It’s ironic to call Jesus’ brutal crucifixion “Good Friday”. The words “king of the Jews” written on the cross are added irony. Namely, that the crucifixion of Jesus, the ultimate form of tyranny, resulted in the resurrected Body of Christ as the ultimate Sovereign who has sidestepped the established order of power and death.
The Veiled Christ, Chapel of Sansevero
In God of the Fathers I explain that among God’s oldest appellatives in the Pentateuch/Old Testament (OT) is God sharing his power/might with his chosen individuals and of divine living presence; YHWH ‒ I Am. God shares his power with patriarchs, prophets and people he set apart/chosen to be with and with whom God has chosen to speak to.
In The Son of God: The Scapegoat, I describe God’s appellative as Father/Abba implying Jesus’ closeness and intimate communication with the “living presence of God”. Father(s) is a term that also relates to Jesus’ faith that is rooted in OT’s ancestral tradition. In his ministry Jesus shares his presence among people with whom chose to be with and speak to. He uses his Word to foster love, inclusion, healing, compassion, gatherings and a following.
The Old Testament and New Testament (NT) have some fundamental distinctions that set them apart. The most notable is the language in which the narratives were written: The OT was written in Hebrew whereas the NT was written in koine, or common Greek used in the ancient world. Keep in mind that even though the NT was written in Greek, most of its authors were Jewish people familiar with OT scriptures.
Speech is a core principle of the Bible. God spoke his creation of the world in Genesis. He spoke to Adam and Eve, to Abraham and to all other Patriarchs that followed. And God spoke to Samuel and asked him to anoint David ‒ anointed and messiah are synonymous. As such David was chosen to become a great military leader and king of Israel.
In the OT anointing is performed by prophets and the priesthood following divine instructions. While Jesus, a common carpenter, was recognized as Messiah by Simon a mere fisherman, bypassing institutional tradition.
Matthew 16:15 “But what about you? He asked. “Who do you think I am?” Simon answered, “You are the Christ the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
The most interesting part of Matthew’s quote above is the verse that follows ‒ keep in mind that Christό, is the Greek word for anointed one. Jesus called Simon a rock. A name that has been known in Christendom as Peter, or the Greek Petra meaning rock. In essence Jesus announces the metaphorical nature of his words and by extension his community~Church.
Matthew 16:17 Jesus replied, “Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven. So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.
A metaphor is a shift in meaning and a break away from a normal use of words. It is an expansion of being that emphasizes the spiritual essence of what was at the outset an existing physical being/thing/reality. From now on Simon is no longer a mere disciple but a metaphorical leader representing an expansion in being of future following~community>Church.
Simon’s recognition of “the Messiah” is no longer related to the traditional institutions like the priesthood, or the material nature of the temple. Jesus inaugurates a metaphorical shift away from the literal to a metaphorical meaning that establishes a wholly other reality. It is also an expansion of God’s kingdom that embraces the world outside the limits of the Temple of Jerusalem and the role of its priesthood, expanding the administration of God’s divine plan to grassroots people.
The NT equates salvation of the people with the resurrection of the Body of Christ. Key to understanding Jesus’ message is underlined by the ambiguous distinction between the physical and spiritual/metaphysical meaning of the word body. Namely, body that means the physical anatomy of a human being and the word body that means a group of people, an assembly, hence in this context the Church.
Pope Pius XII in his Encyclical Letter, Mystici Corporis states that the Mystical Body of Christ is the Church. By Church he does not mean a material building or a physical temple, but an assembly of faithful living members of Resurrected Body of Christ.
An additional distinction between the OT and NT is the parameters that circumscribe God’s chosen people. In the OT they are delineated by the language of holy instructions, matrilineality and the promised land. The chosen people are commanded to abide by the strict application of the law/ten commandments and of pure versus impure moral codes, like circumcision.
