedman in The Hidden Face of God provides a view of the similarities between the so-called “Big Bang Theory” and Kabbalah in regards to how both viewpoints believe the earth was formed. In his work, Friedman states that adherents to BBT believe we are stardust; and, similarly some versions of the Kabbalah believe we are divine stardust[45].

New Age / New Spirituality in Contemporary Culture

Assessing the context, this “divine stardust” is likely what Joni Mitchell was referring to in her lyrics of the song “Woodstock” (popularized by the band Matthew’s Southern Comfort in 1970 and more enduringly by Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young). The first verse begins with her story of coming across a “child of God” and then in the chorus she says:

            We are stardust
            We are golden
            And we’ve got to get ourselves
            Back to the Garden. [46]

New Age Spirituality also believes we must ‘get back to the Garden of Eden.’ Cumbey, in comparing doctrines of the New Age Movement to the Manifest Sons of God teaching, exposes some false beliefs held in common between these two:

“…The Garden of Eden never existed as a real [physical] place. It instead was a spiritual state from which men fell.

“…We never really leave this planet. ‘Heaven’ is merely a spiritual state from which we fell which we may reattain by accepting the ‘New Truths’ of Sonship.” [47]

This is born out in the Lucis material:

“Emphasis should be laid on the evolution of humanity with peculiar attention to its goal, perfection. …man in incarnation, by the indwelling and over-shadowing soul…. …The relation of the individual soul to all souls should be taught, and with it the long-awaited kingdom of God is simply the appearance of soul-controlled men on earth in everyday life and at all stages of that control. …The fact will appear that the Kingdom has always been present but has remained unrecognized, owing to the relatively few people who express, as yet, its quality….” [48]

“…We ourselves may have to change in order to express the divine as Christ expressed it, before God can go on to the manifestation of the beauty of the hidden kingdom. God needs man’s cooperation. He calls for men to do His will….” [49]

The song medley by The 5^th Dimension “Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In” from the musical Hair, a huge hit in 1969, was in homage to the coming new Age of Aquarius and the corresponding close of the Age of Pisces – the current era – according to the New Age Movement / New Spirituality. Coincidence or not, the latter part of this medley was one of the official theme songs used in Barack Obama’s 2008 general election campaign[50].

The band’s name itself, “The 5^th Dimension,” sounds like it could be just slightly different terminology but yet referring to Bailey’s fifth kingdom which is claimed to be the forthcoming Kingdom of God on earth in the Aquarian Age. It seems like the band’s moniker could have been derived from a source such as this:

“This evolution of consciousness will inevitably take us into five-dimensional awareness and beyond… For five-dimensional awareness is nothing less than the loss of the sense of separateness from others and from the universe in which we live….

“Fifth-dimensional consciousness is already present for some, and there are many others who are awakening to it even now….

“The advent of this shift has already arrived, creating a foreshadowing of a way of being on the planet that is based in love, not self-protection – one that seeks to serve the good of all, rather than the desires of self. Such a movement has God at the center by whatever name God is called, for the movement itself does not belong to any nation, religious tradition, or group.”[51] [emphasis in original; underlining added]

This, of course, sounds very much like the writings of Bailey/The Tibetan:

“…There is the emergence of a new kingdom in nature, the fifth kingdom; this is the Kingdom of God on earth or the kingdom of souls. It is precipitating on earth and will be composed of those who are becoming group-conscious and who can work in group formation. This will be possible, because these people will have achieved a self-initiated perfection… …and will be identified with certain group expansions of consciousness….”[52]

“…A new kingdom is coming into being: a fifth kingdom is materialising, and already has a nucleus functioning on earth in physical bodies….” [53]

In 1973, the band Three Dog Night had a hit tune written by Daniel Moore titled “Shambala” (lyrics here). Apparently, this song title is an alternate spelling for the mythical kingdom of the same name of Tibetan Buddhism and Theosophy as spoken of by “The Tibetan” spelled either Shamballa[54] or Shambhala.[55] Interestingly, I recall seeing band vocalist Chuck Negron on Trinity Broadcasting Network a few years ago.

The late John Coltrane is recognized as a major innovator in the jazz community. His record A Love Supreme is distinguished as his crowning effort and is considered “one of the most important records ever made” and is essential for any serious jazz library[56]. It’s an homage to God as the liner notes read, “All praise be to God to whom all praise is due.” Coltrane relates how in 1957 he had a “spiritual awakening” providing him a “richer, fuller, more productive life.” Disappointingly, however, in his written piece titled A Love Supreme he declares “all paths lead to God” In reading further, it is clear Coltrane is referring to a panentheistic god (god is in all) – just like the New Age / New Spirituality[57].

