Biblical not-yet-fulfilled prophecy is probably best understood in retrospect, upon or after its presumed fulfillment. Sometimes, though, current events seem a lot like the dawning of unfulfilled prophecy.
When I hear words like “cleanse” in reference to how to manage a large block of people—as I heard in the clamoring media—my eyebrows raise and my ears go back. Then I ponder. I’m reminded of something I’d read years ago. Its writer was Barbara Marx Hubbard. She has the distinction of being the first woman nominated to a shot at the US Vice Presidency (in 1984)—though Geraldine Ferraro eventually landed on the Democratic ticket with Walter Mondale (losing to Republican incumbent Ronald Reagan). But that’s not all she’s known for.
In an unpublished manuscript from 1980, Hubbard reinterpreted sections of the New Testament. The title of the work—composed of three parts—is The Book of Co-Creation: An Evolutionary Interpretation of the New Testament.1 The most, shall we say, interesting reinterpretation of Scripture finds itself in the section on the seals in Revelation. This is in the third section titled: The Revelation: Alternative to Armageddon.
Defining Terms in Hubbard’s Ideology
Before going further I need to explain what she means by “evolutionary”. In her ideology—as with many in the “New Spirituality” (formerly “New Age”) movement—humankind is on the cusp of a planetary evolution from homo sapiens sapiens to homo universalis (universal humankind). But not everyone will be keen to “evolve” in such a way. Such individuals are an impediment to “evolution”, for this “evolution” requires nearly all to participate—or none will be able to ‘progress’. This poses a problem requiring some kind of—uh—solution.
In addition, Hubbard’s underlying cosmology and anthropology needs to be defined. These closely resemble Gnosticism. That is, the world (cosmology) is composed of corrupted matter made by an inferior god. Humankind (anthropology) is entrapped within this inferior matter, though there is an inherent spark/seed of deity inside all humans (aka “Christ in you”). But humans also have an “ego”, or lower self, in addition to this spark/seed, or higher self. Thus, each person is made up of a lower self and a higher self, yet is trapped inside corrupted matter, according to this ideology.
The goal, then, is to “deify” oneself, to become “gods” by shedding the inferior shell (body). This is accomplished by enlarging the higher self, such that the lower self disappears, all through self-effort. But the ultimate goal is for all the sparks/seeds of deity (higher self) to unite, while the entirety of corrupted matter is destroyed. Right after this occurs, the now-one spark/seed unites with “The One About Whom Naught Can Be Said” (TOAWNCBS), i.e., the New Age deity existing outside the universe. This will be the point, as one very popular rock song’s near-conclusion states, “when all are one and one is all”.
Described just above is one version of panentheism. The term means ‘all-in-god-ism’. To provide an analogy for further explanation, imagine an aquarium. Outside the aquarium is TOAWNCBS enveloping it—surrounding it—in its entirety. Inside the aquarium is the universe which has sparks/seeds of god in each human. Looking at the aquarium from the outside, from the perspective of TOAWNCBS, all is in-god—deity surrounds the entire universe: all-in-god. From the perspective of all life in the aquarium, each human has god (spark/seed) inside—god is in-all: god-in-all. That is, panentheism here is bothgod-in-allandall-in-god: the deity outside the universe along with the deity within every human in the universe.
Hubbard’s Alternative Armageddon
This version of panentheism underlies all Hubbard’s works. It’s imperative to properly conceive this in order to understand the driving force behind them and in the selections quoted below.
Before paraphrasing and quoting from selections of this unpublished manuscript, I shall provide the subsequent ‘evolution’ of the work. In 1993, Barbara Marx Hubbard published The Book of Co-Creation: The Revelation, Our Crisis is a Birth, which is a revised version of her 1980 manuscript.2 Then, in 1995, a revised version of this ’93 work was released, titled The Revelation: A Message of Hope for the New Millenium.3 A selection from this book, under the subheading “The Alternative to Armageddon”—the same wording as the subtitle for the 1980 unpublished work—is below:
That miracle is the gentle Second Coming of Christ through the rapid evolution of enough humans linked up by the planetary nervous system, so that the social body will flood with empathy, healings will abound, and the world will smile with joy…4
That sure doesn’t sound like the Second Coming as described in Scripture! (And see Not One Parousia, But Two.) The 1993 work describes it a bit differently:
The alternative to Armageddon is the Planetary Pentecost. When a critical mass are in the upper room of consciousness on a planetary scale, each will hear from within, in their own language, the mighty words of God. All who are attuned will be radically empowered to be and do as Jesus did. If those people who are not self-centered align their thoughts in perfect faith, that they are whole, created in the image of God, the world can be saved.5
This is an obvious perversion of Acts 2. In some ways Hubbard’s theology is an inversion of Biblical theology. But it also sounds, in part, not unlike words I’ve read and heard by those in the so-called New Apostolic Reformation (NAR). A bit later in this book Hubbard claims that such action will avert the opening of the seventh seal (Rev 8:1).6 But it’s the earliest work, the unpublished manuscript, which provides the most colorful language.
In the two newer works (1993 and 1995) Hubbard omits commenting on Revelation 6:7-8, the fourth seal, entirely. However, in the unpublished work she goes into some detail on these verses. She divides humanity up in fourths. One group is fully onboard with the plan, a second group is ready, once the first provides the example.7 The third group is resistant and unreachable, incapable of reaching their higher self; but, the last group is worse—they are “destructive”, “disconnected”, and “defective seeds”.8 This last group is a problem in need of a solution. And Hubbard, as an “elder”, has it.
6:7And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see.
8And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth. (Revelation 6:7-8, KJV)
Hubbard understands those of her elite group as the ones that must wield the sword, and etc., as per above:
We, the elders, have been patiently waiting until the very last moment before the quantum transformation, to take action to cut out this corrupted and corrupting element in the body of humanity. It is like watching a cancer grow; something must be done before the whole body is destroyed.9
These “defective seeds” must go, for “it is a case of the destruction of the whole planet, or the elimination” of this one-fourth of the population.10
But there is a silver lining! Her readers are not charged with this act.11 They can just sit passively by—sort of like what some did during World War II, I suppose.
…We are in charge of God’s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death. We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God. We do this for the sake of the world…
Now that [the planetary system] is being born into its universal, whole-conscious phase, the disconnected must be destroyed.12
While it’s the elders that do the cleansing, it is the others still alive that will be tasked with the reconstruction:
You do not have to participate in the destruction. You are to be responsible for the construction which shall begin as the tribulations come to an end.13
You didn’t expect the elders—the elites—to clean up, did you?
1 From the title page of this part, which was released separately from parts I and II, is the following: “The Book of Co-Creation is a three part unpublished manuscript written by Barbara Marx Hubbard in 1980. Part III follows in its pre-publication form.”
2 Published by The Foundation for Conscious Evolution, Sonoma, CA. I have a copy of the first edition, 1993. On its dedication page it reads: To Founders of a New Order of the Future: A deep communion of pioneering souls from every race, nation and religion, who experience within themselves the birth of the Universal Human.
3 Novato, CA: Nataraj Publishing, 2nd ed. Dedication page reads same as above.
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).
In a bygone era, far removed from today, I served a brief stint in the US military. No regrets, but with the time to reenlist approaching, I had already made up my mind to separate from service rather than continue. It simply wasn’t the life and career for me.
With a few months remaining in my service commitment, I was also approaching the time to take a test for promotion to the next grade. This exam was scheduled before my upcoming separation. Passing the exam would provide a salary increase along with the promotion. A wage increase would be great; however, should I pass, the grade would not be awarded until after my intended separation from service. Thus, to my mind, it made little sense to take the test. So, I asked to be excused.
Yet I was told I must take the examination. “What if you pass?” I was asked. That would make no difference to me, for I was firm in my decision. I was definitely going to separate, no matter the outcome.
So, on the morning it was scheduled, I took the test. In record time. I simply took the Scantron and penciled in a next to the first question, b for the second, and so forth, till I got to the fifth question in which I penciled e. I repeated this pattern until I was finished. Then I handed it to the surprised facilitator and walked out of the room.
I had to sit for the test. But I didn’t have to test well. I didn’t have to pass the exam, but I couldn’t pass on sitting for the exam.
I have no idea how I scored. Given my methodology, it would have been pure luck had I actually qualified for the promotion.
Qualifying for a Higher Grade
Much later, after accepting Jesus Christ as Savior, I discovered that, as Christians, there’s an exam we must take. Similar to my earlier test, it is not optional. Yet the stakes are much higher. This is one we must pass. Continually:
2Corinthians 13:5—6:
5 Examine yourselves if you be in the faith. Approve yourselves! Or do you not discover for yourselves that Jesus Christ is in you—unless you be unapproved? 6 Yet I trust that you will realize that we are not unapproved.1
For background, the Apostle Paul is frustrated with the ekklēsia (“church”) in Corinth. The words above should be seen as the culmination of what Paul stated in 2Corinthians 10:7. Paul implies that the congregation(s) had been seduced by other “super-apostles” (11:5) who had been preaching “another Jesus”, as received by “a different spirit”, and that they accepted this “different gospel” (11:4). Paul goes on to describe these seducers as “false apostles…disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (11:13), suggesting they are servants of Satan himself (11:14—15). Apparently, these “super-apostles” spoke disparagingly about Paul (12:11), contributing to the Corinthians’ doubt about Paul’s Apostleship (13:3—4). And even doubting Paul’s own faith.2
In response, Paul instructed them to examine themselves to determine if they were really in the faith. In the first two sentences of verse 5 “yourselves” is italicized to match the emphasis implied in the Greek text. Paul truly is concerned that some had apostatized, that they had fallen away from the faith. So, his words are a call to repentance for those needing it. But he provides encouragement: surely they will find out they are true Christ-followers—or they will be convicted of their fallen state and repent. Yet at the same time they will realize that Paul really is in the faith and truly is an Apostle.
Paul’s concluding sentence (v 6) magnificently puts all his thoughts together. In it, he uses three different pronouns to great effect. The “I” speaks of his authority, yet the verb associated with it shows his empathy, his desire (“I trust”). The “you”, of course, is the Corinthians, who, after their individual self-investigations (v 5), should either: (a) be further encouraged in their faith, or (b) be persuaded to repent. His final “we” indicates both: (a) his desire for their further encouragement or their repentance (accordingly), and (b) his implied assertion of his own status in the faith, along with the newly-repentants’ realization of Paul’s true faith—“we” (the Corinthians and Paul) are “not unqualified”.
All this provides an object-lesson for subsequent readers, for us. Are we really in the faith? Continual self-assessment is not optional (Matthew 24:13).
Elsewhere Paul provides means for self-testing, using the example of Timothy:
2Timothy 2:15:
Strive to present yourself approved to God, an unashamed laborer correctly applying the word of truth.
The verb for “approved” here is the same as the one used in 2Corinthians 13:5. The only way you can know for certain you are in the faith is to have a good knowledge of the truths of the faith (John 8:31—32)! And this requires obedience, which is made evident by your fruit. A great self-check for fruit-bearing is found in Paul’s words to the Galatian ekklēsia. The passage compares living by the Spirit to living according to the flesh:
Galatians 5:16—25:
16 I say then, walk by the Spirit, so you shall not carry out the desire of the flesh. 17 For the flesh has desires contrary to the Spirit, the Spirit contrary to the flesh. For these oppose one another, so that you may not do as you want. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the Law. 19 Now the works of the flesh are obvious, which are: sexual immorality, moral impurity, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, rivalries, dissensions, discriminations, 21 envy, drunkenness, carousals, and such things similar to these. All these I tell you to forewarn you as before: All those who engage in such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God.22But the fruit of the Spirit is: love, joy, peace, patience, generosity, goodness, faith,23gentleness, self-control. Against such things, there is no law. 24And those belonging to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.25If we live by the Spirit, to the Spirit we should also conform.
We cannot just pass on this. Each must habitually ask himself or herself, “Am I really in the faith?”
Do I meet the qualifications? Am I approved?
____________________
1 In my translation here, I aimed for formal equivalency to the extent possible (nouns for nouns, similar verb types for similar verb types, etc.), leaving out as many English helping words as possible (e.g. “to see if you be in the faith”). With this goal in mind, I sought to retain Paul’s words as I think he intended to his original audience, thereby showing his exceptional rhetorical skills. All negatives are translated as per the Greek text, including words negated by an a– prefix. In this way, the reader can see his dichotomies, his juxtapositions, as well as his plays on words (“approve” > “unapproved” > “not unapproved”). Otherwise, in my opinion, his tone is smoothed over. This includes the italicizing of “unless” since εἰ μήτι is stronger than εἰ μή. In similar fashion, “yourselves” is twice italicized, since it has emphatic placement in the Greek (first in the sentences). The overall intent is to make the parallels and contrasts a bit easier for the English reader to perceive.
2 Most of this entire paragraph sounds eerily similar to the leaders and individuals within the so-called New Apostolic Reformation.
We just saw it from a different point of view
Tangled up in blue1
I must admit I sometimes feel blue. At times there seems to be no reason for it. Other times there is.
When writing Christian apologetics—from the Greek word apologia, as found in 1 Peter 3:15 (…always ready to provide a defense to everyone who asks…)—it is imperative to do so with utmost integrity. We must uphold truth when defending the Truth. When I see quasi-truths and pseudo-truths in apologetics, I sometimes literally shake my head in sadness. Sometimes I get a bit angry. It’s disconcerting.
In this disinformation age, we are bombarded with partial truths and outright lies. Discerning truth from fiction can be quite difficult. Consequently, when assessing questionable conspiracy theories,2 we must be very careful not to fall into the same trap of connecting unrelated things in our critiques of them.3 I’m reminded of the cautionary words of Rabbi Samuel Sandmel:
It would seem to me to follow that, in dealing with similarities we can sometimes discover exact parallels, some with and some devoid of significance; seeming parallels which are so only imperfectly; and statements which can be called parallels only by taking them out of context.4
Recently, I came across On Point Preparedness, a ministry delving in end times (eschatology) and apologetics. I want to think Mike—the sole writer and vlogger—is sincere in his endeavors. Perhaps it would be fair that I give him as much benefit of the doubt as he gives the subjects in his critiques. In any case, I found a number of issues with some of his analyses, some egregious enough to induce me to write this blog post.
I’ve timestamped the clip below where On Point Preparedness (OPP) displays audio and video of a President Trump Rally just before the song “Sympathy for the Devil” is played.6
The clip provides lyrics to accompany the song for a bit. Then the vlogger segues to a snippet of a Bob Dylan interview, which OPP prefaces with these words:
Oh, and by the way, this song by Bob Dylan “Sympathy for the Devil”—yeah. You remember this interview where he said that he serves Satan, right?
Now, this is the part where I shake my head in dismay, disappointment. And then I get angry. This is extremely sloppy “journalism”. First of all, in the clip of Dylan’s words, the songwriter just does not say he “serves Satan”. The vlogger puts those words in Dylan’s mouth. Either that, or OPP meant to paraphrase Dylan’s supposed intended meaning. Can this meaning be inferred? Perhaps. But before making such a charge, intellectual integrity demands a search for the larger context in order to provide sufficient evidence to justify it.7And further below, I provide such larger context, illustrating there is more likely a very different meaning intended here.
To outright assert that someone said thus-and-such without explicit proof is just inexcusable. And potentially libelous. Dylan’s lyrics below are appropriated for my purposes here:
Someone’s got in for me They’re planting stories in the press Whoever it is I wish they’d cut it out quick When they will I can only guess.8
Oh, and by the way, this song “Sympathy for the Devil”—whatever one thinks of it—was written by Mick Jagger and Keith Richards of THE ROLLING STONES, and the song in the clip was performed by this same band. Though Bob Dylan most certainly wrote and performed the song “Like a Rolling Stone”, he just as certainly is not THE ROLLING STONES. There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of carelessness (confirmation bias?).9 Similar to the above, journalistic integrity requires a quick search to verify information before publishing. Even if the rest of his content was just fine, merely this one slip can render the entire document suspect by some viewers. But this is not the only issue here.
Below is the larger context of the interview—a 60 Minutes interview with Ed Bradley on November 19, 2004. At the time of original airing, the songwriter had just recently published his book Chronicles, Volume One (September 5, 2004). Take special note of the use of the word “destiny”. Italics indicate the portion OPP selected for his vlog (near the end); bold is my emphasis:
Ed Bradley: You use the word “destiny” over and over throughout the book. What does it mean to you?
Bob Dylan: It’s a feeling you have that you know something about yourself that nobody else does – the picture you have in your mind of what you’re about will come true. It’s kind of a thing you kind of have to keep to your own self, because it’s a fragile feeling. And if you put it out there, somebody will kill it. So, it’s best to keep that all inside.
—
EB: Let me talk a little bit about your relationship with the media. You wrote, “The press, I figured, you lied to it.” Why?
BD: I realized at the time that the press, the media, they’re not the judge—God’s the judge. The only person you have to think about lying twice to is either yourself or to God. The press isn’t either of them. And I just figured they’re irrelevant.
—
EB: As you probably know, Rolling Stone magazine just named your song, “Like a Rolling Stone,” the number one song of all time. 12 of your other songs are on their list of the Top 500. That must be good to have as part of your legacy.
BD: Oh, maybe this week. But you know, the list, they change names, and you know, quite frequently, really. I don’t really pay much attention to that.
EB: But it’s a pat on the back?
BD: This week it is. But who’s to say how long that’s gonna last?
EB: Well, it’s lasted a long time for you. I mean you’re still out here doing these songs, you know. You’re still on tour. BD: I do, but I don’t take it for granted. EB: Why do you still do it? Why are you still out here? BD: Well, it goes back to that destiny thing. I made a d-, bargain with it, you know, long time ago. And I’m holding up my end. EB: What was your bargain? BD: …to get where, uh, I am now. EB: Should I ask who you made that bargain with? BD: [laughs] With the Chief Commander. EB: On this earth? BD: [laughs] In this earth and in the world we can’t see.
When Dylan states, “…bargain with it…”, to what does the “it” refer? By the context, the referent is “destiny”. So, who is the “Chief Commander” that is “in this earth and in the world we can’t see”? Note that earlier in the interview Dylan referred to “God”, stating He is the Judge, and the only One—besides yourself—that you should carefully consider before lying twice to. Could that help define “Chief Commander” here?
But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes Indeed you’re gonna have to serve somebody Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you’re gonna have to serve somebody
Was this all just a ruse, a hoax? That seems very unlikely, for Dylan had not a few angry fans during this time claiming he was preaching at them in concerts. John Lennon even went so far as to write the parody “Serve Myself” in response. Assuming, then, that Dylan’s conversion was genuine, did he subsequently reverse course? Did he renounce his profession of Christian faith to the extent he now “serves Satan” instead? Can evidence be found for this? If so, I’d like to see it. (And see this new blog post Bob Dylan’s New Christian Themed Album.)
The vlogger later circles back to his earlier assertion about Bob Dylan, this time claiming he is “the guy that sold his soul to the devil”. This prefaces his syllogistic position that Dylan’s new song “Murder Most Foul” is somehow related to “Q”, and, by extension, implicitly “QAnon”, because the track is ~17 minutes long, and—well—Q is the 17th letter of the English alphabet, and there’s been an established connection between QAnon and the number 17.11 More on this below.
The song is about the assassination of JFK. For OPP it’s the following lyrics providing some sort of smoking gun:
The day that they killed him, someone said to me, “Son, The age of the Antichrist has just only begun”
The vlogger focuses on “The age of the Antichrist”, as if these words in this context provide some sort of proof of malevolent spiritual connection to OPP’s (unproven) assertion that Dylan “sold his soul to the devil”. I can only guess how the vlogger connects this to QAnon.12
Besides the illogic, and nebulous nature of any sort of connection, there are other problems here and more things to factor in.
By illogic, I mean why would Dylan write a lyric about “the age of the Antichrist” if he had “sold his soul to the devil”? Wouldn’t he—or, more specifically, the supposed malevolent spirit guiding him—be more inclined to conceal this fact about “the age of the Antichrist” having begun? Since John’s first epistle indicates that the ‘age of Antichrist’ had already begun by the time that letter was penned (1 John 2:18), this means if we take the song at face value, JFK’s assassination would more likely be the revealing of the Antichrist, aka “the lawless one” (2 Thessalonians 2:8). If “the lawless one” has been revealed (to discerning Christians), then who is it? Frankly, I think OPP needs to acquire a better grasp of the nature of poetry and songwriting.
The vlogger also implies Dylan was aware of this ‘Q = 17’ connection, yet fails to provide any sort of evidence for this.13 But this does not stop OPP from making further tenuous connections based on this unproven link.
OPP makes a big deal out of the song’s ~17 minutes length (“which is incredibly odd”, per the vlogger), but is this really so out of the ordinary? Dylan has recorded quite a few lengthy songs throughout his career. While “Murder Most Foul” is the longest song in Dylan’s discography, there is a close second: “Highlands” from Time Out of Mind, at 16:31.14 Comparatively, “Murder Most Foul”, as hosted on Dylan’s own YouTube channel, clocks in at 16:56, just 25 seconds longer. In listening to the song, it is packed full of lyrics, with no instrumental break, a very brief intro, and a 30 second outro. Thus, even if it were sung a cappella at the same tempo, it would be nearly 17 minutes long. So, it is not as though the song was stretched out in an effort to reach ~17 minutes.
More to the point, if I was Dylan and I wanted to link the song to Q as suggested by OPP, I’d make darn sure that it was exactly 17 minutes—not a second over or under. If Q = 17, then Q ≠ 16:56. For me, this fact alone is a fatal flaw in his analysis.
But that’s not all.
In the first comment to the above hyperlinked video (audio) of the song is this statement by Dylan, pinned by the songwriter himself:
This is an unreleased song we recorded a while back that you might find interesting. Stay safe, stay observant and may God be with you.
Setting aside the final clause (bolded above), Dylan recorded this song “a while back”.15 To assume it was recorded within the past 3 or so years—to coincide with the era of QAnon—is to assume too much.
Finally, after “Murder Most Foul” Dylan put out two more songs. And concurrent with his most recent song release “False Prophet” (on May 8, 2020), the songwriter announced the near-future release of a new album, which will contain all three songs. Thus, “Murder Most Foul” didn’t ‘come out of nowhere’ as some sort of mysterious one-off. The timing of the release—and the subsequent releases—was obviously calculated to build interest for his forthcoming full-length album. This is a pretty standard marketing ploy.
Perhaps the intent is not so much to link Bob Dylan specifically to QAnon, but to “Q” more generally. In this sense, per OPP, “Q” would then be the spiritual glue binding all these seemingly—in the mind of the vlogger—disparate pieces together. The video below makes such a connection:
OPP bases this on (a) a false equivalency, which results in (b) a dubious connection to (c) a questionable claim in a self-published book (@ 10:02):
When I saw that, I was like, “OK, that is pretty amazing.” That’s really the spiritual influence of why “Q” has been adopted.
This will require a bit of explanation. I’ll start with (c), the questionable claim in the book.
Catherine R. Proppe, in her 2013 book Greek Alphabet: Unlock the Secrets, claims that each Greek letter of the alphabet has a “secret meaning” attached. The author has her own webpage, and since the koppa (Ϙ) is the subject here, I will direct now to that specific page on her blog. Proppe appears to have some proficiency with Greek, but I must question her claim that the koppa means “piercing-the-veil” (as per the link) or “PIERCING-THE-VEIL of ignorance and separation” (as per the book). Viewing the above hyperlink to the author’s webpage, note how Proppe provides web-links as support for some of her statements.17 Yet, the writer provides no such reference, no documentation for this “secret meaning” for koppa. Same with the book.
A quick internet search yields no specific results for “piercing the veil” except its use in a legal sense as a shortened form of “piercing the corporate veil”. However, though interpreted differently, the word “veil” is found in contexts related to the tearing of the Temple veil at Jesus’ death (Matthew 27:51; Mark 15:38; Luke 23:45) in various esoteric and occult works of the past century.18 A quick scouring of my Greek resources finds no reference to this “secret meaning” as of yet. Thus, I would agree that the esoteric concept of crossing some sort of veil has been in existence for a while, but so far nothing suggests that this specific phraseology is at least somewhat commonly used currently, or had been used previously in antiquity, in relation to the Greek letter koppa.
The bottom line: I find no substantiation for Proppe’s claimed “secret meaning” for the Greek letter koppa. To be clear, this does not necessarily render the claim false. But without supporting evidence for the author’s assertion, I remain unconvinced. For the vlogger to uncritically accept this claim is problematic. We must always verify the veracity of material to the extent possible. Especially if it is used to negatively characterize individuals or works.
Now, turning to (a), the false equivalency—providing some historical background on the koppa will be necessary.
The Greek alphabet underwent some changes throughout its history, with some letters deleted, others added. Today there are 24 letters—the same 24 as from the pre-NT era. At one point in antiquity (ca. 6th – 5th BC?) there were 27 letters. During this time the Greeks adopted an alphanumeric system in which each letter corresponds to a number. This system is still in place today. The first nine letters are numbered sequentially (1 through 9). The next nine letters are consecutive multiples of 10. The koppa was sequentially the 18th letter, and thus represented the number 90. That is, Ϙ = 90.
Shortly after the establishing of the alphanumeric system, the koppa was deleted from the alphabet (ca. 5th century BC).19 But it was retained solely for their alphanumeric system (the Greeks had no other way of expressing numbers at the time except to fully write them out, such as, e.g., the English ninety).
The first Greek alphabet was modeled after the Phoenician. The koppa came from the similar looking Phoenician qoph. The history of the English Q is something like this:
Phoenician qoph > Greek koppa (Ϙ, similar to qoph) > Old Italic Etruscan (same as koppa) > Old Latin (~Q) > Classic Latin (~Q) > Old English (~Q) > Modern English (Q)
An important point to reiterate is that the Greek koppa has not been used as a letter since about the 5th century BC—except for rare carry-overs, and even these were phased out well before the NT era. As an example and an interesting side note: I learned from Proppe’s book, via the vlog above, that the city of Corinth (as in I and II Corinthians), was first spelled with an initial koppa (Ϙ)20—appropriate for the time. Before the NT era, it was replaced with the kappa (K). But the koppa (Ϙ) letter remained on Corinthian coinage for a time. See it just below the winged Pegasus in the image.
Koppa under Pegasus
Given that the koppa ceased in use as a letter, this is another reason I remain skeptical of Proppe’s claims. Strictly speaking, the koppa hasn’t been in the Greek alphabet since ~5th century BC. Moreover, when used as a number, it is identified as such by additional markings or different renderings of the character.21 Thus, the writer’s implicit claim that it is part of the Greek alphabet (as in the title of the book) is anachronistic, or imprecise, at best. At worst, it is just wrong. In short, the information is unreliable.
Setting aside the murky nature of the author’s characterization of the koppa, OPP begins his discussion by making the claim that the English letter Q means “piercing the veil” (@ 8:58), even though the words on the page are about the Greek koppa (Ϙ) instead. He continues to conflate the Greek koppa with the English Q throughout. But Proppe never, not once, makes a connection to the English Q on the page.22
Thus, there is no basis to assume Proppe intended her “secret meaning” be imported to the English letter Q, much less to the current cult of Q (whether it be QAnon or any of the others he attempts to connect). Yet, this scarcely prevents the vlogger from syllogistically assuming it does, leading him to his dogmatic assertion that “The [English] letter Q is about ‘PIERCING-THE-VEIL of ignorance and separation’” (@ 9:56).
This (a) false equivalency (Ϙ = Q) leads to (b) the dubious connection to (c) a questionable claim (as regards “PIERCING…”), leading OPP (d) to syllogistically conclude: “That’s really the spiritual influence of why Q has been adopted…” (@ 10:07). This is a non sequitur. Even if a definitive link were established between the koppa and the Q and if Proppe’s “secret meaning” were true, this does not necessarily mean that all the associations of “Q” must come from this meaning. There are numerous possible reasons for the use of “Q”. One might speculate that this could be a possible connection (again, had there been a definitive link between koppa and Q as well as substantiation for Proppe’s “secret meaning” for the koppa), but to make an explicit claim that this-is-definitely-that in this case is both illogical and irresponsible.
Taking all the above, I hope the reader can see that Bob Dylan has been unfairly mischaracterized based on nebulous connections.
At 10:55 OPP states, “…Now you just can’t really make this stuff up…” as part of his conclusion. Now if I were to apply some of the methods used throughout the two vlogs referenced above, I could take just this statement and apply it to him. That is, taking the words “you just can’t really make this stuff up”, I could counter that the vlogger did, in fact, do just that—by wresting various words from their original contexts to create pretexts, using false equivalencies, making syllogistic connections to reach his own conclusions, etc. But that wouldn’t be right, would it?
Digressing for a moment, and being a bit tongue-in-cheek, I can just envision New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) “Apostle” Chuck Pierce embracing all this. He has not one, but two points (pun intended) of connection! Not only is his last name Pierce (Pierce-ing the veil!) his “ministry” is headquartered in Corinth, Texas! He could substitute either the Greek koppa or the English “Q” in place of the English “C” in Corinth! In fact, it’s rather curious that he hasn’t done so, given the analysis here by OPP. That is, if “this is really the spiritual influence of why ‘Q’ has been adopted”, surely Chuck Pierce would be aware of all these “connections”.
But Seriously
This was one of the most difficult blog posts—if not the most difficult one—I’ve written. I wanted to be fair to OPP, to everyone involved. It can be difficult to be completely objective in the best of circumstances. With this in mind, I must admit—and I did above—that I became a bit angry at times when analyzing the material. I hope it was righteous anger—in response to what I felt was unfair treatment to some individuals and the material. And I hope it didn’t negatively cloud the results. My sporadic injections of a bit of sarcasm and humor were attempts to diffuse it, I suppose. I’ll let the reader be the judge of the analyses.
One of my goals is to bring awareness to our predisposition (1) to read things strictly through our own perspectives and (2) to fall into logical fallacies. Everyone does these things. This means we all must take a few steps back when analyzing data to see if it can be read a bit differently and to be sure our conclusions follow the data. We must be careful that we don’t construct our own questionable conspiracy theories.
Preparing Christian apologetics is hard work. Disentangling problematic apologetics takes just as much if not more effort.
As apologists, defenders of the Christian faith, we should do our very best to get it right the first time, doing so with intellectual honesty and the utmost integrity. And humility.
ps:
Comments, whether pro or con, are welcome. I ask that they relate to the main subjects presented in this post. I don’t wish to get bogged down with discussions regarding QAnon, for example. That is NOT why I posted this; that is only peripheral to my main objective, which was to present a more balanced view of the material analyzed, particularly as it relates to Bob Dylan.
______________________________________
1 “Tangled Up in Blue”, Bob Dylan, from the 1974 album Blood on the Tracks (Columbia Records PC 233235), published by Rams Horn Music, 1974.
2 Here I use the modifier “questionable” because the term conspiracy theory has become a pejorative, a means by which to stifle conversation about a topic with which a person or group disagrees. When police detectives uncover racketeering—organized crime—it is after having an initial theory of a conspiracy, a hunch about individuals conspiring together in crime. In the beginning stages of the investigation, it is a conspiracy theory. Though the term should be neutral, in today’s socio-political environment and vernacular, it’s mostly used to disparage adherents to a particular theory.
3 Thereby creating our own questionable conspiracy theories.
4 “Parallelomania”, Journal of Biblical Literature Vol 81 (1962): 1-13, p 7
5 I must confess that I stumbled upon the music linked to here. I was searching to see if “off point” had a meaning in today’s lingo, which I see it does. I kinda like the song, but more importantly the lyric here is apropos: Connect all disparate dots and label them as true / you’re straying off point / fixed kaleidoscopic views.
6 The vlogger attempts to make a direct connection of a nefarious nature between this song and President Trump (and Rally attendees?), as if Trump specifically requests this song and is sympathetic to the devil himself. Prior to this, he selectively quotes a line from The Animals song “House of the Rising Sun” in an attempt to malign Trump. The line he chooses as his proof-text is spend your lives in sin and misery, as if the song is glorifying this sort of life (who would want “sin and misery”?!). However, when the lyrics are put into proper context, the intention is the exact opposite: Oh mother, tell your children / Not to do what I have done / Spend your lives in sin and misery / In the House of the Rising Sun… And it’s been the ruin of many a poor boy / And God, I know I’m one. This is what passes for “journalism” in this vlog. This pseudo-truth is the first tenuous connection I am exposing in my blog post here, but since I do not wish to bog down this article with the myriad issues in the vlog, thereby making this post intolerably long, I am relegating information unrelated to my main subject—the unnecessary maligning of Bob Dylan centering on a conspiracy theory surrounding the letter Q—to footnotes.
7 In checking around the internet, there are a number of vloggers and bloggers taking just this segment from the interview to arrive at their presumed prejudged conclusion. Perhaps this vlogger, after seeing one or more of these, decided that if this was good enough evidence for others, this was good enough for him.
8 “Idiot Wind”, from Blood on the Tracks. To my mind, the lyrics quoted here are true, autobiographical; and, the next few lines are hyperbolic, thereby analogically illustrating the ridiculous lengths the media would sometimes go to mischaracterize Dylan. This then sets up his caustic chorus.
9 I’m reminded now of lyrics in a Neil Young song: sometimes I see what really isn’t there—taken from “Will to Love”, from the 1977 album American Stars and Bars (Reprise Records MSK 2261), published by Silver Fiddle-BMI, 1977. In the context of Young’s song, the line refers to wishful thinking, aka confirmation bias.
10 To digress for a moment, I once had a discussion (ca. 2009) with another Christian man who confidently asserted that the 1974 album Blood on the Tracks—an album with which I’ve been well-acquainted with since the mid-‘70s—was a Christian record, presumably on the strength of Dylan’s Christian-themed records here. When I objected, given my strong familiarity with the record—it’s probably my favorite Dylan album—and providing evidence to the contrary via some of its lyrics and the fact that Dylan’s profession of Christian faith first occurred in 1979, he yet remained steadfast. It seems many will just stay comfortably in their false beliefs, despite evidence contradicting them.
11 Some have already associated QAnon with the letter Q, and by extension, the number 17. Also, President Trump has been presented with jerseys with his name and the number 17 on it. But, this only proves that the maker(s) of the shirts made the connection, not necessarily that Trump has (though maybe he has, and what would that prove, anyway?). But, this is all tangential, for, more importantly, the vlogger fails to provide any evidence that Dylan was even aware of this Q = 17 connection.
12 And (in the mind of the vlogger), by further extension, President Trump?
13 That is, besides the implied circular logic of Q = 17, and the song is ~17 minutes, which must be a reference to Q, which means Dylan is aware of the connection. But, I digress. In any case, absent any proof, I am unwilling to grant this.
14 I have the album (gasp!), so I was already aware of its timing.
15 Though it is possible it was recorded in the past 3 or so years—during the time of QAnon—I note that Dylan’s last album of his own material (as opposed to covers of others’ works) Tempest was released in 2012. It could be that “Murder Most Foul” was from the Tempest recording sessions or perhaps earlier. His most recent album (which only includes works written by others), while it lists no recording date, was released March 31, 2017. All this to say, the song most likely was recorded before QAnon came on the scene. But we just don’t know.
16 Spanish for What? It is used here because some confuse “que” (or qué) with the spelling for the English letter “Q” (which is cue), thus implicitly analogically illustrating the confusions and conflations of the vlogger. It’s a play on words relating to the entire section. (Unfortunately, this is the kind of thing that tends to lose its impact when explained.)
17 No matter how tenuous those connections might be, e.g.: The constellation Pegasus is best visible during the month of October, the month immediately following the fall equinox, when nighttime hours first exceed daylight hours, enabling better viewing of the stars which pierce-the-veil of the night sky. Though I like the poetic phrasing here (the stars which pierce-the-veil of the night sky), I don’t see how any of this relates to the koppa. Perhaps it is something like the following. Since the Corinthians used the koppa as a symbol for their city (see further below), and the koppa was placed on the back of coins under the winged Pegasus—which is associated with local mythology—this, I presume, means the author should connect the constellation of Pegasus to koppa because, by syllogistic extension, its stars “pierce-the-veil” of the sky at night (by using the bottom point of a koppa?). Or something like that.
19 Or the koppa had previously been deleted and subsequently placed back into its former spot strictly for the alphanumeric system. 27 letters were needed to fill out the alphanumeric system (nine single digits, nine tens, and nine one-hundreds). The koppa sounded much like the kappa—like the English K—and thus was redundant.
20 That I have learned something new, something of particular interest to me, makes the time and effort spent on this well worth it.
22 Yes, the author briefly associates the Greek koppa with the Latin letter Q, but not once does the writer state anything at all about English and, by extension, the English Q. Her subject is the Greek koppa.
While perusing Dr. David Alan Black’s blog a couple weeks ago (specifically, the entry on December 30), I saw that Black had pointed to Dr. Craig Keener’s review of Dr. John MacArthur’s book Strange Fire, a work exposing some of the faulty theology and practices within Pentecostalism/charismaticism. Keener, who puts out multi-volume scholarly works every week (OK, it’s not quite that frequently, though it seems so), reviewed MacArthur’s work at length, providing a fair, even analysis, criticizing the author for unnecessarily condemning one whole segment of Christendom. (I state this without having read the book, though I’ve read other critiques, and have no reason to disbelieve Keener and the others in this regard.) The reader is encouraged to view Keener’s review it in its entirety (at hyperlink above).
I’ve selected portions of the review from which to add comments of my own. The reader here should feel free to cut and paste other parts of Keener’s critique to add to the comments section and provide further commentary.
Assuming Keener’s (and others’) charge that the author has painted with a very broad brush is correct, I’d fully agree with the following statement:
…Reactionary teaching like MacArthur’s, however, is more likely to polarize than to invite.
While I’m certain that hyper-charismaticism is dangerous, I’m just as certain that hyper-dogmatism is the same. A few years ago, the teacher of a study I was attending, using an analogy from bowling, offered the general advice of steering clear of either gutter (though he didn’t use either of my “hyper-” terms) as I was seeking his input on my concerns over doctrines and practices of another student who was attempting to influence me. Without stating so explicitly, it was obvious he agreed with me that the other individual’s ball fell into the hyper-charismatic gutter. I never forgot that analogy. I eventually left the group over the teacher’s own promotion of others with unorthodox and heretical doctrines of the hyper-charismatic variety (after enjoying a few lunches – my treat – in which I expressed concerns).
Since then, I’ve tried to steer clear of the other extreme, the one of hyper-dogmatism. I don’t know that I’ve been entirely successful in that endeavor; I’d say my bowling ball may have a slight tendency toward the hyper-dogmatic side rather than the other gutter – much as I’d like to remain in the middle. I suppose I’m continuationist in theology (I cannot read 1 Corinthians 12-14 and conclude cessationism), but not so much in praxis – at least not as many charismatics practice it. My view is that spiritual gifts are not “practiced” so much as individuals are given gifts “just as He (the Holy Spirit) determines” (1 Cor 12:11) as we submit to the Spirit, on an individual and circumstantial basis. MacArthur, however, has a definite tendency towards hyper-dogmaticism.
I suppose in many ways he’s much like some other denominational teachers who tow the party line, i.e., teaching doctrines in view of particular denominational slants to the exclusion of other possible, valid interpretations in non-essential matters, even perhaps stretching a bit to do so. The following should go toward illustrating my point. In MacArthur’s book Truth Endures (Panorama City: Grace To You, 2009), a collection of sermons he’s preached over the years, is one on Revelation titled “A Jet Tour through Revelation”. In it he states:
…People often ask, ‘Where does the Rapture come in?’ It’s in the white spaces between chapters 3 and 4. You have the church on earth in chapters 2 and 3; all of a sudden we appear in heaven in chapter 4. [p 132]
The “white spaces”? I understand that he’s not the only one who, in part, supports the pre-tribulation Rapture doctrine by this, but I can only imagine MacArthur’s critique of similar exegesis to promote continuationism!
Yet, it’s his hard cessationism that overshadows his views of anything remotely continuationist, as Keener observes:
MacArthur’s indiscriminate condemnation of anything charismatic is little different from some bigoted secular condemnations of all evangelicals because of the behavior of some. Someone prone to generalize could even use the offenses in the book to blacklist all evangelicals, or all Christians, using the same logic that MacArthur uses against the entire charismatic movement…
Good point.
More from Keener:
…[S]ome extreme Word of Faith teachers do promulgate teachings that, at least at face value, cannot but be viewed as heretical, especially believers being gods (rightly noted on pp. 11-12). But have such beliefs in fact “become the rule” among charismatics (p. 12)?…
One heresy that I did on occasion run into, which probably took matters more literally than did those MacArthur mentioned, was the Manifested Sons doctrine (or at least its extreme version that I encountered). Its proponents taught that overcomers by faith would achieve physical immortality before Jesus’s return, becoming “the many-membered Christ” on earth…
One thing I do know is that the charismatic Spirit I have experienced was not compatible with this teaching. On one occasion I recoiled inside when I heard a guest speaker at a noncharismatic congregation teach on a completely different subject. I felt that he carried the same spirit as the Manifested Sons teachers. Afterward I asked him if he had known a certain Manifested Sons teacher. “Yes,” he replied, astonished. “We were good friends.” He was himself a Manifested Sons teacher. The Spirit I experienced regularly in sounder charismatic circles clearly testified against this false teaching…
I’m glad that Keener has actually witnessed firsthand the Manifested Sons of God (MSoG) doctrine. This “many-membered Christ” (manchild), the culmination of MSoG, is what Bill Johnson of Bethel Church in Redding, CA – an individual with worldwide influence – has been teaching in a veiled form for quite some time now, while others such as Bob Jones, Paul Cain, and Todd Bentley have been much more obvious (see here for one example each of Jones and Bentley). Yet Johnson’s recent podcast “Thinking from the Throne” is much more explicit (see here for lengthy CrossWise article, especially transcriptions at 13:49-14:12 and 36:30-37:34 of the podcast, near end of article1). This is not just heresy, but a doctrine paralleling the occult teachings of the New Age / New Spirituality for the past 100 years, a teaching that is specifically antichrist in nature as defined by the Apostle John (1 John 2:22, 4:1-3).
I wonder who it was teaching MSoG and the “many-membered Christ” doctrine that Keener mentions here?
…I suspect that when we cite the highest figures for the numbers of charismatics in the world, we recognize that not all of them are those we would feel comfortable embracing as spiritual or theological kin…
Of course, many would agree. But, this begs the question: why aren’t there more Biblical scholars writing about these specific individuals (in a more irenic manner than some of the laity), warning the church at large? Why didn’t Keener reveal the name of the Manifested Sons teacher he mentioned earlier?
Partly, if not mostly, in response to MacArthur, in a recent Charisma article Dr. Michael Brown poses the question Are We Charismatics Doing Enough to Correct Abuses in Our Midst? Certainly, Brown has exposed some of the faulty doctrines and practices within Pentecostalism/charismaticism, even mentioning some names. For that he deserves credit. Yet on Brown’s own Voice of Revolution site he allows others to post articles, sometimes promoting teachers with very questionable theology and praxis. This can cause confusion.
As just one example, Bill Johnson was lauded in a piece titled HEAVEN ON EARTH by Bill Johnson (Everyone Must Hear This!). The author of the piece merely provided one quote – “Jesus is perfect theology” – and two audio clips, yet there were some very troubling things stated in those clips. (Rather than go into detail here, the reader can go to the link, listen to the audio for themselves, and read some of the comments, which include a few of my own, though I came in a bit late.)
Charisma itself is one of the worst offenders, promoting leaders of the so-called “New Apostolic Reformation” (C. Peter Wagner’s own term) to include Bill Johnson, Mike Bickle (of International House of Prayer), etc. Jack Hayford, who is mentioned favorably by Brown in his article referenced above, appears to be a part of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), as well. Hayford had suggested using the Gamaliel approach (cf. Acts 5:38-39) to the so-called “Lakeland Revival” of 2008, refusing to provide a very much needed corrective to the proceedings, illustrating what I’d define as poor leadership at best.
For those unaware, the NAR even has its own “Apostles” (that’s a capital “A”), as evidenced by their own International Coalition of Apostolic Leadership organization (formerly “International Coalition of Apostles” – and there are other similar organizations). While the membership list is now concealed to those of us outside this elite group (though with a recommendation by a current member and by paying the requisite dues you too can become a member!), here is a list of members from November 10, 2009, to include former “Presiding Apostle” C. Peter Wagner. Following is some now-deleted verbiage from the old site (no longer available on Internet Archive):
The Second Apostolic Age began roughly in 2001, heralding the most radical change in the way of doing church at least since the Protestant Reformation. This New Apostolic Reformation [NAR] embraces the largest segment of non-Catholic Christianity worldwide, and the fastest growing…
These folks (NAR) who are “heralding the most radical change in the way of doing church at least since the Protestant Reformation” are purportedly “the largest segment of non-Catholic Christianity worldwide, and the fastest growing”, and these are all within the charismatic realm. I’d be delighted if Dr. Keener would research this group and write a detailed analysis of his findings, given both their charismatic leanings and purported size. In addition, I think it especially prudent for Keener to name the individual who was teaching MSoG, and to name those who were teaching the “many-membered Christ” doctrine as a warning to the Church at large.
1 Here are the respective transcriptions: [13:49]…So what is He looking for? He is looking for a people that will cooperate with the FULLNESS of God’s presence, operating and manifesting THROUGH them so that this world actually gets a FULL and ACCURATE taste of who Jesus is. It’s not us; it’s Him. But He dwells IN us in FULLNESS in bodily form…[14:12]
[36:30]…until we all come to unity of faith and the KNOWLEDGE of the SON of God. Too many people think they know that don’t know. So the knowledge of the Son of God, to A perfect man. Look at the description. Millions and millions of body members come to A – singular – perfect man…a full-on revelation of the Person of Jesus, what He is like, how He is. To A perfect man, to the measure and stature – equal measure to the fullness of Christ…[37:34]
Most modern Bible translations include a note expressing serious doubt about the authenticity of Mark 16:9-20. Individuals who do accept these final verses as part of Mark’s Gospel, however, are committed to an extreme view of the signs listed in verses 17 and 18, to include the explicit ability to drink poison with no ill effects. If the Greek text in this “long ending” is taken seriously, understood, and translated in proper context, then all five signs are for all those who believe– excepting those actively preaching the Gospelmessage –at the point of initial conversion and continuing on thereafter. That is, upon hearing and believing in the Gospel message, newly regenerate believers, without exception, will exhibit all the signs listed in Mark 16:17-18, as accompaniment to the Gospel. Moreover, these five should be evident among all believers, past, present and yet future, upon initial acceptance of the Gospel and thereafter – at the least, whenever the Gospel is being actively preached.
The Long and the Short of It
For quite some time, it has been the scholarly consensus that the “long ending” of the Gospel of Mark, i.e., the last 12 verses (16:9-20), is not original to the Gospel, even though there are many manuscripts that include this text.1 While there are those who assert that the long ending is indeed original, they are well within the minority among NT scholars and textual critics. The vocabulary and style of the Greek in the long ending is substantially different than the remainder of Mark’s Gospel.2 In addition, the associated manuscript evidence points rather decisively to the inauthenticity of these verses.3
There is even a so-called “short ending” in one extant Old Latin manuscript. This short ending consists of a small amount of text following verse 8, about the equivalent of one long Biblical verse or two shorter ones. While this is found as the ending to Mark’s Gospel in only one manuscript, there is yet another variation in which the long ending is appended to the short ending.4 All three – the predominant long ending, the lone short ending, and the combination of short ending followed by long ending – are almost universally rejected, and identified as spurious.
Some are of the opinion that the Gospel of Mark simply concludes at verse 8. However, in view of the fact that verse 8 ends rather abruptly with frightened women at the tomb, and, secondarily, that the very last word is a conjunction (the word γάρ, transliterated gar, meaning for, since, or because), others believe the original ending has been lost, or that the Gospel writer just did not finish the work for some unknown reason.5 These may well be factors that influenced the writer of the long ending (assumed to be one lone author by the internal consistency of the text).
Excluding the long ending from Scripture necessarily negates any need to discuss cessationism (the belief that the ‘sign gifts’ have ceased with the Apostolic era and the closing of the Biblical canon) or continuationism (the belief that all the spiritual gifts continue to this day) by appealing to these verses. Dr. Rodney J. Decker, Th.D., has recently written a paper on this subject, titled Mark and Miracle (Mark 16:17-18), with an emphasis on what the longer ending means in its own context and how it relates to the rest of the New Testament, and posted it on his blog. This particular work of Decker (see hyperlink at title above, pdf here) will be relied on for portions of the remainder of this article; general references and specific quotes from it will be followed by applicable page number in brackets, e.g.: {p 3}.
Interpreting the Text of the Long Ending
Decker notes that, in academic settings, those who argue for continuationism by and large do not do so by appealing to the Markan long ending. On the other hand, it is used quite frequently as a basis for argumentation “in non-academic discussions and among poorly trained advocates. That is perhaps not surprising since even in cessationist circles the authenticity of the Long Ending is commonly assumed since it is in the KJV without note or comment” {p 2, n 11}. I’ll add that it seems many readers of modern Bible versions pay little mind to the notes, further contributing to ignorance about the legitimacy of the long ending.6 Philip Comfort provides a blanket caution against the lay or academic use of these verses:
…Christians need to be warned against using this text for Christian doctrine because it is not on the same par as verifiable New Testament Scripture. Nothing in it should be used to establish Christian doctrine or practice. Unfortunately, certain churches have used Mark 16:16 to affirm dogmatically that one must believe and be baptized to be saved, and other churches have used Mark 16:18 to promote the practice of snake-handling…The writer of the longer ending also emphasized what we would call charismatic experiences – speaking in tongues, performing healings, protection from snakes and poison. Although the book of Acts affirms these experiences for certain believers, they are not necessarily the norm for all.7
Bill Johnson, Senior Pastor of Bethel Church in Redding, CA, is just one example (and there are many others within the so-called New Apostolic Reformation, aka NAR) of a hyper-charismatic (my term for those who go well beyond more conservative Pentecostal/charismatic theology and practice) who frequently cites Mark 16:15 and Mark 16:20 as base texts for the Great Commission, while selectively using only portions of verses 17-18 (healing the sick, casting out demons, and speaking in new tongues, yet omitting snake handling and drinking poison) for his continuationist stance.8 As but one example, here’s a selection in which Johnson specifically cites Mark 16:20 in the footnote reference to this passage:
…While healing is seldom the subject we teach on, it is one of the most common results. As we proclaim the message of the Kingdom of God, people get well. The Father seems to say Amen! to His own message by confirming the word with power….9
In reading Johnson’s quote, observe that the claim is that “people get well” as a result of the proclamation of “the message of the Kingdom of God”. This passive “people get well” stands in stark contrast to the long ending’s explicitly active “they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover”. In other words, according to verse 18, those who believe will actively lay on hands, resulting in the sick recovering; the sick don’t just “get well”. We could give Johnson the benefit of the doubt and just assume he was imprecise with his wording, but what of the other signs that should accompany the message according to the context of the long ending of Mark?:
15 And He said to them [the Eleven], “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. 16 He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he whodoes not believe will be condemned.17 And these signs will follow[accompany]those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; 18 they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover.”
19 So then, after the Lord had spoken to them [the Eleven], He was received up into heaven, and sat down at the right hand of God. 20 And they went out and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs [by those who believe]. Amen. [Mark 16:15-20, NKJV (emphasis and explanatory notes in brackets added)]
The text is book-ended with the preaching of the Gospel (vv 15, 20) by the Eleven (vv 14, 15, 19), but note that signs (σημεῖα, sēmeia) will follow/accompany those who believe (vv 16, 17), to exclude those preaching (the Eleven) {pp 3-5}. The context specifies that it is regenerate believers – those receiving the preaching of the Gospel (by the Eleven; v 15) and reaching a saving faith (v 16) – who will cast out demons, speak with new languages, pick up snakes, etc. Following are the five signs that will be exhibited by these believers:
Performing exorcisms
Speaking in new languages
Picking up snakes (presumably without harm)
Drinking poison without harm
Healing the sick by the laying on of hands
Note that, by the context, the snakes are not specifically identified as venomous (or not), and it’s not specified if those picking up the snakes will remain unharmed; it merely states “they will take up serpents” (some manuscripts add “with their hands”). Some may appeal to the next point – “if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them” – but these two are not connected grammatically {p 3}. Also, since all five, as Decker observes, “are listed in parallel with no indication otherwise, it would be precarious to suggest that one (or more) is to be taken metaphorically if the others are not” {pp 3-4, 4 n 15}. By the context, the statement attributed to Jesus (vv 15-18), as well as the narration in verse 20 (“…the Lord working with them and confirming the word through the accompanying signs.”) is clearly meant in a literal sense; therefore, all five should be taken literally.
The text explicitly states that all five signs above will accompany the collective of those who believe {p 8}, as a sign of the Gospel, “whenever they believe” {p 4}. Moreover, according to Decker, as indicated by the Greek grammar, each believer should perform all five {pp 4, 4 n 19-20}. Further, this implies that each time the Eleven preached the Gospel there would always be demon-possessed individuals, snakes, poisonous drink, and persons afflicted with ailments in their midst.
Yet, by the context, this is not limited to the Apostolic era, the time period when the Eleven were still living {p 5}. Since the function of these signs is in conjunction with the preaching of the Gospel – and, of course, the Great Commission is an ongoing command to all Christians (cf. Matthew 28:18-20) – these signs must continue as well {pp 4-5}. Therefore, those who accept the long ending as part of the canonical Gospel of Mark are committed to the belief that all five signs above are applicable to every single believer, at the point of their conversion and forward. The only limitation is imposed on those believers who are actively preaching the Gospel. In other words, by the context provided by the author of the long ending, those who believe will perform the five signs above, whichnecessarily include all the regenerate – past, present, and yet future – except when they themselves are in the act of preaching the Gospel message {pp 4-5}.
It could be construed that one of the implicit points made by the author of the long ending regarding “confirming the word through the accompanying signs” is that others in the audience who may have been unpersuaded by the Gospel message itself may become convinced by the attendant display of signs. In fact, there are three pieces of extra-Biblical, apocryphal literature depicting the Apostle John drinking poison for the express purpose of converting others. These are: Virtutes Iohannis (Miracles of John, circa 5th or 6th century AD), Passio Iohannis (Passion of John, ca. late 6th c.) {p 10},10 and Acts of John in Rome (ca. 4th to 6th c.11), with the latter finding its writer portraying John as explicitly quoting the words of Mark 16:18b (“and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them”) {p. 10}. With this in mind, would Bill Johnson, or any of the other self-appointed “Apostles” of the New Apostolic Reformation (or any follower of the NAR) who affirm Mark 16:9-20, like to drink from the poisoned cup, toward this same goal?
It seems one could understand this passage a bit more narrowly, interpreting “confirming the word through the accompanying signs” (v 20) as a limitation on those who believe. That is, these signs will only accompany those who believeduring the proclamation of the Gospel, thereby limiting the ‘shelf-life’ of these signs. In other words, these five signs would be manifested each time the Gospel message is preached until Jesus Christ returns, but only for the duration of the preaching at each particular place and time.12
But note that even this more narrow view would only limit the time at which these signs are made manifest and not their actual expression. With this limitation in mind, we’ll pose the question above a bit differently: With another actively preaching “the message of the Kingdom of God”, would Bill Johnson, or any of the other self-appointed “Apostles” of the New Apostolic Reformation (or any disciple of the NAR) who affirm Mark 16:9-20, like to drink from the poisoned chalice in order to win others to Christ?
Given his interpretation of Jesus’ promise in John 14:12, Johnson may even desire to identify such acts of ‘poison-bibbing’ {p 10} as manifest evidence of “greater works”, since it is not recorded in Scripture that Jesus Himself drank poison without harm:
Jesus’ prophecy of us doing greater works than He did has stirred the Church to look for some abstract meaning to this very simple statement…And, the works He referred to are signs and wonders. It will not be a disservice to Him to have a generation obey Him, and go beyond His own high-water mark. He showed us what one person could do who has the Spirit without measure. What could millions do? That was His point, and it became His prophecy.
This verse is often explained away by saying it refers to quantity of works, not quality…But that waters down the intent of His statement. The word greater is mizon [sic] in the Greek…It is always used to describe “quality,” not quantity.13
But, I’m unpersuaded that even such a charismatic display of imbibing venomous drink without harm would be greater than Jesus’ dying on the Cross for the sins of the world and subsequently raising Himself from the dead (John 2:19-22, 10:17-18).
Nonetheless, as per the context provided by the author of the long ending, poison-bibbing is a requirement of all believers – at least those who accept Mark 16:9-20 as part of sacred Scripture.
Conclusion
Those who consider the long ending of Mark must understand that it’s an all or nothing proposition. If one is inclined to accept it as authentic, then, in all intellectual honesty, one is forced to conform to a radical form of continuationism – one that must accept that all five signs enumerated in verses 17 and 18, without exception, will be exhibited by those who believe. To explicitly or implicitly reject any of these five will not do. On the other hand, to agree with the scholarly consensus that the long ending is not original to the Gospel of Mark means that no portion of it can be referenced for doctrine or practice.
Some facts and thoughts about the author of the above referenced article (see especially last paragraph):
I enjoy reading and being challenged by his works, most of which are a bit beyond my current level, some quite so. However, it’s obvious he cares about his students’ learning, as he has even taken the time to place additional data, list errata, and translate the German and French text from the Peter Lang book mentioned above (this particular book series requires that all non-English language remain untranslated), onto his own website. Here’s a portion of his remarks:
…Since, however, I have some hopes that students may find the work helpful, and even that some may be curious as to the content of those [untranslated] quotations (an idealistic notion, I suspect, but one which I hope to nurture for a bit longer!), I have thought it appropriate to provide a translation of many of those quotations here.
In addition, Decker has taken one of Dr. Stanley Porter’s difficult works and made it more comprehendible, providing a tremendous service to those wishing to become more conversant with Porter’s position on verbal aspect. This is available as an online pdf (the title itself references Porter’s work): “The Poor Man’s Porter”: A condensation and summarization of Verbal Aspect in the Greek of the New Testament, with Reference to Tense and Mood by Stanley E. Porter (New York: Peter Lang, 1993).
While he’s very serious about his work, he occasionally injects a bit of lightheartedness in his material and on his blog (and presumably in the classroom). Decker is currently battling stage 4 cancer. He has recently begun chemotherapy. He and his wife could use our prayers.
Endnotes:
1 This merely illustrates that subsequent copyists faithfully reproduced (more or less) this long ending once it was introduced into the Gospel of Mark, though many manuscripts have markings suggesting its inauthenticity. 2 Here I’m referring to what is known as the internal evidence of NT textual criticism: assessing authorial and scribal peculiarities such as style (vocabulary, grammar) and doctrine. 3 This sentence refers primarily to what is termed external evidence in NT textual criticism: assessing all known variants of a given section of Scripture by focusing on such factors as age, similar readings among manuscripts, and geographic distribution, and then comparing with each other to determine which verbiage is likely original. 4 The following English translation of the “short ending” is taken from Roger L. Omanson, A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament: An Adaptation of Bruce M. Metzger’s Textual Commentary for the Needs of Translators (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft (German Bible Society), 2006), p 104. Note that the first sentence is a continuation of 16:8, for the obvious purpose of not leaving the verse ending with the women fearful: But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that they had been told. And after these things Jesus himself sent out through them, from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen. Manuscripts which append the “long ending” to the “short ending” omit the final “Amen” of the “short ending” (Omanson, p 104). 5 For more on the textual evidence consult Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: United Bible Societies, 1994); Roger L. Omanson’s adaptation of Metzger noted above; Philip W. Comfort, New Testament Text and Translation Commentary (Carol Stream: Tyndale House, 2008); Craig A. Evans, Word Biblical Commentary: Mark 8:27 – 16:20 (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2001); Joel Marcus, The Anchor Yale Bible: Mark 8 – 16 (New Haven: Yale, 2009), etc. 6 This is based on my own admittedly very limited experience. 7 Comfort, p 161. 8 This is evident throughout his books, sermons and other materials. Of the many works I’ve studied/surveyed, none promote snake handling or the drinking of poison. 9 Bill Johnson, When Heaven Invades Earth: A Practical Guide to a Life of Miracles, (Shippensburg: Destiny Image, 2003 (first edition)), p 89; emphasis in original. I’m giving Johnson the benefit of the doubt that he’s speaking of the true Gospel, and not the differentiated “Gospel of the Kingdom” of some New Order of the Latter Rain and/or New Apostolic Reformation teachers and adherents, though the context strongly implies the latter, and he specifically uses the latter term in many places throughout the book. Probably the best place to find the delineation of the two terms is found in the glossary of Earl Paulk’s Ultimate Kingdom (Atlanta: K Dimension, 1984, p 335), in which “Gospel” is defined as [t]he good news of God’s redemption to man. [Luke 4:18, 9:6; Romans 1:16; Ephesians 6:15]; whereas, “Gospel of the Kingdom” is defined [t]he good news principles of daily life taught by Jesus that the Church must demonstrate as a witness to the world in order to return the rule of the earth to God. [Matthew 4:23, 9:35, 24:14] – in other words: Dominionism. Also, one must keep in mind that Johnson equates such signs as part of the “greater works” in John 14:12. See below. 10 Here Decker quotes from (as he cites quite a bit in his paper) James Kelhoffer (Miracle and Mission: The Authentication of Missionaries and Their Message in the Longer Ending of Mark, WUNT 2.112, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2000, p 450); Decker notes (p 10 n 42) that dates of 3rd to 6th century have been proposed for these two works. Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli, (Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature, A Literary History, Volume Two: From the Council of Nicea to the Beginning of the Medieval Period, Peabody: Hendrickson, 2005; English transl. Matthew J. O’Connell), claim “perhaps” 5th or 6th c. for Passion of John (“by Pseudo-Melito”) and “end of 6th c.” for Miracles of John (“included in the collection of Pseudo-Abdias”) [pp 221-222]. Both of these works apparently draw from the 3rd c. apocryphal work Acts of John, as Knut Schäferdiek (“The Acts of John”) in Wilhelm Schneemelcher (transl. R. McL. Wilson New Testament Apocrypha: Volume One: Gospels and Related Writings. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1990, English transl. James Clarke & Co. Ltd, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1991) notes, specifying that the Passio Iohannis “has taken up several narratives from the Acts of John in a considerably revised form” [p 154, cf. p 155]. Schäferdiek also largely agrees with Moreschini/Norelli regarding dates for Passion “which scarcely came into being before the middle of the 5th century” [p 154] and Miracles “which probably came into being in the late 6th century” [p 155]. 11 Schäferdiek in Schneemelcher, p 172. The Acts of John in Rome is a recension of Acts of John. The first 17 chapters of Acts of John are lost; the Acts of John in Rome has a total 14 chapters, in two recensions, written “not before the 4th century” [p 172]. 12 This further nuanced interpretation seems to be implied by Decker, but is not explicit – at least as I read him. Therefore, I take full responsibility; any errors in understanding Decker or in my exegesis are fully my own! But, note that the three apocryphal works referenced earlier do not seem to have another preaching the Gospel while John drank the poison. 13 Johnson, When Heaven Invades Earth, p 185; all emphasis in original (for those with later editions with different pagination, this is found in the chapter titled “This Present Revival” under the bolded heading GREATER WORKS). The Greek word is actually (transliterated) meizon, not mizon. Johnson prefaces this statement with a direct citation of John 14:12. Decker notes that some are of the opinion that the long ending can be paralleled with John 14:12, but he opines differently {pp 10-11}. For an in-depth look at Jesus’ words in this passage of Scripture, see CrossWise article Greater Works Shall You Do.
2008 was a banner year for the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR – what I term hyper-charismaticism) – at least until it was revealed that Todd Bentley was having an affair with his nanny and divorcing his wife, the mother of their two children (he and the nanny married later). From April 2nd until about August 11th of that year the so-called Lakeland Revival was headed by Todd Bentley. Bentley was, shall we say, “christened” by a number of NAR “Apostles” including C. Peter Wagner, Bill Johnson, Rick Joyner, Che Ahn, and others on June 23rd. It’s too bad for these “Apostles” that there wasn’t an NAR “Prophet” who could have foreseen the disaster that was Bentley’s adultery/divorce and subsequent remarriage. Perhaps all the NAR “Prophets” were deep in thought, otherwise busy, traveling, sleeping, etc. at the time (cf. 1 Kings 18:27-28)? But I digress.
The purpose of this article is to revisit some Manifest Sons of God (MSoG) teaching in order to educate those not quite understanding this particular doctrine, its ramifications, and how it fits into the larger scheme of things. Following are two examples from 2008.
On May 28, in a somewhat lengthy monologue, Bentley explicitly spoke of and promoted the MSoG doctrine. Here’s a portion:
Tonight is a crossing over and we have a moment,’ says the Lord, ‘where we can labor and travail until Christ is formed in you…
…I feel if we gave it a big push that we can literally form Christ – Christ in you. I’m talking about a maturing of what God has placed on the inside of your spirit. It’s gonna come out of the birth canal – it’s gonna come out of the womb – because there is a labor and there is a travailing that is going on in the spirit…
…And, we are saying LET THERE BE LIFE. And, there was life—speaking things into existence. I am talking about a creative realm… …Under the anointing you make a declaration and it forms tonight…
…We’re going to go back into travail right now until Christ is formed. God promised a day where heaven and earth must retain Him until the restoration of all things. Heaven will hold back the coming of Jesus Christ until sons and daughters come into maturity. It’s called the Manifestation of the sons of God.
Heaven will hold back the Second Coming… A mature church manifests the glory of God. A mature church manifests the Word of God in truth and power. A mature church walks in holiness and character. A mature church walks in miracle, signs, and wonders.
I’m talking about a maturity tonight – and it’s being formed in you. Let Christ be formed in maturity. Let the full man, let the fullness of God come forth, and let the womb open tonight…and let there be a great birthing…
The birthing, laboring, and travailing language is all part of the “birth of the man-child” doctrine, an important aspect of MSoG, as it’s the culmination of the teaching. According to this teaching, there will be ‘one new, perfect man’ (a perversion of Ephesians 4:13). This is the climax of Bentley’s monologue: “Let Christ be formed in maturity. Let the full man, let the fullness of God come forth, and let the womb open tonight…and let there be a great birthing…” The New Age / New Spirituality calls this the forthcoming “Corporate Christ”. MSoG doctrine is such that this “birth of the man-child” IS the Second Coming. This is paralleled in New Age / New Spirituality teachings (see below).
With the proceedings of Lakeland in full swing, Bob Jones spoke at a conference held at Heritage International Ministries Retreat Center, featuring Todd Bentley, Bob Jones, and Rick Joyner, on August 08th (DVD of this event sold through Rick Joyner’s MorningStar Ministries Media Store, item # TS50, “Todd Bentley Healing and Impartation Service, 08-08-08”). Here’s an excerpt of his monologue:
The New Breed is just simply the body of Christ is gonna grow up…What He’s [God’s] doing now is bringing you to a level of maturity where you grow up…So, what he’s talking about is; the New Breed is this: it’s Romans 1:4 – the spirit of holiness. So, for years I tried to get understanding of what the spirit of holiness is for it’s different than the Holy Spirit [ED: YIKES!].
So, last Saturday, He spoke to me about a New Breed of people. And, He said, ‘I don’t want to get in front of them, I want you to get behind them. They’ll be close to the ages of 25 and 40… this is who the New Breed is.’
…The New Breed will be those that are partaker of the divine nature. 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-a-way 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. Then, he began to tell me that those who have [sic] partaker of his divine nature shall be a friend with God – John 15:15…
So, that divine nature is a friend. It’s really Paul’s prayer. I believe God is answering Paul’s prayer in Galatians 4:19 ‘I travail for you, I pray for you until Christ be formed in you.’There are Christians on the earth now that are growing in maturity to where Christ is being formed in you. If Christ is being formed in you then when you speak you’ll speak as Christ did. And, you’ll have also authority in this. Then, in this He was saying ‘this then will be a generation that will do nothing apart from the Father.’ So, I think the main thing you’re getting ready for is a generation for the fathers to come back in. And, I think the first one that’s gonna come back is Papa. For Jesus came back over…2000 years ago, The Holy Spirit came over 100 years ago [ED: apparently a reference to Azuza Street], this last revelation is who your Daddy is. And, I think this is what’s getting ready – is Papa’s getting ready to reveal his family. And, His family, what He lacks in you is what was in His Son. So, there are those who’s gonna begin to shine like the Son. And, that divine nature will have authority over all the works of the enemy…
I’ve been back here 33 years today [ED: Jones is speaking about his own purported death and resuscitation experience]. 33 years ago I stood before the Lord. I looked into His eyes. To be honest with ya, I didn’t want to come back because it had been so hard. But, He asked… He told me,” if you’ll go back you’ll see the greatest wave of all time in evangelism. I’m gonna bring over a billion youth into myself.” Now, these that’s between 25 and 40 are youth leaders. Getting ready for a birthing of youth beyond anything you’ve ever seen before…And, what he’s after now is the 25 to 40’s which are harvesters…So, get ready. Things have changed. The New Breed – let’s get behind them. For they’re gonna bring the youth behind them. It’s a change of times. The torch is being transferred from the old generation to this 25 to 40. This is the New Breed.
We won’t go into all the issues in Jones’ awful use of Scripture (that was done here). The main reason in putting both Bentley’s and Jones’ MSoG teachings on the same page is to show the reader what to look for in the teachings of others. With this in mind, re-read (or read for the first time) the two previous CrossWise articles (here and here) and look for similarities. Let’s discuss.
But, before doing so, ponder on the words of Alice A. Bailey – occultist, New Ager, the willing vehicle of the channeled writings of “Djwhal Khul”:
More explicitly, here’s Barbara Marx Hubbard in her work The Book of Co-Creation: The Revelation, Our Crisis is a Birth [Foundation for Conscious Evolution, Sonoma, CA, 1993 (first edition)] with even more alarming tie-ins to Bentley’s and Jones’ messages above (and others who’ve taught MSoG in hyper-charismaticism). In a section titled The Marriage of Christ and Eve, she begins by referencing the Virgin Birth and the fact that Christ raised Himself from the dead – at least she affirms Jesus Christ’s role in His own resurrection, contrary to Bill Johnson and others who claim it was “the Father by the Spirit” – wondering: “Are we moving beyond sexual reproduction and preprogrammed death?” [p 55].
In order for “Eve” to marry Christ, one’s body must be prepared to transform, to regenerate itself…
If we are approaching a new “normalcy,” normalizing in ourselves what Christ could do, as the next stage in our evolution, then do we have the innate ability, as a proto-universal species, to “become mothers to ourselves,” giving birth to ourselves as fully evolved humans?… [p 56. Emphasis added.]
Marx Hubbard ponders this and other questions until she receives a “revelation” about her own previous “birth experience”, which she records in a journal:
“The benign presence I sensed in my planetary birth experience was the Christ. The light that surrounded the Earth and awakened us was the Christ-light. The light that arose within us was the Christ-light that dwells in every one of us! [p 56. Bold in original]”
She then explains:
The Christ “act” – to do the work that he did – is a new kind of resurrection and transformation at the dawn of the next stage of evolution.
The marriage of Christ and Eve happens at the Second Coming. It is in real time, like his birth. It is an event in history [p 56. Emphasis added.]
Recall the words of many in hyper-charismaticism, such as this one example by Bill Johnson: Jesus is returning for a bride whose body is in equal proportion to her head [as referenced here]. Also, consider Mike Bickle of the International House of Prayer in Kansas City, MO, with his emphasis on the so-called “Bridal Paradigm”, in which Jesus is “love-sick for His Bride”.
Later in this same book Marx Hubbard goes through the Book of Revelation [skipping 6:3-8, though this is covered in an unpublished manuscript of this work, as quoted from here], claiming new revelation from “Higher Voices”. In the following these “Voices” ‘expound’ on Revelation 9:15-16, 18-21, bringing “new revelation”:
The alternative to Armageddon is the Planetary Pentecost. When a critical mass are in the upper room of consciousness on a planetary scale, each will hear from within, in their own language, the mighty words of God. All who are attuned will be radically empowered to be and do as Jesus did. If those people who are not self-centered align their thoughts in perfect faith, that they are whole, created in the image of God, the world can be saved. [p 147. Emphasis in original.]
Obviously, we know that God will not change His Word and save the whole world. But, note the similarities of this to various teachers within hyper-charismaticism. Note the hyper-charismatic call to unity at the expense of sound doctrine. Recall Jones’ (and others) teaching that there will be a “billion souls saved”. Are these actually a billion souls lost to the New Age / New Spirituality “Jesus”?
Reader, I implore you, please read the words of Bentley and Jones then compare to the words of Marx Hubbard and Bailey.
NOTE: The Barbara Marx Hubbard material was reprised in a later book titled The Revelation: A Message of Hope for the New Millennium [Nataraj Publishing, Novato, CA, 1995], with the pagination a bit different from above.
The following transcription comes from a sermon on 12/20/09 titled Jesus Is Our Model1 from Bill Johnson of Bethel Church. This is the same one which contains Bill Johnson’s infamous “Jesus was born again” statement.2 This time we’re taking a closer look at a different and more lengthy portion of this sermon.
Before proceeding, a brief review of the Trinity may be in order. The first Person of the Trinity is God the Father, the second Person is God the Son, and the third Person is God the Holy Spirit. Orthodox Christianity affirms that each member of the Trinity has the divine attributes of omnipotence (being all-powerful), omniscience (possessing all knowledge), omnipresence (being everywhere present),3 immutability (inability to change, divine constancy), and other divine properties, in distinction from humanity. For our purposes, even more needs to be said on the second Person.
The Gospel of John describes the second Person of the Trinity as the Logos, “the Word”, who was “with God” in the beginning and who was (and is) God [John 1:1-2]. Then, the Logos, the Word “became flesh” and dwelt among us [John 1:14]. That is, the eternal Word, the second Person of the Trinity, entered our temporal realm as God in the flesh – fully/truly man and fully/truly God. Jesus Christ is the one, unique “Word made flesh”.
With our brief review completed, we can proceed with the selected statement of Bill Johnson. In the following selection, ALL CAPS indicates words/phrases in which Johnson himself is being emphatic; underlining is added to bring the reader’s attention to something deemed important towards understanding Johnson’s overall statement. Interspersed throughout the selected transcription is some explanatory commentary as well as some questions (in green text) which comprise this “challenge”.
To participate in this challenge, simply copy and paste the question(s) you’d like to answer into the comment box with your answer(s) following. You may answer any or all questions, but please keep each individual comment relatively brief with one or perhaps two questions and your responses in each comment box. Any comment which does not attempt to answer a question constituting this challenge may be summarily deleted, unless it is in response to another’s comment. Please view the Before You Comment tab if you are new to commenting on CrossWise.
First, we’ll provide the transcription in full, and, following that, we’ll repeat the selection, breaking it down into smaller sections while adding the related commentary and questions.
Here’s the complete selected text in order to provide full, uninterrupted context. Johnson begins by describing Jesus’ testing in the wilderness in Luke 4, quoting from the NKJV:
…Look at verse 3, “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 was. Verse 3, “the devil said to Him, IF you are the Son of God’.” What did it say in verse 22, chapter 3? “YOU are My beloved Son.” “In YOU I am well pleased”. What was his first temptation? “IF you are the Son of God”.
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 person. They’ve not been prepared for what God is saying and doing. And, then it says “for when tribulation or persecution arises because of the WORD [ED: 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?
The Scripture, 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.4
Now, here’s the same selection broken down a bit for our challenge:
…Look at verse 3, “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 was. Verse 3, “the devil said to Him, IF you are the Son of God’.” What did it say in verse 22, chapter 3? “YOU are My beloved Son.” “In YOU I am well pleased”. What was his first temptation? “IF you are the Son of God”.
In this first section, by Johnson’s context, to whom or what does “WORD of God” refer: Jesus Himself, the written Word (Scripture), the Father’s words spoken over Jesus following Baptism, or a combination of some or all of these? Explain.
Considering the Biblical context of Luke 4:1-13, how did Jesus Christ answer the devil in each of the three temptations? Which kind of “Word” does Jesus refer in each of His answers? Is each response a different kind, is one different from the other two, or are all the responses the same kind of “Word”?
Take note how Johnson relates the Father’s words “You are My beloved Son” and “In You I am well pleased” from Luke 3:22 to his interpretation of Luke 4:3-4, which is that the devil’s temptation was “to question who He was”, and how Johnson then proceeds to correspond this to Matthew 13 [verses 18-23] as “Jesus explains this later to the disciples”:
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 person. They’ve not been prepared for what God is saying and doing. And, then it says “for when tribulation or persecution arises because of the WORD [ED: 3 second pause following 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?
Given that Johnson has started this section with “Jesus explains this later”, how exactly does Matthew 13 ‘explain’ how the first temptation of Jesus in the wilderness [Luke 4:3] “was to question Who He was”?
Did Jesus Christ potentially have ‘no root in Himself’? In what way is it possible, or is it impossible, that Jesus could be in a position to ‘hear the Word but there was no depth in His Person’?
Is it possible Jesus could have been in any position in which He had “not been prepared for what God is saying and doing”? Explain.
Could Jesus have ‘stumbled’ due to “tribulation or persecution because of the WORD”?
In Johnson’s question “Do I honor what God has declared over my life or not?” it’s clear that Johnson is referring to himself and/or his audience as ‘believers’. Does this mean Johnson is referring to the words spoken over Jesus by the Father in Luke 3:22 and that these words will be ‘declared over’ the believer’s life; or, does he mean some other declaration?
From a Biblical perspective, does Matthew 13 even apply to Jesus at all? If not, then to whom does Matthew 13 apply? Explain.
Finishing up the selection:
The Scripture, 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.
Taking the full context of this selection of Bill Johnson’s Jesus is Our Model message, is the “Word of God” (“Word of the Lord”) used in the second and third parts of the transcription the same as the “WORD of God” in the first part (from Johnson’s interpretation of the NKVJ of Luke 4:4)? Why or why not?
Could Jesus have succumbed to other IDEALS, VOICES, and/or WORDS and therefore have ‘choked out’ the Word of God? Explain.
Is there Biblical support for Johnson’s assertion that the Word of God is “the most powerful thing in the universe”? If so, cite chapter(s) and verse(s).
Is the “Word of God” more powerful than the Trinity or any one Person of the Trinity? Explain.
From a Biblical perspective, what is meant by “Word” in Matthew 13:21-23 when put in the full context of Matthew 13:1-23, i.e. does it refer to new revelation from God, the written Word (Scripture), the Gospel, Jesus Christ as the Word made flesh, something else, or a combination of some or all of these? Explain.
Does Bill Johnson’s statement in any way affirm that Jesus Christ is the one, unique “Word made flesh”; and, if so, how? If not, then does this selection actually affirm the converse, i.e., that Jesus Christ is not the one, unique “Word made flesh”; and, if so, how?
This “sperma of God” concept of Bill Johnson is rather difficult to unravel by the context. It seems that everyone, or every potential ‘believer’, has “soil” within which contains a “seed”. The “sperma of God” is the same as “the seed of God’s Word” which is then released into the ‘seed’ of the individual, which is in the individual’s ‘soil’. Thus, there appears to be two “seeds”: one is “the seed of God’s Word”/“the sperma of God”/”Word of God”; the other is the “seed” within the “soil” of the individual which may be brought to life by this “seed of God’s Word”/”sperma of God”/“Word of God”.
Please note that Biblically it’s only “the farmer” [13:3-4] with seed who then ‘scatters’ it, with it falling either: “along the path” to be eaten by birds [v 4], i.e. snatched by the evil one [v 19]; on rocky places in shallow soil with the resulting plants scorched “because they had no root” [vv 5-6] lasting only for “a short time” [vv 20-21]; among thorns which choked the resulting plants [v 7] due to the “worries of life” and “deceitfulness of wealth” [v 22], or on good soil where it produced a crop of “a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown” [vv 8, 23].
However, there is an occult/New Age concept in which all things have a divine seed/spark/‘”Christ” within’,5 which may be ‘activated’ to grow by “the Word” aka “the Christ”. That is, there is a “Christ” without:
Christ is the Logos [Word] of Infinities and through the Word alone are Thought and Force made manifest.6
And, there is a “Christ” within:
…Now Christ, the universal Love, pervades all spaces of infinity…7
The above quotes are taken from Levi Dowling’s 1907 book titled The Aquarian Gospel of Jesus the Christ. The ‘Christ without’ is the only vehicle through which all things were made;8 hence, it could be called “the most powerful thing in the universe”.
The following provides some more explanation:
Perfection is the ultimate of life. A seed is perfect in its embryotic life, but it is destined to unfold, to grow.
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…9
These “seeds” (‘Christ within’) were cast into all of creation from the very beginning. The goal, then, is for each person (and thing) to listen to the “Word” aka the ‘Christ without’ in order for “Thought and Force” to be “made manifest”, thus activating the seed/spark/‘Christ within’, with the goal of growing to “perfection” by transcending the outer material ‘shell’ with only the ‘divine’ remaining.
In this occult/New Age conception, Jesus is not actually the Christ as in the Jesus Christ of Scripture. Jesus was merely a man (but a special man) who, like all of mankind, had the ‘Christ within’; conversely, “Christ” is ‘God’ as part of a false Trinity. Jesus’ ‘Christ within’ was activated by the “Christ Spirit” (the ‘Christ without’) when it descended upon Him as a dove. At this point, Jesus received the “official title” of “Christ” and became known as “Jesus the Christ”, with “Christ” referring to His office.10
This Jesus is but man who has been fitted by temptations overcome, by trials multiform, to be the temple through which the Christ can manifest to men.11
Thus, He began the journey to become “the Christ” for our current era/aeon, which was not fully consummated until Ascension. At Ascension, He became the fully divine “Master Jesus”, and as such, He became the pattern for all to follow towards the attainment of self-deity/divinity.12
This leads to the final question of this challenge:
Keeping in mind the title of Johnson’s message – Jesus is Our Model – and the entire content of the selected transcript, could this be an adaptation of the occult/New Age concept described above? Why or why not?
[Updated! 09/16/12. New “word” from Bob Jones on Joel’s Army both on the Elijah List and Jones’ own site. See below.]
This weekend Chuck D. Pierce, President of Global Spheres, Inc., is hosting the “Head of the Year Celebration” at his Global Spheres Center in Corinth, Texas. The full title of the conference, to commence September 20 and conclude on the 23rd, is From Recovery to Wholeness: A Year to Bridge the Past and Enter the Future. Since this upcoming year will be 5773 on the Jewish calendar, Pierce is claiming this is the ‘year of the camel’ as the number 3 in Hebrew was originally pictured as a camel. Speakers to include Pierce, C. Peter Wagner, Dutch Sheets, Jay Swallow, Trevor Baker, “Bishop” Bill Hamon, Paul Keith Davis, Venner Alston, Mark Chironna, Avner & Rachel Boskey, Rania Sayegh, Jeff Jansen and Robert Heidler.
The event is billed with the usual superlatives: “This is a time to keep your feet moving and go beyond where you have been in the past, until you drink and eat of the produce of your promise! The Kingdom of God will become the greatest influence in the earth realm.”
The subjects to be discussed at the Conference are the following:
See the Camels Coming to Bring the Rewards and Reimbursements for Our Sorrows!
Find Our Way of Escape from the Past!
Cross the Bridge of the Past and Enter the Glory of the Future!
Neutralize the Enemy’s Power, Recover Lost Strength, and Nourish Us into WHOLENESS!
See the Priesthood for this Hour Blossom!
Grow Up and Mature into One New Man!
Bring the Impoverished into a New Dimension of Prosperity!
I wish to focus on numbers 3 and 6.
To “Cross the Bridge of the Past and Enter the Glory of the Future” is very likely referring to fully accessing the power of the first century Apostles and ‘bridging’ this to our future ‘glory’. “Glory” in the hyper-charismatic / New Order of the Latter Rain sense means the erroneous and heretical notion of the attainment to the fullness of manifested sons of God/Joel’s Army such that these ‘elites’ will have received their glorified, resurrection bodies on the earth – contrary to 1st Corinthians 15:20-28, 50-54. These ‘glorified elites’ will possess powers exceeding those of the REAL 1st century Apostles with an even greater authority. These manifested sons of God (MSoG) will have the ‘divine’ authority to execute judgment and exact punishment upon those in opposition as explained by “Bishop” Bill Hamon (the “R-T” in the following means Resurrection-Translation):
…The positive purpose of the R-T is to enable the army of the Lord [Joel’s Army, or MSoG militant] to finalize the war against all evil. The army of the Lord will progress on in the war until they have accomplished all they can in their limited mortal bodies. The R-T is for the purpose of immortalizing their bodies. This will remove all the earthly limitations, thereby enabling the saints unlimited abilities. They will be able to travel in all space realms of the heavenlies the same as Jesus and the angels do now. They can move in and out of all dimensions of the natural and spiritual realms as Jesus did in His resurrected flesh-and-bone body.1
God’s great end-time army is being prepared to execute God’s written Judgments with Christ’s victory and divine judgment decrees that have already been established in heaven. The time is set when they will be administered and executed on earth through God’s saintly army. All that is destined and needed will be activated during God’s restorational Army of the Lord Movement…2
The “One New Man” is a reference to the hyper-charismatic / New Order of the Latter Rain doctrine of Christ’s “second coming” – the full-on heretical doctrine that Christ will only return IN a perfected body of believers culminating in this “One New Man” (also known as the “birth of the man-child”). This is what Hamon is referring to in the above. Two recent examples incorporating both of these false teachings (numbers 3 and 6 above) are: 1) Bill Johnson’s tweet from August 20, 2011 in which he states, “Jesus is returning for a bride whose body is in equal proportion to his head”, and, 2) Bob Jones statement at the 2011 “Piercing the Darkness Conference” held at Johnson’s Bethel Church, “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.’”3
Bill Johnson spoke on a “corporate anointing” – otherwise known as the “Corporate Christ” concept, which is the same as this “One New Man” – at Bethel about 2 years ago:
…Here’s what I’m believing for – I know it’s never happened; but, I know that it must before the end. There must be, not just individuals – I’m thankful we have individuals that are rising up with such anointing, such strength, we have people scattered all over the planet right now that are just making a mess of things in all the right ways. We are so encouraged. But, what I’m believing for is a generation – a generation that’ll rise up with a corporate faith, a corporate anointing to press into realms because it’s my conviction that as much as God put on a William Branham, or a Kathryn Kuhlman, or a Wigglesworth, He’ll put far greater anointing on a company of people than He ever would on an individual. To do that, there must be that corporate sense of, ‘we have to deal with the issue of obeying the rules of this kingdom to tap into the resources of this kingdom’…we cannot use the principles of this world and expect to tap into unlimited resource of the kingdom of God…4
A new “word” on ‘Joel’s Army’ was just posted on Bob Jones’ site and the Elijah List using Joel 2:1-11 as the proof-text. Paul Cain used these verses for Joel’s Army back in the late ’80s, though this is now denied. The following purportedly came out of an August 18, 2012 trance Bob Jones went in to while napping:
Shortly there will be a war that I will declare and it will be a great victory! For I am going to hire mercy-naries you see and I shall pay well when they work for Me. Health and peace of mind will be their pay and joy they never knew. Money will be the least of things for I will prosper them in all ways. Mercy-naries are professional soldiers that have fought in many lands and fought in many battles. They are well trained in the sword you see. The word of God I will put in them and that will be their victory. They shall know defeat no longer but they shall be victorious. They shall know honor in Me. There will be no defeat for them. They are warriors and I will give them the victory. My pay to them shall be love, joy and peace that they will have within themselves. This shall be the tip of the sword of which they touch many. They have been warriors in many religious churches. Now I call them unto “the church” and they will have a victory in Me. Amen. [Bold in original; underscore added.]
It is claimed that those chosen to be in this army “have fought in many battles and [have been] scarred by the religious spirit. This religious spirit will no longer be able to touch them because they have been healed and delivered from it.” Jones goes on to quote from Joel 2:1, then he declares:
These are the days Joel prophesied! The Father will blow the trumpet in Zion and call His army into formation. (Amos 1:1) These are not battle weary soldiers but warriors well-armed in the power of the word and the fear of the Lord. They march forward in the might of the Holy Spirit never breaking rank. They never strive against one another but move in unity forming God’s most powerful army.
Bob Jones continues to quote the Book of Joel moving to 2:7-10 (the following is in the NASB):
7 They run like mighty men,
They climb the wall like soldiers;
And they each march in line,
Nor do they deviate from their paths. 8 They do not crowd each other,
They march everyone in his path;
When they burst through the defenses,
They do not break ranks. 9 They rush on the city,
They run on the wall;
They climb into the houses,
They enter through the windows like a thief. 10 Before them the earth quakes,
The heavens tremble,
The sun and the moon grow dark
And the stars lose their brightness.
This is followed by a section boldly titled God is Declaring War!:
The Father declares war but the mercenaries fight it at His command. We are the soldiers of fortune on this land. Our fortune is to do His Will. There will be great prosperity in His peace of mind, joy and love. The voice of the Father is the only one they will hear as they march forward into battle. Their life is spent on doing the Father’s will. Not one will cower to the fear of man or be led astray by the enemy.
This “word” is completed by finishing the section in Joel:
11 The Lord utters His voice before His army;
Surely His camp is very great,
For strong is he who carries out His word.
The day of the Lord is indeed great and very awesome,
And who can endure it? [NASB]
These ideas have parallels in New Age / New Spirituality teachings. Here’s a quote from Alice Bailey from a century ago referencing the “Corporate Christ” concept corresponding to a false second Coming:
…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…5
Here’s another New Age / New Spirituality site proclaiming a similar thing specifying that when this ‘Christ’ “reappears” (the belief is he never left), he will appear in 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.6
Barbara Marx Hubbard, former US Vice Presidential candidate (in 1984, although Geraldine Ferraro ultimately made it on the Democratic ticket) and staunch New Ager, explicated a radical version of “Joel’s Army” in an unpublished manuscript from 1980 referencing Revelation 6:7-8 with the ‘pale horse’ of verse 8 representing those “elected to transcend with all their heart, mind and spirit”.7 This pale horse will “kill with sword” (Rev 6:8) the one-fourth of the population which refuses to “evolve” with the rest, deemed the “self-centered”8 – those who will fail to join the others into making the next evolutionary leap from homo sapiens sapiens to homo universalis (Universal Humanity). Compare the following to Hamon’s and Jones’ words above:
Before this stage of power can be inherited by the God-centered members of the social-body, the self-centered members must be destroyed. There is no alternative. Only the God-centered can evolve…
Fortunately, you, dearly beloveds, are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God’s selection process for planet Earth. He selects, we destroy. We are the riders of the pale horse, Death.
We come to bring death to those who are unable to know God. We do this for the sake of the world…
The riders of the pale horse are about to pass among you. Grim reapers, they will separate the wheat from the chaff. This is the most painful period in the history of humanity.
Those of you who know what is happening – the one-fourth who are now listening to the higher self – are to be guides for the rest who will be panicked and confused.9
Is this the sort of thing Bill Hamon, Bob Jones and the other hyper-charismatic leaders of the New Apostolic Reformation have in mind for those Christians who refuse to unify with their false belief system? Must the earth be purged of those “self-centered” Christians – the ones who will not unify with these false ecumenical, pluralistic efforts – to pave the way for the “One New Man”? Placing Hamon’s and Jones’ quotes above alongside Marx Hubbard’s, one must really wonder which side Hamon, Jones and their cohorts are really on.
It seems that, just like Marx Hubbard’s theology, there must be a battle to get rid of those “self-centered” Christians with a “religious spirit” before the “One New Man” can emerge. That is, this war must be fought before “Christ” can ‘return’ “IN his people” after which they become collectively “One New Man” a/k/a homo universalis (Universal Humanity).
In his book, When Heaven Invades Earth: A Practical Guide to a Life of Miracles [Treasure House/Destiny Image, 2003, Shippensburg, PA], Bill Johnson teaches New Order of the Latter Rain (NOLR) doctrine, a teaching denounced as heresy by the Assemblies of God (A/G) in 1948. This teaching includes Dominionism – that Adam lost dominion of the world to Satan, Jesus won it back, and it’s up to the church to wrestle it from Satan [pp 31-33 (all page #s from 1st edition)]. Integral to NOLR doctrine is the Manifested Sons of God (MSoG) teaching which includes diminishing Jesus Christ to a mere man having surrendered His divinity when the Word became flesh (at the Incarnation) and subsequently re-attaining His deity at the Resurrection. This is by virtue of the heretical kenosis doctrine (self-emptying) using Philippians 2:5-7 as a proof-text [pp 79, 85 fn. 3].
In “His self-imposed restriction to live as a man” [p 29], Johnson claims that Jesus “had NO supernatural capabilities whatsoever” [p 29] clearly reducing Jesus to a man given that God is in very essence supernatural. Even though Johnson makes the statement, “[w]hile He is 100 percent God, He chose to live with the same limitations that man would face once He [sic?] was redeemed” [p 29] Johnson negates this with “He had No supernatural capabilities whatsoever” and “He laid his [sic] divinity aside as He sought to fulfill the assignment given to Him by the Father…” [p 79]. One could construe Johnson’s “while He is 100 percent God” statement as present tense as opposed to past tense (i.e., during the Incarnation) especially in light of his numerous statements pronouncing Christ’s humanity at the expense of His deity including “the anointing is what linked Jesus, the man, to the divine enabling Him to destroy the works of the devil” [p 79].
This diminution of Jesus Christ’s deity is crucial to MSoG doctrine as Jesus “became the model” [p 29] for all to follow “to do as He did and become as He was” [p 138] in order to attain our own divinity as fully manifested sons (and daughters) of God. This glorification of mankind is spoken of by distorting I John 4:17, “As a sculptor looks at a model and fashions the clay into its likeness, so the Holy Spirit looks to the glorified Son and shapes us into His image. As He is, so are we in this world” [p 145]. According to NOLR doctrine, Jesus can only return once the ‘church’ body receives this perfection as his tweet on August 20, 2011 illustrates: “Jesus is returning for a bride whose body is in equal proportion to her head.”
Bill Johnson also claims that Jesus did not receive the title of Christ until His baptism by John in the Jordan [p 79] which is at odds with Luke 1:35/2:11. And, while at the very beginning of chapter 7 he states correctly that “Christ” means “Anointed One” or “Messiah” [p 79], he subsequently changes “Christ” to mean simply “the anointing” – an anointing that all can receive [pp 80, 133-35] even describing it as tangible and transferable [p 135]. He is more explicit in his book Face to Face with God describing Jesus’ baptism in the Jordan as the ‘baptism of the Holy Spirit’ [pp 21-22, 58, 77-80]: “The baptism 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” [p 77, Face to Face]. To be clear, Johnson is referring to this as a second ‘baptism.’
While the Greek word Christos is translated primarily as anointed in the Old Testament, in the New Testament Christos is translated each and every time as “Christ” referring exclusively to the person of Jesus Christ our Savior. To change the definition of “Christ”, as in the person of Jesus Christ, to “anointing” is to pave the way for all to be “Christed” as the “Christ anointing” quote above in Face to Face with God makes clear.
Johnson goes on to claim that all those against ‘the anointing’ – i.e., ‘the anointing’ as he defines it – are antichrist. This is illustrated in the following two statements: “The spirits of hell are against the anointing, for without the anointing mankind is no threat to their dominion” [p 80] and, “The spirit of antichrist is at work today, attempting to influence believers to reject everything that has to do with the Holy Spirit’s anointing” [p 81] (see here for more details).
Bill Johnson is leading many into apostasy and my heart grieves for these. May the Lord have mercy upon us all.
CrossWise 
Recent Comments