Filed under: Bible, Jesus Christ, Psychology | Tags: Bible, Jesus Christ, Psychology
The Ark of the Covenant
On this eve of the Day of Atonement, I started thinking along lines that I’ve had to put aside for weeks now – and found myself ending up in a place I did not expect.
Many people find the following description (in the Book of Revelation) of four heavenly beings puzzling:
(Revelation 4:5 ESV) From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are the seven spirits of God,
(Revelation 4:6 ESV) and before the throne there was as it were a sea of glass, like crystal. And around the throne, on each side of the throne, are four living creatures, full of eyes in front and behind:
(Revelation 4:7 ESV) the first living creature like a lion, the second living creature like an ox, the third living creature with the face of a man, and the fourth living creature like an eagle in flight.
(Revelation 4:8 ESV) And the four living creatures, each of them with six wings, are full of eyes all around and within, and day and night they never cease to say, “Holy, holy, holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was and is and is to come!”
These Four Living Creatures in turn are connected with the Four Cherubim or Cherubs in Ezekiel 1, who are pictured as upholding the LORD’s throne. The faces of the Four Cherubs are the faces of the Four Living Creatures, so presumably they are one and the same Creatures; yet the Four Cherubic Faces are not listed in the same order as are the Four Living Creatures.
Why are the Four Living Creatures listed in the order that they are?
In the “Eastern Churches” that use some form of Aramaic rather than Greek as their scriptural and liturgical language, there is a tradition that connects the Four Living Creatures of Revelation 4 with the Four Gospels of the Bible. Yet even there, the order of the Four Living Creatures is not the same as that of the Four Gospels. A recording by Esther Lamandier called Romances features an Aramaic hymn that describes the traditional connection. Here the lyrics (given in transliterated Aramaic and French in the liner notes) are translated into English:
The Eternal sits on the throne above four faces and four images:
The aspect of the lion who is Mark;
The face of the bull who is Luke;
The figure of the man who is Matthew;
The image of the eagle: John of Ephesus [the apostle John]. (…)
Whereas the Four Cherubs have their faces arrayed in this manner:
(Eze 1:10 ESV) As for the likeness of their faces, each had a human face [in front]. The four had the face of a lion on the right side, the four had the face of an ox on the left side, and the four had the face of an eagle [in back].
Interestingly, this order of faces corresponds to how the faces are assigned to the Four Gospels when the latter are taken in order.
There is another peculiarity. In antiquity, the constellations of the Lion, the Ox, the Man and the Eagle (the latter now called Scorpio the Scorpion in the West) were the four “cardinal” constellations of the Zodiac. Roughly between 4000-2000 BC (in biblical terms, the first two millennia of human civilization), the vernal equinox was in the Ox (now called Taurus the Bull). The summer solstice was in the Lion (now Leo the Lion). Moving from east to west in the sky from the position of the summer solstice (at which point the sun is the furthest north in the sky during the year), the order of the cardinal constellations was the Lion (summer solstice), the Ox (spring equinox), the Man (winter solstice), and the Eagle (autumnal equinox).
Something else is peculiar. These Four Living Creatures, taken in this order, correspond exactly to the four basic human temperaments as laid out by ancient and modern analytical psychologists. (The chart is taken from the workbooks published by Dr. Linda Berens of Interstrength Associates.) Start with the box in the lower right corner and go counterclockwise from there, and you will have an exact correspondence. The Lion fits well with the impulsive strength of what Dr. Berens calls the Improviser temperament. The Ox is strong too, but it is steady and supportive in its service; it well befits the Stabilizer temperament. The Man well befits the humanistic drive of the Catalyst temperament, while the Eagle with its transcendent clarity of perception well befits the Theorist temperament.
