Tag Archives: Mark 7:13

Patterns of Evidence: Exodus

Posted on by

Patterns of Evidence: Exodus, A Filmmaker’s Journey by Timothy P. Mahoney was Mom’s coffee table book this Thanksgiving.  I have a bit of history with my mother’s coffee table books.  This time I even asked her if she leaves them out for my benefit.  (She said, “No.”)

I can relate to the need to pursue this kind of project.  If there is something dissuading you from believing the Bible it’s best to take Jesus by the hand and hit it head on.  With a history background I’m a little more inured apparently to the historical dabbling of archaeologists than Mr. Mahoney was.  My bias toward historical documents has afforded me a measure of protection here.

Mr. Mahoney’s book is the companion to a film of the same name.  It’s a good film.  He described it in an interview: “Is there a pattern of evidence at any time in the archaeology of Egypt and Israel that matches the events of the Exodus and the Conquest as recorded in the Bible?”[1]  I won’t steal his thunder.  He and his investors deserve to make their money back.  The companion book was more detailed and much more troubling to me.

The confessions he elicited from Jews (on camera) without torture or duress of any kind disturbed me.  Had you asked me I would have said yes, not all those who are descended from Israel are truly Israel, nor are all the children Abraham’s true descendants.[2]  But I was clearly not prepared to have my nose rubbed in it, like some naughty puppy that has peed the carpet.

Mr. Mahoney interviewed a Jewish anthropologist in his museum workroom:

Anthropologist: I always have been Jewish, I always will be Jewish, and I believe in the tradition of Judaism.  Do I think of the Bible as the word of God?  No (Luke 24:25-27), I don’t….[3]

Mahoney: Do you believe that the Exodus occurred as it is written in the Old Testament—do you believe it was a miraculous event with God intervening?

Anthropologist: No, I don’t.  Do I believe the event may have happened?  Yep.  Sure I do.  But do I believe that there was a miraculous event with God intervening?  I don’t believe it… (Exodus 3:1-22)  But I’m willing to be shown.[4]

He interviewed a Jewish archaeologist in the hill country of Israel.

Mahoney: So was there an Exodus?

Archaeologist1: My easy answer to you, as an archaeologist, it didn’t happen.  Not in the way its written down in the Bible…If we didn’t have the Bible, we would never, as archaeologists or as Egyptologists, be able to say this happened….[5]

I’m Jewish, and I like to sit down at a Seder meal and enjoy recounting the Exodus.  But that’s a tradition.  That makes me who I am culturally.  As an archaeologist, we do not see this happening as a one-off event….[6]

Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down, Jesus said to the Pharisees and the experts in the law.  And you do many things like this.[7]  Jesus’ actual point here was some specific legal wrangling about corban (κορβᾶν).  And you do many things like this, opens it up in my mind to the kind of mental gymnastics cited above.

Mr. Mahoney interviewed another Jewish archaeologist in his workroom.

Archaeologist2: Exodus did not happen in the way it is described in the text of the Bible on the background of the 13th century BC….[8]

This same pattern of traditional thinking informed his view of the Hebrew Bible.

Archaeologist2: We are dealing with traditions (2 Timothy 3:16, 17).  Let’s say that the author of this or that part of the Hebrew Bible sits in Jerusalem.  And people have traditions.  Grandpa says this and Grandma says another story, and there is one tradition of this village and another tradition of that family, that clan and this tribe and so on and so forth…They collected all sorts of stories, memories, myths, tales, you know.  And they put them together in such a way that transmits an idea….[9]

Mahoney: Do you believe in celebrating Passover?

Archaeologist2: When I sit at a Passover meal and we read the Haggadah with the family, that evening, it’s all history from A to Z.  Perfect history…about all those many generations of my forefathers who were sitting to the same table at Passover at the same time and reciting the Haggadah….

Mahoney: What would you say to those people who are concerned with the idea that these stories didn’t happen as they are written?

Archaeologist2: I would tell them that it is not important…I think that it is more important to understand the meaning of Exodus, the moral of Exodus, for our civilization, for humanity, for mankind, for understanding the biblical text and the authors….[10]

“As I have mentioned before,” Mr. Mahoney wrote, this particular archaeologist’s “work and ideas greatly influenced” a Jewish Rabbi “to write his controversial Passover sermon.”[11]  Michael Medved asked this Rabbi about that sermon:

Rabbi: I said that the Exodus certainly didn’t happen the way the Bible depicts it, assuming that it was a historical event in any description….

