Towards, unto, into and in Theos

Minor detours XX – return to prerequisites? – manifestation, metaphor, metonym and other representative language – part 3

We saw, in the previous post, in Markos 4 that ‘parabolising a parable’ was juxtaposed in a couplet with ‘liken’. The idea of ‘likeness’ is fundamental in representative language. In Markos 4.30 the verb is omoioo (ομοιοω).

And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of the Theos? or with what parable shall we parabolise it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it grows up, and becomes greater than all herbs, and shoots out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it. (Markos 4.30-32)

Here we have the classic representative language. The likeness or parable that is being constructed invokes the language of lesser and greater. The seed is lesser, but it becomes greater.

Of the fifteen verses in the New Testament in which this verb occurs, eleven of them are in the immediate context of a parable, while three others are in the context of the likeness of a man, either to another man or to Theos or theoi.

And when the people saw what Paulos had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in the speech of Lykaonia, The theoi are come down to us in the likeness of men. (Acts 14.11)

After healing a man crippled from birth this response from the people of the city is perhaps understandable and perhaps, in a certain way, true. However, they liken the two apostles to Zeus and Hermes, the messenger of Zeus. The truth is that these two apostles were sent by Theos and are like Theos in that they are the messengers of Theos and speaking his words. They are the lesser likenesses to the greater true of Theos.

Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unto his brothers, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things towards the Theos, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. (Hebrews 2.17)

Iesous was made in the likeness of his brothers, that is he was a man, as they were, so that his reconciliatory work would be possible, and effective, so that he could, being a man, be towards the Theos (pros ton theon προς τον θεον) and show us the journey of that transformation unto salvation. Here, the likeness, at first, is not of an inferior becoming like unto the greater. Here, the man is to be made the same as the lesser, equal to them in every respect, yet to be on a journey to becoming the greater.

The question permeating Hebrews 2 is, of course, who is the ‘he’ in question. Manifestationally, of course it is Yahweh, just as it was in the revelation of the meaning of Iesous’ name in Maththaios 1, where the ‘he’ in ‘he shall save’ is the Theos who is with us, as evidenced by the other name, Immanouel, Theos/’el with us. It is the singular ‘he’, as we have seen previously in Genesis 1.1, that created the heavens and the earth through his plural agents, ‘elohym. It is these same ‘elohym that are being referred to in Hebrews 1 and 2, as the angels, below which Iesous was made until such time, after his death and resurrection, that they should be in subjection under him. Through these messengers, the father was made known to the patriarchs, to the prophets, to Mosheh, and indeed by which agents the law was mediated to Mosheh and, through him, to the people. It was these same agents that taught the Lord Iesous in the days of his flesh to become like unto his father and strengthened him in the days of his battle to overcome that carnal mind which he was born with. Therefore, by the ministry of these agents that Iesous was subject to, was it possible for the son of Theos to attain unto the likeness of his father, a likeness of character, a likeness of spirit.

In Hebrews 2.17, above, we see the use of the imperative ‘it behoved’. This is the word opheilo (οφειλω). It is often translated ‘ought’ and gives the sense of something that should or must be done, something where there is a moral imperative or weight of duty that impels someone to do what is required. Like in the English, this word has its basis in the verb ‘to owe’, carrying, as it does, the sense of being in debt.

Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owe. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desired me: Should not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if you from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses. (Math.18.23-35)

You will notice that the kingdom of heaven is ‘likened’ to this parable. This ‘likeness’ of the kingdom of heaven is given as a response to Petros’ enquiry as to how many times he should forgive his brother. The answer deals with representation, or manifestation. The representative language of ‘likeness’ underpins the necessity of ‘likeness’ to Theos in behaviour. He has forgiven us our trespasses (which in other passages translates the idea of ‘debts’), we need to demonstrate that by, similarly, forgiving those who are indebted to us. ‘Owing’ is an outcome of a ‘loan’ or a ‘gift’. We have received something and are in a shortfall of abundance with that person. Our impulse to behave in a manifestational way after the fact is on account of us being beneficiaries of such generosity. Our reciprocal behaviour is not just to attempt to repay to whom we are indebted, which in this case (and ours) is impossible due to the overwhelming scale of the debt (ten thousand talents), but to represent that generosity of giving and forgiving in our own behaviour to others. In the kaporeth relationship that exists between two manifestational kerubym there is, at first, an imbalance of giving from one to the other. The receiving kerub can move towards an equality of mind and behaviour that begins to even out that imbalance by reciprocity. He is, in absolute terms, unable to repay the debt but can acknowledge the overwhelming abundance of gifts that he has received and by becoming like the gifting agency can create a greater balance in the relationship. In this sense he becomes like the mediating kerub.

For every high priest taken from among men is ordained for men in things towards the Theos (pros ton theon προς τον θεον), that he may offer both gifts and sacrifices for sins: Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity. And by reason hereof he ought, as for the people, so also for himself, to offer for sins. And no man takes this honour unto himself, but he that is called of Theos, as was Aaron. So also anointed glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou are my son, to day have I begotten thee. (Hebrews 5.1-5)

Because Theos created the pattern of the high priest as a figure for the work of anointed delivering forgiveness of sins, manifesting the compassion of the father which was seen in the priestly work of Aaron and Melkisedek, by virtue of them being in a ‘towards the Theos’ relationship, it was incumbent on, and an outcome of that pattern, that anointed should offer himself for himself and his people, an offering alluded to in figure by the day of the atonements and the sprinkling of blood on the kaporeth. Iesous is in an indebted position with regard to the father in that he begins as the lesser to him. He then, as possessing an abundance of the mind of Theos following his battle with the flesh, is in a surplus position with respect to his potential followers and can then minister to them of that abundance. In this process Iesous becomes him and offers us the opportunity to do the same, to become equal with Theos. We see the same pattern being employed here as in Hebrews 2.17. The work of anointed is seen as ‘towards the Theos’ (pros ton theon προς τον θεον) because he is in a face to face (kaporeth) relationship with the Theos, he is ‘like’, or is becoming in the likeness of Theos, but he is made in the likeness of man. He is Theos in the likeness of man, because he becomes like unto Theos being a man, and he is man in the image and likeness of Theos, for the same reason. The greater is the one who possesses the ‘all things’, we are possessors of nothing. This seemingly impassable gulf of possession characterises our indebtedness to him. He, through his spirit, became a man, in that his son willingly embodied him unto the point of glorification. By becoming a man, Theos in Iesous is able to show us how that gulf is closed to the point of indebtedness being waived. The lesser can become the greater because the greater has become the lesser first. This is the apex of the manifestational creative work foreseen in Genesis 1:

And ‘elohym said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So ‘elohym created man in his own image, in the image of ‘elohym created he him; male and female created he them. (Genesis 1.26,27)

So, man was created in the image and likeness of the representative agents of the ‘he’ that created the heavens and earth. We can see this in the Hebrew. In verse 26 the noun and verb are in the plural, as in the English, ‘let us make’, ‘in our image’, ‘after our likeness’. In verse 27 the first verb also agrees with the plural noun ‘elohym but subsequent verbs and pronouns revert, as in Genesis 1.1, to the singular – ‘in his image’, ‘in the image’, ‘created he’, ‘him’, ‘created he’. So, as in Genesis 1.1, the plural representatives are creating, by the impulse of the singular creator ‘he’, the creation. Here, the creation, that is the man (both male and female) is in their image and likeness, which in turn is in the image and likeness of the ‘he’. We can deduce, therefore, that the ‘he’ is seen in the representative plural ‘elohym who are then seen in the man. The man is made in the image and likeness of the ‘elohym who are made in the image and likeness of ‘he’. The similarity between the man and those he was created by mark him out as dissimilar from the rest of creation, which is why none of the rest of creation was found to be enough to create a reflective image for him until a woman was created. However, he is similar to, even the same as, ‘elohym. ‘He’ (‘Adam) anticipates the ‘he’ of Iesous, and Theos in him. He is made to become the image and likeness of the greater though he was formed out of the lesser earth than of the greater heavens.

He is made in the image and likeness of ‘elohym in that he was to have dominion over the earth and all that was therein, notably the created animals, birds, fish and insects. The man is to manifest ‘elohym, be like unto them, as the overlords of that which they were sent to create. Theirs was the creative power but not the instigator of the concept or design, that role was left to the ‘he’ hidden behind their works and alluded to in the ‘he created’ verb. In this sense the man is like the ‘elohym, he is to exercise lordship over that in which he was placed, in the earth, in the garden. He is firstly an outcome of the creative work of ‘elohym and a manifestor of it but within the constraints of it. Following on from this the man was told to be fruitful, multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, being able to take of the fruit that proceeded from it. At the conclusion of the creation, of which man appears to be the acme, is the statement that it was seen by ‘elohym as very good. Seeing is of course a manifestational term, describing that which is looked upon and shows itself back to the instigator as being as the instigator intended, or in this case ‘very good’. The creation was a declaration of the abundant goodness of the ‘he’, accomplished by his representative agents. We can see the same pattern being alluded to in the first two chapters of Hebrews where the angels were above the man Iesous, he was in subjection to them, until such a time as the created man became equal to the mind of Theos and head over those agents which created him. The same process could not be said of the first ‘Adam.

Part of this manifestation of ‘elohym by ‘Adam was in the filling of the earth. This injunction was given while they remained obedient to the commandment of ‘elohym but persisted after the events of Genesis 3:

This is the book of the generations of ‘Adam. In the day that ‘elohym created ‘Adam, in the likeness of ‘elohym made he him; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name ‘Adam, in the day when they were created. And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Sheth: (Genesis 5.1-3)

I have highlighted both the words ‘image’ and ‘likeness’ as they both occur here just as in Genesis 1.26,27. (The Hebrew word for ‘image’ is tselem – צלם and the Hebrew word for ‘likeness’ is demuth – דמות.) The name ‘Adam is used here to describe the man and his woman, the two. It is a name that is used for the man, as opposed to Hawah for the woman, but nonetheless it also encapsulates the both of them. Indeed, the word ‘begat’ here is used, previous to this point, to indicate the bearing of the child by the woman. However, it is used consistently in this chapter to, apparently, describe the masculine origin of the male offspring. In this sense, at least, the successors to ‘Adam are seen as being like him inasmuch as they procreated and were heirs of the man in at least that respect. They created male offspring in their image as ‘elohym had created male offspring in the beginning, out of the dust of the earth. It is, however, only Sheth who is said to be in the image and likeness of his father.

We can see that ‘image’ constitutes a blueprint which is replicated in a successor. The man is in the image of ‘elohym in that he is to have dominion over that which is below him but be in subjection to that which is above him, as with the ‘elohym. Sheth is in the image of ‘Adam inasmuch as he goes on to procreate as his father before him and his successors also. This process is closely associated with naming, as in the naming of the successor after the likeness of the father has been created in him. This idea of image is that of manifestation, of showing in yourself the qualities of the one creating that image in you. It is behavioural creation as a demonstration of the creator. It is the evidence, in an edifice, of the blueprint which defines its existence. This true manifestation of the creation of an image of the prototype in the production of the replicated model requires a creation of the greater in the lesser. Of course, this process can occur when the man, the created and modelled image of ‘elohym, becomes a greater than the representation that he creates. He can do this in truth by creating others to manifest the first, but he can do this conversely by creating ‘elohym in his own image and then acting as though those images that he made in his own image are greater than he and worshipping them as though they had made him. This is a diabolical manifestation. An inversion of the true. The blueprint, or pattern, which creates the prototype is itself an outcome of the mind of the architect.

Have you offered unto me sacrifices and offerings in the wilderness forty years, house of Yisra’el? But you have borne the tabernacle of your Molok and Kyun your images, the star of your ‘elohym, which you made to yourselves. (‘Amos 5.25-26)

Here, the prophet ‘Amos is speaking about judgment for the house of Yisra’el and their upcoming sending into captivity as a result of their repeated turning to other ‘elohym, the ‘elohym of the nations, a process they began in the wilderness journey from Mitsraym to the land of Kana’an. These false images made in the likeness of man are the evidence of their inversion of the true subjection to the image of ‘elohym to be created in man. This distortion of the true Stephanas alludes to in Acts 7 when defending himself against the false charges laid against him by the Ioudaioi who were not able to argue against his words which he uttered by holy spirit.

Then Theos turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, You house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices forty years in the wilderness? Yes, you took up the tabernacle of Molok, and the star of your theos Remphan, figures which you made to worship them: and I will carry you away beyond Babylon. (Acts 7.42-43)

Here the Greek word translating ‘figures’ (the equivalent of ‘images’ in ‘Amos) is ‘tupos’ (τυπος). In the following verse in Acts 7, this same word ‘tupos’ (τυπος) is used again:

Our fathers had the tabernacle of witness in the wilderness, as he had appointed, speaking unto Moses, that he should make it according to the fashion that he had seen. (Acts 7.44)

This verse (along with Hebrews 8.5) is quoting Exodus 25:

And look that thou make them after their pattern, which was showed thee in the mount. (Exodus 25.40)

A passage (Amos 5) uses the Hebrew tselem (צלם) to translate ‘images’ which in Acts 7.43 uses the Greek word tupos (τυπος) to translate it. This same word is then used in Acts 7.44 to translate (as in Hebrews 8.5) the Hebrew word tabenyth (תבנית). This word is related to the word ‘to build’ (banah – בנה). From the word ‘build’ in Hebrew we also get the words, son and daughter. Building creates a house, the true nature of which is the family, and ultimately the heavenly pattern of family – father, bride, son, daughter. The word for image (tselem – צלם) is homographic with the translation ‘their shadow/defence’. The word ‘shadow’ is used in the New Testament to describe figures as well, as we saw above in Hebrews 8:

Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, says he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount. (Hebrews 8.5)

So, ‘shadow’ here is juxtaposed with ‘example’ and ‘pattern’. The ‘pattern’, or ‘form’ or ‘shape’ of the building was revealed to Mosheh in the mountain while he communed with ‘elohym and received the covenant. This design was a translation of the heavenly things that are of ‘el and which he sought to be constructed in a full-bodied demonstration of that mind that lies behind it. Yet this three-dimensional representation is itself only an outline or shadow of the fullest revelation of himself in Anointed. These things incrementally anticipate a greater fulness of embodiment of that mind as we progress, inevitably, to an embodiment in the earth of that mind, which is presently heavenly, until we reach a point where all things exist in him and in all. We will come to translation in a future post, but this seems to show the way in which translation occurs. That is that the greater reveals to the lesser at the point of potential receiving of understanding and builds on that foundation a greater revelation until a point where the difference between the original in heaven and the creation on earth is non-existent. At which point there is equality of the two.

The representative language that we have seen thus far parallels the representation of Theos in man. In parables and figures the greater truth is revealed in a lesser form, because such parables hold limited, but true, descriptions of the kingdom and the journey towards that final destination. As such, these parables are the ‘rules’ of the one who will reign at that time. These rules build on one another until a fuller edifice is created. We begin with a tabernacle and the priesthood, we move on to a temple and another priesthood, we move further to an edifice of the glorified body (singular and then plural) of anointed. We conclude with an indistinguishable unity of spirit in the end when Yahweh is there. As we are the lesser, or possibly nothing, at the beginning, the journey to the ‘all things’ at the end is incremental. Parable must be built on parable, figure upon figure, until there is no shadow but the fulness of the body in the blinding light of the father.

Parable and figure are representative language, because they allude to the representation of Theos in man. As is the word, so is the man because the man is on a journey to becoming the word, until he becomes the greater though he started as the lesser.

10th Jul 2026
Minor detours XIX – return to prerequisites? – manifestation, metaphor, metonym and other representative language – part 2

The term ‘proverb’ which describes this book in its opening verse is mashal (משל). In fact, the first two words of the book, in Hebrew, are mishley shelomah (משלי שלמה), the proverbs of Shelomah. We can see immediately an inversion in the three main letters of both words – sh (ש), m (מ) and l (ל). If you look back to the post on inversions, you may remember the relationship that existed between the words kaporeth (כפרת) and paroketh (פרכת). This relationship is one of inversion in the letters and a juxtaposition in relationship, that is that the paroketh (the vail) separated the holy from the holy of holies, in which the kaporeth was situated and that, when the time came for the tabernacle to be dismantled to be moved, that the paroketh was draped over the ark, upon which the kaporeth was.

The name Shelomah seems to have two meanings. As with the 5 homographs of ‘el (אל), these 2 meanings complement each other. The first one is from the word for ‘peace’:

Behold, a son shall be born to thee, who shall be a man of rest; and I will give him rest from all his enemies round about: for his name shall be Shelomah, and I will give peace and quietness unto Yisra’el in his days. (1 Chronicles 22.9)

There are two gifts that Yahweh promises to bestow on Shelomah. The first is ‘rest’, this is a word that is related to the name Noah and to Manoah, the father of Shimshon:

And they departed from the mount of Yahweh three days’ journey: and the ark of the covenant of Yahweh went before them in the three days’ journey, to search out a resting place for them. And the cloud of Yahweh was upon them by day, when they went out of the camp. And it came to pass, when the ark set forward, that Mosheh said, Rise up, Yahweh, and let thine enemies be scattered; and let them that hate thee flee before thee. And when it rested, he said, Return, Yahweh, unto the many thousands of Yisra’el. (Numbers.10.33-36)

You shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes. For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance, which Yahweh your ‘elohym gives you. But when you go over Yarden, and dwell in the land which Yahweh your ‘elohym gives you to inherit, and when he gives you rest from all your enemies round about, so that you dwell in safety; Then there shall be a place which Yahweh your ‘elohym shall choose to cause his name to dwell there; there shall you bring all that I command you; your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, your tithes, and the heave offering of your hand, and all your choice vows which you vow unto Yahweh: (Deuteronomy 12.8-11)

The rest which Yahweh promises is led by the cloud which leads the ark (with the kaporeth upon it and the paroketh draped over it) with the people following it into the land over Yarden and a place within it where Yahweh chooses to place his name there. You will remember that in the section on homographs we looked at the word shem/sham (שם) and its feminisation shamah (שמה). We concluded that ‘there’ is the culmination of Yahweh’s plan, described in his name, when he will be there with his people and they will be one. The journeying of the children of Yisra’el anticipates, in a figure, that journey towards a resting place. The promise of that rest along with the peace that accompanies it is enshrined in Shelomah’s name.

Speak unto ‘Aharon and unto his sons, saying, On this wise you shall bless the children of Yisra’el, saying unto them, Yahweh blesses thee, and keeps thee: Yahweh makes his face to shine upon thee, and is gracious unto thee: Yahweh lifts up his face upon thee, and gives thee peace. And they shall put my name upon the children of Yisra’el; and I will bless them. (Numbers 6.23-27)

Peace is about reconciliation. It can be an accord between two parties who were previously at odds with one another but have now come to an agreed mind. The outcome of a peace negotiation is to be at rest from your enemies. Clearly, the primary enemy is the carnal mind and by Yahweh lifting up his face, that is revealing himself to his servants, the antagonism that is between the natural man and the spirit which is of Yahweh can be dispelled. This journey of the cutting off of the flesh unto the point of unity with him is the basis for Yahweh’s name. Like Yahweh’s name, Shelomah’s name also takes the final ‘h’ (he – ה). We saw this apparent feminisation in an earlier post when it was used in the case of the word ‘erets (ארץ) and its apparently feminised form ‘aretsah (ארצה) in, for example, Genesis 12.5 when ‘Abram and his family are obeying the commandment of Yahweh to come into the land of Kana’an. This feminisation can be used as an alternative to using the preposition ‘el (אל), that is ‘unto’.

The name Shelomah (שלםה) is a feminisation of the masculine shalom (שלום) and therefore gives a sense of the journey towards a place of reconciliation and rest. We may deduce that such a journey was the one that his father Dawid was on but his son Shelomah, and eventually the greater Shelomah, would cause to come to pass.

