Towards, unto, into and in Theos

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