Both rock/jazz guitarist Carlos Santana and jazz/rock guitarist John McLaughlin were devotees of the late Sri Chinmoy [see “Spirituality and the UN” section above]. Santana and McLaughlin even did a one-off recording together titled Love Devotion Surrender in ’73 as a tribute of sorts to Chinmoy as they were both very recent disciples at this point. They play a movement from Coltrane’s A Love Supreme, among other “spiritual” pieces[58]. McLaughlin had already added “Mahavishnu” in front of his name by this time and Santana would add “Devadip” later.

Keith Jarrett, a child prodigy and an incredibly gifted pianist/improviser/composer of international renown and one of the most important and enduring artists of the 20^th century and into the 21^st, named one of his music publishing companies “Kundalini.” Jarrett was influenced by the esoteric Christianity[59] of G.I. Gurdjieff[60]. Jarrett memorialized him in his 1980 work of his compositions in G.I. Gurdjieff: Sacred Hymns. A title of one of Jarrett’s albums is “Fort Yawuh” which is an anagram for ‘Fourth Way’ – a term used by Gurdjieff to describe his approach to self-development. Apparently, kundalini was one of the methods Gurdjieff employed[61].

“Kundalini rising is sometimes a violent experience, radically changing one’s subtle energy field (making it much less subtle!) and consciousness and perception of energy. The experience can be (and often is in the West) mistaken for insanity (usually acute schizophrenia) or emotional or physical breakdown on a fairly large scale.” [62]

The above quote comes from a kundalini practitioner who provides caution to the inexperienced. One of the recognized potential and common outcomes of kundalini arousal (among many) is fatigue and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS)[63]. Did Keith Jarrett practice kundalini; and, if so, could this have contributed to or even caused his bout with CFS in the mid to late ‘90s[64]? Thankfully, Jarrett has apparently been asymptomatic as he’s been very active the past decade.

There are many, many movies and books with New Age themes, influences and references such as Star Wars (“may the force be with you”), Avatar, the Harry Potter series, etc. Even children’s movies by Disney have quite a few New Age/New Spirituality references – as just one example: when father Mufasa tells his son Simba, the future Lion King, about the “circle of life”[65] – another way of saying reincarnation and teaching panentheism. Suffice to say that New Age ideas have permeated our entire culture.

In Whom Can You Put Your Trust?

Who can you trust? Jesus. The Jesus Christ as revealed in the Bible – not The Message which is no Bible at all. Jesus THE Christ, the one and only Christ, the one and only Messiah. The Anointed ONE. The Word made flesh. The name above ALL names. The King of kings and Lord of Lords.

Endnotes:

[1] Vinopal, Kelly. American Society of International Law Introduction. < http://www.asil.org/resource/un1.htm > par 1; as accessed 12/12/10
[2] Lucis Trust The Great Invocation: A Mantram for the New Age and for all Humanity. < http://www.lucistrust.org/invocation/ > as accessed 12/12/10
[3] SouledOut.org Evolution of the Great Invocation. < http://www.souledout.org/gi/gievolution.html > as accessed 12/12/10
[4] ibid. The quote follows the 1940 version of The Great Invocation; as accessed 12/12/10
[5] SouledOut.org The Legend of the Wesak. < http://www.souledout.org/wesak/wesaklegend2.html > as accessed 12/12/10
[6] Wesak.us/Mount Shasta magazine Celebrate the Wesak Festival in Mount Shasta, California! < http://www.wesak.us/articles.php > as accessed 12/12/10
[7] SouledOut.org Op.cit. Evolution of the Great Invocation. The quote follows the one from endnote 4.
[8] Aquarian Age Commununity website How Can World Invocation Day Strengthen the Spiritual Work of the United Nations? < http://www.aquaac.org/wid2010/ > as accessed 12/12/10
[9] ibid.; quote is under triangle
[10] Aquarian Age Community website In Observance of the Christ Festival/World Invocation Day 2010: How Can World Invocation Day Affect Planetary Consciousness. < http://www.aquaac.org/wid2010/WID2010_agenda.html > par 17; as accessed 12/12/10
[11] World Service Intergroup website United Nations Meditation. < http://www.worldserviceintergroup.net/#/un-meditation/4543971619 > quote after “MEDITATION” subtitle; as accessed 12/12/10
[12] Spiritual Caucus of the United Nations United Nations Meditation Room. < http://www.spiritualcaucusun.org/medroom.html > par 1; as accessed 12/12/10
[13] Pedersen, Kusumita P. Sri Chinmoy’s work at the United Nations: Spirituality and the Power of Silence. Farlex, TheFreeLibrary.Com < http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Sri+Chinmoy’s+work+at+the+United+Nations%3A+spirituality+and+the+power…-a0239197496 > as accessed 12/12/10
[14] Chinmoy, Sri. The Garland of Nation-Souls: Complete Talks at the United Nations. 1995, Health Communications, Inc, Deerfield Beach, FL; p 210 < http://books.google.com/books?id=fN8lt0l61FkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=chinmoy+garland+of&source=bl&ots=KQM2RBY4vg&sig=0FC9ZaAtLhalZfArLVuQmHbCQYo&hl=en&ei=kZgFTbriKsH_lgf0xJz_CA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&sqi=2&ved=0CCcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false >
[15] ibid. p 69
[16] United Nation Economic and Social Council. List of non-governmental organizations in consultative status with the Economic and Social Council as of 18 September 2008. < http://www.un.org/esa/coordination/ngo/pdf/INF_List.pdf > p 80; as accessed 12/12/10
[17] ibid. p 70
[18] UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service NGO Consultation on the Commission of Experts of the President of the UN General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System: Contributions from Civil Society. < http://www.un-ngls.org/spip?page=cfr_contributions&id_rubrique=103 > as accessed 12/12/10
[19] UN Non-Governmental Liaison Service NGO Consultation on the Commission of Experts of the President of the UN General Assembly on Reforms of the International Monetary and Financial System: Contributions from Civil Society: World Goodwill. < http://www.un-ngls.org/cfr_article.php3?id_article=765 > as accessed 12/12/10
[20] Watkins, Terry, Dr., Dial-the-Truth Ministries The Message Bible: A Mystic Mess. < http://www.av1611.org/kjv/mess_bible.html > as accessed 12/12/10
[21] Bailey, Alice A. The Externalisation of the Hierarchy. 1957, Lucis Trust, renewed 1985, 8^th printing 1989 (4^th paperbook ed.) ; Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; p 592
[22] Kjos, Berit, Kjos Ministries website What kind of message is THE MESSAGE?. < http://www.crossroad.to/Bible_studies/Message.html > as accessed 12/12/10
[23] Kjos, Berit, Kjos Ministries website Role Playing Games & Popular Occultism: The ancient message behind role-playing magic < http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/2003/occult-rpg.htm#magic > par 1; as accessed 12/12/10
[24] Elijah List website Lou Engle: An Urgent Call to Prayer: Signs of the Times. < http://www.elijahlist.com/words/display_word/8044 > September 20, 2009; par 1; as accessed 12/12/10
[25] Hermetic Fellowship website What is Hermeticism? < http://www.hermeticfellowship.org/HFHermeticism.html > as accessed 12/12/10
[26] Hare, John Bruno / Internet Sacred Text Archive The Emerald Tablet of Hermes. < http://www.sacred-texts.com/alc/emerald.htm > Copyright 2010; as accessed 12/12/10
[27] Blavatsky, H.P. Isis Unveiled. 1972, Theosophical University Press; p 507 < http://kingsgarden.org/English/Organizations/TS.GB/Blavatsky/isis/iu1-13.htm >
[28] Insight For Living: The Bible-Teaching Ministry of Charles S. Swidoll website. A Review of The Shack: Where Tragedy Confronts Eternity. < http://www.insight.org/library/articles/review/the-shack.html > review by Glenn R. Kreider, professor of Theological Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary; as accessed 12/12/10
[29] ibid. More Details from This Review of The Shack. < http://www.insight.org/library/articles/review/shack-details.html#one > reviews Kreider as above; as accessed 12/12/10
[30] Lucado, Max. Cure for the Common Life. 2005, W Publishing Group; Nashville, TN; pp 19, 98, 99
[31] ibid. pp 108, 109