Medved: Why did you say that?

Rabbi: I said it for two reasons.  One was because I knew that these students and others would go off to college and hear people talk about biblical archaeology and comparative religion, and I wanted them to know that that was not a frightening topic….[12]

This Rabbi regarded the Exodus as fiction:

Rabbi: The extent to which the Exodus story has a historical core is very hard to say, but my deeper conviction about it is that it’s a story that whether it was true, it is true.  And those are two different things…there are things that aren’t facts that can be truths….[13]

Medved: What did you want people to feel, not to think, but to feel about the Exodus?

Rabbi: I wanted them to feel that their faith was unshakable, that it didn’t matter what the conclusions were of archaeologists, scientists and historians….[14]

Medved: What does [Passover] mean if we weren’t delivered from Egypt?

Rabbi: Whether or not people were delivered then, does that affect my ability to empathize with what slavery is like now?[15]

Mr. Mahoney interviewed a Jewish politician in the Knesset who seemed to echo the Rabbi’s emphasis on slavery:

Moses was the greatest revolutionary of all time.  Remember that in antiquity there were grand empires that were based on one principal: slavery (Deuteronomy 15:12-18).  Moses challenged that twice.  He challenged it by taking his people, who were slaves in bondage in Egypt, freeing them, and taking them to their promised land.  But Moses also challenged the empires of the world by providing a moral code for mankind that said it is not the king or the emperor who decides the law.  There is a higher law (Deuteronomy 17:18-20).  These were absolutely revolutionary ideas.[16]

If the reason given for celebrating the Passover was: for in this selfsame day have I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt,[17] a feast to HaShem,[18] then staying home to celebrate it “to empathize with what slavery is like now” is almost as disobedient as going out and doing something else instead.

Masoretic Text

 Septuagint
Exodus 12:14, 17 (Tanakh) Exodus 12:14, 17 (NET) Exodus 12:14, 17 (NETS)

Exodus 12:14, 17 (Elpenor English)
And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to HaShem; throughout your generations ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. “‘This day will become a memorial for you, and you will celebrate it as a festival to the Lord—you will celebrate it perpetually as a lasting ordinance. And this day shall be a memorial for you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations.  You shall celebrate it as a perpetual precept. And this day shall be to you a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord through all your generations; ye shall keep it a feast for a perpetual ordinance.
And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt; therefore shall ye observe this day throughout your generations by an ordinance for ever. So you will keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because on this very day I brought your regiments out from the land of Egypt, and so you must keep this day perpetually as a lasting ordinance. And you shall keep this commandment.  For on this day I will bring your host out of the land of Egypt, and you shall make this day throughout your generations a perpetual precept. And ye shall keep this commandment, for on this day will I bring out your force out of the land of Egypt; and ye shall make this day a perpetual ordinance for you throughout your generations.

Mr. Mahoney interviewed another Jewish archaeologist in his teaching lab.

Archaeologist3: …as I used to tell my students, archaeology is about 10 percent data and 90 percent interpretation.  And this is why I’d say it is controversial in many aspects and open to different opinions….[19]

This confession proved to be more important than it appeared at first.  Mr. Mahoney, a filmmaker, did an admirable job of demonstrating from archaeological data and a few documentary fragments where the events of Exodus in the Bible fit sequentially into that archaeological data.  He went on to demonstrate that Jewish archaeologists (among others) reject this correlation in favor of their own interpretations of the data.  In other words, they reject the Hebrew scriptures to cling to their faith in their own works, their own interpretations as archaeologists.  You can’t make this stuff up.

The interview continued:

Mahoney: You believe the Exodus and the Conquest are legendary stories?  You don’t see them in the archaeology, is that right?

