Yes, This IS a Spiritual Battle

“…They [government, media, etc.] will never provide them [the people] with what they truly need. They will never give them that which will fulfill them and enable their emancipation and liberty; that which they have lost; that which they can find again; that which they can rediscover in the midst of this darkness and despair: The Salvation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

“…The truth is the Word, and the Word shall set us free…If you can see the truth of the reality around you—you can recognize evil for what it is—then you have a gift from God, a Divine talent given to you that you must not waste. Those of us who know the truth have an obligation to plant a seed in the minds of other people. And I pray that it helps to grow into a truly global awakening.”

The above words close the vlog below. Dave Cullen provides an excellent synopsis of what is happening today—a culmination of years in the making. Truly, Scripture is being fulfilled right before our eyes.

Note the Biden/Harris campaign’s “Build Back Better” slogan. This has been used by others around the world. Discover the significance of these words below in the “new normal” proposed as the goal for the very future: The Great Reset.

 

Related articles on CrossWise:

Ted Turner’s Math Problem

Climocentrism: The New Geocentrism

“Climate Change” as Religion

Masking…the Truth?

Misplaced Trust, part I

Misplaced Trust, part II

 

The Holy Spirit as “Restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2?

(In this post I had to go into the weeds a bit. My goal is to have trimmed them to a level the reader can see the path I made—to allow the reader to see the forest beyond the weeds. I hope I’ve achieved it.)

Quite a few issues hinder identifying “the restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2:6 and 2:7. A fair number of theologians argue for the Holy Spirit in these two verses. And some of these do so based on a questionable pronoun argument. From this shaky foundation the Holy Spirit is imported into the context. This then is used by some as support for the pre-tribulation “Rapture” doctrine.

One shaky foundation upon another.

The Dubious Pronoun Argument

I’ve touched on this dubious pronoun argument elsewhere (Misgendering the Spirit, which has a basis in Another Paraclete?). To briefly identify the issue:

The Greek word for “Spirit” is pneuma, which is neuter in grammatical gender. Because the term is neuter, a literal English translation of the pronouns substituted for pneuma would be “it” or “which” (instead of the personal “whom”). For example, in Acts 5:32, we would translate “we are His witnesses of these words, and so is the Holy Spirit (pneuma), which God gave to those obeying Him [Jesus].” And some deny the personhood of the Holy Spirit simply because pneuma is neuter. But this erroneously imposes English grammar notions upon the Greek.

Some, accepting this error, attempt to counter it by construing (erroneously) a different way to promote the personhood of the Spirit. In John 14:16—16:15 the Holy Spirit is also called another “paraclete” (paraklētos), which is masculine in grammatical gender. In addition, there are a number of masculine pronouns throughout this section. Consequently, some have mistakenly assumed that at least some of these masculine pronouns refer back to pneuma instead of “paraclete”, thus (also erroneously) implying personhood. But it is context that establishes personhood—not pronouns. Moreover, these masculine pronouns all refer back to “paraclete” or to a masculine pronoun substituting for “paraclete”.

An analogy will illustrate the problem with this argument. The term logos, “word”, is a grammatically masculine noun. If we impose English grammar rules upon the Greek here, then every occurrence of logos, would be translated “he” or “him”. This works fine for “the Word” as the pre-incarnate Jesus in John 1:1-14. But it doesn’t work in Mark 4:16, which would be “…whenever they hear the word (ho logos) they immediately receive him (autos) with joy.” This context is about the Gospel message, which should more properly be “it” (not “him”) in English.

The 1977 movie The Car provides a different angle. While the noun “car” in English is “it”—a thing—The Car as portrayed in the movie is a sentient, willful being. So, does The Car have personhood? The Car, which self-drives, certainly has a mind of its own—even mockingly ‘laughing’ via the car horn.[1] Or should we instead say, ‘The Car, who self-drives, certainly has a mind of his own’? ‘A mind of her own’? Do pronouns—whichever we apply—affect the consciousness, the volition of The Car in the movie?

Also consider the many ships named after humans (Queen Elizabeth II; Edmund Fitzgerald). Though we may call them individually “she” or “he” according to name, each is still “it” in English. Unless fictionally personalized as in The Car, none are sentient beings.

Grammar Limits Importing the Holy Spirit into 2 Thessalonians

Those relying on the pronoun argument for 2 Thessalonians 2 do so because there are two different grammatical genders used for “the restrainer”. One is neuter (2:6: to katechon), the other masculine (2:7: ho katechōn). To account for this, Robert L. Thomas argues:

To one familiar with Jesus’ Upper Room Discourse, as Paul undoubtedly was, fluctuation between neuter and masculine recalls how the Holy Spirit is referred to. Either gender is appropriate, depending on whether the speaker (or writer) thinks of natural agreement (masculine because of the Spirit’s personality [Jn 14:26; 15:26; 16:13—14; cf. Robertson, Grammar of the New Testament, 708-9]) or grammatical (neuter because of the noun pneuma…). This identification of the restainer…is most appealing.[2]

To support his stance, Thomas sources Robertson’s respected grammar. We will critique Robertson’s argument—and by extension Thomas’—with respect to the verses in John after first defining and analyzing “natural [gender] agreement” elsewhere.

“Natural gender” is such that a word’s grammatical gender correlates to the sex/gender inherent in the person the word is referencing. For example, “he” is masculine in grammatical gender, correlating to a male. “Stewardess” implies a woman. Etc.

Below we will challenge the above claim that the Holy Spirit’s “natural” gender is “masculine because of the Spirit’s personality” (personhood).

Defining “Natural [Gender] Agreement”

“Natural [gender] agreement” occurs when a word’s gender correlates to the biological sex/gender of the person it directly refers to (“natural gender”) in distinction from the grammatical gender of its antecedent (preceding reference)—the word it refers back to. Stated another way, instead of agreeing in grammatical gender with its previous reference, the word agrees with the biological sex/gender of the person (“natural gender”) referred to.

An analogy from English should clarify:

A1: Though the player grew weary, the athlete was spurred on by the crowd.

B1: Though the player grew weary, she was spurred on by the crowd.

The antecedent (preceding reference) in each sentence is the player. In A1 the athlete is unspecified as to gender, just like its antecedent. For the sake of this example, we’ll call both neuter in grammatical gender.  In A1 there is the usual grammatical gender agreement (the playerthe athlete). In B1 the natural gender of the person (feminine, she) to whom the word refers is used instead of one matching the grammatical gender (neuter) of its antecedent. In Greek, this dissimilarity would be a case of applying natural gender agreement in place of grammatical gender agreement—a grammatical mismatch.

This sort of thing is also called “construction according to sense”, or constructio ad sensum.

From Mark’s Gospel, Robertson finds an example of natural gender agreement over the grammatical:

In Mk. 5:41 αὐτῇ [autē̦, her] follows the natural gender of παιδίον [paidion, child] rather than the grammatical.[3]  

The applicable portion of the verse is “Taking the child (paidion, neuter) by the hand, He said to her (autē̦, feminine)…” Alternatively, Mark could have chosen the neuter form of the pronoun (autō̦[4]) for grammatical gender agreement between the two words. By choosing “her” (autē̦), he followed “natural gender” instead. Mark went from the general “child” (paidion, neuter) to the more specific “her” (autē̦, feminine)—a grammatical mismatch.

Let’s look more closely at this. In the larger context, Jesus heals Jairus’ daughter. The feminine thygatēr, “daughter”, is used for her in 5:35. Thus, we already knew the child is female rather than male. But the intervening references, up to and including 5:41 (39, 40, 41), all use the more general neuter paidion, “child” as a synonym. Here is the chain of referents:

thygatēr (5:35) > paidion (5:39) > paidion, paidion (5:40) > paidion (5:41) > autē (5:41)

daughter (5:35) > child (5:39) > child, child (5:40) > child (5:41) > her (5:41)

Thus, while 5:41 clearly is an instance of “natural [gender] agreement” over grammatical agreement, the natural gender is determinable by the larger context by a preceding reference.[5]

An Evil Pneuma Has Masculine “Natural Gender”?

For our purposes here, Mark 9:20 provides a more fitting example. Its context contains “spirit”, pneuma. Robertson opines that this is another example of natural gender usage:

“…surely this is…treating πνεῦμα [pneuma] as masculine (natural gender).”[6]

But what makes a malevolent spirit inherently masculine in “natural gender”? Is a spirit male?[7] Let’s scrutinize.

In the larger context beginning at Mark 9:17, a particular pneuma possesses a man’s son, preventing him from speaking. In 9:18 a neuter pronoun appropriately correlates to pneuma, its antecedent: “…I asked your disciples to cast it (auto) out…”. Correspondingly, in 9:28 the disciples asked Jesus, “Why weren’t we able to cast it (auto) out?”

Yet 9:20 causes a bit of confusion. It contains four different uses of the masculine ‘personal’ pronoun (auton, “him”). Related to this is a grammatical anomaly: the masculine pronoun encoded in the participle “saw” (he). This will take a bit to sort out:

ēnegkan auton pros auton. kai idōn auton to pneuma euthys synesparaxen auton

They-brought him to Him. And [when] he-saw Him, the spirit immediately convulsed him…

They-brought the son to Jesus. And when he-saw Jesus, the spirit promptly convulsed the son…

The proper correspondent for the masculine “he-saw” in this sentence would be “the spirit” (to pneuma). But, of course, pneuma is neuter instead of masculine.[8] The late Rodney Decker explains: “As an adverbial participle idōn [he-saw] should agree [in gender] with the subject of the main verb (pneuma), but this is constructio ad sensum.”[9] Decker then refers to Ezra Gould, whom I’ll quote in larger context:

[S]ince the action of the verb [convulsed] belongs to the spirit, and is occasioned by the action denoted by the participle [saw], it would be the spirit which is described as having seen Jesus. But [the spirit] does this with the eyes of [the son], and hence the masculine form of the participle.

In all these stories [exorcisms], the man and the evil spirit get mixed up in this way. The outward acts belong to the man, but the informing spirit is sometimes that of the man, and sometimes the evil spirit.[10]

In other words, though there is a grammatical gender mismatch, Gould thinks this is due to the mixing of the spirit (neuter) and the boy (masculine). Since the spirit (pneuma, neuter) acts through the son (huios, masculine), a masculine-gendered participle represents the son as the spirit’s ocular vehicle here. The possessing spirit sees through the eyes of the possessed son.

Sometimes the person acts apart from the demon. Sometimes the demon acts through the person. From the evidence thus far, one could consider this a case of “natural gender” agreement (constructio ad sensum) correlated to the son (son/spirit), not the spirit.

Mark 1:23-26 provides a good comparison. The translation below is as ‘literal’ (formally equivalent) as possible. Subscripted brackets identify grammatical number (singular[sg] or plural[pl]) and gender (masculine[ms] or neuter[nt]) where necessary for analysis:

1:23 Suddenly, in their synagogue was a man with an unclean spirit! He cried-out, 24 saying[ms sg], “What is it between You and us[pl], Jesus the Nazarene? Have You come to ruin us[pl]? I-know[sg] who You are: The Holy One of God.” 25 But Jesus rebuked him/it[ms/nt sg] [autō̦], saying, “You[sg] be-quiet and you[sg] come-out of-him [autou]!” 26 And the unclean spirit, [it-]violently-convulsing[nt sg] him and [it-]shouting[nt sg] with a loud voice, came-out of-him [autou].

Like 9:20 above, the possessing pneuma acts through its chosen vessel. This is grammatically shown by Mark’s use of the masculine singular “he”, instead of the neuter in 1:23/24. Note that the spirit self-references with the plural “us” once each in the two questions posed. Yet when the unclean spirit reveals that it knows Jesus’ identity, it reverts back to the singular (I-know)![11] In 1:25 Jesus addresses the pneuma either (a) through the man [him, ms], or (b) directly [it, nt], in commanding exorcism. The better of the two would be (b), for it makes the most sense in this context (see next paragraph). In this way, the pronoun refers to the spirit in distinction from its host.[12] And finally, in 1:26 the unclean spirit (nt sg) comes out of the man (autou), freeing him.[13]

Though there are a number of interpretive options, we should reject any notions that the plural indicates more than one spirit possessing the man.[14] Jesus specifically exorcised only one demon. In view of the grammatical evidence of 9:20, at minimum we should harmonize the plural (1:24) with the masculine singular “he”, such that we construe the plural “us” to include the possessed man along with the unclean spirit.[15] Thus, the “I” in 1:24 comes from the spirit, which Jesus rebukes in 1:25. Surely the possessing spirit is concerned Jesus has come to exorcise him from his chosen host.[16] And Jesus promptly does.

