Showing posts with label Jesus Feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jesus Feminism. Show all posts

Sunday, June 7, 2015

Judaism and the Mystical Christ, Ch. 10: The Tree of Life

Note: This is part of an ongoing series entitled "Judaism and the Mystical Christ".  I have created a blog entry containing the table of contents linking to each article which may be accessed here:
 

Table of Contents

-----------------------------------------------------


Suggested listening:

Separation and Emanation
In "The God Theory", Bernard Haisch spends some time writing about the theory that he worked on with Alfonso Rueda regarding zero-point energy (sometimes called the zero-point field - this article delves into how this connects with the science I summarized in the last post).  Long before Haisch came onto the scene, Einstein postulated the possibility of a unified field - the idea that all energy is connected in a universal field of energy.  Haisch's work develops on this, because his work with Rueda involved coming up with various proofs that even in a vacuum, there are trace amounts of energy - light, in his theory - that actually may cause inertia.

Haisch writes:

The fact that the zero-point field is the lowest energy state makes it unobservable. We can only perceive it, as we perceive many things, by way of contrast. Your eye works by letting light fall on an otherwise-dark retina. But if your eye were filled with light, there would be no darkness to afford the contrast.
To put it quite simply, there is no such thing as total darkness in Haisch's theory, and thus, he may have found proof that Einstein's idea of all energy being connected in a unified field is correct.

Haisch uses light as an analogy for Creation, which I find fascinating in light of some Kabbalistic teachings I will be developing in this post.  Haisch suggests that God is white light, and asks his readers to think about how the act of "creating" other spectrums of light is an act of subtraction, rather than "ex nihilo".  To "create" red light, white light must either pass through a filter (which only allows the red spectrum to pass through - thus "subtracting" all the other spectrums), or it must be separated through a prizm.  So, Haisch suggests, we are all like the individual spectrums of that white light (indeed, the entire universe is).  Furthermore, to extend the analogy of light, we are like emanations of light from the Light that is God.

This is interesting when you note that Genesis 1 speaks of God “separating” things from each other in each act of creation (i.e. - God "separated the light from the darkness" in Gen. 1:4).  It is made even more interesting when you note how often the Bible compares God to parts of creation - God is compared to an eagle hovering over its young (Deut. 32:11), a mother bear "robbed of her cubs" and a lion (Hos. 13:8), a mother hen gathering the nation of Israel under her wings (Mt. 23:37 and Lk. 13:34), and even inanimate objects like a rock or fortress or shield (Ps. 18:2, 28:7, 78:35).  You may have noticed that some of those were female images - interestingly enough, Deuteronomy combines this motherly image with the "rock" concept when it refers to God as "the Rock that bore you" (Deut. 32:18).  We'll deal with more feminine imagery in a moment.  

What Haisch describes in his book and what I described in the last post - the idea that we share in God's self as being emanations of God's self - is not alien to mystical language at all.  As the anonymous mystical work, "The Cloud of Unknowing", puts it - God, in the mystical view, is "a nature found within all creatures but not restricted to them; outside all creatures, but not excluded from them."  While Carl Sagan writes in "Cosmos" that "we are made of starstuff", the mystical view is that we are made of Godstuff.



In Kabbalistic thought, the process of creation involves what is referred to as tzimtzum.  This word literally means "contraction" - and the idea is that before creation began, the white light of God filled the entire universe in such a way that the only thing that existed was God.  Then, in order to create, God contracted his infinite light (recall here that Ein Sof means "infinite") and created a space, or vacuum.  God then emanated his creative light into that space - this would be referred to in Christian language as incarnation.  Thus, paradoxically, the entire universe is both God and not God at the same time.

The Indian Jesuit priest, psychotherapist, and mystic Anthony de Mello wrote a piece in "One Minute Wisdom" that beautifully illustrates and clarifies this principle further:
"How does one seek union with God?"

"The harder you seek, the more distance you create between Him and you."

"So what does one do about the distance?"

"Understand that it isn't there."

"Does that mean that God and I are one?"

"Not one. Not two."

"How is that possible?"

"The sun and its light, the ocean and the wave, the singer and his song — not one. Not two."
Within this form of thought, God must be thought of as both immanent (present and contained within the known universe) and transcendent (beyond what is known and present - this involves mystery and the idea that God cannot be contained within any of our thoughts).  It is very important not to lose sight of either of these forms of thinking about God - when we focus too heavily on immanence, we begin to speak of God far too casually, and God begins to sound more like us (we make God in our image, and thus we worship an idol).  But if we focus to heavily on transcendence, God becomes distant - like an absent father - and our faith becomes empty and meaningless.  Within the paradox of mysticism, however, all things are a part of the infinite and unknowable Absolute - and this means that God is immanently transcendent.  Thus, while we understand that, as influential Jewish scholar Gershom Scholem writes in his book "Kabbalah", "no religious knowledge of God, even of the most exalted kind, can be gained except through contemplation of the relationship of God to creation", we continually remind ourselves that "God in Himself, the absolute Essence, lies beyond any speculative or even ecstatic comprehension."  Or to put it another way, all of our language about God is incomplete and inadequate to express the mystery of Ein Sof.

God as Mother
Before I move on to the Tree of Life, I need to cover the issue of gender language and God.  In Western patriarchal society, we have far too casually used the words "He", "His", and "Him" exclusively to speak of God.  But as I've already mentioned in this post - the Bible quite often uses feminine language to speak of God.  Our patriarchal society has hidden this from us and effectively whitewashed this powerful sign of the radical equality of mystical thought.  We need to go back to this language in order to remind ourselves that it is not merely men who are made in the image of God - as Gen. 1:27 says, "God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them." (emphasis mine)  Daniel C. Matt's translation of the Zohar comments on this verse:
From here we learn: Any image that does not embrace male and female is not a high and true image…. Come and see: The Blessed Holy One does not place His abode in any place where male and female are not found together. Blessings are found only in a place where male and female are found, as it is written: He blessed them and called their name Adam on the day they were created. It is not written: He blessed him and called his name Adam. A human being is only called Adam when male and female are as one.
To this effect, I would like to point out more of the feminine side of God.  I am not saying God is female - nor would I say that God is male.  God is both and neither.  Male and female were created out of God's image, and thus are both parts of God, but God is more than either.

When famed actor Leonard Nimoy passed away in February of 2015, the feminine side of God briefly went viral through a video where Nimoy explains that Jewish origin of Spock's greeting.  As you can see in the video below, Nimoy explains that the famous hand gesture Spock uses for a greeting originates from a Jewish ceremony where the feminine presence of God - the Shekhinah - passes through, and all present are expected to close their eyes out of reverence.



I find it interesting how casually Nimoy mentions the feminine side of God - whereas it causes a bit of scandal in Evangelical circles (unfortunately).  For example, when Rachel Held Evans used a feminine pronoun for God, Owen Strachen boldly accused her of heresy.

But we've already seen feminine imagery for God in the Bible.  To add to this, Isaiah repeatedly refers to God in terms of motherhood (Isa. 42:14, 49:15, 66:13), and the Psalms also use feminine imagery for God (e.g. Ps. 123:2-3, 131:2).

Besides these numerous instances of feminine imagery for God, one of the names for God is well known to be feminine - El Shaddai.  This name is regularly translated as "God Almighty", but this is the result of the Hebrew name being translated into the Greek word "pantokrator" (all powerful) in the Septuagint before being translated to English.  The name comes from "shaddah", which means "to pour out", and both the "Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament" and the "New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis" suggest that "shaddai" comes from the word for "breast" or "mountain".  Additionally, the word שד shad means "breast".  Thus, it has been suggested that a translation of this name would be "the Breasted One" or "the Breasty One".