[32] Hermetic Fellowship, Op.cit.
[33] Aquarian Age Community. Spirituality at the United Nations. < http://www.aquaac.org/un/sprtatun.html > par 8; as accessed 12/12/10
[34] Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Martin Buber, < http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/buber/ > Copyright 2007 Michael Zank; as accessed 12/12/10
[35] Fact-index.com Hasidic Judaism. < http://www.fact-index.com/h/ha/hasidic_judaism.html > as accessed 12/12/10
[36] Wikipedia Kabbalah. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabbalah > “Concepts: Kabbalistic Understanding of God” par 5; as accessed 12/12/10
[37] Lucado, Op.cit. p 3
[38] Blavatsky, Op.cit. p 258
[39] ibid.
[40] Brock, Ted and Winnie. Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue by Maurice S. Friedman. < http://www.religion-online.org/showchapter.asp?title=459&C=373 > par 12; as accessed 12/12/10. Friedman is Professor Emeritus of religious studies, philosophy and comparative literature at San Diego State University. This work originally published by The University of Chicago Press, 1955 and reprinted 1960 by Harpers, NY (First Harper Torchbook).
[41] Low, Colin. Hermetic Kabbalah: Kabbalah FAQ < http://www.digital-brilliance.com/kab/faq.htm > Copyright 1996 Colin Law; “The Orders of the Qlippoth” par 9
[42] Lucado, Op.cit.p 215 here Lucado is quoting Martin Buber from The Way of Man, According to the Teaching of Hasidism. 1994, London: Routledge Classics; p vi
[43] Cumbey, Constance. A Planned Deception.1985; Pointe Publishers, East Detroit, MI; pp 152, 181. As quoted from Clymer, Swinburne. The Great Work; The Coming Masters. 1962, Philosophical Publishing House, Quakertown, PA; p 13. Also available as a free download < https://public.me.com/cumbey > “A PLANNED DE…ULL BOOK.pdf” pp 69, 83
[44] ] Bailey, Alice A. From Bethlehem to Calvary. Copyright 1937 by Alice A. Bailey, renewed 1957 by Foster Bailey; Lucis Trust, 4^th paperback ed., 1989; Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; p 277
[45] Friedman, Richard Elliot. The Hidden Face of God. 1995; HarperCollins Publishers, 1^st paperback ed 1997; New York, NY pp 243, 246 < http://books.google.com/books?id=MYBAWN5UnnMC&printsec=frontcover&dq=richard+elliott+friedman&hl=en&ei=nnnuTOz_IYet8Aah7ZX_Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false >
[46] Mitchell, Joni. “Woodstock” Ladies of the Canyon. 1969; Siquomb Publishing, New York, NY; Warner Brothers; Burbank, CA 1970
[47] Cumbey, ibid. p 173 / < https://public.me.com/cumbey > p 79
[48] Bailey, Op.cit. Externalisation. p 588
[49] Bailey, Op.cit. Bethlehem. p 277
[50] Answers.com / Answers Corporation, Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In. < http://www.answers.com/topic/aquarius-let-the-sunshine-in > as accessed 12/13/10
[51] Redstone, Julie, lightomega.org Moving Toward Fifth-Dimensional Awareness. < http://www.lightomega.org/Fifth-Dimensional-Awareness.html > par 15, 17, 18; as accessed 12/13/10
[52] Bailey, Alice A. Discipleship in the New Age I. Copyright 1972 by Lucis Trust [1^st printing 1944], 8^th printing 1972 (paperback); Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; p 3
[53] Bailey, Op.cit. Bethlehem. p 254
[54] Daily Lama/dailylama.net Shamballa. < http://www.thedailylama.net/Shamballa/Shamballa06.htm > as accessed 12/13/10
[55] Sutherland Mary. Shambhala. <http://www.livinginthelightms.com/shambhala2.html > as accessed 12/13/10
[56] allmusic.com, Sam Samuelson review of John Coltrane A Love Supreme. < http://www.allmusic.com/album/a-love-supreme-r136933/review > Copyright 2010 Rovi Corporation; as accessed 12/13/10
[57] Coltrane, John A Love Supreme. 1995 MCA Records/GRP Records (1964/1965 original)
[58] Wikipedia, Love Devotion Surrender. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Devotion_Surrender > as accessed 12/13/10
[59] Wikipedia, Esoteric Christianity. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esoteric_Christianity > as accessed 12/13/10
[60] Wikipedia, George Gurdjieff. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gurdjieff > as accessed 12/13/10
[61] Wikipedia, Fourth Way. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Way > as accessed 12/13/10
[62] Macbeth, Jessica. Kundalini Rising & Spiritual Healing. < http://www.dharma-haven.org/oas/kundheal.htm > Copyright 1997; par 10 as accessed 12/13/10. Updated 10/06/22: < https://web.archive.org/web/20190205115715/http://www.dharma-haven.org:80/oas/kundheal.htm >
[63] Mudrasham Institue of Spiritual Studies, Helpful Measues in Dealing with Kundalini Emergencies. < http://www.mudrashram.com/kundaliniemergencies.html > as accessed 12/13/10. Updated 10/06/22: < https://web.archive.org/web/20160111013122/https://mudrashram.com/kundaliniemergencies.html > or < https://mudrashram.com/how-to-deal-with-kundalini-emergencies-2/ >. And see El Collie’s “Branded by the Spirit”: < https://www.scribd.com/document/337220455/branded-by-the-spirit-by-el-collie-pdf >
[64] Gross, Terry (host of National Public Radio’s Fresh Air; Interview with Keith Jarrett) Jazz Great Keith Jarrett Discusses Living with Chronice Fatigue Syndrome (CFS). Transcript < http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=7442 > as accessed 12/13/10
[65] Wikipedia, The Lion King. < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lion_King > quote found under “Animation” par 4; as accessed 12/13/10