This journey, eventually taken and in the process of being accomplished by the greater Shelomah, is also a journey of the name. The journey of the name of Yahweh and the name of the father in his son Iesous, or Yehoshua’, in which, you will remember, the first three Hebrew letters are the same as Yahweh’s, is alluded to in the second homograph for Shelomah:

Tell me, O thou whom my soul loves, where thou feed, where thou make thy flock to rest at noon: for why should I be as one that turns aside by the flocks of thy companions? (Song 1.7)

We have already looked at this first chapter of the Song of Songs earlier in this post in respect of the use of ‘good(s)’ to indicate the betterness of the true over the figure. That is, the betterness of the speaking of words from the bridegroom to the bride and its reciprocation than that of wine and of the betterness of the name over anointing oils. Here the homograph for Shelomah is translated ‘for why’ and is immediately followed by the rare verb ‘ehyeh (אהיה) – translated ‘I will be’ in Exodus 3.12,14 and used there as the basis for the meaning of the name Yahweh. ‘For why’ is a composite homograph being made up of, firstly, the letter sh (ש) which is used uncommonly as a truncation of ‘asher (אשר), also used in Exodus 3.14, and translated ‘who’ (as in ‘I will be who I will be’). The rest of the name Shelomah is made up of the letter ‘l’ (ל), truncated from ‘el (אל), meaning ‘to’ or ‘for’, and the word ‘mah’ (מה), meaning ‘what’. Often when ‘l’ (ל) and ‘mah’ (מה) are joined together into ‘lemah’ (למה) it is translated ‘why’. Therefore, we can translate this homographic Shelomah as ‘who to/for what’ or ‘who why’. The language is infused with allusions to the name and is spoken by the bride, the one who is seeking to take the journey of putting on his name for the journey of becoming him and finding rest in him. The question ‘who?’ is answered by ‘Yahweh in Iesous’, followed by ‘anointed in the bride’. The question ‘why?’ or ‘unto what?’ is that it is for the purpose of taking the journey unto salvation. Shelomah’s name takes these two homographic translations and binds them together. The feminisation is a journey unto a place of rest and peace in the settled state of the name of Yahweh having been fulfilled and an allusion to the fact that the becoming of him is in the female (the bride) who will become that settled place where he dwells.

The word for proverb (mashal משל) as we saw above has a relation of inversion to the primary three letters of Shelomah’s name and the word ‘peace’ (shalom שלום). This is a relation of inversion in letters but proximity as with the kaporeth and paroketh. Mashal (משל) is from the word ‘to rule’ and indicates that what is to follow in the book are those words which will form the basis of Shelomah’s rule. They are the rules of his rule. What follows are a series of couplets which we have already seen above in the section on ‘better’ and ‘than’ in Proverbs 16.

Put not forth thyself in the presence of the king, and stand not in the place of great men: For better it is that it be said unto thee, Come up hither; than that thou should be put lower in the presence of the prince whom thine eyes have seen. (Proverbs 25.6,7)

This proverb/rule is then taken up into the new testament by Iesous, when he utters a parable:

And he put forth a parable to those which were bidden, when he marked how they chose out the chief rooms; saying unto them, When thou are bidden of any man to a wedding, sit not down in the highest room; lest a more honourable man than thou be bidden of him; And he that bade thee and him come and say to thee, Give this man place; and thou begin with shame to take the lowest room. But when thou are bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee comes, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shall thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee. For whosoever exalts himself shall be abased; and he that humbles himself shall be exalted. (Loukas 14.7-11)

Iesous’ words are often uttered in the form of a ‘parable’. In Maththaios 13 the whole chapter is given over to parables that liken themselves to the kingdom of heaven, a kingdom of heavenly origin, like the heavenly country of Hebrews 11 and the heavenly bread, the manna.

In Maththaios 13 it gives some Old Testament justifications for Iesous speaking in parables:

All these things spoke Iesous unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spoke he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the kosmos. (Math.13.34,35)

This is a quotation from Psalm 78:

I will open my mouth in a parable: I will utter dark sayings of old: (Ps.78.2)

The Hebrew translated ‘parable’ here is the word proverb – mashal (משל). Iesous’ parables are parallel to Shelomah’s proverbs and, as we have seen above, bear similarities in some of their narratives. We can see, therefore, that the parables are the precepts of Iesous’ rule. However, the Greek word for parable (parabole παραβολη) is not only used for a description of the way in which Iesous presents his words to the multitudes. The word parable (παραβολη) is related to the verb paraballo (παραβαλλω):

And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of the Theos? or with what comparison shall we compare it? (Markos 4.30)

Here, we have a doubling up of the parable idea. The Greek uses, firstly, a word for ‘likeness’ and, in so doing is introducing another aspect of representative language, that has its origins in Genesis 1. The second part of the sentence effectively says, with what parable shall we parabolise it?

And we sailed thence, and came the next day over against Kios; and the next day we arrived at Samos, and tarried at Trogyllium; and the next day we came to Miletus. (Acts 20.15)

This is the only other occurrence of this verb (paraballo παραβαλλω). It is set in the context of a journey by Paulos and his companions while they evangelised around that region. Indeed, the verb is immediately followed by eis (εις) preceding the place name Samos. You will recall that eis (εις), usually translated ‘unto’ or ‘into’, is an equivalent to the Hebrew ‘el (אל). Here, the context is of a journey but with the word paraballo (παραβαλλω) indicative of attaining unto a destination on one of the stages of the journey. We may deduce, therefore, that parabolising, that is the use of parables, is associated with achieving a place of understanding in the incremental journey of understanding unto becoming Theos. The verb paraballo (παραβαλλω) is constructed from the verb ballo (βαλλω), meaning ‘to cast’, ‘to send’, ‘to put’, or ‘to lay’, along with the preposition para (παρα), usually meaning ‘by’. This same principle of prefixing a verb by para (παρα) is used in the verb paratithemi (παρατιθημι), using, as it does, the verb tithemi (τιθημι) to follow the preposition para (παρα). You will recall that tithemi (τιθημι) is the verb associated with the title Theos and gives the idea of ‘setting’ or ‘placing’ and, as such has a relationship with the Hebrew shem/sham (שם) from which we get ‘name’ and ‘set’ and ‘there’, as we saw above.

Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field: (Math.13.24)

In this verse we not only have this verb ‘put forth’ but also ‘parable’ and ‘likened’, which we saw above in Markos 4.30.

This idea of putting forth is used on a number of occasions to describe the sharing out of the bread and fish at the feeding of the 4,000 and the 5,000.

And he commanded the people to sit down on the ground: and he took the seven loaves, and gave thanks, and brake, and gave to his disciples to set before them; and they did set them before the people. And they had a few small fishes: and he blessed, and commanded to set them also before them. So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets. (Markos 8.6-8)

Iesous enacts a figure for the age to come. He delivers the food to his disciples; he commands them to set this food before the people. They obey. The people reciprocate by being filled and by a greater remnant of the food than the little at the beginning. Setting forth is the delivering, in figure, of the heavenly bread, the teaching of Theos before the people. It is incumbent on the people to see that which is set before them and to take the food and eat until they are full. The same verb is used to describe Iesous at his death:

And when Iesous had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the spirit. (Loukas 23.46)

Iesous, having become the embodiment of the spirit of Theos which had been laid upon him is at the conclusion of this stage of his journey. He sets forth before the father the sum of his identity which he has attained unto. In so doing he then exhales. We will come to the final words of Iesous on the stake in a subsequent post, particularly when he says, ‘it is finished’.

This setting forth is similar to the idea of the verb to parabolise. There is a directional journey and a set finishing point in that the words are juxtaposed with the people with a view to them being able to reach out and take them, if they have ears to hear.

As we mentioned above, the idea of parable is not only restricted to these analogies which Iesous speaks about to his disciples and the people:

But into the second went the high priest alone once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: The holy spirit this signifying, that the way into the holiest of all was not yet made manifest, while as the first tabernacle was yet standing: Which was a figure for (εις) the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience. (Hebrews 9.7-9)

Here the word ‘parable’ is used to describe the ministration of the high priest on the day of the atonements. Prior to this the writer of the letter has been alluding to the tabernacle and its furniture, including the ark and the mercy seat (ilasterion ιλαστηριον), as also being prefigurative of the heavenly things they were made to represent. As you may recall, from previous posts, the place of the kaporeth (translated in Hebrews 9 as ‘mercy seat’) lies at the heart of the day of the atonements, being set in the holy of holies into which the high priest went once a year. It was before the glory of Yahweh, which was manifest in the kaporeth, in the reciprocal kerubym, that the blood of the bull and of the goat were sprinkled. This signifies the offering of anointed, who shed his blood for himself and for others. He did this by being in a face to face relationship with ‘elohym, being completely in communion with him, and representing him to his disciples so that they too could overcome the flesh, even unto the shedding of blood. The parable is the creation of this event and the dwelling of Yahweh amongst his people, which was intrinsic to the culmination of that day, as a likeness and comparison to the true of which it was the figure.

By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaak: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten, Of whom it was said, That in Isaak shall thy seed be called: Accounting that Theos was able to raise him up, even from the dead; from whence also he received him in a figure. (Hebrews 11.17-19)

This is the only other occurrence of parabole (παραβολη) being translated as ‘figure’. We have come across Genesis 22 before, the chapter being alluded to here, before. It was the time and place where ‘Abraham offered up Yitshaq, being prevented at the last minute by the angel. It is also the place which he called Yahweh-yir’eh. It was in this context that we looked at the chapter, on account of the homographic nature of yir’eh (יראה), being both ‘see’/’appear’/’manifest’ and ‘fear’. It was on account of this figurative sacrifice that the final iteration of the promises was made, that his seed (singular) would become a multitude of stars in the heaven and sand on the sea shore leading to a blessing for all nations. This figure which Yahweh created, a true account of an event just as the day of the atonements, was an inferior to the superior of the offering of Iesous and the subsequent multitudinous blessings for those who are created out of that death and resurrection. These are not parables like the parable of the sower, these are parallel, comparative, events that are true and yet less than the things which they portray. Specifically, both of these parables are representative of the representation/manifestation of Theos in his son to the end of saving him and creating a path of salvation for those who would choose to follow after. They are parables because they require the willingness of the scribe (Math.13.52) to unearth their meaning. This is why in Proverbs 25, after the reiteration that what is being written here are ‘proverbs’/’parables’ (mishley משלי), it says:

The glory of ‘elohym is to conceal a word: but the honour of kings is to search out a word. (Proverbs 25.2)

We can see therefore that a parable/proverb is the juxtaposing of two ideas parallel to one another. The one is lesser than the greater, one is the figure, the other the true. This is the case because the true has greater depth and detail than the fugure. The figure picks out a small number of similarities between itself and the true. This conciseness gives the allegory power. The interpretation of the parable/proverb is in the hands of the kings of the age to come to interpret. Without this interpretation the parable/proverb is shrouded in mystery. Typically, this interpretation is significantly greater than the figure because it deals with the explanation of the greater, the true. We will come to look at translation/interpretation in an upcoming post.

End of part 2

9th Jun 2026
Minor detours XVIII – return to prerequisites? – manifestation, metaphor, metonym and other representative language – part 1

From the previous posts about much, many, greater and all things and their antitheses, less, little and nothing, it is evident that one of their applications is that of the idea of ‘figure’ and ‘true’. We saw that the ‘great’ end of the spectrum of substance, and of belief, is that which tends towards Theos and indeed at its fullest extent of that spectrum is the ‘all things’, because Theos is everything, limitless, multitudinous. At the lesser end of the spectrum of substance, and of belief, we have that which tends towards the mind of the natural man which, in respect of comparison with his antithesis, Theos, is next to, and ultimately fully, nothing of spiritual significance. Along with this we also have the language of lesser and greater, and other superlative epithets, being employed to describe ‘figure’ and ‘true’, which we might also refer to as metaphor and metonym, if we were to translate these ideas into contemporary parlance, and those things to which these iterations of representative language allude. A metaphor, of course, being when we say that something is something else, unlike a simile where we say that something is ‘like’ something else, representative language we will come to later in this post. Metonym is when we describe something as something else in a representative way, for example we might talk about the throne when we mean what the throne represents, such as the king who sits upon it or the position of being one who sits upon the throne. Both these phenomena, metaphor and metonym, are examples of representative language because they represent one thing by another, which is why I have also included the term ‘manifestation’ in the title of this post as manifestation is about the representation of one thing in, and by another.

We can see the superlative language alluded to above in the context of representative language in Iesous’ own words:

But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Ionas: For as Ionas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. The men of Nineue shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Ionas; and, behold, a greater [than] Ionas is here. The queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: for she came from the uttermost parts of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater [than] Solomon is here. (Maththaios 12.39-42)

Iesous berates the Pharisaioi for seeking signs and that no sign would be given them but the sign of the prophet Ionas. In fact, there were many signs given to the people at that time and are particularly described not least in the book of Iohannes with the culmination of these signs being that which is alluded to here, the resurrection. These signs were given to those who would believe them not arbitrary wonders requested by a faithless sect. These acts, like the language, are representative. Iesous is the greater Ionas, he is the greater Solomon. These people existed but were representative for that greater one which was to come.

We also saw an abundance of lesser/greater terminology in Loukas 12, as we saw in the previous post:

Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your soul, what you shall eat, or what you shall drink; nor yet for your body, what you shall put on. Is not the soul more than food, and the body than clothing? Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly father feeds them. Are you not much better than they? Which of you by being anxious can add one cubit unto his stature? And why be anxious for clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin: And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. Wherefore, if Theos so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, O you of little belief? Therefore be not anxious, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed? (For after all these things do the nations seek:) for your heavenly father knows that you have need of all these things But seek first the kingdom of Theos, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you. Be not anxious therefore for the morrow: for the morrow shall be anxious for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. (Math.6.25-34)

Here we see the parallel passage to Loukas 12. The language is clear: soul is more than food; body than clothing. The lilies are of less value than the disciples, even though their apparel is greater than Solomon’s; the birds are less than the disciples and yet Theos provides for these lesser manifestations of his glory. Being caught in this anxiety characterises us on the lower end of the scale of belief, little to the point of almost nothing. Sufficiency, that is balance or equality is only seen in this present day and the evil that belongs to it. Any anxiety for the evil of future days tips the balance of evil towards the overwhelming weight of such evil, giving the little belief that exists in the disciple little chance of survival under the overbearing and persistent evil of an imagined, and carnal, future. The little belief is contrasted with the ‘all things’ that Theos provides for us, out of his own abundance.

Of the birds of the air Iesous says that the disciples are better than they. This word is used on several occasions in the New Testament to denote excellence and difference based upon the superiority of one over another:

And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge and in all judgment; That you may approve the things that are excellent; that you may be sincere and without offence till the day of anointed; Being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Iesous anointed, unto the glory and praise of Theos. (Philippians 1.9-11)

Here, the love of the believers is seen as potentially increasing on account of knowledge and judgment, therefore fuelled by scriptural understanding and practice that leads to the approbation of excellent things. This virtuous circle of understanding and behaviour has the potential to lead onto the same journey and destination as the Lord himself.

Similarly, and in respect of loves, the notion of excellence, that is superiority in comparison, is mirrored in the Old Testament:

The song of songs, which is Shelomah’s. Let him kiss me with the kisses of his mouth: for thy love is better than wine. Because of the savour of thy good ointments thy name is as ointment poured forth, therefore do the virgins love thee. (Song of Songs 1.1-3)

The song of songs is a book that invokes comparison, it is a highly figurative work, copiously infused with representative language. The mouth of the bridegroom meets the mouth of the bride in the exchange of words that leads unto salvation by revelation. The kisses are the lesser (the figure), the words are the more (the true). The name of the beloved is ointment poured forth, that is it is described in metaphor as anointing oil which pours down from the head and encompasses the body. It is the overwhelming of the body of anointed by the spirit that emanates from the head. The love of the bridegroom is better than wine. Wine, as we see in Song of songs 7.9 is that which goes down into the mouth of the bride and causes the resurrection of the ‘sleeping’. The wine is the fruit of the vine pressed and offered in the cup; it is the fruitfulness of the bridegroom exhibited in his words which the bride partakes of and leads to resurrection. The love of the bridegroom is better than this figure, than the wine. The word for ‘better’ is simply the word ‘good’ (tob טוב) but pluralised, so ‘goods’ (tobym טובים) on account of the fact that ‘love’ is actually ‘loves’ (plural) and the two must agree in number. In verse 3 the plural is also used in the description of ‘your good ointments’. The name of the bridegroom is as good anointing oils. The name of the bridegroom is that of Iesous. He manifested the name of the father (Ioh.17.6), the name that was given to him – Iesous – is explicitly the same as Yehoshua’ in the Old Testament, having the first three letters in common with his father’s name and meaning ‘he shall save’. Who is the ‘he’? He is the father. The name of the son is like the anointing oil that was poured upon the head of the high priest, proceeding as it does from the head downwards and covering the body. It represents the descent of the spirit down upon the head, anointed, and covering the body, the bride. This is the journey of be(com)ing him, the fulfilment of which is yet to come. These ointments are also good(s). They share the same principle with the loves and are indeed synonymous as they describe the same process of downward manifestation, the outcome of which is a reciprocal pleasant odour to the one administering the ointments. The true, which is yet to be fulfilled is in every way superior to the wine and the ointments, though they themselves are good things, they are not the better things which they prefigure. The pluralising of ‘good’ is like the pluralising of ‘all’ which we saw in a previous blog. ‘All (things)’ is like ‘good(s)’. It is a plural representing the mediation of the multiplicity of Yahweh’s thoughts towards man with an anticipation of some reciprocity.

Establish thy word unto thy servant, who is devoted to thy fear. Turn away my reproach which I fear: for thy judgments are good. Behold, I have longed after thy precepts: quicken me in thy righteousness. (Psalm 119.38-40)

Here, Yahweh’s judgments are good, that is there is a plurality of judgments. Dawid is subject to the fear (sight, appearance, manifestation) of Yahweh through the various elements of his utterances. The term ‘good’ is more widely used in its singular form (tob טוב), however, when drawing a distinction between two things in the classic sense of what we would understand as the comparative ‘better’, being a comparison between two singulars.

And Sha’ul said unto Shemu’el, Yes, I have obeyed the voice of Yahweh, and have gone the way which Yahweh sent me, and have brought ‘Agag the king of ‘Amalek, and have utterly destroyed ‘Amalek. But the people took of the spoil, sheep and oxen, the chief of the things which should have been utterly destroyed, to sacrifice unto Yahweh thy ‘elohym in Gilgal. And Shemu’el said, Has Yahweh as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of Yahweh? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams…And as Shemu’el turned about to go away, he laid hold upon the skirt of his mantle, and it rent. And Shemu’el said unto him, Yahweh has rent the kingdom of Yisra’el from thee this day, and has given it to a neighbour of thine, that is better than thou. And also the strength of Yisra’el will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent. (1 Shemu’el 15.20-22, 27-29)

Here there are two options set apart by the words ‘better’ (good) and ‘than’. There is a choice between two – the sacrifices and obedience. One is a figure for the true. When the figure and the true are aligned then both can be practised. However, in this incidence, the inferior figure of offering sacrifices would be a usurping of the greater obedience to the commandment to destroy all of ‘Amalek.