Archaeologist3: No, we don’t see them at all.  We see something different.  Many times people tell us absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but the point is, as I used to say, paradoxically, the more information we have on biblical matters, the more contradictions we’ve found…we have hundreds of sites now of different periods and millions of objects which indicate an archaeological reality.  And this reality says the Israelites did not come from outside the land of Canaan.  They did not conquer the land.  They simply evolved from within the local community to a new phase of economic and social organization, which later developed into the state of Israel.  So, the process was entirely different than described in the Bible….[20]

The Exodus story is a very important and interesting legend about the people of Israel, but it has no real historical basis….[21]

So Israelites are merely Canaanites with delusions of grandeur?  Why do I, a natural born Gentile Christian turned atheist, have more confidence in the Hebrew scriptures than a Jewish anthropologist, Jewish archaeologists, a Rabbi or a Jewish politician?  Jesus.

Jesus is dragging me out of my Gentile-Christian-turned-atheist-ness to Himself (John 12:32).  His own confidence in the Hebrew scriptures directed his actions toward their fulfillment: How then would the scriptures that say it must happen this way be fulfilled?[22] He asked Peter.  Does this mean that I am inspired to faith by Jesus’ faith?

Well, okay, sure.  But I’m also inspired to courage, determination and some faith at the climax of Avengers: Endgame when Captain America (Chris Evans), bruised, fallen, all but defeated, tightens the strap of his broken shield on his arm and stands again to face Thanos (Josh Brolin) and his armies, alone if necessary.  The trouble with this kind of inspiration is that it can only awaken the courage, determination or faith already latent within me.

In Jesus I am born from above and filled with his own Holy Spirit just as He promised.  My faith is not my faith[23] but his (it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me[24]), the same faith that flowed into and through Him from the same Spirit when He asked: How then would the scriptures that say it must happen this way be fulfilled?  Jesus also said, Do not be afraid[25] of those who kill[26] the body but cannot kill the soul.[27]

Archaeologists cannot kill the body.  This is not to say that an individual archaeologist is incapable of murderer, just that archaeologists as archaeologists have no authority beyond the grades handed down in their classrooms.  The entire field of archaeology, that interpretive work of archaeologists, is a “finite province of meaning” relative to the “paramount reality” of most people’s everyday lives.  Most people are unlikely to hear, in fact most people do not hear, about most of the interpretations of data uncovered by archaeologists, unless those interpretations prove useful to Satan, who deceives the whole world.

Given the limited authority archaeologists actually have over others it may seem like overkill to apply Jesus’ prohibition to them: Do not be afraid of archaeologists.  But I actually agree with the Rabbi that archaeology is “not a frightening topic.”  When I understand Jesus’ prohibition as a negation of the definition I gleaned from Deuteronomy of the the fear of the Lord—Do not have a heart to hear and do whatsoever archaeologists shall speak—I am free to choose what I will hear with what measure of faith.

Anyone interested in archaeology should take the Jewish archaeologist’s instruction to his students to heart: “archaeology is about 10 percent data and 90 percent interpretation.”  Every student is free to distinguish that germ of data from the mass of interpretation and judge that interpretation accordingly, based on all that student’s knowledge, including the Bible as the word of God.

Answers to test questions in school are not assertions of truth a student must believe.  They are simply a measure of a student’s proficiency taking notes and repeating what a teacher has said.  A student is not forsworn by recalling what a teacher has said and writing it down accurately on a test.  All rights to one’s own thoughts and beliefs are fully retained, even after an archaeology test.

Archaeology, archaeologists’ interpretations of archaeological data, is no reason to let Satan rob you of your opportunity to know…the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom [He] sent,[28] to be born from above (John 3:5-7), to receive his Holy Spirit, to be bouyed up and carried along by a continuous stream of God’s own love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control[29] here and now.

Jesus said: No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him….[30]  And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, He promised, will draw all…to myself.[31]  Paul wrote: So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.[32]  For God has consigned all…to disobedience so that he may show mercy to…all.[33]

When I hear these things I tighten the strap of the shield of faith on my arm.  Do you?  Or are you hurting yourself by kicking against the goads?[34]

Tables comparing Exodus 12:17 and 12:14 in the Tanakh, KJV and NET, and tables comparing Exodus 12:17 and 12:14 in the Septuagint (BLB and Elpenor) follow.  A Table comparing Matthew 10:28 in the NET and KJV follows those.

Exodus 12:17 (Tanakh)

 Exodus 12:17 (KJV)

Exodus 12:17 (NET)
And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your hosts out of the land of Egypt; therefore shall ye observe this day throughout your generations by an ordinance for ever. And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt: therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance for ever. So you will keep the Feast of Unleavened Bread, because on this very day I brought your regiments out from the land of Egypt, and so you must keep this day perpetually as a lasting ordinance.

Exodus 12:17 (Septuagint BLB)

Exodus 12:17 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ φυλάξεσθε τὴν ἐντολὴν ταύτην ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ ἐξάξω τὴν δύναμιν ὑμῶν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου καὶ ποιήσετε τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην εἰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν νόμιμον αἰώνιον καὶ φυλάξετε τὴν ἐντολὴν ταύτην· ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ταύτῃ ἐξάξω τὴν δύναμιν ὑμῶν ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου, καὶ ποιήσετε τὴν ἡμέραν ταύτην εἰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν νόμιμον αἰώνιον

Exodus 12:17 (NETS)

Exodus 12:17 (English Elpenor)
And you shall keep this commandment.  For on this day I will bring your host out of the land of Egypt, and you shall make this day throughout your generations a perpetual precept. And ye shall keep this commandment, for on this day will I bring out your force out of the land of Egypt; and ye shall make this day a perpetual ordinance for you throughout your generations.

Exodus 12:14 (Tanakh)

 Exodus 12:14 (KJV)

Exodus 12:14 (NET)
And this day shall be unto you for a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to HaShem; throughout your generations ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. And this day shall be unto you for a memorial; and ye shall keep it a feast to the LORD throughout your generations; ye shall keep it a feast by an ordinance for ever. “‘This day will become a memorial for you, and you will celebrate it as a festival to the Lord—you will celebrate it perpetually as a lasting ordinance.

Exodus 12:14 (Septuagint BLB)

Exodus 12:14 (Septuagint Elpenor)
καὶ ἔσται ἡ ἡμέρα ὑμῗν αὕτη μνημόσυνον καὶ ἑορτάσετε αὐτὴν ἑορτὴν κυρίῳ εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν νόμιμον αἰώνιον ἑορτάσετε αὐτήν καὶ ἔσται ἡ ἡμέρα ὑμῖν αὕτη μνημόσυνον· καὶ ἑορτάσετε αὐτὴν ἑορτὴν Κυρίῳ εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς ὑμῶν· νόμιμον αἰώνιον ἑορτάσετε αὐτήν

Exodus 12:14 (NETS)

Exodus 12:14 (English Elpenor)
And this day shall be a memorial for you, and you shall celebrate it as a feast to the Lord throughout your generations.  You shall celebrate it as a perpetual precept. And this day shall be to you a memorial, and ye shall keep it a feast to the Lord through all your generations; ye shall keep it a feast for a perpetual ordinance.

Matthew 10:28 (NET)

Matthew 10:28 (KJV)
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.  Instead, fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
καὶ μὴ |φοβεῖσθε| ἀπὸ τῶν |ἀποκτεννόντων| τὸ σῶμα, τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν μὴ δυναμένων ἀποκτεῖναι· φοβεῖσθε δὲ μᾶλλον τὸν δυνάμενον καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα ἀπολέσαι ἐν γεέννῃ και μη φοβηθητε απο των αποκτεινοντων το σωμα την δε ψυχην μη δυναμενων αποκτειναι φοβηθητε δε μαλλον τον δυναμενον και ψυχην και σωμα απολεσαι εν γεεννη και μη φοβεισθε απο των αποκτενοντων το σωμα την δε ψυχην μη δυναμενων αποκτειναι φοβηθητε δε μαλλον τον δυναμενον και την ψυχην και το σωμα απολεσαι εν γεεννη

 

[1] “Timothy Mahoney Interview on Patterns of Evidence,” July 21, 2015, TheBestSchools

[2] Romans 9:6b, 7a (NET)

[3] “Patterns of Evidence: Exodus, A Filmmaker’s Journey,” by Timothy P. Mahoney; with Steven Law; St. Louis Park: MN, Thinking Man Media, 2015, p. 38

[4] ibid, pp. 38-39

[5] ibid, p. 51

[6] ibid, p. 52

[7] Mark 7:13 (NET)

[8] “Patterns of Evidence: Exodus, A Filmmaker’s Journey,” by Timothy P. Mahoney; with Steven Law; St. Louis Park: MN, Thinking Man Media, 2015, p. 55

[9] ibid, pp. 56-57

[10] ibid, p. 173

[11] ibid, p. 173

[12] ibid, p. 42

[13] ibid, p. 43

[14] ibid, pp. 173, 174

[15] ibid, p. 174

[16] ibid, p. 66

[17] Exodus 12:17b (Tanakh)

[18] Exodus 12:14 (Tanakh) The Hebrew word translated Hashem was לַֽיהֹוָ֑ה (Yehovah).