Whereas in the NT, Greek is a departure from Hebrew. Salvation is outlined by one commandment of love that supersedes all OT scriptural instructions. In essence, if you love your neighbor as yourself you will not break any instructions and abide by all ten commandments. Hence, Jesus’ Kingdom of God transcends any cultural, ethnic, matrilineal lineage and linguistic difference.
One explanation for the use of Greek by NT writers is that Hellenism was dominant after the conquest of Alexander the Great. He made sure to popularize and expand the use of Greek and literacy throughout his empire. Whereas, reading and writing in Hebrew was a closely guarded knowledge kept by Jewish scribes and priests.
Jesus was a carpenter, Peter a fisherman. By all accounts, all of Jesus’ disciples were working class people representing a grassroots economy. Jesus and his disciples were born and lived outside Jerusalem. In contrast to the priesthood in the temple and the political power of the Roman procurator located in Jerusalem.
As Jesus’ mission moves him closer to the temple and challenges the priesthood, Jesus is arrested and then crucified. He was crucified outside Jerusalem on mount Golgotha but was buried in a tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem. His physical body vanished and three days later and the Resurrected Body of Christ appeared to his disciples outside the confines of Jerusalem.
The NT point to a shift away from the center, a departure and an expansion of a spiritual tradition in terms of the Hebrew to Greek and beyond. A shift away from the priesthood who administered the scriptures to Jesus and his disciples preaching the good news. And a shift away from the Temple and the political power of Jerusalem to spreading Jesus’ message to the outside world.
I am now getting to the most important aspect of a dynamic interaction between the physical/material and the spiritual/metaphorical. Each aspect is important and complementary as it generates a wholly other essence of God’s being. Wholly other implies that each reality is distinct and exclusive but at the same time it is inclusive and whole. Because both realities are an undeniable dynamic part of the whole essence and presence of the Living God.
More on the concept of the Wholly Other:
Book of Job: A Vision of God
El, Elohim
One of the oldest Semitic appellatives of God is ‘el.1 The designation has been widely used in ancient Israel and Babylonia. It is also found in the oldest names as a component of: Ishma-el, Bethu-ell., and Isra-el. 2 The original meaning of the word ‘el is still uncertain, but a probable origin may stem from the root ‘lh, which conveys the sense of “to be strong and powerful”, “direction”, or even “a sphere of control”. We also find the root alongside the proper name of deities such as: El-Shaddai (God Almighty), El-Elyon (God Most High), and El-Roi (“El sees me”, “God Seeing”).3
Among the most appropriate epithets of El are “Mighty”, “Leader”, or “Governor”. Its most forceful significance was meant to stress an attribute of majesty, with the intent to inspire fear in the face of God’s “mighty” presence.
Another important feature in the Scriptures is the frequent use of the appellative El in connection with the patriarchs’ names. The “God of Abraham” for instance, is the “El of Abraham”, the “Fear of Isaac” is the “El of Isaac”, and the “Mighty One of Jacob” is the “El of Jacob”. The designation was also used to describe the “God of the fathers”; i.e. the “El of the Fathers”.4 This feature indicates a special relation between the deity and the individual leader. The God of the leader became, henceforth, the God of the family and of the tribe. As such it also established a tribal bond between the God and the group.
Gen. 33:18 And Jacob came safely to the city of Shechem, which is the land of Canaan, on his way from Paddanaram; and he camped before the city. And from the sons of Hamor, Shechem’s father, he bought for a hundred pieces of money the piece of land on which he had pitched his tent. There he erected an altar and called it El-Elo’he-Israel (that is God, the God of Israel).
Several divinities of the ancient Near East in the second millennium BCE were for the most part assigned to a specific cultic place. The more stable kingdoms living during that period were constantly threatened by wandering nomadic tribes. War was an ongoing reality, especially among the emerging powers seeking to expand their dominion. The survival of the smaller semi-nomadic tribes depended on the initiative of their leader.