The contextual use of this name seems to support such a theory, as most often it is used in close conjunction with fertility language.  For example, Genesis 17:1-6 uses this name, and God then declares that She will "
make you [Abraham] exceedingly fruitful."  Genesis 28:3 also uses this theme, and says: "May El Shaddai bless you and make you fruitful and numerous."  The theme is continued in Gen. 35:11, where El Shaddai commands Jacob to "be fruitful and multiply."  Additional occurrences of this usage with the theme of fertility include Gen. 48:3-4, Gen. 49:25 (which notably states that God will bless the sons of Jacob with "blessings of the breast and of the womb"), and Ruth 1:20-21 (where Naomi declares that El Shaddai has deprived her of fertility).

Additionally, as Amy Jill-Levine and Douglas McKnight point out in "The Meaning of the Bible":
[T]he Spirit is grammatically feminine in Hebrew and Aramaic, although grammatically neuter in Greek.
I also find it quite interesting that the Hebrew word racham - which can mean "compassion" or "womb" - is used quite often to speak of God's compassion or mercy (see here).  Jesus uses a Greek translation of this word in Luke 6:36, when he commands his followers to "be compassionate/merciful, just as your Father is compassionate/merciful."  One wonders, given the etymology, if perhaps he might have used "Mother" here, were it not for the patriarchal society he was in.
Rodger Kamenetz notes in "The Jew in the Lotus":
Before reading the Torah, Jews pray to “Av Harakhamim,” the “Merciful Father.” The root of rakhamim, or mercy, is rekhem - womb. Av Harakhamim could be translated, our Wombly Father, our Motherly Father.

This word for "compassion" is highly suggestive - it suggests that God's love is like the unconditional love a mother has for the baby in her womb.  She nurtures this life with her own life, and carries it with her wherever she goes.  She feels its every hiccup and twitch with great excitement.  Even the English form of this word helps us to understand this, as it literally means "to feel with" - we are called by Jesus to feel with others, and to nurture them with a womb-like love.  It is this type of love that Paul speaks of in I Cor. 9:19-22, where he declares that he has "made [himself] a slave to all", become as one under the law for those living under the law, become as one outside the law for those outside the law, become weak for those who are weak, and has "become all things to all people."  Paul is speaking of the power of empathy


Paul is not saying here that he has become wishy-washy - only living according to standards when they are convenient.  Rather, he is talking about seeing through the eyes of the other - understanding their point of view, and then speaking with their language.  Paul tried to understand the mindset of those he evangelized - he could have lazily demanded that they come to him and learn everything they could about his culture, but instead he tried to understand their culture, and translate the truth of Jesus into their cultural language.  To truly win someone over with the self-emptying love of Christ, we need to enter into the doubts of others and understand why they doubt, and then gently prod them towards the hope we have.  



The Tree of Life

We've spoken so far about the concept of creation through emanation.  Before I go on, I should note that Kabbalah builds off of what may be an unfamiliar concept to Christians - the concept that the pattern of creation followed the pattern of Torah like a blueprint - the Genesis Rabbah states:
The Torah was to God, when He created the world, what the plan is to an architect when he erects a building.
In the Kabbalistic tradition, there is a concept that the number 10 represents the Tree of Life, which they often refer to as the Tree of Sephirot. Sephirot literally means "emanations", and in the Kabbalistic conception is thought of as vessels into which divine light is poured. Do you recall the oil lamp analogy from the section on the Image of God?  Kabbalah has built a very interesting theological concept around the 10 emanations - or 10 manifestations - of God which are diagrammed as the Tree of Life, and thought of as a model for understanding what the "Image of God" is at a mataphysical level.  In other words, the Kabbalistic model of the Tree of Life can be thought of as a way to ponder consciousness itself.  Additionally, the model may be thought of as a way to contemplate how one may enter into deeper consciousness.

To understand these emanations, we must understand that they merely understand them as symbols or names - and names are just words that point to something.  In other words, they have a healthy understanding for the idea that we must not become too attached to the word, or we will not see the greater truth of what it is pointing to.

Click to embiggen
The diagram of the Tree of Life is often laid out overtop of the human body with the crown above the head (as in the picture above), representing the expanded consciousness of the Divine nature which we are all growing towards (note here the similarity to the Hindu concept of chakra, and the way this is diagrammed).  It should also be noted that the diagram is often laid over an upside down tree with the roots in heaven and the fruits below. 

As an interesting side note - this Tree is produced through a pattern of drawing a circle, and then using various points on the original circle as center points for more circles with the same diameter:



Going back to the original diagram - the top triad of sephirah (singular for sephirot - and the top triad being composed of the circles marked 1, 2, and 3) is called the supernal triad (celestial, or heavenly).  The middle triad - the circles marked 4, 5, and 6 - is called the moral triad.  The the triad at the bottom - the circles marked 7, 8, and 9 - is called the action triad.  

I will begin at the top of the diagram and explain the meaning of each sephirah:



Keter - Crown
The top sephirah - keter - is the divine spark, will, or soul.  It hovers just above the person’s head, representing a higher energy (above consciousness), and was often depicted within paintings as a halo.  The physical crown made with gold and jewels was supposed to signify that a king’s power came from a higher power - whether they deserved it or not!  The mystics would often speak of how every organism - even a blade of grass - has an angel hovering over it saying "Grow!  Grow!", and this is a good description of the function of keter, as it represents a divine will urging us towards greater life.  As Christians talk of how God speaks to us with a still, small voice, it should be no trick to connect this idea with the idea of keter.  The divine name given to Moses - “I will be what I will be” - speaks of the kind of will that keter represents, as Christians believe that God’s divine will is the source of all.  And just as - whether or not you are Christian - you must believe that all mankind ultimately came from one biological source, the Jewish Mystics believe that all that is spiritual came from one Divine source as well.  This is why they speak of our souls as a spark of the Divine.  

From a strictly secular viewpoint, before one has a thought, there is a societal pattern through which one has been shaped which governs our thinking.  Science has proven that even the structures of our languages themselves cause people to think in different ways.  But as all too often societal thinking patterns restrict our thinking, spiritual mystics seek to free the mind to thinking outside of them in order to discover higher truths.  On this note, consider how the English word "contemplation" is literally con-template - bringing a new template within yourself that helps us to challenge the other templates we have internalized.  To enter into the sphere of keter - no easy task - is to completely empty oneself of all false internal templates in order to experience pure Being.  This is a very difficlt task, but has reportedly been experienced after long periods of meditation.

Chokmah - Wisdom 

Chokmah is the first emanation of light; spark of inspiration; seed of thought.  Jewish mystics take very seriously the fact that Prov. 8:22-31 says that Wisdom was the first of the creations - the first emanation after the Divine will.  This is why it is placed just below keter

This sephirah is associated with creativity.  This is the realm in which revelation occurs and we get flashes of insight

But how does one achieve wisdom, since we know it must be deeper than a "gut feeling"?  In "
Kabbalah: A Brief Introduction for Christians", Tamar Frankel writes:
Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan comments on the famous rabbinic saying, “Who is wise? He who learns from every man” (Avot 4.1):“It is on the level of Wisdom that all men are one.”
Here we see the Jewish wisdom inviting us to see that a soul is not limited to being an individual essence, but is truly connected to all other souls, and could experience this more fully if it would just open itself up to this level of existence.  Even if we deny this, it is true - because the only reason anyone knows anything or behaves the way they do is because of the people throughout their lives whom they have come into contact with and whom have influenced them.  We would not even exist if it were not for other people.

In "The Unbearable Wholeness of Being: God, Evolution, and the Power of Love", Ilia Delio defines Wisdom this way:

Wisdom is knowledge deepened by love. It is found in the experience of the sacred and the inner heart. It brings to light the depths of things in a way that both reveals and veils the divine mystery. The wise person thinks with the heart.

Binah - Understanding
Binah is nourishing the spark into a flame; nourishing the seed into an organismBinah is associated with templates or patterns of reason.  This is where wisdom becomes form.  Jewish mystics will often use feminine pronouns here, as in biology the father brings forth the seed (chokmah) and the mother nourishes that seed until it takes form (binah). 
Here once more we see the radical equality of Jewish mysticism, as chokmah and binah are referred to as man and woman, father and mother - as early Kabbalist Moses Cordovero wrote in "Or Ne’erav".

