Towards, unto, into and in Theos

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 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.

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. 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 other contexts, ‘all things’ represents material wealth but 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 had 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 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.

Interestingly the Greek word for ‘all things’ in these two passages in Acts is apanta (απαντα). This is from the 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.

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 limted 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.