The pervasive use of magic in connection to their tribal gods was common as a way to inspire confidence, strength, and protection against rival enemies. The religious life of the group was closely intertwined into the nuclear social structure. Herdsmen, clans, and tribes, most of them semi-nomadic, were constantly in search of new ways to provide for their own subsistence and that of their flock in a harsh environment. The best fertile lands were already occupied by the powerful rulers of the city-states.5
The text of Genesis reveals that the worship of El among the early Hebrew migrant tribes had the same specific function of social cohesion and protection. Consequently, the random contact with other tribes and cultures brought about spontaneous opposition to rival cultic deities which endangered the integrity and cohesion of the group. This is especially the case of El and its opposition to Baal, the warrior storm-god, the King of the Gods.6
Another word commonly used for God in the Old Testament is ‘elohim.7 Etymologically it is connected to El. It is used mostly as an “abstract plural” or a “plural of intensity”. Elohim can best be translated into the Godhead. It is mostly used as a superlative to elevate the rank of the divinity above the pantheon of the other gods. This expression was utilized primarily in Babylonia and in pre-Israelite times to express the unity of individual gods that combined the totality of the higher divine reality. The plural form became recognized as an expression of superiority. In that sense, the narrative uses the plural form of ‘elohim to glorify the God of Sinai as the supreme divinity, and to express the superiority of ‘elohim to other gods.
The name Elohim is also an appellation for God which is used to replace the name Yahweh. Among other epithets used in the Bible to replace the unspeakable name of God ~YHWH~ is Adonai, or the Lord.
Yahweh
El, in all likelihood, is linked etymologically to ilu, a widely popular high-god of ancient Mesopotamia and the most prominent deity in the Canaanite religion. El, which we have identified with the God worshiped by the fathers, was also a prevalent God in Canaan, what was commonly known as Palestine.8
Ex: 6.2 And God said to Moses, “I am the lord. I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, as God Almighty, but by my name the lord I did not make myself known to them. I also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they dwelt as sojourners.”
P, who wrote the quote above, makes it quite clear that the identity of the gods worshiped by the forefathers are not to be mistaken with Yahweh, who disclosed himself to Moses for the first time. In the text, Yahweh informs Moses that he was known by the forefathers as El Shaddai; i.e., the God Almighty. The account also reveals the whole new reality of Yahweh who links the promise he made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and finally to Moses.
Yahweh’s promise links his presence to the enduring existence of his people’s posterity; ie, the descendants. A promise which is revived again and again through the kings and prophets in whom Yahweh chooses to inspire his authority.
Ex. 3:14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am”. And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, `I am has sent me to you.'”
In the quote above J links God’s name with the verb “to be”, or “to exist”.
Ehyeh-asher-ehyeh 9
I am who I am
The significance of the tautology ehyeh-asher-ehyeh, with the emphasis on the redundancy of the verb ehyeh, “to be”, is meant to enforce the idea of vitality and presence. The context in which God speaks, and to whom he speaks, implies an apperception of the divine presence which is linked with the promise made by God to the forefathers.10
The essence of the being of God is portrayed in terms of presence and of relationship. All the attributes are closely related to the twofold relationship between Yahweh and Moses and the realization of the promise to free the people from Egypt.11 The closeness is explained when God says to Moses, “But I will be with you”.12
When God tells Moses to go to the people and tell them that “I am has sent me to you”, he implies that when the hero utters the words “I am”, Moses will assume and ultimately embody God’s divine authority. Yahweh’s personal presence and existence is, shall we say, determined by Moses’ acquiescence of his mission. Yet it is the ongoing quality of the promise that is eternal, not God’s spokesmen. As such, the promise transcends Moses’ historicity.