Better is a little with righteousness than great revenues without right…How much better is it to get wisdom than gold! and to get understanding rather to be chosen than silver!…Better to be of an humble spirit with the lowly, than to divide the spoil with the proud…He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that rules his spirit than he that takes a city. (Proverbs 16.8,16,19,32)

This juxtaposition of qualities in a couplet is common in Proverbs. It is very much like the juxtaposition of the ‘not’ and the ‘not/not’ inherent in the meaning of ‘el (אל) and of the kaporeth. There are qualities which are at odds with one another and yet, as in 1 Shemu’el 15 above, these representative words can denote a true. We can take abundance and wealth as being representative of true wealth of understanding but the possessing of such, where there is absence of the true to which these figures allude, is in the same tragic vein as the disobedience of the commandment of Yahweh in favour of sacrifices that occurred under Sha’ul’s stewardship. Although in the possession of material abundance there seems to be a strong correlation between that and the lack of abundance of spirit, less than the possibility of possessing both.

End of part 1

9th Jun 2026
Minor detours XVII – return to prerequisities? – greater and lesser – part 4 – the less and the least

There are a number of words that seem to catch this sense of ‘less’/’least’ and then progress onto ‘few’, ‘little’ and ‘nothing’. Clearly, they lie in contrast to some of the words we have considered heretofore, such as ‘much’, ‘many’, ‘great’, ‘greater’ and ‘all things’. A raft of antithetical terms seems to litter a discourse that Iesous engages in:

And he said unto his disciples, Therefore I say unto you, Be not anxious for your soul, what you shall eat; neither for the body, what you shall put on. The soul is more than food, and the body is more than raiment. Consider the ravens: for they neither sow nor reap; which neither have storehouse nor barn; and Theos feeds them: how much more are you better than the birds? And which of you with being anxious can add to his height one cubit? If you then be not able to do that which is least, why are you anxious for the rest? Consider the lilies how they grow: they toil not, they spin not; and yet I say unto you, that Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these. If then Theos so clothes the grass, which is today in the field, and tomorrow is cast into the oven; how much more will he clothe you, O you of little belief? And seek not what you shall eat, or what you shall drink, neither be of doubtful mind. For all these things do the nations of the kosmos seek after: and your father knows that you have need of these things. But rather seek the kingdom of Theos; and all these things shall be added unto you. (Loukas 12.22-31)

I have highlighted the term ‘that which is least’ as this is the ostensible subject of this post. However, we might also consider the use of similar and antithetical language such as, ‘the soul is more than food’; ‘how much more are you better than the birds’; ‘how much more’ (with respect to clothing and the lilies); ‘you of little faith’; ‘all these things shall be added unto you’. There is a clear distinction being made between the apparent, and material, need for basic requirements and the absolute, and spiritual, necessity of the pursuit of understanding. The disciples, and their present necessities are greater, or more than, that which is of the natural creation. Their true feeding and clothing upon are more especially greater than the natural creation and, indeed, than the crowning glory of material wellbeing seen in the son of Dawid, which itself is surpassed by the natural beauty of the lilies. There is a promise that pursuit of spiritual understanding will be met with provision of material survival but, greater than this, the promise of clothing and feeding is an outcome of the pursuit of spiritual understanding. That is, that the disciple who seeks the things pertaining to the kingdom of Theos will receive the ‘all things’ that pertain to Theos and that such ‘all things’ can be described as clothing and feeding. That which is greater is the true, of which the lesser is the figure.

Obviously, the least of these terms is ‘no’ or ‘nothing’, just as the greatest of the terms mentioned in the previous post was ‘all things’.

And he said unto them, Why are you so fearful? how is it that ye have no belief? (Markos 4.40)

Here we see Iesous speaking to his disciples after having been woken up while he was asleep in the boat and a storm raged. He arises and causes the wind and waves to cease. In parallel passages the word ‘no’ (ouk ουκ) is not used but rather the word ‘little’ (oligos ολιγος) in a composite form of ‘you of little belief’ (oligopistoi ολιγοπιστοι).

And he says unto them, Why are you fearful, you of little belief? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm. (Math.8.26)

The two narrations of what appears to be the same incident are relating the speech of Iesous subtly differently. There is a littleness of belief which is as though there were none, it is so insignificant. This composite term is used four more times in the New Testament with all the occurrences being Iesous’ reproof of one or more of his disciples.

Wherefore, if Theos so clothe the grass of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you, you of little belief? (Math.6.30)

We saw the parallel passage to this one above in Loukas 12. Of the five occurrences of this word, two describe the littleness of belief surrounding anxiety over daily necessities, two describe the failure to jettison doubt in the face of the overwhelming storm and their hopes of surviving it, and the fifth is a failure to understand the figurative speech of Iesous concerning the leaven of the Pharisaioi and Saddoukaioi:

Which when Iesous perceived, he said unto them, You of little belief, why reason you among yourselves, because you have brought no bread? (Math.16.8)

In all these occurrences the littleness of their belief is a state of a lack of understanding of the figurative and the true. They have anxiety over the carnal necessities of the day instead of being careful over the necessities of the inner man furnished by seeking the kingdom of Theos. In the two storm narratives their lack of belief is because they fear being overwhelmed by natural forces when the son of Theos is in their midst whereas they should be pushing towards the overcoming of those natural elements of the world by the overwhelming inundation of the spirit. In the third occurrence they are focused on the bread of the Pharisaioi and Saddoukaioi rather than what that figurative language represents, that is the teaching of these sects of the Ioudaioi. They are lacking in perception of the true by being focused on the figure as if it were the true. We will see in an upcoming blog how that the ideas of greater/much/many/all things and their antitheses, less/little and nothing are related to the ideas of metaphor and metonym, or in scriptural language, figure and true.

The word ‘little’ from the composite ‘you of little belief’ is the word oligos (ολιγος) and is regularly translated ‘few’ when it occurs in the New Testament and is regularly juxtaposed with the word ‘many’.

Enter in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leads to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leads unto life, and few there be that find it. (Math.7.13,14)

In this and a number of other passages the ‘few’ and the ‘many’ are the apparent numbers that are going to attain unto salvation in comparison to those who are not. In this chapter it is preceded by the injunction to ask, seek and knock for that which is required in order to be satisfied by Theos. This pursuit of spiritual understanding is something that characterises the ‘few’ and, if sought, will be rewarded with finding understanding unto aionian life. The ‘many’, contrariwise, are not striving to take this difficult path but pass, with ease, along the path taken by the vast majority. The few are the ones who begin the journey by finding the gate.

The few and the many can be similarly antithetical, as they are above and also as in the phrasing that ‘many are called but few are chosen’. However, sometimes the ‘few’ can be causal for the ‘many’.

And his disciples say unto him, Whence should we have so much bread in the wilderness, as to fill so great a multitude? And Iesous says unto them, How many loaves have you? And they said, Seven, and a few little fishes. (Math.15.33,34)

In this relating of the feeding of the four thousand, a great many people are fed by a small quantity of fish and bread, administered by a few disciples. This event is a living metaphor, an anticipatory figure. The many people will be satisfied by that which is ‘little’. The feeding of those who will inherit life, a multitudinous throng, are fed by a small amount. Firstly, the one person of Iesous, manifesting the one father, in his mediation of that spiritual food to a few of his followers. These themes are present in the Old Testament where the principle of Yahweh saving by little is not uncommon. Gide’on and his three hundred who saved the host of Yisra’el from the hands of Midyan. Dawid, who slew the mightier Golyath with a small stone and the Pelishty’s own sword before turning this one victory into a rout of the army of the Pelishtym. Yahweh delights in saving the many by little, ultimately by one man manifesting his name.

The idea of few can be seen in the light of, and antithetical to, the words panta (παντα) and apanta (απαντα), meaning ‘all (things)’. In this context we see the few – oliga (ολιγα) – being, in the plural, a quantity of things or people.

But I have a few things against you, because you have there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication…Notwithstanding I have a few things against you, because you suffer that woman Iezebel, which calls herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. (Revelation 2.14,20)

Sadly, and ironically, here the ‘few things’ are undermining the ‘all things’ that should be in the minds of these believers. It is these few things that are in danger of overthrowing their belief and causing it to become ‘little’ or, indeed, not at all.

We can, as in the case above, see the few and the many being upended. We might reflect that it is few, even one, that saves the many but that these few are imbued with the many things of Theos’ mind that occasion such salvation and that the many are lacking anything but little understanding before they can be filled with the abundance that stems from the few’s mouth(s).

As it is written, He that had much had nothing over; and he that had little had no lack. (2 Corinthians 8.15)

Here Paulos is encouraging the Corinthian believers to consider the plight of their poor brothers in Ierousalem. He alludes to, and quotes from, the narrative concerning the manna. At that time, those who could go out and gather much did and those who could gather less did what they could do. Only then was it measured out to a required amount so that no one lacked. The ‘little’ is that which those who were unable to do so gathered. It is a quantification of the amount of bread. This passage very much mirrors the behaviour of the ekklesia in Ierousalem in the days following pentecost when they had ‘all things’ in common. It is a figurative, and material, indication of the true, and spiritual (that is of the spirit) things which they shared.

‘Little’ is also used as a measure of distance, which is highly significant as the underlying trajectory of the subject matter in these blogs is that of a journey, a direction towards Theos.

And when he had gone a little further thence, he saw Iakobos the son of Zebedaios, and Iohannes his brother, who also were in the ship mending their nets. And straightway he called them: and they left their father Zebedaios in the ship with the hired servants, and went after him. (Markos 1.19,20)

This narration follows the calling of Petros and Andreas, who were also fishermen and they, similarly, forsook their nets to become Iesous’ disciples. Iesous is on a journey along the shore of the sea of Galilaias when he calls these disciples. It is also by the shore of the sea when another indication of distance occurs:

And he entered into one of the ships, which was Simon’s, and prayed him that he would thrust out a little from the land. And he sat down, and taught the people out of the ship. (Loukas 5.3)

‘Little’ is the amount of distance required for him to pass by the second set of brothers to call them, and ‘little’ is the distance he required to separate himself from the many that required his instruction. He was in a boat with the other ‘few’, just as Noe was in the ark:

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of Theos waited in the days of Noe, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. (1 Petros 3.20)

We see a little distance between the two sets of partner fishermen called to follow Iesous. Little distance, just enough, to separate Iesous, and his ability to teach the people, from the multitude on the shore hearing his words. Few people found to have enough, that is much, understanding to be saved and to save the few that they took within the ark in order to create a new creation to multiply and fill the earth from those small beginnings.

Beyond distance, there is also the notion of time, and the insubstantive nature of things pertaining to this life and the passage of that time. This is not overly common and, indeed, there are other terms that focus on time; however, the littleness of this age is contrasted with the ‘all things’ of the age to come:

But refuse profane and old wives’ fables, and exercise thyself rather unto eusebeia. For bodily exercise profits little: but eusebeia is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. (1 Timotheos 4.7,8)

The contrast here concerns ‘towards little’ and ‘towards all things’. Paulos is teaching Timotheos the fundamental nature of sound words and their antithesis, profane and old wives’ fables. Sound speech is fundamental to an exercise towards (pros προς) eusebeia. We looked at this term in a previous blog where we examined a number of words beginning with the word eu (ευ), meaning ‘well’ or ‘good’. We saw that these words were, uniformly, to do with reciprocal behaviour and speech. The same is true of eusebeia, which is formed with this word plus the suffix for the word ‘to worship’. Eusebeia is a description of manifestation, as in 1 Timotheos 3:

And confessedly great is the mystery of eusebeia: who was manifest in flesh, justified in spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the nations, believed on in the kosmos, received up into glory. (1 Tim.3.16)

the manifestation of Theos in anointed is the revelation of the mystery of eusebeia. Iesous was involved in willing reciprocal manifestation of the father. We need to endeavour to do the same. Exercise in this through sound words, the sound words of the Lord’s teaching, leads on to the ‘all things’ of Theos’ mind. Exercise in profanity or indeed the exercise of the body is profitable in the direction of ‘little’. This same directional terminology is used in another place:

Whereas you know not what shall be on the morrow. For what is your life? It is even a vapour, that appears for a little, and then vanishes away. (Iakobos 4.14)

There is a dual sense here, the vapour appears only briefly but it is also an insubstantial thing, a transient phenomenon, wholly unlike the persistent existence of Theos, and the persistent and ubiquitous identity of Theos.

We can see the littleness of insubstantial thoughts and speech when compared to the abundance of the sound words of Theos being insubstantive in their persistence whereas the word of the Lord abides unto the age.

Another word which also covers the idea of little, few or small is the Greek word mikros/mikron (μικρος/μικρον), which is also used to describe time:

A little while, and you shall not see me: and again, a little while, and you shall see me, because I go towards the father. Then said some of his disciples among themselves, What is this that he says unto us, A little while, and you shall not see me: and again, a little while, and you shall see me: and, Because I go towards the father? They said therefore, What is this that he says, A little while? we cannot tell what he says. Now Iesous knew that they were desirous to ask him, and said unto them, Do you enquire among yourselves of that I said, A little while, and you shall not see me: and again, a little while, and you shall see me? Amen, amen, I say unto you, That you shall weep and lament, but the kosmos shall rejoice: and you shall be sorrowful, but your sorrow shall be turned into joy. A woman when she is in travail has sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembers no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the kosmos. And you now therefore have sorrow: but I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice, and your joy no man takes from you. (Iohannes 16.16-22)

Here, we see the word mikros/mikron (μικρος/μικρον) used in a similar way to the last usage of oligos (ολιγος) we looked at. There is a stronger and more fundamental sense of time going on here but underpinning it is the lesser significance of the things that have passed, the time of their grief and lack of understanding of what has happened and its similarity, that is the pains of childbirth. The disciples, evidently, do not grasp the necessity for the suffering and death of anointed, which is shortly to happen, that is in a little while. Similarly, once overwhelmed by their grief and lack of understanding, there is a short space of time, three days, before they understand the need for his death and subsequent resurrection, and its attendant rejoicing. Similarly, there is a short space of time when the woman is overcome by pain before the emergence of the man child into the kosmos. There is no word for ‘time’ used here. This is because, although the passage of time is clear, the significance of the passing of these moments of suffering pales in the face of the persistent joy which is to follow.

This word is also used in similar contexts to oligos (ολιγος), such as in distance:

And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou. (Maththaios 26.39)

Iesous has separated, step by step, from his disciples. He has taken them into the garden and then gone further with three of them, then he goes further, then he returns to that place two further times to commune with the father. In a blog which is focused on a journey, this narrative is especially pertinent. The apparent insignificance of the distance is not matched by the significance of the moment and the pertinence of the incremental stepping away from his disciples and the movement towards the father and the performing of his will. Iesous’ journey of separation from flesh and movement towards Theos is reaching its climax here and in the next hours. He is committing to joining his will with the father’s to pass through the temporal struggle for the permanence of joy with him.

Besides its use as a definition of time and distance, mikros/mikron (μικρος/μικρον) is also used to depict the ideas of smallness in respect of people, being as children, and of height in the case of Zakkaios:

And he sought to see Iesous who he was; and could not for the press, because he was little of stature. (Loukas 19.2)

Zakkaios was materially a small man but his ‘stature’ though insignificant materially could become much greater in Iesous, where stature denotes a growth and maturity in understanding that is often associated with physical development in a child.

This term is also used of children:

And said, Amen I say unto you, Except you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receives me. But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe into me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Math.18.3-6)

Iesous characterises those that humble themselves, to come and learn of him and believe into him, as little ones, as little children. It is essential to become little in one’s own eyes and to recognise that, as carnal creatures, we are insubstantial before Theos and approach unto anointed to learn of him and to endeavour to become him to enter into the kingdom.

Lastly, this word, on account of dealing with those of lesser significance, deals with the idea of ‘least’ as an antithesis to ‘great(est)’.

And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of Theos? or with what comparison shall we compare it? It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: But when it is sown, it grows up, and becomes greater than all herbs, and shoots out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it. (Markos 4.30-32)

Here we see the distinction between ‘least’ and ‘greatest’. That which appears to be small, of the least significance, grows into that which is great. Firstly, those who will inherit that kingdom are the least in estimation in this age and, secondly, they must make themselves small, and humble themselves, before Theos. They can then, in becoming him, become great. This increasing in stature, of understanding, before Theos is effected by the mediation of his word.

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them for (unto) a Theos, and they shall be to me for (unto) a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. (Hebrews 8.10-12)

This quotation in Hebrews 8 is from Yeremyahu 31, where the construction ‘I will be to them for ‘elohym and they shall be to me for a people’ is at the heart of the meaning of Yahweh’s name, using the rare ‘I will be’ form from Exodus 3, where the meaning of Yahweh’s name is described. The construction of the ‘to’ and ‘for’ twice is mimicked in the Greek of Hebrews 8 where the Greek eis (εις) is employed, strengthening the ‘unto’/’unto’ relationship of ‘elohym with his people. Those who will come to know him are from the least and the greatest and they may become the greatest although beginning as the least but all, in that glorious age, will know Yahweh if they are to be recipients of his new covenant and are to have their sins forgiven.

This idea of ranking is present in the last word we shall consider – elakistos (ελαχιστος):

Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Maththaios 5.19)

We have seen that that which is great is of the mighty ‘el, unto whom we should be travelling towards. He mediates such abundance of his thoughts to us. We must become small in our own eyes, and in his, to eventually become great, in him. We have seen ‘nothing’, through to the ‘little’ and the ‘few’ to the ‘least’. All these things speak to us of that which is antithetical to the greatness of Theos. Our littleness can remain as such, or it can increase with the blessings of greatness from above. As such we, like him, can become the little/few from which much and the great is made. Increasing in understanding from that little belief where the figure and true were not grasped we can press on in the journey towards living in the figure in the hope of inheriting the true.

27th Apr 2026
Minor detours XVI – return to prerequisites? – greater and lesser – part 3 – the ‘all things’

In the previous post we spent a little while discussing the use of ‘all things’ in the New Testament. The Greek for such is panta (παντα) and is the word for ‘all’ but in a plural form so we add the word ‘things’ in the plural to confer the plural sense of the word ‘all’ being used here. However, we do not have a word ‘alls’ so we use a word which is not there. In truth, that is exactly what it is though – alls – a plural of the word ‘all’. Grammatically, ‘all’ is known as a ‘determiner’. It is a limiter or determinator, in quantity or number, of a noun that follows it. Of course, here we have no noun that follows it so we have had to introduce a non-existent one. The irony here is that this determiner is in fact not limiting that which is describing it as ‘all’ means everything and, therefore, is delimiting the object it describes. As, often in its occurrences there is no direct linked word, like ‘things’, then we have to determine what the word ‘all’ is describing.

And he said, What mean thou by all this drove which I met? And he said, These are to find grace in the sight of my lord. And ‘Eshau said, I have enough, my brother; keep that thou has unto thyself. And Ya’aqob said, No I pray thee, if now I have found grace in thy sight, then receive my present at my hand: for therefore I have seen thy face, as though I had seen the face of ‘elohym, and thou was pleased with me. Take, I pray thee, my blessing that is brought to thee; because ‘elohym has dealt graciously with me, and because I have enough. And he urged him, and he took it. (Genesis 33.8-11)

The focus of this passage, for us, is on the two uses of the word ‘enough’. We take the word ‘enough’ to mean a sufficiency and indeed there are words that can cover this, some of which we will look at in the following posts. However, here the two brothers use two different words. ‘Eshau is glad to see his brother some twenty or so years after he last saw him, a time when he was promising to kill him. He, however, is in a different frame of mind, having an abundance of possessions, an outcome some twenty years or so previously he had feared would not be the case, fearing that Ya’aqob had outwitted their father into giving him the blessing and birthright and that would lead to ‘Eshau’s impoverishment. In the light of this abundance which he has as he remained in the vicinity of his father and grandfather, he uses the word ‘elohym spoke to ‘Abraham when blessing him, rab (רב), meaning ‘much’ or ‘many’. On the other hand, his younger brother Ya’aqob, responds with the word kol (כל), to describe what he has. This word means ‘everything’ or ‘all’. Ya’aqob doesn’t possess much or many things, he possesses everything or all things. What are these ‘all things’ which he has? He has the birthright and blessing which should have gone to the firstborn but went to him, the natural second born of the twins but the usurper and true heir to the promises Yahweh made to ‘Abraham and Yitshaq. His inheritance, like ‘Abraham’s, is Yahweh. It is ‘el that has brought him back as he committed to at Beth’el. The ‘all tings’ he possesses is Yahweh.