If we understand the grammatical anomaly of 9:20 through the contextual lens of the grammar in 1:23-26, Gould’s above comments fall right into line.

In the account of “Legion” in Mark 5 we find a similar thing. Once the man with an unclean spirit is introduced (5:2), there seems to be no differentiation between the acts of the man and the acts of the possessing spirit. These verses, again, appear to reflect the spirit’s actions through the man:

5:6 Seeing[ms sg] Jesus from afar, he-ran and bowed down to-him. 7 In a loud voice he-was-crying-out, saying[ms sg], “What is between me and You, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I implore you by God: Don’t torment me!” 8 For [Jesus]-had-said to-him/it[ms/nt sg], “You-come-out[sg] of the man unclean spirit!” 9 And [Jesus]-had-asked him[ms sg], “What is your name?” He-replied[sg] to-Him[Jesus], “Legion is my[sg] name[sg], for we-are[pl] many.” 10 Then he/it-began-begging[sg] Him further that [Jesus] would not send them[nt pl] out of the region.

11 Nearby, on the hillside, was a large herd of pigs grazing. 12 So they-began-begging[pl] Him, saying[ms pl], “Send[pl] us[pl] into the pigs so that we-may-enter[pl] them!” 13 And [Jesus]-permitted them[nt pl]. So, after coming-out[nt pl], the unclean spirits entered[pl] into the pigs; and, the herd of pigs—about two-thousand—rushed down the steep bank into the lake. And they were drowned in the lake.

Though the actor in 5:6 is the man, in reality it is the possessing spirit acting through the man, as evidenced by its words in 5:7. In 5:8 where Jesus starts exorcising the spirit through the possessed man, the Gospel writer uses a pronoun (autō̦) that could be either masculine or neuter. We might expect neuter in order to grammatically agree with pneuma, as found at the end of this verse.[17] This would concur with the usage in 1:25-26. And this seems the best understanding here.

In 5:9 Mark records Jesus having asked his (auton, ms) name—apparently to the spirit through the man—and the unclean spirit replied, “My name is ’Legion’, for we are many.” This plurality of unclean spirits then (5:10) implores Jesus to not send them (auta, nt pl) away.[18] At first blush the masculine singular at the beginning of 5:10 appears to contradict the analysis above; however, the narrator is describing the singular possessed man’s actions spoken by the one spirit representing them all. It is paralleled with 5:9 in that the narrator records a singular spirit (through the man) explaining its collective existence in the man (“Legion”).

Next, in 5:12 Mark records things from the plurality of spirit’s perspective (“They began begging”). Once again the Gospel writer prefaces their statement with a masculine participle (“saying”), but this time he uses the plural to signify the plurality of demons speaking through the man.[19] Evidence to support this position finds itself in the next verse: “Jesus permits them” (nt pl). Further, we can deduce that when the spirit is self-referencing, the neuter should be understood (“me” and “I” in 5:7; “my” and “we” in 5:9; “us” and “we” in 5:12). This also assists in confirming the analysis above that the sequence “us”, “us”, “I” in 1:24 refers to the pneuma/possessed man in the “us” as compared to the pneuma only in the “I”.

When prefacing direct speech—except before words commanding exorcism—Mark uses the masculine to indicate pneuma/possessed person. By contrast, in narration describing the scene the Gospel writer uses, or implies, the neuter (5:10, 12, 13), to distinguish the spirit(s) from the possessed man.

Therefore, all the above best explains the example in 9:20 above. In narration, acts of the pneuma independent of the possessed person are expressed by the neuter. And the neuter is used when the spirit is referenced by another in distinction from the possessed person (9:18, 28). Therefore, it could well be argued that grammatical gender and “natural gender” are the same for pneumaneuter. Or, perhaps better, that a pneuma does not have “natural gender” at all. To add strength to this position, we’ll look at one final account of demon possession.

The possessed slave-girl in Acts 16:16-18 provides a great comparison and contrast.[20] Luke records the girl as speaking what are obviously words coming from the possessing spirit (16:17).[21] The gender of both the pronoun (hautē, “This one” [slave-girl]) and the participle preceding the speech (legousa, “[she]-was-saying”) is feminine, but the words certainly originate from the pneuma. In other words, the feminine grammatical gender is apparently due to the biological sex/gender of the spirit’s mouthpiece—its oracular vehicle.

Thus, harmonizing these accounts with respect to gender—and applying a bit of Occam’s razor—one can make a strong argument that none of these accounts of spirits/demons contain examples of “natural gender” as pertaining to pneuma. That is, pneuma remains neuter. When a masculine or feminine referent is seemingly used for pneuma this merely indicates the biological sex of the possessed person. These examples also cast doubt on any notions of “natural gender” for spirit beings generally. I think we must be very careful not to impose human gender ideas upon spirit beings.

The Holy Spirit Has Masculine “Natural Gender”?

Finally, we shall directly engage Robertson’s argument that the Holy Spirit has implied masculine “natural gender”. He asserts, “Two passages in John call for remark, inasmuch as they bear on the personality of the Holy Spirit.”[22] The first part refers to 14:26, the second 16:13. In the following we shall see that English grammar notions inform part of his argument on the Greek, which is then contended to indicate the Spirit’s personhood (“personality”).

This is the first part of the grammarian’s argument (Greek replaced with English transliteration):

In 14:26…ho de paraklētos, to pneuma to hagion, ho pempsei ho patēr en tō̧ onomati mou, ekeinos hymas didaxei, the relative [pronoun] ho follows the grammatical gender of pneuma. Ekeinos (“That One”), however, skips over pneuma and reverts to the gender of paraklētos.[23]

Essentially, he is correct, which I will unpack below. First, here’s biblical context for his argument:

14:26 But the paraklētos[ms]—the Holy Spirit[nt], Which[nt] the Father will send in My name—That One[ms] will teach you all things, and remind you of everything I told you.

Robertson is right: “That One” skips over “the Holy Spirit” to agree in gender with paraklētos (advocate, counselor, helper, comforter). This is precisely why I prefer to separate the middle clause by em dashes (—). The neuter relative pronoun “Which” (hos) correlates to “Spirit” (pneuma), while the masculine demonstrative pronoun (ekeinos) “That One” refers to paraklētos. This is grammatical agreement. There is no reason to press this further. However, Robertson uses this as background for the second part of his argument:

In 16:13 a more striking example occurs, hotan de elthȩ̄ ekeinos, to pneuma tēs alētheias. Here one has to go back six lines to ekeinos again and seven to paraklētos. It is more evident therefore in this passage that John is insisting on the personality [personhood] of the Holy Spirit, when the grammatical gender so easily called for ekeino[nt] [ED: nt instead of ms].[24]

With respect to the gargantuan effort evident in Robertson’s mammoth grammar, his conclusion “when the grammatical gender so easily called for ekeino [nt]” is a non sequitur. The chain of referents follows:

paraklētos (16:7) > ekeinos (16:8) > ekeinos (16:13)

paraklētos (16:7) > That One (16:8) > That One (16:13)

After providing a brief synopsis of things to come (16:1-6), Jesus again mentions the paraklētos in this discourse (16:7). “That One” in 16:8 directly refers to paraklētos. The verses following this pronoun (16:9, 10, 11) detail functions of paraklētos; so, the same subject is assumed. 16:12 provides a transition to the next thought. There are neither intervening occurrences of pneuma nor intervening neuter pronouns. Thus, there is no basis to assume a neuter would have been “so easily called for” in place of “That One” in 16:13. In fact, the grammar is against it. Consequently, “That One” in 16:13 directly refers to “That One” in 16:8, which in turn directly refers to paraklētos. Therefore, this is not an implied instance of “natural gender” usage, which would somehow go towards supporting “the personality [personhood] of the Holy Spirit”.

Note that Thomas extends his argument a bit further (“Jn 14:26; 15:26; 16:13—14”). We’ll engage the last reference first, since it is a direct extension of Robertson’s with respect to 16:13. Here’s the text in English:

16:13 But when That One comes—the Spirit of truthHe/It-will-guide you into all truth, for He/It will not speak on His/Its own[ms/nt], but He/It-will-speak only what He/Ithears. And He/It-will disclose to you things yet to come. 14 That One[ms] will bring glory to Me[ms/nt], because He/Itwill receive from Me and disclose it to you.

Since Thomas does not develop his argument—in all fairness, his commentary is part of a larger volume, so was necessarily limited—I can only speculate. Thus, I don’t think it very profitable to ‘read his mind’, so to speak. However, to reduce this down to its simplest, there is ambiguity as to whether the verbiage after “the Spirit of truth” pertains to “the Spirit of truth” or, alternatively, to “That One” (paraklētos). If the former is assumed, then the second em dash should be placed at the end of 16:13. But this doesn’t seem to do justice to the context. In any case, with the presence of “That One” (ms) at the beginning of 16:14, it is clear this pronoun is intended to agree with “That One” in 16:13.

But surely if this were integral to Robinson’s argument above, the grammarian would have included it.

Thomas’ final reference is John 15:26. But this is much like 14:26 in which there is a split between paraklētos and “That One”. Thus, Thomas may include it as a parallel reference with Robertson’s 14:26. But I fail to perceive how this helps the cause:

5:26 “When the paraklētos[ms] comes, Whom[ms] I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth[nt], the One Which[nt] comes forth from the Father—That One[ms] will testify about Me.”

Daniel B. Wallace, in his grammar, engages this kind of argument.[25] After refuting it, he concludes (Greek transliterated):

Although one might argue that the Spirit’s personality [personhood] is in view in these passages, the view must be based on the nature of a paraklētos and the things said about the Comforter, not on any supposed grammatical subtleties. Indeed, it is difficult to find any text in which pneuma is grammatically referred to with the masculine gender.[26]

In a related footnote, Wallace makes a brief comment about 2 Thessalonians 2:6 and 2:7, noting that “Holy Spirit” is absent from the surrounding context.[27] Nevertheless, he does think the Spirit is a possible referent for these two verses, though any argument for this cannot rely on the erroneous claim that masculine is the “natural gender” of pneuma.[28]  

Concluding Thoughts

Pneuma is neuter, whether in reference to the Holy Spirit or an unclean spirit.

Yet, isn’t each individual pneuma in the Mark and Acts accounts above in actual fact a sentient, conscious being? Yes, of course. Though each demon (pneuma) uses its chosen vessel as its actor, each pneuma has its own thoughts and will in distinction from its possessed victim. Each is cast out against its will. And doesn’t such sentience necessarily indicate personhood? And shouldn’t this be somewhat analogous to the Holy Spirit? That is, if an unclean spirit is a person in and of itself, how much more should we consider the Holy Spirit to be a ‘Person’ in and of Itself/Himself, regardless of pronoun usage?

We might say “Sally discerned an evil spirt at that meeting” but we understand that it was the Holy Spirit working through her. The difference, of course, is that a Holy Spirit indwelt Christian is not possessed. While an unclean spirit imposes its own will upon its victim, the Holy Spirit allows the indwelt believer a choice. The believer retains complete control yet can allow the Spirit to work through by submitting to His/Its leading. A Holy Spirit indwelt person can choose either to be led by the flesh or led by the Spirit (Galatians 5:13-26).

Too many times it seems theological motives override grammar and context in a misguided effort to bolster a particular position. Sometimes it is needless, for the doctrine in question is secured by other means elsewhere in Scripture. I’m inclined to believe these are motivated by good intentions. I might call these ‘over-interpretations’ and ‘over-apologetics’.

There are other ways to argue for the Holy Spirit as “the restrainer” in 2 Thessalonians 2. From my own research thus far, however, I don’t find them persuasive. If the Holy Spirit is deemed not to be “the restrainer”, how might that impact the pre-tribulation “Rapture” doctrine? And how might that impact your day to day life?

 

__________________________

[1] Trivia: the horn blast sequence is the same each time, which is intended to indicate “X” in Morse code: dash-dot-dot-dash. (Technically, the second “dash” is too long—should be the same length as the first—and the space between the first “dash” and the “dots” is a bit too long.)