Note the emphasis on love from Psalm 49:3, which indicates that understanding comes not from the intellect, but from the heart - the place where love resides.
  This reminds me once more of the picture of Gen. 1:2, where the spirit of God (which is love - see I John 4:8, 16) hovers over the waters of chaos to form understanding.  The book of Revelation ends with "the sea was no more" (21:1) - as the sea is the symbol of chaos, this is an indication that the writer of Revelation believes that in the end, understanding will fill the cosmos, and there will be no more chaos.  Often the first three sephirot are drawn with another diagram where each is inside of the other, to illustrate how there is no separation between them, but rather, they each flow into the others.

In between the top triad and the middle triad is drawn another sephirah - da'at - which is often drawn right on or above the head, as you can see in the big diagram above, or the one below (you will note that the version below seems to have flipped the right and left sides):





Da'at - Knowledge
Da'at is unifying and connecting knowledge.  Note that this is the same term used when the Bible speaks of a man "knowing" his wife - knowledge is not supposed to be thought of as the Westerners commonly see it, where we have completely externalized that which we know.  But rather, the Eastern view makes this into an intimate sort of knowledge where we are connected with that which we know, and see it as a part of ourselves.  With knowledge comes the awareness of our limits - knowing implies the limitation and finitude of the knower, the known, and the act of knowing itself.  This recognition is necessary in order to achieve the connectedness that is so different between Eastern "knowing" and Western "knowing". 

The difference between Eastern "knowing" and Western "knowing" can be illustrated through the history of the "University".  The very word "University" hints at the interconnectedness of knowledge, and one of the first "Universities" was the 12th century School of Chartres - in this school, various forms of knowledge were taught in connection to others.  In "The Sacred Cosmos", Peter Ellard writes about the methods of this school:

Liberal arts are used as a way for humanity to understand the cosmos, both on the local and universal level, and it is through the knowledge obtained in the process that one is led to knowledge of God.
This form of study was rooted in the understanding of the word "Cosmos" itself - this term was originally coined by Greek philosophers such as Pythagoras and Plato to describe the logic, order, structure, and interrelatedness of the universe.  In their minds, all-that-is exists in a harmonious whole - and thus all knowledge must be harmonized as well.

But in modern universities, we segment off specialities, and students within these specialized forms of knowledge find it very hard to understand each other (sometimes even to respect each other - as scientists will often look down on philosophers and theologians will scoff at both).  In this way, knowledge has been broken off into chunks that are not seen as related, but are in fact often seen as in conflict with each other.

Thomas Merton writes in "Love and Living" about the modern University:

It mass produces uneducated graduates who are unfit for anything except to take part in an elaborate and complete artificial charade which they call ‘life.’
In "The Unbearable Wholeness of Being", Ilia Delio continues this thought:
Our universities have become fragmented silos of specialties where no two people speak the same language on any given day. Students are encouraged to succeed in their studies, not to contemplate truth, as if success is the goal of study. If contemporary education is failing the cosmos, it is because we have lost the integral relationship between living and loving. Unless we change the way we think, we will not change the way we act. Our mechanized world of mechanized systems with mechanized humans can no longer continue. We are fragmenting fast.
What our modern system of education effectively does is to encourage people to impose the assumptions of their biased views upon the world, rather than allowing new observations to raise questions, and living within the tension of those questions as one moves closer to the whole-ness of true knowledge, which is to enter into the Being of life.  Coupled with Capitalism, society has turned this system of education into a marketplace for bias - pick your brand of bias and our market has a product for you!

To return to the contemplation of da'at - note also that Jewish mystics often speak of this sephirah - and all that is below it - as being another level from the other three at the top.  They use the analogy of how in the Creation story, God separated the waters below from the waters above by a thin line we translate in English as the "firmament".  Consider how Christians and Jews alike often speak of "piercing the veil".  So the separation between
da'at and understanding is a very thin veil we sometimes pierce.  This is why da'at is drawn faintly in the diagram above, symbolizing the veil itself.  Note also how this circle is drawn as a much smaller circle, and the lines between the sephirot are drawn to connect all the outer sephirot with tifuretDa’at, and the sephirot below, are connected to finite experience, while the three levels above are connected to that which is infinite.  In other words, what is above da'at is considered limitless, but what is below is actually referred to as midot, which literally means "measures", signifying that what is below has limits (these sephirah actually limit each other, too, as will be demonstrated).

Da'at is also associated with study and meditation - as this is viewed as the way to continue expansion into the realm of Spirit.


Below this, there are "opposites" - but while this can be a useful way of thinking, we must learn to stop seeing things in this way, and see how they balance each other out.  We must see how generosity and restraint balance each other out for healthy living, for example.  The way the diagram is laid out shows how what is in the center connects the "opposites" and acts as a unifying force.  The levels below may also be seen as dominant personality traits of people - as Moses Cordovero wrote in "Or Ne’erav":

The Righteous are capable of becoming a vehicle for the sefirot, through the mystery of the emanation of their souls, their actions in this world, and their inclination toward one side and toward one of the sefirot.

Chesed
- Mercy, Kindness, Lovingkindness

Chesed is expansiveness through lovingkindness, divine grace, and universal support.  Chesed is also associated with divine love through empathy and support.
 

Geburah/gevurah - Restraint 

Geburah is discipline, limitation, and strength of character.There is an old story  that illustrates restraint well - in the story, a sage came to a master and asked to be accepted into the master’s society.  The master asked if he had achieved equanimity - the sage asked what he meant, and the master replied: "If one man is praising you and another is insulting you, are the two equal in your eyes or not?"  The point is that we must learn to see how those who "insult" us are teachers!  (See 2 Sam. 16:10-13)  We often speak of darkness as being the force which resists the light of God - and this can be very useful language.  You will find me doing the same as this series progresses.  However, we ought to caution ourselves and realize that without darkness, light has no meaning!
 

These two sephirot - chesed and geburah - are referred to by many names, but the important idea is to see how they balance each other out.  We can think of them as expanding and contracting, or even unifying and separating forces - and thus these sephirot are actually foundational to life itself!  I often write about how we need unity, but it is important to note that without separation life would not exist!  Cells must separate for life to expand.  A baby must be separated from her mother’s womb for new life to occur.  And this is how we defeat the dualism that is so prevalent in Western thought.  And this leads straight to the connecting sephirah:


Tifuret - Beauty / Vision / Higher Splendor
Tifuret
is the harmonic balance of tendencies - the "bolt" that unites and binds all of the sephirot below the veil.  Note how this sephirah is laid overtop of the heart on a human torso - all the upper sephirot flow into tifuret, and all the lower
sephirot emanate into this level as well.  Binah understanding resides in the right side of the head as well as the right side of the heart - we can use this concept to meditate on how many forms of Christianity have become unbalanced by making religion entirely about beliefs, rather than action within the world.  The heart is seen as being above the emotions, but the emotions flow into it - so it can be seen as "passion", but not in an emotional sense.  Rather, it is a balanced sense of passion that is aware of higher purpose - it is being "centered". 

Note how quite often our questions arise out of a deep sense that there is a higher purpose.  We intuitively know when things are wrong, because beauty is absent when things become unbalanced.

Because we have lost sight of the importance of beauty in our Western culture, dominion  has been the model of thought.  But this is now coming into question - in a short time span, thousands of species have gone extinct and still thousands more are threatened by the effects of the chemicals we spew into the atmosphere, and the concrete we pour over earth where life once grew.  No matter how unbalanced the distribution of wealth becomes, those in power tell us to have faith in the System - but we’ve forgotten how nature gives us models, and in the human body, when a cell gobbles up all the resources and grows in ways that crowds out the other cells, it is called cancer.  Beauty has been sidelined, and as a result we have reached a place where total extinction is now a real danger.  To solve these problems, we must elevate beauty as a priority of existence over the cold, rational model of capitalism which elevates efficiency and profitability as the highest priority.

