JR47: "Knowledge" Versus "Truth"

A: Tell me how you would explain the difference between "knowledge" and "truth." There seem to be a lot of different theories floating around. 

J: Here's one of the problems with relying too heavily on words. One person's "knowledge" is another person's "truth." One person's "knowledge" is another person's "wisdom." One person's "knowledge" is another person's "fact." Words can be very messy, very sloppy. It's important for individuals to be clear about their use of abstract words like these.  

A: Okay. How do you, as a soul-in-angel-form and speaker of the English language, use the word "knowledge"?  

J: I use the word "knowledge" to mean an accumulation of facts. Lots of raw facts. These facts may or may not be connected to each other. But there are lots of them. Lots of different facts that can be accessed from memory or from sources such as books or computers to answer specific questions of fact. 

A: Like the question and answer pairs on Jeopardy. 

J: Exactly. These question and answer pairs rely on logic and reason. But there's usually little emotional content. And there's no need for "insight" or "understanding" or "truth." The facts speak for themselves. Of course, as human Jeopardy contenders recently discovered, a honkin' big computer can access raw facts -- "knowledge" -- faster than most human brains can.

 

"Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not rely on your own insight. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Do not be wise in your own eyes; fear(respect) the Lord, and turn away from evil. It will be a healing for your flesh and a refreshment for your body" (Proverbs 3:5-8). If you really want to heal your relationship with God, try humbly accepting you probably have a lot of old beliefs that are messing up the way your brain works. Certain beliefs about God can "freeze up" your neural networks and prevent your brain from being able to process Divine guidance. Without easy access to your Divine guidance, you're limited to the ideas inside your own brain. And let's face it, some of those ideas are probably pretty stupid (like Young Earth Creationism). The Truth about you and God (a wonderful Truth!) is already deep within you, but first you have to melt the ice that's keeping you from feeling your Soul pathways. Photo credit JAT 2022.

J (Cont): Having said that, I want to make it clear that I'm not dissing the importance of "knowledge." It's important to be able to remember and access facts. Facts give information about things that are already known, already certain -- things that are "a done deal." Facts help ground the learning process. In fact, learning can't take place at all in the absence of facts. This is true even in fields such as philosophy and theology. The universe isn't reinventing itself every few seconds like some big relativistic, existential "symbol" in the sky (as some religious philosophers would have you believe). There are fixed facts, fixed historical realities that guide all choices made by God and God's angels. The universe has a history -- a factual history -- that can't be changed. The universe's past has a measurable effect on its present. The past matters. And the past is fact -- not fiction. The past can't be altered. Time is linear. Even for God.  

A: This will come as a great disappointment to fans of time travel stories. And to theologians who insist that All Time has been known to God since the very beginning. God's foreknowledge of all that will happen in the future is the basis of Christian "predestination" -- the doctrine that says God already knows ahead of time who will be saved in the End Times.  

J: Another example of old lies begetting new lies, as you put it. The first lie, of course, was the lie that souls desperately need to be saved from hell and judgment and damnation. But souls don't need to be saved. Why would God create billions of defective souls that need to be saved by . . . televangelists? Salvation-of-the-soul is a goofy idea from start to finish. 

A: But a very profitable one.

J: It's an interesting fact of neurophysiology that certain forms of serious psychological dysfunction in human beings are accompanied by damage to the parietal lobes of the brain -- parts of the brain which are crucial to a person's ability to relate to time and space. When the volume of the parietal lobes is reduced, and when the density of glial cells is diminished in the parietal-temporal regions, an individual will experience problems understanding boundaries (i.e. his or her location in space) and problems with empathy (i.e his or her location in both time and space -- also called boundary issues). These are the individuals who can't learn from their own mistakes, who can't empathize with other people's feelings, who constantly invade other people's "time and space."  

A: The narcissists. 

J: Yes. A narcissist is someone who's become inwardly focussed to the point of selfishness and self-absorption because he or she has no "brain health" in the areas of time and space -- no ability to accurately identify the factual boundaries that surround each soul. She literally can't see where she ends and another person begins. She can't see that she's a separate entity -- a separate consciousness -- from her neighbour. The boundaries between her and her neighbour exist and are real and are factual. But she can't see them. It's all blurry to her. The boundaries exist, but she behaves as if they don't exist. She behaves as if she and her neighbour "are all one," as if the neighbour is merely an extension of her own core consciousness. The neighbour, of course, is expected to "behave" -- to obey her needs and wishes without question and to reinforce her image of herself as a wonderful person. There's a perfect analogy for this mindset in the realm of science fiction: Star Trek's hive queen of the Borg.  

A: See, I knew there was good reason for me to be watching the Space Channel.  

J: The great thing about the way the Borg Queen character is written is her calm, serene, elevated disposition. She believes her own propaganda about making life better for all the individuals she incorporates into her collective. She goes around telling everyone "we're all one, we're all equal." But what she actually means is, "I'm the only one who really exists, and all you drones are merely inferior beings who were put here to serve me" . . . which brings us to the question of "truth." 

A: The way you've just described the Borg Queen reminds me -- none too pleasantly -- of the modern apocalyptic prophet I spent too much time with a few years ago: Grace. She was always speaking "the truth" that "we're all one, we're all equal." She had the same calm, serene detachment as the Borg Queen. It gave her such an air of believability -- even wisdom. She seemed to have let go of all her worries about the past. Very appealing to somebody like me who was dogged by feelings of guilt and shame.  

She seemed so believable -- until you challenged her. When you challenged Grace's superiority, her infallibility, it was like a switch went off in her brain. She switched instantly from calm, affable charm to vicious, vengeful violence. The smallest thing could set her off. I still remember the murderous look in her eye one day when I told her that she herself had caused an electrical short in a lighting fixture by twisting the fan/light combo while it was still attached on one side to the ceiling. I could see that she wanted to throw me down the stairs because I'd pointed out her obvious error. The mistake was entirely hers. But she didn't want to hear about it. She couldn't handle responsibility for her own mistakes.  

J: Good example -- though painful. Grace was a person with significant impairment of her biological brain function, as you know. She was able to process "knowledge" -- facts -- well enough to function in society. She could remember that gas needed to be put in the car, that food had to be bought and prepared. But as for "truth" . . . "truth" was beyond her capacity to grasp because of damage to her biological brain from early, unhealed, profound childhood abuse. Physical, emotional, sexual, and psychological abuse. As a result of the abuse, and the biological damage caused by it, Grace couldn't read "intent." She couldn't understand or be honest about her own inner intent. Her intent was to prove to other people that she was better than they were. That's the honest truth. The truth is that everything Grace did -- all her choices -- were shaped by her narcissistic intent. Her words about "oneness" and "equality" meant nothing because her actual intent said something different.  

A: So you're drawing a strong link between "intent" and "truth."  

J: Very much so. Facts by themselves are not "truth," though "truth" is not "truth" without a foundation of facts. Truth -- as I'm defining it -- is an observation or insight about the way in which seemingly random facts are linked together by underlying strands of intent. The intent is like the subfloor of the factual foundation. The facts lie on top of the intent. The truth builds on both the intent and the facts. For something to be "true" in a philosophical way, it must objectively assess both a collection of facts AND the underlying intent underneath those facts.

A: Are you saying that a person's "intent" and his/her "starting assumptions" are the same thing? 

J (shaking his head): No. A person's inner intent is more like his inner "purpose" or "goal." Your intent speaks to the principle of time -- where you were in the past, where you are now, and where you want to go. It's more like conscious motivation. It's the motivation that gets you out of bed in the morning and keeps you going, even when things aren't going well. 

A: So it's teleology? 