Clearly, ‘all things’ is a greater amount than ‘much’. In the previous post we saw ‘much’/’many’ as an incremental inundation of the spirit, and the understanding thereof, that leads to the overwhelming of the natural mind by the spiritual one. The ‘all things’, rather than the ‘many’, would seem to allude to an attainment, an arrival at the destination of having become spirit, rather than the journey of incremental understanding alluded to in the ‘many’. There is a sense, in an anticipatory way, that Ya’aqob has attained unto the ‘all things’, howbeit still engaging in the journey. ‘Eshau is, seemingly, not on the journey of the ‘many’ at all, and so we see these terms as the subjective assessments by two men on different trajectories. At some point in the near future, we will look at the subjective appreciation that people have in their perceptions of their position with respect to Theos but here it is clear that the two men have different ideas of what they have achieved. The translation of ‘enough’ for the term that ‘Eshau uses has some resonance in further uses of the word rab (רב):

Intreat Yahweh (for it is enough) that there be no more mighty thunderings and hail; and I will let you go, and you shall stay no longer. (Exodus 9.28)

Here, Phar’oh is asking Mosheh that the plague of thunder and hail be removed as it has reached such an overwhelming level that it can no longer be tolerated. It is abundance to a level. Presumably ‘Eshau has abundance of possession to a level that satisfies his requirements. Ya’aqob, however, has everything, or rather is on a journey to only being satisfied when he has ‘all’.

We also saw ‘all things’ used in the context of possessions in the New Testament:

The young man says unto him, All these things have I kept from my youth up: what lack I yet? Iesous said unto him, If thou will be perfect, go and sell that thou has, and give to the poor, and thou shall have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. Then said Iesous unto his disciples, Amen I say unto you, That a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven. And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Theos. When his disciples heard it, they were exceedingly amazed, saying, Who then can be saved? But Iesous beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with Theos all things are possible. Then answered Petros and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore? (Math.19.20-27)

The foremost question here is, What shall we have? Possession is critical both here and in the case of ‘Eshau and Ya’aqob. The two opposing parties see possession differently. ‘Eshau sees possession as the abundance of material wealth he has as a result of being the son of Yitshaq. Ya’aqob sees possession as being the journey unto possessing the ‘all things’ of Yahweh’s name and inheritance. The rich young man has asked Iesous:

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have aionian life? (Math.19.16)

The young man’s question is about possession. He wishes to ‘have’ aionian life. Iesous’ response is:

And he said unto him, Why call thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, Theos: but if thou will enter into life, keep the commandments. (Math.19.20)

Iesous has characterised life as only being attainable by entering into it. It is a journey which ends in a destination. The young man’s response is, as above, centred on possessing so Iesous focuses in on that need for possession with the statement, ‘sell that you possess and you shall have treasure in heaven’. If he wishes to have treasure in heaven he must sell what he has here. The antithesis is stark. Possession of material wealth here is at odds with possession of heavenly wealth. Of course, the heavenly wealth cannot be had by going to heaven but is of heavenly origin. The life that is aionian (of the age) can only be entered into on account of the resources afforded by the heavenly treasure. The man goes away because he had great possessions. The lesson is clear. Having, or possessing, is a state of mind which energises the journey unto a destination. The rich man cannot enter into the kingdom because his resources that will supply the energy for the journey are not suitable for this journey, they lead somewhere else. In fact, they lead nowhere as he is interested only in ‘having’ not ‘entering into’. A man must be divested of such trust in the philosophy of wealth to be able to enter into life. The pertinent question that Petros asks is not, what shall we have, as translated above but, rather, he says, What shall we be? Aionian life is what we shall become, fuelled by the possession of heavenly treasure. ‘All’ and ‘all things’ in this chapter refer to, firstly, the six commandments Iesous has encouraged the young man to keep, it is then the ‘all things’ which, being impossible for man, are possible with Theos, which we may infer are those abundant possessions which should be laid up in heaven and accessed from heaven as a motivation for the journey. Finally, the ‘all’ which Petros refers to are those earthly treasures which he and the disciples have forsaken because they are inadequate for the journey unto aionian life. It is the abundance of the mind of Theos, received and reciprocated by man, which are the ‘all things’ capable of ensuring the safe arrival at the destination of his name.

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto treasure hid in a field; the which when a man has found, he hides and for joy thereof goes and sells all that he has, and buys that field. (Maththaios 13.44)

There is a tension between the heavenly treasure in all its abundance and the comparative value of what the man has which he is prepared to dispose of to acquire the former. The two, clearly, represent the totality of the identity of their respective possessors. The heavenly treasure, in all its abundance, represents the manifold thoughts of Theos; the ‘all things’ that the man is prepared to give up represent his willingness to divest himself of his present thoughts to embrace those of Theos. In this respect both possessors’ treasures are figurative. In man there is a co-existence of the figurative and the material wealth that is associated with it. Divesting of the one means divestment of the other. In other contexts, ‘all things’ can represent material wealth, used as metaphor for debt and credit in spiritual matters.

Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owe. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. (Maththaios 18.23-31)

The first three occurrences of panta (παντα) refer to possessions and debt, that is material wealth, or lack of it. The fourth occurrence is the words and deeds exchanged and done between the two servants. This is a narrative about forgiveness of sins couched in terms of debt. Petros has asked how many times he should forgive his brother. Of course, when weighed with the number of times we transgress, and the abundance of the debt we owe to Theos, the forgiveness of a brother can only be diminutive, no matter how many times it is done, in comparison to the overwhelming debt we face in regard to Theos. The servant owes an overwhelming amount of money to the Lord. An amount he will never be able to pay. We are in an overwhelming debt ratio with Theos. He is ‘all things’ whereas we are but a few, if any. He writes off the debt. It is understood that the servant should similarly, manifestationally, do such to his fellow. He does not, despite the exact same plea from his colleague. This reciprocal dialogue and subsequent actions are related back to the Lord who sees in them a lack of similarity to his own acquittal of the man’s debt and so he reinstates the debt. The overwhelming disparity in the thinking and behaviour of Theos in comparison to ours can only be rectified by receipt from him and reciprocation both in dialogue with him and manifestation toward others.

The ‘all things’ seen above was in respect of speech and action. The same is true when we see the occurrences of panta (παντα) in other passages in this same book.

All things are delivered unto me of my father: and no man knows the son, but the father; neither knows any man the father, save the son, and he to whomsoever the son will reveal him. Come unto me, all that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and you shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (Maththaios 11.27-30)

The revelation of the father to the son is characterised in this overwhelming abundance. It is a revelation that bestows knowledge and is then bestowed on others by Iesous. The outcome of such understanding is the unburdening of the natural man and the carrying of a burden of anointed, which is lighter. There is a clear distinction in passages that we have seen that contrast the totality of the things of Theos as opposed to the totality of the things of man. The ‘all things’ of man do not amount to much as they are rooted in the abundance of natural thinking. The totality of the thoughts and deeds of Theos are uncountable because they are the outcome of his own infinite abundance. The wealth of man is limited while the wealth of Theos is unlimited and leads to becoming unburdened by the flesh and its destination, death.

All these things spoke Iesous unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spoke he not unto them: (Math.13.34)

As intimated above, the ‘all things’ of Theos are transmitted by the words that are spoken to the people by his agents, in this case, and most especially, by Iesous. However, as we have seen, the likeness of the kingdom of heaven is concealed in figures, the true meaning of which can only be uncovered by seeking them out, like the treasure and the pearls that are referred to later in the same chapter. Theos, and therefore Iesous his agent, is only interested in the true meanings with the figures being useful only in directing the minds of people towards that truth. The mind of man can become focused on the material figures, without reference to the true. This is often seen where ‘all things’ depicts treasure.

If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him? Therefore all things whatsoever you would that men should do to you, do even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. (Math.7.11,12)

Those things which are revealed are then spoken and are then to be done. This is the teaching of the name, of manifestation. The mind of Theos, in its abundance, is revealed, spoken and, being heard, needs to be performed.

Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For amen I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. (Math.5.17-19)

All the things that were revealed, written and done about anointed and in anointed constitute the new creation, the outcome of the mind of Theos, which cannot sweep away the old heavens and earth of the Mosaic dispensation until ‘all things’ are fulfilled in Iesous. When these things had been fuflilled, which we will look at in the upcoming blogs, then the apostles spoke about them at the day of pentecost and instituted the creation of the ekklesia.

Then Petros said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you upon the name of Iesous anointed unto the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the holy spirit. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our Theos shall call. And with many other words did he testify and exhort, saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptised: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. And all that believed were together, and had all things common; And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (Acts 2.38-45)

and:

And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they were all things common. And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Iesous: and great grace was upon them all. Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles’ feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need. (Acts 4.32-35)

The creation of the ekklesia, the gathering together unto the Lord of believers, was an outcome of the preaching of Petros and the apostles and the willing response of the people to that teaching. Their response was seen in their belief, in their baptism, in their continuance in the same mind and their showing of these things by sharing what things they possessed so that everyone had enough. This behaviour was very much the same as that exhibited when the manna was distributed in the wilderness, and which we shall look at in upcoming blogs. It is a figure for the sharing of the bread which came down from heaven so that every person had enough. The believers sold what they possessed so that ‘all things’ were shared. The same phrasing for ‘in common’ is used in Acts 2 to describe the fellowship, or shared mind, that they had together. The ‘all things’ of material possession were shared as a figure, and indeed an outcome, of the spiritual wealth and one mindedness they had. In Acts 2, this ‘all things’ shared is described as something they ‘had’, denoting a true possession of a shared journey and outcome. In Acts 4 the verb ‘to be’ is used, that is they ‘were’ all things in common. This is a state of being or becoming. It is their identity that they were in a shared state of mind, in anticipation of that unity of mind awaiting them in the age to come.

Interestingly the Greek word for ‘all things’ in these two passages in Acts is apanta (απαντα). This is from the previous and more common word for ‘all things’ but prefixed by the letter alpha (α). From the occurrences of apanta (απαντα) we would deduce that there was no significant change in meaning from occurrences of panta (παντα). However, it is not uncommon to use a prefixed alpha (α) (known as an alpha privative) as a way of negating the word following. The other way of using this alpha privative is as a way of expressing union, community or fellowship. We could read, therefore, at one and the same time, the sense of ‘all things’ being shared and of there being ‘not all things’. Both of these, of course, can be true at the same time. The possessions are ‘not all things’ because they are only indicative of the true ‘all things’ which were first mediated to them and which they now share in an incremental and united journey of growth, but are definitively not those things. They are communally owned and dispersed so they are the communal ‘all things’.

This shows the necessity of seeing shared possession, as required by Iesous with those that followed him, as a figurative manifestation of the true. It is not an optional extra but a requirement as a precursor to the true sharing, communal progression and journey which is the evidence of Theos dwelling in his ekklesia. Having and being all things in common is an outcome of divestment of material ‘all things’. The journey from one to the other is predicated on the possession of the future being incompatible with the possession of this age.

We have seen, therefore, that ‘all things’ is an indication of an overwhelming inundation of the mind of Theos which, if received, transforms the willing receiver of it. It leads to the filling of the believer with this overwhelming wealth of understanding and bridges the immense gulf of wisdom and understanding that lies between him and Theos. It therefore leads to forgiveness of sins by the bridging of that shortfall. It is a description of the unbounded wisdom of Theos and the limited wisdom of man as ‘all things’ is limited only by the limitations of the one possessing such. The ‘all things’ of the mind of man must be divested of to acquire the ‘all things’ of Theos. The ‘all things’ of Theos is his mind, the expression of such in the revelation of his word and the creation of the body of believing people that is the outcome of such. The believing people will be gathered together in one, an indication of which is when such people share what they have in speaking the word one to another and in common possession of that which betokens, but is not, the ‘all things’ of Theos.

As ‘all’ is a determiner and ‘things’ are implied, as we saw at the beginning of this post, we need to determine what the things are that are being determined by ‘all’. The same principle we have seen in Genesis 1.1 where the singular ‘he’ who created, through the plural ‘elohym, needs to be searched out to be understood. The ‘alls’ of Theos are insubstantial materially and are reserved in heaven as an overwhelmingly abundant treasure. The ‘alls’ of man, similarly, are a motivating force which is seen in those things that are materially substantive and ubiquitous in this age. As in Genesis 1, there is a motivating force which is seen in the substantive evidence, the creation, of that invisible impetus. The substantive outcome of the ‘alls’ of Theos is the speech and acts that proceed from that directional spirit which leads to the creation of a person and then a people fit for his name. The ‘alls’ of man is evidenced is substantive speech, works and creation which are, in large part, antithetical to the creation of Theos. Similarly, the two treasures are antithetical. Rejection of the one is a prerequisite for attaining the other. It is imperative that the seeker of heavenly wealth sells all that he has to achieve that treasure and become a creation of Theos. This involves diligent work in the word that came down from heaven, at the expense of the pursuit of possessing this age. This insubstantial wealth was materialised in the Lord Iesous and can be materialised in any that become that creation of Theos, manifesting the ‘all (things)’ of Theos. An innumerable collection of ‘all things’ embodying all that is of him. When that occurs the implied ‘things’ will finally be fully seen on earth, manifesting the ‘alls’ that are in heaven.

7th Mar 2026
Minor detours XV – return to prerequisites? – greater and lesser – part 2 – the much and the many

In the previous post we saw the link between ‘fear’ and the manifestation group of words: ‘see’, ‘appear’ etc. This diversion stemmed out of the fact that ‘el being ‘mighty’ was juxtaposed with him being ‘fearful’. In particular, we saw this homographic convergence of ‘fear’ and ‘see’/’appear’ occurring in Genesis 22 in the context of ‘Abraham being told to offer up his son, Yitshaq. One of the ideas of ‘great’/’mighty’ was that of an overwhelming power, sometimes numerically. Here in Genesis 22, we see that, after ‘Abraham being tested as to whether he would obey Yahweh’s call to manifest him or not, Yahweh restates promises to him which had been spoken of before. These blessings are offered in the form of numerically overwhelming promises:

And the angel of Yahweh called unto ‘Abraham out of heaven the second time, And said, By myself have I sworn, says Yahweh, for because thou have done this thing, and have not withheld thy son, thine only: That in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the sea shore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies; And in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou has obeyed my voice. (Genesis 22.15-18)

The outcome of his obedience is that Yahweh will bless ‘Abraham and will multiply his seed as stars in the heaven and sand on the sea shore. The promises to ‘Abraham are accompanied by these twin concepts of blessing and increase.

And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shall be a blessing: And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curses thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. (Genesis 12.2-3)

Here, we see the use of the word for ‘great’ we saw used in the previous post (gadol גדול) alongside the promise of blessing, as in Genesis 22, with these attributes being applied to ‘Abraham himself. His seed as part of the promises comes a little later on:

And Yahweh appeared unto ‘Abram, and said, To thy seed will I give this land: and there builded he an altar to Yahweh, who appeared unto him. And he removed from thence to a mountain on the east of Beth’el, and pitched his tent, having Beth’el on the west, and Hai on the east: and there he builded an altar to Yahweh, and called in name Yahweh. (Genesis 12.7-8)

We can see a number of things going on in these verses. Firstly, the use of the ‘appear’ word to describe Yahweh’s revelation of himself to ‘Abraham. Secondly the use of the word ‘el (אל) to denote ‘unto’ twice, in the close context of ‘appear’. The same ‘el (אל) being used as part of the name Beth’el (the house of ‘el), in close proximity of which he built an altar to Yahweh and called in his name. The homographic word for ‘name’ (shem שם) also being present in its occurrence as the word ‘there’ and ‘from thence’.

‘Abraham is on a journey which began when Yahweh called him to leave ‘Ur and travel to a land that he would show (manifest or appear) unto him. This is a journey of obedience to that dialogue he is having with Yahweh. It is a reciprocal relationship set in the context of a journey. The result of his obedience to this calling is to receive promises beneficial to him and to his seed. Paulos, in his letter to the believers in Galatia makes clear that the seed is a singular entity:

Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He says not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Anointed. (Galatians 3.16)

The term ‘seed’ as a singular entity can be seen as having a dual function. It is to one offspring. Firstly, his son Yitshaq, and then to his natural descendant, some 42 generations later, Iesous, who is, more importantly, his heir in belief, inasmuch as he believed, like ‘Abraham, and it was accounted righteousness. The seed, singular, can also be applied to a singular identity, just as the word ‘people’ is in a singular form. Thus, his seed is that which proceeds out of him as a collective identity. We may see this on a natural level, that is the children of Yisra’el, or we may see this on a more meaningful, promise and belief based, level, where those who will become in Anointed (his singular seed and true heir of his belief) will be counted as his singular seed because they all will possess that singular mind of obedience which ‘Abraham had and was truly inherited and multiplied in Iesous. The dual function of the term becomes a singular function as the multiplicity of those who become Anointed is on account of the multiplicity of the obedient and faithful mind of Iesous, who became the provided (seen/appeared) lamb of Genesis 22. As we saw with the revelation of the name to Mosheh, to Yehoshua’, to Gide’on, to Dawid, the people are an outcome, a creation, of the obedience and belief of the singular person to whom the name is revealed.

After the events of Genesis 12, when ‘Abram first comes into the land that Yahweh reveals to him, ‘Abram journeys down into Mitsraym on account of there being a famine in the land. When he emerges from Mitsraym, greatly enriched, he returns to the place he built the first altar, adjacent to Beth’el, and builds again:

And he went on his journeys from the south even to Beth’el, unto the place where his tent had been at the beginning, between Beth’el and Hai; Unto the place of the altar, which he had made there at the first: and there ‘Abram called in name Yahweh. (Genesis 13.3-4)

I have highlighted 4 occurrences of the homographic ‘shem’/’sham’ (שם) word and one of the homographic ‘el (אל), although this also occurs in the place name Beth’el (house of ‘el) twice. The context is evidently of a journey, in this case a circular journey, like his descendants would realise. The destination is the set place where ‘Abram associates this fixed destination with Yahweh’s name. Again, the emphasis is on a journey that leads to a set place, which journey and destination Yahweh reveals to us, being at the heart of the meaning of his name. It is fundamental that understanding of such is evidenced by reciprocity. ‘Abram accomplishes such by building an altar and calling in Yahweh’s name. He is returning to Yahweh that which was revealed to him.

Following the departure of Lot, his nephew, and the final fulfilment of ‘Abram’s separation from land, father’s house and relatives that Yahweh had commanded him in the beginning, the promises are further expanded upon to him:

And Yahweh said unto ‘Abram, after that Lot was separated from him, Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou are northward, and southward, and eastward, and westward: For all the land which thou see, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed ‘ad-‘olam. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth: so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered. Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee. (Genesis 13.14-17)

I have highlighted the words ‘where’ (sham שם) and ‘see’/’look’ (the appear/manifestation word). I have left the ‘ad-‘olam untranslated. This phrase captures the sense of an age, or the age, and ‘ad is a durational or directional word, thus ‘unto’ or ‘for’/’during’, an, or the, age. The land is to be given both to ‘Abram and his seed for the age. This requires for both him and his offspring to be alive at the same time, and for the duration of that age.