Why is balance so much a part of the concept of beauty in this model?  Consider how, in the very beginning of the universe, the conditions necessary to one day give rise to life were present, because the expansiveness of the Big Bang was met by the balancing force of the restraint of gravity - which was necessary for galaxies to form from the dust!  If the expanding force of the Big Bang was not balanced by the restraint of gravity, life would not have occurred. 


Likewise, resistance is necessary for growth.  Too much expansion in our life is cancer (both literally and figuratively).  Expansion can be so fulfilling that we seek it out like a drug, and then it becomes ego-inducing - but restraint is the balancing force that holds our ego back and tempers our pride with humility.  


Similarly, the Buddha is said to have taught (from "The Gospel of Buddha"):
There are two extremes, O bhikkhus, which the man who has given up the world ought not to follow-the habitual practice, on the one hand, of self-indulgence which is unworthy, vain and fit only for the worldly-minded and the habitual practice, on the other hand, of self-mortification, which is painful, useless and unprofitable.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, there is a legend in Judaism that says that before Eve was split from Adam’s side, Adam contained both male and female, and in this state he was a towering being who stood so tall that he was able to see the ends of the earth.  The interpretation, as it relates to the Tree of Life, is that the balance between expansion and restraint causes vision.  This can be seen metaphorically as a call to restore the balance between expansion and restraint in order to create beauty, and if we restore this vision - this higher purpose - we can heal the world.

As in the diagram of the Tree of Life, when the two forces of expansion and restraint, darkness and light, compassion and discipline, order and chaos meet each other, the sephirot at the middle of the two is born: the
sephirot of beauty (tifuret).

One way to think of this is to understand how love encompasses both sides of this duality, and thus the distinction between "love" and "lovingkindness" - because sometimes, to love someone means we hold back and allow them to be.  Sometimes we must allow the child to do things for herself - that she might learn how to walk on her own without the parent holding her hands.  Sometimes, we must allow someone who is angry with us to be apart from us in order that healing might occur.  Sometimes we must allow people to do things which we consider mistakes, because obsessively restraining them only makes them want to get out from under our control all the more.  And so both sides of this level of the Tree are encompassed in love.  Love recognizes that there are healthy boundaries, and when we do this, those boundaries do not harden to become walls of separation but are thin veils which may be pierced just as the veil which may be pierced by da'at reaching into the heavenly realms.

Through love, we can even see how both order and chaos are necessary.  Since the discovery of Quantum Mechanics - which we delved into earlier in this series - it has been noted that without a little chaos, life might not have been possible.  If everything were completely predictable, there would not be life.  


Because we are stuck within linear time, we don’t often see how the experiences we call "bad" can ultimately have very good results.  For instance, the nation of Israel developed a compassionate model of community because of their time in slavery.  Often, the grief of losing a beloved family member drives people to make changes in society in order to prevent the conditions from which their tragedy occurred in the first place.  This is why the Bible speaks of the process of purification through the analogy of the
refiner’s fire (see Mal. 3:3, Heb. 12:29, I Pet. 1:7 for a few examples).  

We can also think of the middle and upper levels of the Tree as the Revealed and the Concealed.  If God revealed all of His glory, we would not be able to contain this knowledge.  Some say that we would be incinerated.  So God lovingly conceals much of Him-Her-It-self, and gives us more as we grow.  This is why it has been said that "Lord" (usually translated from Elohim) and "God" (from YHVH or Adoni, which is a replacement for YHVH) can be seen as the personal (immanent) and impersonal (transcendent) sides of God.
Tamar Frankiel writes on this (from "Kabbalah"):
Lord is the personal aspect of God that intervenes in history and our lives, while God is God as manifest in nature and law, balancing everything in cosmic justice. Y-H-V-H is Expansiveness, God is Restraint.

The next level of the Tree of Sephirot has to do with actualization - or practice - and once again there is a balance between two sephirot, with a third sephirot in between representing that balance.  Tifuret-Beauty functions here as another split between vertical levels - from Tifuret-Beauty upwards, humans interact with God as He is made manifest in the world, and from Tifuret-Beauty downwards, humans interact with the world in order to manifest God’s presence more actively into the world.  In other words, the areas below Tifuret-Beauty are the ways in which humans act as God’s ambassadors and strive to direct the world towards the manifestation of God’s Kingdom in this role.  The two sides of the next level also run parallel to Chesed-Expansiveness and Gevurah-Restraint, so it is important to note the similarities.


Netzach - Perseverance / Victory
Netzach is energetic initiative and stamina.  It is drive.

Netzach-Perseverance can be viewed positively, as the drive to achieve greater tasks/goals, and imitates Divine Expansiveness.  Netzach can drive us to achieve amazing things in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds.  We see Netzach in the natural drive of plants to emerge everywhere (even amongst the cracks of the rocks), in the animals which have adapted to the frigid climate of the arctic regions, the ingenuity of the bees in designing and constructing hives, and many other ways.

Netzach-Perseverance can also be viewed negatively as the drive to survive, or unrestrained desire (which is called lust in religious language).  This is because Netzach without the balance of Hod-Surrender causes us to become more instinctive (like an animal) than human.  The extreme negative of Netzach - where it becomes completely unbalanced because of an extreme lack of its counterpart - is called Domination (as in the Domination System I have written so much about). 

So Netzach can become very negative, but it is important to note how this is merely a perversion of the good due to an imbalance.

Hod - Surrender / Submission /Splendour
Hod is accepting; yielding - note here the similarity to humilityHod-Surrender is learning to say "let it be".  This is an area that Western forms of Christianity seem to be sadly lacking, and I believe it has much to do with our chauvinistic form of Christianity.  If we learned to treasure the model of Mary saying "let it be to me according to your word", as a model for Christian life (this is something the Catholics seem to understand much better), perhaps we can find more balance.

Hod-Surrender imitates Divine Restraint (
geburah), and is the inclination to yield to another or withdraw from conflict.  It is also our ability to rely or depend on others in order to work together as a community towards greater goals which no one person could achieve on his or her own.  We see this in nature as well, as there is a symbiosis between the animals and plant kingdoms - animals breathe in oxygen and exhale carbon dioxide while plants do the opposite, and plants rely on the pollination of bees while rewarding the bee kingdom with the materials to manufacture honey.  This symbiosis is only made possible by surrender

We can think of this also in terms of sacrifice - love often demands that we make sacrifices for the greater good in order that others may survive.  But this means that we must surrender our ego - our instinctive drive to survive and assert ourselves.  Hod-Surrender is the level at which we are able to understand the needs and feelings of other creatures in order to balance out our own visions and reshape them in ways that will contribute to life outside of our own.

Hod-Surrender also has a negative side as well, however.  When surrender is not balanced, it manifests through negative feelings of fear, shame, and victimization.  Think of the phrase "fight or flight" - when the two sephirot of Hod-Surrender and Netzach-Perseverance become imbalanced, we will often shift back and forth between the negative sides of the two and will either act out by attacking others (fight - the negative form of netzach) or hiding in unhealthy forms of withdrawal (flight - the negative form of hod).  But when these two levels work together in harmony, humans can create beautiful things - families become clans, which become tribes, which become societies, which become civilizations.  Life becomes more than merely finding sustenance and people rise to the next level of the Tree by creating art, music, story, poetry, and dance in order to enhance life’s joys.  When there is a balance between netzach and hod, we also are able to find ways to create technologies, and this enables us to do even more.  All of this is only possible when perseverance and surrender create cooperative and collaborative relationships connecting life to life. 