J: Again, no. Teleology implies there's a finite, definable end goal or a purpose shaped by the Law of Cause and Effect. "Intent" is not as simple as teleological purpose. "Intent" goes to the very heart of consciousness -- what it means to exist as a living consciousness who is separate from (though connected to) other living consciousnesses. Intent can be thought of as a cohesive set of interconnected choices -- a series of small choices that, when put together, create one big "meta-choice." That "meta-choice" is your intent. At a quantum level, "meta-choices" shape the way in which certain energies can and will flow.  

A: Can you give us an analogy for that?  

J: Sure. I'll use an analogy I've used before -- the sower of seeds. 

A: I think I see where this is headed . . .  

J: In the parable of the sower [Thomas 9; Mark 4], the person -- the soul -- is the sower of seeds. The seeds represent the person's potential, the person's ability to learn, grow, change, and create. But the sower doesn't create out of thin air. He must plant the seeds -- the seeds of potential -- in the right place if he wants them to grow. His decision on where to sow the seeds is his intent -- his "meta-choice." The meta-choice is what determines which seeds can and will grow. The seeds don't grow equally well in all intents. Where seeds fall on a "ground" or "subfloor" of rock, they fail to root and they produce no harvest. Where seeds fall on patches of thorny weeds, they don't grow and they're eaten by grubs and caterpillars. There's nothing wrong with the seeds themselves. The problem lies in the choice of where to plant them. The problem lies with the intent. 

A: So a narcissist's true intent is like the choice to sow seeds on rocky ground or in thorny patches.  

J: Or in a bed of fire, as the church likes to recommend.

Seeds don’t grow easily on this rocky ground. “Jesus said: Look, there was a man who came out to sow seed. He filled his hand with seed and threw it about. Some fell onto the road, and birds ate it. Some fell onto rocks and could not root and produced no grain. Some fell into patches of thorny weeds that kept it from growing, and grubs ate it. Some seed fell upon good soil and grew and produced good grain. It was 60 units per measure and 120 units per measure (Gospel of Thomas 9).” Photo credit JAT 2023.

JR44: Mark's Themes of Understanding and Strength

This is a research paper I wrote in 2009 for a course on New Testament exegesis. It explains in detail some of the major themes found in the Gospel of Mark. 

The paper pasted here is exactly as I wrote it, including the endnotes, where I confess I don't yet understand how the word "artos" (leavened bread, loaf) is being used by Mark. Since then (with Jesus' help), I've figured it out.

“Now the disciples had forgotten to bring any bread; and they had only one loaf with them in the boat. And he cautioned them, saying, ‘Watch out — beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and the yeast of Herod.’ They said to one another, ‘It is because we have no bread.’ And becoming aware of it, Jesus said to them, ‘Why are you talking about having no bread? Do you still not perceive or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes, and fail to see? Do you have ears, and fail to hear? And do you not remember? When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?’ They said to him, ‘Twelve.’ And the seven for the four thousand, how many baskets full of broken pieces did you collect?’ And they said to him, ‘Seven.’ Then he said to them, ‘Do you not yet understand?'” (Mark 8:14-21). Photo credit JAT 2021.

 

 
RADICAL MESSIAH AND THE SHEMA: MARK’S THEMES OF
UNDERSTANDING AND STRENGTH

Graham Stanton, in his discussion about the Gospel of Mark, refers to "Mark’s genius as a story-teller" (41), and says, "perhaps Mark should be seen not so much as a block of toffee (form criticism) or as a string of pearls (redaction criticism), but as a piece of rope with interwoven strands" (41). Later in the chapter, he asks these questions: "Why was this gospel written? Many scholars have proposed quite specific historical or theological settings. But they are usually able to make reasonable sense of only one or two of the many interrelated strands which the evangelist develops" (57-58). One strand which I feel has been overlooked is Mark’s overt addition to the Shema (Deut. 6:4-9) in Chapter12:29 of the Gospel. So obvious would this change have been to a Jewish Christian audience in the early to mid-60's CE that the question of Mark’s purpose must be raised. What was he signalling to his audience with this change? Why did he dare add to a well-known prayer that, according to the Jewish Study Bible, was being formally recited late in the Second Temple period (379)? It is the thesis of this paper that Mark did not accidentally alter the Shema through lack of knowledge, and that he did not accidentally link the Shema to the commandment in Leviticus 19:18 to love one’s neighbour as oneself (12:31). There was a purpose to his addition of the phrase "and with all your mind (διανοίας)" to the existing formulation of "you shall love the LORD your God with all your heart (καρδίας) and with all your soul (ψυχnς) and with all your might (iσχύος)." This supposition is supported by Mark’s repetition of the Shema in 12:32-33, altered yet again, this time without genitive cases, and with a changed emphasis to understanding (συνέσεως). Here the sympathetic – and sensible (νουνεχwς) – scribe is allowed by Mark to voice the two most important commandments: "You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that ‘he is one, and besides him there is no other; and ‘to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, with all the strength,’ and ‘to love one’s neighbor as oneself,’ – this is much more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." The penny then drops for readers as Jesus says to the scribe, "You are not far from the kingdom of God" (present tense verb, 12:34). Mark has just presented a major clue to unravelling some of the strands of his gospel.

The altered Shema is part of a teaching chreia (12:28-34) that can be seen, it is argued here, as an early creedal statement, the climax and summary of Jesus’ teachings about what it means to be "not far from the kingdom of God" (12:34). It is difficult to understand Jesus’ teachings about the kingdom of God, says Mark in different ways throughout the Gospel. Even Jesus’ closest friends, the disciples, do not understand (4:10-13). The whole thing can be boiled down to two commandments (12:28-31), which sound easy at first, but are much more difficult to practice than the old system of "burnt offerings and sacrifices," a system which requires Jews to show unswerving loyalty. (Loyalty, not private emotion, is the meaning of the verb aheb, "love," as it applies to the Shema, according to the Jewish Study Bible (380) and Sakenfeld (376)). A big part of Jesus’ version of faith, according to Mark, is the requirement that disciples use their minds. Fideism is not acceptable. God’s faithful must question the specific ways in which religious teachings are being misused (e.g. 2:23-28; 3:1-6; 7:1-23; 12:38-40; 12:41-44), just as in the past Jews once questioned harmful religious and societal conventions (e.g. Exod. 20:2-6; 21:1 - 22:16; 22:20-12). (Mark thus shows Jesus to be following the "wilderness spirit" of the Sinai Covenant in the Torah (cf. Mark 1:3,4,12), as opposed to the Temple and hierarchy-based Zion Covenant presented in the Psalms and the Deuteronomistic History.[1]) God’s faithful must be willing to not only open their hearts and souls to God’s kingdom, but also their minds (διάνοια) – their innate capacity to think and understand in moral ways (Harder 125). Moral thinking and moral decision-making is a higher form of loving God than being obedient and loyal to the laws of the Zion Covenant.

This kind of "thinking faith," directed towards loving God (e.g. 1:35-39; 15:25-32), loving others (e.g. 9:33-37; 10:41-45), and loving themselves (e.g. 12:31)[2], will put them in opposition to others – family (e.g. 3:21; 3:31-35; 10:28-31), friends (e.g. 6:1-3; 14:66-72), Pharisees (e.g. 3:6, 12:13-17), scribes and chief priests (e.g. 2:6-9, 3:16-17; 11:18), and Gentiles (e.g. 5:14-17; 15:16-20) – who choose to follow honour-oriented traditions. Understanding is not an instantaneous gift from God, however (clearly evidenced in 8:14-21)[3]. Nor is understanding a gift conferred only on the disciples closest to Jesus (e.g. 5:33-34; 9:33-37; 10:17-22; 12:34; 14:6-9). Understanding is a long, difficult process which disciples must willingly participate in (e.g. 4:13; 4:33-34; 10:23-27; 13:9-13). It requires strength, a theme which Mark repeatedly intertwines with the requirement for understanding, as shall be shown. God’s faithful must commit their strength (iσχύς) to a process spread out over time and geography (hence Jesus’ travels back and forth across Galilee and adjacent territories) and also over boundaries of class and honour (hence Jesus’ willingness to heal and teach people from disadvantaged groups). It is a process open to all people, regardless of race, religion, gender, state of mental and/or physical health, wealth, or status. But it is a difficult process.

