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.

Why I Began Blogging / It’s Been Ten Years!

Hard to believe, but I’ve been writing blog articles here for ten years now, as of today. My impetus was Bill Johnson’s somewhat off the cuff statement claiming Jesus was ‘born again’—and all that entailed.

However, I began researching things related to the movement associated with all this about six months prior. This movement is the so-called New Apostolic Reformation (aka Apostolic-Prophetic Movement), which is related to the Word of Faith (Word/Faith) movement. That was my real introduction to the blogosphere.

With the benefit of time and things I’ve learned in the interim, I can now relate the background.

In early 2010, I began attending another church’s weekly class. There I met a particular woman. She was slowly introducing me to some new things. Prior to this, I never gave a thought to spiritual gifts. But she was keen on them. Wanting to remain teachable, I listened to what she was presenting—as a Berean.

Some ideas seemed innocuous enough. Others I just wasn’t too sure about. The upside is that I subsequently studied the issue of spiritual gifts, determining that they most certainly are valid for today—including the so-called “sign” gifts (in 1Cor 12:7-11). Besides exegetical reasons supporting their continuance, to totally reject them would entail rejecting “distinguishing between spirits” (12:10). Is this not valid and necessary for today? More on this particular gift further below.

The downside is that I became increasingly certain she was being led down the wrong spiritual path. Later, I found there are many others treading this same hyper-charismatic trail.

My first eyebrow-raising incident came in a phone call before work one Friday morning in April. She just had to tell me about this vision she had about me the previous night! It couldn’t wait. In this vision God told her I had “a heart like David” and he “wanted me to ‘come up higher’ in my walk”. I later learned this verbiage is very common. It appeals to pride (God told her about me and my good heart!), while simultaneously playing upon a legitimate desire to please God (‘come up higher’ in my walk). But I remained skeptical. What did this ‘come up higher’ actually mean? Yet I didn’t want to totally discard it either. So I researched more.

Though I was growing increasingly concerned the more I researched, I didn’t let on. We maintained a friendly relationship. I wanted to develop our friendship so that I could show her that she may be in spiritual danger.

In early May she gave me a card referencing something I’d say occasionally: Christians are on an incredible journey. In this card she stated she was “grateful to the Lord for allowing our paths to cross” and that she had been “blessed tremendously” to meet “such an awesome man of God”. There was even more flowery language (I was “one of God’s beloved sons”, etc.), though nothing romantic—we didn’t have that kind of relationship.

But I knew and still know myself better than that. I’d lie like the Father of Lies if I were to speak or think of myself in this manner. I’m well aware of my shortcomings, my struggles. I thought it a bit over-the-top that she’d describe me like this. And I only bring all this up to contrast with what was to occur in the not too distant future.

Just a couple weeks later, she invited me to a home group. She mentioned the group before, and, after praying about the matter, I had asked her if I could attend at some point. I knew that it could, and likely would, be spiritually dangerous. After further prayer, I was led to go—against some other Christian friends’ counsel, who were concerned for my spiritual well-being.

All told, it was probably the single-most bizarre evening I ever had.

To further set the stage, she came to pick me up—in a rental car, for she was recently in an auto accident (no one was hurt). Though I cannot recall if I drove there (I think I did), I’m certain I drove back. In the pouring rain. I state this only to reiterate the state of our relationship. She trusted me and felt comfortable enough to let me drive.

The study group was held at a man’s house about a 30 minutes’ drive away. Nice house and nothing untoward when I walked in. The late 40s-ish man hosting it (about my age at the time) seemed reserved and a bit introverted—about what one would expect for the stereotypical accountant. Yet when he began to teach he spoke in the absolute LOUDEST voice I’d ever heard anyone speak! He did so without the slightest hint of strain in his voice as would be the case if he were shouting. But it was certainly loud enough to be akin to the level of shouting. It was very unnatural. And it was completely unnecessary, for there were only a relative handful in attendance and the room was hardly large enough to require such volume. Really strange. It was as if he were, uh, overtaken. He certainly spoke with authority, but I had to wonder by whose.

Even before he started, I was continually praying. Music had been playing in the background and I sensed an odd, unsettling atmosphere. It was not overpowering though, which I attribute to my continued praying.

His teaching was from Luke 4, beginning with Jesus’ temptation and continuing through to Jesus’ driving out the evil spirit (4:33, 36: akathartos pneuma), a demon (4:33: daimonion akathartos). His focus was on the words authority (exousia) and power (dynamis) and how we have this same authority and power Jesus displayed. Somewhat ironic that the text he had chosen spoke of driving out an evil/unclean spirit, when I discerned he himself may well have been the mouthpiece for one!

Afterward came the time for a local ‘prophet’ to provide ‘words’. I KNEW I’d be called upon. First up was another woman. As I expected, there was a ‘catcher’ behind her—I read about this sort of thing. I cannot recall what this man said to her, but remember her gently falling over backward after he was through. She was helped by the ‘catcher’.

Next I was called. Should I go? I felt led to do so—as I continued praying. But I KNEW I was NOT going to fall for the ‘falling over’ thing.

As I stood in front of him, I felt compelled to close my eyes. I continued praying. As he spoke, I felt this force pushing me backward. No matter how much I prayed, it kept on pushing. And I fought to stand completely erect. Like I said, I wasn’t going to fall for it! When he finished, I indeed fell over backwards, caught by the ‘catcher’. I cannot say that this latter part was either negative or positive. Was this a result of my prayer, or was this standard fare for this sort of thing? I don’t know. The initial pushing of the force was a bit disconcerting, though.

My friend dutifully recorded the entire ‘word’. It wasn’t very long. And it was so vague that it could have applied to most anyone. It didn’t appear to come from God, unsurprisingly. But upon reading it again this morning for the first time in years, one thing struck me: “The anointing will break the yoke of bondage.” Hmmmm. I’ll return to this.

My friend offered her ‘spiritual mentor’—who had also attended this meeting—a ride home. She later told me her ‘spiritual mentor’ was like an Elijah to her as Elisha. And she wanted that double portion anointing! Later, I found this sort of thing commonplace in this movement. Like addicts looking for their next fix, those in this movement must have their next, even greater, spiritual experience.

On the way home, they remarked how subdued “the Holy Spirit” was at the meeting, which they attributed to my presence there. They surmised that I wasn’t quite ready for ‘the deeper things’ just yet. I thought it was due to my praying.

One thing my friend said struck me. She claimed, “If you have the Holy Spirit indwelling, He will not allow you to be deceived.” I knew that wasn’t right. This way of thinking, of course, provides no Biblical basis upon which to judge spiritual experiences. And the Bible speaks volumes about false teachings and their dangers.

But I kept my thoughts to myself. I desired to help her out of this dangerous movement. I needed to pray to discern the best approach. In the meantime, I continued feverishly researching online.

Either that following weekend or the next, she went on a women’s retreat. After this she called me, excited to tell me all about it. I read about these retreats online, but I had never heard a personal account.

The teaching purported to be from Revelation 2—5. Given her words—which sound like they came from Mike Bickle’s “Bridal Paradigm” teaching—she was, at the least, familiar with this framework sourced from the Song of Songs/Solomon.

She described her “soaking” time—lying on the carpet having visions, etc. I scribbled some notes:

His kisses are better than wine.

Now I know how the Shulamite woman felt.

Lovesick.

The Lord romancing me.

I grew alarmed. What did she mean by “romancing”? Wanting to determine exactly what she meant, I mentioned how I’d read one woman’s claim of having a spiritual experience that was “better than sex”. In reply, without missing a beat, she stated something to the effect that it was ‘like pent-up sexual frustration released’. I was dumbfounded.

She went on to claim most were “drunk in the spirit” and “everyone was on the floor.” Then she stated, “I thought, ‘What is it like for a man’?” Well, I certainly didn’t want to know! Then she claimed a man told her, “I was sucked through a vortex, sensed fear of the Lord; waves of love; as if the Lord was a lion roaring.” Not sure what to make of this, given it was a women’s retreat.

After retrieving my lower jaw from the floor—good thing this was a phone conversation rather than in person—I somehow mustered a reply of some sort. Once she hung up, I remained flabbergasted for a bit.

Just prior to this, I had been sending her occasional emails with Scripture about false teachers, etc. in order to provide some sort of gentle caution. After this last conversation, I sent more. Though I’m not 100% sure, I don’t think she replied to any of them.

Shortly thereafter I received from her an email with nothing in the subject line. She began by acknowledging that I’d sent her some emails warning about possible danger. She specifically stated that she thought my intentions were good. Then she abruptly closed it by instructing me to never contact her again.

I was dumbstruck. It was very troubling in myriad ways. After regaining a bit of composure, then calling a friend, I deleted her email contact info and removed her phone number from my phone.

For a solid month after this I daily prayed fervently for her. Then I received a clear feeling that I was finished, I was no longer to continue my prayers.

I never heard from her again. I hope she is doing well. More importantly, I hope she has extracted herself from this dangerous movement.

New Revelations from Whom?

I subsequently learned these ‘new revelations’ from modern day ‘prophets’ (or ‘Prophets’) were to be regarded as even greater than Scripture to the individual it’s intended for. This is called the rhēma word. Years later I discovered an occult parallel. Might this ‘rhēma’ doctrine have similar roots? I think it does.1

In a book by Alice A. Bailey titled, Telepathy and the Etheric Body, I found teachings about new revelations given by supposed benevolent higher beings.2 In the very beginning of the book is a preface, titled, “EXTRACT FROM A STATEMENT BY THE TIBETAN”.3 “The Tibetan” is another name for Djwhal Khul, aka “Master D. K.” Bailey freely admitted she was the voluntary medium through which Djwhal Khul dictated the works that were later published for Lucis Publishing Company. In this preface, Bailey records The Tibetan stating:

I am a brother of yours…who has wrestled and fought his way into a greater measure of light than has the aspirant who will read this article, and I must therefore act as a transmitter of the light, no matter what the cost…My work is to teach and spread the knowledge of the Ageless Wisdom…4

Reading through the book one finds at the top of this spiritual hierarchy dispensing this “Ageless Wisdom” a certain “planetary Logos”, among others. The “etheric body” in the book’s title is the supposed interconnecting invisible conduit carrying all “divine” thought running through the universe, which is passed to the seeking aspirant (via “telepathy”):

The thought-directing energy has for its source a Thinker Who can enter into the divine Mind, owing to His having transcended human limitation; the thought-directed receiver is the man…who has aligned his brain, his mind and his soul.5

The explanation of the basis on which the mechanism for transmission is the supposed

fact that omnipresence, which is a law in nature…that the etheric bodies of all forms constitute the [one] world etheric body, makes omniscience possible. The etheric body of the planetary Logos is swept into activity by His directed will; energy is the result of His thoughtform playing in and through His energy body.6

Putting aside the rather fanciful explanation for the means and method of receiving from the “planetary Logos”, notice the use of terms associated with Christianity: Wisdom, omniscience, omnipresence, Logos. There are others in the book, as well. But they are all redefined, including “Lord of the World”, which is turned on its head. In other words, it’s all a perversion of Christianity.

Always About the Anointing

I noted above that, having read afresh the false ‘word’ I’d been given, I saw something more in this statement: “The anointing will break the yoke of bondage.” I’ve written about ‘the anointing’ before (see The Christ Anointing and the Antichrist Spirit), and I’ll encapsulate it here. Essentially, it’s redefined:

Christ = the anointing

antichrist = against the anointing

In the New Testament, however, “Christ” is always associated with the person of Jesus. The term is not to be reduced to simply “the anointing”. Jesus is the Anointed (One), the Christ, the Messiah. But in hyper-charismatic circles it has to do with some sort of spiritual empowering. Thus, anyone against the false teachings of these movements—anyone against ‘the anointing’—is considered antichrist.

When I realized this, I understood why my now-former-friend wanted to cut all ties. I was considered spiritually dangerous to her. According to this ideology, I was antichrist.

And since I rejected ‘the anointing’, I wasn’t able to “break the yoke of bondage” in the ‘word’ I had been given. Could it be that she (or her spiritual “Elijah”) realized that I’d rejected ‘the anointing’ in the ‘word’ I was given by questioning the movement, via my emails? That is, was this a further reason to cut ties with me?

In any case, seeing how both “Christ” and “antichrist” are redefined, might there by other terms and concepts redefined or refashioned in the so-called New Apostolic Reformation? Like the occult work I referenced just above?

_____________________________________________________

1 Though it is beyond the scope of this article to argue at any length here for this, see, e.g., D. R. McConnell, A Different Gospel (“A bold and revealing look at the biblical and historical basis of the Word of Faith movement.”). Copying from a footnote in the previous article on this subject: For those unaware, many Word/Faith teachers assert (among other things) the false dichotomy that rhēma denotes the ‘higher’ word from God for believers only, while logos indicates the written Scriptures as a whole for everyone, including non-believers. Not only is this reductionistic, it fails to account for the fact that the verbal form (legō) of logos is used quite often preceding speech (so-and-so said [legō], “…”). A good example to refute this dichotomy presents itself in Matthew 12:36: But I say (legō) to you that every idle word (rhēma) that men speak (legō) they will give account/reckoning (logos) for in the day of judgment. Moreover, rhēma is found in only 65 verses in the New Testament as compared to over 300 for logos, while the verbal form legō occurs over 2000 times.

2 Alice A. Bailey, Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle (NY: Lucis Publishing Company / Printed in the US, Philadelphia, PA: George S. Ferguson Company, 1950).

3 Ibid. p v.

4 Ibid.

5 Ibid. pp 6-7.

6 Ibid. p 7.

Misgendering the Spirit

Language learners should master the concept of grammatical gender. This is especially true for native English speakers. I’ve found many Christians, even some in scholarly circles, who are confused on this issue. As a consequence, the Holy Spirit is sometimes ‘misgendered’.

The problem is birthed from confusion between (and conflation of) grammatical gender and biological sex, as in male and female. From this confusion, faulty ideas arise as to what constitutes personhood.

To state simply: grammatical gender does not necessarily indicate biological sex. Most times there is no correlation whatsoever.

Grammatical Gender en Español

Since Greek has three grammatical genders, it may be helpful to first illustrate from a language with only two. Below are some examples in Spanish, the world’s fourth-most spoken language (after English, Mandarin Chinese, and Hindi).

the cat = el gato
the dog = el perro
the table = la mesa
the bank = el banco
the store = la tienda

Notice how “the” is spelled two different ways in Spanish. The words for “cat”, “dog”, and “bank” have el before them. These words (gato, perro, banco) are masculine in grammatical gender, so the corresponding word for “the” is also masculine (el). Comparatively, the Spanish words for “table” and “store” have la preceding them. These words (mesa, tienda) are feminine in grammatical gender and therefore have la to match.

This use of el in front of grammatically masculine nouns and la in front of grammatically feminine nouns must be maintained. You should never see ‘la gato’ or ‘el mesa’—these are grammatical mismatches, errors.

Now, we would hardly think any table or store is female. Nor would we think any bank is male. And, of course, we would hardly think all cats and all dogs are male.

In Spanish, there is a simple way for designating female cats and female dogs. An extra word is added to el perro and el gato to specify a male:

the female dog = la perra
the female cat = la gata
the male dog = el perro macho
the male cat = el gato macho

The astute student can readily see that the last letter of both perro and gato is changed from “o” to “a” to make it feminine in grammatical gender. This way, the grammatical gender also indicates the female sex of the dog and the cat. But since perro and gato mean “dog” or “cat” generically (without regard to biological sex), adding macho to the end indicates that the dog or the cat is male. In these examples grammatical gender correlates to biological sex.

Below are the final Spanish examples for our purposes:

the Father = el Padre
the Son = el Hijo
the mother = la madre
the spirit = el espíritu
the Holy Spirit = el Espíritu Santo

The only feminine grammatical gender above is found, appropriately, in “mother”. Similarly, both “Father” and “Son” are masculine. However, when referring to God biological sex is not to be understood, of course.

The word for “spirit” is masculine in grammatical gender. But this doesn’t mean that a spirit has biological sex. To specify “the Holy Spirit”, the word Santo follows el Espíritu. And since the Holy Spirit is part of the Triune God, once again, we don’t construe biological sex.

The Three Genders in the Greek

As noted earlier, Greek has three grammatical genders, adding neuter:

the sun = ho hēlios (masculine)
the earth/land = hē gē (feminine)
the water = to hudōr (neuter)

Like Spanish, the Greek word for “the” must match the grammatical gender of its associated noun. In the examples above, “sun” (hēlios) is masculine, “earth/land” (gē) is feminine, and “water” (hudōr) is neuter. So, correspondingly, the words for “the” are masculine (ho), feminine (hē), and neuter (to), respectively. Of course, none of the words in these examples indicate biological sex.

the world/universe = ho kosmos (masculine)
the land/region = hē chōra (feminine)
the lake = hē limnē (feminine)
the open/deep sea = to pelagos (neuter)
the deep sea = ho bythos (masculine)

In viewing the above, the reader may perceive a seeming randomness to the assignment of grammatical gender. The last three all relate to water, yet each one has a different grammatical gender! In fact, the last two are synonymous.

Once again, none of these can be construed as implying biological sex. And none of these are persons in any sense, of course.

the word/speech = ho logos (masculine)
the word/saying = to rhēma (neuter)

Despite what some Word of Faith (Word/Faith) teachers claim, these two words are essentially synonymous when referring to speech.1 And when referring to speech generally, we do not assume biological sex or personhood, of course.

In the case of ho logos the difference comes in the preexistent Jesus Christ, “the Word” (John 1:1—14). Certainly, we recognize the personalization—the ‘Personhood’2—of “the Word” here. However—and this is an important distinction—the masculine grammatical gender of ho logos does not indicate personhood in and of itself. Nor does it indicate biological sex—God is not intrinsically a sexual Being. It is the flesh (human) aspect of Word-become-flesh (Jesus the Christ) that indicates biological sex. Jesus is a biological male in virtue of His human nature, not His Divine nature. In His pre-earthly existence as “the Word” He was not even a biological being.

the Father = ho Patēr
the Son = ho Huios
the mother = hē mētēr
the spirit = to pneuma
the Holy Spirit = to Pneuma (to) Hagios

Not surprisingly, the first three above parallel the Spanish in terms of grammatical gender. The only feminine occurs, appropriately, in “mother”. Similarly, both “Father” and “Son” are masculine. And again, as in Spanish—or any translation of Scripture—when referring to God biological sex is not to be understood.

But when compared to the Spanish word for “S/spirit” grammatical gender differs. In Greek the word (pneuma) is neuter. Consequently, confusion results among many. To some apparently, the neuter grammatical gender necessarily construes a non-being, a thing. And from there it would follow that non-beings are non-persons. But this conflates distorted notions of grammatical gender with biological sex/gender in the English and imposes them upon the Greek.

Christendom, We Have a Problem

Confusion manifests in two ways, with one mistaken notion following the other. Because the word for “Spirit”, pneuma, is neuter in grammatical gender, some interpreters wrongly assume:

(a) this must mean that the Holy Spirit is not a ‘person’, since the Spirit is neither masculine (misconstrued as “male”?) in grammatical gender nor feminine (misconstrued as “female”?);

(b) however, because one section of Scripture (John 14:15—16:15) uses the grammatically masculine paraklētos (“counselor”, “advocate”, “comforter”) to refer to the Spirit, then this makes the Holy Spirit a person.

Now, to be clear, I absolutely affirm that Scripture declares the ‘Personhood’ of the Holy Spirit. But this is not due to the masculine grammatical gender of paraklētos. More on this further below.

Generally, the Got Questions site explains Christian concepts adequately (if a bit simplistically at times). But their page for the ‘Personhood’ of the Holy Spirit, Is the Holy Spirit a person?, contains the errors identified in this blog post. To unravel, I will analyze one sentence at a time. First the text, from the second paragraph at the preceding hyperlink:

The Bible provides many ways to help us understand that the Holy Spirit is truly a person—that is, He is a personal being, rather than an impersonal thing. First, every pronoun used in reference to the Spirit is “he” not “it.” The original Greek language of the New Testament is explicit in confirming the person of the Holy Spirit. The word for “Spirit” (pneuma) is neuter and would naturally take neuter pronouns to have grammatical agreement. Yet, in many cases, masculine pronouns are found (e.g., John 15:26; 16:13-14). Grammatically, there is no other way to understand the pronouns of the New Testament related to the Holy Spirit—He is referred to as a “He,” as a person.

Error begets error. Beginning with the first sentence:

The Bible provides many ways to help us understand that the Holy Spirit is truly a person—that is, He is a personal being, rather than an impersonal thing.

This is true.

First, every pronoun used in reference to the Spirit is “he” not “it.”

Though this may be true in English translations, this is absolutely untrue in the Greek New Testament. This will be clarified as we go.

The original Greek language of the New Testament is explicit in confirming the person of the Holy Spirit.

In the original Greek language the word for “S/spirit”, pneuma, is neuter, as stated earlier. But this has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not the Holy Spirit is an impersonal thing any more than the masculine kosmos (“world”) indicates that the world is a personal being. It’s not the Greek language that establishes personhood; it’s the contexts describing the Holy Spirit that establish it.

The word for “Spirit” (pneuma) is neuter and would naturally take neuter pronouns to have grammatical agreement.

This is absolutely true. And it absolutely does in the Greek.

Yet, in many cases, masculine pronouns are found (e.g., John 15:26; 16:13-14).

Three masculine (demonstrative) pronouns are used in these cases (and one more each in 14:26 and 16:83) because they refer to the noun paraklētos, which is a masculine noun! Moreover, this is hardly “many cases”, as these are only found in the Farewell Discourse (John 14:16—16:15) when the pronoun refers to paraklētos. The Farewell Discourse is also interspersed with neuter pronouns in the Greek when referring to pneuma. For example, in John 14:17, the neuter relative pronoun hò is used once and the neuter ‘personal’ pronoun auto is used twice as substitutes for to pneuma at the very beginning of the verse—though all three are translated as the masculine “him” in English. This is to indicate personhood in English. To reiterate, these three neuter pronouns are translated as masculine pronouns in English solely to signify personhood for English readers. This is an issue in translation, not in Greek.

Grammatically, there is no other way to understand the pronouns of the New Testament related to the Holy Spirit—He is referred to as a “He,” as a person.

I cannot know if the author is being dishonest or is obtusely conflating issues. As noted just above, the English translations generally use “he” when a pronoun is substituted for the Holy Spirit. But the Greek pronouns here agree in grammatical gender with their antecedents, their referents. And in the Greek New Testament any pronoun which refers to pneuma is also neuter to match in grammatical gender.

So how do we Biblically establish the ‘Personhood’ of the Holy Spirit? Murray J. Harris in his exegetical commentary on John’s Gospel provides some helpful introductory apologetics here (the author translates paraklētos “Helper”):

The fact that the pronouns referring to the Spirit…are neuter no more establishes the impersonality of the Spirit than the masculine pronouns ekeinos in 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13-14 and auton in 16:7 [ED: referring to paraklētos] prove the personality of the Spirit. In each case the gender of the pronouns is grammatically conditioned…The personality of the Spirit should be established without appeal to the masculine pronouns in the passages cited above. (One can argue, for example, that since Jesus as Helper [implied by allos, “another” in 14:16] is personal, one would assume that the Spirit as “another Helper” is also personal. And the other personal roles attributed to the Spirit, such as teaching and reminding [14:26], testifying [15:26], guiding [16:13], and informing [16:14-15], would certainly be strange if the Spirit were simply an impersonal force).4

In short, it’s not the Greek grammar that argues for the ‘Personhood’ of the Holy Spirit. It’s the contexts describing Him. A few other contexts in this regard:

  • The Holy Spirit can be grieved (Ephesians 4:30).
  • The Holy Spirit can be lied to (Acts 5:3), which is tantamount to lying to God (Acts 5:4).
  • The Holy Spirit is sent jointly by the Father (John 14:26) and the Son (John 15:26; 16:7) and is received by believers (1Cor 6:19, etc.), in whom the Spirit performs some of these personal functions.
  • The Spirit’s Deity finds affirmation in the sharing of the one Divine Name with the Father and the Son (Matthew 28:19). If the Father and Son are ‘Persons’, then it most likely follows that the Holy Spirit is, as well. Though equality of ‘Personhood’ cannot definitively be established by this one verse, it’s this verse in concert with other verses that help make the case. As another example of such, Jesus is called paraklētos (1John 2:1), while Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as ‘another paraklētos’ (John 14:16).

No Good Apologies for Bad Apologetics

Using bad apologetics can harm the Christian cause. Anyone who is against Trinitarianism specifically or Christianity generally can use that bad pronoun argument against the Christian faith. Such bad arguments can make us seem like the ignorant and unintelligent (or intellectually dishonest) people that many non-believers accuse Christians of being.

Such faulty arguments used in attempts to bolster a theological position undermine proper Christian apologetics. Let’s endeavor to do better. I know we can!

______________________________________

1 But logos has a more expansive range of meanings. For those unaware, many Word/Faith teachers assert (among other things) the false dichotomy that rhēma denotes the ‘higher’ word from God for believers only while logos indicates the written Scriptures as a whole for everyone, including non-believers. Not only is this reductionistic, it fails to account for the fact that the verbal form (legō) of logos is used quite often preceding speech (so-and-so said [legō], “…”). A good example to refute this dichotomy presents itself in Matthew 12:36: But I say (legō) to you that every idle word (rhēma) that men speak (legō) they will give account/reckoning (logos) for in the day of judgment. Moreover, rhēma is found in only 65 verses in the New Testament as compared to over 300 for logos, while the verbal form legō occurs over 2000 times.

2 I always place single quotes around ‘Person’ when referring to individual hypostases of the Father, Son, or Spirit in order to indicate a distinction between modern ideas of personhood and those of Trinitarianism. The Father, Son, and Spirit should not be reduced to such secular notions.

3 These five occurrences of the masculine demonstrative pronoun (John 14:26; 15:26; 16:8, 13, 14), plus one masculine personal pronoun, are the only stand-alone pronouns in this entire section referring to paraklētos. There are some others implied in verbs (all finite verbs encode person and number, but not gender), though some are ambiguous as to their intended referent (see previous article Another Paraclete?, especially endnote 10). There are also neuter pronouns—specific and implied—referencing either the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of truth in the Farewell Discourse.

4 John, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament (Nashville, TN: B&H, 2015), p 261 (Greek transliterated). And see note 3 above and my previous article related to this subject.

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.

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.]

What Did Pilate State in John 19:22?: Conclusion

[See part I]

In the conclusion here I shall more closely explore the three verses leading up to Pontius Pilate’s pithy phrase in 19:22. Some necessary background in John’s Gospel will be provided first.

Events Leading Up to Jesus’ Arrest

In reaction to Jesus’ increasing popularity following the miracle of Lazarus’ revivification (11:38-45; 12:9-11), some of ‘the Jews’8 conferred with the chief priests and the Pharisees who then summoned the Sanhedrin (11:46-47). They were concerned they would eventually lose their “place and nation” (11:48). While “place” in its Scriptural context may refer to the Temple, it may well (also) mean the leaders’ privileged positions, which were granted by, yet subject to, Roman authority.

At this meeting Caiaphas, the High Priest (11:49) said, “…it is better that one man die for the people than for the whole nation to perish” (11:50; cf. 18:14). The narrator of the Gospel adds:

51 He did not say this of himself but, as High Priest that year he prophesied that Jesus was going to die for the nation, 52 and not only the nation, but also that He would unite into one the children of God who are dispersed.9

The Greek words for “children of God” above are found only here and in 1:12 in John’s Gospel. Thus, ironically, the fulfillment of Caiaphas’ words would have different consequences than he likely assumed (cf. 7:35), and would result in the inclusion of Gentile believers as children of God on equal footing (12:32; cf. 4:42; Rom 2:28-29).

They then plotted Christ’s death (11:53), apparently conspiring to arrest Him at the next available opportunity toward that end (11:55-57).

In the meantime, the Devil cast into the heart of Judas Iscariot the desire to betray Jesus (13:2; cf. 13:18, 21). Shortly thereafter, at the Last Supper, “Satan entered into him” (13:27), and then Judas left to carry out his betrayal (13:30). Soon after that he went to an olive grove where he knew Jesus often met with his disciples, bringing with him “a detachment of soldiers and some officers of the chief priests and the Pharisees” (18:1-3).

Jesus’ Arrest and Trials

Jesus was subsequently arrested and brought before Annas, the father-in-law of Caiaphas (18:12-14), who questioned Him (18:19-23) before sending him on to Caiaphas (18:24). Then Christ was led to Governor Pilate’s palace (18:28).

Pilate enquired about the charges levied against Jesus (18:29), and with no direct answer given (18:30) he instructed them to “judge him by your own law” (18:31).10 ‘The Jews’ replied, “We are not authorized to execute anyone” (18:31). This was to fulfill the kind of death Jesus would suffer (18:32; cf. 12:33), as He indicated earlier—being “lifted up”, i.e., crucified (12:32).

Yet the fact that Roman soldiers (18:3) were employed in Jesus’ capture indicates Pilate may well have been apprised of the charges before Christ was presented to him. This would account for his first question to Jesus: “Are you ‘the king of the Jews’?” (18:33). Pilate’s words here could be intended, alternatively, as showing incredulity (cf. Isa 53:2): “You are ‘the king of the Jews’?”11 After Jesus informed him that His kingdom is not of this world (18:36, 37), Pilate found him without guilt, then asked the Jews if they would agree to release Him as per the annual tradition of freeing one prisoner at Passover (18:38-39). The Jews chose Barabbas instead (18:40).

With that, Pilate had Jesus flogged (19:1). The soldiers, mocking Jesus’ ‘purported’ kingship, put a crown of thorns on His head and clad Him in a purple robe (19:2-3).

After this, still unconvinced of Christ’s guilt, Pilate tried once more to persuade them to reconsider (19:4). When Jesus came out wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe, Pilate said (19:5), “Behold, the man!” This is probably Pilate’s way of challenging their charge of his alleged claim of political kingship.