[2] Robert L. Thomas, 2 Thessalonians, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 12, Ephesians ~ Philemon; Rev. Ed., D. Garland & T. Longman, Gen. Eds. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2006), pp 470-71; underscore added. (A typographical error in the page number references to Robertson’s Grammar [“208-9”] was corrected.) The bracketed portion was moved from the second set of parentheses to the first, given that it seems to be more accurately apply there (“masculine because of the Spirit’s personality”), which becomes evident below when Robertson is critiqued on this.

[3] A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, 4th ed. (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1934), p 684.

[4] But, then again, since the neuter is the same as the masculine in the dative (and genitive), this could possibly have caused confusion!

[5] The original reference to the girl comes in 5:23, in which she is introduced by thygatrion (little daughter)—the diminutive form of thygatēr—and this term is neuter though clearly referencing a little girl by its definition. This illustrates that even when the very definition of a term indicates the sex/gender of the person described by the term this does not necessarily mean it will also correlate to the person’s “natural gender”.

[6] Robertson, Grammar, p 436.

[7] Bear in mind that Robertson’s work was written in the early 1900s, well before any modern ideas of gender.

[8] On the surface, this is a grammatical error. A rough equivalent in English would be, “When the boy saw Jesus, the woman…” in which ‘the woman’ is the same person as ‘the boy’ at the beginning. But I think Mark was quite purposeful here. In light of his previous accounts (1:23-26; 5:2-13)—which we’ll investigate below—the Gospel writer intended to more sharply show the distinction between the possessing spirt and its host.

[9] Rodney J. Decker, Mark 9—16, Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament (Waco, TX: Baylor UP, 2014), p 17 (Greek transliterated). I very much respect the late Decker, recalling his words from the Introduction in the BHGNT here explaining his selection of commentaries sourced for his two-part volume: “My choice to engage these writers beginning with the old ICC volume by Gould (1896)…is an attempt to give writers their due. Sometimes more recent commentators are simply a collection of snippets from older works, with or without credit” (p xxiv).

[10] Ezra P. Gould, The Gospel According to St. Mark, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary; ed. Samuel Rolles Driver, Alfred Plummer, and Charles A. Briggs; Accordance electronic ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), paragraph 5185 (at 9:20). Craig A. Evans, in his WBC (Mark 8:27—16:20, Word Biblical Commentary [Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2001]), disappointingly, at best merely indirectly addresses the grammatical issue, if at all: “The spirit is said to have seen Jesus, and it is the spirit that is said to have convulsed the boy. The symptoms may have been those usually associated with epilepsy, but the Markan evangelist makes it clear that it was an evil spirit, something distinct from the boy himself, that caused the illness” (p 52, emphasis added). But even this is better than the others consulted which didn’t mention the grammatical issue in any manner.

[11] Gender is not specifically expressed here, but neuter is implied from its use in both participles in 1:26.

[12] Interestingly, in my software the NA28 is tagged neuter, while the GNT is tagged masculine. There is no textual variant here.

[13] Though autou is ms/nt in both 1:25 and 1:26, these obviously refer to the man as distinct from the unclean spirit.

[14] Such a faulty notion can come from the plural “the unclean spirits” (to pneuma to akathartos) in 1:28, but this is unnecessary. An exclamation in the plural for one singular surprising action is not uncommon in English: Upon discovering your seemingly non-mechanically-inclined neighbor had replaced the brake pads on his car you respond, “I didn’t know you worked on cars!”

[15] Contra, e.g., Robert H. Stein (Mark, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the Greek New Testament {BECNT} [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2008], who specifically asserts, “The ‘us’ refers not to the man and the unclean spirit, but to unclean spirits as a group” (p 87). Couldn’t it be both/and? See next note.

[16] This comports with the local context here. Thus, the verb “destroy” (apollumi)—rendered “ruin” here—in 1:24 is likely intended polysemy. On one level the possessing spirit is concerned Jesus will separate it from its host. This is reflected in the second entry in Frederick W. Danker’s The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the Greek New Testament (Chicago, IL: Chicago UP, 2009): “’experience disconnection or separation’—a. lose with focus on what one has or possesses” (p 47). Though Danker specifically places Mk 1:24 in his first entry (“’cause severe damage’—a. by making ineffective or incapable of functioning destroy”, p 47), I think both apply. More specifically, the latter (destroy) applies both singly to the possessing spirit here and collectively for all demons in the new eschatological age Jesus inaugurated. See Robert A. Guelich, Mark 1—8:26, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, TX: Word Books, 1989), pp 58-60.

[17] Gould, St. Mark, states: “Only the man had been mentioned before, which would lead us to refer this [ambiguous ms/nt pronoun] to him. But the command is evidently addressed to the demon. This confusion is due to the identification of the two” (para 4631 [at 5:8]; emphasis added).

[18] The Textus Receptus has the masculine plural pronoun rather than the neuter. Gould thinks this is original (para 4640 [at 5:10]). In view of overall context (to include 9:20), I’m inclined to disagree with Gould, though the manuscript evidence is far from definitive—from what little I know, admittedly. Yet it’s curious that neither Metzger nor Comfort (New Testament Text and Translation Commentary) make note of this variant, for there seems legitimate cause to question the proper text. The NA28 (Holger Strutwolf, ed., Novum Testamentum Graece, 28th, Accordance electronic ed. [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012], p 119) lists the following in the apparatus:

αυτους αποστειλη D ƒ13 28. 565. 700. 1424. (ƒ1 2542) 𝔐 ¦ αποστειλη αυτους A 579. 1241. ℓ 2211 it ¦ αυτον αποστειλη ℵ L (⸉ K W 892) lat syp bo ¦ txt B C Δ (⸉ Θ).

It may not matter much in translation, but it might be worth discussion by specialists.

[19] The opinion of Gould, Mark, is nuanced somewhat differently, “Here the subject changes from the man speaking for the demons to the demons speaking through the man” (para 4646).

[20] See I. Howard Marshall, Acts, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2008), pp 285—87.

[21] F. F. Bruce (The Acts of the Apostles: Greek Text with Introduction and Commentary; 3rd rev. ed. [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990]) sources Plutarch’s De defectu oraculorum (9.414E) which “calls such soothsayers…ventriloquists who uttered words not only apparently, but really, beyond their own control” (p 360). Cf. Darrell L. Bock, Acts, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the Greek New Testament [BECNT] (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), pp 535 note 2, 535—37.

[22] Robertson, Grammar, pp 708-709. Here is the complete quote in its context, with transliterations in parentheses after the Greek: “Two passages in John call for remark, inasmuch as they bear on the personality of the Holy Spirit. In 14:26, ὁ δὲ παράκλητος, τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὃ πέμψει ὁ πατὴρ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει (ho de paraklētos, to pneuma to hagion, ho pempsei ho patēr en tō̧ onomati mou, ekeinos hymas didaxei), the relative ὅ (ho) follows the grammatical gender of πνεῦμα (pneuma). Ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos), however, skips over πνεῦμα (pneuma) and reverts to the gender of παράκλητος (paraklētos). In 16:13 a more striking example occurs, ὅταν δὲ ἔλθῃἐκεῖνος, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας (hotan de elthȩ̄ ekeinos, to pneuma tēs alētheias). Here one has to go back six lines to ἐκεῖνος (ekeinos) again and seven to παράκλητος (paraklētos). It is more evident therefore in this passage that John is insisting on the personality of the Holy Spirit, when the grammatical gender so easily called for ἐκεῖνο (ekeino) [ED: neuter (instead of masculine)].”

[23] Robertson, Grammar, pp 708-709.

[24] Robertson, Grammar, p 709.

[25] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), pp 331, 332,

[26] Wallace, Grammar, p 332; cf. p 338.

[27] Wallace, Grammar, p 332, ftnt 44.

[28] Wallace, Grammar, p 332. Wallace does not, however, advance any sort of argument.

Another Paraclete?

John the Gospel writer records Jesus’ words describing “another paraclete” (14:16). Though typically spelled paraclete in English, the Greek is (transliterated) paraklētos. The curious reader might wonder, “If Jesus refers to another paraklētos, who is (are) the other(s)?”

Let’s investigate, focusing on the ‘another’ before we search for the ‘other(s)’.

First, we’ll define the term, a noun. A compound word, it combines the preposition para (beside, along, by, near) with the adjective klētos (summoned, called, invited, chosen). Thus, according to its etymology, paraklētos might mean something like “one summoned alongside”.

Seldom used in antiquity, in Demosthenes the term refers to a legal aid, an advocate. The word means intercessor in the works of Hellenistic Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, a contemporary of Jesus and the Apostles. These two points of reference lay out the background—not necessarily the impetus—for its usage in Scripture. Completely absent in the Old Testament, the word occurs a mere five times in the New Testament, all in the Johannine corpus (works attributed to John).

Revealing ‘Another’ Paraklētos

Jesus’ speech in the Farewell Discourse (John 14—17) contains all four instances of paraklētos in John’s Gospel. The portions below should provide adequate context for analysis. My commentary interjects. Though the primary intent here is to identify this ‘another’ paraklētos and his associated functions, other related data will also be addressed. All pronouns specifically referring to paraklētos are underlined in the Scripture translations (but not in the commentary).

14:15 “If you love Me, you will obey My commands. 16 Then I will ask the Father, and he will give you another paraklētos, so that He may be with you forever— 17 the Spirit of truth, Whom the world cannot receive, because it neither perceives Him nor recognizes Him. But you know Him, for He stays by you, and He will be in you. 18 I will not leave you abandoned; I will come to you. 19 Yet in a bit the world will no longer see Me. But you will see Me. Because I live, you also will live. 20 In that day, you will realize that I am in my Father—and you [are] in Me, and I in you. 21 The one who has My commands and obeys them, that person loves me. And the one who loves Me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and reveal Myself to him.”1

First, observe the prerequisite for the Father to give this paraklētos: you must obey Jesus’ commands, thereby proving you really love Him (vv. 15—16). Reciprocity frames this entire section (vv. 15—16; v. 21). Jesus and the Father love those who love Jesus. The rewards for showing your love for Him are provided in the giving of this paraklētos and in Jesus’ promise to self-reveal.

Another moniker for this paraklētos is the Spirit of truth (v. 17). This Spirit of truth appears to function like the Holy Spirit. That is, the way this is laid out seems to indicate this paraklētos is indeed the Holy Spirit. For after providing a description of the Spirit’s then-current function (He stays by you), His future indwelling is foretold (He will be in you).

Jesus refers to His forthcoming Crucifixion: Yet in a bit the world will no longer see Me (v. 19). Jesus also predicts His Resurrection and post-Resurrection appearances in I will come to you (v. 18). This is paralleled with and you [are] in Me, and I in you (v. 20) as well as reveal Myself to him (v. 21).

He will be in you surely refers to the Spirit’s indwelling at Pentecost in Acts 2, and it is possible that day (v. 20) does as well. Specifically, though in context In that day seems best understood as referring to the Resurrection and Jesus’ post-Resurrection appearances, it may also be intended to encompass the Ascension and the subsequent giving of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost as well (v. 19: you will also live).

Should this analysis prevail, this paraklētos (aka the Spirit of truth) and Jesus appear to overlap in function to the extent the two ‘Persons’ seem entwined to a degree (reveal Myself to him). That is, the Spirit that will be in you (v. 17) may Himself act as Christ in some fashion (v. 20: and I in you). Stated another way, that day may refer to the day of Pentecost (He will be in you) when considered alongside the final clauses of v. 20 (and I [Jesus] in you) and v. 21 (reveal Myself to him2), signifying some sort of intertwining of the two. Assuming so, Jesus self-reveals in conjunction with or via the Spirit of truth. This overlap of ‘Persons’ and functions is borne out in other Scripture, such as Colossians 1:27 (Christ in you, the hope of glory) when viewed in conjunction with Ephesians 1:13—14. These connections will become clearer as we progress.3

And could the Spirit of truth refer back to Jesus’ previous declaration I am the way, the truth, and the life (14:6)?

Further Unveiling and Clarifications

At this juncture we might surmise that Jesus Himself is the other paraklētos. Let’s see how the rest unfolds.

Continuing on, we find Judas interrupting Jesus, seeking clarification:

22 Judas (not Iscariot) asked him, “Lord, how can it be that You are going to reveal Yourself to us, yet not to the world?”