The interaction between Yahweh and ‘Abram is clearly centred around the revelatory and reciprocal nature of the name, and the dialogue journey that lies at its heart. This is a substantive journey, but it is also a figurative journey. We can see the land inheritance in the same way. It is an inheritance of that which can be seen by ‘Abram, but it is also an inheritance of that which is understood by him. He left a country, which was indicative of leaving the mind that was present there, in its inhabitants. He is journeying to a country, a heavenly country as it were (because its values are heavenly), and to the inhabitants thereof. This country that he is journeying to is a journey in mind, it is a journey in time. The people who will inhabit that country, in the ‘olam, will have the same mind that ‘Abram was journeying towards. The ground that he journeys towards and walks upon does not have inhabitants in it that share the desire to attain unto the name of Yahweh. The future has a different story with Iesous and other believing representatives of Yahweh living there.

We saw in Genesis 22 that the abundance of the seed was seen in the sand on the sea shore and the stars in the heavens. In Genesis 13, however, the abundance of the seed is seen as the dust of the earth. The word ‘earth’ is ‘erets (ארץ) and is translated as ‘earth’ twice and ‘land’ twice in the verses above. The ‘dust’ is the dust of the same ‘land’/’earth’ which ‘Abram is to walk through, see, and possess. ‘Dust’ (‘aphar עפר) is that from which the man was formed in Genesis 2 and it is that unto which he will return, as promised in Genesis 3 when he was cursed following his sin. It is that which his seed walks upon, and which ‘Abram walked upon. The abundance of the dust of this ‘erets is not countable by man, he is unable to number it. Ability, or possibility, however, is available to Theos, according to Iesous.

But Iesous beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with Theos all things are possible. (Maththaios 19.26)

Iesous characterises what is possible with Theos as a plural, but what is impossible with man as a singular. The context of this passage is of a young man who claims that he has kept ‘all these things’, referring to the commandments that Iesous refers him to. Iesous then tells him to sell what he possesses, give to the poor and follow him. The man leaves because he has great possessions. When Iesous explains that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of Theos, Petros asks who can be saved? Iesous then says the above verse. Petros’ response is that they, the disciples, have forsaken ‘all things’ to follow him. Here, the ‘all things’ refers to the commandments of Theos which are able to separate us from the mind of Mammon and lead us to forsake the ‘all things’ which characterise our present lives. We have a choice as to which ‘all things’ we choose to possess and which we will give up. Only Theos makes the forsaking of the one for the other possible. Man cannot do it. The same applies to the counting of the dust of the earth in Genesis 13. Man cannot count it and come to a definitive answer, a judgment if you will, but Yahweh can. There are two ‘all things’ on offer here and the true response to them is a journey away from the ‘all things’ of material possession and the present sensory existence to the ‘all things’ of the mind of Theos which are evidenced in his utterances. The first are easily countable as they are materially limited and apparently substantive but the second are uncountable as they are of the unlimited, and seemingly insubstantial, Theos and they are a destination to be aimed for but not to be attained until that age when the seed is also uncountable. Counting is something possible to Theos as he is unlimited and can judge, that is to constrain or limit, man. Man cannot count Theos as he is unlimitable, until such time as man becomes Theos.

This word for ‘number’ in Genesis 13.16 is the Hebrew ‘manah’ (מנה). It is used to describe numbering, for example:

And it was so, when they saw that there was much money in the chest, that the king’s scribe and the high priest came up, and they put up in bags, and told the money that was found in the house of Yahweh. (2 Kings 12.10)

Its context in relation to money/silver is heightened by the presence of the homographic ‘maneh’ (מנה) in, for example:

They gave after their ability unto the treasure of the work threescore and one thousand drams of gold, and five thousand pound of silver, and one hundred priests’ garments. (‘Ezra’ 2.69)

This was the offering of the chief of the people towards the re-establishing of a temple in Yerushalym. The word here translates ‘pound’ and describes a weight of silver, which can be equated to a value of currency, an accepted and unified measurement based on weight.

Thus says the ‘adonay Yahweh; Let it suffice you, O princes of Yisra’el: remove violence and spoil, and execute judgment and justice, take away your exactions from my people, says ‘adonay Yahweh. You shall have just balances, and a just ephah, and a just bath. The ephah and the bath shall be of one measure, that the bath may contain the tenth part of an homer, and the ephah the tenth part of an homer: the measure thereof shall be after the homer. And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs: twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh. (Yehezq’el 45.9-12)

Speaking of a time in the future, a time when Yahweh’s people will be reconciled to him and a new temple established in the place where he delights to set his name, there are to be just and settled measurements established. These measurements culminate in a just ‘maneh’. That is a true and righteous judgment, an equivalence between measures, a just numbering.

This family of words is also homographic with a word for ‘lot’ or ‘portion’ and related to the word for ‘from’ and ‘manna’. This latter relation we will look at when we consider the stages of the journey of the kaporeth in relation to the provision of manna in the wilderness.

For now, we can recap on the promises we have seen thus far in Genesis 12 and 13. The terms involved are blessing and multiplication. Firstly, the name of ‘Abram will be made great and in him will all nations be blessed by virtue of his name being a blessing. Furthermore, he and his seed will be multiplied to a point that his seed will be uncountable, by man.

We looked at ‘blessing’ previously and saw that there were two strains to this idea both in the Old and New Testaments. In the Old Testament ‘blessed’ can be translated by either the word ‘esher (אשר), which is the basis for the naming of one of Ya’aqob’s sons – ‘Asher (Genesis 30.13), and is homographic with the word ‘who’, as it is used in Exodus 3.14 (I will be who I will be), or it is the word barak (ברך), which is the word most commonly associated with the blessings made to ‘Abram. In the New Testament a similar pattern unfolds with the word makarios (μακαριος) largely occupying the same role as ‘esher (אשר) and eulogeo (ευλογεω) taking the place of barak (ברך). We looked at this last word in a previous blog when we considered a number of Greek words that started with the preposition eu (ευ). What we found to be shared among these words was that they all carried a sense of reciprocity in them. Here, the word eulogeo (ευλογεω) is made up of the preposition eu (ευ) meaning ‘well’ and the logos/lego (λογος/λεγω) family of words, meaning ‘word’ and ‘speak’. Thus, the term ‘bless’ can alternatively be translated as ‘well spoken’ or ‘spoken well (of)’. Thus, this word has two directions of blessing. It is Theos who is speaking well to/of the believer, and it is then the believer who is speaking well to/of Theos, either by being directly blessed by Theos or by seeing the blessing spoken about someone else. Theos blessed Abraham by speaking well/good concerning him and what would happen to him and his seed. This enabled him, along with all those who follow his faithful example, to bless the name of Yahweh. The same can be said of his seed, Iesous.

Blessing is the first thing that happens to ‘Abram in chapter 12. He will become a great nation, and his name will be made great on account of the blessing (well speaking) that comes from Yahweh first. The outcome of the blessing is multiplication. Thus:

For when Theos made promise to Abraham, because he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself, Saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee. And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise. (Hebrews 6.13-15)

The writer to the Hebrews here is quoting Genesis 22.17 where the order of the words is followed. Firstly, there is blessing which is then followed by multiplication. The spirit in the writer then invokes the term ‘greater’ to apply to Theos. When men make covenants, they tend to invoke a power greater than themselves to swear by. Theos cannot do this as he is the greatest, so he has to swear by himself and, by doing such, makes the certainty of the promise sure. Doubling up a statement, that is in itself a form of multiplication, is a more sure commitment to its occurrence.

And for that the dream was doubled unto Phar’oh twice; it is because the thing is established by ‘elohym, and ‘elohym will shortly bring it to pass. (Gen.41.32)

The multiplication element of the promises, which is an outcome of the blessing, first comes into play in Genesis 13 with the first mention of the uncountability of the dust of the earth as applied to his seed. We subsequently see the uncountability of his seed in Genesis 15:

And he brought him forth abroad, and said, Look now toward heaven, and tell the stars, if thou be able to number them: and he said unto him, So shall thy seed be. And he believed in Yahweh; and he counted it to him for righteousness. (Gen.15.5-6)

The words highlighted here are both the Hebrew saphar (ספר), which means ‘to count’ but, in its noun form is the word ‘book’. We might consider that things which are counted, or told, may be written in a book. However, this word, unlike the previous one, is only used once in the context of money where, in Yeremyahu 32, the prophet purchases a field for seventeen shekels of silver, the witness of it being written down in a book. The word is used when counting people or periods of time and has a significant number of occurrences where it means to tell, as in to narrate or speak, sometimes being translated ‘declare’ or ‘show forth’. Thus:

How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, ‘el! how great is the sum of them! I shall count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee. (Psalm 139.17-18)

My mouth shall shew forth thy righteousness and thy salvation all the day; for I know not the numbers. (Psalm 71.15)

Many, Yahweh my ‘elohym, are thy wonderful works which thou has done, and thy thoughts which are to us-ward: they cannot be reckoned up in order unto thee: if I would declare and speak of them, they are more than can be numbered. (Psalm 40.5)

Yahweh requires ‘Abram to count the stars, in Genesis 15, not just to see them as uncountable. If we see ‘telling’ as ‘declaring’, and that which is uncountable as being set in the heavens, we can see that the thoughts, words, works of Yahweh which were toward ‘Abram and his seed were not countable because man cannot limit the number of the infinite ‘el. However, we are required to tell/declare/show forth those thoughts back to him, as much as is possible. It is clear that the numerous seed of ‘Abram does have a relation to the large number of his carnal offspring, the children of Yisra’el, has a more significant relation to the multitude of those saved during the age but finds its greatest significance in the presence of the thoughts, words and works of Yahweh in the singular seed, his son, and in the identities of those saved in him.

As the host of heaven cannot be numbered, neither the sand of the sea measured: so will I multiply the seed of Dawid my servant, and the Lewyym that minister unto me. (Yeremyahu 33.22)

And ‘elohym gave Shelomah wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea shore. (1 Kings 4.29)

The promises, being extended to Dawid and his seed, we see a fulfilment of in the manifold wisdom of his son Shelomah, to whom Yahweh gave wisdom because he asked it so that he could judge Yahweh’s people. The language of this gift mimics the promises to ‘Abraham and illustrates that a fundamental fulfilment of the promises to him was the embodiment of the mind of Theos in his son, a mind which his son, the greater Shelomah (Math.12.42) declared.

So, multiplication follows blessing and multiplication can be seen in the movement towards possessing the uncountable mind of Yahweh. We see two words used, primarily, for the multiplication of ‘Abraham and his seed.

And when ‘Abram was ninety years old and nine, Yahweh appeared to ‘Abram, and said unto him, I am ‘el shaday; walk before me, and be thou perfect. And I will make my covenant between me and thee, and will multiply thee exceedingly. (Genesis 17.1-2)

The requirement Yahweh has of ‘Abram is to walk before him and be perfect, or whole/complete. The pilgrimage is essential but, as with the kaporeth, it must be completed by being in a face-to-face dialogue with him unto whom he is journeying. The completion of the journey is to become complete. To this end Yahweh makes an agreement with ‘Abram and he will multiply him exceedingly. The Hebrew here is formed from two words – rabah (רבה) which translates ‘will multiply’ and me’od (מאד) which translates ‘exceedingly’, the doubling up creating greater emphasis. The first word is from a family of words from which we get the word for ‘ten thousand’, which is the largest singular number in Hebrew and often denotes an overwhelming multitude.

This word – rabah (רבה) is used in Genesis 15

After these things the word of Yahweh came unto ‘Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, ‘Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward. (Gen.15.1)

The two highlighted English words here cover the two Hebrew words used in Genesis 17.2. Yahweh is that which ‘Abram will inherit. Yahweh is exceeding and great. He is a double multiplication. We can see, therefore, that the promises to ‘Abram are about him becoming Yahweh. His reward is to become multiplied as Yahweh is, to be great as Yahweh is. Because of this Yahweh delights to call himself by his name (Exodus 3.15,16)

This multiplication accompanies numerical growth, so that the growth in understanding and numbers go side by side:

So ‘elohym created man in his own image, in the image of ‘elohym created he him; male and female created he them. And ‘elohym blessed them, and ‘elohym said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moves upon the earth. (Genesis 1.27,28)

Man is created in the image of ‘elohym, to be a reflection of the manifestation of Yahweh. From this untainted beginning the man is blessed, as ‘Abram was, in being spoken well to/of, and as an outcome is to multiply. This is clearly a multiplication of numbers but, as the man is spoken well to/of by ‘elohym then it is necessary that he multiplies in understanding. By accomplishing this twofold multiplication, it is possible that the earth can be filled with the righteousness of Yahweh embodied in a proliferation of wise men.

And the flood was forty days upon the earth; and the waters increased, and bare up the ark, and it was lift up above the earth. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly upon the earth; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. (Genesis 7.17,18)

In the above passage, as in Genesis 15 and 17, the two Hebrew words are used together, to intensify the multiplication of the waters on the earth. As the flood began and progressed there was a rising of the waters and an overwhelming proliferation of those waters so that all the uplands were covered. We have seen the use of the same phrasing at the end of verse 18 used also at the beginning of Genesis 1 regarding the spirit – moved upon the face of the waters. We have also discussed in a previous blog about the relevance of the flood in discussion of baptism in water and its anticipatory nature. The ark was like the spirit in that it moved on the face of the waters. The ark was the vessel carrying the faithful man, Noah, and his faithful household and, as such, prefiguring Anointed and his household. The waters are like spirit, in that they condemn the flesh of the sinful inhabitants of the earth, to death and buoy up the inhabitants of the ark unto life. Spirit overwhelms flesh. Spirit progresses incrementally, in those who are committed to its increase in them, until it submerges the natural man. The outcome of such is the possibility of a new creation with its attendant possibility of growth:

Go forth of the ark, thou, and thy wife, and thy sons, and thy sons’ wives with thee. bring forth with thee every living thing that is with thee, of all flesh, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth; that they may breed abundantly in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth…And Noah builded an altar unto Yahweh; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. (Genesis 8.16,17,20)

Greatness, and uncountable numerical inundation, is of Yahweh. He requires us, like ‘Abram, to count/tell/declare the blessings received so that we, like Iesous (the seed of Abraham and the heir of his belief), can increase in our understanding towards him. In this reciprocal journey lies the possibility of becoming him, of transformation from the lesser that we are now to the greater which he is and Iesous became, and we hope to inherit.

15th Feb 2026
Minor detours XIV – return to prerequisites? – greater and lesser – part 1 – the great

Up to this point we have established a number of prerequisites. We have developed an incremental understanding that has, at its heart, the figure of the kaporeth. The ‘unto’, directional, and the ‘unto/unto’, reciprocal dialogue, relationships at the heart of the kaporeth and its journey to that final destination where Yahweh delights to set his name, is the basis for understanding that covenantal name. It is this bi-directional agreement, based on revelation and reciprocity, by virtue of obedience to the commandments, that lies at the heart of the meaning of ‘el (אל). The relationship of the kerubym one to another is, at first, antagonistic and antithetical. If the kerubic relationship develops into a reciprocal dialogue, then the transformation of one to the other begins. The two are seen as ‘other’ to each ‘other’. Being antitheses of one another they can, eventually, become one. However, at the outset of the journey they are opposing forces. This is alluded to in the homographic meaning of ‘el (אל) as the less common of the two words for the negative (‘no’, ‘not’, ‘nor’, ‘neither’) and as the inversion of the more common word for the negative – lo’ (לא). Thus, we have the sense of ‘not’ and ‘not/not’ (the inversion of ‘not’ i.e. ‘yes’) being asserted in the same phenomenon.

In these posts we are going to look at the antithetical ‘great(er)’ and ‘less(er)’ in this light. They are opposites, but it is conceivable that one can become the other and that there can be a diminishing of their variance from a great(er) difference to an almost identical equivalence through the exchange of thoughts and words from one to the other.

And Mosheh said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. (Exodus 3.3)

Of course, this is a fundamentally important text dealing, as it does, with the revelation of the name of Yahweh and the beginning of the circular journey that will lead Mosheh to return to Horeb to receive the covenant that will create the beginning of Yahweh’s people. The language of ‘sight’, ‘see’ and ‘appear’ is abundant here, speaking of the manifestation of Yahweh to Mosheh. You will recall that the Greek word translated ‘appear’, especially when dealing with the appearance of an angel, is part of the family of words which has ‘manifestation’ in it. Here, that ‘appearance’ is seen in an unusual, unnatural, extraordinary phenomenon of a bush burning but not being consumed. This is the sense of ‘great’ being attributed to that sign. The bush should be consumed by fire as flesh is consumed by spirit but, as the bush, and the fire emanating from it, signifies the messenger of Yahweh, then it cannot be consumed by spirit as that which is manifested to Mosheh from it is spirit. The greatness of the appearance is that it is the manifestation of the great ‘el who is there, in representative form and unconsumed. The bush is ‘elohym and yet it is not; ‘elohym emanates from the bush. ‘elohym is Yahweh and yet it is Yahweh, the great ‘el, the ‘he’, who is in ‘elohym. This is the idea of appearance or manifestation, this is a foundational principle of the name, the representation of one by the other.

Wherefore say unto the children of Yisra’el, I am Yahweh, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of Mitsraym, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments: (Exodus 6.6)

The outcome of Mosheh being sent into Mitsraym to bring the people out to make a covenant with Yahweh is the refusal of the Mitsraym to countenance such a departure and the ensuing ten plagues upon them. These plagues are characterised as judgments upon the Mitsraym and upon their ‘elohym. They are also characterised here as being ‘great’ because they are, as the burning bush, extraordinary, unnatural, beyond the normal scope of human experience and understanding. One sense of ‘great’ is also that of ‘high’, as in the ‘high’ priest, and they are signs and wonders that come from the great and high one, who is higher and greater than the ‘elohym of Mitsraym.

And Phar’oh rose up in the night, he, and all his servants, and all Mitsraym; and there was a great cry in Mitsraym; for there was not a house where there was not one dead there. (Exodus 12.30)

The result of the great judgments, culminating in the death of the firstborn, is a great cry by those who have been subject to the judgments of Yahweh. There is a sense in which the judgments are ‘great’ because they are beyond, or above, human understanding and experience and there is a sense in which the plagues are overwhelming in their abundance; they are also ‘great’ and ‘high’ because they have been sent by the great and high ‘el, being inflicted downwards upon the Mitsraym. All the house of Mitsraym, including Phar’oh’s, were subject to the loss of the firstborn. The numbers lost and the resultant grief was ‘great’. The scale of visitation, tribulation, desolation and loss was ‘great’ throughout the plagues, in the sense that there were overwhelming numbers, and geographical persistence, of flies, lice, locusts, disease, darkness, blood etc. and the catastrophic devastation caused. In this sense ‘great’ can be seen as numerically, and consequentially, overwhelming. The Mitsraym response to the final devastation was a ‘great’ cry. In a sense they had met the greatness of the judgment with a greatness of sorrow before the children of Yisra’el were expelled from the land. We can see the sense in which ‘great’ can be a quantity and, as such, requiring a proportionate response.

And Yisra’el saw that great work which Yahweh did upon the Mitsraym: and the people feared Yahweh, and believed in Yahweh, and in Mosheh his servant. (Exodus 14.31)

The great work which Yahweh, the great ‘el, accomplished upon Phar’oh and his host was the salvation of the children of Yisra’el passing through the sea, which had heretofore been an undivided mass of water, and the closing over of this sea upon the Mitsraym army, destroying all of them while saving all of Yisra’el. The response to that manifestation of his greatness, of his overwhelming power in accomplishing that which is beyond human experience, is belief. Belief is a proportionate response to the revelation of the great ‘el.

And Yethro said, Blessed be Yahweh, who has delivered you out of the hand of Mitsraym, and out of the hand of Phar’oh, who has delivered the people from under the hand of Mitsraym. Now I know that Yahweh is greater than all ‘elohym: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them. (Exodus 18.11)

This passage describes Mosheh’s father-in-law coming to the camp at Horeb and communing with him. He hears Mosheh’s account of Yisra’el’s deliverance from Mitsraym at the hand of Yahweh. In this context Yahweh is greater than all ‘elohym, particularly those of Mitsraym, in that he was exalted above them in judgment, casting them down beneath him. Of course, we know that he had the victory over Phar’oh and his hosts, not over some supernatural creatures. These supernatural creatures do not truly live but their representatives do. ‘elohym is a manifestational/representational term, like angels in the new testament. Therefore the ‘elohym he was greater than, in the end, were those people, particularly the elevated ones (embodied in Phar’oh), who lifted themselves up against his people (and therefore him). Those people were ‘elohym in that they represented that which was not Yahweh, and which do not live. Yahweh, who does live, represented by his ‘elohym overcame the representatives of Mitsraym, and their ‘elohym, throughout the plagues and finally in the sea. His ability and willingness to do so sets him as higher, more powerful and overwhelming in his judgments over Mitsraym.

And he that is the high priest among his brothers, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes; neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, or for his mother; neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his ‘elohym for the crown of the anointing oil of his ‘elohym is upon him: I am Yahweh. (Leviticus 21.10-12)

The chief of the priests, who at this point is ‘Aharon, is described as ‘high’ or ‘great’. His behaviour must also be qualified by a series of negative propositions, all using the more common negative form lo’ (לא). He is ‘great’ because he has been anointed from above and he is above his fellows. He is ‘great’ because he is the representation of the ‘great’ one. His uncontaminated behaviour clearly anticipates the undefiled behaviour of Iesous and of the age to come. As his behaviour is manifestational, the name of Yahweh is invoked.

And Bala’am answered and said unto the servants of Balak, If Balak would give me his house full of silver and gold, I cannot go beyond the word of Yahweh my ‘elohym, to do less or more. Now therefore, I pray you, tarry you also here this night, that I may know what Yahweh will say unto me more. (Nu. 22.18-19)

Here, Balak the king of Mo’ab is pleading, via intermediaries, with Bala’am to come and curse the children of Yisra’el who have come up out of Mitsraym and are overcoming their enemies on their way into the land. Bala’am has already asked Yahweh if he can go and curse the people and he has refused saying that they are blessed. This second time Bala’am says to the messengers that he cannot go beyond what Yahweh’s word is to him. The ‘more’ or ‘great’ here is on account of the fact that the word is Yahweh’s, the ‘great’ one, and therefore so is his word. The ‘more’ is juxtaposed with an antithetical ‘less’.

Thou shall not be affrighted at them: for Yahweh thy ‘elohym is among you, a mighty ‘el and terrible. And Yahweh thy ‘elohym will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou may not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee. (Deuteronomy 7.21-22)

The greatness of ‘el is seen in his judgments on the enemies of Yisra’el as he brings them into the land. The necessary response from Yisra’el to his might is that they do not fear their enemies. In contrast it is Yahweh who is ‘fearful’ (translated ‘terrible’ above), that is he is to be feared. There is an interesting homographic relationship between ‘fear’ and ‘appear’. In Exodus 14.31 (above) the children of Yisra’el saw what Yahweh had done upon Mitsraym and they feared. The verb ‘to see’ is ra’ah (ראה), whereas the verb ‘to fear’ is yare’ (ירא). In the latter form (ירא) it is translated mostly as ‘he feared/fears’ but on a few occasions is also translated as ‘look’, or ‘see’. Prefixed by the Hebrew ‘w’ (ו) this form is repeatedly translated as ‘and he appeared’ and is used to describe Yahweh’s revelation in, for example, Exodus 3. There are also some occurrences where the two ideas. of ‘fearing’ and ‘seeing/appearing’ come together.

Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear Yahweh, and depart from evil. (Prov.3.7)

Here, fearing Yahweh is antithetical to being wise in your own eyes. Sight, in the sense of man’s own perception precludes the sight which is of Yahweh which leads to subjection to, and acknowledgement of, him.

The children of Yisra’el saw the evidence of ‘elohym’s great works and so should have feared him and not been afraid of their enemies. In the run up to entering into the land this message was equally pertinent and was not observed as they looked upon the inhabitants of the land and feared them. Fearing is to show subjection to. It may include being literally frightened of them but, as in the case of Gide’on, he was fearful but still obeyed Yahweh’s voice:

Then Gide’on took ten men of his servants, and did as Yahweh had said unto him: and so it was, because he feared his father’s household, and the men of the city, that he could not do it by day, that he did it by night. (Judges 6.27)

Gide’on, realising the attitude of his father’s house towards Ba’al, realises their ability to prevent him from doing what Yahweh has sent him to do is such that, in order to fear and obey Yahweh, he must accomplish that obedient act when they will not be aware of his actions. We can see and fear, that is understand and obey Yahweh or, contrariwise, obey the flesh. We can see/perceive the ability of those around us to hamper us obeying the will of Yahweh. Being mindful of that and taking such action as is necessary to sidestep such interference and allow us to obey the commands of Yahweh is not weakness but strength.

Fearing, ultimately, is to see/perceive and to be in a position of subjection and respect to that revelation. The revelation is characterised by words like ‘appear’, which describes what happened between ‘elohym and Mosheh at Horeb. ‘Appear’ is a manifestational term in that context because it describes how Yahweh is revealed in an agent that represents him and, speaking under his direction, becomes him. In the creation we can see a circular and reciprocal appearance occurring. ‘elohym, enacting the commandments of the singular ‘he’ in Genesis 1.1, causes to appear the tangible outcomes of the directional impulse of the power of the spirit. These things which are his created works are the ‘appearances’ of his mind/spirit. Then, after the work has been accomplished on each day, they are ‘seen’ as ‘good’. With the declaration at the culmination of the sixth day that what was seen was ‘very good’. In the ultimate provision/appearance of the created man (that is Iesous), he becomes the tangible evidence of Theos in flesh, seen by Theos himself and declared as ‘very good’, because he embodies the moral perfection of the spirit, and seen by men who can also perceive Theos in him as a means of striving toward becoming Theos themselves. These willing representatives of Yahweh can be said to truly ‘fear’ him, because they have ‘seen’ him, in that he has been revealed to them.

This is evident in the reciprocal relationship that Yahweh has with ‘Abraham, his friend, and the journey that he commands him to take to offer his son in an anticipatory act alluding to the offering of Iesous.

Then on the third day ‘Abraham lifted up his eyes, and saw the place afar off. (Genesis 22.4)

As ‘Abraham and Yitshaq draw near to the place of sacrifice, Yitshaq asks his father where the lamb for the offering is:

And ‘Abraham said, My son, ‘elohym will provide himself a lamb for a burnt offering: so they went both of them together. (Genesis 22.8)

The highlighted text translates the verb ‘to see/appear’. ‘Abraham’s sight of the place he had been called unto is a response to the revelation he had first received to go there. Then we see that ‘elohym will see/appear/manifest to himself a lamb. Note here how the father and son are on a journey together to their final destination. This is like the kaporeth, a journey forwards to a set place while the two elements, the journeying partners, are becoming one through dialogue. This journey of the father and the son manifests the journey, together, of ‘Abraham and Yahweh to this point in their pilgrimage. It also, and highly significantly, manifests the journey together of the father, Theos, and the son, Iesous, to the point at which he was ready to be offered.

Of course, Yitshaq could only be offered to the point of being placed upon the altar, a place from which ‘Abraham received him back to life, figuratively. That taking of his son’s life was prevented by Yahweh:

And he said, Lay not thine hand unto the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fear ‘elohym, seeing thou has not withheld thy son, thine only son from me. (Genesis 22.12)

Apart from the use of the homographic אל to denote the direction of ‘Abraham’s hand toward his son and the two negatives used to direct him not to touch the lad, there is the use of the fear/appear homograph to describe the obedience that ‘Abraham has shown towards Yahweh against his natural instinct.

And ‘Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and ‘Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son. (Genesis 22.13)

At the point of his obedience to the command to not lay his hand on his son he sees, or it appears to him, a ram caught in a thicket. The ram is a provision, or a creation, of Yahweh to allow him to offer a replacement sacrifice.

And ‘Abraham called the name of that place Yahweh-Yir’eh: as it is said to this day, In the mount of Yahweh it shall be seen. (Genesis 22.14)

In the context of these events and the progression of this understanding, and of the journeying towards a determined, or set, place, where sacrifice, and figurative resurrection appear, there is a naming of the place which is appended to Yahweh’s name. The ‘Yir’eh’ part of the name is the same verb we have seen throughout this chapter which has translated ‘fear’, ‘provide’, ‘see’ and ‘looked’. This journey of obedience is possible because there is a reciprocal relationship between ‘elohym and ‘Abraham which is evidenced by ‘Abraham’s obedience. ‘Abraham fears ‘elohym, which makes this journey possible. ‘Abraham sees the place afar off, just as he saw Iesous’ day afar off (Iohannes 8.56). ‘Abraham acknowledges to his son that Yahweh will provide/see a lamb unto himself. ‘Abraham sees the ram. He calls the name of the place in the light of this fear and sight. In this anticipatory naming, the appearance of the created lamb of Theos, set in this destination of the fulfilment of his name, looked upon by him and seen as very good is the prerequisite for the covenants of promise which ‘elohym goes on to pronounce.

Greatness can be seen in the revelation of that great and fearful ‘el who revealed himself to Mosheh in the great sign at Horeb. It is seen in the great wonders accompanying the salvation of Yisra’el out of Mitsraym and, clearly, it is seen in the revelation of himself in his utterances. This revelation requires a response, and that response is fear. Fear is manifestation. It is to become like him, to become his agent and to look upon those that have been his representatives and, more specifically, the one who became his true and faithful representative on earth. That fear, therefore, is subjection to his name, to the appearance of him in man, and to that name revealed in him (Iesous) and can be described as praise, when it is evidenced by confession:

Every day will I bless thee; and I will praise thy name to/for ‘olam we’ad. Great is Yahweh, and greatly to be praised; and his greatness is unsearchable… Yahweh is gracious, and full of compassion; slow to anger, and of great mercy. Yahweh is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works. (Psalm 145.2,3,8,9)

It is the created works of Yahweh that will praise his name. It is those manifestations of his creative impulse that alone can understand his greatness.

We come to greatness as defined by Iesous, when asked:

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked, tempting him, and saying, Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law? Iesous said unto him, Thou shall love the Lord thy Theos with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. (Maththaios 22.35-39)

Iesous clearly tells us which is the great and first commandment. It is first and it is great because it deals with the response required to the revelation of the great and mighty ‘el who has appeared among men and shown in a man his great wonders. Our response to that appearance needs to be to fear him. He is the great one. We reciprocate that great name and show it to others, our neighbour, by love.

In the parallel passage Iesous expands the quotation from Deuteronomy:

And Iesous answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our Theos, the Lord is one: And thou shall love the Lord thy Theos with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. (Markos 12.29-31)

A number of points here. Obviously, in the original in Deuteronomy which Iesous is referring to, the Lord is Yahweh. Therefore, the pertinence of this commandment to the meaning of the name is clear. The name is the journey of progression, occasioned by face to face manifestation, that results in the arrival at that final destination. That final destination is characterised as ‘one’ as in Zecharyah:

And Yahweh shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Yahweh, and his name one. (Zech.14.9)

The fulfilment of the name is linked to ‘one’, that is, a place and time when all are one in him. In the Greek in Markos 12.29 the word for one is the homographic ‘eis’ (εις) the same as the word ‘unto’, again highlighting the journey. Yahweh’s name is a journey ‘unto’ becoming ‘one’. The way to becoming one with him is to love him with all that you are and the way to manifest that is to love others as he has loved us. The combined practice of ‘love’ is a reciprocal behaviour demonstrating the love which was first shown to us by Theos. Furthermore, we are told, there is no ‘greater’ commandment than these. That is, that there is no singular commandment greater than these two together. Coupled with the obvious context of ‘one’, mentioned above, and that the question, and answer, is regarding the ‘first’ commandment, and we see the extreme emphasis on oneness. Additionally, this idea of ‘greater’, and ‘greatest’, we will explore further in the following posts.

27th Jan 2026
Minor detours XIII – return to prerequisites? – the I am and the I am not

We have already seen what qualities are true of the Theos. One particular epithet is ‘true’ or ‘truth’. We then saw that Iesous manifested this attribute, among many others when he said:

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the father, but by me. (Iohannes 14.6)

The ‘I am’ here is ‘ego eimi’ (εγω ειμι) in the New Testament Greek. This phrase means ‘I, I am’, the ‘I’ being doubled up to give emphasis, as the ‘I’ is already present in the verb and then is emphasised by the addition of the added pronoun ‘ego’ (εγω). We have also seen, repeatedly, in many of the previous posts, that the foundation of the name of Yahweh is in the ‘I will be’ of Exodus 3.12,14. This ‘I will be’ (‘ehyeh אהיה) is then converted into a causal third person ‘(he) shall be’ to create the name Yahweh (יהוה). The promise enshrined in the name is of a people be(com)ing him in the future. This name is seen in the future promise of salvation, evidenced in the name of Iesous and in its Old Testament equivalent Yehoshua’, meaning ‘he shall save’. This idea of the name is at the heart of the creation of the ark and kaporeth and the reciprocal nature of the kerubym. It is enshrined in the reciprocal revelation at the heart of that figure leading the people to the promised inheritance. The promised inheritance made to ‘Abraham, Yitshaq and Ya’aqob, whose names Yahweh delighted to name himself by in Exodus 3, because these faithful men were in pursuit of becoming Yahweh themselves. His provision of Iesous is a demonstration of his mind, his word, expressed in, and as, a man. This being the case it is the first genuine fulfilment of the ‘I will be’, in which case it becomes an ‘I, I am’. The doubling up of the ‘I’ being also seen in the use of the ‘I will be’ in its ‘ehyeh (אהיה) form in the Old Testament:

I, I will be to him for (to) a father, and he, he shall be to me for (to) a son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: (2 Shemu’el 7.14)

In this verse the pronouns ‘I’ and ‘he’ are added to the verb, which already has the definition of the person built into them, in order to increase the emphasis. It also has the same ‘to’/’to’ structure we saw in other occurrences of the future ‘I will be’ construction – ‘I will be to them for (to) ‘elohym and they shall be to me for (to) a people’.

Therefore, the ‘I, I am’ is clearly a present tense fulfilment of the promise inherent in the ‘I, I will be’. It is a clear indication that the one speaking is be(com)ing, and has become, Theos in the flesh, a moral embodiment of the mind which resides in the heavens.

We also saw, particularly in the section on homographs, that there is a relationship between the Hebrew words for ‘name’ and ‘there’. They are, respectively, ‘shem’ (שם) and ‘sham’ (שם), clearly homographic of one another and indistinguishable on account of the original, unpointed, Hebrew. Again, at the heart of the idea of the name is that of a fixed destination that lies at the end of the journey. The ‘there’ is the place where the journey of becoming Yahweh finds its conclusion.

It was round about eighteen thousand measures: and the name of the city from that day shall be, Yahweh is there. (Yehezq’el 48.35)

Behold my hands and my feet, that I am myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see me have. (Loukas 24.39)

Here, in this place of being in the midst of his disciples, of having reached the conclusion of the journey of striving with the spirit in his battle with the flesh, Iesous stands as the glorified ‘I, I am’, having become Theos. This journey unto a destination is what he foresees and hopes for from his disciples:

He that loves his soul shall lose it; and he that hates his soul in this kosmos shall keep it unto life aionian. If any man serve me, let him follow me; and where I am, there shall also my servant be: if any man serve me, him will my father honour. (Iohannes 12.25,26)

The ‘there’ where Iesous comes to be is a destination a believer can attain unto by hating his natural identity in this present order, by following him, by keeping his commandments and then he will obtain aionian life. He will have traded his soul for that of Theos, and then he, like Iesous, will have become Theos, will be in that set place, ‘there’ and in the present tense ‘I, I am’, with his shepherd who led the way:

I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd gives his soul for the sheep…I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. As the father knows me, even so know I the father: and I lay down my soul for the sheep. (Iohannes 10.11,14,15)

He is the shepherd as his father is the shepherd (Psalm 23). He leads his flock; they follow his example. He knows the father and is known of him, so it is with the sheep who know him as they are known of him. He gives up his soul so that they may have aionian life. They have to do the same.

But he that enters in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep…Then said Iesous unto them again, Amen, Amen, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep…I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture. (Iohannes 10.2,7,9)

The door, like the shepherd is firstly the father, the shepherd enters in via the door and becomes the door in manifesting (being) him. He is the way in for the sheep to enter into and, being in the fold, to obtain safety. Furthermore, he leads them out so that they will find pasture. We have already seen the language of an entrance used in the context of a path, where the gate was a struggle to find and the path a trial to follow. Iesous is that entrance, upon him becoming the father, so that we can tread the path he followed in laying down his soul so that we also can be the father.

I am the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the ending, says the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the pantokrator. (Revelation 1.8)

The revelation was given to Iohannes by Theos in anointed and the declaration of the ‘I, I am’ is made three times in this first chapter of the book. The ‘I am’ is both the father and the son. The father is the beginning, the door and gate of the path, and he is the completion of the journey, the final ‘there’, at which point he will say, along with those who have become him, I am. Iesous manifests that beginning and ending in many ways but, here in Revelation 1, it says:

And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last: I am he that lives, and was dead; and, behold, I am (ειμι) alive unto the ages of the ages, Amen; and have the keys of hades and of death. (Revelation 1.17,18)

There are a number of beginnings and endings in Iesous’ life, including the beginning of the euangelion that he embodied and preached from his baptism until the finishing of that journey on the stake. Here, the beginning of this journey is from his death and resurrection until the fulfilment of his work in the completion of the ages when the grave and death will no longer exercise their power.

At the conclusion of Revelation we see, again, the same language that was used in chapter 1 but is now employed at the conclusion of the journey, the ending:

And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of the Theos is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and Theos himself shall be with them, and be their Theos…And he said unto me, It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. I will give unto him that is athirst of the fountain of the water of life freely. He that overcomes shall inherit all things; and I will be his Theos, and he shall be my son. (Revelation 21.3,6,7)

The language here is looking back towards the prophetic utterances in Yeremyahu and Yehezq’el which promise the fulfilment of Yahweh’s name in a people, as we saw above – I, I will be to them for ‘elohym and they, they shall be to me for a people. Also, we see the same future tense (‘I will be’) promise of the fulfilment of his name in a son which we saw in 2 Shemu’el 7 when Yahweh spoke of Shelomah (and figuratively Iesous) when he said about being to him a father and he being to him a son. In this context we are reaching the destination of the figures falling away and the true coming to pass, so that there is no longer a temple, and the tabernacle of Theos is him, and him in Iesous, in the people and they in him. It is also where the light is Theos, and Theos in Iesous, which lightens the city. We saw earlier that the Theos is light, so the figure again falls away but the true remains. In this context he is the ‘I, I am’ because we are reaching the culmination of the ‘I will be’.

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. (Revelation 22.12,13)

Having seen the vision of the end of the path, we must return to the beginning. The reward of participation in the ‘last’ is conditional upon the keeping of his commandments, the ‘according as his work shall be’. We now see the ‘end’ from the ‘beginning’ as we return to our beginnings. Iesous is the fulfilment of the qualities of the Theos, he is the way, the truth and the life, because all these things are true of the father. By doing as he does in fulfilling the name of Yahweh, we can have access to the father via him.

As with all things that pertain to Theos, there is a ‘not’. So, what is the ‘I am not’?

Firstly, just to reiterate from before that eimi (ειμι) is ‘I am’ and ego eimi (εγω ειμι) is ‘I, I am’. We see few occurrences of ego eimi (εγω ειμι) but a few more of just eimi (ειμι) alone, when they are preceded by the negative – ouk (ουκ).

And he confessed, and denied not; but confessed, I am not the anointed. And they asked him, What then? Are you Elias? And he says, I am not. Are you that prophet? And he answered, No…Iohannes answered them, saying, I baptise with water: but there stands one among you, whom you know not; He it is, who coming after me is preferred before me, whose shoe’s latchet I am not worthy to unloose. (Iohannes 1.20,21,26,27)

The Greek here is ‘ouk eimi ego’ (ουκ ειμι εγω), ‘not I am, I’ in verse 20; ‘ouk eimi’ (ουκ ειμι) ‘not I am’ in verse 21; and ‘ego ouk eimi’ (εγω ουκ ειμι) ‘I, not I am’ in verse 27.

When asked if he is the anointed his response is ‘I am not’. In comparison to anointed he says, ‘I am not worthy’. The words ‘I am not worthy’ are used in all of the four narrative records to describe this moment when Iohannes the baptist is unable to put himself in a position of parity with anointed. The same words are also used by the centurion who also deems himself to be unworthy of Iesous being under his roof to heal his servant.

In a previous post we saw that this word ‘worthy’ is used to denote a parity of value and of reciprocal manifestation. In Iohannes 1 the word used is axios (αξιος) and is used to describe equivalence, as in parity, of effort and reward. It is the striving of the disciple to engage in being Iesous, in taking up the stake, that makes him worthy of Iesous and of inheriting life, as he has. He receives instruction from him and reciprocates such. In this sense he is ‘worthy’ of Iesous. In the other narrative records the word ‘worthy’ used by Iohannes is translated by the Greek word ikanos (ικανος). This is also the word used by the centurion and gives a sense of a large quantity, in number, of money, time, people. It indicates a sufficiency, a sense of ‘enough’, which is to say that by the presence of this large quantity there is a satisfaction as to the parity of quantity with the outcome thereof. For example, a compensatory payment being enough to satisfy the injured party that recompense of payment to damage done has occurred, there is an outcome of parity in the victim’s eyes.

In order for Iohannes, and the centurion, to have parity with Iesous, they must be on a similar level of outcome with him. This has not yet happened because Iesous’ journey to becoming Theos is not yet completed. He is not yet enough. When he is, if they follow in his steps then their souls can be ‘enough’. Iohannes is not the ‘I am’. Iesous is in the process of becoming the ‘I am’. Iohannes will die before that journey is completed. If we receive from the perfected Iesous and reflect that man becoming Theos then we also can become sufficient.

You yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the anointed, but that I am sent before him. (Iohannes 3.28)

So, the negative definition of the ‘I am’ is because Iohannes is the one who goes before, not follows after.

Iesous himself also defines himself in the negative with respect to an ‘I am’:

And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the father that sent me…And he said unto them, You are from beneath; I am from above: you are of this kosmos; I am not of this kosmos. I said therefore unto you, that you shall die in your sins: for if you believe not that I am, you shall die in your sins. (Iohannes 8,16,23,24)

Here Iesous is defining himself by both negative and positive forms of the manifestational ‘I am’. He does not merely bear witness of himself, but the father also bears witness of him which is why his judgment is true. Thus ‘I am not alone’ is a definition of him not being a not. If he were alone, he would not be manifesting the father as the father would not be in him because the father would not have revealed himself to, and in, him. He is, therefore from above, not beneath, as his enemies of the Ioudaioi were. This is a positive ‘I am’ because being from above is the father, who is above, revealing himself to, and in, him. In contrast to these enemies of his, he is not of this kosmos. He is not manifesting the mind of this present order, which his adversaries are. These adversaries will die in their sins if they are unable to recognise him as the ‘I am’, to see that he came forth from Theos and is the embodiment of his name.

And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the kosmos, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves. I have given them thy word; and the kosmos has hated them, because they are not of the kosmos, even as I am not of the kosmos. I pray not that thou should take them out of the kosmos, but that thou should keep them from the evil. They are not of the kosmos, even as I am not of the kosmos. Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. As thou have sent me into the kosmos, even so have I also sent them into the kosmos. And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth. (Iohannes 17.13-19)

Here, Iesous is praying to the father concerning his disciples. Their situation is a reflection of his. The father has sent him; he is now going to send them into the kosmos. The kosmos hated him because he is not of the kosmos. They will share the same outcome. Iesous sanctifies himself through the word of truth of the Theos so that the disciples might also be sanctified through the word of truth. Iesous is here defining himself by the ‘not’ with regard to the kosmos. This set order which is the realm of his adversaries is not where he came from but, nevertheless, he had to live in it surrounded by his foes. The disciples, if they follow him, must share with him in this journey.

For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the ekklesia of the Theos. But by the grace of Theos I am who I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of Theos which was with me. (1 Corinthians 15.9,10)

I have highlighted the ‘not I’ at the end of verse 10 not because it is a negation of the ‘I am’ but because it brings into sharp relief the underlying allusion to Exodus 3 that is going on in these verses. You will remember that in Exodus 3 there is a theme of who is the ‘I’ that is in consideration. Mosheh is insistent that he (I) is unable to go and do these things but Yahweh, in revealing his name to him, is showing that the ‘I’ who will accomplish these things, who will put the words in his mouth, and whom Mosheh will manifest, is Yahweh not Mosheh. In 1 Corinthians 15, by the use of the ‘I am who I am’, Paulos is alluding to a fulfilment of the ‘I will be who I will be’. Here Paulos is like Mosheh. Intrinsically he is nothing, he is the ‘not’ apostle, not enough but by the gracious revelation of Theos to him he can become the manifestation of that name so that he is no longer the ‘I’, but because ‘he’ is with him, he can become part of the Theos.

So, we have seen that the ‘I, I am’ that Iesous uses of himself is there to show that he is the moral embodiment of the father by virtue of him receiving revelation from him. He is the fulfilment of the ‘I will be’ implicit in the name. The name speaks of the creation of that which is upon the earth by the impetus of that which is in, and from, heaven. As a result of this he is the way unto the father. He is a revelation of true enlightenment that leads his followers to them also becoming the Theos. The place where he is, is anticipatory of the place where the father will be, and all in him. In distinction from who he is, who he is not is ‘of the kosmos’. Him proceeding from the father is antithetical to belonging to the present set order, which in his case was embodied by his adversaries. The same needs to be said of his followers, that they are not of the kosmos. However, it can also be said that they are not the ‘I am’, until such time as they are able to follow him. In any previous state they are not enough, they are not in a kerubic relationship. They will become ‘enough’ when they have fulfilled the name of Yahweh, because they have looked upon him that trod that path first and walked in his steps.

14th Nov 2025
Minor detours XII – return to prerequisites? – the love of the Theos

In the previous blog we saw the juxtaposition of the Theos with a number of qualities, one of which is love.

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of the Theos; and every one that loves is born of the Theos, and knows the Theos. He that loves not knows not the Theos; for the Theos is love. In this was manifested the love of the Theos toward us, because that the Theos sent his only begotten son into the kosmos, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved the Theos, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if the Theos so loved us, we ought also to love one another. (1 Iohannes 4.7-11)

As we discussed in the previous blog, the Theos is defined by what he is, and will be, and what he is not, or will not be. He is definitively the Theos rather than any other theos and the qualities that define him are many and, in origin, exclusive to him. In the passage above, it is made clear that he loved us before we were able to love him. Indeed, loving him is an outcome of being loved by him. His love is demonstrated in that he sent his son as a ‘propitiation’/’mercyseat’ to declare his righteousness.

And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believes into (εις) him should not perish, but have aionian life. For the Theos so loved the kosmos, that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believes into (εις) him should not perish, but have aionian life. For the Theos sent not his son into (εις) the kosmos to condemn the kosmos; but that the kosmos through him might be saved. He that believes into (εις) him is not condemned: but he that believes not is condemned already, because he has not believed into (εις) the name of the only begotten son of the Theos. And this is the condemnation, that light is come into (εις) the kosmos, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that does evil hates the light, neither comes towards (προς) the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that does truth comes towards (προς) the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are worked in Theos. (Iohannes 3.14-21)

The premise for this passage is the brasen serpent that was erected in the camp of Israel for the people to look upon after they had been bitten by the deadly serpents that were sent into the camp following their disobedience. If they looked upon this elevated image, of that living scourge that had been reduced to a lifeless brass image, believing that in doing so they would be saved then they did not perish. The similarity is there for us to see that, in looking upon the elevated Iesous, both elevated in that he was lifted up on the stake and in that he also was lifted up in Theos (being lifted up in and by the spirit of the living Theos), the believer – seeing the man who had made that which killed us all (the flesh) powerless by his obedience and committing to following that same path – might also live.

This oft cited passage is not an unconditional offer based on the love of the father. It is a conditional offer based upon reciprocity. The salvation that is on offer is an outcome of the love of the father offering the people the representation of himself in his son which, if they were to look upon in belief, would be the gateway to their salvation. It is a passage accompanied by the directional eis (εις) and pros (προς), indicative of the bi-directional relationship enshrined in the kaporeth. Theos sent his son into (εις) the kosmos in order that those who believe into (εις) his name might be saved. He sent the light into (εις) the kosmos that those that do truth may come towards (προς) that light. There are a series of antitheses at play here. There are those that do truth and those that do evil. Respectively, their preference is for light and darkness. Overlapping the definition of those people are the epithets of belief and unbelief. The outcomes for these two categories of belief and unbelief are salvation unto aionian life and condemnation unto perishing/destruction. Overarching all of this is the love of Theos who presides over the outcomes for people dependent on their response. The love of Theos is not conditional, but the outcome is, dependent on the nature of the response. The only acceptable response is the journey of belief into/unto the name of the father revealed in the son. It is a journey of incrementally becoming him unto the age (aion), a journey characterised by continual belief, evidenced by works (words and actions).

The natural man sees love as an emotion, often times without rational basis, coming and going as a wave or a gust of wind. Clearly, the way of Theos is antithetical to that of man, so how do we determine what love is, particularly the love of Theos? How do we define it? Clearly, we can define it in the way scripture fills out its meaning. Often this can be in the form of yea and nay, in not and not/not terms.

You have heard that it has been said, Thou shall love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; That you may be the children of your father which is in heaven: for he makes his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. For if you love them which love you, what reward have you? do not even the publicans the same? And if you salute your brothers only, what do you more than others? do not even the publicans so? Be therefore perfect, even as your father which is in heaven is perfect. (Maththaios 5.43-48)

The behaviour of the believer, which is the only way to judge the love that motivates such works, is seen to be based on the behaviour of the father who is in heaven. We are called to represent him as Iesous did. Therefore, the love we should show is an outcome of determining the outworking of his love. The love, like the spirit, is the motivating impetus that drives him to actions which are directed both to the just and the unjust. If we behave like others then there is no reward because, by implication, we are not behaving as the Theos. There are many antitheses in play here but, ultimately the distinction is whether we are behaving as others or as the father. He first loved us which put us in a position whereby we were able to reciprocate that love. We were enemies to him but, when he showed his love to us by revealing himself in Iesous to the salvation of him and us, then we could become his friends and show love to him. If we offer love to our enemies, then they are in a position to reciprocate. Clearly, we can see here that love is not a natural emotion. If it were we could not love our enemies, that would be to go against natural sentiment. Instead, we have to overcome such sensibilities and love those we are disposed, naturally, not to love. The motivation for doing this is the utterances of the spirit. Love is an outcome of Theos’ spirit revealed in his word.

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve Theos and mammon. (Maththaios 6.24)

Again, we see a series of antitheses. Primarily, one is Theos and the other is mammon, a set of values based on material wealth and self-interest, couched in terms of another theos. Theos is exhorting us not to be anxious for the daily needs of the body but rather to focus on seeking first his kingdom and his righteousness and the requirement for food and clothing will be dealt with by him. If we seek to serve Theos we must strive to do so and not focus on the present age, with its anxieties and riches. There is one and there is the other; there is love and hate; there is holding to and there is despising; there are two potential masters. We must choose which one to be in subjection to.

But the fruit of the spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, belief, meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are anointed’s have crucified the flesh with the affections and desires. If we live in spirit, let us also walk in spirit. Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one another. (Galatians 5.22-26)

The outcome, or fruit, of spirit is not only love but a list of other qualities which are of the same type as the qualities which describe the Theos. That is because the spirit is of Theos and therefore declares Theos and those who willingly receive it become Theos. The antithetical qualities which are delineated in the previous verses are those which are born of the flesh, that is of the mind which is antithetical to the spirit, the mind of the natural man. If love, amongst so many other positive attributes, is of the spirit of the Theos then that love must be the love of Theos. We can only manifest the kind of love which he shows. The love that he has shown to us in anointed is to willingly give himself for our benefit that we can be saved in becoming him. In becoming him, we can demonstrate that love to him and to others, as in the figure of the kaporeth. We can give ourselves up to him, that is to exchange our natural souls for his, and we can give ourselves up for the believers, or those who will become such, by similarly sacrificing our self-interest for theirs.

And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all? And Iesous answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, Israel; The Lord our Theos, the Lord is one: And thou shall love the Lord thy Theos with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. And the second is like, namely this, Thou shall love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these. And the scribe said unto him, Well, teacher, thou has said the truth: for there is one Theos; and there is none other but he: And to love him with all the heart, and with all the understanding, and with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbour as himself, is more than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices. And when Iesous saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou are not far from the kingdom of the Theos. And no man after that durst ask him any question. (Markos 12.28-34)

Here we have the description of the two fundamental commandments which follow the pattern we have described above. The first commandment is premised upon there being one Yahweh, a promise of unity in which all those of his people who become him will all be one in him at the last day, fulfilling his name. In order to achieve that profound oneness requires a reciprocity which is born out of giving up all those things which underpin our identities – our own strength, mind, soul and understanding – in order to take on and reciprocate his identity and, in doing so, become him. This is the first thing to achieve. The second thing is to take this change of identity and become him in ministering that love to others and, in doing so, to do it like he has done for us, that is to esteem them as being of as high an importance as we consider ourselves. We have to love them in such a way as they, like we hope to do, become him. The context of this interaction between Iesous and the scribe is a context of reciprocity. Iesous has answered his questioners ‘well’. When the scribe reciprocates Iesous’ words, with understanding, Iesous similarly commends his reciprocity after the man has commended Iesous for answering the question he posed ‘well’. The judgment of Iesous is that the scribe is not far from the kingdom of the Theos they have been discussing. This is because, as we saw in the blog on baptism, the kingdom of the Theos is that wherein the Theos dwells. Iesous is speaking the words of Theos, so he is the place where Theos reigns, that is in him. The scribe is in a reciprocal kerubic relationship with Iesous, so he, that is in his mouth, is where Theos dwells and reigns. Finally, because the two are in agreement then they are as the kaporeth and, therefore the Theos dwells, and reigns, in between the two men, man unto his brother, as it were.

We have seen that commandments are a necessary outcome of the revelation of the name. Man must obey the commands that Yahweh has given him to inherit that name, to receive the possession. In the above passage, the relevance of love is seen in the two fundamental commandments on which the law and prophets hang. Iesous clarifies the relevance of love in respect of the revelation of the father’s name and the commandments which he gives to his disciples at the outset of this new covenant.

And the glory which thou gave me I have given them; that they may be one (εν), even as we are one (εν): I in (εν) them, and thou in (εν) me, that they may be made perfect in one (εις εν); and that the kosmos may know that thou have sent me, and have loved them, as thou have loved me. Father, I will that they also, whom thou have given me, be with me where I am (eimi ego ειμι εγω) ; that they may behold my glory, which thou have given me: for thou loved me before the foundation of the kosmos. Righteous Father, the kosmos has not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou have sent me. And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou have loved me may be in (εν) them, and I in (εν) them. (Iohannes 17.22-26)

Firstly, it is worth noting the homographic occurrences of en (εν) and eis (εις) depicting, as they do, both the notion of oneness but also of being directed ‘unto’/’into’ and of residing ‘in’. As we shall see, a little later on, the journey of the name, of becoming him, ends with dwelling in him and him in us.

Antithetical to Theos is the kosmos, an ordered system that is antagonistic to Theos and to him revealed in Iesous. However, this ordered system is witness to Iesous and his ministration of the unity and love of Theos in himself and with the intent of that same unity and love being in his disciples. He has declared the name of the father to his disciples with the intent of them manifesting his name. That name being bound up in the twin notions of oneness and love. Iesous desires them to be in the same place where he is. That place where the ‘I am’ is the fulfilment of the ‘I will be’. That place where Theos has become man in love and unity, where his name dwells and reigns in Iesous and his disciples. The system in which Iesous has walked and been tempted and hunted by those seeking to ensnare him in his words when he only spoke as the kerub of Yahweh, though their kerubic response was one of antagonism and hatred and variance, yet his speech was of unity and love; that system was the Ioudaioi that surrounded him, once a created order of Yahweh, prepared for the dwelling of his name but becoming not a people, as in Hoshea’ 1. This same system was the one in which Iesous knew his disciples would walk, similarly offering the euangelion of love and reconciliation in the face of tribulation occasioned by animosity and hatred. In this context Iesous offers them the new commandments that lie at the heart of this new covenant.

A new commandment I give unto you, That you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one to another. (Iohannes 13.34,35)

If you love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the father, and he shall give you another comforter, that he may abide with you unto (εις) the age…In (εν) that day you shall know that I am in (εν) my father, and you in (εν) me, and I in (εν) you. He that has my commandments, and keeps them, he it is that loves me: and he that loves me shall be loved of my father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Ioudas says unto him, not Iskariot, Lord, how is it that thou will manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the kosmos? Iesous answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my father will love him, and we will come towards (προς) him, and make our abode with him. He that loves me not keeps not my sayings: and the word which you hear is not mine, but the father’s which sent me. (Iohannes 14.15,16,20-24)

Above, the directional words eis (εις), en (εν), and pros (προς) have been indicated – unto/into, in, and towards, much as we saw in Iohannes 17. Again, we can consider that the first two of these directional words are also homographs for ‘one’. This is because the journey unto becoming one with and in Theos, and thus fulfilling the name of Yahweh, is to begin in a ‘towards’ (kerubic) relationship of being face to face, of travelling ‘unto’ that destination of becoming him until we enter ‘into’ and become ‘in’, and thus become ‘one’, Theos. This process is motivated by spirit which creates love, the outcome of which is reconciliation driven by Theos. The new commandment, not that it did not exist before, because, as we saw above, the commandment to love the Lord our Theos and our neighbour as ourselves was in the Old Testament, but rather that it is the foundation of a new, or renewed covenant with his people based on these manifestational principles.

The evidence of love by the disciples is the keeping of the commandments. This is the reciprocal part of the kaporeth relationship which fulfils the covenant name. Following on from such a reciprocity is the giving of the comforter, the spirit, which was to lead them into all truth. The comforter is described as ‘another’ comforter because Iesous was the first ‘comforter’. The Greek for comforter is parakletos (παρακλητος):

My little children, these things write I unto you, that you sin not. And if any man sin, we have a comforter towards (προς) the father, Iesous anointed the righteous: And he is the propitiation (ilasmos ιλασμος) concerning our sins: and not concerning ours only, but also concerning the whole kosmos. And in (εν) this we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that says, I know him, and keeps not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in (εν) him. But whoso keeps his word, in (εν) him verily is the love of the Theos perfected: in (εν) this know we that we are in (εν) him. (1 Iohannes 2.1-5)

Iesous is the comforter because he manifests the comfort that is of Theos (2 Corinthians 1.3). He reveals him to us. That comfort comes from revelation of the truth. This same pattern of revelation that brings consolation and reconciliation is evident in the sending of the holy spirit in the name of Iesous which he is alluding to in Iohannes 14. This manifestation is the basis for the propitiation/mercyseat which concerns the removal of sin. It is in this context that we are able to behold Iesous’ manifestation of the love of Theos in the provision of him as a kaporeth, that we are able to reciprocate that love by manifesting him in keeping his commandments. It is at this point that we can see our way to becoming in, and one, Theos.