In response, the chief priests and their officials shouted out (19:6): “Crucify! Crucify!” In return, Pilate told them to crucify Him—knowing they couldn’t of course—again stating he found the charges to be without foundation (19:6). ‘The Jews’ countered, using a different tact, “We have a law, and according to this law He must die, for He made Himself God’s Son” (19:7; cf. 5:18; 10:33). They were likely appealing to Leviticus 24:16, accusing Jesus of blasphemy.

Upon hearing their new allegation Pilate grew more afraid (19:8). Having been immersed in Greco-Roman polytheism, Pilate may have thought Jesus a ‘divine man’. Whatever the case, this new claim prompted him to ask Jesus, “Where are you from?” (19:9). As Christ remained silent Pilate apparently grew agitated, adding, “Don’t you know I have the authority to release you and I have the authority to crucify you?” (19:10). Jesus responded, “You would have no authority over me if it had not been given to you from above; therefore, the one who has delivered me over to you is guilty of a greater sin” (19:11; cf. 10:17-18).

From this point forward Pilate kept seeking to release Him. But, in persistence, ‘the Jews’ shouted, “If you release this fellow, you are no friend of Caesar’s—anyone who makes himself a king opposes Caesar” (19:12). Note the verbal connection between “makes himself a king” and “made Himself God’s Son” (cf. 5:18, 10:33) above.

It was around the “sixth hour” (noon) on the Day of Preparation for Passover week (19:14; cf. 13:1). With this time marker we know that Jesus’ impending death, only a short time away, would be around the same time when priests would begin slaughtering paschal lambs (Exo 12).12 Now the “Lamb of God” (1:29; cf. 1 Cor 5:7; Heb 9:11-15; 1 Pet 1:19; Rev 5:6) is about to meet a similar fate at about the same hour (cf. Exo 12:46; John 19:33, 36).

In response to their last statement (19:12), Pilate brought Jesus out and said (19:13-14), “Here is your king!” To that they shouted: “Take that man away! Take away! Crucify him!”13

Pilate answered (19:15), “Shall I crucify your king?”

The chief priests, in feigned allegiance to Caesar for the sake of expediency, answered (19:15), “We have no king but Caesar!” Their claim could be understood as a denial of their own God, their King (Jdg 8:23; 1 Sam 8:7; Psa 136:3)—at Passover, no less.

Their response was intended to dissuade Pilate from releasing Jesus, as doing so would make it appear he recognized Him as a rival to Caesar’s kingship. And thus Pilate failed in his efforts to free Jesus. ‘The Jews’ and the chief priests forced his hand, and so he handed Jesus over to them for crucifixion. Obviously unhappy with this turn of events, Pilate would exact revenge against them.

The Crucifixion and Pilate’s Enduring Statement

With Jesus formally sentenced, the soldiers took charge (19:16). After carrying His cross, He was ‘lifted up’, placed between two others (19:17-18).

Below is the brief section leading up to and including Pilate’s final statement in John’s Gospel. Each occurrence of the Greek verb root “write” (graphō) is bolded. In addition, titlos is left untranslated, for it is difficult to provide a suitable one-word substitute. An exploration of these terms will commence further below.

19 Yet Pilate also wrote a titlos and fastened it to the cross. It had been inscribed: JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS. 20 Many of the Jews thus read this titlos, for the place where Jesus was crucified was near the city, and it had been written in Aramaic, Latin, and Greek. 21 The chief priests of the Jews therefore said to Pilate, “Do not write, ‘THE KING OF THE JEWS’, but that man, ‘SAID, I AM KING OF THE JEWS.’”14

22 Pilate answered, “What I have written, I have written.”

Pilate’s inscription was intended as an insult to the Jews. The pen is indeed mightier than the sword here—in more than one way.

Since first century Greek texts lacked punctuation (and spacing between words!), there is some ambiguity as to the exact request of “the chief priests of the Jews” and how they wished to amend Pilate’s original words. I interpret their intention was to replace ‘…THE KING OF THE JEWS’ in the inscription with ‘…SAID, I AM KING OF THE JEWS’, resulting in their proposed verbiage JESUS THE NAZARENE SAID, I AM KING OF THE JEWS. They wanted the words to reflect a claim of Jesus, not a claim of the Jewish nation. From their perspective, the inscription as it stood may “appear to be a formal declaration of Jesus’ identity rather than a charge against Him.”15

Pilate was well aware their charges had been trumped up, so he was undoubtedly taking much pleasure in making a mockery of them in response to their mocked allegiance to Caesar at Jesus’ expense. They may have forced his hand, but he showed them who ultimately had the upper hand.

But Pilate’s vindication would have other ramifications. While we understand the theological implication in Pilate’s inscription—as it stands it makes a true statement of Jesus’ Kingship—taking a closer look at the context while investigating related historical background provides a stronger foundation upon which to construe it this way.

Other Signs

It was not uncommon in first century Rome for a criminal on his way to execution to be accompanied by a sign stating both his name and the offense for which He was condemned. It was either (a) carried by an official walking in front of him16 or (b) hung around his own neck.17 But there is not much historical evidence for placing this same sign on the criminal’s cross, and what is available is ambiguous.18 We must note that none of the Gospels mention anyone carrying a sign of this sort during the Via Dolorosa. This is not to definitively claim someone had not, however. We merely have no explicit evidence. What we know for certain is that a sign was placed onto Jesus’ cross indicating His supposed crime.19

In the previous paragraph, the word used referring to the sign accompanying condemned criminals in both instances is the Latin titulus. John’s titlos—found only here in 19:19 and 19:20 in all Scripture (and seems to be first used by John)—is a ‘loanword’ from this Latin term. Titulus had rather broad applications in first century Latin texts. In addition to the two examples previously cited, the word was used by Pliny the Younger (ca. AD 61—113) for a notice to rent20 and by Roman poet Ovid (BC 43—AD 17/18) for a notice of public sale.21 It was also used to signify a grave marker.22 As can be deduced, the term applied to both the inscription and the object on which it was inscribed in these instances. However, more importantly, at times titulus was used solely for the writing itself.23

The term can refer to epitaphs (i.e., the inscriptions) as distinct from grave markers.24 Roman historian Titus Livius Patavinus (ca. BC 64/59—AD 12/17) applied it to Hannibal’s self-inscription on an altar in which he glowingly described his own achievements.25 Columella (ca. AD 4—70), a writer on agricultural concerns, used the word to reference titles of books.26 Ovid, in the very same work referred to in the previous paragraph, used titulus to signify the title of a pamphlet.27 And most pertinent for our purposes here, in a work written around the time Christ was born Ovid employed the term in reference to honorific titles, as applied to Augustus Caesar, for example.28 In similar fashion, in one context Ovid used it as a title acquired by assuming it from those conquered or from some heroic event, yet also in synonymity with “name” (Latin: nomen).29 Yet, given that Pilate’s purpose with the inscription was to antagonize ‘the Jews’, can we rightly apply any of the latter two meanings (title, name) to John 19:19?

The text in 19:19 states that Pilate wrote the titlos (titulus) and affixed it to the cross. The task of placing the titlos onto the beam, however, was almost certainly delegated. Yet given the preceding historical investigation—illustrating titulus could refer to either the inscribed object and its inscription or the inscription only—there are a number of possible scenarios with regard to the writing of the words. Perhaps Pilate dictated the desired text to a scribe for inscribing.30 Or maybe he himself penned the words on a papyrus (titlos) and then gave this document to a scribe for inscribing onto the (presumed) board of the titlos.31 It could be that he inscribed the titlos in Latin and then gave it to a secretary to translate and write the Aramaic and the Greek. Whatever the case, in some manner, Pilate wrote the titlos.

Textual Clues and Syntactical Pointers

There’s a grammatical issue in the latter part of v. 19 that may well have a bearing here. The words preceding the inscription—“It had been inscribed” in the translation above (akin to the English past perfect)—are translated from a participle reflecting a neuter subject, while titlos is masculine. In other words, it does not refer to titlos. This exact syntax is found again in 19:20. So, to what or who does it refer? This is typically translated impersonally: “There was written” (~ “It [the inscription] read”).32 However, as Keener notes, each and every time this syntactical structure with this verb is used up to this point in John it references Scripture (it is written; it had been written).33 Keener concludes, “Thus John may ironically suggest that Pilate, as God’s unwitting agent (19:11), may carry out God’s will in the Scriptures.”34 Could God’s Spirit have superintended the writing of the inscription, despite Pilate’s vindictive purpose?

The words it is written in the verses prefacing Scripture (2:17; 6:31, 45; 10:34; 12:14; 15:25; cf. 5:46; 8:17) are in the perfect tense-form, while 12:16 contains a pluperfect, the same form as 19:19 and 19:20. Though all these are important to my argument here, key is the usage of 12:16, best rendered these things had been written.35 In that context, the narrator notes that the disciples recalled earlier events but only fully understood how they fulfilled Scripture from their post-glorification perspective (after Jesus’ resurrection). Before considering this line of inquiry further, how might 19:11 (which Keener references above) impact the interpretation in 19:19?

While the authority Pilate possessed in a general sense was certainly “from above” (anōthen), as it is for all rulers and authorities, this was not Jesus’ point here. Similar to v. 19, there is a mismatch in gender in v. 11. Just as the participle in 19:19 is neuter, so it had [not] been given is in 19:11. The Greek word for authority, however, is feminine.36 Thus, if it had not been given to you from above does not refer to Pilate’s general conferred authority but to his specific role in the events unfolding at the time: “the fact that Jesus has been given into his hands has been determined by God”.37

19:11 ouk eiches exousian kat’ emou oudemian ei mē ēn dedomenon soi anōthen
not you have authority over me nothing if not was it having been given you from-above
“You would have no authority over me if it had not been given to you from above.”

This same syntactical format (‘not this’ if it has/had not been given from God) is first found in John the Baptizer’s response to those who mentioned Jesus’ baptizing and the increasing numbers going to Him (3:26): 

3:27 ou dynatai anthrōpos lambanein oude hen ean mē ȩ̄ dedomenon autō̧ ek tou ouranou38
not s/he be able person to receive and-not one if not may-be it having been given him from heaven
A person is not able to receive not one thing if not it may be given to him/her from heaven
“A person is not able to receive anything if it has not been given to them from heaven.”

Though the Baptizer’s statement serves a particular purpose in its context, it should also be seen as a maxim, a general statement.39 These words of the Baptizer are the first with this syntactical structure, while Jesus’ words to Pilate are the last. In my opinion these form bookends, one opening and the other closing an inclusio. The Baptizer’s maxim then relates to some intervening uses of “give” (didōmi) such as parts of the Bread of Life discourse (e.g. 6:37, 39), Jesus’ Prayer (17:7, 11, 12, 22), and Jesus’ cup (18:11).40 Of course, it also relates to Jesus’ statement in 19:11. The remaining verse fitting this grammatical structure (6:65) is thematically relevant:

6:65 oudeis dynatai elthein pros me ean mē ȩ̄ dedomenon autō̧ ek tou patros
no one is able to come to me if not may-be it having been given him/her of the Father
“No one is able to come to Me if it has not been given to them by the Father.”

The point here is that while God places individuals in certain positions he also orchestrates specific events, using certain individuals to accomplish specific tasks in these events. Thus, understanding Pilate’s unique role in the Passion per Jesus’ phraseology in 19:11, we might be able to assume that this circumscribed, God-given authority extends to the inscription, especially when we consider the syntax in 19:19 and 19:20 (it had been inscribed) and how that relates to other uses of this same structure. Even still, can we make the leap that his words on the inscription are tantamount to writing Scripture? If so, what Scripture is referenced?

Crucial to understanding the Gospel of John is to grasp that the author is writing from a post-resurrection perspective, with the Spirit bringing to remembrance past events, further illuminating them (14:26; 16:12-15). At various points the narrator implies this by calling attention to some of Jesus’ previous statements (12:32 via 12:33 and 18:32 || 6:39 via 17:12 and 18:9). In 2:22 the narrator remarks that after “He was raised” the disciples ‘remembered’ His words and “they believed the Scripture (graphē, noun form of graphō) and the word that Jesus spoke” (in 2:19).  But what “Scripture” is ‘remembered’ here? It cannot be the one referenced in 2:16, for 2:17 specifically states they remembered it. By the context the intended referent appears to be the OT (Tanakh) in a general sense, as it relates to the resurrection.41

Somewhat similar to 2:22 is 12:16. Here the narrator states that the disciples fully realized that these things had been written about Him only “after Jesus was glorified”. “These things” refers to the Scripture referenced in 12:13 and 12:15. Yet in this same context the narrator relates it was not only the things that had been written but also these things done to Him. We can construe that this refers to the events acted out in fulfillment of those two Scriptures. However, oddly, if at the time of Jesus’ ministry the disciples didn’t understand that He was being proclaimed king, why did the crowd say these things? The seeming contradiction is reconciled if we understand it more broadly (similar to 2:22 above) to mean Jesus’ Kingship in the post-glorification sense.42 In other words, their initial interpretation of “king” was in a political sense, then after they ‘remembered’ “these things”, God’s Spirit provided further illumination, as in 2:22.

Tying It All Together

Considering the immediately preceding regarding 2:22 and 12:16, and adding in the syntactical connection between 12:16 and 19:19-20, we have a point of contact. One may argue that the grammatical relationship (these things had been written > it had been written/inscribed) is a bit tenuous, but the thematic one certainly applies. Yet the strength of the thematic link should bolster the grammatical. If the narrator relates how the disciples’ remembrance was further illuminated (implying by virtue of the Spirit: 14:26; 16:12-15), then how much more would the narrator/writer himself be likewise illumined?43 When we factor in the syntactical relationship between 19:19-20 and all other uses of it is written and it had been written (as pertaining to Scripture) in conjunction with Pilate’s unique authority in the Passion as revealed in Jesus’ words in 19:11 (and this grammatical and thematic link to 3:27), we have a stronger case for tying all this together.

Therefore, my contention is that John wrote this with the understanding of a dual purpose for the inscription: one for Pilate’s vengeance, and one for the Spirit to make a true identity statement. In other words, John himself recognized that the words Pilate wrote had influence from the Spirit, so he chose (under influence of the Spirit) it had been inscribed/written as a way to make this connection. I further contend this is why John borrowed the Latin titulus in his use of titlos. Assuming my argument here, one can see it is certainly no leap to enlarge the definition of John’s titlos to include “title” (THE KING OF THE JEWS) and/or “name” (JESUS THE NAZARENE) or both/and (JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS). Thus, rather than merely considering the wording on the inscription as an implication, we have grammatical and contextual reasons to assert with confidence that JESUS THE NAZARENE, THE KING OF THE JEWS is indeed written as a Messianic title, and/or a name, a proclamation in a literal sense—in addition to Pilate’s vindication. And the prefatory it had been inscribed designates that the words following, similar to the meaning in 12:16, refer to the OT (Tanakh) generally, rather than one specific verse or section.

Given all this, Pilate’s inscription, with the assistance of God’s Spirit, could be perceived as the climactic contravening of two statements by ‘the Jews’: Jesus “made Himself God’s Son” in 19:7 (cf. 5:18; 10:33) and “makes Himself King” in 19:12 (cf. 1:49; 12:13; 18:38), both encapsulated in Nathaniel’s proclamation in 1:49 “you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel” (cf. 12:13).

If all this prevails, then the chief priests of the Jews’ plea to Pilate to amend the title may be interpreted as an indirect attempt at usurping God’s authority by unknowingly trying to change Scripture. Interestingly, the narrator does not record that they ‘wanted to change’ (using allassō, e.g.) or something to that effect; instead they say to Pilate “do not write” (using graphō). This is yet another grammatical and thematic link further cohering the four verses (19:19-22).

Yet Pilate refused to alter the altar: What I have written, I have written. What I have written, I stand by. The irony then is that Pilate, a pagan and acting as God’s unwitting agent, stood by God’s words, while the opposing Jews, who had just executed their Messiah, wanted to amend them.

So, what did Pilate “state”? His final words “What I have written, I have written” affirm his inscription, and by doing so, those words remain in Scripture in a state of having been written. And, if the analysis here is accepted, with God’s ‘hand’ on Pilate’s ‘pen’, Pilate ‘wrote’ New Testament Scripture, words that endure to this very day.44

_________________________________________

8 I place ‘the Jews’ in single quotes when the text uses οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι (hoi Ioudaioi), since this is the manner in which the Gospel of John chooses to identify this sub-group. Note, however, that while John’s characterization is mostly negative in the text here, there are quite a few times in the Gospel when the term is used in positive (2:6; 4:22; 8:31; 11:19, 31, 33, 36, 45; 12:9, 11; 19:31) or neutral (1:19; 2:13; 3:1, 22; 5:1, 15; 6:4; 7:2; 11:55; 13:33; 18:20; 19:20, 40, 42) settings (such as in describing a certain festival “of the Jews”), or times in which the group is perhaps understandably perplexed (2:20; 6:41, 52; 7:15; 7:35; 8:57; 10:19). The term’s meaning in John is a bit ambiguous and remains an enigma. Even the designation the Pharisees is sometimes used positively or neutrally (e.g. 9:16). However in this section of John’s Gospel ‘the Jews’ are Jesus’ adversaries.

9 My translation, as are all Scripture quotations in this article. The Latin is also my translation, assisted by online sources and, at times, by others’ English translations. My goal is to adhere closer to a formal equivalence than a dynamic or functional one. To that end, I endeavor to translate nouns for nouns, verbs for verbs, etc.

10 The words of Pilate here may well be an example of artistic license on the part of John the Evangelist. These may have been meant to be ironical in that, according to Mosaic Law—and in truth, of course—Jesus was not guilty of any crime.

11 Since Greek finite verbs encode person and number, a pronoun is not necessary unless the subject is ambiguous; thus, the presence of the pronoun “you” (συ) here is not necessary, and may be used for emphasis.

12 Here I’m following John’s intent in his presentation of events without trying to reconcile them with the Synoptic accounts. See Thompson, John: A Commentary, pp 388-390. Thompson presents a synopsis of (1) the difference between the Synoptic Gospel’s accounts regarding the timing of Jesus’ death as compared to John’s, (2) the problem of associating Jesus’ death with the “sixth hour” (noon) and how this does not seem to correlate with the timing of the slaughtering of Passover lambs.  However, John’s chronology indicates Jesus will be crucified later than noon (he had to first take up his own cross and then walk to the crucifixion site), and so her observations regarding the typical time range for sacrificing Paschal lambs (beginning a bit after 1:30 in the afternoon at the earliest) do not necessarily contradict this. Those attempting to reconcile John with the Synoptics employ various measures. See, e.g. Andreas J. Köstenberger’s contribution in G. K. Beale & D. A. Carson eds., Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2007), p 500.

13 The twice-used verb for “take away” (αἴρω, airō) has a somewhat broad semantic range that can mean take up as in to raise up to a higher position, move to another place, carry away. It seems likely a double meaning is intended here. That is, ‘lift that man up’ may be understood as the additional meaning, in irony.

14 The word translated “Aramaic” is Hebraisti, which some English versions render “Hebrew”. Following Harris (Murray J. Harris, John, Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament, Andreas J. Köstenberger & Robert W. Yarbrough, gen. eds. [Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2015], p 314), I construe the periphrastic ἦν + γεγραμμένον in v. 19 and v. 20 as akin to the pluperfect of γράφω (cf. 12:16), though I prefer to translate as an English past perfect rather than a simple past.

15 Thompson, John: A Commentary, p 398.

16 In Roman historian Suetonius’ (c. AD 69—122) Caligula—Emperor from AD 37 to 41—an account of a slave sentenced to execution by the Emperor for stealing silver (32.2) was “preceded by a sign indicating the cause for his punishment” (Latin: praecedente titulo qui causam poenae indicaret). Cf. for a similar account in the 2nd century (AD 177) Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 5.1.44, in which someone carried a board (πίναξ, pinax) in front of Attalus with the inscription THIS IS ATTALUS THE CHRISTIAN.

17 In Suetonius’ Domitianus (10.2-3)—Domitian was Roman Emperor from AD 81 to 96—the sign describing the charge was placed upon the accused gladiator himself (cum hoc titulo: Impie locutus parmularius; “with this sign [upon him]: ‘A Parmularian [gladiator] impiously spoke’”).

18 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, two volumes (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003) p 2.1137. “The posting of the accusation on the cross is not well attested, either because those describing the crucifixion had already mentioned it being carried out . . . or because the practice was not in fact standard although, given the variations among executions, in no way improbable . . . (p 2.1137, n 608).

19 Although only Matthew (27:37) and Mark (15:26) specifically refer to a sign stating the cause (aitia) for which Jesus was crucified, this does not mean we cannot infer this from the other Gospels (cf. John 19:6).

20 Letters, 7.27 (“To Sura”): Athenodorus legit titulum: “Athenodorus read the notice (to rent the haunted mansion)”.

21 In Remedia Amoris (Cures for Love), for the notice of sale (Latin: sub titulum, “‘under’ the notice”, i.e., “using the notice”) for the household items the unscrupulous girl had plundered (302). Cf. the oft-neglected Marvin R. Vincent, Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2009), p II.283. Cf. Tibellus (c. BC 55-BC 19), Elegiae, 2.4.54: ite sub imperium sub titulumque; “you go under her command and under the notice.”

22 Pliny the Younger: Letters, 6.10.3: post decimum mortis annum reliquias neglectumque cinerem sine titulo sine nomine iacere: “ten years postmortem his remains have been cast down and neglected, without a grave marker and without a name.” That titulus in this context does not mean “epitaph” (the inscription itself as distinct from the marker) is evident by the next line of the epistle, in which the author specifies the words the deceased wanted inscribed (inscriberetur) as his epitaph. Also see Ovid, Fasti, Book IV.23, 44, in which titulus refers to a scroll and the writing upon it (longum scriberet annum vidit  . . . proximus est titulis Epytus: “to see what he might have engraved on the roll . . . next on the scroll is Egyptus”).

23 See F. R. Montgomery Hitchcock, “The Use of γράφειν,” Journal of Theological Studies old series 31 (1930), pp 272-273.

24 Martial (ca. AD 38/41—102/104), Epigrammata (published between AD 86 and 103), I.93.4: Plus tamen est, titulo quod breviore legis: ‘Iunctus uterque sacro laudatae foedere vitae, famaque quod raro novit, amicus erat’: “Yet more is what you glean from this brief epitaph: ‘Knit in the sacred bond of life with an honored reputation rarely known: they were friends’.” Cf. Ovid, Epistulae: Sappho Phaoni, 15.190-195; cf. Pliny the Younger, Letters, 9.19.3: . . . si immortalitatem quam meruere sectantur, victurique nominis famam supremis etiam titulis prorogare nituntur: “ . . . if they now seek immortalization, and the names they have so greatly earned in glory and fame to secure, and to perpetuate themselves by epitaphs.” By the context it seems possible that both the inscription and the grave marker are included in titulus here, but the primary meaning is certainly the epitaph/inscription itself.

25 Titus Livius, Ab Urbe Condita (The History of Rome), 28.46.16 aram condidit dedicavitque cum . . . titulo: “he erected and dedicated an altar with . . . an inscription.”

26 De De Rustica, Book IX, preface: tituli, quern prae-scripsimus huic disputationi: “the title, which we have prefixed to this discourse.” Cf. De De Rustica, Book VIII, preface; cf. Quintilian (ca. AD 35—100), Institutio Oratoria, Book 2.14.4: quos hac de re primum scripserat, titulis Graeco nomine utatur: “from earlier [works] which he had written, Greek name titles were used.” In other words, he used Greek names as titles in earlier works.

27 Remedia Amoris, in the very first line of the poem (1): titulum nomenque libelli, “name and title of this little book”. I interpret this as epexegetical such that “name” further defines titulus. In other words, “name” refers to the title (and ‘title’ refers to the name) on the book’s title page, in order to differentiate it from the other meaning of titulus as both inscription and inscribed object (title page). Alternatively, the terms titulus and nomen could be synonymous here. See note 29.

28 Fasti, Book III.419-420: Caesaris innumeris . . . accessit titulis pontificalis honor; “To Caesar’s innumerable . . .  titles the honor of Pontificate was added.” Cf. M. Tullius Cicero (BC 106—BC43), Against Piso, 9.19: posset sustinere tamen titulum consulatus: “might have the power to sustain the title of consulate.”

29 Fasti, Book I.599-604: si a victis, tot sumat nomina Caesar, quot numero gentes maximus orbis habet, ex uno quidam celebres aut torquis adempti aut corvi  titulos auxiliaris habent. Magne, tuum nomen rerum est mensura tuarum; sed qui te vicit, nomine maior erat: “If Caesar claims names from those conquered, let him take as many as the mighty globe has nations! From one event some celebrate—either from a neck-chain won or allied ravens—the titles they possess. O great one [Pompey the Great], your name is the measure of your deeds, but he who conquered you was greater in name.” Cf. Ovid, Fasti, Book IV.115, in which the goddess Venus is referred to as the titulus of a calendar month. See note 27 for another possibility.

30 See Hitchcock, “The Use of γράφειν,” pp 271-273.

31 Ibid.

32 E.g., Harris, John, p 314. See note 14 above.

33 Keener, Gospel of John, p 2.1138. All but one of the Scripture verses Keener cites here are perfects (as the periphrastic ἔστιν γεγραμμένον: 2:17; 6:31, 45; 10:34; 12:14; 15:25), the lone exception being 12:16, a pluperfect (the periphrastic ἦν + γεγραμμένα). While the perfects are important, it is this exception in the pluperfect that provides the primary link for the argument I shall put forth here.

34 Keener, Gospel of John, p 2.1138. The author understands Pilate’s conferred authority in 19:11 in a general sense (pp 2.1126-27) rather than in the more circumscribed view I shall pursue below.

35 It is actually a periphrastic, an equivalent to the pluperfect—see note 33.

36 More specifically, the participle δεδομένον is neuter. It would have to be the feminine δεδομένη to agree with the feminine ἐξουσίαν (authority) here. Cf. C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1978) p 543. In addition, it may be that Jesus’ answer here includes a roundabout answer to the question Pilate posed in 19:9: “Where are you from?” Answer: ἄνωθεν, “from above”.

37 Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John, transl. G. R. Beasley-Murray, Gen Ed., R. W. N. Hoare & J. K. Riches (Philadelphia, PA: Westminster, 1971), p 662. Cf. George R. Beasley-Murray, John, Word Biblical Commentary, D. Hubbard, G. Barker, gen. eds. (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), pp 339-340; D. A. Carson, The Gospel According to John, Pillar New Testament Commentary, D. A. Carson, gen. ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1991), pp 601-602

38 There is a difference here in that a neuter subject is found in ἕν, hen (one) from the apodosis.

39 C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, p 222.

40 This does mean to imply, of course, that 3:27 (and 6:65 just below) is no longer applicable as a general maxim.

41 See C. K. Barrett, The Gospel According to St. John, p 201.

42 See Carson, The Gospel According to John, pp 433-434.

43 See Jörg Frey, Theology and History in the Fourth Gospel (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2018), pp 151-154.

44 Alternatively, John the Gospel writer took certain liberties in fashioning his Gospel, and in so doing, re-formed some words to make his theological and christological points.

Bill Johnson’s Christology: A New Age Christ?, part IIIb

[See also: Part I, The Christ Anointing and the Antichrist Spirit, Part II, Part IIIa and Part IV (Conclusion).]

1In the beginning was the Word [Logos.]
and the Word [Logos] was with God
and the Word [Logos] was God.
2He was in the beginning with God.
3All things came into being by Him,
and apart from Him
nothing came into being
that has come into being
14And the Word [Logos] became flesh,
and dwelt among us,
and we beheld His glory,
glory as of the only begotten from the Father,
full of grace and truth.
[John 1:1-3,14 NASB]

The prologue to the Gospel of John is among the most beautiful passages in all of Scripture.  It is also one of the most theologically brilliant.  Not only does John assert that the Logos was WITH God in the creation account of Genesis by paralleling the first few verses with those that begin the canon of Scripture, John states the Logos WAS God.  He is illustrating the plurality of the Godhead, i.e. that God is monotheistic yet more than one ‘Person’ (John would describe the Person of the Holy Spirit later in 14:15-16:15).  The Gospel writer makes it clear that God the Word/Logos became flesh, yet He was fully God in the flesh and not ‘merely’ human.

However, other groups claimed that John had different thoughts in mind for the Logos.  Some Gnostics in the 2nd century (and later) claimed John’s Gospel has a dualistic Gnostic backdrop with his contrasts of light and darkness (v 1:5) and other dichotomies, and they interpreted John’s Christology as congruent with Gnostic redeemer myths117 (redemption through autosoterism, or self-salvation).

Some have claimed Hellenistic (ancient Greek) influence.  According to NT scholar Craig Keener, Heraclitus, a Greek philosopher of the 6th century BC, “reportedly spoke of ‘Thought’ as guiding and ordering the universe” and his work refers to the Logos as being “eternal, omnipresent, the divine cause”.118  The Stoics took this further as Zeno “identified Socrates’ logos, or rational principle, with that of Heraclitus” calling this “the common law” or “natural law”.119  Apparently, these groups believed the Logos was present in all of creation, i.e. they had a panentheistic (God is in all) worldview.