We must constantly be looking to create greater connections, however, or the smaller groups we form may be harming other groups through ignorance or carelessness.  We have seen this pattern time and time again - as humans have gone from one stage to the next in our societies, there are those who become marginalized.  We must seek the ways in which our organizational structures cause people to be left by the wayside, and seek to reduce this and care for those we have harmed - whether this came through ignorance or not.  When the energies of
perseverance and surrender are not striving towards greater levels of the connectivity of life (which can be thought of as the next level of the tree - the level at which Tifuret-Beauty connects to Chesed-Expansiveness and Gevurah-Restraint), they begin to decay and become corrupt.  We must always seek the higher vision of Tifuret-Beauty which allows us to see more in order to guard our practices against this corruption.

One way to think of this is by realizing that Tifuret-Beauty must flow both ways vertically in order for us to achieve a healthy balance - earth must reach towards heaven and heaven reaches towards earth (or else it is not truly heaven).  It is possible to be too heavenly minded to be of earthly good, just as the opposite is also true (too earthly minded to be of heavenly good).  So in all things we must seek balance.

Bringing Heaven to Earth is where the last sephirah comes into play:


Yesod - Foundation
Yesod-Foundation
is processing and transmitting the energies of the previous sephirot through orthopraxis.  It is the balance that is achieved between the Netzach-Perseverence drive to live and expand and the Hod-Surrender drive to pull back and respond to others.  This sephirah can also be thought of as transmission - transmission between life forces.  We transmit our experiences to one another and create foundational structures where our collective life experience is built upon. 


Yesod-Foundation
is the level in which memory resides as well.  The declaration in Ex. 20:5-6 - where it is said that children will experience the aftereffects of their parents' sin to the third and fourth generation, but God will show love to a thousand generations - is often interpreted as God forgetting sins much more quickly than God's practice of kindness.  Here, we can note how remembering can be thought of as "re-member-ing", as this would be a far healthier way to recall memories - demonstrated by this principle of keeping the good and discarding the bad.

We can understand how Netzach-Perseverence and Hod-Surrender can be connected through Yesod-Foundation and still be displaying their negative side.  This would occur when a society has become withdrawn into itself and is no longer striving to reach upwards for the beauty of greater consciousness through greater unity.  A society like this has become tribal and only tells stories of persecution and aggression.

The lower triangle can be thought of as yearning and the upper as clarifying.  We must constantly connect the two triangles and use them for a refining process - they each clarify and build upon each other.  And we must be aware that when religions are pointing us to foundations of fear, shame, resentment, and desire for vengeance - then they are not true religions (literally "re-ligamenting") but are forces of separation that contribute to the Domination System.

The final sephirah is pictured as being rooted in the ground - as the final connection between Heaven and Earth.  This sephirah is called malkhut, which can be thought of as either manifestation or kingdom.


Malkhut - Manifestation / Kingdom
Malkhut-Manifestation is connected with Shekinah, and is also spoken of as Kingship.  It represents the final impression made on the physical world: the divine Presence, immanent in the world.  Malkhut-Manifestation is all that we see, hear, and touch.  The mystical view is that what is unseen is implied by what is seen in
Malkhut-Manifestation.  By pondering the mysteries of what we find in Malkhut-Manifestation, and seeking to apply the lessons we learn through these exercises towards greater connection, we may reach towards Heaven.

To apply this personally (to an individual person), we may observe an individual's manifestation (their way of being in the world) and discern their character - even discerning their inner wounds.  Outward behavior always leaves clues (for a careful observer/listener) as to what is going on inside.

It is in
Malkhut-Manifestation that we complete the cycle of thought, feeling, and action - because this is where we consciously act.  Through manifestation, we set vibrations into motion that ripple out and touch others.  And thus, even if we try to deny our unity with all things, it is still there.  So we should always seek to make our manifestations harmonious.
The language of Kingdom brings up another point - the two sides of the tree, with restraint/surrender and expansion/perseverence can be thought of in terms of being conservative and being liberal.   It would do much good if we could heal these terms that have been used so often for political concepts that do not match their dictionary definition, and to see how we can find a balanced view somewhere in between the two poles (more on that here).
 
We can try to deny our role in Kingdom, but even if we do this, we will be participating - in the unbalanced form or the negative form of Hod-Surrender.  But we also see the other side of this in our politics - the negative form of Netzach-Perseverence that becomes Domination - in the obscenely partisan nature of people’s communication during and even after the elections, as well as the talk of violent revolution.  To correct this, we must correctly understand responsibility - responsibility is connected to the ability to respond.  This implies that we are a player that is part of a larger whole, and must act with this in mind.  We are all responsible to one another and for one another, and we must seek this connection without straying into forms of negative
Netzach-Perseverence that becomes Domination or negative Hod-Surrender (which supports Domination by passivity).
 

Here I would like to note how Kabbalists often conceptualize the Tree of Sephirot as a pattern for life by drawing smaller Trees within each Sephirot - symbolizing how kingdom is a greater connectivity of people, who are all made in the image of God like parts of the hologram.  And through this symbol we can see how unity is not the loss of individuality - true unity respects individuality and sees how people balance each other out just like the Sephirot on the tree.


Walking

It may seem very difficult to conceptualize how we are to play our own part in the manifestation of Kingdom.  If that is the case, we must remember that the word that is often used to describe this process is halacha (the walking) - and walking is done one step at a time.

One might ask where to start on the Tree.  We do not have to think of the Tree in terms of "up" and "down" - and as I mentioned before, Kabbalists speak of how God's perspective on the matter is different than ours.  But more importantly, we must understand that the division between upper and lower is artificial and merely a conceptual tool to help us realize the Unity of God.  In our lives, growth is not a two dimensional up/down process, either - but like a tree, as we grow in stature, we must also grow in strength and fill out our trunk and branches.  We must go in both directions to experience God, because God is the continual Beginning, and thus we must seek the inner Restraint and the outer Expansiveness - we must be present in the Earth and in Heaven to experience God!

Additionally, we may conceptualize the process of spiritual growth by using the circles that are initially drawn in order to form the Tree to draw a spiral connecting all the sephirot - this can help us to conceptualize the spiritual cycle.  This may be thought of - to go along with halacha (walking) - as a process of running and returning.  To put this another way - as we go out into the world to apply our spiritual growth, we learn more that we must bring back into ourselves, and this must be applied to the process of continual growth.


I find it interesting that there is a common practice connected to the Tree of Sephirot in Judaism - it is called "Counting the Omer".  During the 49 days between the Jewish holidays of Passover and Shavuot (the original Pentecost), a practitioner will spend each day contemplating how a personality characteristic connected to the Tree manifests itself in their life, and how they might grow this characteristic.  The number 49 comes from the 7 sephirah in the middle and lower levels, as well as the connections in between them.  As an example of how this meditative practice works, on a day when Chesed - Expansiveness/Lovingkindness/Generosity - is being contemplated, one might ask: how am I generous?  How does it feel when I am generous?  How does it feel when I am not generous?  When this practice is adopted, we can essentially become our own therapists (understand that this is not to suggest that anyone should not consider using a therapist - we all need connection).

It is interesting to not that the word "rule" most likely comes from the Hebrew word "regel", which means foot (the Latin for "rule" is regula, which resembles regel).  Thus we see that rules are meant to be guides for our walk.
 

But it is important to note that when the rules of the lower realm become disconnected from the higher spiritual realms, they become superficial and empty - like a museum looted of its treasures.  The rules of Kingship must lead to Tifuret-Splendor and beyond, or it is like mistaking the finger for the moon it is pointing to.

The Kabbalists have a beautiful way of illustrating what true Kingship is like in the Kingdom of God - one that harmonizes very well with the picture Jesus presents.  The Hebrew letters of King David’s name (English equivalent: DVD) mean "empty and empty" or "poor and poor" - holding nothing to himself (a way of thinking about kenosis).  David represents the human being as servant of God.  In contrast, the archetypal enemy of Ezekiel is Gog (Ezek. 38), and the letters of this name mean "full and full" - meaning that this archetypal character is full of himself even after he has been shown the reality of God.  This speaks in a spiritual sense of the one who refuses to let go of his ego even in the face of the infinite, and thus ultimately nullifies himself by denying himself the fullness of life and sinking into decay as a result.