Mark – for all that he is trying to describe a "thinking faith" – seems very wary of directly invoking Hellenistic or Judeo-Hellenistic notions of philosophy, rational thought, or "wisdom" (σοφία). Σοφία is used 51 times in the New Testament, but only once in Mark (on the lips of the surprised synagogue attendees in 6:2). The adjective σοφός appears 22 times in the New Testament, but not once in Mark. Whatever claim Mark is making, it is not a claim for σοφία (wisdom, insight, intelligence, knowledge, divine knowledge). He prefers the cognates of the more "practical" verbs συνίημι (understand, comprehend, perceive, have insight into) and διαλογίζομαι (discuss, argue, consider, reason, wonder about, question). It is notable that, although he uses the adverb νουνεχwς once, and the verb νοέω a few times, he does not use the Greek word νοuς, a noun meaning perception, understanding, thoughts, or reason. Νοuς is attested since Linear B; it was used by Plato to mean "the highest of the three parts of the soul" (Harder 122), and still later used in the post-canonical, apocryphal era of Jewish literature in a sense associated with the will or deliberation (Harder 125). It is difficult to tell whether Mark avoids using νοuς because in Hebrew there is no direct equivalent for it, and the Septuagint rarely uses it (Harder 124) (compare to Paul, who uses it in Romans and 1 Corinthians); or whether Mark avoids using it because he has a general tendency to not include abstract "wisdom words" such as "peace," "hope," and "righteousness" words in his writing[4].

It is interesting to ponder Mark’s non-use of the "wisdom words" frequently attested in books of the Old Testament, as well as in the other Gospels, Acts, and the accepted letters of Paul. Certainly it can be argued that these words are malleable enough to serve any purpose ("Peace in our time!"). Perhaps, by not making abundant use of "wisdom words," Mark hopes to make his readers think, to apply their minds in new ways to the difficult question of what it means to be close to the kingdom of God. (Mark himself lends this impression in 13:14, where he suddenly interjects with "let the reader understand (νοείτω).") "Out with the poetry, in with the praxis," seems to be his approach. He therefore intentionally avoids "telling us" at length what Jesus said, and insists on "showing us" what Jesus did – what Jesus’ actions and choices were, where he went, who he talked to, who he aided, and what he did despite his friends’ lack of courage, faith, and love. Mark’s Radical Messiah is a man of relatively few words who teaches by example, and is not interested in raising his own status. (Even the scribe in 12:28-34 is accorded great dignity by Jesus – and also by Mark.) Therefore, for Mark, the examples are what matter most. (By contrast, Matthew’s Jesus seems very fond of the sound of his own voice, and John’s Jesus has a case of the "I ams.")

It is clear from a review of word usage articles that, by the first century CE, there was a blurring between Jewish and Hellenistic concepts of heart, mind, and soul, and this may explain why Mark felt he needed to add to the traditional phrasing of the Shema. In the Septuagint translation of the Shema, for instance, leb is rendered as καρδία; yet Holloday’s Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon shows 11 different meanings for leb: the physical heart organ; the seat of vitality; the seat of one’s feelings and impulses; mind, character, disposition, inclination, loyalty, concern; determination, courage, high morale; intention, purpose; mind, attention, consideration, understanding; the self; conscience; metaphorically the "interior" or "middle"; and finally the organizing power of living beings (nefesh – the word which is translated as ψυχή in the Septuagint’s version of the Shema ) (171-172). Harder points out that Septuagint translators rendered the Hebrew leb or lebab as νοuς only six times, as διάνοια 38 times, and as καρδία in most other instances (124). Sorg reports that the Septuagint occasionally translates leb as ψυχή (181). Meanwhile, ψυχή itself (used 101 times in the New Testament) encompasses a broad range of meanings: the whole person or creature; a person’s actual, physical life; the seat of the emotions; the inner life or personality of a person; the part of the person that lives on after death (Harder 682-686; Carrigan). Καρδία can be used literally to mean the physical heart, or it can be used metaphorically. In the New Testament, it is used in 148 passages with a variety of meanings: the seat of intellectual and spiritual life; the inner person or personality/ego; the seat of doubt and hardness; the mind or reason; will, desire, intention (Sorg 182-183). To state, as Cameron does, that "since Hebrew psychology lacked precise terminology, there is some overlapping in the use of nepesh, leb/lebab, and ruah" is something of an understatement. Perhaps Mark, aware of the confusion amongst Jews and Jewish Christians about the meanings of leb and καρδία, nefesh and ψυχή, decides to make certain that no one can dispute the necessity of "mind" and "understanding" (as distinct from Hellenistic wisdom!) by his explicitly including both διανοίας and συνέσεως in the crucial teaching chreia of 12:28-34.

Mark wants to talk about the Radical Messiah’s "thinking faith," but at the same time he demonstrates a prudent fear of both Jewish and Roman authorities. He does not wish to be arrested for apostasy or political treason (he is writing during a time of heightened political-religious conflict, both within Judaism itself, and between Judaism and the Roman Empire). Therefore, while he shies away from "wisdom words," he makes ample use of allegory. It is difficult, for instance, to see Mark’s repeated use of boat crossings on the "Sea" of Galilee as anything but a metaphor. It is a lake, after all, and not a very big one, at that – a fact that early Jewish Christian readers in the region would have known. Pheme Perkins points out that the Q Source has no sayings about fishing or grapes, and no stories about storms on the Sea of Galilee (94-95). Mark, however, introduces the Sea of Galilee, fishermen, and boats in his first chapter (1:16, 1:16-20, and 1:19-20 respectively). He is hinting at something. What does a boat do? we then must ask. A boat helps us cross the waters. What have bodies of water traditionally represented in Jewish thought? The forces of chaos that are overcome by the sovereign powers of God (Gen. 1:2 - 2:3). And how does one overcome the forces of chaos? In part, by using one’s strength – at which point it is very hard to overlook the similarity in sound between the word for "fish" (iχθύς) and the word for "strength" (iσχύς). (We know that Paul uses plays on words, so it is not unreasonable to conclude that Mark does the same.) Once this is observed, the two miraculous feedings of the crowd with bread and fish (6:34-44 and 8:1-9) become emblematic of the "strength" with which Jesus feeds the people [5,6] – the same strength that is spoken of in a positive light twice in 12:28-34, in a negative light in 14:37, in a perplexing light in 3:27 and 5:4, and in a contextual way in 15:46, where Joseph of Arimathea has the strength to roll a "very large rock" across the tomb by himself.