Others asserted that it was Philo’s Logos that John had in mind.  Philo combined aspects of Stoicism (including the Logos as the divine mind, or nous120) with his own theology which was influenced by Platonism (from the philosophy of Plato):

In Philo’s scheme, the Logos is directly below God and directly above the powers through which God rules creation; the powers appear as angels when related to OT imagery, but Philo elsewhere identifies them with Platonic ideas.  The Logos, as God’s archangel and eldest offspring, functions as ambassador to humanity and separates the creature from the Creator; as such it is a mediator of God’s activity in the world and of revelation.  The Logos is God’s image, through whom the universe was formed.  In Platonic thought the sensory world is merely a copy of the real world of ideas, of eternal forms.  The Stoics, by contrast, saw the Logos as immanent in the world of matter.  Philo combines these strands of thought, following the syncretistic lead of middle Platonism in his day.121

Still others claim that John had in mind the Wisdom literature in Scripture [Proverbs 8, 9, etc] and extra-Biblical writings of the time including the Apocrypha (the Deuterocanonical books in the Catholic Bible including “Wisdom of Solomon”, “Wisdom of Ben Sira”, etc.) and the Pseudepigrapha (literary works circa 200 BC to 200AD).  This position asserts that John had envisioned Jesus as Wisdom personified given the many seeming parallels between his use of Logos and the way Sophia, the Greek word for Wisdom, is used in the Wisdom literature.  Yet the Gospel writer never actually uses Sophia in reference to Jesus. Therefore, some scholars claim reliance on this motif while others may affirm perhaps partial influence.122

Andreas Kostenberger sees John’s intent more in line with personifying the Word of God in the OT noting the strong parallel of John 1 with Genesis 1, the parallels of John 1:14-18 with Exodus 33-34, and the Logos concept in Isaiah 55:9-11 (and other passages in Isaiah).123  In addition, Kostenberger seems to suggest the Logos concept was used as an apologetic against prevailing Greek thought:

…Though John does not elaborate on the precise way in which Jesus was made flesh, his contention that deity assumed human nature in Jesus would have been anathema for Greeks who held to a spirit/matter dualism and could hardly have imagined immaterial Reason becoming a physical being.124

It seems quite plausible that the Gospel writer, being well aware of current philosophical and religious thought, wrote the prologue and parts of the rest of the Gospel with a dual purpose – as both a Gospel and an apologetic against these threats.  This is especially possible if one assumes a late date of authorship as do most scholars (between 90AD and 100AD).125  In fact, Irenaeus, in his Adversus Haereses (Against Heresies), circa 180AD, makes the claim that the Gospel of John is an apologetic against the burgeoning Gnostic (or proto-Gnostic) threat of John’s day.126  John’s Gospel (and, of course, his epistles, especially 1 John which contains elements of the Gospel’s prologue) can function as an apologetic against current Christological heresies as well since some of the concepts above are being perpetuated in slightly different forms today.

The Word Becoming Flesh

Christian orthodoxy affirms that Jesus Christ was/is the Word made flesh; i.e., the Word/Logos, the second Person of the eternal Triune God, added human flesh to Himself and became the unique God-man in the womb of the Virgin Mary.  This hypostatic union retains throughout eternity, for Jesus Christ is yet still both human (with a glorified body) and divine as He sits at the Father’s right hand.  However, Bill Johnson explicitly denies the uniqueness of the Word made flesh:

…It’s the Spirit of God that makes this thing [the Bible] come alive to where we actually have the privilege of the Word becoming flesh in us again, where we become the living illustration and manifestation of what God is saying.127

What does he mean by “the Word becoming flesh in us again”?  Are we to be just like Jesus, i.e. divine?  Or was Jesus not the second person the Trinity made flesh in the first place?  Is this what Johnson means by “Jesus emptied Himself of divinity and became man”?128  Perhaps this is speaking of the false parousia as mentioned in part II?  Or, is this a combination of some or all of these?

In yet another sermon, titled “Jesus is Our Model” – the same from which is the blasphemous ‘born again Jesus’ statement – we have Johnson speaking on the word Word yet again:

…Look at verse 3 [of Luke 4], “And, the devil said to Him, ‘IF you are the Son of God command this stone to become bread.’”  Jesus answered Him saying, “It is written: Man shall not live by bread alone but by every WORD of God.”  What was the first temptation?  It wasn’t to turn stone into bread, it was to question who He was129

Not many theologians would agree with Johnson that the first temptation was “to question who He was” by emphasizing if.  The majority of scholars assert it was a test to satisfy His hunger by miraculous power rather than relying on the Father for provision.130  But, more importantly, Johnson stresses Word having in mind the Word of Faith (WoF) “rhema” Word, i.e., ‘new revelation’ – NOT that Jesus is Himself the unique, second Person of the Trinity Word/Logos made flesh, although that is how it may appear at first.  This will be evident as we continue on with Johnson:

…Jesus explains this later to the disciples in Matthew 13; I’ll just read the one phrase to you that’ll help that concept to make sense.  He was talking about people who had no root in themselves; they hear the Word but there’s no depth in their personThey’ve not been prepared for what God is saying and doing131

In applying Matthew 13 to both Jesus and mankind rather than just mankind, Johnson has reduced Jesus to a man who Himself is indwelt by (NOT in hypostatic union with) the “rhema” Word.  Simultaneously, he’s reinterpreted this Scripture to pertain to those who either accept or reject the WoF “rhema” Word.  [The Greek words rhema and logos are used interchangeably in the Bible although the Apostle John specifically refers to Jesus as the Logos made flesh (John 1:1,14).]  Continuing on:

…It says, “for when tribulation or persecution arises because of the WORD [3 second pause for emphasis] immediately they stumble.  Persecution, difficulty, conflict arises because of the Word.  The WORD of the Lord attracts CONFLICT.  It’s not punishment.  It’s not to humiliate.  It’s for two basic reasons: it’s because the Lord wants to give reward and He wants to honor character.  Character is not formed in the absence of options.  There has to be two trees in the Garden where I am honored for a decision.  Do I honor what God has declared over my life or not?  Do I consider other options, other possibilities?132

Please note that the Scripture in Matthew 13 [13:21-22] refers to the Gospel message, not the “rhema” Word as Johnson would have us believe.  Scripturally, either one accepts the Gospel message and stays true to the Faith (the true convert) or one drifts away when trials and tribulations arise, when persecution comes, or the message is choked out by the concerns of life (the false convert).

At this point we’ll compare to more text from Levi Dowling’s New Age book which was referenced in part IIIa:

  The Christ is son, the only son begotten by Almighty God, the God of Force and God omniscient, the God of thought; and Christ is God, the God of Love.  

…Through Christ all life was manifest; and so through him all things were done, and naught was done in forming worlds or peopling worlds without the Christ.  

Christ is the Logos of Infinities and through the Word alone are Thought and Force made manifest.133

This is obviously a perversion of the prologue in John’s Gospel.  Both “Thought” and “Force” are capitalized in the original [“thought” is not capitalized the first time though].  This sure reads like WoF doctrine with “faith” as a ‘force’ and the “rhema” Word, ‘new, ongoing revelation’, coming into our thoughts.  “Christ” here is in reference to a member of this false Trinity who also “pervades all spaces of infinity”134, as in panentheism, meaning that all matter contains a “seed” of “Christ”, including man, and it takes the “Christ Spirit” to activate these “seeds”:

Into the soil…these seeds, which were the Thoughts of God, were cast…and they who sowed the seeds, through Christ, ordained that they should grow…and each to be a perfection of its kind.135

To reiterate, this “Christ” is the occult version of “Christ in you, the hope of glory” [Col 1:27] with “Christ” being the dormant, non-activated seed as well as a member of this false Trinity who permeates all matter.  This is evident in the following words of Levi’s “Jesus”:

Look to the Christ within who will be formed in every one of you, as he is formed in me.136

Now, let’s pick up where we left off in the sermon of Johnson:

…This story in Matthew 13, the parable of the seed and the sower actually gives this picture of soil; and the seed of God’s Word, the sperma of God, is released into the seed, through His Word, into the soil.  And, then it says, but other things grow and they choke out the life of that seed of God.  Think about it: the Word of God, the most powerful thing in the universe, is put into an environment that if we give attention to other IDEALS, other VOICES, other WORDS, we actually give them a place in our heart to take root and they choke out the Word of God, the most powerful thing in the universe.  For a season, the Lord has allowed our choices to affect the power, the effect of the most powerful thing in the universe.  It’s stunning…137

We’ll elaborate more on the “sperma of God” in the section below on “spiritual DNA”; but, it seems obvious that it’s analogous to Bob Jones’ “God sperm seed” from part II.  This “sperma of God” compares remarkably well with Levi’s “seeds” account above, does it not?  In addition, Levi’s statementthrough the Word alone are Thought and Force made manifest” seems akin to Johnson’s “rhema” Word made manifest in both Jesus and ‘believers’ as we consider Johnson’s words, “we actually have the privilege of the Word becoming flesh in us again, where we become the living illustration and manifestation of what God is saying.”

Also, note Johnson’s negative emphasis on ideals, voices, and words – is this a knock against Christian theological orthodoxy?  Perhaps so, since later Johnson speaks of ‘religion’ as, “mowing down the seeds so that they all look the same”.138  Bill Johnson continues to make more parallels to Levi’s doctrine:

The most powerful thing in the universe, the Word of God – that created the world, that spoke things into being, that Word has been planted in your heart.139

You’ve got to know the mind of the Lord if you’re gonna stand strong.140

Overall, Johnson appears to be making the point that to be strong, to grow in the faith, one must become more and more attuned to the ‘continuing revelation’ of the “rhema” word.  This is instead of the Christian orthodox view of sanctification by submitting to the Holy Spirit’s leading rather than our own flesh, carnality.

Levi’s teachings are not unique to him as these are also common in Gnostic literature (as stated earlier, Gnosticism also informs New Age doctrine).  In Benjamin Walker’s Gnosticism: Its History and Influence, he uses this same “seed” concept referencing Matthew 13 like Johnson.  Walker notes how man may either “identify with the upper realm and be transformed by it, or with the lower and perish as a result.”141

This type of man hears the call, but whether he listens and responds, or not, lies entirely within himself.  He is capable of receiving the seed sown by the sower.  But he is fertile ground for both tares and wheat (Matt. 13:25).  He must take care that the thorns of intellectualism and disbelief do not grow and choke the seed.  He has free will and tends both to good and evil, and must make up his own mind in which direction he will move…142

Biblically, the parable of the wheat and the tares/weeds [Matt 13:24-30] is about true Christians and false Christians.  The false Christians (tares/weeds) will be intertwined with the true (wheat) until the eschaton, the consummation, the end of all things.

This same false teaching is also in the Unity Church doctrine.   The following is a portion of the Unity Church’s definition for “kingdom of God” in their Metaphysical Bible Dictionary which compares favorably with both the Gnostic account above and Johnson’s version of Matthew 13:

…Jesus likened the kingdom to a seed because a seed has unexpressed capacities, and needs to be planted in the soil best suited, and when planted in a receptive mind it brings forth the fruits of the Spirit.  The life of the word is the spiritual idea it contains.

The kingdom of heaven is attained, first, by one’s establishing in one’s mind the consciousness of the truth of Being; second, by one’s outer life to Truth.

Jesus used many commonplace things to illustrate the establishing of the kingdom of heaven in consciousness in order that we might the more easily adjust all our thoughts and acts in harmony with the ideas that make heaven.

Jesus likened heaven to a man that sowed good seed in his field, but when he slept an enemy sowed tares there (Matt. 13:24-30).  The explanation is this: The field is consciousness; the good seed are our true thoughts, which are sown when we express our mind positively.  The tares are the error thoughts that drift in when the consciousness is negative or ignorant143

For further comparison, here are two quotes from Constance Cumbey’s September, 1988 New Age Monitor in which are transcriptions of question and answer sessions with David Spangler and Michael Lindfield, both of Findhorn Foundation, an openly New Age organization (which has been around for 50 years and counting).  Both individuals were taped at Boulder Episcopalian Church in Boulder, CO on October 26, 1987144 the day following an important series of meetings with Evangelicals and New Agers over the weekend.  First is Spangler:

…Even today, you know, in meeting with people who are leaders of the evangelical and pentecostal community, it was quite evident they were saying, ‘you know, the Spirit of Christ is in the world.’  It is in all people.  That is in scripture and as a consequence, people who have never encountered Christianity can still encounter Christ.  And a number of these evangelicals came up with examples of this in their travels around the world, and pointed to scriptural passages to substantiate this…145

Spangler makes the claim that both Evangelical and Pentecostal leaders stated that ‘Christ’ is “in all people” such that even non-Christians can “encounter Christ.”   Lindfield makes a similar claim about himself having his “own essential Christhood” and then makes a further claim about the “word made flesh”:

…I claim my right to freely explore my relationship with God and with Christ.  And if that makes me a New Ager, I will proudly wear that label, if that makes me a fundamental Christian, I will proudly wear that label.  Whatever it is that allows me to freely explore my relationship with God – my own essential Christhood – I will gladly take that on…There are many books and many writings purporting to express ‘this is the New Age.’  But in essence what I feel we are searching for is the word made fleshnot just the word made paper146

Levi Dowling makes this concluding statement with respect to the “Word made flesh”:

…[A]fter thirty years of strenuous life the man [Jesus] made his body fit to be the temple of the holy breath [Holy Spirit] and Love [Christ] took full possession, and John well  said when he declared: ‘And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us and we beheld the glory of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.’147

Dowling’s point is that Jesus of Nazareth so demonstrated His worthiness to become ‘the Christ’, the World Teacher of the Piscean Age, that He was fully possessed by ‘the Christ’, the member of the false Trinity.  That is, Jesus, like all others, had the seed within Him (‘Christ within’, the “Thoughts of God” which pervade “all spaces of infinity”) which was then activated by ‘the Christ’, the Son of the false Trinitarian Father, who eventually  “took full possession” of Him.  Once ‘the Christ’, the Logos of Infinities, the false Trinitarian Christ, took full possession of Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus then became ‘the Word made flesh’.  The now ascended Master Jesus, the “World Teacher” for the Age of Pisces, is now our example to follow towards our own ascension to godhood.  To that end, we ourselves must also become “the Word made flesh”.

Given the earlier comparison (in part IIIa) of some Christological quotes of Bill Johnson to those of Levi and the comparisons in this particular section, it is entirely plausible that Johnson intends the same meaning as Levi with respect to “the Word made flesh”.

Interestingly, later in the “Jesus is our Model” sermon, Johnson comes close to correctly explaining Jesus’ first temptation as Him not succumbing to the Devil’s temptation to turn stone into bread: “He could have used the anointing that the Father had given Him through the Holy Spirit to turn the stone into bread.  But, He would not prostitute the favor, the anointing, the power, for personal gain…He faced it; He quoted Scripture; He brought the Word back into focus.”148   However, note that He refrained from using “the anointing that the Father had given Him” rather than His own inherent divinity.

Yet, Johnson follows this up conflating Scripture with the “rhema” Word, then he proceeds to use an example of a personal predictive prophecy which purportedly came to pass years later thereby emphasizing the “rhema” Word and, hence, coming full circle.  Subsequently, he closes his sermon and restates his original wrong exposition on Jesus’ first temptation.149

So, initially, Johnson goes to great lengths to show that Jesus’ first temptation was to question who He was as the “rhema” Word made flesh; yet, he later claims that Jesus first temptation was to get Him to use the power of ‘the anointing’ “for personal gain” thereby contradicting his first interpretation.  However, he asserts once again that Jesus’ first temptation was to “question His identity” near the very end of this sermon.150  This aptly illustrates Johnson’s duplicity.

The Word Becoming Spirit

In the following is another example of Johnson proclaiming Jesus as the “rhema” Word made flesh in yet another sermon.  However, Bill Johnson goes a bit further.  In this first bit, Johnson is making the point that most don’t have the full reality of what God ‘has already imparted into us’.  By this, he apparently means we’ve not yet fully actualized the seed implanted in us:

…We take such small risks because we live with such ignorance of what we possess.  I pray…that the ongoing revelation of God would come upon us as a people to discover what He has already been imparted to us; so that we can reasonably pursue the increase in what we’re lacking, what we’re missing…the real issue is that we live in ignorance of what has already been deposited into our lives.151

This “ongoing revelation”, this “rhema” Word, activated by “the sperma of God” will help us to literally release ‘the Word’ into the atmosphere – as it did for Jesus:

…Jesus said the Kingdom is within you.  Now that Kingdom is released in many different ways.  It is released through touch, it is released through the prophetic act, it is released through word.  In John chapter 6, Jesus said, “My words to you are spirit and they are life.”  Whenever Jesus spoke, He spoke what the Father was saying; so, nothing originated [from Him]…152

Johnson goes on with his usual kenotic motif of ‘Jesus did nothing of Himself being totally reliant on the Father in order to model a Spirit-filled life for the believer’.  Then he continues, claiming that when Jesus, “the Word made flesh”, spoke, His Words literally became Spirit by taking John 6:63 out of context.  He expounds on this proof-text by taking Romans 14:17 out of context as well which is followed by more Scripture twisting in order to make his esoteric point:

…So Jesus makes this declaration: “My words to you are spirit and they are lifeJesus is the Word of God made flesh; but, every time He spoke, the Word of God became SpiritWord made flesh; Word made Spirit…  Why is that important? 

…Paul said this in Romans, that the Kingdom of God is not meat or drink, but it is righteousness, peace and joy IN the Holy Spirit.  The Kingdom of God is not meat or drink, it’s righteousness, peace and joy IN the Holy Spirit.  The Kingdom of God is IN the Holy Spirit.  When words become Spirit, the realms of God’s dominion are released over humanityWhen we say what the Father is saying then we literally impart Presence through speech.  It is not the volume.  It is not the profundity.  It is the source: Was it from the heart of the Father?  If we tap the heart of the Father and we speak, then something is released and it is the person of the Holy Spirit who Himself contains the realm of the King-dom – King’s domain.  The realm of God is contained in the realm of the Spirit. When we say what the Father is saying, we change the options of every hearer…

When Jesus said, “Repent for the Kingdom of heaven is at hand” He was letting them know ‘when I talk to you, a reality is released over you that changed your options’.  And your answer is within reach.  It’s at HAND.153  

Is this Levi’s (God of) Force ‘made manifest’ “through the Word”?  The similarities are striking indeed.  Later in this same monologue, Johnson tells the audience the entire purpose of “all ministry” which is to literally “impart the Person of the Spirit of Christ”.  Which “Spirit of Christ” is being imparted?

…It’s my conviction that all ministry can be summed up…can be boiled down to one thing: All ministry is actually imparting the Person of the Spirit of Christ into the atmosphere, into a situation.  It’s actually imparting [ED: Johnson here points to his mouth] the person.  “Freely you have received, freely give.”  What have you received?  Him.154

This doctrine is not found anywhere in the pages of the Holy Bible; however, this concept is remarkably similar to an occult teaching regarding the etheric realm.  In Alice Bailey’s Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle, she describes the etheric realm as the panentheistic realm – that substance of ‘god’ which is within all matter.  She uses the term omnipresence to describe its nature:

…Omnipresence has its basis in the substance of the universe, and in what the scientists call the ether; this word “ether” is a generic term covering the ocean of energies which are all inter-related and which constitute that one synthetic energy body of our planet.155

In panentheism, God is both transcendent (outside the cosmos) while simultaneously immanent, within all matter.  This immanence is the ‘god within’ (or “Christ within”, seed, divine spark) which inter-connects with all others; i.e., the ‘god within’ one person or thing is of the same essence as the ‘god within’ another.  This ‘divine immanence’ is the etheric realm, and omnipresence characterizes the nature of the entire etheric body.  This then makes omniscience possible to all:

It is a fact that omnipresence, which is a law in nature and based on the fact that the etheric bodies of all forms constitute the world etheric body, makes omniscience possible.  The etheric body of the planetary Logos is swept into activity by His directed will; energy is the result of His thoughtform playing in and through His energy body.156

Bailey asserts that this inter-connectness of the panentheistic, etheric realm makes collective omniscience possible since “divine thought” permeates this realm.157 Through “concentration and meditation”, individuals become “inspired Thinkers” with the power to direct this energy thereby acquiring “the clue to ultimate world salvation”:158

The thought-directing energy has for its source a Thinker Who can enter into the divine Mind, owing to His having transcended human limitation; the thought-directed receiver is the man, in exoteric expression, who has aligned his brain, his mind, and his soul.159

…Advanced humanity, the mystics and the knowers, are becoming increasingly aware of the mind which directs the evolutionary process.  When this awareness is cultivated and the individual mind is brought consciously into contact with the mind of God as it expresses itself through the illumined mind of the Hierarchy of adepts, we shall have the steady growth of omniscience.  This is the whole story of telepathic interplay in the true sense; it portrays the growth of that oligarchy of elect souls who will eventually rule the world, who will be chosen so to rule…160

Going back to Johnson, “The realm of God is contained in the realm of the Spirit”.  And, “If we tap the heart of the Father and we speak, then something is released and it is the person of the Holy Spirit who Himself contains the realm of the King-dom – King’s domain”.  So, in speaking the “rhema” Word (or through touch or the “prophetic act”), we release the “person of the Holy Spirit”, or, in other words of Johnson, we impart “the person of the Spirit of Christ into the atmosphere, into a situation”.  This is the purpose of “all ministry” as per Johnson.  In comparing to the Bailey concept above, it seems plausible that Johnson is releasing the ‘etheric realm’ into the atmosphere through the spoken “Word of God” via the omnipresence inherent in the ether.  Let’s compare this to more words of Bailey from another book:

Instruction is being given at this time to a special group of people who have come into incarnation at this critical period of world’s history.  They have come in, all at the same time, throughout the world, to do the work of linking up the two planes, the physical and the astral, via the etheric.161

It would be instructive to point out that occult / New Age / New Spirituality teachings are also expecting a “kingdom of god” as illustrated in Alice Bailey’s From Bethlehem to Calvary: The Initiations of Jesus, her 1937 work explaining how Jesus is ‘our model’:

It is time that the Church woke up to its true mission, which is to materialise the kingdom of God on earth, today, here and now…162

…A new kingdom is coming into being: the fifth kingdom in nature [ED: kingdom of God] is materialising, and already has a nucleus functioning on earth in physical bodies.163

Bailey explains this concept of bringing in the “kingdom of god” in yet another book, The Externalisation of the Hierarchy, with the book’s title about the intent of ‘externalizing’ the “Spiritual Hierarchy” (of demons) onto the physical plane (the earth):

Hovering today within the aura of our planet are certain great spiritual Forces and Entities, awaiting the opportunity to participate actively in the work of world redemption, re-adjustment and reconstruction.  Their Presence is sensed at times by the spiritually-minded people of the world, and Their reality is recognised by the mystics and occultists working in every land.  Men and women express this recognition according to the trend of their religious and psychological training and the particular mental or emotional bias…164

The book goes on to note how the different religions await various messianic figures each according to its own particular religious views and how this can create a powerful “thoughtform”.   This collusion of thought can hasten an event:

…[W]hen a thoughtform has been constructed of sufficient potency and has been built over a long period of time by the people of the world, a further and final stage becomes ever possible.  The form can be rendered so magnetic that it can attract an Energy which will inform it and give it active potency; it can then become a vital link between the subjective world of energy and the objective world of forces and a thing of power, of impelling and guiding activity, and therefore the expression of a Life.  This thoughtform, duly informed, becomes a mediating factor, constructed by humanity but animated by the will-to-good of some great and spiritual Entity… 165

Is this the method Johnson has in mind “to impart Presence through speech”?  Is this what is meant by his conviction that the ultimate goal of ministry is “actually imparting the Person of the Spirit of Christ into the atmosphere, into a situation”?  While Johnson does not make any explicit or implicit claims of omniscience in believers with his words above, he implies it in the following section (while Bob Jones does so explicitly).

We’ll close this section with additional words of Alice Bailey stating fairly concisely the intents and purposes of the “Spiritual Hierarchy” of which she communed indicating the needed cooperation of humanity:

Emphasis should be laid on the evolution of humanity with peculiar attention to its goal, perfection…man in incarnation, by the indwelling and over-shadowing soul…The relation of the individual soul to all souls should be taught, and with it the long-awaited kingdom of God is simply the appearance of soul-controlled men on earth in everyday life and at all stages of that control…The fact will appear that the Kingdom has always been present but has remained unrecognized, owing to the relatively few people who express, as yet, its quality….166

Getting Down to the DNA of Spiritual DNA

In his Shepherd’s Rod 2005, Bob Jones used this same concept of the ‘Word becoming flesh in us again’ with the ‘Word’ being the WoF “rhema” word, i.e. new, ongoing revelation, in referencing spiritual DNA:

The Living Word or Bread of life once again desires to be made flesh through a body of people joined with Him in a holy consummation.  As we live not by natural bread alone but by the living Word proceeding from the mouth of God, the bread of abundant life, even so the hidden truth of godliness will become part of our spiritual DNA.

…Mysteries reserved deep in the heart of the Father, locked away in the mind of Christ, and dispersed by the Spirit who searches the deep things, await the passionate embrace of a latter-day company of overcoming, holy, victorious ones…167

Since Jesus identified Himself as the “Bread of Life” [John 6:35, 48], it is clear Jones is claiming that some believers will, at some point, be just like Jesus as “the Word made flesh”, thus mirroring Johnson above.  Apparently, in living by the “living Word proceeding from the mouth of God” the spiritual DNA is expanded.

In part II it was shown how Bob Jones differentiated between the physical body which contains our DNA as compared to “His [God’s] genetics” / conscience / spirit within each person that has “authority over DNA”.  This is subsequently added to the human body (clay).  Jones’ teaching appears to be a ‘Christianized’ version of the esoteric/occult doctrine of reincarnation.

Apparently, “spiritual DNA” provides the means with which one can attain the literal mind of Christ (omniscience) as Jones also mentions in his teaching at the 2011 Piercing the Darkness prophetic conference:

…But there are Christians who are maturin’ now in their mind to where they’ll have the mind of Christ, and they’ll have the answers…168

This presumably occurs when one taps into “the Wisdom of the Ages” [see part II and below].  It is entirely possible, if not probable, that Jones has in mind ‘the Christ’ which is part of the false Trinity of Levi, i.e. the one which “took full possession” of Jesus of Nazareth (or a similar teaching).  This then would mean that when Jones speaks of ‘Christ’ “coming IN my people” [see part II] – referencing the false parousia – he’s referring to this same false Christ.

To reiterate, and perhaps make clearer, here’s additional context of Jones’ “God sperm seed” statement in which his claim is that this “spirit of God” comes into everyone at conception:

…Everyone of you, when you were conceived in your mother’s womb, a spirit of God came into you.  It’s your human spirit which is your conscience.  When this came into you, this spirit was as mature as it’ll ever be because this spirit came from God.  And, this is what’s been guiding your life – your conscience, your human spirit.  Man is six things.  He’s mind, will, and emotions.  He is human spirit, Holy Spirit and Wisdom of the AgesWhat happens if you begin to tap into the Wisdom of the Ages?  In that little bitty God sperm seed – 1st Peter 1:23 is all the Wisdom of the Ages.  That genetic thing – you have authority over DNA169

When Jones speaks of those Christians “who are maturing’ now in their mind” he’s speaking of those who are in tune with this ‘spirit’ which has “been guiding your life”, a “spiritual guide” which is providing these ‘new revelations’.  For those not familiar with New Age or esoteric/occult terminology, “spiritual guide” is the term used most commonly for a disincarnate spirit which guides the individual (which can seem like a ‘god within’).  Jones adds more to the above (quoted in part II):

But what He put in here [ED: the body] was not DNA.  It was His [God’s] genetics that has authority over DNA… For this conscience of yours is really your spiritual guide.  God gave this to you to guide your lives.  Don’t violate your conscience.  In certain places it’s called your spirit.  Especially in 2nd Corinthians 7:1 it’s called spirit and flesh.170

Jones is reiterating that it’s the spirit which is “as mature as it will ever be” which was “put in here [the body]” at conception.  It seems Jones’ “God sperm seed” is the agent which activates “His [God’s] genetics”, “your conscience”, which allows one to “tap into the Wisdom of the Ages”.  This “God sperm seed” is apparently what activates the “spiritual DNA” which “has authority over DNA”.  This appears to be very similar to, if not the same as, Johnson’s teaching on the “sperma of God”.

Johnson sets up his account of the “sperma of God” by explaining that ‘God’s Word’ brings conflict; however, again, Johnson is not speaking of Scripture.  He is referring to the “rhema” word as in the Word of Faith teachings as noted above:

…This story in Matthew 13, the parable of the seed and the sower actually gives this picture of soil; and the seed of God’s Word, the sperma of God, is released into the seed, through His Word, into the soil.  And, then it says, but other things grow and they choke out the life of that seed of God…171

Johnson’s point is essentially that other concerns “choke out” the ‘rhema Word’ preventing the “seed of God’s Word”, which is the “sperma of God”, from growing in the soil of the human.  With this teaching, he may well be promoting, in a more subtle way, the same doctrine of reincarnation that Jones has explained a bit more explicitly in part II.  The following quotes will help explain this a bit more.

In his book When Heaven Invades Earth, Bill Johnson speaks of “spiritual DNA” in two different passages.  Bracketed comments are inserted for explanation:

God is our Father, and we inherit His genetic code [at conception].   Every believer has written into his or her spiritual DNA [activated by the “sperma of God”] the desire for the supernatural….172

It is abnormal for a Christian not to have an appetite for the impossible. It has been written into our spiritual DNA [activated by the “sperma of God”] to hunger for the impossibilities around us to bow at the name of Jesus.173

God’s “genetic code” is the not yet activated “spiritual DNA” that all receive at conception.  This “spiritual DNA” is activated when one begins to listen to the ‘Word of God’, or “conscience” / ‘spirit’ as Jones would put it, thus beginning the ‘born again’ experience.  Here are some additional quotes:

…Exposure to the supernatural works of God changes the capacity of leaders to lead, thereby changing the bent of the people of God to pursue Him.

Such exposure is the equivalent of a spiritual change of DNA.  Something is altered in that person that enables him or her to lead in a way that the people of God inherit a heart for God through the leader’s influence.174

It is said that when a kernel of corn is planted, every kernel that grows has the exact same DNA as the original kernel in the ground. Jesus became the ultimate seed that was planted in death, and we were born again by the same Spirit that raised Him from the dead.  Every born-again believer has the DNA of Christ.  That is amazing!

This DNA of Christ in us is practical in that it enables the Godlike capacity to dream…He [Jesus] was planted to redeem people unto something.  And that unto something involves accurately and fully representing who Jesus is on earth as in Heaven.  We have His DNA and therefore manifest His face to the world…175

In this context, ‘born again’ refers to the point at which the ‘spiritual DNA’ is activated.  Once again, Johnson stresses how Jesus was raised by the Spirit rather than by the Father AND Christ Himself as per orthodoxy.  And this same ‘Spirit’ provides the ‘born again’ experience of every ‘believer’.  Johnson stresses this elsewhere in the same book: “The Holy Spirit in us is the same Holy Spirit who raised Jesus from the dead.  He is the Spirit of the resurrected Christ.”176  Johnson emphasizes ‘the Spirit’.  Could Johnson be referring to the same “Christ Spirit” that Benjamin Crème had in mind as indicated at the end of part IIIa?