In answering Judas’ question, Jesus sheds more light on this paraklētos’ function:

23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves Me, he will obey My word; then My Father will love him, and We will come to him and reside with him. 24 Anyone who does not love Me does not obey My word. Yet the word you hear is not from Me, but from the Father who sent Me. 25 These things I have spoken to you while remaining with you. 26 But the paraklētosthe Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My nameThat One will teach you all things, and remind you of everything I told you.

27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give to you—not as the world gives do I give you. Don’t allow your heart to be disturbed and don’t be afraid. 28 You heard Me tell you, ‘I am going away’, yet I will come back to you.”

Positively, Jesus reiterates that to love Him means to obey My word, which brings about the Father’s love. Negatively, in His somewhat indirect answer to Judas, He implies that those who don’t love Him—as indicated by their refusal to obey His word—are those of ‘the world’.

Apparently Judas assumed Jesus’ words reveal Myself to him (v. 21) were a reference to His Parousia, His return, the Advent. That is, it seems he rightly understood (v. 22) that Jesus’ Parousia would be seen by all (cf. Matthew 24:27); consequently, he couldn’t comprehend how Jesus would be revealing Himself to the Apostles yet not the world. However, Jesus was instead referring to His Resurrection and post-Resurrection appearances (and likely beyond—see previous section). Judas’ apparent mistake was in interpreting all Jesus’ words above through the narrow lens of v. 19 (in a bit the world will no longer see Me. But you will see Me), thereby erroneously delimiting them. Because Judas didn’t foresee the Resurrection, he assumed a near-future Parousia.

Yet Jesus was also referring to the future up to and including His Parousia. How so? Jesus would reveal Himself (v. 21) through the functions of this paraklētos—now specifically identified as the Holy Spirit—Who will teach you all things and remind you of everything [Jesus] told you (v. 26). Though Jesus’ immediate audience was the Apostles, the enduring nature of the Scriptures indicates these functions would apply to subsequent believers. Thus, these operations of the Spirit-paraklētos continue all the way to the Advent. This will come into sharper focus as we continue.

The last sentence in v. 27 echoes 14:1 (Don’t allow your heart to be disturbed and don’t be afraid). Thus, in context with v. 28, this likely intends to allude to 13:33 (I will be with you only a bit longer; cf. 14:19) and 14:2—3 (many rooms…I will prepare a place for you…come back to you…so you may be where I am), which would then imply both the Parousia and post-Parousia (the afterlife).

In other words, though Jesus is referring to His Resurrection in v. 18 (I will come to you) and v. 19 (you will see Me), in the larger context the Resurrection itself should be seen as foreshadowing—or perhaps the first stage of—His Parousia. Moreover, though v. 23 (we will come to him and reside with him) surely refers to the initial Spirit indwelling,4 the post-Parousia (afterlife) could also be in view considering v. 19 (Because I live, you also will live).5 That is, these clauses may well refer to both the temporal and the eternal realms (and see Craig Keener’s blog post here). Assuming so, this would not be so much a case of collapsing eschatology (in some sort of over-realized sense6), but indicating the continuing multivalence of—the layers of meaning in—Jesus’ words here.

Christ also clarifies what He means by My word (vv. 23, 24), which is obviously a synonym for My commands (vv. 15, 21; cf. 8:31—32) here.  For, though it is Jesus’ word, its ultimate origin is from the Father who sent Him (v. 24).

The Spirit-paraklētos, aka the Holy Spirit, will be sent in the name of Jesus—in Jesus’ authority—by the Father (v. 26).

To recap, the Spirit-paraklētos that will be in you (v. 17) will function to teach you all things and remind you of everything [Jesus] told you (v. 26).

The Spirit-Paraklētos Testifies about Jesus through Disciples

Now moving to the next section describing the Spirit-paraklētos:

15:26 “When the paraklētos comes, Whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth, the One Who comes forth from the Father—That One will testify about Me. 27 And you also will testify, because you have been with me from the beginning.”

Somewhat paradoxically, in 14:26 it is the Father who sends the Holy Spirit (aka the Spirit-paraklētos) in Jesus’ name, whereas in 15:26 Jesus sends the Spirit-paraklētos to the Apostles, though this Spirit of truth comes forth from the Father. In the former (14:26) the Father performs the action (“will send”), in the latter (15:26) Jesus does (“will send”). Note also here in 15:26 Jesus specifies that it is the Spirit of truth that comes forth from the Father,7 while in 14:16 the Father gives the Spirit-paraklētos to the Apostles in response to Jesus’ petition. Thus, the Spirit-paraklētos’ point of departure (“comes forth”) is from the Father yet He is sent by both Father and Son. Once again, ‘Persons’ in the Trinity overlap functionally.8

Another function comes to light here. The Spirit-paraklētos will testify about Jesus (v. 26). In turn, the Apostles will testify about Jesus (v. 27). This implies that the Spirit-paraklētos’ testimony will come through the Apostles. This harmonizes with the activities sketched in 14:26: to teach the Apostles all things and to remind them of everything Jesus told them. The Spirit-paraklētos teaches the Apostles and reminds them of what Jesus told them so He can testify through them.

So the Apostles—and subsequent Christian disciples—are the agents of the Spirit-paraklētos in this regard. And, perhaps, the Spirit-paraklētos is the agent of Jesus in the same: reveal Myself to him through the Spirit-paraklētos (see 2:22; 12:16). Assuming so, the Apostles and disciples act as agents of the Spirit-paraklētos, Who, in turn, performs as Jesus’ agent.

Actions of the Spirit-Paraklētos in the World

Paraklētos appears one last time in John’s Gospel—specifically in chapter 16:

16:5 “Yet now I withdraw to him who sent Me, and not one of you asks Me, ‘Where do you go?’ 6 But because I have spoken these things to you, sorrow has filled your hearts. 7 But I tell you the truth: It benefits you that I depart. For if I do not depart, the paraklētos will not come to you; yet if I go, I will send Him to you. 8 When That One comes He will convict the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment: 9 with regard to sin, because they do not believe; 10 but concerning righteousness, because I withdraw to the Father and you no longer see Me; 11 and, concerning judgment, that the ruler of this world has been judged.”

As with 15:26, in 16:7 Jesus is the One sending the Spirit-paraklētos.

The three listed functions of the Spirit-paraklētosconvict the world concerning sin, righteousness, and judgment (v. 8)—are not well-defined and open to a number of interpretive possibilities. Given this Gospel’s penchant for multivalence, these possibilities may all be true. It is beyond the scope of this article to attempt to exhaustively detail these possibilities.9

Sin in v. 9 could mean He will correct those in the world of wrong ideas pertaining to what constitutes sin. It could mean convict of the sin they are engaging in towards their repentance. It could mean convict of unbelief in Christ.

As pertaining to righteousness (v. 10), the Spirit-paraklētos convicts because Jesus goes to the Father. This may be understood as a simple statement of fact: Now that Jesus is no longer here to point out unrighteousness, the Spirit-paraklētos takes over.  In other words, here “righteousness” may be meant to be understood in a negative sense. In this way, for example, the self-righteous Jewish leaders who coerced Pilate to crucify Jesus may be convicted—deemed unbelievers by the Spirit—because of their push to crucify Him. On the one hand, there are those who remain convicted of their self-righteousness in this regard (“Crucify Him!”). On the other hand, some may be driven to repent (after coming under conviction) from their role in Jesus’ death and thereby come to faith via the Spirit-paraklētos.

So, in regards to the world, the Spirit-paraklētos testifies about Jesus (15:26).

Because Christ has triumphed over the ‘ruler of this world’, the world stands condemned (v. 11). It follows then that those aligning with the ‘ruler of this world’ similarly stand condemned.

The Spirit-Paraklētos’ Future Role in the Disciples

One remaining portion of chapter 16 contains the Spirit-paraklētos, but it is via masculine pronouns referring to it rather than the term itself (as implied from 16:7 above).10

12 “I have many more things to say to you, but you aren’t able to bear them now. 13 But when That One comes—the Spirit of truthHe will guide you into all truth, for He will not speak on His own, but He will speak only what He hears. And He will disclose to you things yet to come. 14 That One will bring glory to Me, because He will receive from Me and disclose it to you. 15 Everything that the Father has is Mine; therefore, I said this because He receives from Me and will disclose it to you.”

Potential information overload appears to be Jesus’ concern here (v. 12). So, Christ lays things out slowly, repeating a bit as He goes.

The Spirit-paraklētos, aka the Spirit of truth, will guide them (and future disciples) into all truth (v. 13). This seems to be a summation of all the functions outlined earlier, to include the statement that He will act as Jesus’ agent (vv. 13—15), thus solidifying earlier assumptions (in the conclusion of The Spirit-Paraklētos Testifies about Jesus through Disciples section above). But here also the Spirit-paraklētos has a future role, perhaps eschatological (things yet to come, v. 13).

The mutuality between Father and Son is restated, but this time much more strongly implying a Trinitarian relationship: Since the Father had given all things to Jesus (cf. 3:35; 5:20; 13:3), then Jesus can relay these same things to the Spirit-paraklētos, aka the Holy Spirit, aka the Spirit of truth (vv. 14—15).11 And the Spirit-paraklētos discloses these things to the Apostles and disciples.

Identifying the Other Paraklētos

In Scripture paraklētos finds itself one final time in the first epistle of John (1John 1:5—2:6):12

1:5 This is the message we have heard from Him and declare to you: God is light and in him is no darkness—none. 6 If we say we have fellowship with him yet walk in darkness, we are lying and do not practice the truth. 7 If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship with each other, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, is cleansing us from all sin 8 If we claim that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. 10 If we claim that we have not sinned, we make him a liar and his word is not in us.

2:1 My dear children, these things I write to you in order that you do not sin. Yet if anyone does sin, we have a paraklētos with the Father: Jesus Christ, the Righteous. 2 And He is propitiation for our sins, though not for ours only, but even the entire world.

3 By this we recognize that we have come to know Him: if we obey His commands. 4 The one who says, “I have come to know Him”, yet does not obey His commands is a liar, and in him there is no truth. 5 But whoever obeys His word, in this one the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know we are in Him: 6 The one who says he abides in Him must himself walk as Jesus walked.

Though tentatively deduced above, this text confirms Jesus is indeed the other paraklētos. Therefore, when Jesus told His disciples He would send “another paraklētos” (John 14:16) He meant one besides Himself.

This section begins (1:5) with Jesus as the one we have heard from. But then it quickly moves to God the Father as its subject, with all third person pronouns through v. 10 referring to God. Jesus, His Son in v. 7 provides the lone exception. The theme of God as light juxtaposed with darkness in vv. 5—7 may intentionally allude to John 1:4—5, with the Gospel’s the Word exchanged here for God. Bolstering this line of thought is the statement in v. 9 that God is faithful and righteous—two attributes applied to Jesus elsewhere, the latter attributed to Him in 2:1 here.

While the focal point is certainly in 2:1—2, note the verbal parallels and similarities in the surrounding context (1:6—1:10; 2:2b—2:5) with the passages in Jesus’ Farewell Discourse above. From John’s Gospel we know that only those who obey Jesus’ word/commands will receive the Spirit-paraklētos. Negatively stated, those who do not obey Jesus’ word/commands will not receive the Spirit-paraklētos. Thus, it follows that those who have come to know Him—as evidenced by obeying His commands—have the Spirit-paraklētos indwelling. This indwelling provides the privilege to petition Jesus, Who acts as paraklētos on our behalf to God the Father.

The referents for the pronouns Him and His throughout 2:3—6 are unclear, and this may well be the author’s intention. From John 14:24 we know that when Jesus referred to My word and My commands, their origin was actually from the Father. Thus, any such purposeful ambiguity would further blur the roles of the Trinitarian ‘Persons’.

Perhaps “intermediary” best defines paraklētos generally in Scripture. In the role of paraklētos the Spirit communicates Jesus’ words to the believer.  Similarly, Jesus communicates the petitions of the believer to the Father. The Holy Spirit acts as Jesus’ agent to the believer; Jesus acts as our agent to the Father.

And through the power and mediation of the Spirit we act as God’s agents in the world, testifying about Jesus. In this sense, each believer is a paraklētos. What a privilege—and responsibility—we have.

_________________________

1 My translation, as is all here. The bracketed are in v. 20 is absent in the Greek, though added here for intelligibility.