In the important verses of 8:14-21, Mark draws an overt link between the allegorical feedings – with their relationship to the theme of strength – and the issue of understanding. Here, while Jesus and the disciples are sitting yet again in their boat (8:14 – the final reference to boats in the Gospel of Mark), Jesus castigates the disciples harshly, in several different ways, because they do not yet understand (νοεiτε) or realize (συνίετε). This pericope is filled with Greek verbs related to the thinking faculties of people (thinking faculties which include input from the senses): the disciples "forgot" the bread (8:14); Jesus cautions them to "see" the yeast of the Pharisees and of Herod (8:15); the disciples "reasoned" among themselves (8:16); Jesus "knows" their attempt at reasoning and asks them why they are still "reasoning" that way instead of "understanding" and "realizing" (8:17); have their "hearts" been hardened? Jesus asks (8:17); do they have "eyes" that don’t see, and "ears" that don’t hear? (8:18); do they not "remember"? (8:18); do they not yet understand? (8:21). Verses 14-21 of Chapter 8 can be seen to conclude and epitomize the first half of Mark’s Gospel, as some scholars have suggested (Perkins 131); however, reading the Gospel in this way does, as Perkins points out, present "as much of a challenge to the audience as the ending of the Gospel does" (131) because of its critical depiction of the disciples. The disciples, both male and female, lack understanding and strength. They have not applied "all their mind" and "all their strength" to loving God or their teacher, Jesus, and therefore – unlike the scribe of 12:28-34 and perhaps unlike Joseph of Arimathea – they have not been able to draw near to the kingdom of God. It is not enough to be loyal, according to Mark. It is not enough to be close to the Rabbi. The disciples will not be able to understand what the kingdom of God is like until they give themselves heart, soul, mind, and strength to the praxis of loving God and loving other people, the sort of praxis which Jesus models on every page of this complex gospel.

ENDNOTES

1. The two covenant thesis in the Jewish Bible is convincingly argued by W.M.

2. Not all scholars agree that 12:29 commands people to love themselves (Klassen 389).

3. Mark does not tell us how Jesus acquired his understanding. We know only that God has adopted Jesus as his son (1:11 and 9:7), and is well pleased with him.

4. In marked contrast to other New Testament authors such as Matthew, Luke in Luke/Acts, and Paul, Mark uses the words "peace" (only 3 times), "hope" (zero times), "love" (X 4), "joy" (X 1), "freedom" (X 0), "glory" (X 3), "just/righteous" (X 3) or "holy" (X 7). (Nelson's Concordance)

5. I have not yet figured out how "artos" is being used in these passages.

6. In this context, the numerological references in the two miraculous feedings (e.g. 5,000 people, 12 baskets of leftovers, 7 loaves) can be read as being indicators to treat these passages allegorically (unlike the healing miracles, which Mark treats in a factual way).


WORKS CONSULTED

Berlin, Adele and Marc Zvi Brettler, Eds. The Jewish Study Bible: Jewish Publication Society TANAKH Translation. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2004.

Cameron, W.J. "Soul." New Bible Dictionary. 2nd Ed. Ed. J.D. Douglas. Leicester and Wheaton IL: Inter-varsity and Tyndale House, 1982. 1135.

Carrigan, Henry L. "Soul." Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. David Noel Freedman. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. 1245.

Coogan. Michael D., Ed. The New Oxford Annotated Bible: New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha, College Edition. 3rd Ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2001.

Ellison, John W., Ed. Nelson’s Complete Concordance of the Revised Standard Version Bible. New York: Nelson & Sons, 1957.

Harder, Georg. "νοuς." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 3. Rev. Ed. Ed. Colin Brown. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986. 122-130.

Harder, Georg. "ψυχή." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 3. Rev. Ed. Ed. Colin Brown. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986. 676-689.

Goetzmann, Jurgen. "σύνεσις." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 3. Rev. Ed. Ed. Colin Brown. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986. 130-134.

Holloday, William L., Ed. A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1988.

Klassen, William. "Love in the New Testament and Early Jewish Literature." The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 4. Ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. 381-396.

Morrison, Clinton. An Analytical Concordance to the Revised Standard Version of the New Testament. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979.

Perkins, Pheme. Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007.

Sakenfeld, Katharine Door Sakenfeld. "Love in the Old Testament." The Anchor Bible Dictionary. Vol. 4. Ed. David Noel Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992. 375-381.

Schattenmann, Hans-Georg. "Iσχύς." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 3. Rev. Ed. Ed. Colin Brown. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986. 712-716.

Sorg, Theo. "καρδία." The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology. Vol. 2. Ed. Colin Brown. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1986. 180-184.

Stanton, Graham N. The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989.

JR30: Foxes Have Holes, Canadians Have Gloves

A: I'd like to go back to some concepts we were discussing a few weeks ago about the soul. (http://jesusredux.blogspot.com/2011/03/saying-67-in-gospel-of-thomas.html). At that time, you stated that souls aren't malleable. Yet you've also said that the soul is hardwired into human DNA, and elsewhere we've talked about the reality of neuroplasticity -- the ability of the brain to grow new brain cells. These three concepts seem to contradict each other. Can you explain?
J: It's not that hard, really. I'm going to use the analogy of a hand in a glove.

A: Okay.
 
J: The core aspect of a person that's eternal -- the soul -- can be likened to "the hand" in our analogy. Once you reach adolescence, your hand reaches its adult size and stops growing. It's yours for life. Everything about your hand is shaped by your DNA --the size, shape, flexibility, skin pigmentation, fingernail growth, and, of course, your unique set of fingerprints. (For those born without hands, the same principle would apply, though obviously the analogy would pertain to a different portion of the biological body). The characteristics of the hand are not malleable. You don't have a small-sized hand one day and an extra-large hand the next day. You don't have a pianist's hands one day and a mechanic's hands the next. Even the fine details, such as your fingerprints, don't change. You have the hand your DNA says you're supposed to have, and that's it. You can't change the overall form or function. The form and function of your hand are pretty much "carved in stone."

A: Except if you can afford plastic surgery.

“Jesus said: Foxes have holes and birds have nests, but the son of man has no place to lay down his head and rest” (Gospel of Thomas 86). February Snow, photo credit JAT 2015.

J: That's a surgical intervention intended to override your DNA. For the purposes of our example, we'll stick to a more basic example -- a person who lives in Canada and needs to wear a glove in the winter because it's cold.
 
A: Hey, count me in. I carry my gloves in my coat pocket from October till April. Just in case it suddenly gets cold.
 
J: The soul is like the hand of the hardy adult Canadian in our analogy. Its overall form and function are fixed. And there's nothing wrong with this. In fact, it's very helpful. Can you imagine how confusing life would be if your hand were very small on Monday and very large on Tuesday? How could you get anything done or decide what tools you need? How could you make long term plans? How could you decide on a career, a hobby, or a hands-on pursuit? You'd be in a constant state of anxiety because of the lack of certainty. It's good to be flexible and creative, but you can only afford to be flexible and creative if some things in life are certain. Like the size of your hand.
 
A: And the shape of your soul.
 
J: Exactly. The shape of your soul is fixed. Knowing this can give you great courage, great strength. Knowing who you are as a soul gives you the courage to say "yes" to the things you ought to be doing and "no" to the things you ought not to be doing. It helps you avoid the years of pain and frustration you feel when you're in the wrong job or the wrong location or the wrong relationship. The job you have may be a perfectly wonderful job from a logical point of view, but if it's not the right job for you as a soul, you'll get stressed out, and then you'll get sick, angry, depressed. If you believe you are a soul, and if you believe your soul has a unique blueprint, you have a terrific foundation of certainty and constancy to build your life on.
 
A: And nobody can take it away from you.
 
J: They can't take away your core self, your core blueprint, your soul. These belong solely to you. What they can take away, however, is the biological functioning of the parts of your brain linked to your human physiology. What they can take away is the glove that protects your soul during your human lifetime.
 
A: Explain how the glove works.
 
J: In our analogy of the hand in the glove, the glove represents the parts of your human biology that keep your temporary 3D human body functioning properly. But, like the glove that prevents warm-blooded fingers from freezing in minus 30 degree weather, the glove is essential to the health of the hand it protects. The glove isn't the same substance, if you will, as the hand, but it protects the hand and is absolutely indispensable. After the glove has been worn for a while, it starts to mould itself to the unique shape of the hand it protects. Eventually you can recognize it in a pile of similar gloves because it has a unique combination of bend marks and stains and the like. It takes on the characteristics of its owner's hand because it's malleable.
 