Also, his assertion that we should be “accurately and fully representing who Jesus is on earth as in Heaven” in this context has overtones of the heretical Manifested Sons of God (MSoG) teaching.  And the ‘kernel of corn’ comparison reads much like the “seed of God’s Word”, “sperma of God” teaching above.  Johnson reiterates this teaching in a Charisma piece from last year’s special issue featuring Bethel Church:

When the Spirit of the resurrected Christ took up residence in our bodies, all of heaven positioned itself to see what we would conquer in His name. Resurrection power is in our nature, in our spiritual DNA.  When we were born again, we received the same spiritual DNA as Jesus.  His resurrection power now is to dwell in us through the Holy Spirit…177

This “resurrection power” described above was discussed in Bill Johnson’s ‘Born Again’ Jesus, Part II illustrating likely roots in MSoG teaching which has a parallel teaching in the occult / New Age / New Spirituality which itself is predicated on the false doctrine of reincarnation.

Let’s compare Johnson’s teachings with those of Eternal Vision Ministries which adheres to the following creed: “We believe that all of creation was designed and set forth to fulfill God’s Eternal Purpose”.178  Their teachings are reminiscent of other hyper-charismatic ministries with a decidedly New Age bent.  There’s no explicit mention of the Gospel while there’s a vague “Gospel of Eternity” promoted.  The following is from their teaching “The Function of the Bride”:

It is clear that growth cannot be accurately measured by the number of doctrines we learn or the amount of knowledge we achieve. Spiritual growth is measured by the spiritual life we have received from Him. This is the Zoe Life that IS Christ in us. This is the Life that comes into us as the sperma of God when we are born again. This “sperma” is the living and abiding word of God. It is also called the Spirit of Christ or the Spirit of His Son. The same “sperma” that was impregnated into Mary to develop into the Man Christ Jesus also comes into us. The growth of that “sperma” was the incarnation of God in a human body.

God’s goal for the church is the incarnation of Christ IN His body now on earth. For that reason God begins by infusing the “sperma” of God which is the living and abiding Word of God into each of us individually. Then individual “members” are assembled into a local body called the church. The corporate church is said to be the fullness of Him that fills all in all. In other words this church is the manifestation of Christ.

Jesus said if you have seen Me you have seen the Father because He was the manifestation of the Father on earth. Hopefully we will be able to say if you have seen me you have seen Christ, at least if we see His fulness we will see the “corporate Christ”. A “body with many members”.179

This looks a LOT like Bill Johnson’s teachings.  Not surprisingly, Eternal Vision asserts that Jesus was formed from the same “sperma” that ‘infuses’ “each of us individually”.   This correlates to Johnson’s teaching of Jesus as explained above regarding Jesus as the “rhema” Word made flesh by this “living and abiding word” indwelling Jesus rather than Jesus as the second Person of the Trinity made flesh via the hypostatic union.  Of course, this also correlates with the teaching of Levi above.

In an article titled Creating Heaven on Earth, is an interview of New Ager Jean Adrienne by Asa Wulfe in which they discuss bodily ascension as a way of creating Heaven on Earth in the here and now.  Note the similarity in title as compared with Johnson’s When Heaven Invades Earth.  In the Adrienne/Wulfe interview, Adrienne describes the process of ascension as being “started by activating additional strands of DNA – the spiritual DNA”:

…[I]f additional strands are activated, we awaken new abilities, gifts, and powers that have been dormant…Perhaps our DNA could be a ladder into the Fifth Dimension…180

This “Fifth Dimension” is analogous to Bailey’s “Fifth Kingdom,” also known as the “Kingdom of God”, which is only accessed by achieving the fourth (and higher) initiations with the fourth initiation resulting in the attainment of a manifested son of God.  [see “Christ” in the New Age article on this site]:

Certainly, everything that we are physically is encoded in the DNA.  We have physical DNA in our cells, and spiritual DNA that is in our energy field.  These two energies have to be connected, just as the left and right hemispheres of the brain must become integrated and balanced as we move into the Fifth Dimension.

All of our inner knowledge is stored in the DNA…When we become authentic, we no longer search outside ourselves for ‘true knowledge.’  It is within us.181

Bill Johnson’s friend Che Ahn of HRock Church has clearly defined spiritual DNA in an old Ministry Today article:

While no two of us are exactly alike physically, it would appear we have the same spiritual DNA, according to the Scriptures. Like Adam and all of humanity to follow him, the image of the Godhead has been passed down…

…[C]an we fathom the untold significance of having our Father’s DNA?

I no longer merely confess that I am the righteousness of Christ. I realize that with His DNA in me through His blood, I could be nothing else. I realize the attributes of His DNA reside in me—whether dormant or active.

No longer do I see the fruit of the Spirit as something we “will” by self-effort or following the law. Rather, I see that in my DNA, God has already placed genes of love, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. They are waiting to be activated by the Holy Spirit.182

This sounds much like what Bill Johnson is stating although it explains some aspects a bit more clearly.  From another New Age / New Spirituality site we see, once again, the same concepts:

In our current DNA structure, we have two visible strands, which are called backbone DNA, but all the other 10 other strands are present…According to Esoteric teachings, the first two strands are Physical DNA, the other ten strands are Spiritual DNA.

Activating your dormant DNA, which in time will also give you access to the secrets and mysteries of which you are and what your life-purpose is, will allow you to realize your full potential here on Earth.183

Divine Nature Activated

Bill Johnson’s friend Todd Bentley defined “DNA” as “Divine Nature Activated” under the Supernatural Training Center tab on his old Fresh Fire Canada site.  This seems an apt way to define the activation of the “spiritual DNA”:

Christ wants us to know Him intimately by the power of the Holy Spirit and to catch His vision for our lives.  His desire is to build godly character into our DNA – Divine Nature Activated….184

Also, his now-defunct Fresh Fire Canada site featured his “Joel’s Army Internship” in which was found the following quote from Jerame Nelson of Living at His Feet Ministries:

…I have experienced a true impartation of the Fire of God, as well as faith to see the divine nature of Jesus Christ manifest in the earth today185

Do we have a divine nature?  Scripture shows we have a fallen, sinful human nature but never does the Bible say or even allude to humans having a divine nature. Yes, the Holy Spirit is in the true believer which makes us “partakers of the divine nature” [2nd Peter 1:4 NKJV] but only through Him.  The word partake does not mean become.  Yes, we can say “Christ in us, the hope of glory” [Col 1:27]; but, this does not mean we become Christ or divine.  Only the Trinitarian Godhead is divine.

However, as explained earlier, esoteric/occult teaching is such that man has a dual nature – one human and one inherent but latent divine nature which must be actualized through self-effort.  Once an individual acknowledges their inherent divinity, then they can work towards actualizing it.  This seems like the best explanation for Bill Johnson’s concepts of the “sperma of God”, “Word made flesh”, “spiritual DNA” and the other material brought forth in this article.

The significance of “Divine Nature Activated” is explained quite well by New Ager John Lewis of Age to Age Ministries:

Citizens of planet Earth, you have been incarnated in your present physical form at this time to witness and participate in the Transformation of human kind.  This phase of human evolution is to bring him into full manifestation of his Divineness

You are not here by accident, chance, or coincident.  Your parents were only convenient for you arriving in the physical 3 dimensional existence you now experience.  You came through your mother, but you came from God.  Parents gave you the physical and biological stuff to house who you really are until the appointed time of the Divine Nature Activated.  You are being summoned and wooed to an experience that transcends what is known as the human experience.  Therefore, arise and shine because the Light within is coming to full expression and the glory of God will become more visible on your physical being.186

Once again, one can almost hear the refrain of the popular song by the soul/rock group The 5th Dimension “Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In”.  Clearly, this is very similar, if not the same as, Manifest Sons of God teaching.  Continuing with Lewis in his subsection titled, “DIVINE NATURE ACTIVATED”:

We are partakers of his divine nature.’  97% of our DNA is unused, not active; therefore, the science communities don’t understand it.  I believe that the discovery of DNA at the time it was discovered was carefully orchestrated by God in man….

 …The 97% of your DNA that’s not activated is GOD waiting to be activated in man.  You have the information and intelligence of the Adam the son of God encoded in your DNA.  Access and activation to this information will cause you to live as Adam the God-man in the Garden of your Be-ing….

One will only be able to fulfill the Divine purpose when he is walking in awareness of his own divinity.  It is our belief system that hinders us from being the Gods we are…187

John Lewis’ teachings sure do resemble those of Johnson, Jones, Ahn and Bentley, do they not?

Part IV will discuss how some other teachings of Johnson resemble those of occult / New Age / New Spirituality and will conclude this series.

117Rudolph, Kurt; trans. R McLachlan Wilson Gnosis: The Nature & History of Gnosticism. © 1977 Koehler & Amelang; translation (from German) of second, revised and expanded version © 1984 T&T Clark Ltd, Edinburgh; 1987 (1st paperback), HarperCollins, New York, NY; pp 159-160, 305-306.  Craig Keener, in his commentary on John [The Gospel of John: A Commentary, Volume One.  2003, 1st Softcover Ed, 2010, Hendrickson, Peabody, MA; pp 339-363], exhaustively covers the various possibilities for the Gospel writer’s reason for using the term Logos.  Keener contends that any Gnostic influence on the Gospel writer is “not probable” [p 340].
118Keener; p 341
119Keener; p 341
120Keener; p 344
121Keener; p 345
122Keener; pp 347-363.  While Keener is convinced of the parallel, Andreas Kostenberger [Kostenberger, Andreas J. Encountering John: The Gospel in Historical, Literary, and Theological Perspective (Encountering Biblical Series). July 2009 (8th prtg (paperback), (1999)), Baker, Grand Rapids, MI; pp 52-57] is less so as he sees “Wisdom” as a divine attribute instead [p 53].  Kostenberger believes the parallel is not close enough and, “if no closer parallel can be found, it may be necessary to conclude that personified Wisdom constitutes at least a remote parallel to the characterization in John” [p 53].
123Kostenberger, Encountering John; pp 52-56
124Kostenberger, Andreas J. John: Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. July 2009 (4th prtg (2004)), Baker, Grand Rapids, MI; p 41
125Keener; pp 140-142.  Keener notes that “John’s literary freedom” [p 140] makes it easier to date the Gospel.
126Bercot, David W., Ed. A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs.  © 1988 David Bercot, November 2000 (3rd prtg), Hendrickson, Peabody, MA; p 91
127“whizzpopping” YouTube video, Bill Johnson – Friendship with God. Uploaded November 1, 2009 , taken from Bethel Church in Redding, CA, <http://www.ibethel.tv/watch/399/open-heavens-conference/2009/10/14?session=113> Open Heavens Conference October 15, 2009, morning session, Bill Johnson  <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4RZ_ctiwlE>; 1:24 – 1:37; as accessed 04/23/12.   Caps from emphasis in original; other emphasis added.
128Johnson, Clark, The Essential Guide to Healing; p 75. Emphasis added.
129“ewenhuffman” Jesus is our Model- Sermon of the week 20 Dec 09. Posted December 23, 2009, “Bill Johnson sermons for downloading”, mp3 audio, taken from <http://www.ibethel.org/> December 20, 2009, original sermon titled “Jesus is Our Model”  <http://ewenhuffman.podbean.com/2009/12/23/jesus-is-our-model-sermon-of-the-week-20-dec-09/> 24:07 – 24:24 (Johnson continues reiterating this thought until 24:57 at which he point he explains this via Matthew 13); as accessed 04/21/12.  Emphasis added.
130Bock, Darrell L. Luke, Volume 1 – 1:1—9:50 (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament). © 1994 Darrell L. Bock, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI; pp 372-374
131“ewenhuffman” 24:57 – 25:17.  Emphasis added.
132“ewenhuffman” 25:17 – 26:18.  Caps from emphasis in original; other emphasis added.
133Dowling; p 6
134Dowling; p 6
135Dowling; p 6
136Dowling; p 8
137“ewenhuffman” 26:19 – 27:11.  Caps from emphasis in original; other emphasis added.
138“ewenhuffman” 27:30 – 27:48.
139“ewenhuffman” 29:11 – 29:28.  Emphasis added.
140“ewenhuffman” 32:14 – 32:17.  Emphasis added
141Walker, Benjamin Gnosticism: Its History and Influence. © 1983 Benjamin Walker, 1989 (1st published 1983 Aquarian Press), Crucible/Thorsons Publishing Group, Northamptonshire, England; p 62
142Walker; p 62
143Unity School of Christianity Metaphysical Bible Dictionary. 1931 (1955, 8th pr.), Unity School of Christianity (no publisher specified), Lee’s Summit, MO; p 388.  Emphasis added.
144Cumbey, Constance E. “An Evening with David Spangler” New Age Monitor. September 1988, Vol. 3, No. 1, Pointe Publishers, Center Line, MI; p 8
145Cumbey, “Evening with Spangler”; p 10
146Cumbey, “Evening with Spangler”; p 12
147Dowling; p 8
148“ewenhuffman” 30:21 – 31:01.  Importantly, Johnson indicates Jesus refrains from using the power of “the anointing” as opposed to stating Jesus refrained from using His inherent divinity which would be the predominate historical orthodox view.
149“ewenhuffman” 31:01 – 33:00
150“ewenhuffman” 35:03 – 36:04
151“ChasingRiver” YouTube video Bill Johnson – The Resting Place – VERY POWERFUL MESSAGE. Uploaded October 1, 2011, taken from GodTV <http://www.god.tv/node/503> and <http://www.god.tv/node/504> , venue: International Church of Las Vegas (ICLV), <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lsQmLuG-Exo&feature=related> 11:17 – 12:04.  Emphasis added.  As accessed 04/23/12
152“ChasingRiver”; 12:14 – 12:39.  Emphasis added.
153“ChasingRiver”; 13:09 – 15:08.  Emphasis added.
154“ChasingRiver”; 34:40 – 35:08.  Emphasis added.
155Bailey, Telepathy; p 2
156Bailey, Telepathy; p 7
157Bailey, Telepathy; p 7
158Bailey, Telepathy; p 6.  Emphasis added.
159Bailey, Telepathy; pp 6-7
160Bailey, Telepathy; p 7
161Bailey, Alice A. Initiation, Human and Solar. © 1951 Lucis, NY, 4th paperback ed, 1980 (First printing 1922), Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; p 67.  Emphasis in original.
162Bailey, Bethlehem to Calvary; p 210
163Bailey, Bethlehem to Calvary; p 254
164Bailey, Externalisation; p 222
165Bailey, Externalisation; pp 222-223
166Bailey, Externalisation; p 588
167Jones, Bob & Paul Keith Davis Shepherd’s Rod 2005. © 2002 Bob Jones and Paul Keith Davis, Bynum Printing, Waynesboro, MS; pp 15-16. These “Shepherd’s Rods” are purportedly ‘prophetic words’ Jones receives each year on Yom Kippur, the Jewish Day of Atonement.  What is the significance of Yom Kippur as the Day of Atonement to the Christian when Jesus’ blood sacrifice IS the Day of Atonement and the fulfillment of this Jewish holy day?  The year of Jones’ “Shepherd’s Rods” is always the year following Yom Kippur, in this case the actual date was September 25, 2004 (from page 1 of the booklet).  Paul Keith Davis is of White Dove Ministries.
168Jones, “Coming Kingdom”; 5:02 – 5:11.  Emphasis added.
169Jones, “Coming Kingdom”; 10:53 – 11:59.  Emphasis added.
170Jones, “Coming Kingdom”; 24:48 – 25:30.  Emphasis added.
171Jones, “Coming Kingdom”; 26:19 – 26:38.  Emphasis added.
172Johnson, Heaven Invades; p 81. Emphasis added.
173Johnson, Heaven Invades; p 25. Emphasis added.
174Johnson, Release Power of Jesus; p 140.  Emphasis added.
175Johnson, Clark, Essential Guide to Healing; p 147.  Bold from emphasis in original; underscore added.
176Johnson, Clark, Essential Guide to Healing; p 135.  Emphasis in original.
177Johnson, Bill, “Super-Natural by Nature” Charisma. June 09, 2011, online version <http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/component/content/article/1571-features/31221-super-natural-by-nature> par 13.  As accessed 4/26/12.
178Eternal Vision Ministries, home page <http://www.eternalvisionministries.com>.  As accessed 4/27/12.
179Eternal Vision Ministries “The Function of the Bride”, <http://www.eternalvisionministries.com/_writings/writings/10022_bride_function.html> par 4-6.  Emphasis added.  As accessed 4/27/12.
180“The Spirit of Ma’at” website by Asa Wulfe “Creating Heaven on Earth with Jean Adrienne”, Vol 4, No 5, n.d.      <http://www.spiritofmaat.com/archive/dec4/adrienne.htm> par 13.  As accessed 4/27/12.
181Wulfe; par 14-17.  Emphasis added.  As accessed 4/27/12.
182Ahn, Che “Spiritual DNA” Column: First Priority, Ministry Today; June 30, 2007, online version  <http://ministrytodaymag.com/index.php/first-priority/15390-spiritual-dna>;  par 4-8.  Emphasis added.
183Humanity Healing Network website, ‘hhteam’, “Spiritual DNA”, <http://humanityhealing.net/2010/08/spiritual-dna/>; par 6-7, 15.  Emphasis added.  As accessed 4/27/12.
184Fresh Fire Canada website, Todd Bentley, “Supernatural Training Center” courtesy Internet Archive (the Wayback Machine),<http://web.archive.org/web/20070826155456/www.freshfire.ca/index.php?Id=4&pid=994>;  par 3.  Emphasis in original.  As accessed 4/27/12.
185Fresh Fire Canada website, Todd Bentley, “Joel’s Army Internship” ‘Testimonies’, courtesy Internet Archive (the Wayback Machine), <http://web.archive.org/web/20070825050149/www.freshfire.ca/?Id=943&pid=994>; emphasis added.  As accessed 4/27/12
186Age to Age Ministries, John Lewis, “DNA 2002: Divine Nature Activated”    <http://www.atam.org/DNA.html>; par 1-2.  Emphasis added.  As accessed 4/27/12.
187Age to Age Ministries, John Lewis; par 21, 24, 32.  Bold from emphasis in original; underscore added.  As accessed 4/27/12

Bill Johnson’s Christology: A New Age Christ?, part IIIa

[See also: Part I, The Christ Anointing and the Antichrist Spirit, Part II, Part IIIb and Part IV (Conclusion).]

Cosmic humanism forms the basis of the New Age Movement and related religious expressions, particularly Eastern mysticism.  It says that man is evolving toward a state of higher consciousness that will result in the attainment of godhood…

…Many have…adopted a form of cosmic humanism, believing that they are capable of achieving the same anointing of Christhood that Jesus had.  Their beliefs are predicated upon a new Gnosticism which appears so very Christian as to deceive even the elect if possible.  Through close examination, however, they are found in an error so serious that it threatens the stability of the churches in which these people fellowship and, in some cases hold positions of leadership. 

– Albert James Dager, Vengeance Is Ours85

Occultists / esotericists cannot deny that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth (and maintain any real credibility) as the evidence for His earthy life is insurmountable.  Instead, He is humanized at the expense of His deity and proclaimed a righteous teacher, a model to emulate.

As noted in part II, a belief in reincarnation is integral to New Age / New Spirituality teachings.  In New Age Christology, Jesus of Nazareth was merely human and His life as the son of a carpenter was one of a number of incarnations.   For example, one of his previous incarnations was as Joshua son of Nun.  In fact, He was incarnated once more following His crucifixion and resurrection.86

In the New Age / New Spirituality and some other occult teachings, there is a false Trinity made up of The Father, the Holy Spirit (Holy Breath, sometimes Wisdom Sophia), and The Son (the Christ, the Logos, the Word):

The Christ is son, the only son begotten by Almighty God, the God of Force and God omniscient, the God of thought; and Christ is God, the God of Love.87

In His incarnation as Jesus of Nazareth, the man Jesus overcame many tests and trials through much effort during the first 30 years of His life.  Because of this, He proved worthy to manifest ‘the Christ’.  Therefore, He was chosen to be the new world teacher (the Christ) of the Age of Pisces to succeed Gautama Buddha, the Christ of the Age of Aries, once Jesus would perfect Himself at Ascension.  Thus, Jesus was “christed” in a ceremony occurring just after His water baptism in the Jordan by John when the Holy Spirit (Holy Breath) descended upon Him as a dove.  It was at this point Jesus was deemed “the Christ”.88

This ‘christing’ resulted in Jesus becoming the temple of the Holy Breath (Holy Spirit) thus providing the power for His miracles, while “the Christ” completely overshadowed Him, taking full possession.89  This “Christ Spirit” stayed with Him until some time before the Crucifixion so that it was only the man Jesus who died.90  It was the “Christ Spirit” which raised Jesus’ dead body at the Resurrection while Jesus of Nazareth went on to be reincarnated as Apollonius of Tyana who subsequently ascended thereby becoming Master Jesus and world teacher as “the Christ” for the Piscean Age.91

Jesus’ life became a symbolic pattern for all to follow toward their own salvation – just as the man Jesus procured His own.

Before going further in explaining New Age Christology and comparing this to Bill Johnson’s, it’s important to keep in mind the intention as explained earlier by Alice Bailey.  As stated in part I, in order for Christianity to be “transcended” the goal is in preserving the outer appearance in order to reach the many who are accustomed to church usages.  In other words, the doctrines must seem to be orthodox while actually teaching unorthodoxy.  By implication, a certain amount of duplicity and inherently contradictory statements would be part of the plan.

For example, in the kenosis theories claiming Jesus emptied Himself of some or all divine attributes to become a man, there is the implication of Jesus’ pre-existence as God rather than the New Age view that Jesus was previously incarnated as a man.  Certainly, no one can deny Jesus Christ’s pre-existence as God and remain in a Christian pulpit (at least not generally).  However, as noted in part II, claiming Jesus was/is eternally God yet He “emptied Himself of divinity” during the Incarnation is an inherent contradiction.  The point is, ‘Christianized’ New Age will not completely parallel New Age / occult theology.

Comparing Specific Christological Statements

Many prominent authors and conference speakers add fuel to the fire of fear assuming that because the new age movement promotes it, its origins must be from the devil92

Given Bill Johnson’s words above, obviously, he sees no trouble with at least some New Age concepts or practices.  And, of course, this illustrates that Johnson acknowledges there is a New Age movement.

As explained earlier, in New Age Christology, Jesus pre-existed as a human who had been reincarnated.  Once “christed”, He was en route to becoming “the new World Teacher”.93  Conversely, “Christ” is God’s son who pre-existed as “God”.  Here in the following is “Christ” as defined by a well-known New Age book by Levi Dowling first printed in 1907 (and presumably still in print) titled The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ:

We recognise the facts that Jesus was man and that Christ was God; so that in very truth Jesus the Christ was the God-man of the ages.94

Central to most all (if not all) occult doctrine is the belief that all humans have two natures – one human nature and one latent divine nature.  This divine nature is known as the “divine spark”, “seed”95 and/or the “Christ within” which must be awakened to begin “the Path” to self-salvation.96  The point at which one realizes and begins to actualize this inherent divinity is known as the ‘virgin birth’.97

This inherent dual nature in all humans makes us potentially the same as Jesus.  Since the term “Christ” is used in many different ways in New Age / New Spirituality teaching, it is confusing and sometimes difficult to interpret meaning which is ultimately determined by context.  In the following, in a book by Alice Bailey most likely originally written in the mid to late 1940’s, she is referring specifically to the person of the Incarnate historic Jesus at first; she then uses the term more generally in the second.  That is, in the second case Bailey is indicating that anyone can expand their “Christ consciousness” by following Jesus’ example.  By “the keynote of the Gospel story” Bailey means the so-called ‘good news’ that everyone can save him/herself and relate to the Father by our inherent divinity (awakened by the “Christ anointing” or, being “Christed”) and to humanity by our human nature:

…the keynote of the Gospel story [is] the human-divine nature of the [person of Jesus] Christ, relating Him to the Father through His essential divinity and also to man through His essential humanity.  The Christian Church gave a wrong slant to the teaching by making Christ appear as unique, though the higher criticism (deemed so shocking fifty years ago) has done much to correct this false impression.98

It seems quite possible that this “higher criticism” to which Bailey refers includes the kenosis theories at the turn of the twentieth century.

Also from Dowling’s book, who is usually affectionately referred to as simply “Levi”, is the New Age / New Spirituality teaching on two different aspects of “Christ”: the first is general, meaning “anointed” (or “christed”), while the second refers to a member of the false “Trinity” as indicated earlier:

The word Christ is derived from the Greek word Kristos [ED: actually Christos] and means anointed.  It is identical with the Hebrew word Messiah.  The word Christ, in itself, does not refer to any particular person; every anointed person is christed.  When the definitive article ‘the’ is placed before the word Christ, a definite personality is indicated, and this personality is none other than a member of the Trinity, the Son…99

Notice in the first three sentences the similarities between them and Bill Johnson’s teaching in the following:

Christ is not Jesus’ last name.  The word Christ means “Anointed One” or “Messiah.”  It [Christ] is a title that points to an experienceIt was not sufficient that Jesus be sent from heaven to earth with a title [Christ].  He had to receive the anointing in an experience to accomplish what the Father desired.100

…The outpouring of the Spirit comes to anoint the church with the same Christ anointing that rested upon Jesus in His ministry so that we might be imitators of Him…101

Per Levi, “every anointed person is ‘christed’” or receives “the anointing” or, “Christ anointing”, as Johnson calls it.  As previously pointed out in the CrossWise article The Christ Anointing and the Antichrist Spirit, Bill Johnson redefines Christ to “the anointing” and he subsequently redefines antichrist (spirit) to ‘anti-anointing’ in the same chapter of this particular book.

Confusingly, there is yet another aspect to the term ‘Christ’ in New Age Christology.  It is also an ‘office’ or ‘title’ for the “Christ” of the current age.  As noted above, there have been many “Christs” (or “World Teachers”) down the ages and, as previously stated, Jesus of Nazareth – more accurately, the now ascended “Master Jesus” – is the one for the Piscean Age, our current era/aeon102 having earned this ‘title’ and receiving His coronation at His “baptism in the Holy Breath (Holy Spirit)”.  This is explained in the Introduction to the book by Levi:

The word Christ means “the anointed one,” and then it is an official title.  It means, The Master of Love.  When we say ‘Jesus, the Christ’ we refer to the man and to his office; just as we do when we say…Lincoln, the President…Lincoln was not always President, and Jesus was not always ChristJesus won his Christship by a strenuous life…we have a record of the events of his christing, or receiving the degree Christ.  Here is where he was coronated…103

With the exception of the introduction, Levi’s book is written in chapter/verse format as if it were a Bible.  Here is how the (fictional) account is presented:

…and now you stand ready to take the last degree. 6  Upon your brow I place this diadem, and in the Great Lodge of the heavens and earth you are THE CHRIST. 7  This is your great Passover rite.  You are a neophyte no more; but now a master mind. 8  Now, man can do no more; but God himself will speak, and will confirm your title and degree. 9  Go on your way, for you must preach the gospel of good will to men and peace on earth; must open up the prison doors and set the captives free. 10  And while the hierophant yet spoke the temple bells rang out; a pure white dove descended from above and sat on Jesus’ head. 11  And then a voice that shook the very temple said, THIS IS THE CHRIST104

Now let’s look at one more Bill Johnson quote we’ve used previously in part I to compare with the immediately preceding:

The outpouring of the Spirit also needed to happen to Jesus for Him to be fully qualified.  This was His questReceiving this anointing qualified Him to be called the Christ, which means “anointed one.” Without the experience there could be no title.105

To reiterate, following is the latter part of the previous Johnson quote with additional context provided:

…It was not sufficient that Jesus be sent from heaven to earth with a title [Christ].  He had to receive the anointing in an experience to accomplish what the Father desired.

The word anointing means “to smear.”  The Holy Spirit is the oil of God that was smeared all over Jesus at His water baptism.  The name Jesus Christ implies that Jesus is the One smeared with the Holy Spirit.106

As pointed out in part I, as per Johnson, logically Jesus was not Christ prior to this experience as this title was given only at the point when the Spirit descended upon Him as a dove [Luke 3:16; John 1:32].  Hence, He was merely Jesus of Nazareth until this anointing.  This sure resembles the teaching of Levi above, does it not?

One other important thing to consider which is best illustrated by picking out a bit of one of Levi’s quotes above:

…When we say ‘Jesus, the Christ’ we refer to the man and to his office; just as we do when we say…Lincoln, the President…Lincoln was not always President, and Jesus was not always Christ107

If one has this in mind, one could use Luke 2:11, “Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord” [NIV 1984], to mean that Jesus is the future Christ and NOT that Jesus was born as the Christ.  This would be similar to stating, “On February 12, 1809 President Lincoln was born.” – certainly, Lincoln wasn’t born President for he was elected to the office of the President later.  In the same way, occult / New Age / New Spirituality teachings assert Jesus wasn’t born the Christ for he wasn’t coronated until He was around thirty years of age.  Of course, Christian orthodoxy affirms that Jesus was the Christ, our Lord and Savior at birth.