Love, like grace, spirit, and belief is the invisible force that creates tangible evidence of its existence. The evidence of the existence of love in Theos is his provision of his beloved son. The evidence of the love of Theos in Iesous is that there is no greater love than that a man lay down his soul for his friends (Iohannes 15.13 – where ‘lay down’ is the verb related to Theos). The love of Theos in Iesous in the disciples is shown in their reciprocal relationship with Theos in Iesous seen in the keeping of the commandments and that they too seek to manifest him in laying down their souls for the brothers (1 Iohannes 3.16).

We have seen, in both this post and the previous one, the qualities which define the Theos in such an existential sense that they are often just juxtaposed, although sometimes given the verb ‘is’. We have also determined that there is an equivalence between Theos and ‘el (אל), where Theos is derived from a verb meaning ‘to set’ or ‘place’ and giving a vertical orientation of manifestation (that is top to bottom), whereas ‘el (אל) is homographic with, amongst others, the words for ‘to’/’unto’ and one of the words for the negative and, because of its association with direction and the face to face juxtaposition of the kerubym on the kaporeth, has a sense of the horizontal orientation of manifestation (that is, face to face). The word ‘el (אל) also carries a sense of power, as in control, and, along with its directional sense, gives us the sense of impetus and directional energy. This being said, to say that the Theos is love; is spirit; is grace; is faithful; is the word, is to associate directional impetus with these qualities. Love, therefore, is a directional force. It is given by the one who has it to the one who does not. The outcome of the receiving of love is to, potentially, reciprocate it. The Theos sent (directed) his son as the embodiment of himself to give us the opportunity of giving up our souls (our natural identities) unto him in order to become him. Love is a selfless force, it is to give up for the other, to relinquish for the other. Theos gave of himself by giving his son, who manifested him, for us to give up of ourselves to reciprocate towards him. The question of love is missed by the rich young man who couches it in terms of, What can I do to get something? The real question is, What can I give (up) to be transformed into Theos. The rich young man has not kept the commandments because he has not yielded himself to the Theos in love, neither has he loved his neighbour as himself. This is why he is unwilling to give up his wealth to the poor, because he is in the mindset of getting not giving. Love is a force of giving. Theos is a giver; indeed, he loves a cheerful giver (2 Corinthians 9.7), one who is manifesting him.

Furthermore, in keeping with the meaning of the homographic אל we can see love and, in particular, the love of Theos being defined by negative and positive characteristics. As, indeed, we can see the definition of that which embodies Theos, and therefore the love of Theos, being expressed in a similar fashion. This is because the Theos is love and, therefore, he and love are indistinguishable. If Theos (and אל its equivalent) can be determined by negative and positive, so can love. We can see love for what it is and what it is not. Iesous is defined by what he is, the ‘I am’, the spirit, and what he is not, the mind of the flesh. The love of Theos is perfected in him; he is the yea and the amen. We saw in Maththaios that we should love those that are in an antagonistic relationship with us, that is our enemies, as the Theos makes his rain to fall on the just and unjust alike. We are required to be perfect as Theos is perfect. We saw the definition of love as a fruit of spirit in opposition to the qualities, such as hatred and variance, which are the works of the flesh. We are required to uphold love not hatred.

The Theos is love. If we keep the commandments of Theos in Iesous then we love him and, becoming him, become love.

31st Oct 2025
Minor detours XI – return to prerequisites? – Who/what [is] Theos?

Framing the question in such a way may have already set the trajectory of this blog. Firstly, the tense of the question implies that it is a question of the present. However, in both Greek and Hebrew, although there is a verb ‘to be’, it is a common practice to juxtapose two terms together with an implied relationship, the tense not being relevant. Therefore, we are going to endeavour to do the same. Where we are not dealing with an epithet which is juxtaposed adjacent to Theos, we may look at the tense of that co-existence. This is why I have placed the ‘is’ in square brackets because often it is not there. The second point is whether it is relevant to consider whether there should be an article preceding Theos. In Greek there often is, although the articles vary but must be definite articles as there is no such thing as the indefinite article (a, an) in either Greek or Hebrew. Again, we will consider this.

Furthermore, and perhaps most pertinent to the trajectory of this blog, is the fact that Theos is an equivalent of the Old Testament ‘el (אל). This term, similarly mistranslated ‘God’, is, of course, homographic with the word ‘unto’; a word for ‘power’ (as in control); a word for the negative (‘no’, ‘not’ etc); an uncommon word for ‘oath’; and a word for ‘this’/’these’. We paid this some attention at the outset of these posts, at the beginning of our journey, as it were.

‘el (אל), when referring to the creator, occurs on 245 occasions in the Old Testament. It rarely takes the definite article (the). In this form it is ha’el (האל). In this form it occurs 29 times of which 22 times are used as the title for him, whereas the other occurrences typically refer to the homographic ‘these’/’those’.

Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these countries, and I will perform the oath which I sware unto ‘Abraham thy father; (Genesis 26.3)

Yahweh is here reiterating the promises made to ‘Abraham to his son Yitshaq. The occurrence of ha’el (האל) is specific to the countries surrounding him. The same limiting definition is being placed on the refuge cities that a person guilty of manslaughter could flee to:

Then Mosheh severed three cities on this side Yarden toward the sunrising; That the slayer might flee there, which should kill his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in times past; and that fleeing unto one of these cities he might live: (Deuteronomy 4.41,42)

The three of the six cities designated as refuge cities which were on the further side of the river were being defined and named. In this sense we can see the use of the definite article is definitive of the specific ones being named or understood and exclusive of any others. This kind of definition works when describing the ‘el himself:

Thou show lovingkindness unto thousands, and recompense the iniquity of the fathers into the bosom of their children after them: the great, the mighty ‘el, Yahweh of hosts, is his name, (Yeremyahu 32.18)

In language highly reminiscent of Exodus 34, when Yahweh passes by Mosheh calling his name, some of the qualities of the ‘el are being defined here, in clear relation to his name, which we have seen is the identity of Yahweh he requires to live in men, it is that path to becoming him.

Know therefore that Yahweh thy ‘elohym, he is ‘elohym, the faithful ‘el, keeping covenant and mercy with them that love him and keep his commandments to a thousand generations; (Deuteronomy 7.9)

Here we see the ‘el as being defined by his qualities of mercy and keeping covenant with those that love him and keep his commandments. This is the basis of the covenant name, an agreement to be honoured with those in a reciprocal relationship of love with him.

For Yahweh your ‘elohym is ‘elohym of the ‘elohym, and ‘adonay of the ‘adonym, the great ‘el, mighty, and fearful, who regards not persons, nor takes reward: (Deuteronomy 10.17)

Again, he is defined by characteristics pertaining to his name and superiority but specifically that he is not interested in outward appearances or rank in men. These qualities, as we shall see with others, are repeated in the New Testament with regard to Theos.

Blessed be ‘adonay, who daily loads (burdens) us, the ‘el of our salvation. Selah. The ‘el of us, an ‘el of salvation; and unto Yahweh ‘adonay are the issues from death. (Psalm 68.18,20)

Again, we shall see that him being the ‘el of our salvation is repeated in The New Testament.

The ‘el, his way is perfect: the word of Yahweh is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him. For who is ‘eloah save Yahweh? or who is a rock save our ‘elohym? The ‘el that girds me with strength, and makes my way perfect. (Psalm 18.30-32)

His way is perfect, and his word is the means to direct our steps along that way, and his word is also perfected in us through trial and he, through those utterances, becomes our shield (buckler), making our way perfect, like his.

So, in summary of the above, we can say that the ‘el is defined specifically in positive and negative terms, separating him from being defined as another ‘el, as not respecting persons in judgment; he is merciful and makes covenant with those who love and keep his commandments; he is great and to be feared; his word is perfect and directs believers along a perfect way, which is his way; he is faithful; and, taking all these together, he is the ‘el of [our] salvation.

In the New Testament we see these qualities reiterated, and much more, in terms of the definitive Theos, the Theos who is unlike any other theoi:

But if our euangelion be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the theos of this age has blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious euangelion of anointed, who is the image of the Theos, should shine unto them. (2 Corinthians 4.3-4)

The definite article is clearly making a distinction between two theoi here, the theos of this age, a carnal spirit of present wisdom that blinds potential believers from the true message of anointed, and the Theos, the only true one who lives and whose image is seen in the face of Iesous. This is the spirit of definition, making clear statements of identity that differentiate him from any other.

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me: Theos accepts no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: (Galatians 2.6)

As in the Old Testament passage above, Theos has no respect of faces toward men, whoever they are or think they are, he looks only upon the inner man and judges accordingly.

But the Theos, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, has quickened us with anointed, (by grace you are saved;) (Ephesians 2.4,5)

This judgment is, of course, tempered by his great mercy, as is evidenced in the revelation of his name in Exodus 34.

Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of the Theos is sent unto the nations, and that they will hear it. (Acts 28.28)

This mercy leads to his salvation.

The Theos is faithful, by whom you were called unto the fellowship of his Son Iesous anointed our Lord. (1 Corinthians 1.9)

So, we have seen attributes associated with the ‘el in the Old Testament reiterated in describing the Theos of the New. From this point on, in the New Testament, we start to see a different construction that juxtaposes [the] Theos with qualities, epithets or phenomena. In this case it is with the word pistos (πιστος) which is usually translated ‘faithful’ and, apart from defining the Theos, it can also define those who are receptive to his word and reciprocate it in belief. The related words in this family of Greek words are pistis (πιστις) usually translated ‘faith’ or ‘belief’ and pisteuo (πιστευω) ‘to believe’. The construction, here in 1 Cor.1.9 is ‘pistos ho Theos’ (πιστος ο θεος) – faithful the Theos. A similar construction occurs in 1 Timotheos:

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a good work. (1 Timotheos 3.1)

The phrasing ‘this is a true saying’ is pistos ho logos (πιστος ο λογος) and would perhaps be better translated ‘faithful the word’. It occurs in Paulos’ letters to Timotheos and Titos on a number of occasions. If we say that the word [is] faithful and we also say that the Theos [is] faithful then it is not a stretch to say that the Theos, also, [is] the word:

In the beginning was the word, and the word was towards the Theos, and the Word was Theos. (Iohannes 1.1)

Here, there is a verb, was, which is set in the past tense because the beginning being referred to is in the past. At that time the word was in a reciprocal (towards) relationship with Theos and was Theos. His utterances were indivisible from him because they were the speech that emanated from him and were the revelation of his mind, but they were sent forth to ‘elohym to perform the creation and were received back as obedient acts and verbal acknowledgement. It is this revelation of the spirit which is him and emanates from him:

But the hour comes, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the father in spirit and in truth: for the father seeks such to worship him. The Theos is spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (Iohannes 4.23,24)

The Greek here follows the same construction as ‘the Theos [is] faithful’ and ‘the word [is] faithful’, that is the two elements are juxtaposed without a verb in between, thus – pneuma ho Theos (πνευμα ο θεος). Spirit denotes mind, as we have seen in an earlier blog. Spirit is Theos, Theos is a mind. The utterances of the spirit are the word. Theos [is] word. All the subsequent juxtapositions are dependent on this principle. The revelation of who he was, is and will be are revealed by and in himself. He seeks people to reciprocate such and worship him in spirit and in truth.

Of the epithets that include the verb ‘to be’ we find the statement that the Theos is true:

He that has received his testimony has set to his seal that the Theos is true. (Iohannes 3.33)

The Greek here is ‘ho Theos alethes estin’ (ο θεος αληθης εστιν). Iohannes the baptist is speaking about Iesous and the origination of his identity being heavenly, that is he was sent by Theos, embodying the characteristics of Theos. If somebody receives this witness from Iesous as coming from the Theos then he himself has committed to the truth of the Theos in Iesous and remains in that state so long as he remains in that belief. Other occurrences of ‘sealing’ indicate that an unwavering commitment to the truth of Theos is a certainty for salvation. Theos is true inasmuch as his revelation is a revelation of him and he is the source of truth, and it has the outcome of not being a lie. If this is what he is, what is intrinsic to his identity, then it is vital that those who seek to become him, and whom Theos seeks to become him, are also true. If they hold fast to that revelation of truth and seek to become true, as he is, then they can be assured of becoming him in the end. Whatsoever is of Theos, therefore, is true/truth; whatsoever is not of him is antithetical to that revelation of truth, it is false.

We can see these qualities in Iesous when he says, to Thomas:

I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes unto the father, but by me. (Iohannes 14.6)

Iesous uses the ‘ego eimi’ (εγω ειμι) form – ‘I, I am’. As a present tense fulfilment of the ‘I will be’ implicit in the name of Yahweh (Ex.3.14). He is fulfilling the identity of the Theos by being the embodiment of his way, his life and his truth, because the Theos is all of these things:

And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priskilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of the Theos more perfectly. (Acts 18.26)

manifestly declared to be the epistle of anointed ministered by us, written not with ink, but with spirit of living Theos; not in tables of stone, but in fleshy tables of the heart. (2 Corinthians 3.3)

Theos is true, he is living and he has a way. It is the revelation of his truth that leads us to walk in the way which he has ordained, and trod in his son, that leads to aionian life:

And this is life aionian, that they might know thee the only true Theos, and Iesous anointed, whom thou have sent. (Iohannes 17.3)

Iesous embodies these things – way, truth, life – and therefore declares the name/identity of Theos in himself. If we assent to that declaration and hold on to it steadfastly then we can be assured of becoming him in the end. If we are to do so we must walk that way unto aionian life by the impetus of the revelation of his truth, which is himself.

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that the Theos is light, and in him is no darkness at all. (1 Iohannes 1.5)

Here, the Greek follows the same pattern as that of Theos being true – ho Theos phos estin (ο θεος φως εστιν). The verb to be is included again. In this beginning of the first letter of Iohannes, we find the same themes being expressed as we found, particularly, in Iohannes 1.

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life; (For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and show unto you that aionian life, which was with the father, and was manifested unto us;) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that you also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the father, and with his son Iesous anointed…If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Iesous anointed his son cleanses us from all sin. (1 Iohannes 1.1-3,6-7)

The word is living, because it is of Theos, and its way leads unto aionian life, which is also of, and is, the Theos. The life, in the living word, was manifested to us in Iesous. Having fellowship or communion – which is to share a oneness of mind – with the father and the son is to engage in the same manifestation as the son. If we walk in the light of that manifestation of the living word, then we will fight the carnal mind with that living spirit and we will have access to forgiveness of sins through the metonymic blood of anointed.

One of the qualities that people often associate with Theos is his goodness and, indeed, it is the thing that Yahweh says he will reveal to Mosheh when he passed by him and declared his name:

And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good teacher, what good thing shall I do, that I may have aionian life? And he said unto him, Why do you speak to me of good? there is none good but one the Theos: but if thou will enter into life, keep the commandments. (Maththaios 19.16,17)

Here the Greek is oudeis agathos ei me eis ho Theos (ουδεις αγαθος ει μη εις ο θεος) – there is none good but one the Theos. Iesous is not prepared to accept the appellation ‘good’, as the only source for goodness, and the revelation of the name, is the father. The man cannot do a good thing, he must become like the father to inherit aionian life, which is of the father. He can do this by keeping the commandments and giving up his wealth in this age. Fundamental to this description of Theos as being the only one that is good is that he is one, which is here represented by the homographic eis (εις), signifying, primarily, in this place, the meaning ‘one’, but carrying the homographic sense of unto, as the route unto Theos is the route unto becoming one with him.

And Iesous answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, Israel; The Lord our Theos, the Lord is one: And thou shall love the Lord thy Theos with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment. (Markos 12.30)

The idea of Theos being one is something that we have dealt with in previous blogs, especially in respect of the name of Yahweh:

And Yahweh shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Yahweh, and his name one. (Zecharyah 14.9)

In the future tense fulfilment of Yahweh’s name when all people have been gathered together into him, in one, then it can be said that he is one. Although we can see that oneness has a sense of defining him exclusively, it is not a limiting factor of singularity. He is good and no other one can be that. He is one Theos, and there is no other but him. However, his oneness is seen in a unity of mind which is fulfilled when all the multitude of willing recipients of that spirit are gathered together into the one that is him.

There is one body, and one spirit, even as you are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one belief, one baptism, One Theos and father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. (Ephesians 4.4-6)

We saw, in a previous blog, how that the terms for ‘one’ used here are a mixture of two terms – en (εν) and eis (εις) – which elsewhere are homographs of, respectively, ‘in’ and ‘unto’/’into’. So, the journey of becoming one with Theos is a directional path that ends up in him. It is occasioned through belief in that one spirit and overwhelming immersion in that same spirit.

For though there be that are called theoi, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be theoi many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one Theos, the father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Iesous anointed, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Corinthians 8.5-6)

Theos is defined by who he is, and of course will be, and who he is not. Out of him proceed all things, the things of his spirit and by that we are able to become one in him. This process has been occasioned by the creative work of Iesous who was the first to manifest Theos in perfection and after whom we must follow.

The final quality we shall look at is that of love:

Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of the Theos; and every one that loves is born of the Theos, and knows the Theos. He that loves not knows not the Theos; for the Theos is love. In this was manifested the love of the Theos toward us, because that the Theos sent his only begotten son into the kosmos, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved the Theos, but that he loved us, and sent his son to be the propitiation for our sins. Beloved, if the Theos so loved us, we ought also to love one another. (1 Iohannes 4.7-11)

The Greek here is ‘ho Theos agape estin’ (ο θεος αγαπη εστιν) – the Theos love is. The word for ‘propitiation’ is ‘ilasmos’ (ιλασμος) and is closely related to the word, similarly translated ‘propitiation’, ‘ilasterion’ (ιλαστηριον) which occurs in Romans 3.25 (which we have looked at in a previous blog) and whose other occurrence is in Hebrews 9.5 where it is translated as ‘mercyseat’ and is clearly describing the kaporeth with the kerubym which sat on top of the ark.

Theos has loved us in that he sent his son to be that which occasions forgiveness of sins via the declaration of his righteousness. That is, the son manifested the love of the father by giving up his life/soul/identity by immersion in the spirit in order to overcome the carnal mind. When we see the son, we see the declaration of Theos and we are able to follow that path. The path of love requires that we follow his lead. We must reciprocate the love of Theos by reflecting to him who he is and by demonstrating to others, predominantly those that are, or will become, believers, the father.

In a future blog we will discuss in more detail the love of Theos but for now let us reflect on the qualities of Theos. The word Theos occurs 1,343 times in the New Testament and in almost every occurrence it gives us various aspects of his identity and behaviour. These include, but are not limited to, glory, perfection, gift giving, knowledge, wisdom, righteousness, grace, forbearance, mercy, hope, peace, consolation, comfort, that he raises the dead, that he is invisible, unseen by the eye of man, does not lie, does not tempt with evil, that he is immortal, he is immutable, and he builds. Besides these almost every statement of his is an indication of who he is, and will be, how he behaves towards us and towards those that oppose him and who it is we should be seeking. The few qualities we have looked at in more detail here – love, faithfulness, truth, light, spirit, goodness, oneness and word – have shown us some of those fundamental characteristics which he is happy to directly juxtapose with his title which, as we saw early on in this journey, is from the word ‘to set’ or ‘place’ and indicates the vertical orientation of order that comes down from the father through his representatives, particularly his son, and is received by willing and obedient ears whose mouths reciprocate back up towards him.

24th Oct 2025