In closing, the following comes from the Perkei Avot Mishnah:

Ben Zoma says, Who is wise? He who learns from every person, as it is said, “From all my teachers I grew wise” (Psalm 119:99).

Who is strong? He who subdues his personal inclination, as it is said, “He who is slow to anger is better than the strong man, and a master of his passions is better than a conqueror of a city” (Proverbs 16:32).

Who is rich? He who is happy with his lot, as it is said, “When you eat of the labor of your hands, you are praiseworthy and all is well with you” (Psalm 128:2) […]

Who is honored? He who honors others, as it is said, “For those who honor Me I will honor, and those who scorn Me shall be degraded” (1 Samuel 2:30).

Next Chapter: Concluding Thoughts for "Book I"

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

Satan: Lifting the Veil - Part 21: Jesus and the Domination System

Table of Contents:
Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: Two Case Studies
Part 3: Serpent = Satan?
Part 4: What is Satan's Real Name?
Part 5: Accuser
Part 6: A Son of God?
Part 7: God's State Prosecutor
Part 8: God’s Sifter
Part 9: Azazel
Part 10: Desert Temptation
Part 11: What Does a Jewish Messiah Look Like?
Part 12: Bow Down to the Domination System
Part 13: Proclaiming Jubilee
Part 14: The Evil One
Part 15: The Angels of the Nations
Part 16: The Gerasene Demoniac
Part 17: Further Lessons on Exorcism in the Bible
Part 18: Driving Satan from Heaven
Part 19: The Unveiling of the Beast of Rome
Part 20: Unveiling the Beast Today

Part 21: Jesus and the Domination System

Part 22: Violence
Part 23: Death
Part 24: The Advocate
Part 25: Conclusions?


--------------------------------------

Jesus and the Domination System

In an earlier section of this series, we explored the Jewish expectations for a Messiah.  At this point, I would like to flesh these expectations out a bit more - because not all Jews had the same expectations.

However, when Jesus was born into the world, the Jews were all asking the same question: how is the Kingdom of God (which most of them thought was a physical restoration of Israel to her former glory) going to be established?

There were three main camps of thought in Jesus' day.  The first group followed the Politics of Violence.  For the Jews, these were called Zealots - and the Zealots believed that the Kingdom of God was going to be established by violently overthrowing the Roman empire. 

What's interesting about this is that the Zealots were not all that different from the Romans themselves in this manner - as the Romans believed that it is only through violence that peace may be established.  Both camps thought that peace could be established through the sword - and really, the only difference between the Zealots and the Romans was who got to be in charge.

The second camp followed the Politics of Purity.  They believed that if the Jews would remain pure, and follow every jot and tittle of the law (Torah), God would establish His Kingdom.  The Pharisees were one sub-group of this school of thought - and they were extraordinarily legalistic.  And as a result, the Pharisees would isolate certain groups of society as outsiders for failing to be as rigid in their application of Torah.  The reasoning of the Pharisees was that if they included these "sinners", God would not be faithful to the Jews and establish His Kingdom.

There was another sub-group of this camp - the Essenes.  Now, the Essenes did have their differences with the Pharisees, to be sure.  But they basically had the same thought - God's people must be pure, and then the Kingdom will come.  The difference between the Pharisees and the Essenes was that the Essenes thought there was no hope for society - in fact, if a pure man tried to live in society, he would surely be sullied.  And so the Essenes withdrew into their own sub-cultures out in the wilderness where no one would bother them.  (That doesn't sound familiar at all, does it?  Nothing at all like any Christian sub-cultures I know....)

And the last camp followed the Politics of Collaboration.  These believed in the old adage: "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."  The Collaborators were made up of the Sadducees and the tax collectors, who would become part of Rome's System in the hopes that through their mere presence within that System, Jews would be able to establish their own Kingdom.

These three camps didn't think there was another viable option.  And yet, Jesus contradicted all three, while at the same time he seemed to incorporate elements from all three.  It's almost as if he took the best of all worlds, but rejected all errors.

The best phrase to describe Jesus' politics, in my mind, is: the Politics of Compassion.

To those who followed the Politics of Violence, Jesus taught to love your enemies and pray for those who persecuted you (Mt. 5:43-48, Lk. 6:27-36).  And when he taught to love enemies, he followed this up by saying that this is the way God was - "be merciful, just as your Father is merciful" (Lk. 6:36).  Jesus is indirectly quoting a very popular Jewish scripture here - Lev. 11:44Except that Jesus changes it.  The original verse said to be holy as God is - but Jesus implies that mercy (often translated as compassion - the original word for which interestingly comes from the same word for "womb", and thus might be translated "womb-ish") is the very sign of holiness (this message would also be striking to the purists, who thought holiness was following all the rules perfectly).  


The message couldn't be clearer - the Zealots are wrong.  Violence is not how the Kingdom is established.

Jesus also contradicted those who followed the Politics of Purity.  Unlike the Essenes, who had withdrawn into the desert to establish their own society, Jesus' ministry was built within the cities and towns - right in the hustle and bustle of society.  And whenever the Pharisees saw Jesus, he seemed to be eating, and talking with, and touching the sinners and the unclean.  Jesus says that those who follow the purity codes are like unmarked graves (Lk. 11:44).  In Jesus' day, the most unclean thing a Jew could do was to come into contact with death.  So Jesus is saying that while those who follow purity codes look clean on the outside, they hide death within themselves.  It might be a more accurate modern translation for Jesus to tell the Pharisees that they are full of shit.  Jesus said that the religious "experts" of his day were "blind guides" who "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel" (Mt. 23:24) - indicating that their rigid purity codes actually blind them and prevent them from seeing the truth!  Jesus contradicted the purity system's model of ritual cleanliness when he said that it is not our outside actions, but what is in our heart that makes us unclean (see Mk. 7:15 / Mt. 15:11, Mk. 7:21-23).  Paul picked up on this theme, and seems to imply that it is the very structure of religion itself which makes people unclean (see Rom. 14:14).  

The message couldn't be clearer - the Essenes and the Pharisees are wrong.  Rigid purity codes are not how the Kingdom is established.

And to those who followed the Politics of Collaboration as well, Jesus had a message.  Mark 12:13-17 tells a story where some of these collaborators are trying to entrap Jesus.  They wanted him to either show his followers that he was not part of the resistance movement - so that they would all leave him - or get Jesus to tip his hand so that he would be arrested by the Romans.  The passage has these collaborators flattering Jesus as they set up their trap: "we know you're a man of integrity", they say.  "But tell us - is it right to pay the imperial tax to Caesar?"  And the trap was set - if Jesus says "yes", his audience sees that he is not part of the resistance movement and leaves him.  But if he says "no", right in this very public place with Roman guards around, he would be arrested and thrown into a deep, dark hole, only to come out for his execution. 

Jesus' response is very interesting.  He starts by saying "bring me a denarius" - this is the coin that would have been used for the imperial tax. 
What's interesting is that Jesus didn't have a denarius of his own.  Why wouldn't Jesus have one of his own sitting in his own pocket - why would he have to ask someone to bring him one?

 
A Roman denarius
A denarius bore a picture of Tiberius on the front with the inscription: "Caesar Augustus Tiberius, son of the Divine Augustus".  This inscription indicated the divinity of Caesar - he was to be regarded as a god in the Roman culture of the empire cult.  This did not mesh well with Jewish beliefs, which included a little command that went "you shall have no other gods before me" and another command about not making graven images.  To even possess this coin could be seen as idolatry to a Jew.  So Jesus didn't even have one on him!

Jesus said "give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s" - the way this is worded indicates that if you have received benefits from Caesar, you should pay him back according to your debt.  In other words, if you want to protest the unjust taxes, you have no right to do so if you are living off of the benefits of the government.  If you want to protest the unjust system, you should remove yourself completely from the ways that system operates first - which we see that Jesus has done, since he possesses no money at the time he is asked this question.
 
 


The second half of the statement in Mark 12:17 is also very interesting - Jesus says to give to God what is God's.  This statement is a parallel statement - in the first half of the statement, Jesus says to give a coin which bears the image of Caesar back to Caesar.  In the second half of the statement, he makes a parallel statement - the Jewish belief is that all people are made in the image of God.  As the coin bears the image of Caesar, so all people bear the image of God. So what Jesus is saying in this statement is that we should give the whole of our being over to God!  Jesus is implying here that there is an authority greater than Caesar, because some things do not belong to him
Indeed, the Jewish belief was that everything belonged to God:
Psalm 24:1
The earth is the Lord’s and all that is in it, the world, and those who live in it.
The message couldn't be clearer - the Collaborators are wrong.  Collaborating with the current Domination System is not how the Kingdom of God will be established.

How were the people of God to resist the empire of Rome and establish this Kingdom, if not through any of these three methods?

The Blueprint For the Kingdom of God

To understand Jesus' plan for building the Kingdom of God, we must first understand his blueprint - what did this Kingdom look like, in Jesus' mind?  


The first thing I want to do is to lay out - or rather, to let the scholar William Barclay lay out - three different ways Jesus talks about the Kingdom of God (from his commentary on Matthew):
We find that Jesus spoke of the kingdom in three different ways. He spoke of the kingdom as existing in the past. He said that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets were in the kingdom (Luke 13:28; Matthew 8:11). Clearly, therefore, the kingdom goes far back into history. He spoke of the kingdom as present. ‘The kingdom of God’, he said, ‘is among you’ (Luke 17:21). The kingdom of God is therefore a present reality here and now. He spoke of the kingdom of God as future, for he taught the disciples to pray for the coming of the kingdom in this his own prayer. How then can the kingdom be past, present and future all at the one time? How can the kingdom be at one and the same time something which existed, which exists, and for whose coming it is our duty to pray?
To answer his own question, Barclay points out how Hebrew poetry almost always uses a form of parallelism - a statement is made, and then another statement is made that is synonymous but at the same time expands on the first.  And Barclay believes that the following lines from the Lord's prayer are an example of this kind of parallelism:
Your kingdom come,
Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven
So, Barclay concludes:
The kingdom of God is a society upon earth where God’s will is as perfectly done as it is in heaven. Here we have the explanation of how the kingdom can be past, present and future all at the one time. Anyone who at any time in history perfectly did God’s will was within the kingdom; anyone who perfectly does God’s will is within the kingdom; but since the world is very far from being a place where God’s will is perfectly and universally done, the consummation of the kingdom is still in the future and is still something for which we must pray.

To be in the kingdom is to obey the will of God.  
Likewise, the medieval German mystic Meister Eckhart wrote of this passage:
"Thy kingdom come" means "I shall have nothing, know nothing, and value nothing but they reign."  So the gospel also says: "Blessed are the poor in spirit," meaning those who are poor as regards will of their own. 
In contrast to this, George MacDonald writes in his sermon "Kingship" that:
[T]he one principle of hell is—'I am my own. I am my own king and my own subject. I am the centre from which go out my thoughts; I am the object and end of my thoughts; back upon me as the alpha and omega of life, my thoughts return. My own glory is, and ought to be, my chief care; my ambition, to gather the regards of men to the one centre, myself.'
Luke 17:21 - the Kingdom of God is within...
Next I would like to form an understanding of the authority structure Jesus talked about and modeled for this Kingdom.  In Jesus' time, there was a popular understanding that informed how people thought about authority and importance.  There was a certain kind of person who held authority - and these were people who had wealth, and dominated others through acts of power.  These authority figures rarely did their own work, but rather sent servants and soldiers to do it for them.

But Jesus undercuts this image of what kind of person is valuable.  The best blueprint for Jesus' model of what kind of person is important or valuable, in my mind, comes from the Sermon on the Mount.  In Matthew 5:3-12 and Luke 6:20-23, Jesus presents a radically different view of personal value - for Jesus, it is the poor, those who mourn, the hungry, those who do not consider themselves to be righteous, the merciful, the peacemakers, and those whom society persecutes that we should consider blessed.  These are the leaders of Jesus' Kingdom of God.  It is this kind of person we should find authority in.  The radical paradox of this teaching is that this is exactly the type of person who would not desire power.

And Jesus points this out elsewhere as well.  Luke 22:24-27 tells us that Jesus' disciples were arguing over who would be considered the greatest in this new Kingdom.  Who was going to hold a position of power within this new power structure?  But Jesus answers (in verses 25-27):

The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who have authority over them are called "Benefactors."  But it is not this way with you, but the one who is the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the servant.  For who is greater, the one who reclines at the table or the one who serves?  Is it not the one who reclines at the table?  But I am among you as the one who serves.
This is a polar opposite from the ways of the Domination System.  Jesus was saying that it was not the one who asserts himself (or herself) over others in a dominating relationship who is the greatest - it is the one who serves.  The Kingdom of God does not have emperors and kings, but servant leaders.

The gospel of John has Jesus presenting his disciples with a radical object lesson on this new type of leadership.  John 13:1-17 tells us that as they were preparing to partake of the Passover meal, Jesus donned a towel, got down on his knees, and washed his disciples' feet.  Now, we lose sight of how radical this is in our day because most people have relatively clean feet.  But back in Jesus' day, everyone wore sandals, and the method of transportation for the common man was to walk.  They walked everywhere, and their feet would become caked with dirt and mud - as well as other unsightly materials (where do you think the donkeys and horses pooped?).  The act of washing feet was considered to be so low by Jewish standards that Jewish law during Jesus' time actually declared that Jews were not allowed to have other Jewish servants perform the act of washing feet.  They were, however, allowed to have Gentile servants perform this act.  And so, within a Jewish household, you would find this mimetic mirror of the Domination System where a Jew would reverse the structure of domination within his own house and have his oppressor serving him by performing the undesirable duties.  But Jesus contradicts this structure and shows us that Rabbis should be the biggest servant of all - the Lord of the Kingdom of God kneels down and performs the most distasteful, disgusting, base act of service possible!  And then Jesus turns around and says: "you also ought to wash one another’s feet" (verse 14).

In Jesus' model of the Kingdom of God, as we see in Matthew 23:8-10, the leaders are not even allowed to claim titles!  They are to have no label that asserts their authority over others!  But rather, they are to call all men "friend", as Jesus instructs his disciples in John 15:15.  (The last reference leads me to question hierarchical authority structures within churches and the titles that go with them - perhaps the Quakers got this one right?)


In Jesus' time, when there was a feast, whomever held the highest position of authority at the feast would sit at the head of the table - the seat of honor.  And people would fight over this seat, as well as the seats next to it.  But in Luke 14:7-11, Jesus tells his audience that in the Kingdom of God, the reverse is true - the citizens of this Kingdom fight to put others in the seat of honor.

And Jesus radically contradicted the patriarchy within his society.  The significance of the story of Mary and Martha in Luke 10:38-42 is often lost on us, because we do not understand what it meant for a woman to sit at the feet of a Rabbi.  Imagine it like this: a distinguished Professor is giving a presentation at a University.  This Professor has published many popular and well-read books.  Because this Professor is regarded so highly, and opportunities to hear him speak are rare, the seating arrangement is important.  And so during his presentation, you find the Doctoral candidates at the front of the room, the Master's students behind them, the undergrads next, and any outside guests behind them.  It was the same when a Rabbi taught - sitting at the feet of a Rabbi meant that the one who did so was training to be a Rabbi.  By allowing Mary to sit at his feet while he taught, Jesus was undercutting the Domination System within the patriarchy.