Individuality is also stressed by the pronoun “I” which can only exist in the act of speaking to others or to oneself.13 Yet the first person singular indicates the presence of the image-less individuum vaguum. In the narrative the “I” exists or stands out as an individual being since God’s words are audible and comprehensible to the hero even though God’s reality is image-less. As God introduces himself, a distance is set between Yahweh and Moses. The alienation stems from the mystery of the distant promise that God had made to the forefathers. But as soon as Moses realizes the scope of his destiny, the hero finally understands the message and goal of the revelation. Then, the separation narrows. As Moses accepts God’s mission, he eventually identifies with the promise. More so when Yahweh reassures Moses that he will be with him and that his mouth will be God’s mouth. At the outset, Yahweh is an wholly other alterity to Moses yet he becomes one with God and wholly other entirety with the acceptance of his mission and the covenant.
Although God forbids the use of any graven images to portray or to identify him, the text is full of metaphors to suggest that his identity is accessible to us:
Ex. 33:11 “Thus the lord used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend”.
God here is depicted as a friend, and the intimacy of the relationship is further symbolized by its anthropomorphic and metaphorical nature.
Throughout the Bible, the narrative uses the anthropomorphic to reveal God.
Gen. 1:3 > God speaks
Gen. 1:26 > God created man in his image
Gen. 3:8 > God walks in the garden
Gen. 32:24 > God wrestles with Jacob
Exod. 15:8 > God has a nose
Deut. 11:12 > God has eyes
1 Sam. 8:21 > God has ears
Ps. 2:4 > God laughs
Isa. 42:14 > God pants and groans
We have seen in Genesis how God speaks to the world. He speaks to his prophets, to his people and to the reader/hearer. This ability to communicate is essential in order for his will to be known and God’s existence to be propagated by reading or hearing His Word.
God was present in the beginning. He was present with Abraham, Jacob, Isaac, and Moses. God is always present in his promise and his word. Therefore, God transcends any personal relationship to encompass the people and their progeny he IS always present among the living.
______________________
1 The term Semitic is used here to represent the family of languages of which Hebrew, Aramaic, Ethiopic and ancient Assyrian are a part.
2 Ilumma-ila and Ibni-ilu, in Babylonia; IlL-awwas and Jasma`-ilu in Southern Arabia.
3 El-Shaddai (Gen. 17:1); El-Elyon (Gen. 14:18f); and El-Roi (Gen. 22:14).
4 El of Abraham (Gen. 31:53); El of Isaac (Gen. 31:42); El of Jacob (Gen. 49:24).
5 See Max Weber, Ancient Judaism, New York, The Free Press, 1952.
6 See M. Weber, Ibid., 154. Also Walther Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, London, SCM Press, 1969, 180, Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, London, Oliver and Boyd, 1965, and Edmond Jacob, Old testament Theology, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1955, 56.
7 Gen.1: 26; 20:13; etc.
8 Ronald E. Clements, The God of Israel, Atlanta, John Knox Press, 1979, 64.
9 Torah, Philadelphia, The Jewish Publication Society of America, 1982, Ex. 3:14.
10 One interesting hypothesis on the origin of YHWH -called the tetragrammaton- relates to an extension of the prehistoric word hu rendered “He”, the god. Another similarity points to the Dervish cry Ya-hu which can be translated into “O He”. The original expression may have been Ya-huva, if the Arabic pronoun huwa is taken to mean “he”. It is possible that the name Ya-huva could have meant “O-He” also. Such an expression could easily have evolved into Yahu and finally Yahweh. It is also interesting to note the rhetorical character in the original use of the word. M. Buber, Moses, Oxford, Phaidon Press Ltd, 49f.
11 See Martin Buber, Moses, Oxford, Phaidon Press Ltd, 192-195.
12 Ex. 3:12.
13 See Ivan Illich and Barry Sanders’, ABC: The Alphabetization of the Popular Mind, San Francisco, North Point Press, 1988, 70f.
February 4th marks the anniversary of the birth of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945): A remarkable German theologian. Bonhoeffer was involved in several clandestine missions to help Jewish people escape Nazi Germany. He also participated in failed plots to overthrow and assassinate the Fuhrer. His unpatriotic actions led him to the gallows. He was executed on April 9th 1945. A few weeks before Hitler committed suicide and the end of the war.
Bonhoeffer took part in a little known resistance movement against Hitler. He had been a spy and was determined to publicize to the world the existence of Nazi concentration camps and Hitler’s treatment of the Jews. Bonhoeffer’s had also worked with contacts in England, particularly Bishop George Bell. He had hoped that the British government would show support for the resistance of which he was a part. He also tried to convince his British contacts to participate in a military coup against Hitler. History reveals that due to their distrust of him and the Germans, England’s help never materialized.
What made Bonhoeffer exceptional is that he could have taken a cushy job teaching at good University or become a minister in an affluent parish. He could have blended in with the crowd like most of his countrymen and ignore Hitler’s folly. He could have stayed in the US after his latest visit instead of returning home. However, he could not leave his family and friends behind, or abandon his country at a crucial time.
He came from a good and affluent family. His father was a well respected professor of psychiatry and neurology. His mother had obtained a university degree. A rare feat for the time. She undertook to educate her children at home and explaining that: “Germans have their backbones broken twice in life: first in schools, then in the military”.
Bonhoeffer was torn between his passion for the Word of God and the love for his country. The German Church of the time was split between the emotional grips of patriotism and the commands of the Gospels. What made Bonhoeffer stand out from all other theologians of his era was his commitment to Christ. And to this day he remains an example of what it means to be an authentic “disciple” of Jesus Christ.
Like Jesus he stood up for the outcast. He was opposed to Antisemitism and expressed his views publicly against the racial policies of the Nazis. He stood against the predominant views of appeasement by the so-called Christian Church of his country. The Gestapo eventually caught up with him and forbid him to teach or preach. Before he finally was imprisoned he spent two years secretly teaching and supervising his students illegally in small parishes. He was arrested in April 1943. And until his death he remained a man of faith and stood steadfast against the delusion of tyranny and misplaced nationalism.
Germany was divided between a predominant German Evangelical Church and a religious right faction called the Deutsche Christen ─German Christians. The German Evangelical Church had a strong nationalist tradition and had a history of being subservient to state authority. Whereas, the German Christians became the more predominant voice of Nazi ideology. They even advocated the removal of the Old Testament from the Bible. With their help, Antisemitism became widespread and enthusiasm for Nazism took over Germany.
To this day many questions remain unanswered. How could a majority of Christians living in Germany not stand up to Hitler? How could they condone his racial policies? And how could they overlook the illegal invasion of other countries, justify hatred and war? The answer might lie in the art of casuistry!
Casuistry is the theological discourse that deals in resolving special moral cases of conscience especially in regards to matters of conflicting duty or responsibility. Mostly it appears in the form of sophistry: A justification of an act that is morally wrong making it appear to be morally right. For instance, the Church was able to morally justify acts violence during the Inquisition, contradicting the messages in the Gospels. It did this by diverting the issue away from the killing of innocent victims by demonizing them. The Nazi did the same thing with the Jewish people. Making them the victims and scapegoats of unresolved conflicts within their own German economy.
Bonhoeffer’s preoccupations were confronted by both theological and political issues. The racism of his country had finally convinced him that the religious traditions of his time were spiritually bankrupt. Disillusioned about his Christian contemporaries he described them as living a “religionless Christianity”. Where moral values were being replaced by cynicism and ideology. He realized that tribalism and nationalism had overtaken religion and the universal principles of true spirituality. He lived first hand the consequences of a religionless Christianity by his persecution, incarceration and execution.
In the face of his moral turmoil, Bonhoeffer’s book The Cost of Discipleship literally lays out his Christian position: To stand up morally against the tyranny of war, racism and hatred. Such a moral stand however has a cost. And since he was a man of his and God’s Word, he paid the price with the sacrifice of his life.
Most of all, Dietrich Bonhoeffer is among a few in history of Christianity who deserves to be called a Christian. To this day I cherish his memory, his moral example and character. He will remain an indisputable model of what is to be a “Christian”, especially amidst times of ethical decay, lawlessness and political tyranny.
By Bert Olivier, Brownstone Institute
The Tower of Babel
The term, ‘conspiracy theory’ became part of common parlance during the ‘Covid era,’ but although all of us know what it refers to – and who are supposed to be the ‘conspiracy theorists’ in question, namely those people who saw through the ‘pandemic’ scam and everything it entailed – the precise nature of the ‘conspiracy’ is probably less clear. When I ask individuals what they understand by it, they usually answer in more or less vague terms. So what is it?
In his book, HAARP: The Ultimate Weapon of the Conspiracy (2003) – followed in 2006 by Weather Warfare – Jerry Smith indicates the importance he attributes to the concept by capitalising it throughout. Smith relates it to what he regards as a weapon for warfare; to wit, the ‘High-frequency Active Auroral Research Program (HAARP),’ and uncovers what the powers behind this project would have preferred to remain undisclosed, for obvious reasons, once one is apprised of the reasons for its establishment by the ‘Conspiracy.’ Here I do not wish to delve into the specifics of HAARP, but merely focus on Smith’s illuminating insights as far as the ‘Conspiracy’ is concerned. His answer to the question about its ‘what?’ is scattered throughout the first of the two books mentioned earlier. Here are some excerpts (Smith, 2003, p. 22-24):
Some people believe that there is one over-arching conspiracy, a cadre of incredibly powerful people who want to rule the world. Most of us dismiss such people as paranoid kooks. Still, there is no denying that for over a hundred years a movement has been developing among the world’s top intellectuals, industrialists and ‘global villagers’ to end war and solve societal problems (like overpopulation, trade imbalances and environmental degradation) through the creation of a single world government. Whether this globalist movement is a diabolic ‘conspiracy’ of the evil few or a broad ‘consensus’ of the well-intentioned many, in fact matters little. It is as real as AIDS and potentially just as deadly, at least to our individual freedom, if not our very lives…
Debbie W., Richmond, CA
Extremely Interesting Read. Deeply researched account of the symbols om the US dollar.
I’ve always been curious about the symbols on the one dollar bill and the little book explains them well. Highly recommend this read.
Peter O., Santa Fe, NM
Good and entertaining… This book is full of historical facts about the symbols on the dollar. You won’t be bored reading it. The author keeps delivering relevant info till the end. And once you’re done reading the book, you’ll never look at the dollar the same way again.
L. K. M., Seattle, WA
Great read! Extremely well researched writing of the history, symbols and makeup of the US currency.
After reading the book you will love the tender you exchange everyday. Highly recommend.
R. S., Santa Monica, CA
Well researched book on the symbols of our currency. Very interesting and revealing aspects behind the history of our currency.
Joanne A., Novato, CA
Everything you ever wanted to know about the one dollar bill. This book explains all the symbols on the one dollar. Who knew it was so detailed? Very interesting!
M.J.B., San Diego, CA
Great Read! Well researched, packed with interesting facts about the US dollar. Quick read.
Highly recommend.
Carl L., San Francisco, CA
If you’re curious as to how the symbols found on the US dollar came to be, look no further than
Michael Rizzotti’s well researched book. In addition to providing the reader with the history and context, the author expands on related subjects such as the Federal Reserve and the dollar’ s evolution to becoming the reserve currency of the world. All in all, a good, well written read.
Ricky I., Palm Desert, CA
Interesting and Detailed. A unique and well researched explanation and interpretation of the symbols we have all seen on ou US dollar. Mr. Rizzotti vividly introduces us to the history of the symbols; and quite interesting interpretations on how and or why these symbols were included on the dollar.