Assorted Bibliography:

Green Agenda website The Spiritual Agenda.< http://green-agenda.com/spiritualunitednations.html >

Melanson, Terry Lucis Trust, Alice Bailey, World Goodwill and the False Light of the World< http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Lucis_Trust.htm >

Melanson, Terry Alice Bailey & Master Djwhal Khul: A Satanic Communion < http://www.conspiracyarchive.com/NewAge/Alice_Bailey.htm >

Way of Life Literature The United Nations and the New Age. <http://www.wayoflife.org/index_files/73b3884dc63159024ec23be9d5942076-589.html >

Filed under Alice A. Bailey, antichrist, Aquarian Age, Ascended Masters, Christ, Christology, Chuck Swindoll, Divine Spark, esoteric, Eugene Peterson, Garden of Eden, Gnosticism, Jesus, Jesus Christ, Kingdom of God, Kundalini, Lou Engle, Lucifer, Lucis Trust, Master Jesus, New Age, New Spirituality, New World Order, Piscean Age, Pop Culture, Spiritual Hierarchy, Sri Chinmoy, The Message, The Shack, Tibetan Master, UN, United Nations Tagged with "circle of life", 5th Dimension, Age of Aquarius, antichrist, as above, Barack Obama, Big Bang Theory, Carlos Santana, CFS, Christ, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Dag Hammarskjold, Djwhal Khul, Easter Festival, esoteric, false teaching, Festival of the Christ, fifth dimension, Fourth Way, full moon, GI Gurdjieff, Gnosticism, God, Hasidic Judaism, Hasidism, Hermeticism, HP Blavatsky, Isaac Luria, John Coltrane, John McLaughlin, Joni Mitchell, Kabbalah, Keith Jarrett, Kingdom of God, Kundalini rising, Lion King, Lurian Kabbalah, Martin Buber, New Age Religion, occult, One Thing, panentheism, pantheism, Religion and Spirituality, Rosicrucians, Shamballa, Shambhala, so below, The Emerald Tablet, The Great Invocation, theosophy, Thoth, Three Dog Night, UN Meditation Room, Wesak, William P. Young, Woodstock, World Invocation Day

← Older posts

	Craig on God Raised Jesus from the…
	Bruce Cooper on God Raised Jesus from the…
	SLIMJIM on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Citizen Tom on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Craig on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Citizen Tom on What is Going On with the Blog…
	La razón por la cual… on Bill Johnson’s Christology: A…
	La razón por la cual… on Bill Johnson’s Christology: A…
	SLIMJIM on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Craig on What is Going On with the Blog…
	SLIMJIM on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Craig on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Craig on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Bruce Cooper on What is Going On with the Blog…
	Bruce Cooper on What is Going On with the Blog…

It's Appropriate To Share:

His DOGMA > DATA

Countering His Grammatical/Syntactical Assertions

Qualifying Qualitativeness

Summarizing

It's Appropriate To Share:

It's Appropriate To Share:

It's Appropriate To Share:

It's Appropriate To Share:

Merry Christmas!

It's Appropriate To Share:

External Evidence

Internal Evidence: Habits of Scribes

Internal Evidence: Style of Jude and Fittingness to the Context

Immediate Context

Overall Context and Style of Jude

Conclusion

It's Appropriate To Share:

“Christ” in Christian Orthodoxy

Glossary of New Age/Occult Terms and Concepts

“Christ Consciousness”

The “Christ Within” or “Inner Christ”

The “Christ Anointing”

“The Christ” as “Head of Hierarchy”

Historical Christ

Jesus of Nazareth / Master Jesus

“Cosmic Christ”

“Reappearance” of the Christ

It's Appropriate To Share:

It's Appropriate To Share:

Spirituality and the United Nations

Eugene Peterson’s Message

Mixed Messages

Divine Spark

New Age / New Spirituality in Contemporary Culture

In Whom Can You Put Your Trust?

It's Appropriate To Share:

Email Subscription

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Top Posts

Other Blogs to Check Out

Worthy Charities:

Blog Stats

Archives

Categories