2 See paraklētos’ function in this regard further below, especially in The Spirit-Paraklētos Testifies about Jesus through Disciples section.

3 While here we have overlap of Son and Spirit, later we will see overlap of Father and Son as well.

4 Thereby implying Trinitarianism: Father, Son and Spirit will come to live with the one who loves Jesus.

5 Cf. Rev 21:1—22:6; see “Looking Past the Future”.

6 By “over-realized” I mean an extreme interpretation such that the Parousia was to occur at the Resurrection or during the Apostolic era.

7 Regarding the use of the verb ekporeuesthai, “comes forth”, in 15:26, see Raymond E. Brown, The Gospel According to John XIII-XXI, The Anchor Yale Bible (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1974): This description made its way into 4th century creeds to describe the eternal procession of the Third Person of the Trinity from the Father…However…the coming forth is in parallelism with the “I shall send”…and refers to the mission of the Paraclete/Spirit to men…The writer is not speculating about the interior life of God; he is concerned with the disciples in the world (p 689). In other words, in its context here “comes forth” says nothing about what is known in some circles as the immanent Trinity in terms of the eternal genesis of the Spirit-paraklētos. Rather, it refers to the sending of the Spirit-paraklētos in salvation history.

8 See notes 3 and 5 and related text.

9 See, e.g., D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary, D. A. Carson, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), pp 534—539.

10 This is in distinction from any referring to the Spirit of truth, which would require a neuter pronoun since the Greek word for “Spirit” (pneuma) is neuter. All the translated-to-English personal pronouns (He) in v. 13 are attached to verbs—which do not encode gender—and therefore could either be masculine referring to paraklētos or neuter referring to the Spirit [of truth]. Similarly, the reflexive His own (in the genitive, heautou) could be either masculine or neuter. Thus, I’ve made an exegetical decision in assigning these masculine, relating to the masculine demonstrative That One due to the presence of the masculine demonstrative yet again in v. 14, thereby assuming this intervening text also refers to paraklētos (v. 7) rather than the Spirit [of truth]. For all practical purposes it matters little for, as noted above, the Spirit of truth is an alternative moniker for this same Entity.

11 See notes 3, 5 and 8 and related text.

12 In 2:2 propitiation should be understood to include both expiation and propitiation. The personal pronoun He is uncertain as to its referent (paraklētos or Jesus), but I take it to be paraklētos in this context, given the mediatory function in forgiving sins.

Not One Parousia, But Two

When the time arrives, be sure you’re following the right parousia.

Some readers may immediately think, “Sure. But what’s a parousia?” Glad you asked. This term is used in the technical (and not-so technical) literature for Jesus’ Second Coming, aka the Advent, and is most often capitalized (Parousia).1

This particular word is used in this way, because it is found in a number of New Testament (NT) texts in reference to Jesus’ return. Seventeen to be exact. These include Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount of Olives, aka the Olivet Discourse:

…when shall these things be and what is the sign of your parousia, and of the end of the age? (Matt 24:3)

For as lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so will be the parousia of the Son of Man (Matt 24:27)

However, there are other occurrences of this term in reference to other persons. One refers to the arrival of Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus (1 Cor 16:17). Two others refer to the arrival of Titus (2 Cor 7:6—7). Comparatively, there are three occurrences of the term referring to Paul’s physical presence (2 Cor 10:10; Phlp 1:26; 2:12). As can be observed, the term has shades of meaning. And some translations interpret the shades a bit differently in the contexts cited here.

Except for one usage, the occurrences of parousia for Christ refer to His forthcoming arrival or presence in person again. But even this exception points to what underlies the understanding of the Advent. In 2 Peter 1:16 the term refers to the Transfiguration:

For it was not by following cunningly contrived fables we made known to you the powerful parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ; rather, we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.

The term had been used in antiquity for the fanfare surrounding the arrival of a king, ruler, or dignitary (see definition A2 here). The ISBE records how parousia was found in various inscriptions, noting specifically its application to the Greek god of medicine:

In Hellenistic Greek it was used for the arrival of a ruler at a place, as is evidenced by inscriptions in Egypt, Asia Minor, etc. Indeed, in an Epidaurus inscription of the 3rd century BC…‘Parousia’ is applied to a manifestation of Aesculapius [Aσκληπιός Asklēpiós]. Consequently, the adoption of Greek-speaking Christians of a word that already contained full regal and even Divine concepts was perfectly natural.2

In Paul’s letters to the Thessalonian ekklēsia (“church”), he uses the term with this sort of regal backdrop. These epistles contain six of the seventeen total uses referencing Jesus: 1 Thessalonians 2:19; 3:13; 4:15; 5:23; 2 Thessalonians 2:1,8. This is obvious in 1 Thess 3:13 (…at the parousia of the Lord Jesus with His holy ones3), but especially in the magnificent usage in 2 Thess 2:8:

And then the lawless one will be revealed—whom the Lord Jesus will cast away with the breath of His mouth and extinguish by the radiance of His parousia

However, this is contrasted with the one remaining use of parousia, which is found in the very next verse—the parousia you do not want to follow. For, 2 Thess 2:9 describes the pseudo-parousia. This is best seen in context with 2:8 & 10:

8 And then the lawless one will be revealed—whom the Lord Jesus will cast away with the breath of His mouth and extinguish by the radiance of His parousia9 which is the parousia according to the working of Satan, with every kind of power and pseudo signs and wonders, 10 and in every manner of unrighteous deception, for those perishing…

For readability, English translations smooth out Paul’s words a bit. For the moment, if we remove the portion in the em dashes (—), the text would be more like: And then the lawless one will be revealed, which is the parousia according to the working of Satan, with every kind of power and pseudo signs and wonders, and in every manner of unrighteous deception, for those perishing….  

Importantly, observe from the text of 2 Thess 2:8—10 that this pseudo-parousia precedes the true parousiathe parousia of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This also means Satan is well-aware of Jesus’ forthcoming parousia, and he plans to perform a parody of it, to the extent it will fool many. The enemy has been busy in this diabolical plan. Evidence for this is found, for example, in the occult works of Alice A. Bailey. Bailey was the conduit by which the following words regarding this false Christ  and pseudo-parousia were channeled in 1919 :

Eventually, there will appear the Church Universal, and its definite outlines will appear towards the close of this [20th] century…This Church will be nurtured into activity by the Christ and His disciples when the outpouring of the Christ principle, the true second Coming, has been accomplished. No date for the advent do I set, but the time will not be long.4

Assuming we are all here at that time, be sure to await the real, true parousia, not the one described just above. Your spiritual life depends on it.

_________________________

1 As an aside, interestingly, even my version of MS Word defaults to capitalizing this word. It is also found in online dictionaries this way. This is because the current technical meaning of the term as Christ’s Advent is assumed.

2 Burton Scott Easton, “Parousia”, in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, James Orr, Gen Ed., 1st Ed. (1915), prepared by Accordance/Oak Tree Software, Inc. Version 2.4, para 43388

3 The words translated “holy ones” (hoi agioi, here in the genitive tōn agiōn) are the same words used elsewhere in the NT many times for Christ-followers, i.e., human ‘saints’. But it is unclear whether this is the correct interpretation here. Paul specifically states that Christ will be accompanied by angels in 2 Thess 1:7. Moreover, in 1 Thess 4:16 a shout of an archangel and a “trumpet of God” herald His return (alternatively, the shout of God’s archangel ‘trumpets’ Christ’s return). Also, in apocalyptic literature of the OT, “holy ones” refers to angels (Job 5:1; 15:15; Ps 89:7-8; Dan 4:34; 8:13{?}; Zech 14:5{?}). On the other hand, the context of Dan 7:18 seems to refer to glorified human saints, while Dan 8:13 and Zech 14:5 are a bit ambiguous. Thus, it is possible that 1 Thess 4:16 and 2 Thess 1:7 are not meant to exclude human saints (though, importantly, 1 Thess 4:15 indicates dead saints precede those still alive). Therefore, it is possible that both angels and glorified humans are in view here.

4 Alice A. Bailey, The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, © 1957 Lucis Publishing Company, NY, 6th printing (Albany, NY: Fort Orange Press, 1981), p 510; bold added for emphasis. While the book was not first published until 1957, most sections within the book have corresponding dates of initial writing, or, more accurately, transmission.  The portion quoted here looks to be from 1919 (see page 502 and intervening text), which would then be some of the earliest writings of Bailey in partnership with Djwhal Khul, aka The Tibetan or Master D. K.

Bob Dylan’s New Christian Themed Album

After releasing his first new material in quite a while with “Murder Most Foul”—a nearly 17 minute track about the assassination of JFK—Dylan subsequently announced a forthcoming full-length release. Now available, the album Rough and Rowdy Ways contains only new material written by him.

The way I interpret the record, Dylan has rekindled his Christian faith. Though there are what seem to be overt lyrics in this regard, there are other more opaque references.

The overt references include these from “Crossing the Rubicon” (for those unaware, this phrase is a metaphor for point of no return):

I feel the Holy Spirit inside
See the light that freedom gives
I believe it’s in the reach of
Every man who lives
Keep as far away as possible
It’s darkest ‘fore the dawn (Oh Lord)
I turned the key, I broke it off
And I crossed the Rubicon

Plus the following from “I Made Up My Mind to Give Myself to You”:

If I had the wings of a snow white dove
I’d preach the gospel, the gospel of love
A love so real, a love so true
I’ve made up my mind to give myself to you

This whole song can be read as the songwriter rededicating his life to Jesus Christ. The lyrics can be found at AZLyrics (The line I hope the gods go easy on me I interpret as I hope men deeming themselves gods go easy on me.) And by scrolling to the bottom of the AZ link, you can find lyrics to the remaining pieces on Rough and Rowdy Ways.

The album finds Dylan pondering his temporal life, his faith, his mortal end, the end of all things generally (which I think he believes is imminent), and immortality.

Starting from the beginning of the album, “I Contain Multitudes” finds the writer admitting he’s a man of contradictions. Aren’t we all, if we’re honest. This sets up two tracks in which Dylan narrates in the first person  as (A) a false prophet (“False Prophet”), though claiming he’s not (I ain’t no false prophet), and (B) as Satan describing how he’ll fashion the antichrist (“My Own Version of You”). While an initial reading of (A) I opened my heart up to the world and the world came in could be autobiographical, when interpreted in view of the whole, Dylan speaking from the perspective of a false prophet makes the best sense.

“My Own Version of You” has appropriately repulsive imagery to match the concealed ugliness of the subject—the yet to be revealed antichrist:

I’ve been visiting morgues and monasteries
Looking for the necessary body parts
Limbs and livers and brains and hearts
I’ll bring someone to life, is what I wanna do
I’m gonna create my own version of you

The following lines make his meaning clearer (see 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12; Revelation 13:11-18):

I’ll bring someone to life, someone for real
Someone who feels the way that I feel

That Dylan thinks the false Christ’s time is nigh may be gleaned by this line borrowed from Shakespeare: Well, it must be the winter of my discontent.

The sequencing of the songs appears to be quite on purpose. With the first one admitting his own contradictory nature, the second posing as the false prophet, the third as Satan fashioning the antichrist, the writer seems to be reflecting his own notion that the end times are near. With all this in mind, a rededication to Jesus at this juncture makes sense. Thus, the fourth track is “I Made Up My Mind to Give Myself to You”.

The fifth track, “Black Rider”, finds Dylan pondering death itself. At times he’s pushing death away (My heart is at rest, I’d like to keep it that way / I don’t wanna fight, at least not today), other times he’s ready to give in:

Black rider, black rider, tell me when, tell me how
If there ever was a time, then let it be now
Let me go through, open the door
My soul is distressed, my mind is at war

Ah, those contradictions.

After two tracks of what I think are ‘living in the world but not of the world’—“Goodbye Jimmy Reed” and “Mother of Muses”—the songwriter begins “Crossing the Rubicon” with my favorite of the non-overt Christian lyrics:

I crossed the Rubicon on the 14th day
Of the most dangerous month of the year

This is most certainly a reference to Nisan 14 on the Jewish calendar—the first day of the Jewish Passover, corresponding to the day Jesus became the Paschal Lamb (Passover Lamb), according to John’s Gospel (and 1 Corinthians 5:7). That is, the day Christ was crucified. I think these lyrics signify Dylan’s (re)dedication to Christ. This doesn’t necessarily mean Dylan metaphorically “crossed the Rubicon”—gave his life to Christ—on Good Friday, though it could.