In the Apocryphal/Gnostic The Gospel of Philip from the 2nd century is a similar idea.  In the following, there is a specific distinguishing between water baptism and ‘anointing’ [chrisma is the Greek transliterated word meaning anointing].  The “anointing” here is identified as the mark of a Christian rather than true Christian conversion upon which one receives the Holy Spirit indwelling:

The chrism is superior to baptism.  For from the chrism we were called ‘Christians’, not from baptism.  Christ also was (so) called because of the anointing.  For the Father anointed the Son.  But the Son anointed the apostles.  And the apostles anointed us.  He who is anointed possesses all things.  He has the resurrection, the light, the cross.108

This reads like an “ongoing incarnation”.  Alice Bailey, in her 1937 Theosophical / New Age book From Bethlehem to Calvary: the Initiations of Jesus, quotes Luke 3:16, then describes the two steps in baptism, the first by John the Baptist in water and the second by Jesus Christ “which is that of the Holy Ghost and of fire.”109  She further describes this second baptism:

…The baptism which Christ gives His followers concerns the purification of the mind by fire.  Fire, under the universal symbolism of religion, is ever symbolic of the mind nature. This baptism by fire is the baptism of the Holy Spirit.110

Those who are or were involved with the so called ‘Third Wave’ have undoubtedly heard the word “fire” used to describe those “under the anointing” (especially from Todd Bentley at Lakeland).  Bailey’s use here is referring to the transformation of the mind (continued transformation by Transcendental Meditation / contemplative prayer / centering prayer / soaking, etc.) to expand one’s “Christ consciousness”.111  [See “Christ consciousness” section of ‘Christ’ in the New Age article.]  This is a process that continues until one, hopefully, ascends to Master, becoming a god oneself.

In the following is Johnson as he explains the “baptism in the Holy Spirit”112 distinguishing between the Holy Spirit “that was already in Jesus’s life” and what transpired just after His baptism by John.  After quoting John 1:32, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him” [NKJV], a parallel passage to Luke 3:16 (as Bailey uses above), Johnson explains this baptism:

…Certainly this is not talking about the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit that was already in Jesus’s life.  This was the inauguration of Jesus’s ministry, and the Holy Spirit came to rest upon Him [baptism in the Holy Spirit / “Christ anointing”] as a mantle of power and authority for that specific purpose.  But the fact that the Holy Spirit came to rest on Him is evidence of Jesus’s faithfulness to be perfectly trustworthy with the presence of GodThe same principle is true for us.

The Holy Spirit lives in every believer, but He rests upon very few…113

Here’s one more quote from Face to Face with God, the same Johnson book cited above:

…The baptism in the Spirit, a profound encounter with the face of God, adds the power of heaven to bring transformation to planet Earth…114

Does this not resemble the same basic teaching as the New Age / New Spirituality with respect to the ‘baptism of/in the Holy Spirit’ / “the anointing” / the “Christ anointing”?  “Transformation to planet Earth” sure has a New Age-y ring to it.

As noted in part I, Johnson claims that Jesus did not raise Himself from the dead contrary to John 2:19/10:17-18.

…Jesus GAVE Himself to be crucified.  He DID NOT raise Himself from the dead…His job was to give His life to die.  The Father raised Him by the Spirit…115

Of course, it was the entire Trinity who raised Jesus’ body from the dead as other Scripture attests [Holy Spirit – Romans 1:4/8:11; Father – Acts 5:29-31/Galatians 1:1/Ephesians 1:17-20; God – Acts 2:24/Romans 4:24].  However, Johnson’s phraseology is not that far from the words of well-known New Ager Benjamin Crème:

Jesus was raised from the dead by his teacher the Christ who entered his body 3 days after his death. Jesus was no longer in that body and it was the Christ whose personal name Lord Maitreya lived in that body for the 41 days after the resurrection.116

In essence, Crème is stating that it was the “Christ Spirit” which raised Jesus’ body and remained in Him at the instruction of the Father of the false Trinity. The difference in the Crème version is that Jesus’ immortal Spirit came back into the body of Apollonius of Tyana; and, upon his death, Jesus’ Spirit ascended and He became ‘Master Jesus’ and the “World Teacher” of the Age of Pisces.

One has to wonder why Johnson would emphatically violate Scripture in stating that Jesus DID NOT raise Himself from the dead especially when this is not much different than the occult / New Age / New Spirituality account.

Part IIIb will discuss “the Word made flesh” and “spiritual DNA” and part IV will specifically compare the Theosophical Jesus as pattern for mankind to quotes of Bill Johnson and concludes this series. [See also: part I, The Christ Anointing and the Antichrist Spirit, and part II.]

85Dager, Albert James Vengeance is Ours: The Church in Dominion. © 1990 Albert James Dager, Sword Publishers, Redmond, WA; pp 12-13.  Bold from emphasis in original; underscore added.
86Bailey, Alice A. Initiation, Human and Solar. © 1951 Lucis, NY, (4th paperback ed, 1980), Fort Orange Press, Albany, NY; pp 56-57
87Dowling; p 6.  Emphasis added.
88Dowling; pp 6-8, 82-83, 94
89Dowling; p 8
90einterface website. “The Master Jesus” taken from Benjamin Crème’s works Maitreya Mission, Volumes 1, 2, and 3. <http://www.einterface.net/gamini/indexju.html> par 1-5; as accessed 04/17/12
91Bailey, Initiation, p 56-57
92Johnson, Dreaming with God; p 86.  Emphasis added.
93Dowling; p 8
94Dowling; p 8
95Dowling; p 6
96Bailey, Bethlehem to Calvary, pp 24, 26; Bailey, Externalisation, p 592
97Bailey, Bethlehem to Calvary, pp 9, 21-22, 24, 26
98Bailey, Alice A. Telepathy and the Etheric Vehicle. © 1950 Lucis, NY, (2nd printing, 1957), George S. Ferguson, Philadelphia, PA; pp 127-128.  Underscore added.
99Dowling; p 6.  Emphasis in original
100Johnson; Heaven Invades, p 79.  Emphasis added.
101Johnson, Face to Face, p 77. Underscore added.
102Dowling; pp 3, 8
103Dowling; p 8.  Underscore added.
104Dowling; pp 82-83.  Underscore added; caps in original.
105Johnson; Face to Face, p 109.  Underscore added; other emphasis in original.
106Johnson; Heaven Invades; p 79.  Bold from emphasis in original; underscore added.
107Dowling; p 8.  Emphasis added.
108Schneemelcher, Wilhelm; transl. R. McL. Wilson New Testament Apocrypha: Volume One: Gospels and Related Writings. © J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), Tubingen, 1990; English Translation © James Clarke & Co. Ltd, 1991 (Rev. ed.), Westminster John Knox, Louisville, KY; p 200.  All emphasis added; parenthesis in original.
109Bailey, Bethlehem to Calvary; p 98
110Bailey, Bethlehem to Calvary; p 99.  Emphasis added.
111Here are a few statements taken from Alice A. Bailey’s A Treatise on Cosmic Fire [© 1951 Lucis Trust (1925, 4th ed 1951), Lucis Publishing Company, George S. Ferguson, Philadelphia, PA; p xvii] which are themselves from H.P. Blavatsky’s The Secret Doctrine [n.d., “Third Revised Edition”; identified as “S.D.”] (all emphasis added): “Fire is the most perfect and unadulterated reflection, in Heaven as on earth, of the One Flame.  It is life and death, the origin and the end of every material thing.  It is divine substance” (S.D. I. 146).  “Fire and flame destroy the body of an Arhat [ED: 4th level initiate]; their essence makes him immortal” (I. 35).  “The fire of knowledge burns up all action on the plane of illusion, therefore those who have acquired it and are emancipated are called ‘Fires’” (I. 114).  Of what are Bentley and others referring when they use the term “fire” and “fire of God”?  I was once given a cd of Robert Stearns / Jason Upton / JoAnn McFatter / Julie Meyer titled Freedom’s Fire [see here: http://store.liveinhispresence.com/Freedom_s_Fire_Prophetic_Worship_Robert_Stearns_p/cd-ffpw.htm ] with tunes such as “Burn Away”, “Swirling in the Fire”, “Freedom’s Fire”, “Burning Desire”.  From the same individual I was also given a copy of JoAnn McFatter / Steve Mitchell / Steve Swanson Messengers of Fire [see here: http://www.joannmcfatter.com/messengers.html ] with selections titled “Contact”, “Seven Spirits Burning”, “Messengers of Fire”, and “Winds of Fire”.  One must wonder what is meant by ‘fire’ in hyper-charismatic circles in general.
112Johnson, Face to Face; p 79
113Johnson, Face to Face; pp 21-22
114Johnson, Face to Face; p 102
115“ewenhoffman” Maintaining the crosswalk- sermon of the week Feb 27th 2011. 16:45 – 17:00.  Emphasis in original; underscore added.   As accessed 03/11/12.
116einterface website.  “The Master Jesus”; par 3

Bill Johnson’s Christology: A New Age Christ?, part II

[See also Part I, The Christ Anointing and the Antichrist Spirit, Part IIIa, Part IIIb, and Part IV (Conclusion).]

[T]he church movement, like all else, is but a temporary expedient and serves but as a transient resting place for the evolving life.  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 [ED: actually Satan/antichrist] 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.

-Alice A. Bailey, 191939

As noted in part I, Bailey’s words were channeled through her by a demon known variously as “Djwhal Khul”, “the Tibetan”, or “Master D. K.”.  Bailey was essentially a disciple of H. P. Blavatsky, one of the founders of Theosophy.  Formed in 1875, Theosophy itself is an amalgamation (uniting) of occult doctrines with some roots in 1st/2nd century Gnosticism.  These Theosophical teachings form much of the basis of the New Age / New Spirituality.

As both the Bailey quote from part I and the one above illustrate, the goal was to infiltrate the Christian Church in order to transform it into part of one large universal esoteric Aquarian Age / New Age ‘church’.  The Apostle Paul warned in 2nd Thessalonians 2:9 about this fake ‘second coming’ of which Bailey refers, which is an attempt at mimicking Jesus Christ’s Second Coming.  Paul even applies the same Greek word (parousia) to both Jesus’ Second Coming [2nd Thes 2:1, 8] and the coming of the antichrist in his warning:

7For the secret power of lawlessness is already at work; but the one who restrains him will continue to do so till he is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming [parousia].  9The coming [parousia] of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing.  They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.  11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie [pseudos (counterfeit)]  12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.[2 Thess 2:7-12, NIV 1984]

Parousia is defined: “arrival as the first stage in presence, coming, advent.40  By the complete context it’s clear that once the ‘lawless one’ is revealed there will be “all kinds of [false, counterfeit (pseudos)] miracles, signs and wonders”.  These will be absolutely real, but they will be false in the sense that they are coming from Satan.  Ultimately, the power comes from God as He allows Satan the use of this power for His own purposes (v 11).

However, note that “the secret power of lawlessness is already at work” during the time Paul wrote this epistle which is obviously well before the ‘lawless one’s’ revealing (v 8).  These counterfeit/false signs and wonders will be in evidence before the arrival of the antichrist.   He may not yet be ‘revealed’ but his works are already made manifest.  It seems to make sense that these counterfeit signs and wonders would be increasing in both quantity and intensity in the time immediately preceding this false parousia.

Promoter of New Age / New Spirituality teachings Matthew Fox expressed the need for global mysticism in his 1988 book The Coming of the Cosmic Christ in order to bring forth this “Church Universal” of which Bailey speaks above:

Without mysticism there will be no “deep ecumenism,” no unleashing of the power of wisdom from all the world’s religious traditions…The promise of ecumenism, the coming together of religions has been thwarted because world religions have not been relating at the level of mysticism.  The Western tradition appears to have nothing to offer on a mystical level because its religious traditions are unaware of their mystical heritage…41

Perhaps Fox wasn’t aware of the mysticism already growing in the Western church primarily in the hyper-charismatic wing of Christianity.  No doubt hyper-charismaticism has grown since the time his book was written.

At last year’s Piercing the Darkness “prophetic conference” held at Bill Johnson’s Bethel Church in Redding, CA, “prophet” Bob Jones told the audience they were “called to be a mystic generation”.42

…Man is six things.  He’s mind, will, and emotions.  He is human spirit, Holy Spirit and Wisdom of the Ages.  What happens if you begin to tap into the Wisdom of the Ages?  In that little bitty God sperm seed – 1st Peter 1:23 is all the Wisdom of the Ages.  That genetic thing – you have authority over DNA43

For the record, 1st Peter 1:23 is referring to the Holy Spirit indwelling upon conversion, “For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God” [NIV 1984].  All of mankind does not have the Holy Spirit; only true Christians will be indwelt by the Holy Spirit.  Of course, what Jones is teaching here is not Biblical; but, what does he mean?  More on this in a bit.  “Wisdom of the Ages” is analogous to the ‘Ancient Wisdom’, or occult teachings,44 or “the power of wisdom from all the world’s religious traditions” as Fox states above.  Jones continues later in his ‘sermon’ with even more alarming words:

…Man was created all at oncet [sic: “once”]. Bang.  And God finished it and He made man out of the clay. The DNA.  What He put in here [ED: the body] was not DNA.  It was His genetics that has authority over DNA.  And, you’re gonna have to begin to get a-hold of this.  For this conscience of yours is really your spiritual guide.  God gave this to you to guide your lives.  Don’t violate your conscience.  In certain places it’s called your spirit.  Especially in 2nd Corinthians 7:1 it’s called spirit and flesh….45

Clearly, Jones is making a distinction between the creation of the spirit / conscience / “His (God’s) genetics” which was “made all at oncet”, and the physical human body (clay) containing DNA which was made subsequent to this, indicating a two-step process.  Yet, Scripture describes the creation of man a bit differently, “the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being” [Genesis 2:7, NIV 1984].  However, Jones words work well as a ‘Christianized’ explanation of the esoteric/occult/New Age doctrine of reincarnation.  To explain this doctrine, we’ll elicit help from some enthusiasts of the esoteric/occult.

In Annie Besant’s Theosophical/occult book The Ancient Wisdom from 1897 (Theosophy forms much of the basis of the New Age / New Spirituality teachings, as note above) she describes how the individual souls (spirits) await “the opportunity of incarnation” in human bodies:

…As the [human] race evolved, the human tabernacles improved, and myriads of souls [spirits] that were awaiting the opportunity of incarnation, that they might continue their evolution, took birth among its children….46

One time leader of the Theosophical Society Pasadena, Gottfried de Purucker, in his book Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy, a “Commentary and Elucidation of H. P. Blavatsky’s The Secret Doctrine”, explains that the spirit is immortal:

…The spirit is the immortal element in us, the deathless flame within us which dies never, which never was born, and which retains throughout…its own quality, essence, and life, sending down into our own being and into our various planes, certain of its rays or garments or souls which we are; and furthermore, that these rays, in descending, constituted the life-essences of a hierarchy, whether we treat of our own selves as individual human beings, or whether we think of the atom, or the solar system, or of the universal cosmos. 47

De Purucker may seem a bit confusing here (and his run-on sentences do not help in clarifying); but, what he’s stating is that in the doctrine of reincarnation all spirits are part of the one “god” who is within all things – a doctrine known as panentheism.  These spirits are immortal, eternal.  De Purucker differentiates between spirit and “soul” with the latter referring to any vehicle containing the spirit.  Each entity has its own “soul”.  That is, the descending spirit has its own “soul”, its vehicle, which enables it to descend and it, in turn, inhabits the soul/vehicle of the human body.48  Besant above is speaking of the soul as vehicle containing this immortal spirit which is “awaiting  the opportunity of incarnation”.  According to this occult doctrine, the human being can function without acknowledging this descended spirit; however, once one acknowledges the ‘god spirit’ inside, one can begin the path to “godhood”.

After explaining how the immortal spirits emanate from the transcendent “God”, and that each spirit remains fully “God”, yet the transcendent “God” is in no way diminished, de Purucker provides a helpful analogy:

A perfect analogy is found in the intrauterine development of man and his descent into incarnation.  His [immortal] spiritual nature does not come down and become his actual body; it remains always his spiritual nature…[T]he physical man, the body, is in very truth the ‘temple of the living God,’ which is itself the glory thereof, hence a part of the temple; the temple, verily, is the lowest manifestation of the living God within.49

In the doctrine of reincarnation, the immortal, disembodied spirit must inhabit a new body at conception as de Purucker and Besant illustrate.   Going back to the first Jones quote: his teaching about “God sperm” works well when put into the context of reincarnation in which the immortal spirits ‘take birth’ in the ‘temple of the living God’.  Combining this with Jones’ second quote, he is claiming that the “God sperm seed” [immortal spirit] provides the “authority” over your DNA (your body) since this “God sperm seed” is, as he calls it, the spirit / conscience or, ‘God’s genetics’, which is placed into the “clay” (body) containing your DNA.  So, once you “tap into the Wisdom of the Ages”, according to Jones, you will gain authority over your DNA.  Apparently this is the basis for the “spiritual DNA” teachings which are becoming more prevalent both in the hyper-charismatic and “Emergent” streams of Christendom.  More on this “spiritual DNA” in part III.

Jones continues with more esoteric teaching, this time sounding decidedly New Age:

But, you’re getting ready to wake up for the night is far spent and the dawn is at hand.  And we’re getting ready for one of the greatest awakenings of all time – no revival but a’ awakening that never ends50

One can almost hear the refrain of the 1969 hit by The 5th Dimension “Aquarius/Let the Sunshine In” at this point: “This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius…”  According to the New Age / New Spirituality, we are currently in the latter stages of the Age of Pisces and the dawning of the Age of Aquarius is imminent.

But, Jones is far from through [the remainder will be the subject of a future post].  He even speaks of Christ coming in His people, a reference to the anti-biblical doctrine known as the “birth of the man-child” which is part of the heretical manifested sons of God (MSoG) teaching (MSoG is also an occult / New Age teaching):

…Recently, the Lord spoke to me and said, “I’m coming IN my people.  Christ in you, the hope of glory.  I’m comin’ IN my people.”51

This is not dissimilar to his August 08, 2008 monologue at a conference hosted by Heritage International Ministries and distributed by Rick Joyner’s MorningStar Ministries:

As you begin to grow into the likeness of Christ you’re gonna begin to partake of the divine nature.  And, once you begin to grow up in that-away you’ll continue to mature until you look like Christ all over the world.  Jesus was one person.  Now get ready for Jesuses [sic; plural of “Jesus”] all over the world.52

Esoteric/occult/New Age literature has long proof-texted Colossians 1:27, “Christ in you, the hope of glory” to indicate the god within which needs to be first realized then actualized.  As but one example of Alice Bailey, “There is a growing and developing belief that Christ is in us, as He was in the Master Jesus…”53 Here Jones seemingly has yet another application in mind.  Is he speaking of the fake parousia, the false second coming of which both the Apostle Paul and Alice Bailey spoke?

Actually, Bob Jones has been speaking these sorts of things for about 25 years now.  To help further explain the preceding Jones material, here’s a more direct, concise quote from the late Earl Paulk which should help shed some light (actually dark):

…‘Christ in us’ is God’s continuing incarnation…The Church is Christ’s body, the incarnation of Christ today.  The mystery which has been hidden but is now revealed to His saints is ‘Christ in you, the hope of glory.’  The mystery of this generation is Christ in us.  We never understood that mystery fully.  We pray to a ‘God beyond the clouds in heavenly places’ when Christ is in us.  The hope of glory is not in the heavenlies – the ‘hope of the heavenlies’ is on earthEvery departed saint is gathered, waiting to see how many of us are going to receive understanding and bring Christ from the heavenliesThey are waiting for total redemption as we are.

If God’s love is going to be manifested on planet earth, who is going to demonstrate it?  Christ in us, the hope of glory.  God has no other place to show His love except through His body.54

Satan and his demons need our cooperation to do their bidding (“the hope of the heavenlies is on earth”).  Following is the New Age / New Spirituality teaching on the false parousia as Bailey calls it, “the outpouring of the Christ principle, the true second Coming”.  According to New Age / New Spirituality, when “the Christ” (antichrist, the new ‘World Teacher’) “reappears”, he will also have the ability to manifest through many people at one time:

The Christ, when He comes into incarnation, will most likely project himself into many parts and be where he wants to be. This is called the Law of Divisibility, a term used in Agni Yoga that means a highly developed spirit—one who is able to contact, simultaneously, various people in various locations.55

Does this not seem uncomfortably close to the Jones/Paulk version above?  Continuing:

For example, a Master can be seen in various groups at the same time. He can even be in different planes serving and teaching on different levels to meet various needs of the people. He can do different jobs in different places at one time. He impresses the space with his images, and so forth.56

Certainly, Bill Johnson bears some responsibility for Bob Jones’ teaching since this “prophetic conference” was hosted at his Bethel Church.  Presumably, he’ll likely revert back to his words here:

…As a pastor I sometimes invite speakers who come in a rough package but carry a great anointing.  I do this to train my congregation to recognize the anointing and to celebrate who people are, not who they aren’t.  People want to be doctrinally safe, not relationally safe.  Often people expect me to publicly rebuke a previous speaker for teaching against what we believe.  I will do that only if it’s actual heresy.57

One has to wonder what Johnson’s definition of heresy is.  Certainly, refusing to rebuke a specific unbiblical or anti-biblical teaching by an individual who has spoken at his church amounts to tacit approval despite his statement above.  However, given that the Bob Jones material cited in this section (excepting the MorningStar monologue) is sold in both audio and video format at Bethel, this connotes not just tacit but explicit endorsement.  And for this, Johnson should be held responsible.  With this endorsement from Bethel, one may be led to believe Jones’ teachings (at the least his words on this DVD/cd) are part of the Johnson / Bethel belief system.  Are they?

Bob Jones “The Coming Kingdom”
Piercing the Darkness, 2011

Bob Jones lurks in the background of much of hyper-charismaticism.  He is lauded as a true ‘prophet of God’.  Do his esoteric teachings form the backdrop for the movement as a whole?  “Apostles” in the New Apostolic Reformation, the very ones who claim authority, do nothing to correct any of Jones’ strange teachings.  Since Bill Johnson himself is a recognized ‘Apostle’ within his own sphere of influence, he certainly has the authority.  Will he correct any of Jones’ teachings?  Has he yet?

Bill Johnson: Deceived Deceiver or Deceiving Deceiver?

While we cannot know for certain an individual’s true heart or motives, we are to ‘know them by their fruit’ [Matthew 7:15-23], i.e. their doctrines and practices.  Following is a list of things showing redefinition of key Christian terms and concepts, apparent deceit, questionable associations and endorsements, a dubious ‘healing’, and other concerns:

— It has been demonstrated that Bill Johnson has redefined repentance and, even worse, Christ and antichrist spirit, some of this in mid-paragraph.  It is very difficult to view this as other than deliberate.  Given that Johnson has changed Christ to “anointing” and antichrist spirit to ‘anti-anointing’, and that he’s termed our present era the “post-denominational era”,58 is it any wonder that Johnson would want the anointing of William Branham, the one who called all Protestant denominations antichrist?59

…That antichrist spirit that we’re studying, in denominationalism, and proven that denominationalism is antichrist….60

— The circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the Roberts Liardon library indicate apparent deceit.  Of note also: Liardon’s book God’s Generals is highly endorsed by Johnson.61  This book contains historical snapshots of a number of “past revival leaders” including Branham.  While Liardon doesn’t shy away from some of the problems with Branham in the latter part of his days including that denominationalism was “the mark of the beast”,62 he attributes these doctrinal aberrations to be caused by Branham moving away from his ‘gift of healing’63 which he claims God “couldn’t take back”.64  Liardon mentions the fact that Branham could only heal if his ‘angel’ was “standing at his right side”.65  Apparently, according to Kurt Koch, in his book Occult A-B-C, Branham’s ‘angel’ would not appear when Christians were in the audience praying thus rendering Branham powerless:

There are disturbing powers here.  I can do nothing.66

Since when is God constrained by “disturbing powers”?

— He clearly borrows from Word of Faith (WoF) theology.  As stated in a previous article, some of his doctrines follow Kenneth E. Hagin, Sr. in the way he moves from one Biblical proof-text to the next to make his theological points.  One such example is the ‘born again Jesus’ teaching in which he moves from Hebrews 1:4-5 to Acts 13:33 although Johnson stops short of Hagin’s claim that Jesus went to hell, took on Satan’s nature and was subsequently ‘born again’.

Here’s one Johnson quote illustrating the WoF ‘prosperity gospel’:

…Jesus destroyed the power of sin, sickness, and poverty through His redemptive work on the cross. In Adam and Eve’s commission to subdue the earth, they were without sickness, poverty, and sin. Now that we are restored to His original purpose, should we expect anything less? After all, this is the better covenant! 67

Moreover, it has been demonstrated that there’s a strong possibility Johnson has even adopted the same (re)definition as E.W. Kenyon for the word reality (the spiritual realm as opposed to the physical).  Kenyon, from whom Hagin borrowed heavily, was the originator of Word of Faith doctrine.  Kenyon very likely borrowed this redefinition from Theosophy (H. P. Blavatsky) who apparently had in mind the Dualism of 1st/2nd century Gnosticism.

— Johnson has friends who have propounded and continue to promote unorthodox and heretical doctrines including Bob Jones (as noted in the previous section), Todd Bentley and others.   Conferences of which Johnson both hosts and speaks feature individuals with unbiblical and anti-biblical doctrines and some with questionable practices.  He specifically backed Todd Bentley both at the Lakeland “Revival” and in its aftermath, and he even wrote a letter last year in support of him recommending him for ‘ministry’.

— There is at least one recorded dubious (or worse) healing.  The following probably says it all: “What have I done?  This guy thinks he hobbled in here…wait until he tries to walk out!68 The Biblical witness does not once show God making an individual worse en route to divine healing.  In essence, Johnson states that God subsequently ‘covered him’ for his initial mistake in this ‘healing’.69

— Johnson promotes contradicting concepts.  Johnson states one thing one time then contradicts this very thing the next.  One example is his definitive statement, “sin and its nature have been yanked out by its roots”.70  This, of course, is not Biblical as we never get rid of our sin nature until we receive our imperishable bodies [1 Cor 15] at the resurrection of the saints.  Johnson will make statements seemingly affirming our ability to remain sinless71 (a view in common with New Age / New Spirituality) yet, at other times Johnson will make statements about our sin.72  In addition, Johnson’s followers sometimes understand his teachings in an unorthodox manner while Johnson rarely makes any attempts to correct these ‘misunderstandings’.

With all the preceding in mind, let’s look at a few statements which seem to contain orthodox statements at least in part:

Jesus was (and is) God.  Eternally God.  That never changed.  But he chose to live with self imposed restriction while living on earth in the flesh – as a man.  In doing so He defeated sin, temptation, the powers of darkness as a man.  We inherit His victory – it was for us.  He never sinned!” [Facebook 3/21/2011]

The first three sentences in and of themselves are entirely orthodox.  Adding the fourth, some have understood Johnson to be teaching what is known as functional(ist) kenosis (see here for a full discussion on kenosis, or self-emptying), i.e. that Jesus retained all His divine attributes yet chose not to use his omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience (and possibly other traits) during His earthly ministry relying instead on the Holy Spirit. [This view violates some key Scripture in any case: Heb 1:3/Col 1:17; John 5:21, 24-25.]  However, this narrow view fails to look at the rest of Johnson’s explicit statements as shown in part I and this article which prove the contrary.

Moreover, “self imposed restriction” can also be understood such that the Word voluntarily divested Himself of some or all divine attributes at the moment of the virginal conception/birth resulting in this restriction.  This would indicate a stronger form of kenosis (or worse) known as ontological kenosis.  In fact, this seems more likely given Johnson’s next sentence that Jesus defeated “the powers of darkness as a man”.  In addition, the emphatic last sentence seems to drive home that it was His sinlessness as a man which provided “His victory”.  According to orthodox Christianity, to provide effective Atonement Jesus had to be both fully God and fully man on the Cross.

In addition, it’s important to note that all modern (mid 19th century to today) kenosis theorists proclaim Jesus Christ’s eternal deity yet many effectively deny this in their theory by asserting He lacked some or all divine attributes while incarnate creating an inherent contradiction.

Here’s another quote which backs up the assertion that it’s both the stronger kenosis (or worse) and Jesus Christ’s lack of sin that is Johnson’s focus.  The following even suggests that if one were to follow Jesus’ example one could be sinless (again, this is not unlike New Age / New Spirituality teaching):

Jesus modeled what life could be like for any person that had no sin and was filled with the Spirit of God.  He’s eternally God; He’s not a created being – He’s eternally God, but He set aside divinity and chose to live with the same set of restrictions that a human being would have.  Why? To set an example for us.  Now if He did what He did as God, I’m still impressed; but, I’m not inclined to follow.  But when I find out He did it as a man with the same limitations I have, suddenly I’m no longer content to stay where I’m at.73

In the following, a statement in an article in the March 2012 Charisma, Johnson states quite explicitly that Jesus no longer had any deity/divinity during the Incarnation:

While Jesus is eternally God, He emptied Himself of His divinity and became a man (see Phil. 2:7). It’s vital to note that He did all His miracles as a man, not as God.

If He did them as God I would still be impressed. But because He did them as a man yielded to God, I am now unsatisfied with my life, being compelled to follow the example He has given us. Jesus is the only model for us to follow.74

The Charisma article states that this quote was adapted from his book (co-authored with Randy Clark) The Essential Guide to Healing.  Here’s the quote from the book which is much the same as above:

Jesus emptied Himself of divinity and became man (see Philippians 2:7).  While He is eternally God, He chose to live within the restrictions of a man who had no sin and was empowered by the Holy Spirit.  In doing this, He provided a compelling model for us to follow.75

Each of these suggests not ‘merely’ kenosis but metamorphosis instead, i.e. the Word literally became a man transforming Himself into a human devoid of any deity/divinity.76  Perhaps Johnson was not very careful with his words (and Charisma as well as Chosen Books, the publisher of his book, were equally careless in editing); however, when taken together with the other two statements above and the rest of his Christological statements, something is definitely amiss.  This reconfirms the analysis of Johnson’s Christology in part I.  Moreover, in looking over all the other evidence noted in this section one may wonder if he is not deliberately making these seemingly confusing and contradictory statements.

However, Johnson does proclaim Christ’s eternal deity in most of these statements, doesn’t he?  As regards this ‘affirmation’ issue, this proclamation of Christ, we must look at some Scripture such as 1st Corinthians 12:3, “…and no one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit”.  Gordon Fee, in his commentary on 1st Corinthians, does not see this as a “means of ‘testing the spirits’…” because “…it would seem possible for anyone to say these words at will“.77

The presence of the Spirit in power and gifts makes it easy for God’s people to think of the power and gifts as the real evidence of the Spirit’s presence.  Not so for Paul.  The ultimate criterion of the Spirit’s activity is the exaltation of Jesus as Lord.  Whatever takes away from that, even if they be legitimate expressions of the Spirit, begins to move away from Christ to a more pagan fascination with spiritual activity as an end in itself.78

Following is Craig Blomberg expounding on Matthew 7:15-23:

Jesus now explicitly addresses the situation in which greater numbers profess Christ than actually follow him.  He describes some of the pretenders as “false prophets,” those who claim to be God’s spokespersons but are not.  Yet, like wolves in sheep’s clothing, they give all external appearances of promoting authentic Christianity in both word and work.  “Prophets” as in the Old Testament, refer to those who either foretell or “forthtell” God’s word.

Verses 21-22 enumerate some of the ways in which individuals can masquerade as Christians.  They may verbally affirm that Jesus is their Master, perhaps with great joy and enthusiasm…some [may] work various kinds of miracles…We are reminded that signs and wonders can come from other sources other than God…It is worth emphasizing, however, that one can never know with absolute certainty the spiritual state of any other individual.79 

Blomberg’s last statement works both ways: one cannot affirm with absolute certainty whether another is a Christian and one cannot affirm with absolute certainty that s/he is not.  We must look at their ‘fruit’.  Johnson’s ‘fruit’, as outlined above, should give us cause for concern.

Keeping in mind the goal as specified by Alice Bailey in part I of this article in “ preserving the outer appearance in order to reach the many who are accustomed to church usages”,80 the kenosis/metamorphosis teachings may be a way to ‘Christianize’ the concept of reincarnation, i.e. by superimposing this on the subject of the person of Christ in a way that seemingly remains ‘Christian’.

From a Christian perspective one cannot state, “Jesus is eternally God” yet claim, “He emptied Himself of His divinity and became a man”, as this is a logical contradiction.  However, in the esoteric doctrine of reincarnation all spirits are immortal.  “Immortal” can be synonymous with “eternal”.  And according to the Theosophical doctrine of reincarnation all of these immortal spirits are a part of the one transcendent “God”, so one could say these are “gods” as well.   Therefore, one could claim that not only is Jesus “eternally God”, we are also gods, for we all, including Jesus, have these immortal spirits within us!81

Essentially, Bill Johnson, like much, if not all, of the rest of hyper-charismaticism, humanizes Jesus at the expense of His deity.  This makes Jesus just like we are, and makes us just like Jesus.  Once the playing field is leveled in this way, the door is opened to deify ourselves, to make ourselves into gods.  Consider the following Johnson statement with this in mind:

…And the whole issue of Jesus going to the Father was that He would be going as the Resurrected, Ascended, glorified Son of God, and, in that condition would set the stage for what you and I would become.  It’s an amazing part of the Gospel.  Did you know that Jesus gave up everything to become a man?   He owned everything.  He and His Father owned everything…But when He became a manHe forfeited everything to become a man.

One of the most amazing truths in the Bible…in John 16 is that Jesus re-inherited everything…He’s talking to His disciples…‘The Father’s given me everything.’  Now think about this.  He gave it all up; He forfeited His right to everything to take on a human body and be murdered to take upon Himself what you and I deserve so that we could take upon ourselves what only He deserves.  Stunning. 

The Father so honored Him for His perfect obedience that He now re-inherited everything; but, now not as GodDon’t misunderstand me, Jesus is not an ascended being; He’s not, uh, He didn’t work His way up into divinity.  He is eternally God, eternally God.  But, when He re-inherited everything, He inherited it as a man without sin.  Why?  Because He became our elder brother.  He became the one who inherited everything.  Why?  So, that you and I could be positioned to inherit everything with Him.  He forfeited all so that He could re-inherit in a way that would include us.82

Note the disclaimer in the last paragraph, “Jesus is not an ascended being…He didn’t work his way up into divinity” and his stammering in the middle.  It appears Johnson is well aware of the Christological contradiction inherent in his teaching: Christ cannot be eternally God yet temporally (in our time-space continuum) merely a man during His earthly ministry.    But more importantly, he’s obviously aware of New Age teaching which he seems to be trying hard to convince the audience he is not teaching.83

Most importantly, this quote begs the question: what did Jesus relinquish when He “forfeited everything to become a man”, and what did he subsequently “re-inherit in a way that includes us”?  Did He become wholly a man complete with the human sin nature yet successfully remain sinless, thereby (re)attaining His salvation and becoming the model for the rest of mankind to follow in order to attain their own salvation in the same fashion?  Or, did He forfeit His divinity and subsequently regain it thereby paving the way for mankind to attain deity?  Considering all the Christological quotes above, one or both of these seem to be quite logical conclusions to Johnson’s teaching, for it seems Jesus gave up His divinity at the beginning of the Incarnation and reacquired it some time before or at Ascension.  This is not inconsistent with WoF doctrine.84

No matter how all this is meant, any interpretation seems not to approach Christian orthodoxy.

Part IIIa will take specific quotes of Bill Johnson and compare these to various quotes from New Age material.  In addition, Part IIIb we’ll take a closer look at the “spiritual DNA” teaching and will discuss “the Word made flesh”.  All this should prove quite ‘illuminating’.

39Bailey, Externalisation; p 510.  Emphasis added.
40Bauer, Walter, F. W. Danker, W. F.  Arndt, F. W. Gingrich A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 2000 (3rd ed.),University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL; pp 780-781.  Also known as “BDAG”.
41Fox, Matthew The Coming of the Cosmic Christ: The Healing of Mother Earth and the Birth of a Global Renaissance. © 1988 by Matthew Fox, HarperCollins, New York, NY; p 65.  Bold from emphasis in original; underscore added.
42Jones, Bob “The Coming Kingdom” Piercing the Darkness Prophetic Conference, February 2011. Hosted by Bethel Church, Redding, CA, Feb 23-25, 2011, Session 4, Feb 24, 2011, 7:00pm; 16:02 – 16:05.  Available for sale at Bill Johnson’s Bethel Church website: <http://store.ibethel.org/p4810/piercing-the-darkness-february-2011-complete-set-bethel-campus> As accessed 04/01/12.
43Jones, “Coming Kingdom”; 11:30 – 11:59.  Emphasis added.
44de Purucker, G. Fundamentals of the Esoteric Philosophy. © 1979 Theosophical University Press, 2nd rev ed (1932), Theosophical University Press, Pasadena, CA; p 147.  The front cover describes the book as a “Commentary and Elucidation of H. P. Blavatsky’s The Secret Doctrine.  From the text on page 147 referencing volume I of Blavatsky’s work (page 272): “The Secret Doctrine is the accumulated Wisdom of the Ages…”
45Jones, “Coming Kingdom”; 24:36 – 25:30.  Emphasis added.
46Besant, Annie The Ancient Wisdom: An Outline of the Theosophical Teachings. © 1939 The Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar, (1897; 8th Adyar ed 1969), Adyar, Madras, India; p 214.  Book is “dedicated with gratitude, reverence, and love to H. P. Blavatsky who showed me the light”.  While there are a few minor discrepancies in the teachings of Blavatsky, Besant and Bailey, they mostly agree.
47de Purucker; p 157.  Bold from emphasis in original; underscore added.
48de Purucker; p 154.  “…What do we mean by soul as contrasted with spirit?  We speak of the human soul and the spiritual soul, and we speak of the astral soul, and we speak of the animal soul.  But we do not use those terms in connection with the word spirit.  Does it not teach us that the meaning of soul is that of a vehicle, an uphadhi in general; that vehicle, or any vehicle, in which the monad [ED: spirit, i.e. part of the transcendent “God”], in any sphere of manifestation, is working out its destiny?” [Emphasis in original.]  In this doctrine of reincarnation, everything has a “soul” – minerals, plants, animals and humans – and each have an inhabiting “spirit” which is using the “soul” as a vehicle to ascend to godhood.  The mineral must first ascend its way to the plant, then the animal, then the human, and ultimately to godhood.
49de Purucker; p 150
50Jones, “Coming Kingdom”; 21:26 – 21:40.  Emphasis added.
51Jones, “Coming Kingdom”; 38:53 – 39:05.  Emphasis in original.
52Jones, Bob.  Excerpt of his monologue from an August 08, 2008 conference held at Heritage International Ministries Retreat Center featuring Todd Bentley, Bob Jones and Rick Joyner.  DVD sold through Rick Joyner’s MorningStar Ministries, Media Store, VS19-000D. “Todd Bentley Healing and Impartation Service, 08-08-08”
<http://www.morningstarministries.org/store/teaching-sets/todd-bentley/todd-bentley-healing-and-impartation-service-08-08-08>.  Emphasis added.  As accessed 04/01/12.  Here’s an advertisement announcing the conference: <http://www.morningstarministries.org/events/morningstar-conferences/todd-bentley-healing-impartation-service-2008> As accessed 04/01/12
53Bailey, Externalisation; p 592.  Emphasis in original.
54Paulk, Earl Held in the Heavens Until…: God’s Strategy for Planet Earth. 1985, K Dimension Publishers, Atlanta, GA; p 229.  All emphasis added.
55World Service Intergroup website. Dubois, J.D. “The Christ, His Reappearance, and the Avatar of Synthesis” < http://www.worldserviceintergroup.net/#/christ-reappearance/4543145171 >   World Service Intergroup; Dubois; par 5; as accessed 03/27/12
56Dubois; par 5.  Continuing from above.
57Johnson, Face to Face; p 71, cf. 66-67
58Johnson, Heaven Invades; p 90
59Branham, William M. The Revelation of the Seven Seals. © 1993 VGR (2009 reprint), Voice of God Recordings, Jeffersonville, IA; pp 259, 283-285, cf. 259-295.  Transcribed from original tapes recorded March 17-24, 1963.
60Branham, p 259
61Johnson, Heaven Invades; p 103
62Liardon, Roberts God’s Generals: Why They Succeeded and Why Some Failed. © 1996 by Roberts Liardon (2nd prtng), Albury Publishing, Tulsa, OK; p 340.  The book is endorsed by C. Peter Wagner, Hee Kong, Jack Coe, Jr., Gerald Coates and others.
63Liardon; pp 335, 343
64Liardon; p 343
65Liardon; p 332
66Koch, Kurt Occult A-B-C. 1986 (2nd ed), Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI; p 235
67Johnson, Heaven Invades; p 33
68Johnson, Release Power of Jesus; p 107.  Emphasis added.
69Johnson, Release Power of Jesus; p 108
70Johnson, Heaven Invades; p 110
71Johnson, Heaven Invades; pp 29-30
72Johnson, Supernatural Power; p 110
73Johnson, Bill. “Authority and Power for Healing, Special Impartation and Activation Service”, NW Healing Explosion – Seattle Region, held at Sonrise Christian Center, Everett, WA, Thursday, December 1, 2011 (most likely date, as it seems there’s discrepancy between schedule on bulletin and date listed on url with Johnson’s monologue), 7pm; 42:30 – 43:10. <http://www.livestream.com/nwhealingexplosionseattle11/video?clipId=pla_49e5829f-8bef-4441-a0a1-3d91097b27a2&utm_source=lslibrary&utm_medium=ui-thumb> As accessed 04/01/12.  Emphasis added.  Many thanks to the CrossWise reader who sent this to me recently.
74Johnson, Bill. “You’ve Got the Power!” Charisma. March, 2012, Vol 37, No. 8; p 26.  Emphasis added.  Also currently available online: <http://www.charismamag.com/index.php/new-man/1622-features/32505-youve-got-the-power> Feb 23, 2012; par 7-8.  As accessed 04/01/12.  Many thanks to CrossWise reader/commenter Tim Bain for providing the source.
75Johnson, Bill, Randy Clark. The Essential Guide to Healing: Equipping All Christians to Pray for the Sick. © 2011 by Bill Johnson and Randy Clark, Chosen Books (a division of Baker Publishing Group), Bloomington, MN; p 125.  Emphasis added.  Each chapter is authored by either Bill Johnson or Randy Clark.  The chapter from which this quote is taken was authored by Johnson.
76This is consistent with Word of Faith doctrine.
77Fee, Gordon D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians: The New International Commentary on the New Testament. 1987, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MN; p 581.  Emphasis added.
78Fee, Corinthians; p 582.  Emphasis added.
79Blomberg, Craig L. The New American Commentary: Vol. 22; Matthew. 1992, B&H Publishing Group, Nashville, TN; pp 132-133.  Emphasis added.
80Bailey, Externalisation. p 511
81See de Purucker; pp 150-151
82Johnson, Bill. Audio clip taken from 2010 Australian “When Heaven Invades Earth” Tour as accessed from Plantagenet Family Church, Mount Barker, Western Australia, 03/21/11 from the following url: <http://pfchurch.org.au/?p=357> which now is redirected to a different page altogether.  Link recovered on Internet Archive / The Wayback Machine; however, audio clip is unavailable: <http://web.archive.org/web/20101106155256/http://pfchurch.org.au/?p=357>.  Originally transcribed by CrossWise on 3/21/11 or just after; last access date to original web link unknown but likely Fall, 2011.  All emphasis added.  Many thanks to the CrossWise reader who sent this to me on 3/21/2011.
83A similar quote is available on YouTube by “whizzpopping” Bill Johnson – Bringing Heaven to Earth (Part 2 of 2). Aug 20, 2010 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxVdxzJ0vN4> 3:10 – 4:30: “He forfeited everything because He owned everything; literally all that exists was His. And, He gave it all up to become a man; and, then He re-inherited everything as a man so that you and I would have an inheritance – the absolute mercy of God.  So, now He stands after His triumphant Resurrection. The defeat of the power of death, hell and the grave – all that stuff was defeated, the power of sin. And, He stands before humanity and He says, ‘I got the keys back.  That which was lost in the Garden, I’ve got it back. Now, let’s get back to plan A.’  And, he makes this profound statement; he says, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth.”  Jesus did not make that declaration as GodNow, na – He’s eternally God; he’s not a created being, He didn’t ascend, ya know, to some position. He’s eternally God; but, He did not make that statement as God.  How do we know? Because He said, ‘All authority’s been given to me.’  There’s no one higher than God to give God authority.    When Jesus made that statement, He made the statement as our elder brother.”  Bold from emphasis in original; underscore added.  As accessed 04/01/12.  Once again, note the stammering in his disclaimer.
84McConnell, D. R. A Different Gospel: A Historical and Biblical Analysis of the Modern Faith Movement. 1988 (4th prtng, March 1991), Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, MA; pp 116-133

In Exonerating Paul Cain, Is the ‘Aberrant Practices’ Document Invalidated?

[Update: we are now of the opinion that Paul Cain’s “Joel’s Army” audio referenced in this article was from 1987, rather than the 1989 date assigned here.  More specifically, we believe the date of recording is June 28, 1987.]

…[C]ertain accusations about Paul Cain proved to be entirely false, having been based on untruths that were later acknowledged as such.  Paul Cain met with the critic, as did John Wimber and others.  Though the critic was reluctant to concede the wrong of the report as a whole, he later wrote a letter conceding the godliness of Paul Cain and the reality of his exceptional gifting.

 – Dr. John White, foreword to David Pytches’ (revised) Some Said it Thundered1

The “critic” White refers to is obviously Ernie Gruen.  These are very strong words although White would later agree that his overall statement was “intemperate.”2   This will be addressed in more detail a bit later.  As stated in the first part of this article, the exoneration of Paul Cain by Gruen will be examined in full since this has been used by some to negate the entire Document.  Toward this end, we will explore Cain in some detail as well as some of his closest allies of this period including Mike Bickle (International House of Prayer – more commonly “IHOP”), John Wimber and Jack Deere.  And since there have been attempts at discrediting the Gruen analysis of the “drought prophecy,” this will be specifically discussed in detail in closing.

Here is the first page of the two page letter3 (three including the ‘15 points/errors’ enclosure):

In effect, point 2 and its sub-points appear to completely contradict nearly the whole of section VI.H in the Gruen Document.4 Let’s examine these points.

Point 2d indicates that Gruen and his staff relied on reports of William Branham’s sons regarding whether or not Cain ministered with the elder Branham.5  Branham’s sons claimed he did not.  It will be assumed that Cain and/or Wimber and his staff provided absolute proof to the contrary.6  However, this brings up an associated issue to be discussed later in this article.

In his August 1990 Special Report, Albert James Dager rightly questions Cain’s exoneration given that Cain has openly endorsed KCF/GM:

…[H]ow can Cain be exonerated of GM/KCF’s excessive errors when he has openly endorsed that ministry and appears on their platform?  One who endorses a work bears responsibility for that work and is identified with its fruit.7

Part of Cain’s endorsement of GM/KCF included his explicit affirmations of Bob Jones as both a foretelling and forth-telling prophet during this time as the Gruen Document and other sources illustrate.8  So, why were limitations placed on Jones’ ministry as a result of the Vineyard assumption due to his aberrant teachings and practices while Cain continued to be embraced as a prophet?  In addition, wasn’t Cain guilty of point/error 9 in the ‘15 points’ referenced in the first part of this article (and enclosed with the July 1 letter) – “[p]ublic predictions of natural disasters, economic events, and divine visitations without the approval of government” – in his purported “earthquake prophecy” of December 1988?9

1 White, John. “Foreword” in Pytches, David. Some Said it Thundered. 1991 (revised, “new edition”), Oliver Nelson, Nashville, TN; pp xxii-xxiii
2 Beverley, James A. Holy Laughter & the Toronto Blessing: An Investigative Report. 1995, Zondervan Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI; p 126
3 Letter on file including attachment.
4 Gruen, Ernest J. & John J. Arnold, et. al. Documentation of the Aberrant Practices and Teachings of Kansas City Fellowship (Grace Ministries). May 1990, self-published; pp 217-21. / pdf prepared for online posting by Tricia Tillin (Booth) <http://www.birthpangs.org/articles/kcp/Aberrant%20Practises.pdf>; pp 123-25.  Hereafter listed as pdf first followed by original booklet; e.g.: pp 123-25 / 217-21
5 Gruen, Documentation. pp 124 / 218-19
6 Beverley, Holy Laughter; p 131 and Jackson, Bill The Quest for the Radical Middle: A History of the Vineyard. 1999, Vineyard International Publishers, Ladysmith, Cape Town, South Africa; p 182.  Confusingly, at least one subsequent “Re-published” issue has different page numberings.  The 2nd issue was Re-published in 2000 as VIP, Cape Town with the same page numbering as the first edition; whereas, the 2010 “Re-published for Amazon” issue (VIP, Cape Town also) has different page numberings.  Herein and hereafter, all page numbers will reference the earlier edition followed by the later one, e.g.: p 182 / 175.  Neither Beverley nor Jackson provides any specific proof.  Is there perhaps an exchange between Cain and Branham recorded or an extant photo which would prove unequivocally?
7 Dager, Albert James “Latter-Day Prophets: The Restoration of Apostles and Prophets and the Kansas City-Vineyard Connection” Media Spotlight. Special Report, August 1990, Media Spotlight, Redmond, WA; pp 6.  Report undated, however verified by Dager.
8 Beverley, Holy Laughter; p 131.  Notes Beverley, “Cain’s explicit blessing of Bob Jones was a major error…After Jones was disciplined for…sexual misconduct…I was told that Cain never trusted Jones in the first place.”  If he didn’t trust him from the beginning, why would he endorse him so enthusiastically in the first place?  Beverley, however, was apparently ill-informed of some of Cain’s doctrines namely Joel’s Army and Manifested Sons of God [see below in this article “Paul Cain Did Not Teach Manifested Sons Doctrine?”] proclaiming he had “no problem affirming that Cain is orthodox in his basic theology” while acknowledging Cain (and Bob Jones) did teach Joel’s Army [p 123].  The Joel’s Army doctrine as taught by Cain (and Jones) is contrary to basic Christian orthodoxy.
9 Jackson, Radical Middle. pp 179-80 / 172-73.  “Earthquake prophecy” discussed in some detail including discrepancies in its reporting.

Paul Cain Prophesies Earthquakes?

It’s imperative to understand the significance accorded Paul Cain.  To this day, Mike Bickle refers to Cain as one of his “spiritual fathers.”10  Jack Deere was so taken with Cain that he insisted John Wimber meet with him.  As James A. Beverley states, “From 1988 to 1991, there was no doubt Paul Cain had ‘superstar’ status in the Vineyard.”11 Cain had been established as the primary prophetic voice at Shiloh Ministries which, as noted in the first part of this article, was largely funded by Vineyard Ministries International [see second paragraph under May 12 in the timeline]:

Grace Ministries team leaders have recognized Paul [Cain] as having the senior prophetic authority over Shiloh and those in prophetic ministry who are based there.12

Wimber even claimed at one point that he was “bonded to Paul Cain for life.”13  One of the reasons for his high stature as a “prophet” was the “earthquake prophecy” which was said to have validated Paul Cain’s message to Wimber and Vineyard: “God has a strategic purpose in this for Paul and the Vineyard Movement.”14

The “earthquake prophecy” came in two parts: there was to be an earthquake in southern California on the day Cain would arrive – December 3, 1990 – and there was to be a big one in another part of the world on the day after Cain was to leave.  Paul Cain left Anaheim Vineyard on December 7; so, this would place the second predicted earthquake on December 8.  Mike Bickle, in his book Growing in the Prophetic, recounts:

…A week or two before Paul’s scheduled arrival, Dr. Jack Deere, who was at that time an associate pastor with John Wimber in Anaheim, asked Paul if God would grant a prophetic sign to confirm His message for John Wimber and the several hundred Vineyard churches under John’s leadership.

Paul answered, “The day I arrive, there will be an earthquake in your area.”  That, however, is not an astounding prediction for southern California.

Jack asked, “Will this be the big one we’ve all been hearing about?”

“No,” Paul answered, “but there will be a big earthquake elsewhere in the world on the day after I leave.” 15

This “prophecy” was also recounted in Wimber’s Equipping the Saints (ETS) magazine specifying Cain’s face-to-face visit with Wimber occurred on the 5th of December.16  There was indeed an earthquake on December 3rd in Pasadena.17  However, John Wimber had later questioned himself as to whether this “prophecy” was actually predicted. Bill Jackson, in The Quest for the Radical Middle, relates:

While Wimber wrote the account as coming before the fact, he later doubted his memory when he re-examined the prophetic.  He would later wonder privately if it hadn’t really come after the fact.  This is a very important distinction to make because the fact was used to validate Paul Cain’s message to the Vineyard.  In a phone conversation, Deere recounted to me in vivid detail the facts surrounding the prophecy, verifying that it did come before the earthquake.18

As stated above, part of this “prophecy” was Cain’s purported prediction that there would be a second “big” earthquake in another part of the world “on the day after he left” Anaheim Vineyard.19  Yet Wimber, in recounting the Deere/Cain conversation in the ETS Fall 1990 article, records the earthquake was to be, quoting Cain, “after I leave” which is less explicit on the timing.20

On the evening of Cain’s departure, December 7, 1988 – which, of course, is not the day after – there was a catastrophic earthquake in Soviet-Armenia. Deere would later apologize for being unclear in how he stated this “prophecy” initially:

…When Jack Deere realized the error he said he remembered that Paul had not said “the day after I leave” but “after I leave,” thus leaving the timing ambiguous.  He apologized for the misquote.  It was these kinds of disclaimers that raised the ire of many toward the prophetic because it seemed like backpedaling.21

10 Bickle, Mike, International House of Prayer Encountering Jesus, formerly at  <http://www.ihopmp3store.com/Groups/1000021591/IHOP_MP3_Downloads/Free_MP3s/Free_MP3s.aspx> Disc 1 <http://ihopcontent.ihop.org/ihopcntnt/endis/FreeMP3s/Encountering_Jesus_D1.mp3> 18:45 – 19:35, As accessed 10/09/11, now available on Internet Archive (Wayback Machine): https://archive.org/details/EncounteringJesus.  Bickle also refers to Bob Jones as his other ‘spiritual father.’
11 Beverley, Holy Laughter; p 130
12 Lambert, Steve “Shiloh: A Prophetic Sanctuary” Grace City Report. Special Edition, Fall 1989; p 11 as cited in Dager, Albert James “Latter-Day Prophets: The Kansas City Connection” Media Spotlight. Special Report, April 23, 1990, Media Spotlight, Redmond, WA; p 4.  Also in Dager Vengeance is Ours: The Church in Dominion. July 1990, Sword Publishers, Redmond, WA; p 129 and Dager “Latter Day Prophets: The Restoration”; p 5.
13 Hill, Clifford “Kansas City Prophets” Prophecy Today. July/August 1990, Vol 6 No 4; p 6
14 Jackson, Radical Middle. p 179 / 172
15 Bickle, Michael, M. Sullivant, Growing in the Prophetic. 1996 (5th printing Feb ’98), Creation House, Oakland, FL; p 39.  Emphasis added.
16 Wimber “Introducing Prophetic Ministry” Equipping the Saints. Fall 1990, Special UK Edition; pp 4-5
17 Jackson, Radical Middle. pp 179-80 / 172-73.  Jackson erroneously records the date of the Pasadena earthquake as December 5 as it was instead on the 3rd.   December 5 was the day Cain purportedly met with Wimber which is likely the source of the error.
18 Jackson, Radical Middle. pp 179, 189 / 172, 181.  Wimber “wondered privately” in a conversation with Todd Hunter.  Emphasis added.
19 Jackson, Radical Middle. p 179 / 172.  Emphasis added.
20 Wimber, “Introducing Prophetic”; p 5.  Emphasis added.
21 Jackson, Radical Middle. pp 189 / 181-82.  Recounted to Jackson in phone conversation on April 2, 1999.  Emphasis added.

Open Vision of Jack Deere’s Mother and Related Prophecy

Point 2b is problematic.  Here’s the account as recorded in the Gruen Document:

Paul Cain claims a person’s dead mother appeared to him and talked with him.

Three people testified that during a conference in Kansas City in April of 1989, Paul Cain called a man out of the congregation and said, “Your brother is okay – your dead mother appeared to me and said he is in heaven with her.” 22

The concession states that it wasn’t necromancy since the woman who appeared to Cain in this open vision was a living person.  This account is detailed in the following from an audio tape of that evening:

The portion below pertaining to the account in the Gruen Document is bolded; the rest is shown to provide the broader context.  With the benefit of time and a later restatement of this particular account by Jack Deere, this can be analyzed in detail:

Last time the Lord gave me anything like this – and this is the burden of the Lord, Mike, I tell ya.  It’s a burden of the Lord because I don’t wanna do it, I don’t wanna do this… I never will forget the reproach that came upon me…and because of the ignorance of… the people, they thought I was talking to the dead.  Listen, talking to the dead is nothing new; I talk to the dead every time I get up in a place like this.  It’s people walking over dead people that are far more dead than the dead people in the ground.

We misunderstood a lot of things.  We take one little isolated Scripture out here that ‘the dead know nothing at all’ and think we’ve got the interpretation of that – if anybody sees someone face to face with the Lord that they’re talkin’ to the dead.  That’s the craziest thing I ever heard of.  Somebody saw Moses; somebody saw Elijah.  Uh, I know Moses died.  And, uh, somebody saw him, didn’t they?

…If one of your loved ones was with the Lord; and, you hadn’t had any peace about this, and the Lord just sent a little love note to you tonight, wanting you to have inner peace and happiness, wanting you to be strengthened to serve Him, He might just tell you He was face to face with him, do you believe that?  He just might do that.

And, Jack…I want you to stand up; It’s gonna hit you with brute force tonight.  Your mother came to me in an open vision this afternoon.  Her name is Wanda; second name initial J. – Right?  W. J., Wanda, and then she looks like somebody I know named Jean, so, that must be her middle name.  And she’s talking about losing a jewel and that jewel was lost.  And she feels a lot of guilt, and a lot of responsibility there. And you don’t know it, but the Lord said, “Cliff is in heaven.” And Cliff, uh – JEWEL – it’s Jewel Clifford, he is in heaven tonight because God saw something in the insanity that came upon him that was demonic.   And God, who is a God of perfect justice and perfect equality, said that He took one item from your dad as He did from Abraham and accounted it for righteousness sake.  And he did call on Him, and your father, Jewel, as, uh, Joel and Malachi in that day when the Lord makes up his Jewels [ed: Joels?].23

It’s not difficult to understand those in the audience being a bit confused about the details as Cain spoke this rather fast and it IS difficult to figure out the exact relationship each has with the others (except Jack with respect to his mother, of course) confounded even more by the fact that “Jewel” sounds a lot like “Joel.”  Furthermore, it’s not difficult to understand confusion as to who was alive or dead with Cain’s long introduction about “talking to the dead.”  However, yes, the woman here, Jack Deere’s mother, apparently was alive at this time.

To try to put this in perspective by restating: In an open vision that afternoon Cain saw Deere’s mother who was “talking about a jewel.”  Subsequent to this or within this same vision, Cain is claiming he received a “prophetic word” about Deere’s deceased father, Jewel Clifford, with the Lord saying, “Cliff is in heaven.”

Jack Deere recalls this himself in his book Surprised by the Voice of God.24  Tragically, his father had committed suicide when he was just twelve years old and Deere went back and forth in his mind varying between believing his father was in heaven and believing his father was in hell after weighing positive and negative evidence respectively.25

…Then he looked directly at me and said, “Jack, would you stand up please.”

As I rose to my feet, Paul said, “I had a vision of your mother this afternoon.  Her name is Wanda Jean.  I saw her standing on a cliff looking for her missing jewel.  That must mean your father’s name is Jewel Clifford.  Then I saw your father.   When I saw him, he was in heaven, face-to-face with the Lord Jesus.  The Lord showed me that sometime before your father had died, like Abraham, he believed in the Lord, and the Lord counted it to him for righteousness.”

I was absolutely stunned.  No one knew my mother’s real name.  She hated the name Wanda.  She would only use the name Jean.  It was one of our best kept family secrets.  Likewise, my dad never went by the name Jewel Clifford.  Everyone called him Jack.  I had never told Paul that my parents’ names were Jean and Jack, let alone that their birth names were Wanda Jean and Jewel Clifford.  I knew the only way he could have gotten those names was by supernatural revelation from the Lord.26

Obviously, Deere was paraphrasing Cain’s words and with the passage of time slight variances may be understandable.  However, note that Cain never said anything about Deere’s mother “standing on a cliff looking for her missing  jewel” (although that is a great metaphor) but instead Cain records Wanda Jean as saying “she’s talking about losing a jewel and that jewel was lost.” Cain never does equate “Clifford” with a “cliff” as in ‘a hill with a steep face’ although he does refer to Deere’s father as “Cliff.”

Contrary to Deere’s definitive statement above, it is plausible that Paul Cain obtained his parents’ names by other means, even other supernatural means.  This would not be the only time a Paul Cain “prophecy” was declared to be obtainable only from the Lord when that was not necessarily the case.27

In his book, Deere relates that the very next day after Cain delivers this “word” to him, Deere takes Cain to the pastor’s luncheon and he asks Paul why the Lord would choose to reveal this to him now as he had “put the whole subject out of his mind”:

As far as I knew, it didn’t trouble me any longer.  I wanted to know if the Lord had shown Paul why he had given me this revelation.28

Deere goes on state that the Lord had revealed to Paul Cain that there was a root of bitterness “over the possibility that he [Deere’s father] might spend eternity in hell.”  Deere claims that in retrospect the “word” had helped significantly in softening his heart.29

However, that evening, the very next night after Cain’s initial “prophecy,” Paul Cain expounds on the “prophetic word” he had provided the night before which conflicts with Deere’s account:

There was a revelation that changed a man’s life last night.  Did you know this former Dallas Theological Seminary professor that was ministered to last night? What you didn’t know was the demons of hell came and they said, “We have your father.  And, we’re gonna take you, we will take you to your father.” And then the Heavenly Father last night through His omniscience began to reveal, “No, your father, your father Jewel Clifford he is with the Lord – face to face with the Lord.”  That was a transforming act of God; that was the mercy of God.  I got to deliver it with the jealousy of God and that changed Jack Deere’s life30

Deere’s book mentions nothing about being approached by demons claiming his father was in hell; in fact, Deere claims he felt the whole matter was no longer forefront on his mind during that time.  According to Deere, Cain’s words to him on the way to lunch were, “Paul told me that after I had become a Christian, the question of my father’s eternal destiny troubled me more than I realized.”31  That’s a far cry from, “the demons of hell came and they said ‘we have your father…and…we will take you to your father’” which would obviously be very troubling and it would be doubtful that this would have been put out of Deere’s mind.

As a contrast, it’s interesting to note that after initially ‘misquoting’ the timing of Cain’s “earthquake prophecy,” Deere later would recall “in vivid detail” the facts concerning that particular “prophecy” yet in a very personal “prophecy” – one that “changed a man’s life” – he adds the detail about his mother “standing on a cliff looking for her missing jewel” and either doesn’t remember or chooses for some reason not to disclose the fact that demons appeared to him telling him his father was in hell.  In fact, the latter appears to conflict with his statement that he would go back and forth in believing his father was either in heaven or in hell.

Wouldn’t it seem more likely that a personal prophecy would be more ingrained in an individual’s memory than another one which is not so distinctly personal?  This is even more curious in view of the fact that the ‘earthquake prophecy’ was purportedly spoken circa late November 1988 with Deere recollecting this in an April 1999 conversation with Bill Jackson32 – a full 10 years later – as compared to the fact that the ‘prophecy’ concerning Deere’s father was spoken in April of 1989 with Deere recounting this in his book published in 1996.33

22 Gruen, Documentation. p 124 / 220.  Emphasis in original.
23 Cain, Paul “Who Will Ascend the Lord’s Hill?” cassette tape [PC05-002] The Jealousy of God. 3-tape set in clamshell, undated, MorningStar Ministries, Charlotte, NC; tape 2, side 2.  While there’s no date listed, internal evidence points to it being at Kansas City Fellowship in April of 1989 since: 1) the venue is made obvious in various places in the recordings contained in this set; 2) Cain mentions things to occur in the ‘90s and some things to occur before the end of ’89; 3) Cain mentions “demonic killings in Mexico” he had just read about in the newspaper which is very likely the Matamoros ritual killings which made headlines in April of 1989; 4) an eyewitness recalls being there during this timeframe; and, 5) the details of this open vision seem to match up with the account spoken of in the Gruen Document [item VI.H.5] as corrected in the July 1, 1990 letter which is dated April 1989.  Taking all this into consideration, this tape set is most likely from April 1989, and unless anyone can produce proof to the contrary, this will be assumed to be the account referenced in the Gruen Document.  In a 1995 MorningStar Ministries catalog this set is listed as a 4-tape set including “Consumed by His Jealousy” as the fourth tape [PC05-004].
24 Deere, Jack Surprised by the Voice of God. 1996, Zondervan, Grand Rapids, MI; 176.  Deere mistakenly mentions this as occurring at Metro Vineyard Christian Fellowship instead of KCF – that is, unless this “prophecy” was later recycled.
25 Deere, Surprised by Voice. p 177
26 Deere, Surprised by Voice. p 176
27 Beverley, Holy Laughter; pp 132-33
28 Deere, Surprised by Voice. p 177
29 Deere, Surprised by Voice. p 177
30 Cain, Paul “Recapturing the Jealousy of God” cassette tape [PC05-003], The Jealousy of God. 3-tape set in clamshell, undated, MorningStar Ministries, Charlotte, NC; tape 3, side 1.  Undated but as noted above from 1989 and very likely April 1989.
31 Deere, Surprised by Voice. p 177
32 Jackson, Radical Middle. p 189 / 181.  The “circa late November 1988” timing of Cain’s purported stating of the “earthquake prophecy” was gleaned from Bickle’s statement that this was “a week or two before” Cain’s arrival at Anaheim Vineyard in Growing in the Prophetic. p 39
33 Deere, Surprised by Voice. pp 176-177

Paul Cain a True Prophet?

Paul Cain was said to provide remarkable words of knowledge.  Jack Deere’s book Surprised by the Voice of God is dedicated to Cain describing him as a “true prophet.”34   In a chapter detailing how to properly facilitate prophecy, Deere mentions that prophetic words should always be given with humility.  He states, “The most skillful prophetic people I know avoid phrases like ‘Thus says the Lord…’” as this implies “a very high level of clarity and authority…that God is not giving to very many people today.”35  Yet, in another audio from 1989 at Kansas City Fellowship, Cain quips that he trades “words” with Bob Jones and John Paul Jackson each one prefaced with “thus saith the Lord”:

…I tell ya, I had a vision – I can’t get around John Paul without havin’ a vision – you know prophets when they get around each other they, if they don’t have anyone else to work on, they just work on each other.  I mean they just say, “thus saith the Lord” and then they’ll turn around and say, “thus saith the Lord to YOU![audience laughter]  and, then I’ll turn around and say, “thus saith the Lord to YOU buddy!– and so on.  Ya know it’s a really exciting thing.  But every time I get around Bob he has a word from the Lord for me; and, I’m very humble – I don’t usually come back right awayBut I go home and the Lord gives me some stuff that almost makes me explode, and I’m just BUSTIN’ to give you this.  But John, I know this is irreverent36

This is indeed irreverent, very much so, and obviously this lacks humility as well.  We have to ask ourselves if a Holy God would take part in this sort of irreverent silliness.  Perhaps Cain, Jones and Jackson feel they had “a very high level of clarity and authority” and thus could “prophecy” using the words “thus saith the Lord” at will.  Maybe Cain was just joking around, but this is no laughing matter.

Take note that both Jones and Jackson would be limited in their ministries once Wimber/Vineyard took the reins of KCF in May of 1990.  John Wimber was in the audience that day as this transcript makes clear; so, why did Wimber continue to promote and laud Cain as a prophet afterward while Jones and Jackson were restrained?  This is especially important as Wimber claimed that Mike Bickle had asked him about KCF becoming a Vineyard as early as May of 1989 as he “was looking for pastoral accountability and a larger movement for KCF’s covering.”  Wimber also states, “Mike regularly communicated with me during this time, and looked to me for pastoral care and direction.”37

In his book What Happened to the Fire?, J. Lee Grady makes observations about Cain after attending a conference in San Antonio in December of 1989.38  In a chapter titled “Fabricating the Anointing,” Grady records Cain as calling out ‘words’ to attendees such as “first names, cities, street numbers.”  However, Grady notes that those called were mostly staff of the ministries who put on the conference (he knew some of these people personally) and that the information used to call these individuals out was accessible to Cain beforehand.  Grady remarks that it was likely most attendees were astonished by what appeared to be “the remarkable demonstration of the word of knowledge”:39

…It seemed Cain had literally “read these people’s mail” by recounting personal information he could not have known about total strangers.  But I found myself struggling with what happened that night…

…[I]t disturbed me that almost everyone who received these prophetic directives was part of the full-time staff of ministry sponsoring the conference.  It also seemed puzzling that all the information Cain ostensibly received from God was printed in a staff address directory that I knew was easily accessible to conference speakersSurely Paul Cain would not have studied that list prior to the meeting, then “recalled” the names and numbers to make us think he had revelatory powers!40

Later on, Grady would interview Cain who stressed “no one has ever proved that he obtains information from any source other than God.”  Grady also followed up on some “prophecies” given and discovered that, of the ones he checked, most of these predictions not only did not come to pass, some had actually proved to be quite the contrary.  When asked for an explanation as to why these prophecies had not been fulfilled, Cain dodged the questions, but “through a friend, denied any wrongdoing.”41

34 Deere, Surprised by Voice.  Dedication on unnumbered page preceding table of contents.  David Pytches describes Cain as one who “would certainly fall into the category of a present-day prophet.” [Some Said it Thundered. 1990 (first edition, second impression), Hodder & Stoughton, London, UK; p 16; also in Pytches’ 1991 “new edition”; p 17].
35 Deere, Surprised by Voice. p 193
36 Cain, Paul Joel’s Army. digitized audio from cassette tape, 1989, GraceMinistries, Grandview, MO; near beginning of side 2 at 39:08 – 39:45.  Cain would go on claiming he had a “word from the Lord” for John Wimber.
37 Wimber “A Response to Pastor Ernie Gruen’s Controversy with Kansas City Fellowship” Equipping the Saints. Fall 1990, Special UK Edition; p 3.  Also, it should be noted that Wimber referred to Cain as a prophet given his words regarding Cain and the New Breed teaching, “…it’s been prophesied by Paul Cain, and I think it’s a very important concept” in an undated tape circa 1989 or early 1990 [“Unpacking Your Bags” tape, undated, as sourced in Dager’s April 23, 1990 Special Report; p 12].
38 Grady, J. Lee What Happened to the Fire?. 1994, Chosen Books – a division of Baker, Grand Rapids, MI; p 113
39 Grady, What Happened, p 115
40 Grady, What Happened, p 115.  Emphasis added.
41 Grady, What Happened, p 116

Cain Absolved of Occultism?

One could argue that seeing a dead person – Jewel Clifford, Deere’s father – purportedly face-to-face with Jesus in heaven could be considered of the occult. Furthermore, it could be construed that the vision of Deere’s mother in which she was “talking about losing a jewel and that jewel was lost” is occultic since it involved verbal communication.  Note that the July 1 letter states that it was discovered “on careful review” that this account was not necromancy which is presumably in the narrow sense of ‘communication with the dead’ rather than the broader meaning of ‘black magic’ in general.  However, also note that Gruen specifically stated that the concessions were made on “points that could be disputed and argued about.”

Cain’s admitted association with and promotion of William Branham as “the greatest prophet that ever lived” raises an associated question as there are those who believe Branham was an agent of the occult.  Kurt Koch relates that Branham was limited in his healing: “if my angel does not give the sign, I cannot heal.”42  The following, in his book Occult A-B-C, provides more indication of occultism:

Another evidence [of spiritistic (occult) healing] is the fact that…Branham [was unable] to perform cures when faced with born-again Christians who had committed themselves to the protection of [Jesus] Christ…When he [Branham] spoke in Karlsruhe and Lausanne, there were several believers in the audience – including myself – who prayed along these lines: “Lord, if this man’s powers are from You, then bless and use him, but if the healing gifts are not from You, then hinder him.”  The result?  On both occasions Branham said from the platform, “There are disturbing powers here, I can do nothing.” 43

This is not unlike an account as related by Constance Cumbey regarding New Ager Benjamin Crème in an incident after he spoke at a gathering.  Following Cumbey’s praying aloud of the “Lord’s Prayer” while the other attendees were praying The Great Invocation – essentially a prayer to the New Age Christ, or antichrist – the expected “overshadowing” by ‘Maitreya the Christ’ did not manifest itself in Crème and he dismissed the crowd with, “That will be all.”44

While the following may or may not be related to the above, it is certainly of interest.  Recall in the first part of this article that in March of 1990 Wimber, Deere and Cain were met with open opposition during a conference in Sydney, Australia.  Jack Deere recounts a portion of this in his book The Gift of Prophecy.45 On the second night of the conference, Cain was apparently distracted and had a difficult time teaching.  Nevertheless, both the audience and Deere were anticipating a Paul Cain prophecy session after the teaching was over.  However, Cain “simply walked off the stage” instead.46

The next day when Deere inquired about this, Cain replied, “The price I pay for my gift is living with the disappointment of people and enduring the embarrassment of being deserted by the anointing.”47  [see “The ‘Christ Anointing’” section of “Christ” in the New Age article for more on “the anointing.”]  Is it possible that the Vineyard/Wimber/Deere/Cain opponents in Sydney did something similar to what Koch and his associates or Cumbey had done thereby causing this particular episode of “embarrassment?”

In the following, from the same evening as the “prophecy” for Deere, Paul Cain reminisces about his first meeting in which he spoke at an A/G church near Dallas and recalls how he understood the background of someone in the audience:

I looked over and I saw a lady – and I’m not going to tell you how I see these things because right away you would say “oh, that’s the occult” – I just wanna make one thing very clear: the New Agers and the occult, I’d like for you to know that they got all this stuff from God in the first place.  And the devil’s had it so long we think it belongs to him; I think it’s time we take it all back.  Because God is the God of Light, He’s the God of the amber light and the glory…

Anyway, I saw this light over her and the vision came to pass. I said, “Lady sitting back here in the green and white polka dot dress, you’re from San Antone [sic], Texas and you’re cripple [sic].  Get up and run to that aisle immediately…” 48

Cain goes on claiming this lady, who “came in a wheelchair” although he “didn’t realize this at first,” ran “up and down the aisles” being completely healed.  Continuing, Cain follows with another account in which he claims “the angel of the Lord” told him she had colitis.49  Is this angel similar to Branham’s healing angel, like the one Todd Bentley claimed in Lakeland in 2008?  If so, is it possible that in the Sydney “embarrassment” the angel “did not give the sign” as would happen to Branham?

The transcript in VI.H.3 of the Gruen Document, “Smelling demons”,50 certainly displays the hallmarks of occultism:

When I was a young man and first received the anointing, I could smell a cancer; I could smell a demon; I could smell different types of sin.  They all had a stench; they all had a different smell; they were identifying themselves.  You could smell infidelity and adultery…51

This is transcribed from the “7 Spirits of God” tape which was one of those deleted in June 1990 [see previous post].  As of yet, this audio has not been recovered; so, this transcript cannot be either affirmed or denounced.

Perhaps a more clear case of occultism is found in the following.  From the same evening Cain relates that Jack Deere was approached by demons who were trying to take Deere to visit his father in hell, Cain recounts how “the Lord” hit him on the chest:

…I told you the story when the Lord came to me one night I went to bed meditating on something that Augustine [ed: likely Augustine Acolla (also spelled Alcala)] said.  He said, “Man was made to find his home in God and man can’t rest until he finds his home in God.” – or something like that.  And I went to sleep meditating on that one night and I woke – well, I’m not even gonna tell you this ‘cause you wouldn’t believe it anyway, just leave me asleep if you want to.  Call it a dream.  Call it anything; but, I tell ya I call it ‘scary.’ The Lord took his two fingers and began to punch me in the chest…” 52

Now THAT must’ve left a bruise!  Dager notes “other phenomena akin to occult spiritual activity” have been observed while Cain ministered.53  It has been reported that one night in 1988 at Olathe Worship Center, a part of KCF, Cain caused a surge of electricity short-circuiting circuits resulting in the fire alarm system activating.  Purportedly, unbeknownst to the KCF congregation, the local fire station was dispatched and the firemen were surprised there wasn’t a fire.54 A similar thing was claimed to have happened when Cain was speaking at the Spiritual Warfare Conference at Anaheim Vineyard in February of 1989:55

On the first occasion in Anaheim, an expensive video camera was short circuited.  This was particularly unusual because the camera was battery powered.  It was not plugged into any outlet.

The following night, the telephone system was blown-out [sic].  This was notable because no one was on the phone at the time.56

Apparently, on a subsequent night at the same conference, Cain himself speaks of these occasions.  From audio of this conference, one of “Stadium Visions” available on his own site, Cain relates

…But, He’s gonna DO that and when He does you’re gonna have more than just a little omnipotent surgeYou’re gonna have something MORE than something that’ll knock out the cameras and knock out the phone lines and knock out all the power lines and set off the fire alarms like it did in Kansas City or Olathe, Kansas and a little bit of that happened here [in Anaheim, CA].  You’re gonna have something MORE than that…57

Dager comments, “One must wonder if the Holy Spirit is a clumsy, out of control source of electrical energy.  Such happenings are not dissimilar to those that occur during UFO sightings or poltergeist activity…”58

42 Koch, Kurt Occult A-B-C. 1986 (second edition), Kregel Publications, Grand Rapids, MI; p 235
43 Koch, Occult A-B-C. p 235
44 Cumbey, Constance. video Discovering the New Age Movement. 2006, Radio Liberty Conference hosted by Stanley Monteith <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8937919448007045479> starting at around 46:10.  Cumbey described this ‘non-event’ as the “spookiest thing of the evening.”  As accessed 10/15/11
45 Deere, Jack The Gift of Prophecy. 2001, Servant Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI; pp 72-74
46 Deere, Gift of Prophecy. pp 72-73
47 Deere, Gift of Prophecy. pp 73-74
48 Cain, Paul “Trembling at His Word” cassette tape [PC05-001] The Jealousy of God. 3-tape set in clamshell, undated, MorningStar Ministries, Charlotte, NC; tape 1, side 2.  Undated but as noted above from 1989 and very likely April 1989.
49 Cain, Paul “Trembling at His Word” side 2
50 Gruen, Documentation. p 124 / 219
51 Gruen, Documentation. p 124 / 219
52 Cain “Recapturing the Jealousy of God” side 2
53 Dager, “Kansas City Connection” p 6 / Dager Vengeance. p 132 / Dager “The Restoration” p 7
54 Sullivant, Terri “Paul Cain’s Ministry: Recent Manifestations of the Holy Spirit” Grace City Report. Special Edition, Fall 1989; p 5 as cited in Dager “Kansas City Connection” p 6 / Dager Vengeance. p 132 / Dager “The Restoration” p 7
55 Sullivant, Terry “Paul Cain: Recent Manifestations” p 5 as cited in Dager “Kansas City Connection” p 6 / Vengeance. p 132 / Dager “The Restoration” p 7.  Dager records this conference as 1988 rather than 1989 (presumably receiving this from Sullivant) which seems to conflict with the overall chronology as Cain was not introduced to Wimber until December 5, 1988.  According to Jackson [Radical Middle. pp 179 / 171-172], Bob Jones purportedly told Bickle that Wimber would call him “in early 1988” opening the door “for future ministry” with Wimber and Vineyard.  Purportedly, the call came “five days later” resulting in Wimber and Bickle ministering together in the UK in the fall of 1988.  With this in mind, it would seem unlikely that Cain was at an early 1988 conference at Anaheim Vineyard.  If this supposition is incorrect, the reader is asked to provide substantiation in order to correct this.
56 Sullivant, T. “Paul Cain: Recent Manifestations” p 5 as cited in Dager “Kansas City Connection” p 6 / Dager Vengeance. p 132 / Dager “The Restoration” p 7
57 Cain, Paul “Stadium Vision: Anaheim Vineyard” taken from February 1989 Spiritual Warfare Conference <http://www.paulcain.org/sandbox/newsite/pages/Stadium%20vision/stadiumvision.html> as accessed 10/15/11
58 Dager, “Kansas City Connection” p 6 / Dager Vengeance. p 133 / Dager “The Restoration” p 7

Paul Cain Did Not Teach Manifested Sons Doctrine?

The most confounding concession is point 2a which is the claim, “He does not hold to the doctrine of Manifested Sons, but totally denies ever having believed in that teaching.” The transcripts clearly indicate Cain was teaching the Manifested Sons of God (MSoG) heretical doctrine.  The MSoG heresy is such that certain individuals will receive their imperishable, resurrection bodies [see I Corinthians 15:50-54] while remaining here on earth in an invincible state attaining immortality with the ability to go through walls, etc.

Dager, in his August 1990 article, states flatly

…[Gruen] is in error in saying that Cain does not hold to Manifest Sons of God doctrine; Cain’s teachings on Joel’s Army and on immortalization are purely Manifest Sons of God doctrine.”59

In Dager’s April 23rd article (and also in a chapter in his full-length book Vengeance is Ours as well as the follow up article in August), he provided his own proof that Cain taught MSoG by quoting from the KCF tape “A New Breed” – another one of the tapes on the June 1990 discontinued list [though, notably, not referenced at all in the Gruen Document] – which follows:

Now I know which is perfect is come [sic], that which is imperfect must be done away.  But anyone knows that which is perfect has come.  And we don’t have the full revelation – we haven’t grown up in the stature of Christ as we shouldAnd there is no manifestation on a wholesale basis of the sons of GodAnd I’m not afraid to mention that even though I get shot down everywhere I go every time I mention the manifestation of the sons of God.  I’m not afraid to mention any biblical, scriptural terminology…60

So my point is that there will be a manifestation of the sons and daughters of God.  And it won’t be this baloney that we’ve heard of in the past; I mean, there’s been a few people who tried to walk through a wall like this over there and knocked their brains loose, but that’s not what I’m talking about.  I’m talking about a true manifested son of God: if anyone walks through this wall over here, they’re not going to tell you about it – I mean, they’re just going to do it.  And sons of God don’t tell you they’re sons of God, they’ll just show you!  Amen!61

Dager clearly illustrates that Cain taught MSoG; however, are the Gruen Document transcripts in error or fabricated?  We can safely say “No.”  Existing digitized audio of the “Joel’s Army” tape – yet another one of the tapes on the discontinued list [identified in the Gruen Document as “JAPC”] – prove that the transcripts faithfully represent Cain’s words although a small portion is apparently edited.62   However, this missing section does not affect proving unequivocally that the Gruen Document does in fact show that Paul Cain was teaching MSoG which, as noted, is heresy.

“Joel’s Army” is another term for MSoG taken from a misapplication of Joel 2:1-11.  The fact that this “Joel’s Army” is the same as Manifested Sons of God in the Paul Cain vernacular is evidenced by Cain’s words as quoted in item VI.H.6: “…this army is also in the New Testament…”

Using the digitized audio of the “Joel’s Army” tape, we can put Cain’s words in the Gruen Document in chronological order (excluding the portion not on the audio in possession obviously).  Additional transcription from the audio providing more of the original context will be in plain text while portions from the transcripts of the Gruen Document will be italicized.  The Gruen Document transcriptions are underscored as per the original, bolding is added for emphasis, and CAPS are used when Cain is emphatic.  Repeats and stammers are mostly edited out.

Cain begins by talking about a vision of Bob Jones’ in which “the wind and the fire” are present and the pages of a Bible are turning.  Notice that the portion from the Gruen Document (in italics, as stated) is claimed to be a direct quote from the Lord for Cain.  There’s a second one for John Paul Jackson:

…And then…it stopped at St. John 15…He said that He’s the true vine and you’re the branches.  It seemed as though the Lord reiterated that to my heart again…He had already shown me that a dozen times before.  He said, “If you can get into this vine, if you’re really in the vine and you’re in the branch, then the life sap from the Son of the living God keeps you from cancer, keeps you from dying, keeps you from death, keeps ya from so many things.”  And I said, “Yes Lord.” …And then it blew on over to St. John 16…it came alive…The Lord said, “That’s for John Paul.  And just tell him that my Word is coming alive…”63

This illustrates that Cain is espousing the idea that the Lord is giving “new revelation” to certain “prophets” for the Church.  So, how does one “really” get “into this vine?”  The answer is revealed by the next section in which the ellipse […] in the Gruen Document is filled in providing the full context of Cain’s words.  It all has to do with “intimacy”:

So this is a billion soul crusade, Bob.  Your billion, your billion, my billion, and I want you to know that just fills me and thrills me and chills me, and Lord, please don’t let it kill me.  It’s just so good.  I’m going to live to see this, friends, I really believe it.  If I can get through this message.  So, they shut the Apostles…up in prison, they killed James, they stoned Stephen, and finally martyred all the Apostles with the possible exception of John, Saint John the Divine. I don’t think they killed him ‘cause he leaned on Jesus’ bosom and he had the heartbeat of God.  God loved him so much.  If you have intimacy with God, they can’t kill you.  They just can’t.  There’s something about [ya]; you’re connected to that vine; you’re just so close to him.  Oh, my friends, they can’t kill [ya].  God takes care of them.  He said, “I love them that love Me.”  Isn’t that wonderful?  So, I don’t think we have any record where they kill John…He may be the Enoch…as far as the martyrs are concerned.  I don’t believe that he was martyred…64

That’s an interesting thesis: on the basis of the fact that the Apostle John had leaned on Jesus’ bosom and because neither Scripture nor, presumably, any extant historical evidence records John’s death, Cain conjectures that John was taken up like Enoch never experiencing a physical death.  Consequently, if we were to have this same sort of intimacy with God we could not be killed.  This sort of “intimacy” then provides the means to attaining manifested sons of God status – truly perfected saints, the invincible Joel’s Army:

…I saw that when they shut the Apostles up in prison; they killed all of them, and except maybe John.  Many spiritual saints were slain also because of their testimony throughout the past centuries.  But this is what God showed me: But this army is invincible.  They are never put into prison; they are never delivered into the hands of their enemies…They go behind iron bars and iron gates and Iron Curtain and they enter into windows like a THIEF.  Even those behind bars and in cells and in dungeons must hear the message that we preach and if it’s accepted they bring them out to freedom and to safety.  And nothing shall escape it.  WE have the authority then!65

So, this “intimacy” not only provides invincibility to the members of this army; it provides full earthly authority!   However, this perfection may not come immediately:

But we may not reach that kind of perfection right away…But we can repent right clear down to the bottom; we’re gonna get to that kind of repentance.  And if we fail after repentance, we’re gonna repent again…66

According to Cain, God wants you to join Joel’s Army and enlistment will put both you and God “back on the map.”  Has God ever really been ‘off’ the map?

…But nevertheless God’s gonna have a people that’s gonna put Him back on the map again.  Amen.  And He’s gonna put us on the map again, isn’t He.  Let’s make up our minds to this fact.  God’s going to – He’s not gonna make ya do it – but, I want you to know this army is going to be available to ya; if you want to enlist tonight…67

In the following, Cain makes it very clear that this perfected army is specified in the New Testament, not just the Old Testament.  Not only that – it’s for the final, special end time generation only.  And he identifies the generation he was speaking with at the time as that privileged generation of the end time.  Cain identifies this Joel’s Army as the man-child, the overcomers, the 144,000 of Revelation 7, the bride of the Lamb, the manifested sons of God, and others:

This army is also in the New Testament.  It’s referred to as the man child. I know some of you’s gonna disagree with this; don’t you even stop to disagree. Revelation 12:25 [sic], if you disagree, just file it in Miscellaneous and don’t bother with it. When we get to heaven we’ll check it out, and you’ll find out I’m right. Here it is–this great army in the New Testament is a man child, Revelation 12:5; the overcomers, Revelation 2 and 3; the 144,000 servants, Revelation 7:3; the bride of the Lamb’s wife [sic]– see why they call me in on the carpet? – the revelation of the Lamb’s wife, Revelation 19:7 and 21:9; and the white horse. Revelation 6:2; the first fruit. Revelation 14:4; the precious fruit. James 5:7; the wise virgins. Matthew 21:1 – 13 [sic]; the manifested sons of God. Romans 8:19 – 23, and it’s certainly a remarkable fact that none of these names are expressions applied to the saints of God at any other time in history, but all of them are in their context and promises showing undeniably that they belong to the time of the end. The end time, let’s say the end time. They belong to the end time to this present generation, Matthew 24:34…the Lord says, “today, today, today.”  And today harden not your hearts, but it applies to the end time, this is the end time and God wants us to realize once and again, in closing, that there’s gonna be a great company of overcomers prepared for this mighty ministry which I call the prize of all ages.  And again, God’s offering to the believers of this generation a greater privilege than was ever been offered to any people of any generation at any time from Adam clear down through the end of the millennium68

Note that Cain states “Revelation 12:25” which is an obvious error as the 12th chapter of Revelation ends with verse 17.  In his zeal, Cain misspoke as he meant “Revelation 12:2-5” instead since these are the verses used to denote the “man-child” doctrine.  Also, he mistakenly says “bride of the Lamb’s wife” instead of “bride of the Lamb” and he quotes the wrong Scripture for “the wise virgins” which should be Matthew 25:1-13 instead of 21:1-13 in all his excitement.

59 Dager “The Restoration” p 16
60 Dager, “Kansas City Connection” p 9 / Dager Vengeance. p 144 / Dager “The Restoration” p 12
61 Dager, “Kansas City Connection” p 9 / Dager Vengeance. p 145 / Dager “The Restoration” p 12
62 Cain, Joel’s Army. digitized audio from cassette tape; however, the tape is apparently edited.  Frustratingly, the extant audio is missing the latter portion of item VI.H.1(the portion after the first ellipse of the last paragraph) and all of item VI.H.4 in Gruen Documentation; p 123-24, 124 / 218, 217.  However, the remaining audio is quite enough to illustrate that the Gruen Document transcripts faithfully represent the audio/tape.  It appears that the tape used for the Gruen transcription either had the sides reversed or the transcriber reversed the sides during transcription.  The transcripts from the Gruen Document are put into their original chronological order as this may provide a better understanding of Cain’s overall message.
63 Cain, Joel’s Army; side 1 at 41:05 – 42:15.  The digitized audio records the tape abruptly ending with “this concludes side one; please turn the tape over” and then after a short duration, the audio resumes at the same place at which side one ended.  However, at 43:18 there is an obvious edit with Cain coming back in speaking on a totally different subject.  This is apparently the section which had been edited.  The quoted portion transcribed is from VI.H.1, third paragraph excepting the edited verbiage after the ellipse.  This picks up soon after the transcription at footnote 35 ends.
64 Cain, Joel’s Army; side 2 at 53:21 – 54:39.  Includes VI.H.1, first paragraph.
65 Cain, Joel’s Army. side 2 at 55:01 – 55:48.  Includes VI.H.1, second paragraph.
66 Cain, Joel’s Army; side 2 at 1:03:19 – 1:03:37
67 Cain, Joel’s Army; side 2 at 1:04:12 – 1:04:30
68 Cain, Joel’s Army; side 2 at 1:05:37 – 1:07:26.  Includes all of VI.H.6

Assessing Gruen’s Concessions

Let’s recap Gruen’s concessions specifically related to Paul Cain.  As stated, “Paul Cain did minister with William Branham” [point 2d].  Assuming this is indeed true, it appears to be an honest mistake on Gruen’s part and a mistake which needed to be corrected.

While it is apparently true that the woman (Jack Deere’s mother) who appeared to Paul Cain in the open vision recorded in the Gruen Document was a living person [point 2b], it has been shown that this vision and the associated vision of Cain seeing Deere’s deceased father in heaven could be construed as of the occult.  In addition, Cain’s association with and promotion of William Branham, who apparently used occult powers being rendered powerless when Christians were praying, adds more credibility to the possibility of occultism [point 2c].  Moreover, as mentioned above, there are other accounts which suggest the possibility of occultic activity.

Gruen’s only specific mention of anything related to occultism was the claim of necromancy, i.e. communing with the dead, associated with the open vision in which, as noted, the woman was actually still living.  The “Smelling Demons” section may be considered a claim of occultism also which, as stated earlier, cannot be either affirmed or denounced since there’s no extant audio.  Yet witness Gruen’s words in the concession, “We know of no occultism connected with him or his ministry.”  Gruen may have still suspected it yet felt like he could not make a strong enough case.  Let’s not overlook the words before the list of the three points, “it is obvious there are points that could be disputed and argued about.”

Using existing audio from the tape identified in the Gruen Document as “JAPC” (known as “Joel’s Army” and numbered among the tapes which were discontinued), it has been shown that the document faithfully represents these portions of the tape (to the extent of the audio recovered so far) thus proving that Cain did in fact teach the Manifested Sons of God heresy [point 2a].  Obviously if one teaches such a heresy this could call into question a proclamation of the individual being “a godly man and a man of integrity” as MSoG is not faithful to orthodox interpretations of Scripture and is blasphemous since it, in essence, equates man with God.  So, why did Gruen concede these points?

The way point 2a is worded may provide a clue: “He does not hold to the doctrine of Manifested Sons, but totally denies ever having believed in that teaching.”  This sentence is phrased rather peculiarly.  This appears to state that Cain does not currently hold to MSoG, formerly adhered to this teaching as the Gruen Document illustrates, yet nevertheless denies ever having believed in this doctrine perhaps keeping in mind the tapes which had recently (at the time) been discontinued.  Gruen’s statement would not necessarily contradict his preface, “In my limited dealings with Paul Cain, I have found him to be a godly man and a man of integrity.”  With this, Gruen could merely be admitting he’s had “limited dealings” with Cain and each time Cain was found to display integrity and godliness.  This discreet statement would not be inconsistent with the testimony of others.69

Furthermore, note that the phrase “We completely exonerate Paul Cain of any negative charges” is specifically in conjunction with “We know of no occultism connected with him or his ministry” in sub-point ‘c’ rather than the preface which would have necessarily encompassed all the sub-points: ‘a’ through ‘e’.  Does this mean Gruen only intended the “we completely exonerate…” phrase to be specifically in connection with occultism such that the “negative charges” only pertain to occultism?  As it’s written, it seems possible this phrase of exoneration does not apply to sub-points ‘a’, ‘b’, ‘d’ & ‘e’.  It appears that each sub-point addresses one specific item namely: sub-point ‘a’ – Manifested Sons doctrine; ‘b’ – the alleged necromancy; ‘c’ – occultism; ‘d’ – Cain’s association with Branham; and, ‘e’ – a blanket apology.

However, we must concede the possibility that the list is placed in order with each sub-point necessarily following the other.  In this case sub-point ‘a’ addresses MSoG as per the explanation two paragraphs above; ‘b’ addresses the alleged necromancy; ‘c’ exonerates Cain of MSoG, necromancy, and occultism while specifying that occultism is not known to be associated with him; ‘d’ speaks of Cain’s connection to Branham; and ‘e’ is a blanket apology.

James A. Beverley scrutinized the Gruen Document after having read a “scathing review” of Gruen in Wimber’s own Equipping the Saints magazine titled “A Response to Pastor Ernie Gruen’s Controversy with Kansas City Fellowship” from fall of 1990.70  This review was written and published after Gruen’s concessions above and included those concessions in the body of the report.  Based on its contents, Beverley expected a poorly documented, biased work with texts being taken out of their context.  However, upon reading the Gruen Document and comparing with KCF material Beverley commented, “…Gruen had every right to warn the charismatic world.”71

Beverley criticized Wimber’s article as “unbalanced and faulty.”  He recognized a number of specific points that the Gruen Document brought forth including “the ridiculous wholesale verdict that Pastor Gruen’s accusations are untrue;” that “it failed to give sufficient acknowledgement of the…elitist spirit evident in the material documented by Gruen;” and, that it failed to recognize “an eschatology far removed from exegesis and [that was] rooted instead in the subjective, mystical experiences of Bob Jones, John Paul Jackson, and Paul Cain.72

In addition, Beverley states the ETS article was essentially Jack Deere’s report73 although this, if indeed true, in no way absolves Wimber of full responsibility since it bears his name.  According to Beverley, John Wimber would later contact Gruen privately “to express his regret that their response to him was so careless and unbalanced.”74 Vineyard, however, never did publicly apologize.75  Jackson states Deere “was openly sympathetic toward Bickle” and “a source close to Wimber later came to believe that the facts had been somewhat biased toward KCF…”76  As for Gruen, he “decided the Lord did not want him to reply” to this report.77

While noting the biased nature of David Pytches’ book Some Said it Thundered describing it as  an “overly optimistic interpretation of KCF,”78 Beverley relates White’s later agreement with Beverley’s charge of ‘intemperance’ regarding his foreword to Pytches’ book:

…Dr. White, in a spirit of graciousness, wrote me later and agreed that my verdict was correct.  My view was based on his harsh statements about Ernie Gruen and his uncritical acceptance of Vineyard’s written reply about Gruen.79

It’s a shame there isn’t a further revision to Pytches’ book including a more balanced Dr. White foreword.  Also note that contrary to a portion of White’s claim in the quote which begins this article, Gruen does not concede “the reality of [Cain’s] exceptional gifting” as Gruen makes no mention at all about Cain’s “gifting.”

Attempts have been made to discredit both the Gruen Document and Gruen himself over the years.  Wimber’s Equipping The Saints article, Pytches’ book, and Jackson’s work have been used in this endeavor.  Jackson mentions that it was “public knowledge” that Gruen “was in an immoral relationship at the time” but does not provide an adequate source for this statement.80  While it is true Gruen did begin divorce proceedings in May of 1993,81 nearly three years after his promise to stop sending out the Gruen Document (his marriage was subsequently restored about 2 years later82), these rumors of immorality have not been substantiated.

In any event, whether Gruen was involved in immorality at the time or not, the Gruen Document stands or falls with respect to its veracity.  To the extent it can be proven true, it is true; to the extent it can be proven false, it is false.  Notwithstanding the concessions in the July 1, 1990 letter and taking into account the findings here regarding the charge of MSoG, there is no evidence we have found suggesting that any aspect of the Gruen Document is false.  (However, see below in “A Drought Evolves” section.)  In fairness, any claim that a part or parts of the Gruen document is/are false should be accompanied by specific proof of same.

In assessing all the above, the following information must be kept in mind:

1) The July 1 letter was “a summary letter of the result” of the June 28 meeting consisting of Gruen and his staff with Wimber, Cain and Deere in which the Gruen Document was reportedly reviewed “page by page” by all parties involved.  Presumably, these concessions were a joint decision by all since these were affirmed, or at least not denied either in part or in full, in Wimber’s Equipping The Saints article “A Response to Pastor Ernie Gruen’s Controversy with Kansas City Fellowship.”83

2) Paul Cain was celebrated by Wimber and favored by him to the point that he claimed the two were “bonded for life.”  That’s a very strong connection between the two.  Likewise, Jack Deere continued to promote Cain as a “true prophet.”  Moreover, Vineyard Ministries International had a financial stake in Paul Cain in providing the majority of the funding for Grace Ministries Shiloh project by fall 1989 with Cain as its senior prophetic voice.

3) Given that we can prove the veracity of the large majority of the Paul Cain transcripts – over half of the portion specifically pertaining to Cain – thereby proving the “Joel’s Army” tape did indeed teach the Manifested Sons of God doctrine, why did Gruen state specifically that Cain “does not hold to the Manifested Sons doctrine, but totally denies ever having believed in that teaching” and why did Wimber and company agree with this?  Is the analysis above correct regarding the interpretation of this statement; and, if so, does this mean Paul Cain, John Wimber, Jack Deere and Mike Bickle no longer adhere to and/or claim to have never adhered to MSoG?  This will be the subject of two future articles – one specifically with regard to John Wimber, the other Mike Bickle.

4) Why was the Paul Cain “Joel’s Army” tape discontinued?   If the claim is that Cain did not teach MSoG, wouldn’t this tape be kept in circulation by KCF turned Metro Vineyard Fellowship to illustrate that the Gruen Document was in error in order to ‘vindicate’ Paul Cain especially since the transcripts from this tape make up over half the information on Cain in the Gruen Document?  Why were the other Paul Cain tapes discontinued some of which were not even referenced in the Gruen Document?

5) Gruen stands by the Document stating, “We still believe our documentation of the aberrant practices and teachings of Kansas City Fellowship are essentially accurate” in prefacing the three conceded points.

69 Beverley, Holy Laughter; p 131. Beverley states that most who meet Cain find him to be “a gentle man” and himself describes Cain as “delightful and warm” while Kenn Gulliksen extolled Cain’s “love and care.”  Grady [What Happened p 116] states, “…several prominent leaders in the charismatic renewal endorse his ministry and vouch for his character.”
70 Wimber, John “A Response to Pastor Ernie Gruen’s Controversy with Kansas City Fellowship” Equipping the Saints. Fall 1990, Special UK Edition; pp 3, 27-30
71 Beverley, Holy Laughter; p 125
72 Beverley, Holy Laughter; p 125
73 Beverley, Holy Laughter; p 125
74 Beverley, Holy Laughter; p 126
75 Beverley, Holy Laughter; p 126
76 Jackson, Radical Middle. p 219 / 209
77 Beverley, Holy Laughter; p 125
78 Beverley, Holy Laughter; p 126
79 Beverley, Holy Laughter; p 126
80 Jackson, Radical Middle. p 219 / 209. Jackson has a duplicate footnote reference placing 6 in the text twice.  The first one references the immorality charge while the second refers to the fact that Deere was openly sensitive toward Bickle which Jackson sources from Beverley. After checking the Beverley thoroughly, there is no mention of immorality whatsoever with respect to Gruen.  Going back to footnote 5 in Jackson is Wimber’s “A Response to Gruen” article in ETS which similarly has no mention of immorality.  This is not to make a counterclaim that there was no immorality; this is to illustrate, in fairness, that there’s no substantiation to the claim by Jackson.
81 Grady, J. Lee “Kansas City Churches Reconciled: Gruen Resigns After Announcement” Charisma. July 1993, Vol. 18 No. 12; p 54.  Gruen made his statement on May 24, 1993 claiming, “My sin causing this resignation is not committing adultery, but committing divorce.”
82 Grady, J. Lee “Kansas City Churches Mend Rift” Charisma & Christian Life. September 1995, Vol. 21 No. 2; p 34
83 Wimber “Response to Gruen” pp 3, 27-30

A Drought Evolves

One of the most common attempts at discrediting the Gruen Document involves the “drought prophecy.”  Like Paul Cain’s “earthquake prophecy” was used to validate Cain’s message to Wimber and the Vineyard, Bob Jones’ “drought prophecy” was claimed to legitimize Mike Bickle’s KCF “movement.”

From the opening in the Gruen Document:

For example, Mike regularly retells the story of how the so-called “prophet” Bob Jones predicted [on May 27, 1983] a 3-month drought which would finally end with a “drought-breaker” on August 23.

In telling this tale, Mike makes such statements as, “We watched it day by day…June, no rain…then on August 23, three to four inches of rain!” This is portrayed as God’s confirmation of their “Movement.” It sounded like a pretty impressive miracle until we checked with the National Weather Bureau and the daily newspaper accounts for that timeframe. We found the following:

a.         Actual readings from the former Richards Gebaur Air Force base, which is only a few minutes from Kansas City Fellowship, show over seven inches of rain in June, which is well above normal!

b.         The “drought-breaker” on August 23 actually produced less than one-third of an inch.

c.         Of the 12 days it rained in June, [six] of them produced records of rains heavier than the “drought-breaker.” One day alone had over seven times the rainfall on August 23 – 2.35 inches. (See Section I)

From the beginning this could have never been considered a true prophecy.84

Gruen lays out the specific parameters as set forth in the Bob Jones “prophecy” as gleaned from the earliest recording of this event [1986].  This ‘drought’ was to be one of no rain from the time of Jones’ purported proclamation at the end of May until August 23rd at which point there was to be a drought-breaking rain.  This is both very well defined and very straightforward.

Even though there was in fact a drought defined as ‘a prolonged period of less than normal rainfall’ in the late summer of 1983 beginning in July, Gruen’s point was to merely disprove the specific parameters of Jones “prophecy” which proclaimed a ‘no rain whatsoever’ drought to encompass all of June, July and August up through to the August 23rd ‘drought-breaker.’  To do so, all he had to show was that there was rainfall in June thereby negating the drought’s beginning and then show that even though there was rain on August 23rd, the amount was very small, much less than the reported 3 to 4 inches of ‘drought-breaking’ rain as reported by Bickle.

The Gruen Document transcribed two different tapes of this “drought prophecy.”  The earliest, from Spring 1986 titled The Prophetic History of Grace Ministries, Volume 2 (a tape series among those on the June 1990 discontinued list), follows.  This starts out with Bickle quoting Bob Jones:

‘This is the sign in the heavens, again…For three months there will be a drought in this city.’…The sign is (that) there will be a pattern in the heavens – a weather pattern, and you can’t manipulate weather patterns, so we said, ‘Okay, if it comes to pass, we know the word is true.’…But he says, ‘On August 23, God will send a sign from heaven…’  I said, ‘Bob, I hope this is right.’  Cause it was terrible.  June – no rain…August 23, 6:00 at night, it rains, what, 3 to 4 inches of rain…It was a sign in the heavens that no man could have manipulated; it was spoken publicly for all to hear.85

Gruen left out a bit from the audio here (illustrated by the ellipses […]) as, again, his point was to show that the Bickle claim of no rain for the month of June and a pouring rain of 3 to 4 inches on August 23rd were untrue.  Thankfully, we also have David Pytches’ Some Said it Thundered (original, unrevised first edition)86 rendition of this “drought prophecy” which corresponds to the Gruen account above while filling in some of the information missing in the ellipses.

Pytches transcribed KCF tapes as he states this in the “Acknowledgements”: “I want to express my appreciation to Kansas City Fellowship for their ready permission for me to quote from their unedited tapes…”87 Unfortunately, Pytches’ work does not provide footnotes and does not include any tape titles or numbers in the list of references in the back of his book.  However, it appears as though he paraphrases a bit rather than quoting directly since some of the words don’t exactly match up to Gruen’s even though the basic details do:

“…[T]here will be the total withholding of everything for three months,  although God will allow a little bit of liberty.

In this city everything will be withheld.  For three months there will be a drought.  That’s the sign!  God has spoken!…for three months there will be no rain – not until 23 August.”88

Once again, to restate, according to this “prophecy” there was to be no rain at all, not a sprinkle, until August 23.  Picking up where we left off:

Bob had given a specific date for the end of a drought which he predicted was about to begin.

This level of prophecy could certainly be nervy!  Mike found himself becoming an expert weather watcher…To quote Mike:

“…For the whole month of June there was no rain!  It was terrible!  For the whole month of July there was no rain!  It was terrible!

No rain still during the first week of August or the second or the third.  It was terrible!  Bob Jones said the Lord had told him it would come on 23 August.  We had all been poised since early dawn that day but by 1 p.m. there was still no rain.  By six o’clock we were just resigned to wait for another day when suddenly it began.  And did it rain?  It poured!  No man could have manipulated that.  It just had to be God!”89

As Pytches’ clearly describes, the claim is that as “an expert weather watcher” Bickle saw not a drop of rain for the entire period of June, July and August until August 23rd at which time “It poured!”  Yet when this is compared to actual rainfall as the Gruen Document states, June had above average rainfall for the area with six of those days well exceeding the .32” of rainfall on August 23rd.90 Furthermore, July and August, while having much less than normal rainfall, did indeed have some rain.91  According to National Weather Service archives, actual monthly rainfall in Kansas City in 1983 for the summer and early fall was as follows: June: 6.46”; July: 1.17”; August: 0.97”; September: 1.91”; and, October: 4.15”.92

Apparently, Bickle found out there really was some rainfall during the period of June 1 through August 22 since he revised this “prophecy” a bit as evidenced by the transcription of a recording from May of 1989 titled Overview of Our Prophetic History in the Gruen Document.  Bickle backpedals a bit:

Then Bob stands up at the end and he says, ‘I got bad news.’  He says, ‘The Lord told me that there isn’t gonna be a revival being poured out at the end of this 21 days.’  He said, ‘Worse than that, we’re goin’ to the three months of total barrenness.  And there’s gonna be a drought upon the city.’  He didn’t say that there would be, you know, not a, not a sprinkle of rain.  He said there’d be a drought.  He said through the city.  And ah, I checked the newspaper once and found out that it rained an inch in the north over the summer.  But ah, you know, I’m not sure exactly how much, or somebody did – I can’t remember all the those details, but we watched it day by day and there was a drought through those three months93

In the earlier account there was the emphatic declaration of no rain yet the later account claims that Bob didn’t say there would be “not a sprinkle of rain.”  The first account was three years after this all important prophecy was spoken in 1983, yet in 1989 it seemed they didn’t recall it quite right in the earlier account of 1986.  Given that this was purportedly a “word from the Lord,” wouldn’t this have been meticulously recorded?  This should have been especially important to write down as this “prophecy” was to confirm the “movement” at KCF.

Bickle “can’t remember all those details” yet he “watched it day by day”?  Are we really to believe the “details” of something this important would not be remembered in view of the fact there was so much at stake?  And he maintains there was a “drought those three months” including June in which, as stated, there was almost 6.5” of rain with more than a few of those days much more than “a sprinkle.”   Continuing:

He (Bob) said, ‘The Lord will break the drought in the natural over Kansas City, and it’s a sign that He will, on an appointed time, break the drought in the Spirit, but not until He appoints the time.’  

…And, ah, we’ve had several different theories when that drought was gonna break, but it hadn’t broke yet.  And, ah, so, so much for all our theories.  But there is an appointed time when the drought breaks in the natural as well as the Spirit.  And he said, ‘And here’s the proof that there will, it will break on an appointed day in the natural.’  He said, ‘On August 23, the drought will end and the rains will come to the city. 94

Once again, Bickle makes the claim that August 23rd would be the drought-breaker at which time “the drought will end and the rains will come to the city.”  Bickle goes on reiterating how no one could humanly predict that it was to rain on a particular day three months later “to break a 3-month drought.”  He proclaimed, “It was a supernatural sign to us.”95

Once Wimber/Vineyard took over the reins of Kansas City Fellowship, the “drought prophecy” was analyzed and explained in a much different way.  Their claim was that Gruen was wrong in his dogmatic statement: “There was no drought…This prophecy did not happen.  It was a total fabrication to promote ‘The Movement.’”96 Unfairly, they left out a very important part of Gruen’s complete statement which follows:

There was no drought.  Anyone who went outside or read the newspaper could not have considered June a month of drought.  The sprinkle of rain on August 23 was not considered a drought-breaker.  This prophecy did not happen; it was a total fabrication to promote “The Movement.”  From the start, this prophecy could never have been considered true.97

To reiterate, Gruen’s point was that the drought as “prophesied” was stated to have begun right away with the specific claim that June had no rain when in fact the rainfall that month was above normal.  Gruen does not deny there was a drought as defined by ‘a prolonged period of less than normal rainfall’ as he earlier stated, “July and August were below normal in rainfall;”98 however, it would have been better if he had qualified his initial statement with something like “There was no drought as ‘prophesied’ by the specific parameters set by Jones.”  Gruen’s conclusion “From the start, this prophecy could never have been considered true” is absolutely correct given the heavy rains in June.

The Wimber/Vineyard defense consisted of shifting the “prophecy” to one of very limited rainfall instead of no rain simultaneously moving the start date from June 1 to July 1.  In addition, the August 23rd date was changed to merely a date of “prophesied” rain (admitting Bickle’s “mistake” in proclaiming a 3 to 4 inch downpour) instead of the drought-breaker yet no new drought-breaking date was specified claiming merely that the drought ended “in early October.”99  What was the date of the definitive drought-breaking rain?

Among other reasons, Pytches would publish a “new edition” of his book as he “corrected details in the case of one prophecy” which lined up with Wimber’s revised version.100  Using some of the portions already quoted above, we’ll compare the original Pytches rendition with his revised account by listing the ‘uncorrected’ followed by the “corrected” version:

for three months there will be no rainnot until 23 August.

 …there will be rain on August 23.101

…Bob had given a specific date for the end of a drought which he predicted was about to begin.

…Bob had given a specific date for rain during the droughtwhich he predicted was about to begin.102

…For the whole month of June there was no rain!  It was terrible!  For the whole month of July there was no rain!  It was terrible!

The drought did not begin immediately.  In fact there was heavy rain in June, but for the whole of July it was dry.  It was terrible.103

Pytches continues with the same paragraph ending with “It had to God” as in the original account.  Then he continues:

That was still not the end of the drought, however.  Although it was not a total withholding of rain, the exceedingly dry period covered a full three months, except for the predicted break on August 23104

Recall that in the very beginning of the original account – which matches the revised version – are the words, “In this city everything will be withheld.”  So, why was this initial verbiage retained?  It obviously contradicts with the words above “it was not a total withholding of rain…”  And the “predicted break” consisted of a relatively scanty .32 inch which was hardly a break from the “exceedingly dry period” which admittedly contained sprinkles of rain during this time anyway.  Pytches, like Wimber, does not specify a “drought-breaker” date.

So, initially in the 1986 version “total barrenness” meant “no rain” (matching Pytches’ original account), in 1989 it was changed to not mean “not a sprinkle of rain” in view of the fact that there was in fact rain in June, which was changed again in 1990 to the drought actually beginning in July since it was further discovered that June had higher rains than normal (matching Pytches’ revised account).  Are we to believe that Bickle’s memory is that poor with respect to the “drought prophecy” yet he was certain that May 7, 1983 was the starting point of a 21-day fast which had just ended at which point Jones had purportedly proclaimed this “drought prophecy” and Bickle was certain of other specific dates in KCF’s history as well?  Why would he have meticulously recorded these dates and not the beginning and end of the “drought?”

84 Gruen, Documentation. pp 10 / 11-12.  Underscore in original; emphasis added.
85 Gruen, Documentation. pp 41-2 / 55. Underscore in original; emphasis added.
86 Pytches, David Some Said it Thundered. 1990 (first edition, second impression) [unrevised version], Hodder & Stoughton, London, UK
87 Pytches, Thundered 1990 (unrevised) unnumbered page just before Introduction
88 Pytches, Thundered 1990 (unrevised) p 89
89 Pytches, Thundered 1990 (unrevised) p 90
90 Interestingly, data recorded at Kansas City International Airport (MCI), which admittedly is 30 miles north of Grandview, shows that the 22nd was mostly cloudy or overcast beginning at 7am with a trace of rain [.07”] recorded at 1pm with the mostly cloudy/overcast conditions continuing into the 23rd.  The next day, on the 23rd, data shows rain beginning around 7am with accumulation of .18” by 8am, another .04” by 9am followed by .04” at 10am.  The mostly cloudy/overcast conditions continued into the night. This does not preclude the Bickle account of the 23rd from being true including no rain until 6pm, of course, noting the distance from KCF to the airport.  This info was gleaned from Weather Underground <http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KMDT/1983/6/1/DailyHistory.html?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA> by inputting the airport code (MCI) and the applicable dates.  As accessed 10/15/11
91 Weather Watcher (see link above) indicates rain at the airport in both July and August.  Since the prophecy was for the entire city of Kansas City, rainfall at the airport must be included in any analysis.  In Pytches’ account, which appears to be the same as Bickle’s, it’s explicitly stated there was no rain whatsoever until August 23rd.  In August prior to the 23rd, the airport recorded .12” on the 7th with traces [less than .1] on the 9th, 15th, 20th and 22nd.
92 These totals are from the Weather Warehouse which takes its data from the National Weather Service <http://weather-warehouse.com/WeatherHistory/PastWeatherData_KansasCityDowntownArpt_KansasCity_MO_June.html> As accessed 10/15/11
93 Gruen, Documentation. p 41 / 53. Underscore in original; emphasis added.
94 Gruen, Documentation. pp 41 / 53-54. Underscore in original; emphasis added.
95 Gruen, Documentation. p 41 / 54. Underscore in original; emphasis added.
96 Wimber “Response to Gruen” p 28
97 Gruen, Documentation. p 42 / 56. Underscore in original; emphasis added.
98 Gruen, Documentation. p 42 / 55. Underscore in original; emphasis added.
99 Wimber “Response to Gruen” p 28.  Actual rainfall for October as recorded at Kansas City International Airport (MCI) shows none until the 4th with a mere .21 inch of rain and no further rain until nearly an inch [.93”] fell on the 11th; however, this was followed by no significant rain (there was a trace [.02”] on the 16th) until the 19th with about ¾ inch [.79”] which was followed the next day with ½ inch [.57”] and the next with a bit under ½ inch [.40”].  However, as stated earlier, it’s possible there was more (or less) rain in other parts of KC.
100 Pytches, Thundered. 1991 new edition; p xxvii.  The revised version also omits some verbiage from Cain’s account of the Lord purportedly appearing with him in his car [Pytches (first, unrevised) p 38].  Specifically, the words deleted were describing items Jesus purportedly wore during the incident: “…dressed in a monk’s black habit and wearing a skull cap.”  In an August 1990 letter to Prophecy Today subscribers, Clifford Hill states the original Thundered was “at present out of print” although the publishers “intend on reissuing it” in a revised version.  Hill also states, “John Wimber told me that he had identified ‘a number of factual errors’ in the book, and Mike Bickle has sent David Pytches a 60 minute tape of corrections.”  Keep in mind that Pytches was given access to KCF/GM tapes for the original issue.
101 Pytches, Thundered. 1991 new edition; p 90.  The original account [p 89] is listed first.
102 Pytches, Thundered. 1991 new edition; p 90.  The original account [p 90] is listed first.
103 Pytches, Thundered. 1991 new edition; p 90.  The original account [p 90] is listed first.
104 Pytches, Thundered. 1991 new edition; p 90.  The original account [p 90] is listed first.

Comparing ‘Words’

Let’s compare this “drought prophecy” to the circumstances surrounding the 1988 “earthquake prophecy.”  Jack Deere initially ‘misquoted’ the timing of the second earthquake, however later he recalled “in vivid detail” the ‘facts’ of this “prophecy.”  As shown above, Deere had difficulty with details of a “prophecy” of a much more personal nature with both conflicting and added details coming later, so his memory would seem to be questionable.   Mike Bickle would also incorrectly record the timing of the second earthquake in his 1996 book Growing in the Prophetic.  John Wimber later was unsure whether it was actually predicted or not.

The circumstances surrounding the “drought prophecy” are similarly troubling.  Given that the “drought prophecy” was initially one of no rain with very specific parameters including a drought-breaking rain on a specified date, it’s odd that the final Wimber (and/or Deere) version is one of limited rainfall, a different starting date, and no specified drought-breaking end date but instead a rather nebulous “early October” ending.  To quote Beverley: “…many of Bob Jones predictions were announced ex post facto105 – after the fact.  Given the evolving nature of the “drought prophecy,” was it among those announced after the fact despite the claim to the contrary?

In each case there is no recorded proof either in written form or in audio to confirm these “prophecies” were given in advance.  Given that the “earthquake prophecy” was to validate Cain’s message to the Vineyard and the “drought prophecy” was to provide legitimacy to the KCF “movement,” why weren’t these “prophecies” recorded in such a manner to prove their veracity?  Absent any sort of proof, it would be prudent to remain skeptical – especially given the circumstances as outlined above in each of these.

If Cain were to have remained discredited in the Gruen Document, this could cast further doubt on the legitimacy of Cain’s “earthquake prophecy” which would in turn cast a long shadow on the Vineyard in general as it was Cain’s message which validated the Vineyard involvement in the “prophetic movement” in the first place.  With stakes this high, the pressure to discredit the Gruen Document and to exonerate Cain must have been enormous.

105 Beverley, Holy Laughter; p 128

%d bloggers like this: