Happy Mothers Day: A Happy Mother from 7 AD

In the previous blog I wrote about a complaining mother who complained that her son was not sending any letter nor visiting her. In another letter, BGU 16.2617, a mother called, Tryphas send a letter to her son, Athenodoros about some goods. This letter was weitten abiut 7 BC and that it was found in Abusir el-Melek.

Unlike P. Berenike 2.129, thus letter shows a mother writing a happy letter to a son who not only had been (possibly) sending letters but also some goods for his mom. This mother acknowledged that she received "forty tree trunks and one and thirteen jars" while also displaying her delight. She says:

"Tryphas to Athenodoros her son, many greetings and prosper always as I pray. I received what you sent, and I secured them by myself, forty tree trunks and one, and thirteen jars. Greet my lady daughters Tryphas and Artemis. Above all, take care of yourself so that you may be well, which is my greatest prayer with all the gods. Farewell. Year 23 of Caesar, Epeiph 17."

Interesting that she mentions, "above all, take care of yourself so that you may be well, which is my greatest prayer with all the gods." A content mother's only wish is the well being of her children. This is so beautifully mentioned in BGU 16.2617.

Happy Mothers Day: Mothers from Today and from Ancient Rome

On the Mother's Day let me also show how mothers were in the first century Roman world. I think they were no different from our moms today.

One complain all mothers always say is that we dont call them much and that we dont spend much time with them. Mothers in the 1st century Roman world also had similar complains.

One such letter of a mother called Hikane is found in Berenike called P. Berenike 2.129. It was a papyrus from the 50-75 AD, found among the rubbles displaying a mother's anguish. The mother was writing to her son, Isidoros that he was not writing any letter back to her. She had to remind him that she carried him for "10 months" in her womb and that she nursed him for 3 years. The major complain of this mom is that the son doesn't write back.

I wondered why she has to remind him of her motherly duties just for a letter. Is a letter more important to her that she had to remind her son that she carried him for 10 months and that she nursed him for 3 years? Yes, for a mom the letter from her child is more important than anything in the world. And she would use any thing as a persuasion in order to receive a letter.

Here is the letter:

"[Hikane] to Isidoros [her son, greetings. First of all] I thought it necessary, since the packet boat was putting out to sea, to write . . . me. I am in Berenike. I wrote you a letter [?but did not receive a] letter. Was it for this that I carried you for ten months and nursed you for three years, so that you would be incapable of remembering me by letter? And similarly you dimissed me though the Oasites . . . not I you. But I left your brothers in Arabia . . . so that . . Egypt I might see your face and . . . breath. I only ask and beg and adjure you by the one whom you . . . and by the memory of the one who begot you, to sail away if you are well. I . . . I ask and beg you . . . Save your brother. For I have no one . . . Epaphras greets you warmly . . . and those who love us. [Year . ., month] 24. (Verso) Deliver. Hikane to Isidoros her son, harborman."

She also seems to have sacrificed much to see "his face." In addition, she asks him to send letter, and (or) possibly visit ("sail away"), and to save his brother (whatever that means). She uses three verbs "I only ask and beg and adjure you," and that in the name of a god, possibly by whose grace he was born. Therefore, the mother persuades the son with much persuasion that he must do his duties (responsibilities). First of which is to write a letter to his mom; the second is to visit her possibly; and the third is to save his sibling(s). This must be the request of any mom of anytime: write, visit, and take care of her other children.

The mothers of our time are not so different after all from the mothers of 1st century Rome. So, let us write, visit and take care of our siblings to honor the wishes of our mothers. In 2017, let us watsapp, or make video call, and buy some gifts and coupons (not just for our mom but also for our siblings) to honor our moms. Happy Mothers Day everyone.

John the Baptist, the Foil: Complementary Comparative Characterization in Luke 1-4

Can we call the character of John the Baptist in Luke 1 to 3 as a foil? A foil character is none but the one who plays as a foil to the concerned character to highlight certain characteristic features. Many times the foil characters are considered as contrast characters. Adele Berlin considers this kind of characterization as contrast characterization (Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 24.). However, I prefer to call this as comparative characterization. Not all comparisons are contrastive in nature. In many instances comparisons are done among the similar things. Therefore, to call all comparative characterizations as contrastive comparative characterization is not appropriate. A very good example is found in Luke 1-4.

Similar to the structure of comparative characterization of Samuel and Eli’s sons in 1 Samuel 1 & 2, Luke structures the characterization of Jesus in between the birth narratives of John the Baptist. Gabriel announces John’s birth to Zechariah and he is conceived (1:5-25); Gabriel announces Jesus’ birth to Mary (1:26-38); Mary meets Elizabeth and Fetus John meets Fetus Jesus (1:39-45); Mary sings a songs (1:46-56); John the Baptist is born and he is named (57-68); Zechariah sings a prophecy (67-80); Finally, Jesus is born in Bethlehem (2:1-7). From Luke 1:5 onwards until 2:7 the story of Jesus’ birth is kept in comparison with the birth narrative of John the Baptist. Though John the Baptist plays a foil to Jesus' character in these narratives he is not portrayed as a contrastive character but a complementary one to bring out Jesus as the promised Messiah. This is called as complementary comparative characterization. 

In Luke 3-4, John ministers in the wilderness (3:4) while Jesus starts his ministry with the temptation in the wilderness (4:1). John’s gospel is about poor (3:10-14). Similarly, Jesus’s Gospel is also about the poor (4:18). In spite of all these, John was arrested by Herod (Luke 3:18-20). Similarly Jesus was rejected in his hometown (4:22-29). These parallels validate the comparisons kept between Jesus and John, not as contrastive but complementary.

Mutual complementary comparative characterization is two characters, both playing as foil simultaneously for the characterization of the other. In this way both characters are being characterized by the same time both characters function as foils for the other. The question is this: Could John the Baptist and Jesus both function as foil to each other so that both of them could be characterized simultaneously? For this we must know the purpose of the comparisons. Does John the Baptist function only as a foil to bring about the characterization of Jesus or is he also being showcased alongside Jesus. Does John’s mere presence in the narrative is only to validate Jesus’ Messiahship or is he also presented as a major character of equal importance to Jesus. If the latter is true then we must say John’s portrayal in the narrative is mutual complementary comparative characterization. But if it is the former then it is not. This will also be one of the concerns of this paper.

Comparative Characterization in the Book of Hebrews: Abstract

Characterization is nothing but the way a character is characterized. An author may use various means to characterize a character. Among them, the author may compare a character with another character so as to bring out a characteristic trait. I call this method as comparative characterization (Comparative Characterization in the Sermon on the Mount, Wipf and Stock, 2017). The compared character can be a contrastive character like Saul for David or complementary character like John the Baptist to Jesus. I call the former as contrastive comparative characterization and the latter as complementary comparative characterization. In this paper, the book of Hebrews will be interpreted using both these comparative characterizations to see their function in the characterization of Jesus.

It is assumed that comparisons are used to characterize Jesus in a better way. Both contrastive and complementary characters are used in comparison with Jesus. The book of Hebrews is full of comparisons. In fact, the book starts with comparisons from Heb 1:1 onwards. Heb 1:1-2 shows the way the author uses comparisons in his book. In 1:1, he says, “long ago.” Similarly, in 1:2, he compares this with “in these days.” In 1:1, “God spoke to the fathers” but now he speaks to “us”. In 1:1, God spoke “at many times and in many ways,” but now God speaks only in one-way that is through his Son (1:2). In 1:1, the agents of God’s speaking to the forefathers were prophets but now the agent is His Son himself (1:2). Comparisons in these two verses are quite apparent. 1:1 is totally contrasted with 1:2a. This is the beauty of the use of comparisons. The words (1:2b-3) following 1:2a characterizes Jesus with direct and indirect descriptive characterization. This shows that the objective of use of comparisons in 1:1-2a is to characterize the Son.

 The comparisons of Jesus with the angels run from 1:4 to 1:9. The Son becomes Superior than the angels (1:4). Unlike the angels the Son is worshipped, even by the angels (1:6). While angels are just winds and fire (1:7) the Son’s throne exists forever (1:8a). In 1:9, God anoints the Son with the oil of gladness as he loved righteousness and hated wickedness “beyond his companions” (angels?) (1:9).

Similarly, comparisons are found throughout the book. In 1:10-12, the Son, who is forever, is compared with his creation, which will perish. From 1:13 to 2:9, the Son is compared and contrasted with the angels. In 3:1-19, the Son is contrasted with Moses, for “He was counted worthy of more glory than Moses” (3.3). 4:8-9 shows the Son being compared with Joshua who functions as complementary character displaying complementary comparative characterization. From 4:14 to 10:25, the Son is contrasted with earthly high priest. In 5:6 to 7:17, the characterization of the Son is complemented with the characterization of Melchizedek. In addition, the author of Hebrews compares and contrasts old covenant (8:1) and new covenant (10:25). Therefore, complementary comparative characterization and contrastive comparative characterization will help in interpreting the book of Hebrews.

Rape, Chastity and Social Order in Ancient Rome

When Roman historians speak about archaic Rome, from 6th to 4th century they speak of the change of social order from monarchy to Republic and in Republic, the change from patrician monopoly to the inclusion of plebians in political power. These two changes are significant changes for the 1st century historians. Interestingly both these stories are intrinsically connected with rape of a virtuous woman.

The first rape story is about Lucretia. Lucretia was the wife of Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus. Sextus Tarquinius, the son of the king, Lucius Tarquinius Superbus was sent by his father to stay in the governer's mansion on a military errand. The governer's mansion was the home of Lucretia and Collatinus. Knowing that she was identified as the virtuous woman of all Rome he was attracted to her and that he wanted to have her. In the middle of the night, in the absence of her husband, Sextus entered Lucretia's chamber and gave her two choices. One was to lie with him and the other was to be killed alongside one of the young man slaves so that Sextus could claim that he saw them having sexual relationship and that he killed them both. Lucretia fearing a bad name agreed to lie with him. But she wanted to make sure that the atrocity of the king's son must be told to the public. When her husband got home she disclosed the rape by king's son and she committed suicide. Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, the husband of Lucretia gave a moving speech on her funeral which turned the whole city against the king, Tarquinius Superbus. Later, he was chased out of Rome and after that Rome opted for Republic and to never to have a king again. The rape of Lucretia was instrumental in bringing down the Roman monarchy.

The second rape story is about a virgin called Virginia. In the formation of the twelve tablets, the laws of ancient Rome, ten scholars were chosen to address the raising requests from plebians to make the laws public and not just the sole property of the patrician (the higher class). These decemviri, the ten men responsible for the completion of the twelve tablets only completed ten tablets in 451 bc. The next year more conservative fundamentalist law makers became the decemviri and made the laws more stringent that it created the divide between the patricians and plebians wider. One of the main clause of this cause was the prohibition of marraige between patricians and plebians. This divide caused more troubles for the plebians (the lower class).

One of these newer decemviri, Appius Cladius demanded sex from a young virgin called Virginia. She was unmarried but betrothed. When she declined Appius made one of his men (hangers-on) to claim that Virginia was indeed his slave and that Virginia's father Virginius had stolen her from that man. The preciding judge of that matter was Appius himself. Consequently, Appius found Virginia and Virginius guilty and ordered that she must be returned back to her so called master. Virginius seeing the scheme of Appius to take Virginia for sex took a butcher's knife from a nearby market and stabbed Virginia and killed her saying "I am making you free, my child, in the only way I can." An attempted rape of a virgin was prevented by a murder by her own father. This created major civil unrest in Rome. Virginius' speech on Virgina's funeral provoked the Roman plebians to fight against the "aristrocrstic" Patricians. Civil unrest followed suit. Plebians including Roman soldiers fought alongside to make a significant impact on the society. Eventually, patricians conceded. Plebians were given equal rights in all areas. Later on, even plebians were allowed to be elected for consulship  (367 BCE, even both consulship in 342 BCE). Therefore, the (attempted) rape of Virgina and her eventual murder changed the social order of Rome significantly.

Characterizations: Authorial, By Others and Self

1.     Authorial Characterization
2.     Characterization by the Others
3.     Self Characterization

A character can be characterized by three people (or groups). First, it must be acknowledged that all characterization in a literature is the work of an author(s). Therefore, in one sense, all characterization could be considered as the characterization of the author. However, this category is kept separately so that it could be distinguished from the other two. The other two categories are Characterization by the Others and Self characterization.

A character could be characterized by other characters. For example, in Mark 8:27-30, when Jesus asks his disciples “who do you say that I am?” Peter answers and says “You are the Christ.” Peter then characterizes Jesus as Christ. Though the characterization is primarily done by the author, he/she places these words in the mouth of Peter which makes Peter as the one characterizing Jesus as the Messiah. This could be called as characterization by the others.

The third way of characterization is self characterization. In self characterization, a character with speech and actions may characterizes himself/herself. In the book of John, Jesus with the I am sayings he characterizes himself in seven ways: “I am the bread of life” (John 6:35); “I am the light of the world” (John 8:12); “I am the gate” (John 10:9); “I am the good shepherd” (John 10:11); “I am the resurrection and the life” (John 11:25); “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6); “I am the true vine” (John 15:1). Further, the divinity of Jesus Christ is further characterized in self characterization in John 8:58 beautifully. In John 8:58, Jesus says  “Truly, Truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I am.” Jesus characterizes himself as the one who existed even before Abraham through which he characterizes himself as the one who is divine. This is called self characterization. 

Descriptive Characterization

Descriptive Characterization

Adjectival Descriptive Characterization
Attributive Descriptive Characterization
Predicative Descriptive Characterization
Appositive Descriptive Characterization

Two generally recognized narrative techniques of characterization are showing and telling. In showing characterization, characterization is done by showing what a character does rather than describing who he/she is with adjectives or nouns as attributes. But in Telling characterization is done by direct presentation.

When Antonius asked Noemon whether he gave the boats to Telemachus willingly, Noemon says in III. 874-7: “I agreed to give it to him. Would anyone have acted otherwise, when a man like him, with a grief-stricken heart, makes a request?” Interestingly, the phrase “with a grief-stricken heart” functions as a great characterizer of Telemachus. Telemachus is seen in the whole book as the one who was “grief-stricken” without knowing the whereabouts of his father. But this phrase with an adjective characterizes Telemachus beautifully. This is what I call descriptive characterization. Telemachus was characterized as a grief-stricken son waiting for his father from book. Even in his conversation with Athena he tells how grief-stricken he is. They are showing way of characterization. But here he is described with an adjective clearly describing him as grief-stricken, which shows the classic example of descriptive characterization.

A narrator could describe a character with adjectives, nouns, etc. This I call as descriptive characterization. All characterizations are descriptive in nature where the author describes a character with words, attributes, etc. Berlin says that in descriptive characterization “descriptive terms may be based on status (king, widow, wise man, wealthy, old, etc.), profession (prophet, prostitute, shepherd, etc), gentilic features (Hittite, Amalekite, etc.) or distinctive physical features (beautiful, strong, lame, etc)” may be used (Berlin, Poetics and Interpretation, 35-36). However, direct description is very rare in the stories of the bible. Further I would like to classify this into several parts. When adjectives are used to describe a character I would like to call these as Adjectival Descriptive Characterization. And when the adjectives (even other parts of speech, such as nouns, participles, etc) function as attributive adjective, further characterizing the character, I call this as Attributive Descriptive Characterization. Homer’s Odyssey has good examples in this manner. Interestingly, Homer characterizes each character with a few key, repeated phrases descriptive to the character. He described Zeus as Aegis carrying Zeus, Nestor as Geranian horseman
 Nestor, Athena as clear-eyed Athena, Telemachus as god-like Telemachus.

In Homer, these descriptions are kept quite frequently that these phrases function more than a descriptive characterization and function more like title of the person described. Further descriptive words are also added such as for Nestor it was said “Geranian horseman
 Nestor, protector of Achaeans”
 (Odyssey III. 554) indicating further characterization. While ‘Geranian horseman’ functions like a title the phrase, “protector of Achaeans” functions as further descriptive characterization. This I call as Appositive Descriptive Characterization.

Further, these descriptions could also be kept in Predicate position. A predicate is nothing but a word or a phrase added to a noun with an equative (also copulative) verb (is, was, etc). For example, in a sentence “The fair boy is good,” the word “fair” is attributive in function while “good” is in predicative place. Neomen when he describes the men who went with Telemachus he says in __ “The young men— the ones who went with him—are excellent, except for us, the best this land affords.” The words: “excellent” and “the best this land affords” are descriptions of the young men who went along with Telemachus in search of his father. And these words “excellent” and “best” are kept in the predicate position (after the equative verb describing the subject). Therefore, this is a good example for Predicative Descriptive Characterization.

Mutual Foiling Comparative Charaterization

Comparative Characterization is done in many ways. Comparative Characterization is nothing but characterizing a character by comparing that character with another. Contrastive Comparative Characterization is nothing but characterizing a character by comparing that character with a contrast character. Moreover, Complementary Comparative Characterization is chracterizing a character by comparing that chartcer with a complementary character (not contrast).

For example, in David's story Contrastive Comparative Charaterization is evident as Saul is compared with David in a contrastive manner. Samuel is compared contrastively with Eli's sons. However, in Complementary Comparative Characterization a complementary character will be compared with the character in concern for characterization. While Saul contrasted David, Jonathan, the son of Saul complemented in the characterization of David as the good guy. Likewise, in Luke, John the Baptist is compared with Jesus in the Infancy Narratives positively as The Baptist contributes and complements to the characterization of Jesus. As he is the anointed one of God Jesus is also characterized as the anointed one of God with this comparison. Therefore, Comparative Charaterization can be done in a contrastive way and also in a  complementary way.

As I read Plutarch's Lives I realize that there is another way this comparative characterization could be done. In a narrative where one character is prioritised over the other(s) comparative characterization could be contrastive or complementary. In both characterization one character functions as the foil to the character in concern by being in contrast or in complementary fashion. But when both the characters are characters of concern there is a possibility that both characters could function as a foil to the other. This I call as Mutual Foiling Comparative Charaterization. This is quite unique in Plutarch's Lives. Theseus and Romulus are compared as the first pair in his Lives as both function as a foil for the characterization of the other. Theseus the one who founded Athens is compared with Romulus the one who founded Rome. No one character is prioritised over the other (at least explicitly). However, similarities and differences between both characters are brought out for the characterization of each and the other. This way both these characters mutually function as a foil to the other. This is called as Mutual Foiling Comparative Charaterization.

Characterization and Kabali

Characterization is nothing but how a character is characterized. There are many ways of classifying characterization. One such way is called Showing and Telling. In Showing, characterization of a character is characterized by the author showing who the character is. This is done by narrating how the character behaves, how he/she reacts, what the character speaks (direct speech), etc. In showing, the character is shown by the author so that the reader will construct the character by the information provided. But in telling the narrator takes full control of the characterization. He does not leave much room for the reader to construct the character. But the narrator tells who the character is by descriptive words. Though telling is a straight forward means of chracterizing a character it is not a preferred means of chartcerization. A good characterization should involve both. While the author may take precedence in telling who the character is he must also show and revalidate this characteristic feature by showing that characteristic feature by the showing technique. Telling technique will raise more suspicion while making the reader construct the character by showing technique will make the characterization more authentic and with less suspicion. Therefore, showing technique should be preferred more than telling. Even though telling technique is used it must be used equally with showing. Biblical narratives balance this very well. To authenticate the characterization either showing characterization must be used equal to telling or more. Failing this will rise questions of the authenticity of the narration as the reader is not allowed to verify for himself of the characterization presented by the narrator.

In John 1, in the beginning, until v.18, the narrator tells how Jesus was God by using telling technique. But from v.19 onwards he shows how John the Baptist identified Jesus as the Lamb of God by using showing technique. This shows the both ways John uses characterization. Though John mentioned that Jesus is God in Jn 1.1-18, he shows how Jesus is God throughout the book of John. Therefore, this technique validates the characterization as authentic.

When the Kabali movie was released many reviews in paper and media gave bad reviews. I asked my director friend, Surya, about the movie and the reviews. I asked him why the reviewers gave bad ranking for Kabali. Surya mentioned that in the movie, the director tells many things but he doesn't show how it all happened which discredits the story and characterization. I think Surya is right. The director does not show how Kabali became a Don,  he just tells that he became a Don with few clips. He does not show the whole story, which discredits the story and characterization of Kabali. Because of this, the character called kabali does not come as authentic.  As he is not seen as authentic the story does not make much effect on the heart of the audience. Kabali then just becomes a superficial character and makes the movie as a fantasy movie as the character is not reliable because his characterization is not reliable. Therefore, characterization should involve both showing and telling which is beautifully used in Biblical narratives.

Movement in Characterization

Characterization also involves movement. In the characterization, the author first would describe a character in a particular way and then as the narrative moves forward the character would take shape and move from one to another. At one of the narrative, the character would be in a different way but later the same character would take shape to be something else. 

More than anywhere in the Gospels, we find this beautifully shown in the book of John. 

In John 3, Nathaniel sees Jesus as the Rabbi from God but by the end of the narrative Jesus is characterized as the Son of God of whom people should believe to have eternal life. There is a movement from Rabbi to the Son of God in the characterization of Jesus in John 3. The narrative moves the characterization of Jesus from Rabbi to the Son of God. For this movement, the perspective of Nathaniel that Jesus is a rabbi is needed. From this characterization the narrator moves the characterization to showing that Jesus is the Son of God. In this movement, Nathaniel's portrayal is not purely negated but Nathaniel's identification that Jesus is the Rabbi is taken as the launching pad in the narrative for John to show Jesus as the Son of God. 

Likewise, in John 4, the Samaritan Woman sees in the beginning as a Jew but later the narrator shows Jesus as the Messiah by the end of the narrative. Therefore, there is movement in characterization.

Contrastive Dialogue, Persuasive Dialogue, and Polyphonic Dialogue

There are many classification of Dialogues. In this blog let me mention three of them as following:

A. Contrastive Dialogue:

There are at times dialogues are contrastive in nature. Two characters talking in a contrastive manner is called contrastive dialogue. For example, when Jesus predicts that Peter will deny Jesus Christ he says he will never deny Him but he will even die with him (Matt 26:35; Mark 14:31). Here Peter’s views are kept in contrast to Jesus. Jesus is not convincing Peter about it. He was just narrating what will happen. But Peter negates that and says he will never deny Jesus. This shows contrastive ideas kept side by side.

B. Persuasive Dialogue:

The term persuasive dialogue is coined by the present writer to mean one or more persuasive ideas present in the dialogue. In many instances, like Socratic dialogues, one character’s speech would persuade the other character(s). For example, in the dialogue of Nicodemus in John 3, Jesus’ speech persuades Nicodemus to accept his understanding about being ‘born again.’ The whole persuasion in this dialogue is that Nicodemus should understand that to be born again he must know that Jesus is sent from God as the Son of God and that he must believe in Him and that through this believing he will have eternal life. Therefore, Jesus’ participation in the dialogue in 3:1-21 is to persuade Nicodemus to believe in Him. This is a common feature in dialogues.

C. Polyphonic Dialogue:

Polyphonic dialogue is also a term used by present writer nevertheless it is a rendering of Bakhtin’s idea of polyphony. For Bakhtin, polyphony means many voices (see below). Then, polyphonic dialogue is nothing but a dialogue which contains many voices where no voice is preferred over the other voices. In polyphonic dialogue each character’s ideologies are presented while none is subordinated, even the author’s or the hero’s.

Divine Dance or Perichoresis

The Term Divine Dance was used by Tim Keller in his book, Reason for God. This is an interesting phrase to explain the term perichoresis. In explaining Trinity, Tim Keller says,

“The life of the Trinity is characterized not by self-centeredness but by mutually self-giving love. When we delight and serve someone else, we enter into a dynamic orbit around him or her, we center on the interests and desires of the other. That creates a dance, particularly if there are three persons, each of whom moves around the other two. So it is, the Bible tells us. Each of the divine persons centers upon the others. None demands that the others revolve around him. Each voluntarily circles the other two, pouring love, delight, and adoration into them. Each person of the Trinity loves, adores, defers to, and rejoices in the others. That creates a dynamic pulsating dance of joy and love. The early leaders of the Greek church had a word for this—perichoresis. Notice the root of our word ‘choreography’ is within it. It means literally to ‘dance or flow around.’”

Keller gets the meaning “dance around” from the word perichoresis. Peri means around, and choresis means dance, so he interprets the word as dancing around. For Keller, in Trinity, each person of the Trinity “moves around the other two.” Keller bases the whole idea on the meaning of the word, perichoresis. Using the meaning of the word choresis he identifies that perichoresis is primarily a dance. Though early church fathers didn’t mean perichoresis as a dance (see below) Keller points out that perichoresis is about divine dance. In addition, this dance is a dance of a person of the Trinity around the other two persons of the Trinity. There is a fundamental problem in this interpretation. Understanding the word perichoresis as “dancing around” falls under root fallacy of D. A. Carson.

D. A Carson, the New Testament scholar, calls these kinds of fallacies as root fallacies. He says, “One of the most enduring of errors, the root fallacy presupposes that every word actually has a meaning bound up with its shape or its components. In this view, meaning is determined by etymology; that is, by the root or roots of a word.” For Carson, words must be understood in its context rather than just from the etymology of the words. A word’s etymological meaning only suggests meaning to a context. The meaning of the word must be determined by the context not just from the etymology. Carson writes about this in detail in this way:

In I Corinthians 4:1 Paul writes of himself, Cephas, Apollos, and other leaders in these terms: "So then, men ought to regard us as servants υπηρετας, hvperetas) of Christ and as those entrusted with the secret things of God" (NIV). More than a century ago, R. C. Trench popularized the view that υπηρετας; (hyperetes) derives from the verb ερεσσω (eressο) "to row." The basic meaning of υπηρετας; (hyperetes), then, is "rower." Trench quite explicitly says a υπηρετας (hyperetes) "was originally the rower (from ερεσσω [eressο])." A. T. Robertson and J. B Hofmann went further and said υπηρετας (hyperetes) derives morphologically from υπο (hypo) and ερετες (eretes).' Now ερεσσω (eressο) means "rower" in Homer (eighth century B.c.!); and Hofmann draws the explicit connection with the morphology, concluding a υπηρετας (hyperetes) was basically an "under rower" or "assistant rower" or "subordinate rower." Trench had not gone so far: he did not detect in υπο (hvpo) any notion of subordination. Nevertheless Leon Morris concluded that a υπηρετας (hyperetes) was "a servant of 'a lowly kind";' and William Barclay plunged further and designated υπηρετας (hyperetes) as "a rower on the lower bank of a trireme."' Yet the fact remains that with only one possible exception-and it is merely possible, not certain υπηρετας (hyperetes) is never used for "rower" in classical literature, and it is certainly not used that way in the New Testament. The υπηρετας (hyperetes) in the New Testament is a servant, and often there is little if anything to distinguish him from a διακονος (diakonos). As Louw remarks, to derive the meaning of υπηρετας (hyperetes) from υπο (hypo) and ερετες (eretes) is no more intrinsically realistic than deriving the meaning of "butterfly" from "butter" and "fly," or the meaning of "pineapple" from "pine" and "apple.""

Therefore, interpreting perichoresis as dancing around (peri-around, choresis-dance) is not a good interpretation. The meaning of the word must be identified by the way it was used by the theologians. The word’s meaning must be understood in its context. We cannot take the word out of its theological context and attribute new meaning to it. Doing that would be eisegesis. It would distort the very purpose of the use of the word to explain certain aspects of theology. Perichoresis is a theological term. It was and it had been used throughout history to indicate certain theological ideas. Therefore, the interpreter must identify how the word had been used and see how it is used by other theologians and he/she must suggest the meaning of that word. Creating a new meaning for a theological word devoid if its context would only distort the meaning of the word. Therefore, let us see what the word means in its context.

Perichoresis:

Fourth century Eastern fathers, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus and Didymus the Blind, taught the perichoresis. Even St. Augustine (354-430) wrote of the "mutual interpenetration and interdwelling" of the three Persons in the Trinity.” But John of Damascus is an important person for the development of the doctrine of Perichoresis. John of Damascus (675-753) is considered as the last of the great eastern fathers spends considerable space in writing about Trinity. He is termed as the one who gave the doctrine of perichoresis its space. Therefore, it is important to see how he had used the term and the concept in his writings to get more clarity.

John of Damascus:

John says the Son "ever abide[s] in the Father" (OF 1.8) and is "ever essentially present with" Him (OF 1.13). The Son is "in the bosom" of the Father (OF 3.1) and He became incarnate "without leaving the Father’s bosom" (OF 3.7). John says, "The holy Spirit is God, being between the unbegotten and the begotten, and united to the Father through the Son" (OF 1.13). John uses verbs such as cleaving (OF 1.8, 14), abiding (OF 1.8), dwelling (OF 1.8) and indwelling (OF 4.18) to describe the perichoresis of the Godhead. He says that there is no confusing, compounding, coalescing or mixing of the Persons in this most intimate union (OF 1.8, 14). The preposition of the perichoresis is not merely "with" but "in." For John this relationship shows the "unity and community" in the Holy Trinity (OF 1.8). John says in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:

The abiding and resting of the persons in one another is not in such a manner that they coalesce or become confused, but, rather, so that they confused, but, rather, so that they adhere to one another, for they are without interval between them and inseparable and their mutual indwelling [en allais perichoresin] is without confusion. For the Son is in the Father and the Spirit, and the Spirit is in the Father and the Son, and the Father is in the Son and the Spirit, and there is no merging or blending or confusion. And there is one surge and one movement of the three persons. It is impossible for this to be found in any created nature (OF 1.14).

We must notice the idea John says here of one person of the Trinity being IN the other person of the Trinity: the Son is in the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and the Son: and the Father in the Son and the Spirit (OF 1.14). This being in the other person also involves movement: And there is one and the same motion: for there is one impulse and one motion of the three subsistences (OF 1.14). This being within and moving within is called perichoresis, for John of Damascus.

For John, perichoresis is not just a theological reflection but a scriptural doctrine. He says, "For the subsistences [the three Persons in the Trinity] dwell in one another ... according to the word of the Lord, I am in the Father, and the Father in Me [John 14:11]" (OF 1.8). He also writes, that the Scriptures "declare the indwelling of the subsistences in one another, as, I am in the Father, and the Father in Me [John 14:10]" (OF 4.18). Therefore, perichoiesis is one person of the trinity living in the other two person of the Trinity. Therefore, perichoresis is not about dancing around but interpenetrating each other. It is about being within one another in the Godhead.

Alister McGrath on Perichoresis:

Alister McGrath, one of the famous theologian in our contemporary world explains summarizes perichoresis this way:

“This Greek term, which is often found in either its Latin (circumincessio) or English (“mutual interpenetration”) translations, came into general use in the sixth century. It refers to the manner in which the three persons of the Trinity relate to one another. The concept of perichoresis allows the individuality of the persons to be maintained, while insisting that each person shares in the life of the other two. An image often used to express this idea is that of “a community of being,” in which each person, while maintaining its distinctive identity, penetrates the others and is penetrated by them.”

As McGrath demonstrates the term perichoresis is not about “dancing around” or not even moving around but “interpenetration.” The term indicates how one person of the Trinity interpenetrates the other two in the Godhead. In addition, it is imperative to see why perichoresis is an important doctrine to validate Trinity.

Perichoresis and Trinity:

The concept of perichoresis is an important concept in the Doctrine of Trinity. It was used to validate the Doctrine of Trinity because of certain theological issues. Understanding them is important so as to understand the meaning of the term.

Nicean Creed of 325 CE identified that the Son is homoousios as that of the Father (being of the same nature or essence or being as that of the Father). Nicean Creed also identified that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are the three persons (persona) of the Trinity. This means though they share the same nature or essence they are three individuals or persons. The relationship among the three are explained by terms such as “Begotten,” “Breathed,” and “Flioque.” Because of the limitation of space we will not be dealing with these terms in details. If all three persons of the Trinity are of same essence and are different in persons how are they different from the Hindu concept of Trimoorthy?

Trimoorthies, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are the three chief gods of Hinduism. While Brahma is considered as the creator, and Vishnu, the sustainer, Shiva is considered in Hinduism, as the savior (destroyer of evil). In one sense we can call the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit as the Creator, the Savior, and the Sustainer, respectively. To avoid this confusion Christian Theology as two concepts, 1. Appropriation and 2. Perichoresis.

Appropriation:

McGrath says, “The doctrine of appropriation insists that the works of the Trinity are a unity; every person of the Trinity is involved in every outward action of the Godhead. Thus Father, Son, and Spirit are all involved in the work of creation, which is not to be viewed as the work of the Father alone. ” One of the main reasons for this doctrine is to show the unity of the Trinity. In Hindu concept of Trimoorthy, each god needs the other gods as they are limited. As Brahma is only a creator god, he is limited only to creation and thus he needs the other two persons of Trimoorthies so that they could save and sustain the humanity. If so, they are not one god, but they are three gods, as they are seen in Hinduism. However, as Christian theology considers God as one and that there is no polytheism in Christian Bible Trinity uses the concept of Appropriation to validate the importance of the involvement of each person of the Trinity in all the “outward actions” of the Godhead. This is validated even by Scriptures (See my other paper on Trinity). Therefore, through appropriation the Godhead is seen as one in unity as all the three persons of the Trinity are seen as being involved together in “every outward action of the Godhead” such as creation, sustenance, and salvation of the whole universe.

Perichoresis:

Similarly, perichoresis talks about the unity not just in the functioning aspect of Trinity but in their stative level. If all the persons of the Trinity are seen individuals separate and unique from each other how can one speak of them as one? The understanding Trinity as three persons seem to suggest polytheism again. Though through appropriation they could be seen as individuals acting in unity in functions of the Godhead there must be clarification given to identify their oneness in being. This is done so beautifully by perichoresis. In perichoresis, even according to John of Damascus, all three persons of the Trinity interpenetrate each other and allow themselves to be interpenetrated without blending, merging or confusion, (keeping their individually) so that they could be spoken of as one. This is not just a theological invention. Jesus says, “that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You” (John 17:21). How could Jesus be in the Father and the Father could be in Jesus? Perichoresis explains this better. Therefore, by their “being” in each other and moving in to each other they live as a community in Trinity, which establishes the Godhead as one.

Therefore, perichoresis is an important part of the doctrine of Trinity to validate the oneness of the Godhead keeping the individuality and three different persona of the persons of the Godhead. Consequently, speaking of perichoresis as a “divine dance” where each person of the Trinity is dancing around each other distorts the very reason why the doctrine was formed. Apart from the lack of Scripture the “divine dance” concept distorts the very meaning of the word perichoresis and alters the very doctrine of Trinity considerably. Therefore, much clarity need to brought in to the understanding of Divine Dance concept so that the essentials of Christian Theology will not be distorted and altered. Soli Deo Gloria!

Plhroma Tou Nomou in Paul and Philo

John Martens in his dissertation called, “The Superfluity of the Law in Philo and Paul: A Study in the History of Religions” points out that Philonic and Pauline ideas of the Law must be understood in light of the Greco-Roman discussions of the ‘higher law’—the Law of Nature (nomos physeos), the Unwritten Law (agraphos nomos), and the Living Law (nomos empsychos). For Martens, “these forms of Greco-Roman Law implied a depreciation of the written or civil law” (Martens, iii). Martens suggests that Philo though adopting these concepts does not depreciate the Mosaic Law. However, he says, “Paul rejects the Law, because of his experience of Jesus Christ and the present eschatological reality in which he lived” (Martens, iv).

Interestingly, for Martens, in light of Greco-Roman view of the Law, where the Living Law, the King could trump the written Law, Paul held the view that Christ is enthroned as the King (293-296) and that he is the Living Law, then the Christian need not follow the Written Law. Martens seems to concentrate more on Rom 10:4, which says, “For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes.” He seems to avoid the verses where Paul talks about the fulfillment of the Law with the Spirit and Love.

In Rom 8:4, Paul says, one will fulfill the Law by walking “according to the Spirit.” Interestingly, Paul exhorts the people with ‘imperatival descriptives’ saying they must fulfill the Law through the help of the Spirit. This goes against the interpretation of Martens. For him, Paul “rejected” the Law because of the Living Law, Christ the King. However, According to Paul, in Rom 8:4, people must fulfill the Law through the Spirit.

Not only this, Paul says, in Rom 13:8-10, “For he who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the Law.” Added to this he says, “For this, ‘You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,’ and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ Love does no wrong to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.” Therefore, Paul stresses that “Love is the fulfillment of the Law.” Loving one another is the fulfillment of the Law. It means, Christ did not fulfill the Law once and for all but exhorts his people to fulfill the Law by love. Therefore, Love becomes the means by which one fulfills the Law and the Spirit becomes the Agent for one to fulfill the Law. Paul reiterates these ideas in Galatians as follows: “For the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (5:14) and “Bear one another’s burdens, and thereby fulfill the law of Christ” (6:2). By sharing one another’s burden with love one fulfills the Law of Christ. Therefore, Paul still exhorts his people to fulfill the Law, exemplified by Jesus Christ by the means of love and by the help of the Spirit.

Like Philo, Paul also reconceptualizes the concept of the obedience of the written Law. However, he also talks about Halakah similar to Philo and like any other rabbi for that matter, but obedience of the Law (or fulfillment of the Law) in a different way, i.e., with the help of the Spirit, with the means of Love, and with the goal to fulfill Law taught by Christ.

Therefore, Philo must be studied again in light of the Graeco-Roman concepts of the ‘higher law’ so that their differences and similarities will be brought out in a goal to understand Pauline idea of the fulfillment of the Law better.

Friendship in the New Testament: Comparative Critical Reading

Intertextual readings are common to Biblical interpretation. Usually, literature contemporary to the Biblical times is used to interpret the Scripture. Post-colonial readings of the text brought forth the importance of reading the Scripture in comparison with the indigenous literature. This provides fascinating opportunities to use this principle to read the Scripture in comparison with any literature. Therefore, comparative critical reading is an interpretative method which consciously compares another literature with the Scripture so that the uniqueness and similarities of the Scripture are highlighted. While Biblical interpretations have used ancient literature to interpret the Scripture, and while post-colonial readings have used post-colonial literature to interpret the Scripture, comparative critical reading provides room for any literature to be used to interpret the Scripture. Any literature, ancient or modern could be used by the choice of the interpreter so that a portion of the Scripture could be interpreted in light of the content of that literature. This would provide fascinating kaleidoscopic readings of the Scripture.

First, the interpreter must choose a theme. For this project, we have chosen Friendship as the theme with which we will do the comparative analyses. After this, the interpreter must choose a Bible passage. A book from the Bible or a passage from the New Testament could be chosen. In addition, the interpreter must also choose another literature, ancient or modern which deals with Friendship theme broadly so that the Scripture could be compared with. Then these two literature will be compared and analyzed by the interpreter to bring out the uniqueness and similarities of these literature. This could be an analysis of the characters of the Bible with the characters displaying friendship in other literature or this could be an analysis of the theme of Friendship in the literature broadly. Plutarch's HOW ONE MAY DISCERN A FLATTERER FROM A FRIEND describes who a friend is? Comparing this with Markan portrayal of Peter as the friend of Jesus will give interesting interpretation. Plutarch defines a friend as the one who stays with him in his need, while he defines a flatterer as the one who deserts that friend in his need (Adul. amic. ii). In this light Peter seems to be portrayed as a flatterer who denied Jesus when he was in need. In addition, the same Markan portrayal of Peter as the friend of Jesus could be compared and analyzed in light of Thiruvalluvar's THIRUKKURAL. Thiruvalluvar, the ancient Tamil poet writes about 40 Kurals on Friendship. In these, he describes who a friend is. Thiruvalluvar says, “There is a benefit even in misfortune, for it is the rod with which a man can measure the loyalty of friends” (796). Even in the light of Thirukkural Peter seems to lack the essential qualities to be the friend of Jesus. This way other literature could be used to interpret the Scripture.

In one sense the literature used to be compared with the Scripture becomes the lens by which the interpreter sees the Scripture. In another sense, that literature becomes the foil with which the Scripture is compared to bring out certain characteristic features of the Scripture. Therefore, comparative critical reading provides venue to read the Scripture in light of another literature so that certain characteristic features of the Scripture could be brought to light.

Immortality on Earth: A Biblical Doctrine? Part 2 Raising the Dead or Not Dying?

            Jn 6:49-50 is used by the immortality preachers to identify that Jesus preached immortality. For them, the one who believes in Jesus will not die as he/she will be made immortal in salvation. Jesus says in 6:47, “Truly, truly I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.” In addition, in 6:48 Jesus identifies himself as the ‘bread of life.’ In 6:49, he says that the forefathers of the Jews ate mannah in the wilderness and they died. However, the one who eats “the bread which comes down out of heaven” will not die but have eternal life (6:50). Jesus further says in v.51 that “if anyone eats of this bread he will live forever.” Thus, for the immortality preacher if anyone believes in Jesus he/she will not die but will live forever. For him, the word “die” in 6:50 should not be taken as figurative (eternal death not physical death) but it should be understood literally. The preacher who “always” reads the whole chapter must read few verses before and after 6:50. The same concepts mentioned in 6:47-51 are repeated again in 53-54 which give more clarifications.

            Though all these verses mentioned above say similar things v.54 is the key as it gives more information about living and not dying of vv.47-48. Jn 6:54 says that “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life.” How? Jesus answers by saying, “I will raise him up on the last day.” My sincere question here is this: how could Jesus raise the one who does not die (6:50)? Therefore, 6:50 should mean like this: “This is the bread which comes down out of heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die, i.e., the eternal death.”

John is known for his frequent use of imageries, metaphors and similies, etc. Let me show this from this passage itself. Jn 6:50 says that the one who eats the bread will not die. In this verse alone many metaphors are used. Jesus is the Bread. Eating the bread is believing in Jesus Christ (v.40). And how about the verb “to die?” For the immortality preacher this word alone should be read literally. If this should be read literally how about 6:35? Jesus says in 6:35 that “I am the bread of life he who comes to me will not be HUNGRY and he who believes in me will never be THIRSTY.” If “dying” in 6:50 should be understood literally then we should understand 6:35 also literally. Do the immortality preachers get hungry and thirsty? Then they must not teach about immortality. If “to die” in 6:50 should be taken literally then “hunger” and “thirst” in 6:35 should also be taken literally. If 6:35 should not be taken literally then 6:50 should not also be taken literally.

In addition, in this chapter many times John relates eternal life with raising up the dead on the last day. In 6:39, Jesus says, “This is the will of him who sent me, that of all that he has given me [the believers] I lose nothing, but raise them up on the last day.” Jn 3:16 says that “whoever believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.” Most immortality preachers use this verse. However, in light of 6:39 this verse should mean something like this: The believing one has eternal life as Jesus will raise him up on the last day. The same thought is explicated better in 6:40: “For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who believes in Him will have eternal life, and I myself will raise him up on the last day.” By believing in Jesus the believer has eternal life, as Jesus himself will raise him up on the last day. Thus, eternal life in Jn 6:40-54 is about resurrection and not about “not dying.”

The context of 6:49-50 does not suggest that the believer will not die at all. The context suggests that eternal life is connected with the raising up of the dead on the last day. John mentions the raising up of the dead in this passage alone for four times (Jn 6:39, 40, 44, 54). Therefore, the one who believes in Jesus Christ will have eternal life that they will be raised up again on the last day. The similarity (parallelism) of v.50 and 54 validates this hypothesis better. If one eats the bread (Jesus’ flesh and His blood) he will not die in the sense that he will have eternal death as he will be raised up from death on the last day. 

Immortality and Special Food: A Historical Overview

              Special food for immortality had been a topic of concern through the history. In Greek mythology ambrosia and nectar were the important food for the Greek gods which sustained their immortality. Bet the older traditions say that the Greek gods fed their immortality by sniffing the dead bodies of their enemies. The energy (frequencies?) of the dead bodies nursed the immortality of the deities. But later this purpose was given to ambrosia which is nothing but the food that come from the horn of a magical goat named Amalthea, the foster-mother of Zeus. Ambrosia was brought by white doves from earth to the gods, including baby Zeus so that they would be immortal.

When Achilles was mourning about the death of his friend Patroclus Zeus tells his wife Athena to feed Achiles with ambrosia and nectar so that he would not be hungry and thirsty in his mourning (Homer, Iliad XIX. 336). Not just that Homer identifies the immortals drank nectar for immortality: “The gods all sat assembled in the golden courtyard, with Zeus there, too. Gracious Hebe went among them, pouring nectar. They toasted each other in golden cups, as the immortals looked out on Troy” (Homer, Iliad IV. 1-4).

Zoroastrian religion had Haoma drink which had similar function as ambrosia, which is similar to Soma drink of the vedic tradition. While ambrosia is an exclusive drink for the divine haoma was made available even to the people who would drink its juice in their rituals. It was believed that the haoma plant has was useful for healing (Yasna 9.16-17, 9.19, 10.8, 10.9), sexual arousal (Yasna 9.13-15, 9.22), physically strengthening (Yasna 9.17, 9.22, 9.27), stimulating alertness and awareness (Yasna 9.17, 9.22, 10.13), intoxicating (Yasna 10.8), and nourishing (Yasna 9.4, 10.20), espeically ‘most nutritious for the soul’ (Yasna 9.16). In addition, in later tradition, in the Mithraic sacramental banquet wine took the place of haoma which formed the community taking part of ‘communion’ where this wine gave special vigor to the body and brought prosperity, wealth, health and immortality. Usually, in later Mithraic sacramental banquet this special wine was drunk along with the flesh of a bull, considered as the flesh of god Mithra himself. Thus, in the later Mithraic tradition, the followers drank the wine, the blood of Mithra (a derivation of haoma) and the flesh of Mithra so that they could attain immortality. Interestingly Haoma in some Zoroastrian traditions were considered as son of god, similar to Jesus Christ, who was both “victim and priest in a sacrificial sacramental offering in worship” (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1991, Rites and Ceremonies). Some believe that this Mithraic tradition of communion for immortality crept into Christianity (John 6).

In Sanskrit writings, nectar is called as amrta, which means no (a) mortality (mrta). The synonymous word for it is soma which is found to be the food for the immortality of the gods. Rig Veda talks about amrta and its importance in bringing immortality. Rig Veda VIII. 48.3 says “We have drunk Soma and become immortal; we have attained the light, the Gods discovered.” The Soma drink is said to give immortality even to gods or to the ones who want to become gods. It is the idea that the one who drinks the Soma gets immortality and consequentially he becomes god. In yogic philosophy it is believed that the pituitary gland of the humans has the capacity to secret amrita. By doing the yoga properly one could make the pituitary gland secret amrita so that he could attain immortality. Vishnu in his female form, Mohini carries a pot of amrita and shares only to the devas (gods) and leaving out the asuras so that immortality is given only to the gods. Vishnu also churns out amrita when he churned the ocean. This story is beautifully told in The Vishnu Purana:

Hari, the creator of the universe, being thus prayed to by the prostrate divinities, smiled, and thus spake: "With renovated energy, oh gods, I will restore your strength. Do you act as I enjoin. Let all the gods, associated with the Asuras, cast all sorts of medicinal herbs into the sea of milk; and then taking the mountain Mandara for the churning-stick, the serpent Vásuki for the rope, churn the ocean together for ambrosia; depending upon my aid. To secure the assistance of the Daityas, you must be at peace with them, and engage to give them an equal portion of the fruit of your associated toil; promising them, that by drinking the Amrita that shall be produced from the agitated ocean, they shall become mighty and immortal. I will take care that the enemies of the gods shall not partake of the precious draught; that they shall share in the labour alone."

Being thus instructed by the god of gods, the deities entered into alliance with the demons, and they jointly undertook the acquirement of the beverage of immortality. They collected various kinds of medicinal herbs, and cast them into the sea of milk, the waters of which were radiant as the thin and shining clouds of autumn. They then took the mountain Mandara for the staff; the serpent Vásuki for the cord; and commenced to churn the ocean for the Amrita. The assembled gods were stationed by Krishńa at the tail of the serpent; the Daityas and Dánavas at its head and neck. Scorched by the flames emitted from his inflated hood, the demons were shorn of their glory; whilst the clouds driven towards his tail by the breath of his mouth, refreshed the gods with revivifying showers. In the midst of the milky sea, Hari himself, in the form of a tortoise, served as a pivot for the mountain, as it was whirled around. …From the ocean, thus churned by the gods and Dánavas, …Dhanwantari, robed in white, and bearing in his hand the cup of Amrita, next came forth: beholding which, the sons of Diti and of Danu, as well as the Munis, were filled with satisfaction and delight… The powerful and indignant Daityas then forcibly seized the Amrita-cup, that was in the hand of Dhanwantari: but Vishńu, assuming a female form, fascinated and deluded them; and recovering the Amrita from them, delivered it to the gods. Śakra and the other deities quaffed the ambrosia. The incensed demons, grasping their weapons, fell upon them; but the gods, into whom the ambrosial draught had infused new vigour, defeated and put their host to flight, and they fled through the regions of space, and plunged into the subterraneous realms of Pátála.  The gods there at greatly rejoiced, did homage to the holder of the discus and mace, and resumed their reign in heaven.” (The Vishnu Purana, IX)

Chinese mythology used “Peaches of Immortality” (xiāntáo) as the food for immortality. Peaches in Chinese mythology usually implied immortality and longevity. Yellow Emperor (Huang Di) (2852-2255 BCE) seemed to have found the formula for the golden elixir of immortality through his experiments with metals and herbs. After taking the drug he is believed to have mounted on a dragon and left to the world of immortals. One Emperor, Shih Huang Di (259-210 BCE) sent a famous Fang-Shih on a quest to find the Isle of immortals and to bring back the elixir of immortality. It seems the saman who went on the quest found the Isle of immortals drank the elixir of immortality but stayed back and didn’t return to the Emperor. 

For Daoists, The path to immortality was divided into two streams with different emphasis and  methods: the outer elixir (wai-dan) and the inner elixir (nei-dan). The followers of the outer school sought to produce the pill of immortality from metals and herbs through alchemical processes. A pill of gold and cinnabar combined with other ingredients such as lead and water were touted as the key ingredients of the elixir because they would restore, balance, and harmonize the individual’s personal Qi with the cosmic Qi. Cinnabar (red mercury ore) and gold. For Ko Hung (284-364) who wrote the Pao-p’u tzu, only the pill of immortality could fulfill the promise of eternal life. Physical exercise, sexual yoga, breathing techniques, and meditation could prolong life but could not bestow the gift of immortality. In in the inner elixir, similar to Hindu belief of internal soma secreted of the pitutory gland, Daoists believed that semen and female ejaculation kept inside the body increased life that during lovemaking through various techniques people would avoid ejaculation so that the semen (Jing) would go back to the spinal passage as refined life-force (Qi) and to the brain where it would nourish the spirit (Shen).

The legend Jade Emperor’s wife Xi Wangmu was said to have held banquets, for immortal deities living in her palace, called feasts of Peaches because peaches were said to bring immortality. Even the Eight Immortal, who are usually seen in the paintings as crossing the sea are seen carrying peaches.

In Medieval times, the elixir of life was a popular quest. Elixir of life was believed to give immortality on Earth. Elixir of life drank in a certain cup was said to have properties which could sustain life for eternity and even have properties to create life. Elixir of life sometimes was connected with Philosopher’s Stone.

In recent times several people have claimed to have immortality or at least said to know the secret of Immortality. Wiley Brooks, who runs Breatherian Institute of America claims that the secret of Immorality lies in not eating any food except McDonald’s Double Quarter-pounder Burger with Diet Coke. Interestingly, for Brooks, only Double Quarter-pounder does not have the qualities which will pollute the body and hinder immortality.

In addition, a modern breatherian, Kirby de Lanerolle claims that to attain immortality one must forego eating normal food. He claims that his secret of immortality lies in the Holy Communion. He says he only ate five normal meals in 10 months.

The quest for immortality is not a new quest. It has been there centuries. Men through history were fascinated to live in this world forever. This fascination to live forever had always been an unattainable enthrallment. To attain this immortality people tried to eat special food. This fascination and the means to attain immortality have never left humanity, however. Recent times show that McDonalds’ Double-quarter-pounder and Diet Coke, Holy Communion seem to take the role of special food in attaining this immortality.

Kirby seems to interpret Jn 6:58 literally: “This is the bread which came down out of heaven; not as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live forever.” Interestingly, Jn 6:54 seems to contradict his interpretation of 6:58. Jn 6:54 says, “He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.” In Jn 6:54 it is clear that the one who takes part in the Holy Communion will be raised up on the last day, as he will die. Jn 6:54 is a clearer verse than 6:58 as it explains the eternal life better. In Jn 6:54, eternal life is being raised up after death on the last day. If it is so, Jn 6:58 cannot mean that the one who takes part in the Holy Communion will not die. If 6:58 talks about Immortality on Earth 6:54 must be wrong, as it indicates death and declares resurrection on the last day. A good interpreter must not just make a doctrine with one verse. He must take all verses into consideration and must interpret the text in its context. As 6:54 shows that the one who takes part in the Holy Communion will eventually die Jn 6:58 must not be interpreted as a verse talking about Immortality on Earth. 

Immortality: A Biblical Doctrine? Part 1

Immortality: A Biblical Doctrine? Part 1

Immortality is a new teaching coming to fore by the sermons of preachers such as Kobus, Kobus Jr., Kirby and few others. These preachers use Bible texts to validate their new found doctrines. They acknowledge that this is a new teaching. However, Paul clearly said in Galatians 1: "8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!" For Paul, anyone who preaches a Gospel other than the one which was preached by the apostles is to be accursed. Any teaching which was preached other than the one which preached is a heresy (false teaching). Thus, any doctrine, new or old must be Bible based, acknowledged by the apostle's kerygma written in the Scriptures. If Immortality is a legitimate doctrine of Christianity it must be from the Bible. If it is not it should be declared as a heresy and a false teaching.

Immortality preachers use several verses to validate their doctrine. In a series of posts this blog will expose the authenticity of the doctrine. First passage is John 11:21-26. Kobus and Kobus Jr. in their videos in Youtube mention that John 11 clearly speaks about immortality. John 11:21-26 is about Lazarus story in which Jesus was conversing with Martha about life after death. The verses are as follows: 21 Martha then said to Jesus, "Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died. 22 "Even now I know that whatever You ask of God, God will give You." 23 Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." 24 Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." 25 Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, 26 and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?"  (Jn 11:21-26). Interesting the immortality preachers stop with v. 26, which says, "everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. " Kobus Jr. asks the question Jesus says whoever believes in Him will not die. Thus, for Kobus Jr. Jesus taught immortality because people who believe in Jesus will NEVER die. However, he forgets that this statement of Jesus is connected with another phrase in that verse, which is "Do you believe this?" Jesus was asking this question to Martha. And Martha answers to this question and says, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world" (Jn 11:27). She does not just believe in Jesus but She even proclaims with theological affirmations such as "You are the Christ,"  "the Son of God," "even He who comes into the world." This believing of Martha should mean that she should NEVER die as promised by Jesus (Jn 11:26). However, sadly we cannot find Martha any where in the world at present. It should mean that this Martha who believed in Jesus must have died. 

As it is obvious that Martha had died there must be two conclusion: Either Jesus was telling a lie or Jesus was talking about another kind of death. I do not believe that Jesus lied. His words were truth. If so, Jesus must have talked about another kind of death, spiritual death, which is frequently mentioned in the book of John. Life and death were philosophical concepts in the Hellenistic world and so in many Greek writings it carries symbolic meaning rather than literal meaning. John who is obviously more influenced by Hellenistic worldview than many other New Testament writers could have used a symbolic meaning of death here rather than a literal one, as Martha seemed to have died unless Kobus and family are hiding her somewhere... Therefore, Jn 11:26 cannot be a proof text for Immortality doctrine. 

The problem with immortality teachers is that they interpret the text in alienation to its literary context. They simply took 11:26 devoid of its context which appeared as if Jesus was teaching about immortality on earth. But 11:27 makes it clear that though Martha fully believed in Christ she did not live forever, she died. It shows that Jesus did not teach the doctrine of immortality on earth doctrine in Jn 11:26.

Problem like this arise because of the lack Biblical knowledge in the body of Christ. Pastors are not equipped with hermeneutics, the art of interpreting Scripture. It is therefore imperative that we learn how to interpret the text in context so that we can avoid false teachings, which Paul warned in Galatians 1:8-9.

More about Immortality Doctrine will be published in this blog in the near Future.