Jesus also contradicts the patriarchy before the Last Supper - in Mark 14:13 and Luke 22:10, we find that he has prearranged to have a man carrying a pitcher of water.  This act of service was strictly reserved for women in Jesus' time, and so this is an act of subversion of the patriarchy.  Walter Wink notes (in "Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination") that Matthew omits this detail, and presumes that perhaps Matthew
(who wrote from a very Jewish perspective) found this to be intolerable.

While children held no status, no rights, and no independent identity in his historical context, Jesus prizes children (Lk. 18:15-17).  He also criticizes religiosity that gives higher status to those who do a lot for show (Mt. 23:1-12), and instructs his disciples to live by a higher system of justice (Mt. 5:20).

And the King of this radical new Kingdom presents a strange picture indeed - the human being who has no place to lay his head and no possessions (Lk. 9:57-58/Mt. 8:19-20) is the ruler of the world!

The message presented through all these passages couldn't be much clearer - authority within the Kingdom of God is radically redefined in a way that removes all domination and instead focuses on service.

Kingdom Economics

Jesus recognized that all too often, our economic structures serve the Domination System, reinforcing it from within.  In one of the earlier sections of this series, I briefly explained how the lending system of Rome had caused many problems - the high taxes had driven farmers to take out loans, and the lenders had then raised their interest rates to exorbitant levels, forcing the farmers into foreclosure and turning them into poor workers (not much better than a slave) on their own land.  And this played right into the Domination System as a "divide and rule" strategy of law - as long as the people are divided against each other, they will not be resisting empire.

But before Jesus' ministry even begins, John the Baptist - the one who prepared the way for Jesus - declares that "the man who has two tunics is to share with him who has none; and he who has food is to do likewise" (Lk. 3:11). 
 

Jesus continued this theme in Luke 12:13-21, where he teaches to "be on your guard against every form of greed", and tells a story of a man who stores up an abundance of possessions and then dies before he can enjoy them.  The story illustrates how life-consuming greed can be - we become so concerned with financial security that we accumulate ridiculous amounts of stuff, and the irony is that while we are doing this, we forget to enjoy life.  But Jesus instructs his followers to be "rich toward God" - and when we understand that God is compassionate, we can understand the true purpose of wealth: to cultivate and care for life.  Elsewhere, Jesus taught that we cannot serve both God and money (Mt. 6:24, Lk. 16:13) - and so we must use our money in service of God.

We can put the story of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31) within the context of Job and the Deuteronomic code, and see that Jesus is turning everything upside down on his audience by showing that this rich man who refused to show compassion - who would have been seen through the lens of the Deuteronomic code as being rewarded for righteousness - is actually the one living a hellish life.

It is fear which drives the economics of the Domination System, and so Jesus comes against this perpetual anxiety.  He teaches his disciples not to worry about physical needs, but to seek first God's Kingdom and righteousness (which, as we saw in Job, is expressed through compassion towards the poor), "and all these things will be added to you." (See Mt. 6:25-34, Lk. 12:22-32)

Mark 10:17-27 (parallels Mt. 19:16-26 and Lk. 18:18-27) tells the story of a rich man who asks Jesus what he must do to inherit the aionian life of the Kingdom.  The man believes he has obeyed all the commandments, but what is curious is that he omits the commandment against covetousness when he lists them off.  Jesus tells the man that he must sell everything he has and give it to the poor - and this reveals that covetousness is the rich man's pet sin (even though the man thought it wasn't even a temptation - since he had everything).  It is his grasping which prevents him from experiencing the love of God which would have caused rivers of living water to flow from his heart (see John 7:37-39).  But in case you think that Jesus' prescription shows a condemnation that leaves no hope, Mark 10:21 says that Jesus looked at this man and felt love for him.  And when the disciples express dismay over how hard it is to enter the Kingdom, Jesus declares that "all things are possible with God" (Mk. 10:27).  It is important to see how Jesus is not declaring wealth itself to be a sin here, but is showing how wealth can become an idol and rule over our lives - it possesses us.  And the only remedy is to give our wealth to God.

Jesus overturns the dominating economy of empire, and instructs his disciples to lend without interest, and without even expecting to be paid back (Lk. 6:35).  And Jesus modeled an alternative society along with his disciples - Walter Wink writes in "Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination":

Jesus and his disciples lived from a common purse (Luke 8:1-3; John 12:6; 13:29).  He sent them out preaching the new order without food or money or extra clothes, relying on God's providence through the generosity of hearers (Mark 6:7-11 par.; 10:29-30 par.).  They "had all things in common, and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need" (Acts 2:44-45; 4:32-5:11).  They were not to give special status to the rich among them (1 Cor. 11:20-22; James 1:9-11; 2:1-7).
Jesus even instructs his disciples to avoid the court of law, and arbitrate disputes among themselves (Lk. 12:57-59, Mt. 5:25-26).  Jesus saw that the System's courts and prisons were an engine of Domination - the Domination System's form of justice is mechanical, and does not see you as a human being, but as a cog in the wheel which can be thrown away when it becomes "defective".  It is not concerned with reconciliation, but quick fixes - so he instructs his disciples to handle their issues outside of this dehumanizing machine.

And note how the title "The Unrighteous Steward", which appears in most Bibles above Luke 16:1-15, reflects more on the translator's prejudice than the passage itself - Jesus implies through the follow-up teaching (verses 10-13) that this man was handling his wealth properly!  And we see in verse 14 that this teaching upset the Pharisees - who were lovers of money.  You see, Jesus does not view this story the way the title reflects - he views the whole system as unjust, so for a manager to reduce debt is not unjust in Jesus' view.  Jesus saw that our economic systems uses us, and as soon as we become less economically valuable, it throws us out like garbage - so Jesus is pointing out that to be generous and forgiving frees us from this inhumane way of living.  The system is “detestable in God’s sight” (vs. 15), but the Pharisees act as its apologists.

In our day, much fuss has been made over "individual salvation", and this has played right into the Domination System of Theocapitalism.  We have acted as this System's apologists because we think Jesus was only concerned with us "getting to Heaven".  But throughout the Gospels, we see him coming up against systemic injustice, and this is quite possibly what got him killed.

It is surprising to compare the modern theology which has led to the "Prosperity Gospel" to the words of early church fathers.  In comparison, they sound almost like communists.  For example, Basil of Caesarea (sometimes called "Basil the Great") said:

While we try to amass wealth, make piles of money, get hold of the land as our real property, overtop one another in riches, we have palpably cast off justice, and lost the common good. I should like to know how any man can be just, who is deliberately aiming to get out of someone else what he wants for himself.
Similarly, John Chrysostom had many things to say against even owning private property.  For example:
It is not for lack of miracles that the church is stagnant; it is because we have forsaken the angelic life of Pentecost, and fallen back on private property.

It is the living separately that is expensive and causes poverty.
Along with preaching against private property, he felt that it is our attempts to control others which is the foundation of other problems:
The desire to rule is the mother of all heresies.
When we compare these sayings to modern Christianity in affluent cultures, it seems obvious that there is a disconnect.
 

We are going to take another break here, and continue the exploration of how Jesus answered the Domination System in the areas of violence and death next time.

--------------------------------------


Table of Contents:
Part 1: Introduction
Part 2: Two Case Studies
Part 3: Serpent = Satan?
Part 4: What is Satan's Real Name?
Part 5: Accuser
Part 6: A Son of God?
Part 7: God's State Prosecutor
Part 8: God’s Sifter
Part 9: Azazel
Part 10: Desert Temptation
Part 11: What Does a Jewish Messiah Look Like?
Part 12: Bow Down to the Domination System
Part 13: Proclaiming Jubilee
Part 14: The Evil One
Part 15: The Angels of the Nations
Part 16: The Gerasene Demoniac
Part 17: Further Lessons on Exorcism in the Bible
Part 18: Driving Satan from Heaven
Part 19: The Unveiling of the Beast of Rome
Part 20: Unveiling the Beast Today

Part 21: Jesus and the Domination System

Part 22: Violence
Part 23: Death
Part 24: The Advocate
Part 25: Conclusions?