Each verse of this song ends with the words And I crossed the Rubicon. Surely “crossed” here is a double entendre, referring also to accepting the Cross of Christ. This is evident in the lyrics beginning the second verse:

Well, the Rubicon is a red river
Goin’ gently as she flows
Redder than your ruby lips
And the blood that flows from the rose

This “red river” must be the blood of Christ, redder than…the blood that flows from the rose.

The final track (excluding “Murder Most Foul”, which is placed on a disk by itself in the cd release) “Key West (Philosopher Pirate)” makes the island a metaphor for the journey to paradise (‘Abraham’s bosom’) —the hereafter. This is my favorite piece both musically and lyrically.

Dylan frames it with US President William McKinley’s assassination. The piece begins:

McKinley hollered, McKinley squalled
Doctor said, “McKinley, death is on the wall
‪Say it to me, if you got something to confess”

Then near the end of the song Dylan writes I heard the news, I heard your last request / Fly around, my pretty little Miss. This appears to be Dylan using the president’s wife’s words to her husband at his deathbed, she wishing to go with him, to which he reportedly replied: “We are all going, we are all going. God’s will be done, not ours.” However, perhaps more important to the song here are the accounts that either McKinley or his wife sang the lyrics to the Christian hymn “Nearer, My God, to Thee”.

The closing chorus thematically ties it all together:

Key West is the place to be
‪If you’re looking for immortality
‪Stay on the road, follow the highway sign
‪Key West is fine and fair
‪If you lost your mind, you will find it there
‪Key West is on the horizon line

A fitting finale. Make up your mind, make the commitment, cross the Rubicon. Stay the course, follow the Spirit. You’ll reach Key West, immortality. It’s right there on the horizon. At least it’s on Dylan’s horizon.

[See the related Tangled Up in Quasi-Truth.]

Looking Past the Future

Looking at the present, the immediate future is uncertain. But of this I am sure: a much brighter future awaits us.

For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so will be the arrival of the Son of Man” (Matthew 24:27).

And the culmination of this future may resemble our distant past. Our very beginning. Before we fell into darkness.

In the Apocalypse—the book of Revelation—John the revelator describes the New Jerusalem (Rev 21:2, 10). A Throne is its centerpiece, its Sanctuary is the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb (21:22). Light radiating from them obviates the sun, eliminates the night (21:23, 22:5). A Tree of Life is flanked by a life-giving river and a golden street (21:21), one as transparent as the other:1

1 Then the angel showed me a river with the water of life, clear as crystal, springing forth from the Throne of God and of the Lamb. 2 In between the city’s great street and the river stands a Tree of Life2 producing twelve fruits, corresponding to each month of the year, yielding one fruit per month. The leaves of the Tree provide healing for the people. 3 No longer will any curse be. The Throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and His servants will serve Him. 4 They will see His face, and His Name will be on their foreheads. 5 Night will no longer exist: They will have no need of lamplight or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will shed light upon them. And they will reign forevermore (Rev 22:1-5).

No curse! No night, no darkness! I have long championed the slogan “Water is life”, a maxim all the more true in the New Jerusalem.

May I endure to the end (Matthew 24:13), thereby finding my name included in the Lamb’s book of life (Rev 21:27). I sure could use some of those healing leaves.

Behold! I am coming soon” (Rev 22:12).

____________________________

1 What follows is my own translation.

2 This first part of the verse proved very difficult to translate. The Greek is:  ἐν μέσῳ τῆς πλατείας αὐτῆς καὶ τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐντεῦθεν καὶ ἐκεῖθεν ξύλον ζωῆς, en mesō̧ tēs plateias autēs kai tou potamou enteuthen kai ekeithen xylon zōēs. Translating as literally as possible: in middle/midst of-the great-street of-it and the river from-here and from-there tree of-life. There is no finite verb in this entire verse—something not uncommon in Scripture. The first clause up to “of-it” is a dative, but does it go with the main verb of 22:1 (“springing forth”) or are we to assume—and thus add in—a verb in 22:2? For me, it seemed nonsensical to envision a river flowing down the middle of a street (and with a tree or trees in the middle of it), so I looked for other options. I found the International Standard Version’s translation to make the most sense: the dative clause was to be applied to verse 2 rather than 1. The key for me was understanding “from here and from there” as helping to explain—as a rephrasing of—“in the midst”. In this way, the verse is understood in the middle of the city’s great street and the river, from here [the river—the focus from v. 1] and from there [the great street] (stands) a Tree of Life. From this understanding, I decided to omit “from here and from there”, thus rendering the first two words “in between” as a compromise.

Looking Forward to the Past

I saw this sign this morning:

future is past

Tangled Up in Quasi-Truth

We just saw it from a different point of view
Tangled up in blue1

I must admit I sometimes feel blue. At times there seems to be no reason for it. Other times there is.

When writing Christian apologetics—from the Greek word apologia, as found in 1 Peter 3:15 (…always ready to provide a defense to everyone who asks…)—it is imperative to do so with utmost integrity. We must uphold truth when defending the Truth. When I see quasi-truths and pseudo-truths in apologetics, I sometimes literally shake my head in sadness. Sometimes I get a bit angry. It’s disconcerting.

In this disinformation age, we are bombarded with partial truths and outright lies. Discerning truth from fiction can be quite difficult. Consequently, when assessing questionable conspiracy theories,2 we must be very careful not to fall into the same trap of connecting unrelated things in our critiques of them.3 I’m reminded of the cautionary words of Rabbi Samuel Sandmel:

It would seem to me to follow that, in dealing with similarities we can sometimes discover exact parallels, some with and some devoid of significance; seeming parallels which are so only imperfectly; and statements which can be called parallels only by taking them out of context.4

Recently, I came across On Point Preparedness, a ministry delving in end times (eschatology) and apologetics. I want to think Mike—the sole writer and vlogger—is sincere in his endeavors. Perhaps it would be fair that I give him as much benefit of the doubt as he gives the subjects in his critiques. In any case, I found a number of issues with some of his analyses, some egregious enough to induce me to write this blog post.

Going Off Point5

I’ve timestamped the clip below where On Point Preparedness (OPP) displays audio and video of a President Trump Rally just before the song “Sympathy for the Devil” is played.6

The clip provides lyrics to accompany the song for a bit. Then the vlogger segues to a snippet of a Bob Dylan interview, which OPP prefaces with these words:

Oh, and by the way, this song by Bob Dylan “Sympathy for the Devil”—yeah. You remember this interview where he said that he serves Satan, right?

Now, this is the part where I shake my head in dismay, disappointment. And then I get angry. This is extremely sloppy “journalism”. First of all, in the clip of Dylan’s words, the songwriter just does not say he “serves Satan”. The vlogger puts those words in Dylan’s mouth. Either that, or OPP meant to paraphrase Dylan’s supposed intended meaning. Can this meaning be inferred? Perhaps. But before making such a charge, intellectual integrity demands a search for the larger context in order to provide sufficient evidence to justify it.7 And further below, I provide such larger context, illustrating there is more likely a very different meaning intended here.

To outright assert that someone said thus-and-such without explicit proof is just inexcusable. And potentially libelous. Dylan’s lyrics below are appropriated for my purposes here:

Someone’s got in for me
They’re planting stories in the press
Whoever it is I wish they’d cut it out quick
When they will I can only guess.8

Oh, and by the way, this song “Sympathy for the Devil”—whatever one thinks of it—was written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of THE ROLLING STONES, and the song in the clip was performed by this same band. Though Bob Dylan most certainly wrote and performed the song “Like a Rolling Stone”, he just as certainly is not THE ROLLING STONES. There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of carelessness (confirmation bias?).9 Similar to the above, journalistic integrity requires a quick search to verify information before publishing. Even if the rest of his content was just fine, merely this one slip can render the entire document suspect by some viewers. But this is not the only issue here.

Below is the larger context of the interview—a 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley on November 19, 2004. At the time of original airing, the songwriter had just recently published his book Chronicles, Volume One (September 5, 2004). Take special note of the use of the word “destiny”. Italics indicate the portion OPP selected for his vlog (near the end); bold is my emphasis:

Ed Bradley: You use the word “destiny” over and over throughout the book. What does it mean to you?
Bob Dylan: It’s a feeling you have that you know something about yourself that nobody else does – the picture you have in your mind of what you’re about will come true. It’s kind of a thing you kind of have to keep to your own self, because it’s a fragile feeling. And if you put it out there, somebody will kill it. So, it’s best to keep that all inside.

EB: Let me talk a little bit about your relationship with the media. You wrote, “The press, I figured, you lied to it.” Why?
BD: I realized at the time that the press, the media, they’re not the judge—God’s the judge. The only person you have to think about lying twice to is either yourself or to God. The press isn’t either of them. And I just figured they’re irrelevant.

EB: As you probably know, Rolling Stone magazine just named your song, “Like a Rolling Stone,” the number one song of all time. 12 of your other songs are on their list of the Top 500. That must be good to have as part of your legacy.
BD: Oh, maybe this week. But you know, the list, they change names, and you know, quite frequently, really. I don’t really pay much attention to that.
EB: But it’s a pat on the back?
BD: This week it is. But who’s to say how long that’s gonna last?
EB: Well, it’s lasted a long time for you. I mean you’re still out here doing these songs, you know. You’re still on tour.
BD: I do, but I don’t take it for granted.
EB: Why do you still do it? Why are you still out here?
BD: Well, it goes back to that destiny thing. I made a d-, bargain with it, you know, long time ago. And I’m holding up my end.
EB: What was your bargain?
BD: …to get where, uh, I am now.
EB: Should I ask who you made that bargain with?
BD: [laughs] With the Chief Commander.
EB: On this earth?
BD: [laughs] In this earth and in the world we can’t see.

When Dylan states, “…bargain with it…”, to what does the “it” refer? By the context, the referent is “destiny”. So, who is the “Chief Commander” that is “in this earth and in the world we can’t see”? Note that earlier in the interview Dylan referred to “God”, stating He is the Judge, and the only One—besides yourself—that you should carefully consider before lying twice to. Could that help define “Chief Commander” here?

To this analysis the critic must also consider Dylan’s professed conversion to Christianity in 1979. The artist made three overtly Christian-themed albums: Slow Train Coming (1979), Saved (1980), and Shot of Love (1981).10 The first of the three recordings opens with his Grammy-winning “Gotta Serve Somebody”, featuring these lyrics in the chorus:

But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes
Indeed you’re gonna have to serve somebody
Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody

Closing this same album, “When He Returns” includes words taken (paraphrased) from Scripture: Like a thief in the night, he’ll replace wrong with right when he returns. And then there’s this clip “Bob Dylan – The Gospel Interview”, an excerpt from the documentary Bob Dylan – Both Ends Of The Rainbow 1978-1989.

Was this all just a ruse, a hoax? That seems very unlikely, for Dylan had not a few angry fans during this time claiming he was preaching at them in concerts. John Lennon even went so far as to write the parody “Serve Myself” in response. Assuming, then, that Dylan’s conversion was genuine, did he subsequently reverse course? Did he renounce his profession of Christian faith to the extent he now “serves Satan” instead? Can evidence be found for this? If so, I’d like to see it. (And see this new blog post Bob Dylan’s New Christian Themed Album.)

The vlogger later circles back to his earlier assertion about Bob Dylan, this time claiming he is “the guy that sold his soul to the devil”. This prefaces his syllogistic position that Dylan’s new song “Murder Most Foul” is somehow related to “Q”, and, by extension, implicitly “QAnon”, because the track is ~17 minutes long, and—well—Q is the 17th letter of the English alphabet, and there’s been an established connection between QAnon and the number 17.11 More on this below.

The song is about the assassination of JFK. For OPP it’s the following lyrics providing some sort of smoking gun:

The day that they killed him, someone said to me, “Son,
The age of the Antichrist has just only begun”

The vlogger focuses on “The age of the Antichrist”, as if these words in this context provide some sort of proof of malevolent spiritual connection to OPP’s (unproven) assertion that Dylan “sold his soul to the devil”. I can only guess how the vlogger connects this to QAnon.12

Besides the illogic, and nebulous nature of any sort of connection, there are other problems here and more things to factor in.

By illogic, I mean why would Dylan write a lyric about “the age of the Antichrist” if he had “sold his soul to the devil”? Wouldn’t he—or, more specifically, the supposed malevolent spirit guiding him—be more inclined to conceal this fact about “the age of the Antichrist” having begun? Since John’s first epistle indicates that the ‘age of Antichrist’ had already begun by the time that letter was penned (1 John 2:18), this means if we take the song at face value, JFK’s assassination would more likely be the revealing of the Antichrist, aka “the lawless one” (2 Thessalonians 2:8). If “the lawless one” has been revealed (to discerning Christians), then who is it? Frankly, I think OPP needs to acquire a better grasp of the nature of poetry and songwriting.

The vlogger also implies Dylan was aware of this ‘Q = 17’ connection, yet fails to provide any sort of evidence for this.13 But this does not stop OPP from making further tenuous connections based on this unproven link.

OPP makes a big deal out of the song’s ~17 minutes length (“which is incredibly odd”, per the vlogger), but is this really so out of the ordinary? Dylan has recorded quite a few lengthy songs throughout his career. While “Murder Most Foul” is the longest song in Dylan’s discography, there is a close second: “Highlands” from Time Out of Mind, at 16:31.14 Comparatively, “Murder Most Foul”, as hosted on Dylan’s own YouTube channel, clocks in at 16:56, just 25 seconds longer. In listening to the song, it is packed full of lyrics, with no instrumental break, a very brief intro, and a 30 second outro. Thus, even if it were sung a cappella at the same tempo, it would be nearly 17 minutes long. So, it is not as though the song was stretched out in an effort to reach ~17 minutes.

More to the point, if I was Dylan and I wanted to link the song to Q as suggested by OPP, I’d make darn sure that it was exactly 17 minutes—not a second over or under. If Q = 17, then Q ≠ 16:56. For me, this fact alone is a fatal flaw in his analysis.

But that’s not all.

In the first comment to the above hyperlinked video (audio) of the song is this statement by Dylan, pinned by the songwriter himself:

This is an unreleased song we recorded a while back that you might find interesting. Stay safe, stay observant and may God be with you.

Setting aside the final clause (bolded above), Dylan recorded this song “a while back”.15 To assume it was recorded within the past 3 or so years—to coincide with the era of QAnon—is to assume too much.

Finally, after “Murder Most Foul” Dylan put out two more songs. And concurrent with his most recent song release “False Prophet” (on May 8, 2020), the songwriter announced the near-future release of a new album, which will contain all three songs. Thus, “Murder Most Foul” didn’t ‘come out of nowhere’ as some sort of mysterious one-off. The timing of the release—and the subsequent releases—was obviously calculated to build interest for his forthcoming full-length album. This is a pretty standard marketing ploy.

¿Qué?16

Perhaps the intent is not so much to link Bob Dylan specifically to QAnon, but to “Q” more generally. In this sense, per OPP, “Q” would then be the spiritual glue binding all these seemingly—in the mind of the vlogger—disparate pieces together. The video below makes such a connection:

OPP bases this on (a) a false equivalency, which results in (b) a dubious connection to (c) a questionable claim in a self-published book (@ 10:02):

When I saw that, I was like, “OK, that is pretty amazing.” That’s really the spiritual influence of why “Q” has been adopted.

This will require a bit of explanation. I’ll start with (c), the questionable claim in the book.

Catherine R. Proppe, in her 2013 book Greek Alphabet: Unlock the Secrets, claims that each Greek letter of the alphabet has a “secret meaning” attached. The author has her own webpage, and since the koppa (Ϙ) is the subject here, I will direct now to that specific page on her blog. Proppe appears to have some proficiency with Greek, but I must question her claim that the koppa means “piercing-the-veil” (as per the link) or “PIERCING-THE-VEIL of ignorance and separation” (as per the book). Viewing the above hyperlink to the author’s webpage, note how Proppe provides web-links as support for some of her statements.17 Yet, the writer provides no such reference, no documentation for this “secret meaning” for koppa. Same with the book.

A quick internet search yields no specific results for “piercing the veil” except its use in a legal sense as a shortened form of “piercing the corporate veil”. However, though interpreted differently, the word “veil” is found in contexts related to the tearing of the Temple veil at Jesus’ death (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45) in various esoteric and occult works of the past century.18  A quick scouring of my Greek resources finds no reference to this “secret meaning” as of yet. Thus, I would agree that the esoteric concept of crossing some sort of veil has been in existence for a while, but so far nothing suggests that this specific phraseology is at least somewhat commonly used currently, or had been used previously in antiquity, in relation to the Greek letter koppa.

The bottom line: I find no substantiation for Proppe’s claimed “secret meaning” for the Greek letter koppa. To be clear, this does not necessarily render the claim false. But without supporting evidence for the author’s assertion, I remain unconvinced. For the vlogger to uncritically accept this claim is problematic. We must always verify the veracity of material to the extent possible. Especially if it is used to negatively characterize individuals or works.

Now, turning to (a), the false equivalency—providing some historical background on the koppa will be necessary.

The Greek alphabet underwent some changes throughout its history, with some letters deleted, others added. Today there are 24 letters—the same 24 as from the pre-NT era. At one point in antiquity (ca. 6th – 5th BC?) there were 27 letters. During this time the Greeks adopted an alphanumeric system in which each letter corresponds to a number.  This system is still in place today. The first nine letters are numbered sequentially (1 through 9). The next nine letters are consecutive multiples of 10. The koppa was sequentially the 18th letter, and thus represented the number 90. That is, Ϙ = 90.

Shortly after the establishing of the alphanumeric system, the koppa was deleted from the alphabet (ca. 5th century BC).19 But it was retained solely for their alphanumeric system (the Greeks had no other way of expressing numbers at the time except to fully write them out, such as, e.g., the English ninety).

The first Greek alphabet was modeled after the Phoenician. The koppa came from the similar looking Phoenician qoph. The history of the English Q is something like this:

Phoenician qoph > Greek koppa (Ϙ, similar to qoph) > Old Italic Etruscan (same as koppa) > Old Latin (~Q) > Classic Latin (~Q) > Old English (~Q) > Modern English (Q)

An important point to reiterate is that the Greek koppa has not been used as a letter since about the 5th century BC—except for rare carry-overs, and even these were phased out well before the NT era. As an example and an interesting side note: I learned from Proppe’s book, via the vlog above, that the city of Corinth (as in I and II Corinthians), was first spelled with an initial koppa (Ϙ)20—appropriate for the time. Before the NT era, it was replaced with the kappa (K). But the koppa (Ϙ) letter remained on Corinthian coinage for a time. See it just below the winged Pegasus in the image.

Qoppa

Koppa under Pegasus

Given that the koppa ceased in use as a letter, this is another reason I remain skeptical of Proppe’s claims. Strictly speaking, the koppa hasn’t been in the Greek alphabet since ~5th century BC. Moreover, when used as a number, it is identified as such by additional markings or different renderings of the character.21 Thus, the writer’s implicit claim that it is part of the Greek alphabet (as in the title of the book) is anachronistic, or imprecise, at best. At worst, it is just wrong. In short, the information is unreliable.

Setting aside the murky nature of the author’s characterization of the koppa, OPP begins his discussion by making the claim that the English letter Q means “piercing the veil” (@ 8:58), even though the words on the page are about the Greek koppa (Ϙ) instead. He continues to conflate the Greek koppa with the English Q throughout. But Proppe never, not once, makes a connection to the English Q on the page.22

Thus, there is no basis to assume Proppe intended her “secret meaning” be imported to the English letter Q, much less to the current cult of Q (whether it be QAnon or any of the others he attempts to connect). Yet, this scarcely prevents the vlogger from syllogistically assuming it does, leading him to his dogmatic assertion that “The [English] letter Q is about ‘PIERCING-THE-VEIL of ignorance and separation’” (@ 9:56).

This (a) false equivalency (Ϙ = Q) leads to (b) the dubious connection to (c) a questionable claim (as regards “PIERCING…”), leading OPP (d) to syllogistically conclude: “That’s really the spiritual influence of why Q has been adopted…” (@ 10:07). This is a non sequitur. Even if a definitive link were established between the koppa and the Q and if Proppe’s “secret meaning” were true, this does not necessarily mean that all the associations of “Q” must come from this meaning. There are numerous possible reasons for the use of “Q”. One might speculate that this could be a possible connection (again, had there been a definitive link between koppa and Q as well as substantiation for Proppe’s “secret meaning” for the koppa), but to make an explicit claim that this-is-definitely-that in this case is both illogical and irresponsible.

Taking all the above, I hope the reader can see that Bob Dylan has been unfairly mischaracterized based on nebulous connections.

At 10:55 OPP states, “…Now you just can’t really make this stuff up…” as part of his conclusion. Now if I were to apply some of the methods used throughout the two vlogs referenced above, I could take just this statement and apply it to him. That is, taking the words “you just can’t really make this stuff up”, I could counter that the vlogger did, in fact, do just that—by wresting various words from their original contexts to create pretexts, using false equivalencies, making syllogistic connections to reach his own conclusions, etc. But that wouldn’t be right, would it?

Digressing for a moment, and being a bit tongue-in-cheek, I can just envision New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) “Apostle” Chuck Pierce embracing all this. He has not one, but two points (pun intended) of connection! Not only is his last name Pierce (Pierce-ing the veil!) his “ministry” is headquartered in Corinth, Texas! He could substitute either the Greek koppa or the English “Q” in place of the English “C” in Corinth! In fact, it’s rather curious that he hasn’t done so, given the analysis here by OPP. That is, if “this is really the spiritual influence of why ‘Q’ has been adopted”, surely Chuck Pierce would be aware of all these “connections”.

But Seriously

This was one of the most difficult blog posts—if not the most difficult one—I’ve written. I wanted to be fair to OPP, to everyone involved. It can be difficult to be completely objective in the best of circumstances. With this in mind, I must admit—and I did above—that I became a bit angry at times when analyzing the material. I hope it was righteous anger—in response to what I felt was unfair treatment to some individuals and the material. And I hope it didn’t negatively cloud the results. My sporadic injections of a bit of sarcasm and humor were attempts to diffuse it, I suppose. I’ll let the reader be the judge of the analyses.

One of my goals is to bring awareness to our predisposition (1) to read things strictly through our own perspectives and (2) to fall into logical fallacies. Everyone does these things. This means we all must take a few steps back when analyzing data to see if it can be read a bit differently and to be sure our conclusions follow the data. We must be careful that we don’t construct our own questionable conspiracy theories.

Preparing Christian apologetics is hard work. Disentangling problematic apologetics takes just as much if not more effort.

As apologists, defenders of the Christian faith, we should do our very best to get it right the first time, doing so with intellectual honesty and the utmost integrity. And humility.

ps:

Comments, whether pro or con, are welcome. I ask that they relate to the main subjects presented in this post. I don’t wish to get bogged down with discussions regarding QAnon, for example. That is NOT why I posted this; that is only peripheral to my main objective, which was to present a more balanced view of the material analyzed, particularly as it relates to Bob Dylan.

______________________________________

1 “Tangled Up in Blue”, Bob Dylan, from the 1974 album Blood on the Tracks (Columbia Records PC 233235), published by Rams Horn Music, 1974.

2 Here I use the modifier “questionable” because the term conspiracy theory has become a pejorative, a means by which to stifle conversation about a topic with which a person or group disagrees. When police detectives uncover racketeering—organized crime—it is after having an initial theory of a conspiracy, a hunch about individuals conspiring together in crime. In the beginning stages of the investigation, it is a conspiracy theory. Though the term should be neutral, in today’s socio-political environment and vernacular, it’s mostly used to disparage adherents to a particular theory.

3 Thereby creating our own questionable conspiracy theories.

4 “Parallelomania”, Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 81 (1962): 1-13, p 7

5 I must confess that I stumbled upon the music linked to here. I was searching to see if “off point” had a meaning in today’s lingo, which I see it does. I kinda like the song, but more importantly the lyric here is apropos: Connect all disparate dots and label them as true / you’re straying off point / fixed kaleidoscopic views.