A: You're suggesting, then, that some of the circuitry in the brain and central nervous system is "fixed" -- not malleable -- because it's linked to the soul's blueprint. The rest of the circuits -- the parts that deal with human survival needs -- are not fixed and are instead intended to be malleable. Have I got that straight?
 
J (nodding): The human brain isn't a simple blob of jello where all the parts inside your skull behave exactly alike. The human brain isn't even a single organ -- it's several semi-autonomous organs working together. At least that's the theory. What happens in the case of major dysfunction is that one or more of the "essential services" in the brain goes off-line. Without input from these "essential services," other sectors of the brain don't do their own job as efficiently as possible. They may go into overdrive and try to make up for the loss of the other services by doing more work themselves than they're designed for. Some parts of the brain end up underactive, and other parts end up overactive. These realities are now visible on brain scans.

A: What's the final result of these imbalances?

J: In most cases the final result is a person who's standing outside in bitterly cold weather and wearing a glove that's covered in holes -- big, ragged holes that let the icy wind in and make you want to retract all your fingers into a ball in the end of your coat sleeve. It doesn't work very well.
 
A: So the thing to do is to fix the glove. Mend the holes and put new insulation in.
 
J: Mending the holes is what neuroplasticity is all about. The "essential services" that have gone off-line in the brains of many of today's adults can be gradually healed and restored. Eventually it becomes possible for them to hear what their own inner self has been saying all along. Eventually it becomes possible for them to hear what God has been saying, too.

A: This is a very helpful, hopeful message. It's much easier to begin the journey of healing when you have faith that your inner self is worth the trouble. It's also easier when you have a basic understanding of what it is you're trying to do.
 
J: I can't emphasize enough the connection between insight and healing. The simple experience of achieving insight is not only emotionally and spiritually transformative, but it lays the groundwork for your biological brain (your "glove") to rewire itself in positive, healing, holistic ways. Healing follows insight. Therefore, if you're a tyrant who wants to cripple the people around you so you can acquire fame, money, power, and sex, your most effective strategy is to prevent people from acquiring their own unique healing insights. People can't oppose you and overthrow you if they're busy dealing with all the holes you've put in their heads.
 
A: Holes caused by HDM strategies (http://concinnatechristianity.blogspot.com/2010/11/it-takes-village-non-hdm-village-that.html).
 
J: Yes. Status-based strategies. Plus choices like slavery. Intentional withholding of food and resources to drive up prices, increase poverty, increase fear, and reduce political opposition. Subjugation of women. Refusal to educate children -- either boys or girls or both. Burning of books. Controlling access to information. Lack of judicial transparency. Claims of religious infallibility. These are the strategies of tyrants.
 
A: What you've just described reminds me a lot of Hitler and his SS goons.
 
J: Actually, as I was talking, I was thinking of the religious tyrants of my day. The ones who were oppressing the regular people. Some things haven't changed much in the last 2,000 years.

JR22: Why You Need To Know Yourself (Mystical Commentary on Saying 67)

A: Can you please explain as simply as possible WHY it matters that each person has a unique soul blueprint and WHY it's important for each person on a spiritual journey to uncover the specific details of his or her own unique blueprint?
 
J: Let's use an imaginary person as an example to make this simpler. I'm going to call this imaginary person Jane Tamaguchi.
 
A: Okay.
 
J: Like all human beings, Jane is a soul. She doesn't have a soul. She is a soul. She's an angel -- a child of God. Like all angels, she was born as a soul long before she decided to incarnate as a human being. Soul energy isn't visible in the third dimension -- the dimension that human beings live in during their temporary lives as incarnated souls -- but soul energy can be felt in the third dimension.
 
A: Can you give some examples of "feelable" soul energy? (I think I just invented a new word.)

J: Yes. When you feel a deep sense of connection with another person, that's soul energy. When you feel empathy for other creatures, that's soul energy. When you feel committed, romantic, monogamous love, that's soul energy. When you give or receive forgiveness, that's soul energy. When you're willing to trust in a loving and compassionate God, that's soul energy.
 
A: Those are all emotions. Positive emotions. Uplifting emotions.

Thomas 67: “One who knows everything else but who does not know himself knows nothing.” (Translation by Stevan Davies.Photo credit JAT 2015.)

J: Yes. All souls are intensely emotional in a positive, uplifting, creative, intuitive, loving way.
 
A: So much for Christian angelology, which says angels have no emotions of their own and are simply instruments of God's work and God's will.
 
J: Yes. That's another Christian doctrine that should go the way of the 8-track recording system.
 
A: But angels also have minds, as you've said previously. They have minds plus emotional hearts.
 
J: Yes. Christians have long believed -- based largely on theories of the soul put forward by Plato, Aristotle, Tertullian, Augustine, and others -- that the soul itself consists of a single indivisible substance. Arguments raged as to the exact nature of this substance. But the basic idea was that the soul was made of just one thing because -- as the theory went -- the soul couldn't really be a soul if it could be "divided" into two or more substances. It should go without saying that this is a ridiculous supposition. There are no analogies anywhere in nature or in the quantum world for a complex lifeform made of a single element such as pure hydrogen or pure gold. All lifeforms, whether they exist in the third dimension or in higher dimensions, are extremely complex. A soul is a quantum being whose "biology" is far more complex than that of any 3D creature -- which is pretty much what you'd expect for children of God who were born in the fourth dimension, and who will spend most of their eternal existence in parts of the "implicate order" that can't be seen or measured by human beings in the third dimension.
 
A: So people just have to take it on trust? On blind faith?
 
J: I wouldn't say that. Individuals who want to take the time to do intensive research into quantum physics and quantum biology will soon discover that the universe being studied by today's scientists is extremely complex. This isn't the cosmology of Plato or Thomas Aquinas. It's breathtakingly complicated and interconnected. There's plenty of room in there for a modern doctrine of the soul that doesn't in any way violate the laws of quantum biology.
 
A: Okay. So tell me about Jane. Who is she as a soul?
 
J: Jane is a female angel, and for the purposes of this discussion she's heterosexual.
 
A: I know what this means for human beings. But what does this mean for angels?
 
J: It means exactly what it sounds like. All angels are one of two sexes: male or female. Just as with human beings. There are no "in-between" sexes or alien sexes. All angels are either male (the same sex as God the Father) or female (the same sex as God the Mother). This is pretty much what you'd expect by looking at life on Planet Earth.
 
A: Some creatures on Earth are able to reproduce without a sexual partner. Komodo Dragons, for instance.
 
J: There are different modes of reproduction for creatures that live on Planet Earth. Reproduction is part of the 3D biological package. It isn't part of the 4D soul package. We'll come back to that at a later time.
 
A: But sexual orientation is part of the 4D soul package. Why is sexual orientation necessary for angels?
 
J: Because each angel has a soulmate. One true eternal love partner. A divine spouse. The one partner in all of Creation who's a perfect match in every way, including intimate, private ways. Each angel in God's Creation is paired with his or her perfect eternal partner. For many angelic couples, the perfect partner is of the same sex. Ain't nothin' wrong with that.
 
A: So God the Father and God the Mother are not a same-sex couple themselves, but it's okay with God if their children choose a same-sex partner to share eternity with.
 
J: Yes. God's children are not carbon copies of their divine parents. God's children come in every size and shape and colour imaginable. Yet every soul couple is blissfully happy, blissfully complete. This is what God the Mother and God the Father want for their children -- bliss. Everybody's different. Yet everybody's happy. It's the perfect divine family when you think about it.
 
A: So Jane has a specific sex -- female -- and a specific sexual orientation -- heterosexual. What else does she have?
 
J: She has a soul body. Her soul body has a unique size and shape that's perfect for her. Her soul body probably doesn't look too much like her current human body, but that's okay. She's very happy with the soul body she has.
 
A: What else?
 
J: She has a soul mind. As a soul, she's pure consciousness -- by that I mean she has full awareness at all times of her own thoughts and her own feelings and her own choices and her own needs and wishes. Part of her unique mind lies in the way she thinks, the way she learns, the way she remembers, the way she expresses herself. These attributes lie within the soul mind. Jane doesn't "know" everything. Nor does she want to. She has certain interests that are hard-wired at the very core of her consciousness, and these are the things she learns fastest and remembers best.
 
A: Can you give an example of what Jane might be interested in as a soul, as an angel?
 
J: Okay. Let's say for argument's sake that Jane is a gifted musician.
 
A: There are some angels who are more musically gifted than other angels?
 
J: All angels enjoy music to some extent. But not all angels want to spend most of the day in classes devoted to advanced musical performance and interpretation skills. As with all things in Creation, it's a continuum. All angels appreciate music. But some angels want to devote most of their time to it. Which means they can't be devoting their time to other interests, other skills. There's only so much time in a day, even for an angel.
 
A: What other interests does our imaginary Jane possess as a soul?
 
J: Jane likes to be around a lot of other angels. She gets very lonely if she can't hear other angels singing. She's happiest when she's with a big group of noisy, laughing angels.
 
A: Are there any angels who are more quiet in temperament, who wouldn't feel comfortable in large groups?
 
J: Yes, lots. And that's okay, too. These angels are quiet, but not in any way unfriendly or unloving. They just need more quiet than other angels do. Nothing wrong with that.
 
A: Let's give Jane a third unique attribute. What would you suggest.
 
J: She doesn't like the colour red.
 
A: Huh? 
 
J: All angels appreciate the fact that everything in Creation is beautiful and deserving of respect. So Jane respects the colour red, and she's happy for her friends who love all things red. But angels have their own taste, their own "likes" and "dislikes." And Jane herself is under no divine obligation to like red. It happens that she doesn't. God the Mother and God the Father respect the fact that Jane just doesn't happen to like red. On the other hand, she can't get enough black. She's crazy for black.
 
A (grinning): I know a certain male angel who happens to love black! And a particular shade of charcoal grey.
 
J: Yeah, I do like those colours. Can't deny it.
 
A: Okay. So we have our angel Jane, who's passionate about music, loves to be around large groups of people, isn't fond of the colour red, but likes black. Jane decided a while back to incarnate as a human being on Planet Earth (her choice), and right now she's 35 years old, is working as a nurse, is taking night school courses so she can apply to law school, and lives with a female partner who has painted the bedroom red. Tell me about Jane's current brain health.
 
J: All the things we talked about -- Jane's true soul interests -- are hardwired into her human DNA. That's the junk DNA that geneticists are puzzled by. Her soul's blueprint is hardwired into her brain and central nervous system. Her brain stem, cerebellum, hypothalamus, thalamus, basal ganglia, and glial cells contain coding that's unique to her, unique to her true soul personality. If Jane were to make conscious choices that "matched" or "lined up with" her core blueprint, her biological brain would function smoothly. It would function the way it's supposed to. Her mood would remain stable. Her thinking would be logical and coherent. Her memory would be pretty good, especially around music and musical interpretation! She would have excellent social functioning. All in all, she'd be pretty happy, healthy, and well adjusted.
 
A: Okay. But right now Jane isn't making conscious choices that "line up with" her own soul's core identity. She's working as a nurse, not as a musician. She's around lots of people, which is good, but the people aren't singing. She's in a lesbian love relationship. And every night she has to go to sleep in a room that isn't healing or calming for her as a soul. What's happening inside her brain at this point?
 
J: There's a software conflict. On the one hand, the so-called "primitive" parts of Jane's brain are saying "I want to craft music, I want to find a loving male partner, I want to be around the colour black." Meanwhile, Jane's forcing the outer cortical layers of her brain to make different choices -- choices that seem logical to her peers or to her family, perhaps, but which make no sense to her core self.
 
A: So how's Jane doing?
 
J: Her brain is pretty messed up. There are competing signals from the different regions of her brain and central nervous system. The signals contradict each other. By now she's feeling confused and upset with her life, and she doesn't why. Things seem okay on the outside. But on the inside she's not happy. She may be having trouble with headaches or poor sleep or depression or one of the many other signs of imbalance that can emerge via human biology.
 
A: A lot of these medical issues would begin to clear up if Jane were to seek professional counselling and appropriate medical care to help her uncover the choices she's making that aren't working for her.
 
J: Yes. Jane has been making choices based on other people's priorities rather than her own core priorities -- the priorities of her soul. Over the long term, her poor choices have begun to affect her health and her happiness.
 
A: Can she force herself to "be" a nurse and "be" a lawyer if her soul isn't wired for healing or for case analysis?
 
J: No. This is what I meant when I said the soul isn't malleable in the way that clay is malleable. Jane can only be who she is. If she tries to be somebody she's not -- if she tries to be a lesbian nurse-lawyer who wears red power suits -- her biological brain will begin to sustain serious damage from the continuous push-and-pull of her internal "software conflict." She'll literally fry her own brain from the inside out.
 
A: Okay. That's pretty clear. Be yourself -- be the person God knows you to be -- so your brain and body will function the way God intended.
 
J: Simple in fact. Simple in reality. But not always easy to implement.
 
A: At least it gives people a starting place on the journey. At least it helps them understand where they're going and WHY. It helps so much to understand WHY.
 
J: Insight is one hell of an amazing miracle.

JR21: Saying 67 in the Gospel of Thomas

A: Okay. Here's another pretty big question for you. Stevan Davies translates Saying 67 of the Gospel of Thomas as "Jesus said: One who knows everything else but who does not know himself knows nothing." Was this saying central to your teachings? Was it an important theme for you?
 
J: Yes. I tried very hard to express this idea. I tried to express it in many different ways.
 
A: Similar ideas have been taught by many spiritual leaders over the centuries. In fact, it's almost a spiritual cliche. It's so easy to say, "One who knows everything else but who does not know himself knows nothing." But what exactly does it mean?
 
J: It means you have to know who you actually are as a soul -- "the core you" that's left after you strip away all the false, damaging prejudices and religious doctrines and abusive teachings of your family and culture. It means you have to love, honour, and respect the person you are when you remove all the weeds from the garden of your biological brain. It means you have to trust that when you pull out all the weeds, there's still going to be something left in there. You have to trust that when you pull out all the weeds, you won't be left with a barren patch of lifeless dirt. Instead you'll be able to see the flowers of your soul -- the lilies of the field -- for the first time.

"Happy are those who make the Lord their trust, who do not turn to the proud, to those who go astray after false gods. You have multiplied, O Lord my God, your wondrous deeds and your thoughts toward us; none can compare with you. Were I to proclaim and tell of them, they would be more than can be counted. Sacrifice and offering you do not desire, but you have given me an open ear. Burnt offering and sin offering you have not required. Then I said, 'Here I am; in the scroll of the book it is written of me. I delight to do your will, O God; your law is within my heart'" (Psalm 40:4-8). Photo credit JAT 2014.

 

 

 

A: I take it you're not too fond of the image of Creation in Genesis 2:7: the Lord God forming Adam from dust and then breathing the breath of life into his nostrils so he'd become a living being.
 
J: I don't like the Christian interpretation of this verse. The Bible has many references to human beings as dirt or clay or potters' vessels. Clay is nothing more than a kind of dirt that can be shaped, moulded according to the creator's will. The message that's repeated again and again is that human beings are malleable in the way that wet clay is malleable. Wet clay starts out as a lump. It can be turned into any shape imaginable (as long as the laws of physics and chemistry aren't broken). You can make a plate. You can make a bowl. You can make a large urn. You can make a small storage container. A complex sculpture. A string of beads. Clay is like that. You can make whatever you want. Many people -- pious Pauline Christians especially -- believe that God intends human beings to be like clay. They believe that each person is basically a lump of malleable clay. Based on this belief, they assume that God can reshape each individual in any way God chooses. It's the idea of neuroplasticity taken to absurd extremes: "I can be anything God wants me to be if only I try hard enough to surrender to God's will!!!" How often have you heard a sanctimonious preacher say that?
 
A: It's a popular Christian idea.
 
J: It was a popular idea with many Essene and Hellenistic philosophers in my time, too. It's an idea that makes it very easy for religious leaders to blame people in their flock for "not trying hard enough." It makes it very easy to accuse regular people of being "weak". To accuse them of falling short of true faith. To make them feel guilty for "letting God down." To point fingers at them and say they're filled with sin. These teachings are spiritually abusive.
 
A: You're talking about the bread & butter of fundamentalist and evangelical Christians.
 
J: And fundamentalists of other faiths, too.
 
A: You're saying, then, that the doctrine of malleable clay is factually incorrect. That Genesis 2:7 is wrong in its portrayal of human beings.
 
J: I'm saying the Second Creation story (Genesis 2-3) has been completely misread. In fact, both Creation stories in Genesis have been misunderstood. Obviously (without apologies to any Creationists who might read this) there is no literal truth to Genesis 1 or Genesis 2-3. On top of that, the metaphorical truth doesn't say what Christians believe it says. Human beings are not malleable lumps of clay. They can't be shaped by God or by anyone else into something they're not. You can't force a woman to become a man (though some people would like to try). You can't force a gay man to become straight (though some Christians would like them to try). You can't force a musician to become an engineer (though sadly many parents have tried. And tried and tried and tried.) God the Mother and God the Father don't make souls this way. Souls aren't malleable. Each soul has a unique identity, a unique blueprint, a unique set of talents and traits and strengths and absences of strengths. Souls are like snowflakes -- no two are alike. You can't take what God the Mother and God the Father made and "fix it." You can't turn a bowl into a plate. You can't turn a sculpture into a wind chime. You are who you are. It's true that you may not know who you are. It's true that you may not know whether you're a bowl or a plate or a sculpture or a wind chime. But your soul knows. And God knows. Between you -- between you and God -- you can uncover your own true soul identity.
 
A: I like the garden metaphor better. I'd rather discover what kind of "flower" I am. I'm not sure I really want to "see" myself as a set of dishes in the kitchen cupboard.
 
J: I hear ya. Nature metaphors are much more natural, much more helpful. That's why I used so many images from nature in my teachings. There's a natural resonance, a natural harmony between the images of nature and the soul's own language. The soul "gets" nature imagery. The soul doesn't mind being likened to trees or flowers or fruits. Or the totems of Indigenous North American tradition. It helps human beings to have a nature metaphor of their own soul. An image to help them "see" themselves as God sees them.
 
A: If I were a tree, what kind of tree do you think I'd be? (Not that I'm saying I'm literally a tree . . .)
 
J: You'd be a yew. A tough, gnarly yew. That reminds me a lot of you.
 
A: Yeah? Okay, well that makes sense to me. I even really like yews. Always have. Nobody's gonna believe this when I say this, but to me, you're most definitely a magnolia. A big, showy magnolia. And damn but you wear it well! Of course, if the shrivelled up hearts of the pious Pauline Christians had their way, you'd be a bleeding, suffering, miserable, ugly thorn bush.
 
J: What? No burning bush? No branch of Jesse? No grafted grapevine? No olive tree? I think I'd make a particularly fine Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Don't you?
 
A: You're such a cynic.

JR17: Interpreting Jesus' Parables: Some Guidelines

A: Tell me about your parables. Why did you switch from short wisdom sayings to narrative parables as a method of teaching?  

J: I switched because wisdom sayings are the easiest thing to pervert if you're a leader. They're a convenient source of mind control or brainwashing, if you will. A clever leader can always find a wisdom saying or a biblical law to back up his or her desired position. Such leaders know that regular people will feel guilty and ashamed if they believe they've broken an important moral law. Regular people back down quickly when they think they've broken moral codes, moral imperatives. That's a good thing, by the way.  

A: Explain who you mean by "regular people."  

J: Balanced individuals. Emotionally mature individuals. People who respect both themselves and the needs of the wider community. Compassionate people. People who reject libertarian values. 

A: You once wrote some scathing comments about the Ten Commandments to show how even these supposedly unbreakable laws are interpreted differently by those who are in power and those who don't have any power.  

J: As many political revolutionaries over the centuries have pointed out.  

A: And more recently, liberation theologians. 

J: The problem with these short wisdom sayings is that they can be given any context that's convenient. Interpreters of wisdom sayings can claim the sayings must be interpreted literally, if that suits their purpose. More commonly, interpreters claim the sayings are symbolic -- filled with hidden esoteric meanings that only the most advanced religious initiates can fully understand. Needless to say, this leads to no end of abuse. If wisdom sayings can be moulded like putty to suit any need, then they have no meaning. There's a reason that most major world religions are centred around only a few small books of sacred teachings plus vast libraries of commentary and interpretation that run into the thousands and millions of pages. Each new generation of theologians wants to prove how clever they are at "reinterpreting" or "revealing" the hidden message of the short sayings. It's a cottage industry. 

This rock sample on display at the Natural History Museum, London, UK is a perfect visual metaphor for the parables written and taught by Jesus. As you begin to study the parables, you'll likely see them as a whole and durable stepping stone that combines traditional teachings such as moral obedience with new strands of thought such as forgiveness. Eventually, if you persist in your efforts to know God, the older themes of purity, piety, and perfection wash away and leave only the enduring networks of love, healing, and forgiveness in your heart. When Jesus' parables start to "pop" like this for you, you know you've found the pathway of your own soul. Photo credit JAT 2024.

   

A: I noticed a while back that if you try to read the whole book of Sirach at one time (the apocryphal book of Wisdom of Jesus, Son of Sirach in the Oxford NRSV Bible) your head feels as if it's going to explode.  

J: That particular scroll was quite popular in Judea and Galilee at the time I was teaching.  

A: The author of Sirach just goes on and on and on with endless lists of pithy little wisdom sayings. "Don't do this." "Don't do that." It's impossible. Impossible to live up to. They ought to call this book "An Instruction Manual on How to Feel Guilty For Daring to Breathe." 

J: Yes. My mother was fond of quoting from it. 

A: I can see how it would appeal to parents trying to govern their children with a firm moral hand. There's something for every occasion. 

J: Yes. Every time you got caught doing something wrong, you could count on getting a lecture, a beating, depending on the severity of the crime, and righteous repetitions of Sirach's easy-to-remember moral laws.  

A: They do stick in one's head, don't they? Sort of like "earworms" -- those catchy but annoying songs we so often can't get out of our heads. 

J: One of my mother's favourite moral imperatives was the importance of polite speech. The NRSV translates this favourite of hers as "Pleasant speech multiplies friends, and a gracious tongue multiplies courtesies (Sirach 6:5)." All my life I could hear her voice reciting that phrase whenever people around me started to get rude.  

A: I think we all have memories of our parents' favourite quotations. One of my father's favourite sayings is, "When all else fails, read the instructions." I think of this every time I get stuck on a task that would have been a lot easier if I'd read the directions before I started.  

J: The problem with a book like Sirach -- and it wasn't the only book in my time to drone on and on about righteousness and obedience -- is that it provides no guidance whatsoever, no practical advice at all on how to hear the inner wisdom of your own heart and soul. It's a "top-down" list of laws, not a "bottom-up" search for meaning, life, purpose, and love. A computer could be programmed to follow all these laws, and would follow them successfully where they don't contradict each other (as they often do.) But that's not life. That's not love. And it's sure not divine wisdom. It's just . . . obedience. Blind obedience. There's no need to draw on your deepest reserves of courage and faith and devotion if all you're doing is blindly following the laws. And there's no need for forgiveness. There's no room in there anywhere for insight. Insight -- what writers in the past have called divine wisdom -- is a complex blending, a complex interaction of positive emotions plus clear, logical thought plus mature, respectful behaviour. It's holistic understanding. It's something more than facts, more than knowledge. Insight is deeply intuitive while at the same time deeply objective. Insight is that hard-to-describe "aha!" moment when understanding suddenly "clicks." Insight helps you feel more grounded, more connected to reality and to life, not less connected. Insight is the opposite of dissociation.  

A: So you were trying to teach people how to find insight, not obedience.  

J: Yes. And you can't teach what insight is by reciting long lists of wisdom sayings. Insight involves the emotions of courage, trust, gratitude, and devotion, so if you're going to give people practical tools for finding their own talent for insight, you have to speak to those emotions within them. You can't just speak to the logical mind of the student. You have to speak to the whole of the student's core self. You have to give them the opportunity to practise hearing. Really hearing. Hearing with their whole being, not just with their logical minds. You have to make them sweat a bit as they struggle to hear the meaning inside their own hearts. If they're reading or listening to a parable using only the logic circuitry of their brains, they won't understand the message of the parable. The message isn't hidden. Nor is it intended to be hidden. But it is intended to make students stretch, to work their "heart" muscles as well as their "intellectual" muscles. It's intended to encourage them to look at a difficult question from more than one angle. It's intended to encourage honesty. A parable is meant to be painful, it's intended to hurt. It doesn't gloss over the painful truth. It highlights the painful truth, and asks the student to struggle with love and forgiveness despite the pain. That's what a parable is meant to do.  

A: It's interesting that a person who's dissociated from his or her core emotions will read your parables in very concrete, literal ways. They won't get the emotional subtext at all.  

J: That's because they're using their logic circuitry in unbalanced ways. They look at the "facts." For them, it's all they can see or hear. They assume that because there are facts and logic in the parables, the parables can be fully understood in purely logical terms. But they can't. People get very angry, very hostile, when you tell them they're being superficial in their reading of the parables. If they can't feel loving emotions themselves, they want to deny that such emotions exist. They don't want to admit to themselves or to anybody else that they're mentally, emotionally, and spiritually imbalanced. 

A: They don't want to admit that they can't love -- that they don't understand what love is. 

J: Yes. And they'll do everything in their power to avoid facing the issue.  

A: Is their inability to love related in any way to their souls? Do they have defective souls that somehow missed out on the whole "love" thing when God was creating their souls?  

J: No. Definitely not. Each and every soul in all of Creation knows how to love and forgive. Human beings can blame their upbringing and their own choices -- combined in many cases with biological dysfunction in the central nervous system -- for their inability to love as adults. People who've chosen to be dissociated from their loving emotions shouldn't be proud of this choice.  

A: Usually they have some pretty powerful excuses for their refusal to accept and heal their core emotions.  

J: Nobody said it would be easy. That's a point I tried to make again and again -- the healing journey isn't easy, but it's worth it.  

A: This morning I was rummaging through the Gospel of Thomas, and felt drawn to two parables on pages 68 and 69 of Stevan Davies's book. When I read these two parables -- sayings 63 and 64a in the Gospel of Thomas -- I hear you talking about the excuses people make to avoid dealing with the pain of their emotions. I hear you talking about the fact that it's easier for a "successful" person -- a person obedient to logic and the law -- than for an impoverished person out on the street to make excuses about sitting down at the table with God in a full relationship of love and trust. I hear you talking about the choices people make. The one thing I do not hear is the explanation that Stevan Davies offers for Saying 64a: "The point of the parable," says Davies, "may be to hold up the host as an example of one who has failed to think things through (page 71)." To my way of thinking, Davies's interpretation is logical, but way too literal, way too concrete. He doesn't get this parable at all.

"Jesus said: Once there was a rich man who had lots of money, and he said, 'I will invest my money so that I can sow, reap, plant, and fill up my silos with crops so that I won`t lack anything.' So he thought, but that night he died. He who has ears, let him hear (Gospel of Thomas 63)." "Jesus said: A man entertained guests. When dinner was ready he sent a servant to invite his guests. The servant went to the first one and said, 'My master invites you,' but he replied, 'I have to collect money from some merchants, and they are due to arrive this evening. Therefore I have to do business with them, and I must be excused from the dinner.' The servant went to another said, 'My master invites you,' but he said, 'I have just bought a house, and I have to spend a day there, so I cannot come. I must be excused.' He went to the next and said, 'My master invites you.' This one replied, 'My friend is about to be married, and I must organize the dinner. I can`t come. I must be excused.' Again he went and said to another, 'My master invites you.' He replied, 'I have just bought a village, and I have to go collect the rent. I can`t come and must be excused.' The servant reported back to his master, 'those whom you invited to the dinner are unable to come.' The master said, 'Go to the roads outside and invite anybody you can find to the dinner' (Gospel of Thomas 64a, translated by Stevan Davies)."

J: John the Baptist hated my parables. He didn't understand them, and got very frustrated when some of my students understood something that he -- the chosen Messiah -- couldn't grasp.  

A: There are no teaching parables in the Gospel of John.  

J: He stopped accepting the legitimacy of my parables when he realized I was using them to teach a message that was for all intents and purposes the opposite of his own message. He was also envious and angry because he didn't understand the emotional meaning interwoven with the logical one.  

A: It's clear enough that in Saying 64a you're turning the imagery of the Essene Messianic Banquet on its head. 

J: That part John understood. He and I were constantly sparring on that issue. 

A: No Messianic Banquet for you? No bread and wine? No body and blood? No occult ritual for specially chosen initiates?  

J (grinning broadly): Hey. God invites everybody -- all people -- to the table of divine love, divine trust, divine forgiveness, and so on. If you're too busy to come . . . well, that's your problem. Healing and empathy take time. Relationship with God takes time. You want to know what God's love feels like? You gotta take the time.  

A: Obedience and righteousness can't replace the benefits of good old fashioned time spent with loved ones, time spent with God?  

J: Nope.  

A: Following all the wisdom sayings in Sirach can't replace the benefits of time spent in love with God?  

J: Nope.  

A: Logic alone can't lead you to God?  

J: Nope. 

 A: So fear of God probably isn't going to help much either, then?  

J: The one thing you'll never see in my parables is a man who fears God. You'll see a lot of pain, a lot of grief, but you won't see fear. In the Kingdom of the Heavens, the methods for dealing with the pain and the grief are forgiveness, honesty, compassion, healing, and equality. This is the feeling of redemption. Redemption is what you feel when you achieve the remarkable insight that forgiveness, not fear, not righteousness, is the only path to being in full relationship with God. Nobody can "give" you this insight from the outside. You have to find it within your own heart, mind, body, and soul. Other people can help you find it, can help you work towards it. However, nobody but you can give you the actual insight. It has to be up to you to accept God's invitation to come to the table.  

A: Where I assume blood and body aren't on the menu.  

J: The table of God's love is filled with so many wonders, so many joys! Everything that God touches -- not just the Eucharistic bread and wine -- is filled with divine love. There's no end to the mystery of redemption, the mystery of love and forgiveness.  

A: That sounds suspiciously like a mushy Hallmark card.  

J: Angels are incredibly mushy.