[19] “Patterns of Evidence: Exodus, A Filmmaker’s Journey,” by Timothy P. Mahoney; with Steven Law; St. Louis Park: MN, Thinking Man Media, 2015, pp. 59, 60

[20] ibid, pp. 60, 61

[21] ibid, p. 61

[22] Matthew 26:54 (NET)

[23] The Greek word translated faithfulness in Galatians 5:22 (NET) was πίστις.

[24] Galatians 2:20b (NET)

[25] The NET parallel Greek text, NA28 and Byzantine Majority Text had φοβεῖσθε here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus had φοβηθητε (KJV: fear).

[26] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had ἀποκτεννόντων here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus had αποκτεινοντων and the Byzantine Majority Text had αποκτενοντων.

[27] Matthew 10:28a (NET)

[28] John 17:3 (NET)

[29] Galatians 5:22b-23a (NET) Table

[30] John 6:44a (NET) Table

[31] John 12:32 (NET) NET note (67): Grk “all.” The word “people” is not in the Greek text but is supplied for stylistic reasons and for clarity (cf. KJV “all men”).  I removed people for accuracy: καγὼ ἐὰν ὑψωθῶ ἐκ τῆς γῆς, πάντας ἑλκύσω πρὸς ἐμαυτόν.  There is no word limiting this drawing to people in the Greek text.

[32] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[33] Romans 11:32 (NET) NET note (24): Grk “to all”; “them” has been supplied for stylistic reasons. Here again I removed people and them: συνέκλεισεν γὰρ ὁ θεὸς τοὺς πάντας εἰς ἀπείθειαν, ἵνα τοὺς πάντας ἐλεήσῃ.  I wrote about τοὺς πάντας in another essay.  For God was pleased to have all (πᾶν) his fullness dwell in the Son and through him to reconcile all things (τὰ πάντα) to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross—through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven (Colossians 1:19, 20 NET).

[34] Acts 26:14b (NET) Table

My Deeds, Part 1

Posted on by

In another essay I contrasted 1 Corinthians 5:9-13 and Revelation 2:26-29.  I’ve wanted to return to the latter for a while.  Here is a table representing my unstudied view of the relationship of its clauses in English.

Revelation 2:26-29 (NET)
And to the one who conquers and who continues in my deeds until the end,

I will give him authority over the nations –
he will rule them with an iron rod and like clay jars he will break them to pieces,
just as I have received the right to rule from my Father – and I will give him the morning star.

The one who has an ear had better hear what the Spirit says to the churches.

To begin I’ll consider who continues in my deeds until the end, because it tugs the hardest at me to return to my own works.  As the title of this essay suggests my goal is to understand what Jesus meant by τὰ ἔργα μου, translated my deeds.  But first I’ll look into τηρῶν (a form of τηρέω), translated who continues.

The most basic understanding of τηρῶν is: Blessed is the one who stays alert and does not lose (τηρῶν, a form of τηρέω) his clothes so that he will not have to walk around naked and his shameful condition be seen.[1]  It means to keep, not to lose or discard.  He who has My commandments and keeps (τηρῶν, a form of τηρέω) them, Jesus said, is the one who loves Me.[2]

In another essay I described shacking-up “with my girlfriend du jour” as a time when “I began to walk in the grace of Christ’s salvation.”  Of course, I shacked up with my girlfriend because I was trying to believe that Christ put an “end” to the law and all things were “lawful” for me.  In other words, I was attempting to lose or discard Jesus’ commandments (ignoring for the moment that the main “commandment” at issue in my mind was the suspect “sin of premarital sex”).

Jesus wasn’t perplexed by my conundrum.  Suddenly I was filled with desire to write a rock opera about Him.  I became immersed in the words of the four Gospel narratives.  Among those words was: He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me.  Though I read the word keeps, I heard the word obeys.  I thought keeps meant obeys at that time: The person who has my commandments and obeys (τηρῶν, a form of τηρέω) them is the one who loves me.[3]

So when I married my roommate, though I had certainly fallen away from grace since I was trying to be declared righteous by the law,[4] I was done for the moment with my attempt to lose or discard Jesus’ commandments.  I can’t say I was obeying them.  Obedience apart from grace is hypocrisy, an actor playing at righteousness.

The Circle in the movie of the same name is a religious cult/high-tech company.  There are many spoilers here.  During a weekly worship service called Dream Friday tech evangelist Eamon Bailey (Tom Hanks), one of the founders, introduces a new low-cost, wireless, internet-enabled camera to the faithful, called Circlers.  These cameras, connected to The Circle, are being placed all over the world.  “There needs to be accountability,” Eamon preaches.  “Tyrants and terrorists can no longer hide.  We will see them.  We will hear them.  We will hear and see everything.  If it happens, we’ll know.  We’re calling it SeeChange.”

A new employee Mae Holland (Emma Watson) sits in the congregation drinking the Kool-Aid (as she admits to another Circler later in the film).  “We will see it all because knowing is good,” Eamon proclaims, “but knowing everything is better.”

“We need accountability.  We need openness,” Tom Stenton (Patton Oswalt), COO of The Circle, concurs as he introduces Congresswoman Olivia Santos (Judy Reyes) at another worship service.  “I intend to show exactly how democracy can and should be,” Congresswoman Santos thrills Tom’s congregation.  “Starting today, my every meeting, my every phone call and email will be accessible to my constituents and to the world in real time.”

“Hello, democracy!  Open and accountable!” Tom seals the deal.

One night SeaChange cameras and monitoring help save Mae’s life after a misguided kayaking accident.  Tom and Eamon counsel her after the incident.  “I am a believer in the perfectibility of human beings,” Eamon admits.  “When we are our best selves, the possibilities are endless.  There isn’t a problem that we cannot solve.  We can cure any disease, and we can end hunger.”  Mae is a repentant convert.  “Without secrets,” Eamon concludes, “without the hoarding of knowledge and information, we can finally realize our potential.”

“I committed a crime” Mae confesses before the Circlers.  “I borrowed a kayak without the owner’s knowledge, paddled out to the middle of the bay and I wasn’t wearing a life jacket.”

“So, Mae,” Eamon asks, “do you think you behave better or worse when you are being watched?”

“Better.  Without a doubt.”

“What happens when you’re alone and unobserved?”

“Well, for starters, I steal kayaks.  Seriously, I do things I don’t wanna do.  I lie…secrets are lies.  Secrets are what make crimes possible.  We behave worse when we’re not accountable.  I was my worst self because I didn’t think anyone was watching.  I thought that I was alone…Knowledge is a basic human right.  Access to all possible human experience is a basic human right…From now on I’ll be wearing a modified SeeChange camera at all times.  I’m going fully transparent.”

My personal logline for The Circle is “Cyber-bullying with a great warm smile.”  But the attempt to drive a preachy plot with a series of worship services didn’t fare any better for a mainstream movie than it does for a Christian film.  And when Tom and Eamon bully Mae in front of the congregation into becoming complicit in her friend’s accidental death, she doesn’t rise up and race against the clock and certain death to consume The Circle in slow-motion fireballs.  The Circle is not presented as evil through Mae’s eyes but as a necessary good.

From the beginning she believed that the needs of society and the needs of the individual are the same.  “When someone dies in a plane crash,” she explains to her disbelieving parents, clinging desperately to their sick old ideas of personal privacy, “you don’t abandon planes.  You make them safer.”  And with the self-assurance that “I’m the only one who can do this,” Mae flips the script on Eamon and Tom, becomes high priestess of the cult and leads the Circlers into the light.

Still, I enjoyed the film’s depiction of the religious mind in a non-theistic context.  And it was a welcome reminder that forced righteousness under an ever-watchful eye is not the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe.[5]  The table below contrasts the NASB and NET translations of John 14:21.

NASB

NET
He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him. The person who has my commandments and obeys them is the one who loves me.  The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and will reveal myself to him.

Though keeps may be a lower standard than obeys, the flow here is still fairly clear and appears that there is something one must do before Jesus will disclose or will reveal Himself to that person, not to mention love.  I looked into ἐμφανίσω (a form of ἐμφανίζω) the Greek word translated will disclose and will reveal.  It only occurred this once, so I made a table of all the forms of ἐμφανίζω.

Form of ἐμφανίζω Reference KJV

NET
ἐμφανίσατε Acts 23:15 …ye with the council signify to the chief captain… …you and the council request the commanding officer…
ἐμφανίσω John 14:21 …I will love him, and will manifest myself to him… …I will love him and will reveal myself to him.
ἐμφανισθῆναι Hebrews 9:24 …to appear in the presence of God for us… …and he appears now in God’s presence for us.
ἐμφανίζειν John 14:22 …thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? …you are going to reveal yourself to us and not to the world?
ἐμφανίζουσιν Hebrews 11:14 …they that say such things declare plainly… …those who speak in such a way make it clear…
ἐνεφάνισαν Acts 24:1 …who informed the governor against Paul. …they brought formal charges against Paul to the governor.
Acts 25:2 Then the high priest and the chief of the Jews informed him against Paul, and besought him… So the chief priests and the most prominent men of the Jews brought formal charges against Paul to him.
Acts 25:15 …the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me… …the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed me about him…
ἐνεφάνισας Acts 23:22 See thou tell no man that thou hast showed these things to me. Tell no one that you have reported these things to me.
ἐνεφανίσθησαν Matthew 27:53 …and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. …and went into the holy city and appeared to many people.

The most basic meaning is to appear in person (Hebrews 9:24; Matthew 27:53).  And that sense was certainly true in John 14:21 and 22:  After his resurrection Jesus appeared (ἐφανερώθη, a form of φανερόω) in a different form to two of them while they were on their way to the country.[6]  Then he appeared (ἐφανερώθη, a form of φανερόω) to the eleven themselves, while they were eating…[7]  After this Jesus revealed (ἐφανέρωσεν, another form of φανερόω) himself again to the disciples by the Sea of Tiberias.[8]  This was now the third time Jesus was revealed (ἐφανερώθη, a form of φανερόω) to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.[9]  But not once did He reveal Himself in person to Ananias, Caiaphas, the Pharisees (other than Saul) or the experts in the law after his resurrection.

“Lord, what then has happened” Judas (not Iscariot) asked, “that You are going to disclose (ἐμφανίζειν, another form of ἐμφανίζω) Yourself to us and not to the world?”  Jesus answered and said to him, “If anyone loves Me [e.g., if anyone has My commandments and keeps them], he will keep (τηρήσει, another form of τηρέω) My word (λόγον, a form of λόγος); and My Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our abode with him.  He who does not love Me [e.g., does not have or keep My commandments] does not keep (τηρεῖ, another form of τηρέω) My words (λόγους, another form of λόγος); and the word (λόγος) which you hear is not Mine, but the Father’s who sent Me.[10]

I know that you are Abraham’s descendants, Jesus said.  But you want to kill me, because my teaching (λόγος) makes no progress among you[11] (NASB: My word has no place in you).  And, Having no regard for the command of God, you hold fast to human tradition…Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down.[12]  In other words, they did not keep his word or his commandments and He did not disclose or reveal Himself to them by a personal appearance after his resurrection.

There are five other occurrences (Acts 23:15, 22; 24:1; 25:2, 15) of forms of ἐμφανίζω which included personal appearance but the communication of certain information was also of key importance.  I’ll highlight two of them because they remind me of my own experience studying the Bible.

The chief priests and the most prominent men of the Jews brought formal charges (ἐνεφάνισαν, another form of ἐμφανίζω) against Paul to[13] Festus, the Roman governor.  Describing those charges Festus said (Acts 25:15-19 NET):

When I was in Jerusalem, the chief priests and the elders of the Jews informed (ἐνεφάνισαν, another form of ἐμφανίζω) me about [Paul], asking for a sentence of condemnation against him.  I answered them that it was not the custom of the Romans to hand over anyone before the accused had met his accusers face to face and had been given an opportunity to make a defense against the accusation.  So after they came back here with me, I did not postpone the case, but the next day I sat on the judgment seat and ordered the man to be brought.  When his accusers stood up, they did not charge him with any of the evil deeds (πονηρῶν, a form of πονηρός) I had suspected.  Rather they had several points of disagreement with him about their own religion (δεισιδαιμονίας, a form of δεισιδαιμονία) and about a man named Jesus who was dead, whom Paul claimed to be alive.

In Jerusalem the information Festus received from the chief priests and the elders of the Jews formed an image in his mind based largely on his own knowledge and experience—the evil deeds I had suspected.  On further examination at trial in Caesarea Festus’ erroneous ideas were corrected—they had several points of disagreement with him about their own religion and about a man named Jesus who was dead, whom Paul claimed to be alive.  Though Festus received more information and even some more clarity about Paul’s situation, he acknowledged: I was at a loss how I could investigate these matters…[14]  My point here is that the information, and understanding the information presented, had taken precedence over the personal appearance aspects of ἐμφανίζω.

Finally, one occurrence of a form of ἐμφανίζω referenced people of the past, known only through Scripture: These all died in faith without receiving the things promised, but they saw them in the distance and welcomed them and acknowledged that they were strangers and foreigners on the earth.  For those who speak [e.g., through words recorded in the Bible] in such a way make it clear (ἐμφανίζουσιν, another form of ἐμφανίζω) that they are seeking a homeland.[15]  And it is in this way that I think Jesus’ words have meaning for me here and now.  He will disclose or will reveal Himself to me through Scripture if I love Him, which means if I have his commandments and keep them.

So why was I filled with desire to write a rock opera about Jesus even as I attempted to lose or discard his commandments?  Why wasn’t I filled with desire to write a rock opera about Aleister Crowley?  I certainly knew of him.  No one gets very deep into rock music without hearing about its patron saint. “Harm None, Do as You Will” was much closer to my mantra at that moment than anything Jesus had said.

Before Jesus said—He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me—He said—If you love Me, you will keep (τηρήσετε, another form of τηρέω) My commandments.[16]  Then[17] he introduced the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 17 NASB).

I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever; that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not see Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you and will be in you.

If I remember that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control,[18] then what Jesus said logically was:

  1. If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.
  2. You will love Me (e.g., the fruit of the Spirit).
  3. Therefore, you will keep My commandments.

The simple answer to my question then is that I was filled with desire to write a rock opera about Jesus because his Holy Spirit is alive and well.  Aleister Crowley is dead.  (I’ll ignore for the moment that spirits which may or may not have influenced him are alive still.  They obviously had little or no influence on me.)  But what do I make of Jesus’ other statement?  He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him.

The implication here is that if I do not have and keep his commandments He will not disclose Himself to me.  But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, He also said, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.[19]  How do I reconcile these two?

Do not extinguish the Spirit,[20] Paul wrote the Thessalonians without any explanation.  I think I’ve found here one way to extinguish the Spirit (in me, not in anyone else); namely, to lose or discard Jesus’ commandments, whether deliberately by conscious rejection or holding fast instead to the traditions of human religion so that his teaching (λόγος) makes no progress in me.  But if I were to teach others the traditions of human religion that nullify the word of God, though my power would be less than absolute, I might become instrumental in extinguishing the Spirit in them as well. 

I’ll pick this up in another essay.

[1] Revelation 16:15b (NET)

[2] John 14:21a (NASB)

[3] John 14:21a (NET)

[4] Galatians 5:4 (NET) Table

[5] Romans 3:22a (NET)

[6] Mark 16:12 (NET)

[7] Mark 16:14 (NET)

[8] John 21:1a (NET)

[9] John 21:14 (NET)

[10] John 14:22-24 (NASB)

[11] John 8:37 (NET)

[12] Mark 7:8, 13a (NET)

[13] Acts 25:2 (NET)

[14] Acts 25:20a (NET)

[15] Hebrews 11:13, 14 (NET)

[16] John 14:15 (NASB)

[17] By adding then to the text the NET translators have made it seem as if Jesus said, If you love me and you keep my commandments then I will ask the Father…   This then however does not make the second clause logically dependent on the first two.  It is simply an irregular translation of (καγὼ, a form of κἀγώ) and means no more than Jesus said this then He said that as they acknowledge in a footnote 36.

[18] Galatians 5:23, 24a (NET)

[19] John 14:26 (NASB)

[20] 1 Thessalonians 5:19 (NET)