6 The vlogger attempts to make a direct connection of a nefarious nature between this song and President Trump (and Rally attendees?), as if Trump specifically requests this song and is sympathetic to the devil himself. Prior to this, he selectively quotes a line from The Animals song “House of the Rising Sun” in an attempt to malign Trump. The line he chooses as his proof-text is spend your lives in sin and misery, as if the song is glorifying this sort of life (who would want “sin and misery”?!). However, when the lyrics are put into proper context, the intention is the exact opposite: Oh mother, tell your children / Not to do what I have done / Spend your lives in sin and misery / In the House of the Rising Sun… And it’s been the ruin of many a poor boy / And God, I know I’m one. This is what passes for “journalism” in this vlog.  This pseudo-truth is the first tenuous connection I am exposing in my blog post here, but since I do not wish to bog down this article with the myriad issues in the vlog, thereby making this post intolerably long, I am relegating information unrelated to my main subject—the unnecessary maligning of Bob Dylan centering on a conspiracy theory surrounding the letter Q—to footnotes.

7 In checking around the internet, there are a number of vloggers and bloggers taking just this segment from the interview to arrive at their presumed prejudged conclusion. Perhaps this vlogger, after seeing one or more of these, decided that if this was good enough evidence for others, this was good enough for him.

8 “Idiot Wind”, from Blood on the Tracks. To my mind, the lyrics quoted here are true, autobiographical; and, the next few lines are hyperbolic, thereby analogically illustrating the ridiculous lengths the media would sometimes go to mischaracterize Dylan. This then sets up his caustic chorus.

9 I’m reminded now of lyrics in a Neil Young song: sometimes I see what really isn’t there—taken from “Will to Love”, from the 1977 album American Stars and Bars (Reprise Records MSK 2261), published by Silver Fiddle-BMI, 1977. In the context of Young’s song, the line refers to wishful thinking, aka confirmation bias.

10 To digress for a moment, I once had a discussion (ca. 2009) with another Christian man who confidently asserted that the 1974 album Blood on the Tracks—an album with which I’ve been well-acquainted with since the mid-‘70s—was a Christian record, presumably on the strength of Dylan’s Christian-themed records here. When I objected, given my strong familiarity with the record—it’s probably my favorite Dylan album—and providing evidence to the contrary via some of its lyrics and the fact that Dylan’s profession of Christian faith first occurred in 1979, he yet remained steadfast. It seems many will just stay comfortably in their false beliefs, despite evidence contradicting them.

11 Some have already associated QAnon with the letter Q, and by extension, the number 17. Also, President Trump has been presented with jerseys with his name and the number 17 on it. But, this only proves that the maker(s) of the shirts made the connection, not necessarily that Trump has (though maybe he has, and what would that prove, anyway?). But, this is all tangential, for, more importantly, the vlogger fails to provide any evidence that Dylan was even aware of this Q = 17 connection.

12 And (in the mind of the vlogger), by further extension, President Trump?

13 That is, besides the implied circular logic of Q = 17, and the song is ~17 minutes, which must be a reference to Q, which means Dylan is aware of the connection. But, I digress. In any case, absent any proof, I am unwilling to grant this.

14 I have the album (gasp!), so I was already aware of its timing.

15 Though it is possible it was recorded in the past 3 or so years—during the time of QAnon—I note that Dylan’s last album of his own material (as opposed to covers of others’ works) Tempest was released in 2012. It could be that “Murder Most Foul” was from the Tempest recording sessions or perhaps earlier. His most recent album (which only includes works written by others), while it lists no recording date, was released March 31, 2017. All this to say, the song most likely was recorded before QAnon came on the scene. But we just don’t know.

16 Spanish for What? It is used here because some confuse “que” (or qué) with the spelling for the English letter “Q” (which is cue), thus implicitly analogically illustrating the confusions and conflations of the vlogger. It’s a play on words relating to the entire section. (Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that tends to lose its impact when explained.)

17 No matter how tenuous those connections might be, e.g.: The constellation Pegasus is best visible during the month of October, the month immediately following the fall equinox, when nighttime hours first exceed daylight hours, enabling better viewing of the stars which pierce-the-veil of the night sky. Though I like the poetic phrasing here (the stars which pierce-the-veil of the night sky), I don’t see how any of this relates to the koppa. Perhaps it is something like the following. Since the Corinthians used the koppa as a symbol for their city (see further below), and the koppa was placed on the back of coins under the winged Pegasus—which is associated with local mythology—this, I presume, means the author should connect the constellation of Pegasus to koppa because, by syllogistic extension, its stars “pierce-the-veil” of the sky at night (by using the bottom point of a koppa?). Or something like that.

18 In some it is a metaphysical spin on the tearing of the veil in the Temple at the time of Jesus’ death: E.g. “veil”, Unity School of Christianity, Metaphysical Bible Dictionary, 8th ed. (Lee’s Summit, MO: Unity School of Christianity, 1955 [1931]), p 673. Other esoteric works put a metaphorical meaning on the tearing of the Temple veil instead: E.g. Alice A. Bailey The Rays and the Initiations © 1960 Lucis, NY, 2nd paperback ed. (Albany, NY: Fort Orange Press, 1976), pp 475, 491, 702. Cf. the section titled The Two Realms of the Manifested Son of God for the quote from a Bill Britton booklet here: Assessing Bill Johnson’s “Eternally God” Declarations Amidst His Other Christological Statements. Still others take the entire Biblical tearing of the veil phrase figuratively to refer to something else: E.g. Alice A. Bailey The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, © 1957 Lucis, NY (Albany, NY: Fort Orange Press, 6th printing, 1981), pp 4, 6. I find no use of the term in the glossaries of Blavatsky’s books; and, while this does not mean the term is not found in those works, it does indicate that, if used, it likely has little significance.

19 Or the koppa had previously been deleted and subsequently placed back into its former spot strictly for the alphanumeric system. 27 letters were needed to fill out the alphanumeric system (nine single digits, nine tens, and nine one-hundreds). The koppa sounded much like the kappa—like the English K—and thus was redundant.

20 That I have learned something new, something of particular interest to me, makes the time and effort spent on this well worth it.

21 See here.

22 Yes, the author briefly associates the Greek koppa with the Latin letter Q, but not once does the writer state anything at all about English and, by extension, the English Q. Her subject is the Greek koppa.

Masking…the Truth?

thespian masks

I’ve shown a number of Tony Heller’s vlogs here on the subject of “climate change”. He has more recently been covering COVID-19. Heller just moved from Colorado Springs to Wyoming, having tired of the increasing Leftism in his former location. In a recent vlog he plays a short clip from a 60 Minutes segment (March 8, 2020) in which Anthony Fauci discusses the use of masks. The video is timestamped at this mark (0:56), and below is my transcription of the brief discussion on this subject:

Fauci: Right now in the United States people should not be walking around with masks.

60 Minutes: You’re sure of it? ‘Cause people are listening really closely to this.

Fauci: No. Right now people should not be wa- — There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet; but, it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is. And often there are unintended consequences: people keep fiddling with the mask, and they keep touching their face.

60 Minutes: And can you get some schmutz sorta staying inside [the mask]?

Fauci: Of course, of course; but, when you think masks, you should think of healthcare providers needing them, and people who are ill.

I can affirm that every time I wear the mask—in places where I live in which it’s currently enforced, such as grocery stores—I am constantly “fiddling with the mask”. Yet Fauci contradicts the above in his recent Senate testimony (May 12, 2020):

Well, ya know, the best PPE [personal protective equipment] for the general public, if possible, right now, is to maintain the physical and social distancing. But, as we’ve said, and I think all of us would agree, there are certain circumstances in which it is beyond your control, when you need to do necessary things—like go to the drug store and get your medication, go to the grocery store and get your food—that, in fact, you need some supplementation than just physical distancing. That’s the reason why some time ago, a recommendation was made—I believe it was Dr. Redfield at the CDC who first said that—about getting some sort of a covering. We don’t want to call it a mask—because back then we were concerned we would be taking masks away from the healthcare providers—but, some sort of mask-like facial covering, I think for the time being, should be a very regular part of how we prevent the spread of infection. And, in fact, the more and more as you go outside right here in where I am sitting in Washington, DC, you can see many people out there with masks on, which gives me some degree of comfort that people are taking this very seriously.

Yes, I can recall the pleas not to use up all the surgical masks, especially N95 respirator masks, (in favor of construction masks, e.g.) so that healthcare workers will have enough; but, what about Fauci’s earlier statement in the 60 Minutes segment above? He clearly said that we, the general public, should not be wearing masks of any type, and, further, that it is healthcare providers and the ill that need them. Was he not telling the truth earlier, in order to ensure adequate supply for first responders and healthcare providers? Or is he exaggerating right now, and, if so, for what purpose(s)?

From the World Health Organization (WHO) website we find the following (and more) on the subject of masks:

  • If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19.
  • Wear a mask if you are coughing or sneezing.
  • Masks are effective only when used in combination with frequent hand-cleaning with alcohol-based hand rub or soap and water.
  • If you wear a mask, then you must know how to use it and dispose of it properly.

janus

So, which is it?

I always enjoy listening to Mike Rowe. In the following he uses one of my favorite terms: personal responsibility. This is one of the hallmarks of a free society. And, not surprisingly, he has other nuggets to consider:

…Something is happening right now with regard to public safety and individual responsibility. It’s a collision.

In some areas particularly, if things continue much further down this track, there’ll be no need to strive for the Green New Deal or to impose any of the more stringent “climate change” mandates since the same deleterious end-goals can be achieved this way instead, and at a much quicker pace.

Climocentrism: The New Geocentrism

“Trees don’t lie, but [some] climate scientists do.”
-Tony Heller (@ 8:58 of video below)

One of the most embarrassing aspects of the historical record of the Christian Church was the stubborn, persistent belief that the earth was flat and/or our solar system was geocentric. This thinking was based on misinterpretations of a number of Scriptures. But we now know (despite the assertions of a few current flat-earthers) that our solar system is heliocentric—the sun is its center—and the earth rotates on its axis as it revolves around the sun.

But despite mounting evidence, the historical Church clung to its misinterpretations rather than reinterpret those passages to align with contemporary scientific data. Something somewhat similar is occurring in the realm of climatology, though with a twist. The current ideology of “climate change” does not align with historical climatic evidence, so some climatologists simply—and deceptively—change the climate data. This puts a whole new meaning on “climate change”.

There is historical data of a Medieval Warm Period (MWP; ca. 950AD to 1250 AD), which was followed by a Little Ice Age (LIA; ca. 1300AD to 1850AD). Both tree ring data and historical evidence indicate the MWP had average temperatures exceeding those of today—well before the Industrial Age—and the LIA had average temperatures colder than the past 150 years. This casts doubt on the extent of the role of anthropogenic (human-caused) CO2 emissions from the use of fossil fuels in climatic changes. In fact, I’m old enough to recall that there was a growing scientific consensus in the 1970s of an impending ice age, with its causation linked to emissions from fossil fuels. [See this 1978 video from Columbia University and then-leading world climate scientists, sponsored by the US Army and the National Science Foundation, narrated by Leonard Nimoy.] But, of course, now the theory is the converse: anthropogenic CO2 emissions are causing ‘global warming’! As Tony Heller deadpanned (going from my memory) in a recent video, “Fossil fuels sure are powerful.”

In Heller’s video below is a screenshot of a statement by Dr. David Deming of the University of Oklahoma College of Earth and Energy regarding the subject “Climate Change and the Media”, entered as part of U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works Hearing Statements (12/06/2006):

I had another interesting experience around the time my paper in Science was published. I received an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change. He said, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” [11:16 in video below].

And that’s precisely what Michael Mann did in his reconstruction of climate data. Mann minimized the heat of the MWP, minimized the cold of the LIA, and inflated recent temperatures—in order to falsely portray recent temperatures as exceeding those of the MWP—showing a trending upwards climactically, resulting in his infamous “hockey stick” graph. You can read the background and results of the court case in which Dr. Tim Ball won Mann’s defamation suit relating to it. Ball even received all court-related costs as part of the settlement, because Mann refused to provide to the court the underlying evidence for his “hockey stick” in order to ‘prove’ his case. From the article:

Tim’s [Ball’s] famous words [were] that Michael Mann “belongs in the state pen, not Penn State,” a comical reference to the fraudulent ‘hockey stick’ graph that knowledgeable scientists knew to be fakery.

In his videos, Tony Heller has been posting actual historical data, such as from newspaper articles from across this spinning spherical earth, in order to compare with current data manipulations from climate ‘scientists’. Below is his most recent vlog. Heller provides much food for thought:

 

 

 

See Tony Heller’s blog for more.

%d bloggers like this: