Keith, a book review of interest

Posted on October 29, 2007 by Reverend Keith

I find this of interest because it asserts that many scientists have a bias against the supernatural, which I must confess is a bias I share. Thinking of how my bias affects your fruitless efforts to persuade me of the validity of OBEs and NDEs….

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502991.html

Tale From the Crypt
An ordinary man working in a mortuary experiences the unexpected.

Reviewed by Ron Charles
Sunday, October 28, 2007; Page BW03

GHOST

By Alan Lightman

Alan Lightman’s new novel, Ghost, does not contain a werewolf, a vampire or Patrick Swayze. It may not even contain a ghost. No knife-wielding ventriloquist’s doll carves up these chapters. If you’re looking for hell hounds, you’re barking up the wrong tree. Ghost is by no means the scariest supernatural tale you could read on Halloween — King is still king — but it may be the smartest, and for that reason it ends up being a hell of a lot more unsettling than a horde of flesh-eating zombies.

A theoretical physicist, Lightman is equally comfortable haunting the humanities — indeed, he was the first professor at MIT to receive appointments in both realms. Although he doesn’t believe in God, a lifetime of studying the heavens has given him an infectious sense of wonder; philosophical questions about the nature of reality hover over all his work and are a preoccupation of his fiction. Einstein’s Dreams (1993), his first novel, contained a series of fantastical fables about how time might be experienced in other worlds. And now in his fifth novel, he concentrates on the most fundamental issues of epistemology without ever using any off-putting terms like, say, “epistemology.” Instead, Lightman explores the liminal state between knowledge and belief in an eerily quiet ghost story.

The time and place are never specified; details suggest a Western city, maybe 20 years ago. The book begins: “I saw something. I saw something out of the corner of my eye.” The narrator is distraught, dizzy, on the edge of panic. A week ago, he “saw something impossible,” and a friend has recommended he write it all down. “I don’t believe in supernatural phenomena,” he insists. “I don’t believe in magic or hyperkinesis or spirits. . . . Logic is what holds it all together. . . . My hands are shaking. I’m going to go lie down.”

After this feverish first chapter, the novel switches permanently to the third person — a very measured, thoughtful third person — and we hear the story of what happened to David Kurzweil, a 42-year-old divorced man who lost his mid-level job in a bank and, out of financial necessity, took a temporary position at a mortuary. It’s a tenuous story, impressionistic, almost spectral, that barely drifts forward but remains fascinating throughout. Lightman draws this strange place with a quirky mixture of warmth and the macabre. The family-run funeral home is led by a sweet, agoraphobic man who treats his customers with respect and compassion. The building itself seems slightly surreal, “an endless warren of rooms, some of them hidden and accessible only by interior doors, some without windows.” Of course, a funeral home is the perfect place for a ghost story — something of a clich¿, really — but it offers special attractions to a theoretical physicist writing fiction. Here, after all, under the extreme pressures of grief and loss, the ordinary rules of emotional reality don’t apply, time slows down, and the elemental properties of character are revealed.

But nothing particularly creepy happens during David’s first few months on his new job, nothing haunted or ghostly. Until one day while he’s sitting with a casket in what’s called the slumber room. Lightman tells us that it lasted “for only five seconds.” He provides no other details until much later in the story, but just that tiny drop of ectoplasm added to the solution of David’s dull life transforms his relations with everyone he knows. “How could he expect anything to stay the same after what’s happened?” Lightman writes. “The world has been cut in half.”

His girlfriend brushes it off, his employer gently suggests he see a psychologist, but other colleagues are thrilled by the news. “You are like . . . a god, or something,” one of them tells him. Soon a reporter calls and wants to interview David. The story, full of exaggeration and silly speculation, incites a media circus that mortifies the mortician but causes business to soar. Despite his vagueness, his unwillingness to make any claims about what he saw, David becomes a cause celebre among devotees of the supernatural and a scandalous embarrassment to his scientific friends at the university.

At this point, the philosophical questions rise up in a series of cleverly drawn encounters with experts. Two reasonable-seeming officials from the Society for the Second World come to speak with David about his experience. They introduce him to a scientist who uses computers and mathematics to quantify psychic powers. “We don’t want to leap to any conclusions,” Dr. Tettlebeim says with faux skepticism. “We must treat such correlations with some caution.” But soon he points to an unusual row of numbers and announces, “Here is stark evidence of the force of the mind.”

There’s not really any doubt about Lightman’s loyalties in this debate. His description of an annual meeting of “truth seekers” is a brilliant piece of satire, complete with crazy field reports and kooky evidence decorated with scientific lingo. Beneath the comedy, though, one senses Lightman’s sympathy with that deep human desire for transcendence. “There has to be another world,” one of the attendants tells David, “because there has to be something after we die. Death can’t be the end.” Lightman is wise enough to hear that sentiment echoing down through the millennia, and he has no intention of dismissing it simply because it can’t be confirmed with a microscope.

But what’s more surprising is Lightman’s willingness to expose the dogmatism of his colleagues. In one particularly damning scene, the university scientists display their unwillingness to consider radical interpretations no matter what the evidence. Like the charlatans they oppose, they’re willing to repress and distort anything that doesn’t confirm their conclusions. Courted by believers on both sides, poor David remains helplessly suspended between irreconcilable concepts of reality.

These are heavy questions, to be sure, the kind of philosophical conundrums that might fuel a provocative all-night discussion in the dorm but usually doom a novel. The salvation here is Lightman’s graceful touch and his tender insight into David’s plight. No matter what your position on things that go bump in the night, you’ll be left haunted by his question to a skeptical friend: “If you saw something supernatural, what would you do?” Admit it, you don’t know. And that’s spooky. *

Ron Charles is a senior editor at Book World. He can be reached at charlesr@washpost.com.

The Middle Word

Posted on October 25, 2007 by Reverend Keith

The Middle Word
Rabbi Irving Greenberg

Living in the Image of God
Jewish law envisions a future in which all human beings are treated as infinitely valuable, equal, and unique
The following is the first in a two-part series:

There is a fundamental principle of Judaism that accounts for all Jewish ethics, including the obligation to love your neighbor as yourself. The Talmudic sage Ben Azzai suggests that this axiom is the Torah’s statement that “God created the human being in God’s image … man and woman God created them.” The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 37a) spells out the implications of this concept. Judaism holds that–to paraphrase the American Declaration of Independence–all humans are created in the image of God, and therefore they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights and dignities, among which are infinite value, equality and uniqueness. Let’s explore what these three concepts really mean.

INFINITE VALUE: An image of man has a finite value. A Picasso sold for $30,000,000 plus; a Van Gogh for $82.5 million. But an image created by God is worth incomparably more; it is of infinite value. That is why the Talmud states that “To save one life is equivalent to saving a whole world.”

If a life is infinitely valuable, then it must be treated with great concern and care. No precious work of art would be left outside, exposed to the elements. Thus no image of God should ever be allowed to lie on the street, homeless and freezing during winter. Similarly, it is worth spending hundreds of thousands, and indeed millions of dollars, to medically treat and save the life of an infinitely valuable person–meaning, everyone.

EQUALITY: In the Jewish tradition, God is described in images ranging from a powerful warrior to a comforting mother. But it is understood that no image is literal or fixed, and no image is intrinsically superior to the other. To present an image of God as the preferred (or fixed) image of God is idolatry. All images of God (that is, all humans) are equal. Thus the claim that whites are superior to blacks, or males are preferred to women, or members of one religion are truly the image of God and the others are not, is equivalent to idolatry.

UNIQUENESS: Images of man are meant to be replicable. The normal assumption of all stamps, all coins, all reproduced photographs is that one is identical to the next; that is because they are images created by human beings. However, says the Talmud, an image created by God has this distinction: The Holy One creates all human beings from one mold (Adam and Eve), yet each one is different from the other. Not even identical twins are identical. To see people through stereotypes violates the fundamental dignity of the other person as a unique image of God.

The world that we inhabit degrades these fundamental dignities. Poverty and discrimination, legalized slavery and oppression, cultural stereotyping, and human neglect are rampant–but they are incompatible with the dignities of the image of God. Therefore, the Jewish tradition insists that this status quo be fundamentally restructured. We are commanded to work for tikkun olam, to perfect and transform the world until it fully respects the image of God in every human being. We must overcome poverty and hunger, which contradict the infinite value of the individual. We must overcome oppression, because racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, etc., all deny the equality of the other. We must overcome war, which is essentially fought by destroying infinitely valuable images of God with abandon. That is why Isaiah prophesied that “they will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks and they will not learn war anymore.” Isaiah promises that death itself, the ultimate denial of our unique, irreplaceable value, “will be swallowed up in eternity,” that is, overcome.

In short, the Jewish dream of tikkun olam includes the ultimate triumph of life over death and the realization of a world in which the full dignities of every individual are respected, nurtured, and developed. This is the Messianic Age in Jewish tradition. Incorporated into Christianity, into Western culture, and into certain variants of Islam, the Jewish revolutionary promise of world transformation has proven to be extraordinarily liberating and shattering of the status quo.

How shall we live until the final perfection is achieved? The answer of Jewish law and tradition is that we should respect the image of God to the maximum possible degree in all our conduct. Tzedakah, the obligation to help the poor and the hungry, stems from the fact that the needy are equal and infinitely valuable. Lashon hara (evil speech) is prohibited (even if the facts asserted are true) because the talk degrades the image of God in another other person. Sexuality is the search for physical and emotional confirmation of our uniqueness and infinite value–as well as that of the other. Thus, all mitzvot (commandments) can be seen as attempts to nurture the dignity of every human being in the image of God. Judaism is the way of life of Jewry, the community that tries to live by this higher standard–until we achieve tikkun olam, the perfection that will make universal the infinite value, equality, and uniqueness of all human beings.

from belief net.

Arson Suspects in Calif. Fire

Posted on October 25, 2007 by Reverend Keith

Here is an article from the LA Times… I can not understand this crime. I did have discussion this morning with a fella that suggested there may be home owners who, due to adjustable rate mortgages, may be burning their own homes… I can’t imagine that either! I can see how easily a community fighting these fires could turn on someone they think may have something to do with this. Mr. Rund, the arrested, not the killed, suspect is probably safer in jail right now.

Arson suspect killed, another arrested
Police in San Bernardino shoot an Arizona man who fled after being spotted near the Cal State campus. In a separate incident, a Hesperia man is in custody.
By Hector Becerra and Maeve Reston
Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

3:13 PM PDT, October 24, 2007

Amid worries of new blazes adding to the firestorm already afflicting the region, a man in Hesperia has been arrested on suspicion of arson, and police reported shooting and killing another arson suspect after chasing him out of scrub behind Cal State San Bernardino.

Law enforcement officials said today that they didn’t know whether either of the men had started any of the more than a dozen large fires that have devastated Southern California in recent days, including the nearby Lake Arrowhead blaze. The brush fire in Hesperia was quickly extinguished by residents.

Investigators have said that at least two of the huge wildfires, one in Orange County and the other in Temecula, were the work of arsonists.

The confrontation that ended in the shooting death started about 6 p.m. Tuesday when San Bernardino university police spotted a man in a rural area of flood channels and scrub near the campus. University police tried to detain the man, but he got into his car and fled, authorities said. When he began to ram officers’ vehicle, they shot him.

The suspect is described as a 27-year-old man with a home address in Arizona. Sheriff’s investigators will search his impounded pickup truck pending a search warrant, Lt. Scott Patterson of the San Bernardino Police Department said this afternoon.

No additional information, including his identity will be released until Thursday.

“We don’t know whether he was an arsonist,” Patterson said. “What was related by the Cal State police was that they tried to contact him as a suspicious person in a brush area. Things being how they are, there was a suspicion that he could be an arsonist.”

The area near the campus had been affected by the massive Old Fire of 2003, Patterson said, adding that “it’s very fire-prone. It’s an area that would be very devastated if a fire were to start there.”

San Bernardino police joined campus authorities in pursuit of the suspect. He drove north on Waterman Avenue and up a dirt fire road into the foothills. When officers tried to take him into custody, he began to batter officers’ vehicles with car, Patterson said. Officers shot and killed him.

“Both agencies’ officers fired,” said University Police Chief Jimmie Brown, who added that it was not known who fired the fatal shot. “But right now, we don’t know too much more.”

The shooting is being investigated by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department, which is routine for officer-involved shootings.

About three hours later in Hesperia, a man was seen by a female motorist squatting along the side of Highway 173 just south of Arrowhead Lake Road. Sheriff’s officials say John Alfred Rund, 48, of Hesperia had just started a fire along the flat, isolated, scrubby road.

The woman called police, and Highway Patrol and sheriff’s deputies were soon looking for the suspect, who witnesses said took off on a Honda motorcycle, wearing a red-and-white-striped helmet.

Four residents grabbed shovels and put out the fire with clods of dirt, said sheriff’s spokesperson Jodi Miller.

A CHP helicopter, using infrared equipment, caught sight of Rund on his motorcycle, Miller said. Along with CHP officers, sheriff’s deputies found and arrested him at a home along Highway 173 near Highway 138, she said.

He was being held on $750,000 bail on suspicion of arson and is to appear in court tomorrow in Victorville.

“He has not been connected in any way so far with any fire up on the hill,” Miller said. “We don’t know at this point what started that fire.”

More on Halloween

Posted on October 24, 2007 by Reverend Keith

Introduction

It happens every year, on the last night of the October month. From the darkness of the streets all around the world, strange ghoulish creatures emerge and walk amongst us, gathering with the evil spirits, demons, and……….. fairy princesses? That's right. We all know Halloween. A fun filled, exciting, energetic, and sometimes frightful night when people of all ages stroll down the lane, adorned with all manners of costume and fancy dress. Young children go from door to door, saying the magic words and receiving scrumptious candy in return.

Wild parties are in full swing all the way till the next morning, while others prefer to celebrate Halloween in a more traditional manner.

But, what is the “traditional” manner?

How did the generations before packaged candy and store bought costumes celebrate it? What exactly is the meaning and purpose behind the well known symbols such as the Jack-o-lantern?

We all know that Halloween did not originate in the US, but what was it like before?

Halloween has a rich and complex history, compiled from several different cultural traditions and celebrations. Several historians agree that researching into the origins of Halloween, can be a rather difficult task.

Origins:

It is a well known fact, that most modern celebrations and holidays, have usually not just originated from one single ancient custom or tradition alone. It takes a large compilation that has been growing and developing throughout history, incorporating many different cultures and beliefs, into one.

The origins of Halloween are difficult to trace, and even today many countries celebrate it differently from the more popular way, and even have different titles for basically the same holiday.

On this note, let me make you aware, that it is probably impossible to track and list every single tradition that was incorporated into Halloween.

Samhain

From what historians can gather from research, one of the earliest contributors to our modern day Halloween, is the ancient Celtic pagan festival, Samhain. Samhain (pronounced “sow-en”) was an agricultural celebration that marked the end of summer, also marking the harvest of the summer crops. Around this time, wheats, corn, barley, and livestock were brought in to be stored for the bitter winter months to come. It also was considered, a night of supernatural mayhem, when the dead would revisit the earth, and dark spirits would emerge from the shadows and run amuck.1 2

It at first, was considered to be the “Celtic New Year”, but recent debates have put that theory to question.

Several cultures from several time periods most likely celebrated this festival, due to speculation that the Celtic druids were among the first to practice it. And of course, the Celts later spread out to become many other nations. With time, different traditions were most likely added into the intricate weave work of the festival.

Because of this, many historians have found it rather difficult to pinpoint the exact practices at certain periods. It has always been a very frustrating search. We can only guess how far certain aspects go back.

The custom of ritualistic bonfires is one which has seemed to go on for quite a few centuries, and still lives even today in some countries and in different holidays. Bonfires were used by the Celts as protection against the evil spirits that roamed, while also serving as a guide home to the recently departed. Two bonfires could also be built close to the other, and the members of the community would walk themselves as well as livestock in between them as a symbol of purification.3 We have accounts from many ancient Roman sources, such as Julius Caesar, Diodorus, Strabo, and Pliny the Elder, who mention several rituals that involve such practices, but mainly concerning human sacrifice weaved within.4

Now, the concept of human sacrifice around Samhain is not completely factual, since none of the old Irish folklore speak of such deeds, nor the writings of St. Patrick, who had succeeded in introducing Christianity to nearly all of pagan Ireland.5

But the idea is certainly not entirely ruled out. It is quite possible that the druids did engage in human sacrifice, but if they did, it seems that it was not a common practice.

Because of the firm belief that the barrier between worlds was thin around Samhain, many who celebrated it prepared their homes to ward off unfriendly demons and imps, and to receive the friendly spirits of the departed. Food was set out for them, the house kept warm with fires (which usually were lighted after the local bonfires), poetry and stories were performed to entertain them, and the doors were not locked.6

Similar customs were observed in England, on All Souls Day.7

Divination is a common folklore custom which has lasted throughout much of history, and still survives in more rural places in the world which still keep such practices alive. Usually, several methods were used to determine rather important or critical things such as the success of the next crop, the identity of a future spouse, or perhaps how much riches one could expect in their life.8 Today, these customs in mainstream culture are no longer seen as vital, but are used as trivial party games for entertainment.

On that subject, it is interesting to note how much more “trivial” the old customs and traditions have become to modern man. With such advancement in technology and with so many considering the belief in “spirits” to be nothing more than fairy tale, our society today no longer truly realizes the importance of such old practices that they take for granted.

Most of us no longer grow our own food and raise our own livestock, having the convenience of the grocery market. The people of old did not have these things, and used such celebrations as Samhain to mark these events that were vital for survival.

All Saint's/Souls Day

All Saint's Day, sometimes known as All Hallows or Hallowmas is basically what it sounds like. It is a day to commemorate all saints, known and unknown to the world. Halloween falls the day before, hence why it is sometimes referred to as “All Hallows Eve”.9

All Souls Day, which falls the day afterwards, on November 2, is surprisingly similar in customs to All Saint's Day, however placing more emphasis on all departed souls.

We mention these particular holidays due to the fact that they are closely tied to Halloween, and have in a small way contributed to it.

Now then, it has always been highly debated on whether or not Halloween is actually a pagan, or Christian holiday. The fact of the matter is, it is highly likely that the pagan festival of Samhain, was established long before the Christian tradition of All Hallows Eve, and Hallowmas, a.k.a, Halloween and All Saint's Day.

However, the name, “Halloween”, was of Christian origin. It literally means, the evening before All Hallows Day. Therefore, if you wanted to get really technical…… oh never mind.

The traditions and customs of All Saint's Day are generally very basic, though the way they are preformed usually differ from country to country. This also applies to its sister feast day, All Souls Day. As a matter of fact, they both are nearly identical in their customs and themes. The term “Hallowtide” is used to connect all three of the celebrations, Halloween, All Saint's Day, and All Souls Day.

I am going to directly quote two articles concerning the subject, since I feel this woman put the bare facts quite nicely. From there, I will present other theories and little tidbits.

“This feast that we know as All Saint's Day originated as a feast of All Martyrs, sometime in the 4th century. At first it was celebrated on the first Sunday after Pentecost. It came to be observed on May 13 when Pope St. Boniface IV (608-615) restored and rebuilt for use as a Christian church an ancient Roman temple which pagan Rome had dedicated to "all gods", the Pantheon. The pope re-buried the bones of many martyrs there, and dedicated this Church to the Mother of God and all the Holy Martyrs on May 13, 610.

About a hundred years later, Pope Gregory III (731-741) consecrated a new chapel in the basilica of St. Peter to all saints (not just to the martyrs) on November 1, and he fixed the anniversary of this dedication as the date of the feast.

A century after that, Pope Gregory IV (827-844) extended the celebration of All Saints to November 1 for the entire Church.

The vigil of this important feast, All Saint's Eve, Hallowe'en, was apparently observed as early as the feast itself.

Ever since then — for more than a millennium — the entire Church has celebrated the feast of All Saints on November 1st, and, of course, Hallowe'en on October 31.

It is a principal feast of the Catholic Church. It is a holy day of obligation, which means that all Catholics are to attend Mass on that day.”10

“The tradition in the Church of having Masses said for the dead began in the earliest times. The pre-Christian Roman religion, which held that some form of life continued after death, gave votive offerings to the gods for the dead at three specified times: the third, seventh and thirtieth day after death. This practice of praying for the departed on these same days was adopted ("inculturated") by the early Christians — and continued in the Church for nearly 2000 years: the Church offered Masses for the deceased person on the third, seventh and thirtieth day after death.

Beginning in the year 998, All souls — the "faithful departed" — were officially remembered in the Church's prayers on the evening of November 1, and with Requiem Masses, Masses for the dead, on November 2. All Souls Day is now a feast of the universal Church. (The word "requiem" is Latin for "rest".) Following the Second Vatican Council, all Masses celebrated on All Saints day observe that feast, not "All souls". Three Masses may still be said on All Souls Day. The first two are Masses for Burial, and the third is a Mass for the Dead. Black vestments may be worn on this day.”11

When we look back on all three of the celebrations of Hallowtide, we realize that all three share very similar characteristics, mainly that they all are based around honoring the dead. The ancient Celts would remember their dead through the customs I have mentioned in Samhain. All Saint's Day was created to honor all saints and martyrs. And All Souls Day is in remembrance of all faithful departed. Another well known holiday that comes to mind in this context, is “Dia De Los Muertos”, or more popularly known as “Day of the Dead”.

I mentioned earlier that the customs are fairly basic. In my search I have found it difficult to find a wide variety of practices for the feast days. All Souls Day, however, seems to have a few more than its sister holiday. Church attendance is an important part of Hallowtide, as well as visiting the graves of loved ones and taking time to remember them. The basic plan right there. But, in Spain, another tradition is the performance of the play Don Juan Tenorio on All Saint's Day. In the Philippines, communities will visit the graves of relatives and spend the day there, bringing food and…. well, basically have a picnic of sorts.12

All Souls Day, on the other hand, not only has most of these elements, but also has been closely connected with many pagan practices that are extremely similar, such as the ones I have mentioned in Samhain. In most of Europe, such customs as leaving out food for the dead, lighting candles and leaving them on the windowsills, and making special “soul cakes” were practiced, particularly in England before the Protestant Reformation.13 We can also find some fragments of the famous “Trick or Treat” ritual beginning here, with the practice of Soul Caking, which involved beggars and children going from door to door, asking for alms or specially prepared “soul cakes”, which involved reciting a rhyme asking for “mercy on all Christian souls for a soul cake”. It was believed that with each cake consumed, a soul would be released from purgatory.14

In England, the rituals of Hallowtide came under attack during the sixteenth century, from Protestants who were disturbed by the notion that the living could influence the fate of the dead, or vice versa. Archbishop Thomas Cranmer attempted to abolish the ringing of the bells for the dead in 1546. But Henry the 8'th refused to sign the edit, believing it might jeopardize a potential rapprochement with France and the Holy Roman Empire. His more Protestant son, Edward the 6'th, had fewer reservations. His royal commissions successfully enforced a ban in 1548, with only a few parishes defying the injunction. The rituals of Hallow mass were revived briefly under his Catholic successor, Mary, but they were services commemorating the dead were dropped from the litany of 1559.15

In what you could call a small retaliation of the Catholics, the holiday known as “Bonfire Night” of “Guy Fawkes Day” was established, which is the next avenue we shall explore.

Guy Fawkes Day

November 5'th….1605… a group of Catholic conspirators attempt to wreck havoc upon the Protestant English State by blowing up the Palace of Westminster, also known as the Houses of Parliament. Months of preparation have gone into this, the Gunpowder Plot. However, a letter has been sent to Lord Baron Monteagle, a Catholic supporter who was to attend the opening ceremony for the building, in hopes that he would take heed and not attend. This letter was shown to authorities, and in the early morning of this fateful day, the conspirators were apprehended.16

This day, was made a day of celebration, in honor of the English “freedom” from the Catholic Church. It is still celebrated today, though with a few changes for more politically correct reasons.

We make mention of this holiday, to note some of the similarities to our modern Halloween, as well as its connection to Halloween when it skipped over to America with the Irish immigrants. The traditions have generally remained unchanged. English citizens would build bonfires, dress rag dolls and even themselves as tatterdemalion “Guys” and would beg for money to purchase fireworks.17 The tradition of burning effigies of “Guy” and Pope Paul V fell out of the holiday, except it is still a common practice in the city of Lewes, where the it seems to have a little more meaning. The rowdy, devilish, prank-like atmosphere of Halloween was slightly influenced by this celebration in my opinion, and many historians seem to agree. Guy Fawkes Day was already well established in America, and especially Canada when the Irish migrated during the Potato Famine of the 1840's.

Legends and Symbols

We shall now take a closer look into some of the symbols associated with Halloween, and the myths that began them. Today we see so many various figures that have been tied with the holiday, in a whole manner of interpretations. They are everywhere, in stories, movies, party decor and even are brought back to life through costumes. The undisputed king of them all, would have to be the Jack-o-Lantern.

This legendary symbol of Halloween, has been present for centuries, though started out simply as hallowing out a vegetable (turnips mainly), so that they may be used as lanterns. I am not entirely certain of the exact meaning behind the early tradition. However, it did not take on the name of the Jack-o-Lantern until quite later. 18 The name itself is related to several meanings, one of which is the name of a man in an old Irish legend, who's tale is now the most popular description for the custom of carving pumpkins. Jack was a greedy, lazy, yet clever Irishman, who tricked the devil into keeping him out of hell. But because of his rather mean nature, he was not permitted into heaven, and the devil kept his promise of not permitting him entrance into hell. There are several different versions of this story. In one, Jack is thrown a coal from the bitter and angry devil, and he then put it into a hallowed turnip, doomed to wander the underworld as a ghost with that one coal to light his way. In another, Jack ingested the coal, lighting his entire head into flames. This version would (in a weird way) explain the appearance of most characters who seem to share characteristics of the legend. Another legend of similar characteristics, is that of the blacksmith Will. He too leads a wicked life, and is not permitted into neither heaven nor hell, and is given a coal to light his way, which he uses to guide foolish travelers into bogs to drown. This legend was sprouted from the Will o' the wisp phenomena, in which strange ghostly lights can be seen flickering over bogs and lakes.19

The Jack-o-Lantern, also seems to be seen as the “Spirit of Halloween”, as seen through it's popularity, and through characters given that title usually having a carved pumpkin for a head.

Another quite well known figure we see, is the typical vampire, or to be more specific, the infamous Count Dracula. We all know him. He began as a character from the novel written by Bram Stoker in 1897, and was then swept up into the world of Hollywood to become a world famous icon, in a version of the story that was a tad different in a few ways, but none the less, left quite an impression on American culture. The vampire itself, has gone through many changes throughout history. Tales of blood drinking beings are found in nearly every culture around the world, each different in some way or another, and have been in folklore for centuries past. The Babylonian Lilu, a nocturnal demonic spirit, would hunt for babies and/or pregnant women. In India, the vetalas, a ghoulish-like creature, was known for it's trait of hanging upside down in trees in cemeteries. The hopping corpse of China, was also similar, though would feed on life essence as opposed to blood. 20 Well. Call them what you want, but ask a random person on the street what they think a vampire is, and you will most definitely get the romanticized, stereo-typical version, now the dominate definition thanks to Bram Stoker, Bela Lugosi, and Anne Rice. Dracula has been credited as one of the most played roles in movie history, with an estimated 160 films as of 2004 with that character as the main.

Two other phenomenally popular Halloween characters that stand alongside the Count in the world of monster horror, are Frankenstein's Monster, and The Wolf Man. Frankenstein's Monster, was sprouted from another famous horror novel, written by Mary Wollstonecraft Shelly in 1818, entitled, Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus. Mary was a young, intelligent writer, and her and her husband were challenged by George Gordon Byron while on vacation at his estate, to a horror story writing contest. Mary complied, writing her story based upon a dream she had had, which she described in these words:

“My imagination, unbidden, possessed and guided me, gifting the successive images that arose in my mind with a vividness far beyond the usual bounds of reverie…I saw the pale student of unhallowed arts kneeling beside the thing he had put together—I saw the hideous phantasm of a man stretched out, and then, on the working of some powerful engine, show signs of life, and stir with an uneasy, half-vital motion…What terrified me will terrify others; and I need only describe the specter which had haunted my midnight pillow.”21

This tale of the terrors of playing god, was later adapted into one of the classic monster motion pictures of Universal Studios, though hardly resembled the original idea in any way. Shelly's monster, was much more intelligent and thoughtful in her novel, unlike that in the movie, and the storyline had several drastic changes.

The Wolf Man, was another character made popular by the movies, but the legend itself is quite ancient. Werewolves (or shape shifters if you will), like vampires, have been seen all throughout history, and have different appearances and habits depending on the cultures. But usually, shape shifters are seen as merciless and thoughtless, prone to devouring any living thing in its way without hesitation. The victim seems to completely take on every animalistic trait, including a supernatural surge in strength and agility. Transformation has always been portrayed as a painful process, in movies and stories.

Though it is perhaps not among the most well known of Halloween legends, The Headless Horseman is yet another eerie figure I would like to mention. His story was simple. A Hessian mercenary, hired by the British during the American Revolutionary War, who lost his head during battle. In the short story itself, written by Washington Irving, a pompous school master, Ichabod Crane, is transferred to the little Dutch settlement of Tarry Town, New York, in a secluded glen named Sleepy Hallow, where he falls for the wealthy Katrina Van Tassel, but finds competition with the town bully, Brom Bones. At a Halloween party, Brom scares Ichabod with a local ghost story about the Headless Horseman, saying that he roams the forest which Ichabod must cross through that night to get home. Needless to say, he runs across the “ghost”, and is never seen again. It is not ever made clear what happened to him, or if it actually was the ghost. The legend of The Headless Horseman later was adapted into a Disney Cartoon, and a horror/comedy by Tim Burton.

Other symbols connected to Halloween, have deep roots in death, magic, mystery, horror and legend. From out study of the old pagan Samhain, it is quite obvious that it contributed to these aspects, though in a way has been tainted into a more horrific light, as opposed to the honoring and respect of the dead. Ghosts and ghouls, skeletons and mummies, demons and witches. They all hold these attributes.

But in this sea of terrifying visions of the creatures of night, is the commercial aspect of our Halloween, which gives the whole thing a sense of fun and excitement, as well as thrills and even comedy on occasion. It is my opinion, that now one can really not live without the other. The ancient, bone chilling tales of old combined with the modern, truly create an enjoyable holiday.

From Age Old Customs to

Commercialized Fright Night.

We have now come to much more recognizable areas. The fogs of uncertainty in our search are slowly clearing, and we now will be mostly addressing Halloween's evolution in America, where all of these different celebrations are thrown into one giant cauldron, and blended with other new ingredients to create what we know today.

Introducing!

“Halloween did not become a holiday in America until the 19th century, where lingering Puritan tradition meant even Christmas was scarcely observed before the 1800s. North American almanacs of the late 18th and early 19th centuries make no mention of Halloween in their lists of holidays. The transatlantic migration of nearly two million Irish following the Irish Potato Famine (1845–1849) brought the holiday and its customs to America.”22

Because of the deep rooted Protestant and Puritan religion of early America, Halloween was widely rejected and many Irish/Scottish immigrants were persecuted for its celebration. Private indoor parties with family and friends continued however, and eventually, the upper class societies made efforts to cast it as an honoring of their heritage, rather than a night of “supernatural customs”. This, is where the more party-like atmosphere of modern day Halloween came into play. It was made more “respectable” through masquerade balls, dances and poetry.23

So, Halloween was now celebrated in three different ways. First class politicians and the wealthy would have grand parties, almost completely throwing the old traditions out the window. Middle class citizens continued to have nice, quiet gatherings in the home, keeping many of the traditions alive, such as bobbing for apples and several of the divination games. And last but not least, the third class working families, who brought out the more rough side of the holiday with pranks that ranged in mischief and brutality.

Now, put all of those three ways of celebrating it together, and we get the basic blueprints of our beloved Halloween.

The Problem with Pranks

As we have noted, pranks seemed to become a part of Halloween at an early age in America, and it is highly likely that it might have been a part of the more ancient celebrations. I'm quite sure there was an occasional group of young boys throughout history that would delight in causing trouble on this night. The great thing about creating mischief on Halloween, (especially back in the days when superstitions where much more serious and taken quite literally) was that you wouldn't get into too much trouble. Many stories about fiendish fairies and devils running about the place and causing havoc, where a great cover up for much more “mortal” mischief makers.

Hardcore Halloween revelry was never really a problem until the late nineteenth century. Before then, it was mostly tolerated, yet monitored by police officials none the less. Eventually, things just got out of hand. Things such as throwing bags of flour at passing citizens, or tearing down a fence or two where usually passed over, maybe with a stern warning, but “tricks” such as oiling railroad tracks, lighting up huge bonfires, or throwing stones at people could land you in serious trouble.24

There are many grisly stories concerning the action taken against more serious pranksters. By the twentieth century, the police were much more strict on how “merry” you could get, and several respectable communities and societies fought for a more safe Halloween. This is what led America, into making such traditions as Trick-or-Treating, Halloween parades and parties, and harvest festivals, into the main events for the holiday.

These activities were designed so that everyone could participate and have fun, and it worked for the most part, to make Halloween much more “family” oriented.

Did this remove the more “spooky” atmosphere out of Halloween?

Many seem to think so.

But all in all, it is my opinion, that Halloween improved with rules.

Costumes, Candy, Commercialization

Although wearing costumes and the famous Trick-or-Treat tradition did not really take firm root into Halloween until the twentieth century, many aspects of it have been seen all throughout history and culture, from the gruliks and skeklers of the Shetland Isles, who would dress themselves in animal skins and entertain those they begged from25, to the “souling” traditions of Medevil Brittan. Even the begging of money for fireworks on Guy Fawkes Night holds similar characteristics. But ultimately, it had never been done exactly like it's done today.

The “treats” also have obviously changed over the centuries, though in some more rural parts of the world, more wholesome, natural food is still handed out. Before the convenience of packaged candies and chocolate bars, things such as seasonal fruit, nuts and even money where given.

But with every nationwide holiday, comes those who only can see dollar signs.

By the twentieth century, Halloween was well ingrained into American culture, and commercialization began, quite possibly with Halloween postcards, which were most popular between 1905 and 1915, and sported hundreds of designs. “Dennison Manufacturing Company, which published its first Hallowe'en catalog in 1909, and the Beistle Company were pioneers in commercially made Halloween decorations, particularly die-cut paper items. German manufacturers specialized in Halloween figurines that were exported to America in the period between the two world wars.”26

Mass production of Halloween costumes and candy did not really happen until the 1930's, and the famous “Trick-or-Treat” tradition did not become a permanent and central part until the 1950's, when it was created to try and draw children's attention away from causing pranks as we noted earlier.

I now make mention of the “Poisoned Candy Scare” of the 1970's and 80's, an event which frankly was blown way out of proportion. Why do I mention it then? Because I found this description to be very profound concerning the psychology of the matter, despite it being minor.

“The original festival of Samhain, as Santino notes, was fundamentally a pagan holiday, focusing on the passage of the recent dead from this world to the next. As Christianity replaced older religions, these spirits were transmuted from neutral or good beings to evil ones, and the season became a rich one for the telling of supernatural legends. To some extent, as Degh has found, this storytelling tradition remains very strong in rural America, though it now incorporates non supernatural horror stories and anti-legends in which frightening events are exposed as hoaxes or misperceptions of mundane objects. The season's marginality has recently brought forth two complexes of legends and beliefs in which deranged or sadistic adults of this world, not supernatural spirits, endanger children. These complexes include real-life “ostensive” actions, in which people act out (or seem to act out) such narrative scenarios. The earlier of these is “The Razor Blade in the Apple,” involving children who receive poisonous or booby-trapped trick-or-treat goodies from strangers; it appeared during the mid-1960's. The later complex, “The Satanic Child Sacrifice,” described cults who planned to abduct and murder a young child on Halloween as part of a ritual ceremony; this showed up sporadically in the mid-1970's before becoming a nationwide panic in 1987-88. The precise origin of the razor blades legend is unclear, though it was given impetus by three nationally publicized cases in which poisoned treats were actually found.”27

Interesting to note, however, that most of the real cases never seemed to involve any sort of “Satanic activity”.

By the 1990's, Halloween was well on it's way to becoming one of the biggest money making holidays for the commercial industry. A whole manner of various items were being created, ranging from simple window stickers to elaborate fog machines. Many ancient legends were incorporated and used as symbols, as we have seen, which have now become Halloween mascots so to speak.

Halloween, grew.

Hollywood Halloween

With such an intriguing, mysterious, dark and thrilling holiday such as Halloween growing more and more popular in the American culture, it was no surprise that the entertainment industry decided to jump into the fun. Bone chilling novels and comics have been an important part of the modern Halloween for decades now, receiving immense popularity and adding more to the visions of the public. But nothing every added permanent visions like the mother of entertainment, Hollywood. Horror movies have gained quite a vast amount of fame, and the genre itself is viewed as a must see around this time of year. This being said, it is a little difficult to give a detailed definition of a “Halloween movie”, since there are so many horror films out there today. Well, because of this factor, I am only going to make mention of the most popular, most Halloween related films.

And I believe it is fitting, to begin with the cult classic of 1978, Halloween.

This independent horror movie, captured millions, and did surprisingly well, becoming a model for future slasher film makers. Even more surprising, was the fact that Halloween really did not have an excessive amount of visual gore, yet managed to be terrifying none the less. The directing style of John Carpenter resembled that of the thriller master Hitchcock, making the mood much more intense. Originally, the movie was going to be titled, The Babysitter Murders, but was soon changed, due to the notion that this would take place on Halloween. The plot goes as follows.

On October 31, 1963, six-year-old Michael Myers stabs his sister Judith with a kitchen knife at their home in Haddonfield, Illinois. He is sent to Smith's Grove-Warren County Sanitarium and placed under the care of psychiatrist Dr. Sam Loomis. Loomis suspects that there is more to Myers than meets the eye and plans to have him committed indefinitely. At the age of 21, Myers escapes from Smith's Grove while being transferred, and returns to Haddonfield with Loomis in pursuit.

In Haddonfield, on Halloween Day, Myers stalks seventeen-year-old Laurie Strode (Jamie Lee Curtis), and she catches several glimpses of him watching her. That night, Myers kills three of Laurie's friends who are in the house across the street from where Laurie is babysitting two children. She soon discovers what has happened and escapes with her life from Myers, but is attacked nearly three more times, throughout which she has stabbed him with a knitting needle, a clothes hanger, and a knife. Loomis eventually shows up and shoots Myers six times, causing him to fall over the second story balcony, but his body is gone, leaving wonder and suspense at the very end.

The idea of a never dieing Myers, was used to symbolize the eternity of evil. In the movie, Dr. Loomis makes several comments on how he found the boy to be “simply pure evil”. Rather unrealistic if you believe in causality, but hey…. who ever said movies had to be realistic? Many have psychoanalyzed the meaning behind the film, with such theories as it being prejudice against women, or notes on how Laurie's murdered friends are more “sexually active”, however she (obviously a chaste and modest girl) manages to survive. Whatever happened to people just “watching” the movies?

Anyway, this film sprouted seven sequels, all of which featured more gore, were on bigger budgets, and generally were not as popular and respected as their predecessor. They delved deeper into Myer's history, and deeper into Halloween, with mention of Samhain on numerous occasions. But none could replace the first

The next is a group of films that I vaguely mentioned before, which is appropriately titled as the “Universal Monster Classics”. This would include such movies as The Phantom of the Opera, Dracula, Frankenstein, The Invisible Man, The Bride of Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, and The Creature from the Black Lagoon. It is interesting to note that nearly all of them are based upon well known novels, though usually were adapted so much that they barely resembled them anymore. But these films, are now seen as the defining versions of these legends.

Though it is seen as more of a Christmas film by fans, Tim Burton's The Nightmare Before Christmas holds deep overtones of Halloween. The main character is the king of Halloween town after all. The film was sort of a tribute to Burton's love for both holidays, which is obvious from the whole concept itself. Jack Skellington, a.k.a Jack the Pumpkin King, is depressed with his role, and accidentally stumbles across Christmas, and falls in love with it. He then attempts to take control of the holiday, but ends up wrecking it, since he will still always have a lingerin love for Halloween deep within his heart….or… bones…

Conclusion

With such immense growth in a rather short period, it poses rather wondrous questions to me. How much bigger will it get? What more can be added to Halloween? What new traditions shall be weaved into the already immense fabric of this ancient celebration, and how will old ones be kept? What light shall our descendants see it in? I suppose we shall never know. Or…. shall we? If you believe in the afterlife, and if you are one to believe that the spirits really did roam the night to visit those upon earth, then perhaps we shall all catch a glimpse of how it shall evolve after all….

And now, comes the end of our journey. I hope to have provided some interesting information on the truly fascinating, mysterious, and widely celebrated world of Halloween.

Footnotes:

1 Nicolas Rogers, Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night (Oxford University Press, 2002) 11, 12

2 Philip Robinson, Halloween, and Other Festivals of Life and Death (The University of Tennessee Press/Knoxville, 1994) 10

3 Wikipedia article, Samhain

4 Nicolas Rogers, Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night (Oxford University Press, 2002) 14, 15

5 Nicolas Rogers, Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night (Oxford University Press, 2002) 17

6 Tad Tuleja, Halloween, and Other Festivals of Life and Death (The University of Tennessee Press/Knoxville, 1994) 82

7 Wikipedia article, Halloween

8 Wikipedia article, Samhain

9 Wikipedia article, All Saints Day

12 Wikipedia article, All Saints Day

13 Wikipedia article, All Souls Day

14 Tad Tuleja, Halloween, and Other Festivals of Life and Death (The University of Tennessee Press/Knoxville, 1994) 82

15 Nicolas Rogers, Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night (Oxford University Press, 2002) 27

16 Wikipedia article, Guy Fawkes

17 Tad Tuleja, Halloween, and Other Festivals of Life and Death (The University of Tennessee Press/Knoxville, 1994) 84

18 Wikipedia article, Jack-o-Lantern

19 Wikipedia article, Will o' the wisp

20Wikipedia article, Vampire

21Wikipedia article, Mary Shelly

22 Wikipedia article, Halloween

23 Nicolas Rogers, Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night (Oxford University Press, 2002) 51

24 Nicolas Rogers, Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night (Oxford University Press, 2002) 58

25 Nicolas Rogers, Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night (Oxford University Press, 2002) 41

26 Wikipedia article, Halloween

27 Bill Ellis, Halloween, and Other Festivals of Life and Death (The University of Tennessee Press/Knoxville, 1994) 24, 25

Title derived directly from Halloween: From Pagan Ritual to Party Night by Nicolas Rogers.

Anti-Intellectualism

Posted on September 4, 2007 by Reverend Keith

The whole foundation of Christianity is based on the idea that intellectualism is the work of the Devil. Remember the apple on the tree? Okay, it was the Tree of Knowledge. “You eat this apple, you’re going to be as smart as God. We can’t have that.” – Frank Zappa

Zappa, of course, wasn’t the first to find God’s behavior in Genesis 2 absurd. Shortly after Jesus, the Christian Gnostics read the Genesis account and saw something entirely different than what the orthodox saw. To them, it was obvious that the God of Genesis 2 was a bully – ignorant if not downright malevolent. To them, it was basically this “God” of Genesis 2 who was the REAL devil, and the serpent was sent from the true God to deliver Adam and Eve from Ignorance. The Gnostic “Testimony of Truth” put it in words Zappa would probably have approved of:

“But what sort is this God? First he maliciously refused Adam from eating of the tree of knowledge, and, secondly, he said “Adam, where are you?” God does not have foreknowledge? Would he not know from the beginning? And afterwards, he said, “Let us cast him out of this place, lest he eat of the tree of life and live forever.” Surely, he has shown himself to be a malicious grudger!”

But other mystical interpretations of Genesis pick up on additional subtleties. It is not simply wisdom that the fatal tree gives Adam and Eve – it is dualistic knowledge – categorical knowledge. Good vs. Evil. Light vs. Dark. Ultimately – myself vs. everything NOT myself. In other words, the developed Ego. The story in Genesis is basically the story of humanity rising above animal awareness and developing self-consciousness; a story repeated in the psychological development of every subsequent human being. Thorough the ego, humanity not only becomes aware of good and evil, but also life and death. We come to understand, anticipate… and dread our own mortality.

This is our “fall”. But it is a fall UPWARDS. The Ego is our only vehicle upwards toward transcendence, but it also can become our prison.

And so, in one important sense, the intellectual, categorical, dualistic mind IS an obstacle. Not because it allows us to question dogma or doubt doctrine, but because it isolates us from the rest of the universe in a prison of concepts, tortured by the suffering of remembered or anticipated pain and death and annihilation. The ego is our hell, and our only salvation is that the ego is temporary. To live forever in our present state would indeed be a grim fate.

Every mystical tradition recognizes that the intellectual mind is an obstacle to be overcome in the spiritual path. Zen masters give their disciples torturous, insoluble mental puzzles (koans) to trick the mind into exhausting itself. Yogis practice for years to quiet the noise of the mind. In Christianity, “contemplative prayer” involves a long discipline of focusing the mind on divine emptiness.

John Wren-Lewis, an atheist mystic, describes his experience of awakening from the conceptual world into emptiness:
“Now all the judgments of goodness or badness which the human mind necessarily has to make in its activities along the line of time were contextualized in the perspective of that other dimension I can only call eternity, which loves all the productions of time regardless.”

The Latest Questions

Posted on July 18, 2007 by Reverend Keith

>Thank you again for graciously responding to my questions in your blog. These are my comments:

Thank you for the polite tone of the questions. I fully understand it must be difficult not to make a few more editorial comments right out of the gate

>1. Much of what you have written in response 1. and 4. sounds like the beliefs of Rudolf Steiner. Are you a student of Steiner?

No. I’ve not read anything of his and have only seen his name in passing.

>2. A concern that I, as a practicing Catholic, have regarding the Shema Israel, and the fact that Jesus does not fit into the concept, revolves around certain Jewish groups who are promoting the Noachide Laws as a system of morality for the world. According to material I've read on the web, idolatry under the Noachide Laws will be punishable by death, and belief in the Trinity is considered to be idolatry. These groups will not tolerate belief that Jesus is God and intend to prosecute anyone who proclaims that belief. I don't know how widely held this idea might be. I do know that the Sanhedrin has recently been formed once again, and that this would be the court of law that would try religious questions. Coupled with that are the predictions in the Book of Revelation.

I see your concern here, but as with most things, potential abuse does not invalidate proper use. Jesus quoted the Shema himself as the greatest commandment (Mark 12:29) No one would be more opposed than I to the global adoption of Noachide anti-idolatry laws. Personally I think the number of Jews who actually want to govern the world (much less Israel) according to the Old Testament is blessedly small – a small fraction compared to Muslims who would like to govern the world according to the Koran, for example. If Judaism ever gains that kind of power, it will probably be because the United States, and its Christian fundamentalist constituents, hand it to them.

>3. Condemnations of the Kabbalah from the Catholic Encyclopedia can be read here. The Encyclopedia entry for Pico is here, for Raymond Lully is here, for Reuchlin is here. You can also read a history of Rosicrucianism here.

While the CE article on Kabbalah (and the supporting biographies) were excellent summaries there wasn’t really much direct condemnation, other than to insist that the kabbalah wasn’t as ancient as claimed, and that it was not a good evangelism tool for Jews as some might have hoped. There are, of course, plenty of sources of wisdom that the Home Temple and particularly the Temple of the Holy Grail look to which would earn the condemnation of the Roman Catholic Church (such as Freemasonry or Theosophy). But I had asked the question because I was curious as to whether you were aware of any statements directly against the core teaching of the Kabbalah regarding the world as a series of emanations of En-Soph. This, it seems to me, is its primary contribution.As I said, I'm sure there are plenty of condemnations to go around without having to be so specific, so don't undertake a research project on my account.

Apocalypse Now

Posted on July 2, 2007 by Reverend Keith

Something I read recently inspired me to comment a bit on the much neglected subject of a realized eschatology in the teaching of Jesus. As I’ve commented much earlier:

(http://perennis.pathstoknowledge.com/kingdom_god) For every statement Jesus makes that COULD be interpreted as pointing us toward hoping for a future kingdom and a future coming – there are as many, if not more, that point to the kingdom of God being right here, right now, in the innermost heart of every person.

From many clear parables and clear teachings – from the entire Sermon on the Mount – it is completely clear that Jesus expects his teaching to utterly transform a person in the here and now. He even tells his disciples to “take no thought for the morrow” – a teaching that seems incompatible with scanning the headlines for the latest news of the Antichrist and analyzing the Bible for letter sequences that will warn us of the coming disasters.

The future is, in general, the province of the ego. It is in the non-existent future (for only the NOW really exists) that we will finally be fulfilled, finally find happiness, finally have “enough” etc. And, in the Christianized version of this game, it is only in the future that we will experience God’s grace, live in God’s presence, and be rescued from the future fires of hell. Earth life becomes simply a prelude. Choose Jesus and, some day, in the future world, he’ll save you from hell and reward you.

But the fact it, “hell” is right here and now. Humans live in prisons of their own making, suffering punishments of their own devising. Happiness eludes them. As the Buddha’s first noble truth teaches – life is suffering. There is sickness, injustice, greed, violence and death. There are also milder forms of suffering connected with feeling unfulfilled, unloved, unappreciated. This is not to say that all of us live in unremitting misery. There are, after all, levels in hell, and glimpses of joy. But taken as a whole, our species must obviously be diagnosed as profoundly unhappy and rather psychotic. In the last century alone, we endured two world wars, countless local conflicts, numerous episodes of genocide and atrocity involving nearly 100 million people. Global poverty increased and millions starved to death while millions in wealthier countries turned to drugs, alcohol, gambling or the mindless pursuit of consumer goods to dull their suffering. It is estimated that about 34% of the U.S. population will suffer clinical depression at some point in their lives.

Leaving aside the question of a future hell – a transformational understanding of Jesus’ teaching offers to save us from the hell we’re already in. It’s not a matter of Jesus punishing us for not accepting him. We’re already doing a fine job of punishing ourselves. But the Kingdom of Heaven can indeed be within us. Suffering can end. Joy can be our continual state. This is not something to be paid for with years of privation and mortification. It is right in front of our eyes. Or rather, right behind them.

More on “Eternal” Punishment

Posted on April 2, 2007 by Reverend Keith

Since this is bound to come up at some point, I wanted to do a more comprehensive post on the words “everlasting” or “eternal” connected to punishment (hell, hades, lake of fire, etc). This will be somewhat redundant of my earlier short post. My apologies in advance. Also, it will be rather technical and of probably no interest whatsoever except to a believer in sola scriptura (the Bible Alone is truth). You have been warned.

As far as I can find, EVERY single scripture which is traditionally interpreted as teaching everlasting punishment uses some version of the Greek words “aion” and “aionios” to describe this punishment. These words are also the origin of our English word “eon”, and, like that word, convey the idea of a long – but finite amount of time. They are, however, consistently MIS-translated as “everlasting” or “eternal” by the King James and many other translations. It is safe to say that the doctrine of eternal punishments stands or falls on the correct translation of this one, somewhat obsure, term.

This in itself raises a question. If God wants us to know about eternal punishment and directed the writing of the Bible, could he not have inspired the choice of some other, less controversial word? Yes, he could have. Several very appropriate words are available in Greek, such as “akatalutos” (endless, permanent – strongs 179), “aidios” (ever-enduring – strongs 126), “athanasia” (undying – strongs 110), “adialeiptos” (ceaseless, permanent – strongs 88). All these words ARE used in the New Testament – but only when referring to eternal life and eternal rewards, never in reference to punishments – a telling difference.

The Pharisees and the Essenes apparently DID believe in eternal torment for the wicked, and when Josephus, the Jewish historian of the time of the apostles, describes their beliefs, he uses the Greek words I mention above. The Pharisees, he says, believe the wicked are sent to an everlasting prison [eirgmon aidion] subject to eternal punishment" [aidios timoria]. The Essenes believe the wicked would suffer never-ceasing punishment [timoria adialeipton], or deathless punishment, [athanaton timorian].

Jesus teaching, by uses terms such as “olethros aiónios or aióniou kriseos "age-long chastisement," or "age-long condemnation." In distinguishing his doctrine of punishment from the Pharasees, it may be that this is at least part of what Jesus had in mind when he warned his disciples to beware of the doctrine of the Pharisees and the Sadducees” (Mat 16:12). The Sadducees did not believe in the resurrection, and the Pharisees believed in endless torment. Perhaps those who teach endless punishment today are, in fact, teaching one of the particular doctrines of the Pharisees that Jesus specifically repudiates.

The writers of the time who used the word “aion” and “aionios” used them to refer to “age” and “age-long” – not eternity. Here are some examples:

From Homer: "Thyself shall be deprived of pleasant aiónos" (life – or age.) "Husband thou hast perished from aiónos" (life or time.)

From Hesiod: "To him (the married man) during aiónos (life – his age) evil is constantly striving,”

Hippocrates. "A human aión is a seven days matter."

Euripides: "Every aión of mortals is unstable."

Euripides: "Marriage to those mortals who are well situated is a happy aión."

Plato: "Leading a life (aióna) involved in troubles."

Arisotle: "Which of these things separately can be compared with the order of the heaven, and the relation of the stars, sun, and also the moon moving in most perfect measures from one aión to another aión,"

Philo: "These they called aiónios, hearing that they had performed the sacred rites for three entire generations."

In the Greek translation of the Old Testament (The Septuagint) the same use of “aion” or “aionios” for “age” applies:

"There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, (aiónos), men of renown."

“"Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went through thee, I will make thee an aiónion excellency, a joy of many generations."

"And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee, then thou shalt take an awl, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant. aionios"

There are also a number of places where the word is used in the New Testament that simply CANNOT refer to “eternity”. Here are some examples.

What was sown among the thorns, this is he who hears the word, but the cares of this age (aion) and the deceitfulness of riches choke the word, and he becomes unfruitful. (Matthew 13:22 WEB)
[Is the listener distracted from the gospel by the cares of ETERNITY??]

So will it be in the end of the world (aion). The angels will come forth, and separate the wicked from among the righteous, (Matthew 13:49 WEB)
[The angels come at the end of ETERNITY?? (ie, never)]

as he spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets who have been from of old (aion) (Luke 1:70 WEB) [From the beginning of ETERNITY?]

His lord commended the dishonest manager because he had done wisely, for the children of this world (aion) are, in their own generation, wiser than the children of the light. (Luke 16:8 WEB)
[The children of ETERNITY are wiser than the children of light??]

Since the world began (ek tou aiónos) it has never been heard of that anyone opened the eyes of someone born blind. (John 9:32 WEB)
[Since the beginning of ETERNITY?? ]

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began (chronos aionios) (Romans 16:25 KJV)
[Since ETERNITY begain??]

that in the ages (aions) to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus; (Ephesians 2:7 WEB)
[That in the ETERNITIES to come?? Is there more than one eternity?]

Now all these things happened to them by way of example, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages (ta tele ton aiónon) have come. (1 Corinthians 10:11 WEB)
[Has the end of all ETERNITIES come upon us?? THAT would be bad news]

Even where the word refers to something where “eternity” might make sense, the construction doesn’t allow for “eternity” to be the meaning. For example:

Now to the King eternal [aionos], immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever [eis aionos] . Amen. (1 Timothy 1:17 WEB)

No one would object to calling God the eternal King. But would it make sense to call him the King of the “eternities” (plural?) This makes no sense at all. There’s only one eternity. However, if aion means age, then we get this translation (from Youngs)

and to the King of the ages, the incorruptible, invisible, only wise God, is honour and glory–to the ages of the ages! Amen. 1 Timothy 1:17 YLT)

“King of the Ages” – and “ages of ages” make perfect grammatical sense, and are still accurate.

So, if “age” and “ages” and “age-long” are really the better translations of these words, how and when did they come to be translated “eternal” and “everlasting”? We can get some clues by examining ancient dictionaries and lexicons. Here is the definition of “aion” from some ancient dictionaries.

Hesychius, (A. D. 400-600,) "The life of man, the time of life."

Theodoret (A. D. 300-400) "Aión is not any existing thing, but an interval denoting time, sometimes infinite when spoken of God, sometimes proportioned to the duration of the creation, and sometimes to the life of man."

John of Damascus (A. D. 750,) says, "1, The life of every man is called aión The whole duration or life of this world is called aión. The life after the resurrection is called 'the aión to come.' "

Then, by the 16th Century, we read this in the lexicon of Phavorinus: "Aión, time, also life, also habit, or way of life. Aión is also the eternal and endless AS IT SEEMS TO THE THEOLOGIAN."

So sometime after the Council of Nicea, the meaning had begun to change to “eternal”, and it was apparently at the instigation of theologians, rather than translators. There began to be a theological preference for thinking of “aion” as “eternity”.

Another help in pointing out that “aionios” cannot mean “eternal” is in the word for punishment associated with it, for example, in this scripture:

And these shall go away to punishment age-during (kolasis aionios), but the righteous to life age-during. (Matthew 25:46 YLT)

The word used for “punishment” (kolasis) actually refers to pruning, to cutting off branches to improve a tree. The correct translation is closer to “correction” or “chastisement”. It is a REMEDIAL punishment – the object being to improve the person being corrected. It would be absurd to imagine undergoing “corrective” punishment for all eternity! The word suggests that at some future point, the branches will be sufficiently pruned that the tree can be allowed to grow again.

Evidence for Evolution

Posted on March 21, 2007 by Reverend Keith

First a disclaimer. I’m an example of a “Theistic Evolutionist”. I think this actually makes me a good candidate to evaluate the evidence for evolution. If the evidence tended to show that God created each species independently, I’d be happy to accept it. I’m not an atheist, so I have no anti-God axe to grind. On the other hand, I don’t believe that the opening chapters of Genesis require me to believe any scientific particulars about the origin of species. So if the evidence tends to show that all life descended from a common source with modification, I’m equally happy to accept THAT. I was originally a zoology major in college, so I have enough of a science background to at least have a basic understanding of most of the ideas presented in favor of evolution. My purpose in this article or articles will be to try to explain these issues to Christians and other theists simply enough that they can evaluate them.

Let’s begin by setting some boundaries. People mean a lot of different things when they say “evolution”. All I’ll be talking about here is the idea that all life has descended with modification from common ancestors. This is one formulation of the FACT of evolution. Evidence for the truth of this idea is overwhelming. In fact, evidence of the same strength and kind regularly sends people to death row for murder. And I’ll hope to show that if the FACT of evolution is false, then God has gone out of his way to deceive us – to the extent that he could not be trusted.

As to the mechanism of HOW life descended with modification from a common source – that is more open to discussion. We know a great deal about some of the mechanisms, but certainly not everything. As to how life originated in the first place – that is even MORE open to discussion. Scientific theories about this currently rely on substantial amounts of conjecture. What we DO know is that somehow, life descended from a common source with modification. It was not created in the form of distinct individual “kinds” or species, as creationism would have it.

DNA and Genetics

It’s interesting to remember that Charles Darwin knew nothing about DNA. The workings of the inside of the cell were, to use Michael Behe’s term, a “Black Box” to Darwin and other scientists of the day. In Darwin’s day, it was well known that parents (human, animal or plant) passed on their characteristics to their offspring. People with black hair would tend to have children with black hair. Birds with larger beaks would tend to have offspring with larger beaks, etc. Although genetics was studied, no one knew exactly HOW these characteristics were passed on.

Now we know that DNA and RNA molecules control these traits and others by controlling the structure of the proteins that make up the bodies of all living things. The genes on the DNA molecule are blueprints for building the complicated building blocks that make up life. These DNA molecules, and the traits they contain, are passed down from one generation to the next. Enormous effort has gone into studying and cataloguing gene sequences of the DNA molecule, especially in humans. We have also studied the intricate and fascinating workings of living cells down at the level of biochemical reactions.

The Commonality of Life

The first fascinating thing about DNA is that all life on earth uses it. Not only does all life use DNA, but there are other surprising similarities. All life uses the same basic three types of polymers out of hundreds of possibilities. Many molecules that make up life come in “right-handed” and “left-handed” varieties. Overwhelmingly, all life on earth uses molecules of the same “handedness”. All DNA in all life uses only four nucleoside building blocks out of at least 102 possibilities. All proteins in all living things use only the same 22 amino acids out of 309 amino acids available in nature. All life uses the same basic “code” for translating DNA into proteins. All life uses a very similar cycle of complex chemicals to process energy. For example, virtually every form of life from yeast to man uses a protein called “cytochrome c” as part of the process of providing the body cells with energy. When Darwin proposed that all life descended from a common source, he had no idea that at the molecular level, all life would turn out to be so very similar.

Why this similarity? If God were creating each species separately, why would he make a rose and a whale look so completely different on the OUTSIDE – but function so similarly on the INSIDE, at the level of molecules? Why limit himself to so few chemical choices out of the huge number available? Why be so beautifully creative with the outward forms and so boringly repetitive with the inner workings? Did he take shortcuts with the biochemistry because he thought no one would be looking at it?

Of course, it all life descended from a common ancestor, then everything becomes plain. All life has inherited the basic chemistry of life from its original ancestor. If only God had made a few species that use different amino acids, or a different polymer or a different nucleoside – the theory of evolution would be in serious trouble. But he didn’t.

DNA Variation and Mutation

Although normally DNA is passed from parent to offspring as a perfect copy, occasionally there are problems. Minor changes can happen, for various reasons. DNA can be damaged during copying due to such things as radiation, environmental toxins, certain viruses or just a random “hiccup” in the chemical machines that do the copying. There are many sections of the DNA molecule that are inactive. Changes to those parts of the DNA molecule will be passed on to the offspring, but will have no noticeable effect on the offspring. On the other hand, if the mutation happens to a part of the DNA that is used for making proteins, then the protein can be changed. This can cause major or minor differences in the traits of the offspring. Mutations and the rates of mutation have been extensively studied, especially in humans. This is an important part of some cancer research, for example.

Take, for example, the protein “cytochrome c” I mentioned above. This protein is made up of about 100 amino acids and is vital to all life on earth. Because it is so vital, any mutation that seriously changes the way DNA produces cytochrome c tends to be fatal. And for that reason, very few changes in cytochrome c are passed on to offspring. But there are some parts of the cytochrome c protein that are only “structure”. They can be changed to a different amino acid without changing the function of the molecule.

Think of it as a toy dump truck made of legos. The toy truck has to have wheels, and a certain cargo capacity. But it really doesn’t matter, for most of the truck, if you build it out of green legos or black legos, or a mix of all sorts of colors. As long as the structure is there and it rolls and carries cargo – it will work. And so the cytochrome c molecules in humans are slightly different than the ones in horses, or corn, or yeast. They have accumulated some mutations. But they all work. In fact, you can take human cytochrome c and put it into yeast and it will work just fine.

But here’s the interesting part. If any life form has a mutation in its DNA causing a change in cytochrome c, it will pass that change in cytochrome c on to its offspring. If all life is descended from a common source, then, we should be able to map out the family tree of all life on earth by comparing cytochrome c molecules. If we start with humans, then any form of life with very similar cytochrome c should be on a branch of the tree very near us, and any form with more differences in cytochrome c should be farther away. So what do we find? We start with:

Chimpanzee: 100%. That is to say, chimp cytochrome c is absolutely identical to human cytochrome c. This would tend to indicate that chimps are very close to us on the family tree of life.

Here are other species and how similar they are to humans in their cytochrome c:

Mouse: 91.3%
Donkey: 89.4%
Horse: 88.5%
Lamprey: 80.8%
Carp: 78.6%
Maize: 66.7%
S. pombe (a yeast) 67.3%
Neurospora (another yeast) 63.7%
Euglena (a single celled organism) 56.6%

It’s not hard to see that the tree of life we actually find by molecular testing is very similar to the tree that evolutionary biologists had put together decades earlier by examining common characteristics. But Darwin had never heard of cytochrome c. He and other biologists created their classifications based on various shared traits. Darwin did not know that mapping the development of a molecular protein would turn out to show the exact same pattern as his theory predicted.

But how does this fit with special creation? WHY would God deliberately create humans and chimps to have EXACTLY the same cytochrome c out of more than billions of possibilities? Is it because the cytochrome c in humans and chimps functions slightly differently, somehow “tailored” for primates? No. The cytochrome c of virtually all life is basically interchangeable in terms of function. This is because it is basic to the energy cycle of all life. As I said above, human cytochrome c works in yeast without a hitch. Why would God perfectly match his “custom” created cytochrome c to the evolutionary chain of life? Why provide virtually certain forensic evidence that all life evolved from a common ancestor? All God would have had to do would be to give chimps significantly different cytochrome c than humans and evolution would have been dealt a devastating blow.

And cytochrome c sequences basically ARE at the level of importance that DNA evidence is in a courtroom. Cytochrome c differences are caused by DNA differences, and are only passed on by ONE mechanism that we know of in the whole world – one that we observe every single day. Heredity.

Endogenous Retroviruses

If the previous example were not enough, the phenomena of endogenous retroviruses should seal the deal. Retroviruses insert themselves into the DNA of their host. Very occasionally, they will insert themselves into a sperm or ova and will be passed on to the next generation as part of the DNA. Provided that the virus has inserted itself into a portion of the DNA that is not critical, it can and will continue to be passed on for generation after generation. It is estimated that about 1 to 8% of human DNA are these fragments of viruses passed down from our ancestors. These fragments are, in effect, tiny “scars” of ancient viruses infections found on our DNA, in every cell.

Now for the interesting part. Several of these same virus fragments, in the same locations, are found in chimps, gorillas, orangutan, gibbons, and other apes and monkeys. The closer we get to humans, the more fragments are shared. The odds against this being by chance are astronomical. The only known mechanism for having exactly the save virus fragments in exactly the same places is… heredity. It is inescapable that we share ancestors with chimpanzees and other apes and monkeys. We know how the viruses get there. Viral infection. We know how they are passed down – genetically to offspring. These are observable mechanisms that we have studied extensively. Humans and chimps have clear and unmistakable genetic fingerprints of a common ancestor – fingerprints left by an ancient viral infection.

This phenomena is nearly impossible to explain reasonably through special creation. Why on earth would God create both chimps and humans so that their DNA was scared by several virus fragments in the same locations?? What possible purpose could this serve? Why place older and fewer infection markers in more distant evolutionary ancestors – exactly as evolution would lead us to expect? Did God create each of these species so that it APPEARED they had been infected in the past by viruses? Or did he manipulate the odds (and it would have required drastic manipulation) so that they were infected in the same places in their DNA? Either way, God would be going out of his way to LIE to us – to deliberately mislead us with the evidence. And once again, if it had turned out that we shared virus scars with organisms who were very different from us, but didn’t’ share them with apes – evolution would have absolutely no explanation.

If you shared enough very specific gene markers with another person, it would be proof positive in a court of law that you and that person share common ancestry. This is exactly how most paternity cases are resolved. Exactly that same sort of evidence proves conclusively that we share ancestors with the other primates. The only alternative is that God is a liar and a trickster.

The Life and Times of Satan

Posted on March 16, 2007 by Reverend Keith

In the collection of sources that went into the Bible, there were several different perspectives regarding Satan and the role of evil in the world. In fact, the book of Job is an all-out argument right in the pages of scripture between several of these competing views. Israel was in a unique position to experience and ponder the problem of evil because they lived in a land that was a crossroads between Egypt on one side and Asia and Mesopotamia on the other. During much of their history they were constantly conquered or invaded by one ambitious empire after another.

Before this period, God’s attitude toward Abraham and his descendents is one of unqualified benevolence:

Now Yahweh said to Abram, Get out of your country, and from your relatives, and from your fathers house, to the land that I will show you. I will make of you a great nation. I will bless you and make your name great. You will be a blessing. I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you. All of the families of the earth will be blessed in you. (Genesis 12:1-3 WEB)

God continues to bless Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in spite of their personal failings and problems.

The “Prophetic” View

As Israel began to experience repeated conquests by their neighbors, a religious question arose. If God promised to bless Israel and give them their land as a possession forever (see Gen 13:15), why were they often conquered and subjugated by their neighbors? The answer that developed has been called the “Prophetic” view of good and evil. God blesses Israel when they obey him, but he is prepared to punish them when they do NOT obey him.

Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse: the blessing, if you shall listen to the commandments of Yahweh your God, which I command you this day; and the curse, if you shall not listen to the commandments of Yahweh your God, but turn aside out of the way which I command you this day, to go after other gods, which you have not known. (Deuteronomy 11:26-28 WEB)

Remember that Deuteronomy was written long after the fact. The Deuteronomist (possibly Jeremiah) was looking back at Israel’s history from the perspective of repeated periods of suffering. Also notice that the blessings and curses are entirely physical, in there here-and-now. For example:

“I command you this day to love Yahweh your God, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his ordinances, that you may live and multiply, and that Yahweh your God may bless you in the land where you go in to possess it.” (Deuteronomy 30:16 WEB)

The reward for obedience to God was not heavenly happiness. It was life, possessions, and posterity. Physical prosperity and happiness was the sign of God’s favor. Physical misfortune was the sign of God’s displeasure.

Also at this time, the concept of “Satan” began to occur in scripture. We are used to thinking of the serpent in the garden of Eden as the first appearance of Satan, but this is a later association. In the primitive original story, the serpent is only a serpent. “Satan” originally meant simply “adversary”. For example, in 1 Samuel 29:4, The Philistines are worried that if they take David into battle with them against Israel (David is serving the Philistines at that time) he will turn on them in battle and become a “satan” (an adversary).

God sends angels as “satans” to either oppose or test various individuals. In Numbers 22, for example, God sends an angel as a “satan” against Balaam, to prevent him from cursing Israel.

Gods anger was kindled because he went; and the angel of Yahweh placed himself in the way for an adversary [Hebrew = “satan”] against him. Now he was riding on his donkey, and his two servants were with him. (Numbers 22:22 WEB)

In one case, God himself acts as the “satan”. We read:

Satan stood up against Israel, and moved David to number Israel. (1 Chronicles 21:1 WEB)

But in a parallel version of the text, we read:

Again the anger of Yahweh was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them, saying, Go, number Israel and Judah. (2 Samuel 24:1 WEB)

Was it Satan, or Yahweh, who moved David to number Israel? It was God, acting as an adversary (satan) against David. He was, in other words, testing David.

Satan as God’s Prosecutor.

By the time the book of Job is written, the view is beginning to shift again. There have been various religious reforms in Judah and Israel, and even during periods of religious righteousness, the people continue to suffer from invading armies on several sides. Physical misfortunes don’t seem to be confined only to the wicked. The good suffer also. The book of Job addresses this issue.

Job, whom we are told is an entirely righteous man, suffers horrible calamities. He looses his children, his livestock, his health. His friends, echoing the prophets and the book of Deuteronomy, insist that if Job is suffering, he must have done something to anger God.

Is it for your piety that he reproves you, that he enters with you into judgment?
Isnt your wickedness great? Neither is there any end to your iniquities. (Job 22:4-5 WEB)

What Job’s friends don’t know, of course, is that Job is suffering at the hand of “Satan”. Instead of being just an occasional role filled by whatever angel is convenient, however, the role of “Satan” now seems to be a full-time position. Satan is seen as the chief prosecutor of the court of heaven. He is still an honored member of the “sons of God”, the highest angels. But his role is now to seek out unrighteousness and bring it to God’s attention for punishment, and to test even the righteous with trials.

Now it happened on the day when God’s sons came to present themselves before Yahweh, that Satan also came among them. Yahweh said to Satan, Where have you come from? Then Satan answered Yahweh, and said, From going back and forth in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. Yahweh said to Satan, Have you considered my servant, Job? For there is none like him in the earth, a blameless and an upright man, one who fears God, and turns away from evil. Then Satan answered Yahweh, and said, Does Job fear God for nothing? Haven’t you made a hedge around him, and around his house, and around all that he has, on every side? You have blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land. But put forth your hand now, and touch all that he has, and he will renounce you to your face. Yahweh said to Satan, Behold, all that he has is in your power. Only on himself don’t put forth your hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of Yahweh.
(Job 1:6-12 WEB)

We see here the beginnings of what will come to be called the “Apocalyptic” worldview. The good can expect to suffer in this life as a test of their faith. God will eventually make things right. In Job God shows up personally in the last chapter in a “personal” apocalypse, and makes everything right. But Job also begins to hint at the fact that not everything may end up justly resolved in this life. The unwarranted suffering of the righteous may require rewards AFTER this life.

For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: (Job 19:25-26 KJV)

These rewards are still seen in terms of a physical resurrection. They are still physical rewards – but postponed until the resurrection.

The Apocalyptic View

After the Babylonian captivity, the returning exiles rebuilt Jerusalem in a spirit of religious purification and reform. The Torah was codified and followed rigorously. And yet in spite of unprecedented religious purity and righteousness, Judea soon experienced some of the worst persecution of its history at the hands of the Seleucid Empire. Antiochus, ruler of the Empire, prohibited Jewish religious practices, and punished any demonstrations of Jewish piety with unprecedented cruelty. Jewish scriptures were burned and even women and children tortured and killed for refusing to sacrifice to pagan idols.

During this period, the “Apocalyptic” worldview came to full flower. It seemed obvious that a righteous God would not willingly order such atrocities toward the pious simply as a test. Borrowing perhaps from the Zoroastrian dualism to which they had been exposed by the Persians, the Jews began to see Satan not as the prosecuting attorney of heaven – but a fallen angel in total rebellion against God. This idea of fallen angels begins to appear in Daniel, which was written at the time of the persecutions of Antiochus. An angel is sent to Daniel, but is delayed due to having to fight off the “prince” (a fallen angelic governor) of Persia.

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me twenty-one days; but, behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me: and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (Daniel 10:13 WEB)

This is also one of the first mentions of Michael the Archangel. The introduction of angelic names and hierarchies – also a favorite topic of the Persians, would proliferate in later years.

Daniel is also filled with apocalyptic visions. God would eventually destroy the kingdoms of the world and set up his own. Until then, the righteous could expect persecution, because of the evil angelic powers – but God would reward them in the resurrection. For example, in 2nd Maccabees, an inter-testamental writing from this period, we read of seven brothers who were tortured to death for refusing to violate religious law. He says to his tormenters:

So when he was ready to die he said thus, It is good, being put to death by men, to look for hope from God to be raised up again by him: as for thee, thou shalt have no resurrection to life. (2 Maccabees 7:14 KJVA)

We begin to see that God will not only reward the righteous in the resurrection, but punish the wicked. This theme is amplified in another intertestamental writing, 1 Enoch.
Then I looked and turned myself to another part of the earth, where I beheld a deep valley burning with fire. To this valley they brought monarchs and the mighty. And there my eyes beheld the instruments which they were making, fetters of iron without weight (or of immeasurable weight) Then I inquired of the angel of peace, who proceeded with me, saying, For whom are these fetters and instruments prepared? He replied, These are prepared for the host of Azazeel, that they may be delivered over and adjudged to the lowest condemnation; and that their angels may be overwhelmed with hurled stones, as the Lord of spirits has commanded. Michael and Gabriel, Raphael and Phanuel shall be strengthened in that day, and shall then cast them into a furnace of blazing fire, that the Lord of spirits may be avenged of them for their crimes; because they became ministers of Satan, and seduced those who dwell upon earth. ( 1 Enoch 53: 1-6)
Here we have the concept of a hell of burning fire. Satan also has been “promoted” to the head of the fallen angels.

The Gnostic View

Things continued to be difficult for the Jews under the Roman Empire, culminating in the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in 70 AD. This event crushed the hopes of the most pious Jews. In a world that at times seemed utterly evil, some of the Jews began to question the wisdom of God in permitting such a situation. Combining influences of earlier philosophies, Jewish and Christian Gnostics took the next step past the apocalyptic viewpoint. The righteous suffered, said the Gnostics, not because evil was a test permitted by a good God, and not because a powerful fallen angel was on the loose opposing a good God. The righteous suffered because the God who had created the material world itself and all the powers that controlled it was an EVIL God (or at best, an incompetent one). This “Demiurge” had been created by a cosmic accident. He had incompetently created the world and ruled over it, demanding worship and obedience. To a number of these Gnostics – Satan basically WAS the God of the Old Testament. Satan had created the world and given the Old Testament law – demanding worship as the one and only God.

But above him was a TRUE God, of complete goodness and pure light. The true God, taking pity on the tortured creation of the Demiurge, had sent messengers into the world to show the way to escape from the clutches of the evil God of the material world.

The Apocryphon of John describes this incompetent creator:

"Now the archon who is weak has three names. The first name is Yaltabaoth, the second is Saklas, and the third is Samael. And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said, 'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his strength, the place from which he had come.”

The Gnostic equating of Satan with the Demiurge or god of this world has it’s echos even in the New Testament writings

I will no more speak much with you, for the prince of the world comes, and he has nothing in me. (John 14:30 WEB)

For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the worlds rulers of the darkness of this age, and against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
(Ephesians 6:12 WEB)

in whom the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the Good News of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn on them. (2 Corinthians 4:4 WEB)

We know that we are of God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one.
(1 John 5:19 WEB)

The Gnostic view also regarded the next life as entirely spiritual. The physical world was evil, and so a physical resurrection made no sense.

Summary

To review, then, the conception of Satan has undergone considerable change in Biblical and extra-biblical writings, going hand in hand with a change in worldview and the perception of Evil. These changes can be summarized as follows:

The conception of Satan:

Primitive: An occasional role of God or his angels.
Prophetic: God’s official prosecutor.
Apocalyptic: A cosmic rebel against God.
Gnostic: The evil or incompetent creator of the world.

Conception of evil:

Primitive: An occasional fact of life.
Prophetic: God’s punishment.
Apocalyptic: Part of Satan’s civil war.
Gnostic: The primary nature of the material world.

Conception of rewards/punishments

Primitive: Earthly – unconditional
Prophetic: Earthly – conditional
Apocalyptic: Future earthly – conditional
Gnostic: Future spiritual – conditional

The Perennial Philosophy

Just another PathsToKnowledge.com site

Tag Archives: death