Just as it’s possible for the novice to confuse human temperaments, social styles and personality types due to similarities between them, so it is possible to mistake which Creature best matches which Gospel. Because the Lion and the Ox share the common element of strength, which Creature corresponds to which Gospel can be easily switched. Really, though, it is a matter of two kinds of strength. Obviously, the Lion and the Ox are both strong creatures, and the ancients recognized them as such and used them as symbols of strength accordingly. Yet the Ox, the Stabilizer temperament, is the one from which first-rate historians such as Luke tend to come; it also befits Jesus’ own keen eye to the past. It is the Lion, the Improviser temperament, which makes for impulsive and dynamic leaders like Peter (and apparently impulsive followers like John Mark, who penned the Gospel of Mark); it also befits the times when Jesus and others took direct action to make an impact then and there, which times are a hallmark of Mark’s account. (Notice how often Mark uses the word “immediately”, for example.) The brevity, action-orientated nature and directness of Mark’s language definitely befits the Lion. The precision and orientation to the past of Luke’s account befits the Ox. Matthew’s multi-faceted focus on Jesus the Son of David and the Teacher (and thus on the Son of Man) befits the Man. John’s focus on Jesus the Son of God and His transcendent vision of the world befits the Eagle. (There are notable exceptions to these focii, such as John’s account of the woman caught in adultery being brought before him. Jesus’ reaction was very much that of a Catalyst or Man rather than that of a Theorist or Eagle, and moreover a Catalyst of a very particular personality type: ENFP.)
It is sometimes said that we have Four Gospels because no one human temperament could describe everything that Jesus of Nazareth, the Son of God, was. This implies that Jesus had the “most balanced” human personality in history: the utopian ideal of the Greek doctor Hippocrates, a “perfect blend” of all four temperaments. But such a perfect blending apparently is not possible for the normal human mind, and for a normal mind to try to force the effects of such a blending seems a certain recipe for total nervous breakdown and subsequent insanity. Perhaps a perfect balance of brain chemicals geared Jesus mentally and physically from childhood for such a temperamental blend. Likewise, His social style and His “cognitive dynamics” (the latter underlying His expressed “personality types”) would have been perfectly balanced, and then His personal spirit (John 19:30) would have been wedded to God’s Spirit as given to Him without measure (John 3:34). If so, then Jesus was truly unique in human history even on the merely physical level (or at least unique on that level since Adam and Eve).
But there may be another possibility. Of all the personality types, ENFP (one of the Catalyst types) is said to be perhaps the most versatile in body, soul and spirit (rivaled only by its Contrast, INFJ). ENFPs are disproportionately represented in psychodrama, precisely because by and large they can so readily take on the thought patterns exemplified by all the other personality types (if only for a limited time). In addition, there seem to be particular cognitive or thought processes that Jesus used in very particular “archetypical” roles (and with greater or lesser frequency and ease of use) that point to His having a very particular human personality type. The way Jesus could “perceive the thoughts” of His foes easily and accurately suggests He was an ENFP (with the combination of thought processes responsible magnified by God’s Spirit without measure). His ability to forsee consequences in accurate but global terms (as in the Olivet Prophecy), less frequently employed than His “mind-reading”, also suggests this. So do His particular inspirational qualities as a teacher, His aptness to use metaphors that spoke to everyone (or else hid His message from everyone, depending on His intent), His insistence on remaining true to Himself and His personal values (which were also His Father’s personal values), His eagerness to spread His Father’s message at all costs, His emotional and physical sensitivity combined with considerable anger-driven emotional and physical energy at need, His particular combination of joy and sense of humor with seriousness and even sorrow at being despised and rejected of men (cf. Isaiah 53:3), the fact that He was not physically impressive overall (cf. Isaiah 53:2), the particular and consistent way He turned the tables on those who laid verbal and legal traps for Him (using a particular cognitive process in a particular archetypical role with a particular moral force, such as ENFPs alone use it) – and on and on.
Now I, as an ENFP, might only be seeing those aspects of Jesus’ expressed personality that “ring true” to me, and as One in perfect temperamental balance, Jesus might have engaged other “paradigms” at other times that “rang true” to other human temperaments, social styles and cognitive dynamics (in sum, personality types) equally well. That possibility is certainly well worth exploring!
Peace in Jesus Christ (שלום בישוע המשיח),
John Wheeler (יוחנן רכב)
Filed under: Kingdom of God, Politics, Religion, United States | Tags: Kingdom of God, Politics, Religion, United States
This excellent article (from the Tomorrow’s World Web site) on America’s alleged status as a Christian nation (past or present) is relevant to many, many things that are happening in our society now, not least our current crises in health care, economics, governmental ethics and religious freedom. That article raised a question in my mind: is there something we can learn from the American Experience — something that most Americans seem to be missing, from our political and religious leadership on down to the citizenry?
I’ve long maintained that our Founding Generation’s fundamental mistake lay in attempting to found a nation on essentially Christian ethics apart from either genuinely Christian government or genuinely Christian religion. Even its ethical foundation was flawed (as the above article notes also), in that it never took into account all of the Ten Commandments and the statutes and judgments that depend on them. Moreover, its republican form of government with its separation of church and state (and I mean in the Jeffersonian sense as expressed in his Bill for Religious Freedom in Virginia, not in the modern revisionist sense) has nothing to do with the principles of God’s government as summarized in the Ark of the Covenant. The Bible demands obedience to (and prophesies the coming of) a genuine theocratic monarchy, not some other form of government.
To their credit, the American Founding Generation recognized that they couldn’t bring about a genuine theocratic monarchy of themselves and saw that no one else had ever done so of their own power either. But somehow, they remained blind to the fact that a genuine theocratic monarchy did exist — in ancient Israel — and that when people submitted fully to its authority, people prospered tremendously in every way. The only weakness of perfect human government is imperfect human nature, and that’s what Israel’s and Judah’s overall experience proved for all time; yet the American experience teaches a corollary lesson. That lesson is that no degree or kind of merely human, political checks and balances will substitute for human nature being subject to God’s sovereign will, nor will it create that subjection.
Another corollary is something that Americans as a whole find all but impossible to face. Thomas Jefferson was wrong, dead wrong: truth will not win out over error simply because truth is given a free voice in public debate. In a world ruled invisibly by Satan, without God working through human individuals and human authority to establish His will, evil will impose its will by force or by subtlety or both, every time. That too history proves over and over again.
Peace in Jesus Christ (שלום בישוע המשיח),
John Wheeler (יוחנן רכב)
Some time ago, a new brother in Jesus Christ asked me to take a look at the Web site of a group called The Church of God’s Faithful (setapartbytruth.org). The group was founded by a man named Robert G. Ardis, who apparently left the soi-disant Philadelphia Church of God founded by Gerald Flurry. My friend says that his whole family’s enthralled by Mr. Ardis’ ideas, and wondered if I would give him a hand in refuting them.
Well, it’s been my experience that once one gets into a heretical frame of mind (as Paul defined it: essentially “opinionatedness” masquerading as a love of the truth), there is little any human being can do about it; such a one is self-condemned (Titus 3:8-11). My brother and fellow worker in Christ over at COGwriter specializes in refuting various heresies; that takes more time and energy (including emotional energy) than I can muster, and I have no idea what grace is upon him that he can do it. But I can address a few ideas from Mr. Ardis’ Web site in this morning’s edition (second article) of LCG Scribe…
What sets the “remnant of Philadelphia” apart?
Let’s quote Mr. Ardis’ own greetings page on this:
It’s quite amazing that you could even locate us amidst all the confusion that exists today in the Churches of God. Isn’t it incredible that the Worldwide Church of God, as it was at the death of God’s Apostle Herbert W. Armstrong, has now split and splintered into over 300 different groups and churches—all in disagreement to one degree or another?
And here we are, the Church of God’s Faithful! Are we just another tiny splinter church among all the rest? Do we have any fruit that would make it worth your while even to investigate us? God’s Word says, “…you will know them by their fruit” (Matt 7:16). Do we have any fruit that would identify us—that would make you know who we are? We do not have beautiful buildings; a college campus, a powerful television or radio program, or any of what Mr. Armstrong had at his death—or that which some of the larger splits and splinters have today. We have none of this, therefore are we lacking in fruit?
Mr. Ardis then goes on to claim that his group’s possession of the truth that Scripture teaches is what sets that group apart. Well, any sect can say that; many sects down through history in all world religions have said that; but does saying it make it so? Let’s test that assumption (or rather presumption) a bit.
Mr. Ardis agrees with us (and with many others for that fact) that there have been prophesied historical eras of the true Church of God (as based on the symbolism implied by Revelation 1:9-20 and chapters 2-3. He agrees (indeed, insists) that Herbert W. Armstrong was the late founder and leader of the Work of the Philadelphian Era (cf. Revelation 3:7-13). But does that make Mr. Ardis and his CGF Mr. Armstrong’s legitimate heirs?
Consider what Jesus Christ says about the remnant of the Philadelphian Era. Now let’s keep in mind a little-realized fact (one which the late Dr. Herman L. Hoeh realized in part and wrote about in passing in his booklet A True History of the True Church): each “Church era” starts out well, but then “lets down” in its obedience to God, leading to a crisis — and this crisis leads to the fulfillment of the prophecy for that era. Philadelphia is no different in this. What Jesus Christ says about that prophetic Church fits that Church after Mr. Armstrong’s death and the ensuing apostasy from “the faith once and for all delivered to the saints” in antiquity (cf. Jude 3-4) far better than it fits that Church before Mr. Armstrong’s death.
Mr. Ardis says that God’s Church must always be growing in new truth. Now there’s a red flag of a sectarian if there ever was one, all else being equal. The true faith was “once and for all delivered to the saints” while the original apostles were still living. What Mr. Armstrong called “new truth” was typically the rediscovery of and expansion on ”old truth” that had been lost (cf. Revelation 3:1-4). “New truth” should be consonant with the essentials of what has been revealed before — not contradictory to it.
So leaving aside the obvious signs such as the name of the Church, its keeping of the true Sabbath, and such like, what does Jesus Christ say specifically to prophetic Philadelphia?
a) Jesus Christ has set, is setting and will continue to set before that Church an “open door” to preach the Gospel to the world, in a way that He has not to any of the other Church eras (for that is the force both of the Greek verb involved and of the symbolism used). By Mr. Ardis’ own admission, his outreach is practically nonexistent. He isn’t doing what Mr. Meredith (founder of the Global, and later the Living, Church of God) did immediately: setting himself to reviving Mr. Armstrong’s Work of preaching in a really significant way. Mr. Ardis has a magazine; he has a Web site; but the burden of proof is certainly on Mr. Ardis here!
b) The remnant of Philadelphia has “little power”, which (again according to the Greek, this time mostly in how it says what it says) is no compliment. However, it has remained faithful in very specific ways. (The Revised Standard Version puts it well: “I know that you have but little power, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name.”) Looking at the background of the original City of Philadelphia (as Wm. Ramsay’s books on the Letters to the Seven Churches and on Revelation overall) is very helpful in explaining this set of statements, and indeed of most of the symbolism that Jesus Christ uses in speaking to Philadelphia. One thing is clear: Philadelphia will not be so weak that it can’t fulfull its mission — on the contrary!
Now Jesus Christ’s “word” has to do with His commandments, and specifically God’s law of justice. His “name” has to do with His authority, as He wields it directly and through human beings. These two principles are two of the seven principles of God’s government in the broadest sense — the very two principles which Mr. Armstrong emphasized the most consistently when he spoke and wrote about “God’s government”. We shall see a little of how Mr. Ardis stacks up in these two areas.
So then: as long as we’re talking about fruits, let’s talk about the Gospel, Commandments and Name of Jesus Christ. Presumably Mr. Ardis’ Statement of Beliefs should be taken as the foundation of what he believes is “the Gospel”. Yet there is not one really meaningful word about the Gospel, Commandments and Name of Jesus Christ in it. Everything revolves in the end around Mr. Ardis’ alleged relationship with the duly ordained apostle, Herbert Armstrong, and the self-appointed “prophet”, Gerald Flurry. Again, this is sectarian thinking. You won’t find anything like this in the Living Church of God’s Official Statement of Beliefs.
The CGF’s Statement by contrast is marked by a number of peculiarities, of which a few follow:
a. Which teachings of Mr. Armstrong does Mr. Ardis claim to follow? In the essentials Mr. Armstrong established them by his death in 1986; but in the details he sometimes vacillated, and (more often than many would still like to admit) he lacked precision in his explanations of doctrine in the semantic and theological senses. These demonstrable facts are part of the reason why there are over 300-plus groups out there that claim to be Mr. Armstrong’s legitimate heirs. Correcting such problems is the responsibility of those who are the heirs of apostolic teaching, namely the evangelists and those they have trained in their turn (cf. 2 Timothy 2:1-2) – and the senior evangelists that Mr. Armstrong trained personally are virtually all in the Living Church of God, as are many of their elder students.
b. Mr. Armstrong was ordained (by the Oregon Conference of the Church of God) as a latter-day apostle, and he fulfilled that office (in every way that someone not a witness to Jesus Christ’s resurrection and/or an author of Scripture could fulfill it). But even Mr. Armstrong came to understand by the end of his life that he was not the Elijah to come (as prophesied by Malachi), and said so publicly (yet without enough explanation to make the point clear in everyone’s minds). I personally would expect that “Elijah” to come out of the Laodicean Era, and as one of the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11 (the other would be more a Moses figure, and would come from the Philadelphian Era). John the Baptist, the forerunner of the end-time Elijah, arose out of the forerunner of the Laodicean Era: the priestly families of Jesus’ day. Mr. Armstrong was parallel to the Maccabean priest-kings, and his real heirs to the scribes and Pharisees (the good ones, of which there were some).
c. The next two points draw upon Mr. Armstrong’s speculation in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, which had no real basis in the first place; even Mr. Armstrong largely abandoned such speculation in time. Zerubbabel finished the physical Temple in his day, but the spiritual Temple that is the Church (symbolically) won’t be finished until Jesus Christ’s return. From another point of view, it won’t be finished until New Jerusalem comes down from heaven, for true Christians will be joining the true Chuch all through the Millennium. Moreover, the Parable of the Banquet that Mr. Artis twists relates specifically to how the Jews, and then the Gentiles, responded to the Gospel in Jesus’ day. It by no means limits how many people God can call down through time until the end. In fact, other parables show that the guests at the banquet (when Christ returns) will be a relatively large number of people — not a tiny group of people. It will still be small compared to the great denominations of this world — but not insignificant. Let God decide how many. We needn’t twist His words to fit our agendas!
d. Going down several points: to paint virtually everyone else but the CGF as “the synagogues of Satan” is nonsensical. In the original historical context, these were the Samaritans, who came to cooperate closely in the construction of what became the Roman Catholic Church. In prophetic fulfillment, this interpretation is verified. To paint the notoriously dictatorial Gerald Flurry as being in any way a “Laodicean”, even a Laodicean overcomer, is likewise nonsense. Laodiceans are neither fixated on hierarchy nor fixated on heretical thinking, as Mr. Flurry is. Their whole drive is to make peace between and to cooperate with people on the grounds of common faith (and a separate article needs to be written to show this). They don’t set themselves apart as “holier than thou” as Mr. Flurry apparently does (or as Mr. Artis apparently does) — quite the contrary, they don’t make all the distinctions that they should, unless they’re very careful!
Jesus Christ’s chief rebuke of Laodicea is that they are physically rich and spiritually poor, just as Smyrna was physically poor and spiritually rich. Neither of these descriptions fits Mr. Flurry. An out-and-out heretic of the Work of Philadelphia like Mr. Flurry (let me be really plain about that) is spiritually cold, not lukewarm; he is spiritually bankrupt, not just poor; and his spiritual blindness is the near-incurable kind of the Pharisees, not symbolically that kind curable by the City of Laodicea’s famous eye salve. Moreover, the idea that the late Joseph Tkach Sr. could in any way be “the man of sin” described in 2 Thessalonians is utterly laughable. (That will be the last Pope, thank you very much; he’s associated with the Roman Beast and will work miracles, as Mr. Tkach certainly didn’t.) Someone ought to expose armchair theorists like this to works like the Commentary on Habakkuk in the Dead Sea Scrolls; perhaps they’ll look in the mirror and realize that there really is nothing new under the sun.
My friend asks: how can people think in this way? The problem may be that he thinks that human beings are rational by default. They aren’t. We all have a positive and a negative side, and under the influence of “the world, the flesh and the Devil” we can justify anything we want to, in any way that we want to. That is why we all need what Paul describes in Galatians 2:20 — even kind and well-meaning people like my friend!
Peace in Jesus Christ, (שלום בישוע המשיח)
John Wheeler (יוחנן רכב)
Filed under: Creation and Origins, The Music of the Bible Revealed | Tags: Creation and Origins, The Music of the Bible Revealed
Here is a short test video of Esther Lamandier performing Genesis 1:1-5 in Hebrew. It is taken from a much longer track of Genesis 1:1-2:3. God willing, one day I can put up the full track with Hebrew and English lyrics after my usual fashion, with background photos as usual.
I translate verse 2 as I do for a reason. First, that is what the exterior context points to as far as the meaning of the Hebrew phrase “haytah tohu wavohu” means (Isaiah 24:11; Jeremiah 4:23; cf. 2 Kings 21:13). Second, that is what the interior context directly indicates, particularly by this very melodic rendition. The only other possible sequence of accents in Genesis 1:2a would merely draw one’s attention to the state of being: “was unformed and unfilled”, as one author put it, as if this were primeval chaos ready to be worked like an unformed lump of clay. But this sequence specifically defines the state of being as “had become chaotic and disordered”. So verse 1 puts the original Creation in the timeless pass, and verse 2 points out that something catastrophic had happened to part of it. This relates (as many theologians have realized) to the origin of Satan and his demons and the origin of evil in the world.
As for the melodic rendition’s interpretation, Suzanne Haik-Vantoura herself had not been quite so self-consistent in her understanding of its implications when she published the score of Genesis 1:1-2:3, but became so later. “Topsy-turvy” (that it, its French equivalent) is how she described the meaning of *tohu wavohu* to me. She did point out in her score that “the melody *vacillates*, as if deprived of a base” on “haytah tohu wavohu”.
Being able to address a crux text like this so precisely is yet another reason why not just any melodic interpretation of the Hebrew Bible (as attached to the Masoretic accents) is acceptable. No style of synagogue chant can give you such a clear choice between two exegetical options (which happen to be the only two that the words themselves allow). The original ancient music to which the Hebrew Bible was sung and studied (cf. Psalms 119:54) consistently either supports or clarifies what the Living Church of God teaches, and one of its foundational teachings has to do with the meaning and significance of Genesis 1:2.
Best wishes in Jesus Christ (שלום בישוע המשיח),
John Wheeler (יוחנן רכב)
The Ark of the Covenant
If there’s one thing that the Work of the Philadelphian Era has emphasized consistently for decades, it’s this: God’s people are called to rule! This basic truth – suppressed by so many religions that profess Christianity – is stated clearly in both Testaments. We often quote a set of basic New Testament passages that state this truth (e.g., Revelation 1:4-6; 2:26-29; 5:8-10; 1 Corinthians 6:2-3; etc.).
Some few of us (not many, and not often, I believe) might get a little too overeager at the prospect of ruling the world! In the face of so much injustice around us – and due to the temptations of human nature – we might look forward a bit too much to fulfilling the words of Psalms 149:1-9. If any of us face this temptation now, then we may know for certain that the temptation will get worse as the world gets worse around us! Historically, the Pergamosian Era faced that temptation, although Jesus Christ only mentions the prophetic result: a specific kind of apostasy from the truth (Revelation 2:12-17), even as some were fostering hatred and even use of arms against their persecutors. But should that discourage us from striving to reach our goal? Of course not. There are right uses of power.
Let’s look at how power may be used rightly: “Praise the LORD! Sing to the LORD a new song, and His praise in the assembly of saints. Let Israel rejoice in their Maker; let the children of Zion be joyful in their King. Let them praise His name with the dance; let them sing praises to Him with the timbrel and harp. For the LORD takes pleasure in His people; He will beautify the humble with salvation. Let the saints be joyful in glory; let them sing aloud on their beds. Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a two-edged sword in their hand, to execute vengeance on the nations, and punishments on the peoples; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute on them the written judgment – this honor have all His saints. Praise the LORD!” (Psalms 149:1-9).
We know from biblical prophecy that Israel and Judah, when they come out of captivity, will be allowed to do exactly this (e.g., Isaiah 11:11-14; 14:1-2). And they will do so under the leadership of their Messiah (Isaiah 9:2-7; Psalms 46:8-11) and His holy ones: as far as we can tell, both His angels and His resurrected saints (Zechariah 14:3-5; Revelation 19:11-16).
“But I Don’t WANT to Rule!”
Many of us, when we think about these things, are anything but eager to fulfill them. “But I don’t want to rule as a king and a priest, if that’s what’s involved,” some might say. “I don’t even like being set over people, let alone the idea of breaking those under me with a ‘rod of iron’ if they get out of line.”
Part of the problem lies in a basic misunderstanding of how God will reward His saints. The passage we quote so often about ‘ruling with a rod of iron’ along with Jesus Christ – Revelation 2:26-29 (cf. Psalms 2:7-9, referring to David and, ultimately, to Jesus Christ Himself) – has a general application to the whole Church, but it specifically applies to the Thyatiran Era. This is because Jesus Christ describes that part of the rule we all will share with and under Him that means the most to the Thyatirans. Having overcome under absolute tyranny (as history records), they will know how to exercise absolute power righteously. In like manner, while all who overcome will receive a portion in the reward offered to those who overcome in each era, the reward offered to each era has special significance to those in that era.
As an example, those who overcome in Laodicea will share power with Jesus Christ, for that is what the symbolism that He uses implies. “The Eastern throne is broad, admitting others besides him who, as chief, occupies the center” (Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary on Revelation 3:21). Now can we seriously argue that those in other eras (including our own) will not likewise share power with Him? Similar evidences can be put forward for the rewards offered prophetically to the other Church eras, again including our own. Those rewards apply particularly to those who overcome in each era, but generally to those who overcome in all eras. Our use of Revelation 2:26-27, in our own media, is consistent with this truth.
What does this mean for us individually? Like a wise manager, Jesus Christ will not “put square pegs in round holes” in His Kingdom. Rather, He will put us in roles that fit our personal talents and spiritual gifts the best. While no doubt we will all be giving sharp correction to some wayward human at some point, especially if he is a ruler himself (cf. Psalms 149:6-9 again, and Isaiah 30:20, KJV), some of us will be doing that more often than others – because some of us are better suited by creation to do that sort of thing on a regular basis.
How can we demonstrate this? Let us look first at how Jesus Christ employs our personal talents and our spiritual gifts now, in His Church, while we are yet human beings. For this life is our training ground! What we go through today is preparing us for what we will be doing as kings and priests tomorrow. This preparation involves our talents and gifts as much as it does our characters.
Spirit, Soul and Body
Paul gave a wonderful benediction which we might not think about as often as we should. “Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you completely; and may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. He who calls you is faithful, who also will do it” (1 Thessalonians 5:23-24).
We in the Church often hear about the “spirit in man”. We could not have rational thought on a human level without it (1 Corinthians 2:11). We hear less about the human “soul”, which is our animate life with its particular way of dealing with the world. Still less perhaps do we hear about the human “body”, which is the seat of our most basic human motives and desires. However these three relate to each other exactly, together they form what modern Westerners call the human personality – which is sometimes called more simply the human mind.
As deep as the human mind is (and as potentially treacherous), man can and should discover much about how it normally works. He can do so if he will set aside certain deceptive presuppositions about spiritual things and follow the facts he observes in nature where they lead. Searching for the simplest and most complete explanation of all the physical facts always leads eventually to a conclusion consistent with the revealed Word of God, for God also reveals Himself clearly (if generally) through nature (cf. Romans 1:18-22).
It may surprise you to learn how much man can discover, and has discovered, about the spirit, soul and body of man by observing how they relate to each other and to the world we live in. We owe much to Jung, Myers, Briggs, Kiersey, Berens, Beebe and many others for constructing a powerful three-part model of how the normal human mind works. Their work as psychologists – scientists who study the human mind as it manifests itself in nature – has a fundamental respect for the spiritual core of human personality, which respect is refreshing in itself. Their model (ultimately based on some 2,500 years of observation of human behavior) revolves around the interrelationship of temperament, interactive or social style, and something called cognitive dynamics: how one’s thought processes relate to one another and in what order. (The technical terms used in the following discussion are those of Dr. Linda Berens.)
Temperament closely corresponds to what the Bible describes as the “body” or the “flesh”. It is a description of why we do what we do as human beings. This seems to be determined both by genetics and by the influence of four hormones in the womb, with the influence of one hormone always predominant over the others for a given fetus. Perhaps because of the hormonal influence, while we always have one “core” temperament, we also have elements of all the others within us and motivating us. What this means (again) may surprise you. For example, while all normal human beings desire freedom to act, a sense of belonging, a sense of competence or mastery, and a sense of unique identity, each human being has one of these basic desires dominating the other three. (What follows in second, third and fourth place differs from person to person as well.) Those who naturally crave a sense of unique identity are often mistaken as being “more spiritual” than other people, but they are not. Rather, each of the four temperaments brings with it a different natural approach to spiritual things (remember, this is a matter of observation, not of presupposition), and therefore serve best in different roles in God’s Church (and in other religions as well).
Interactive style (or social style) closely corresponds to what the Bible describes as the “soul” (which of course is not immortal). This too starts to unfold from birth onward. It is a description of how we do things. This is the part of the human mind – the “personality” – that has to do the most directly with leadership style. Some naturally like to be “in charge” of an organization, and are good at it. Some prefer to work “behind the scenes”, making sure the organization runs smoothly. Some prefer to “chart the course” for the organization, keeping everyone aiming for the goal. And some prefer to inspire everyone else in the organization to “get things going” and to keep them going. Their natural enthusiasm is contagious. Again, while we all have elements of all these leadership styles within us (with all in particular orders of preference) and can exercise them, each of us is naturally best at exercising one of them.
When the four temperaments and the four interactive (social or leadership) styles are combined, sixteen personality types emerge, each type distinguished by the order in which it uses eight natural cognitive (thought) processes. Each leadership style, in effect, can be broken down into four personality types; and the same can be done with each temperament.
While this model does not explain everything about human personality, it explains much. Think of your (inborn) personality type as the seed of a tree; your life experience, as the tree and branches that grow from that seed and are shaped by larger circumstances; and the motions of the branches in the wind as how you react to smaller circumstances from day to day and hour to hour. Understood in that light, the model is not a pigeonhole or a box – it is a tool for growth.
Understanding one’s personality type can tell one much about how resistant (or how vulnerable) one naturally is to a particular kind of sin. While we are all vulnerable to all kinds of sin, and thus need the Holy Spirit to overcome sin no matter what, Satan seems less apt (for example) to corrupt the naturally formidable intellectual honesty or moral integrity of some personality types, preferring to work first on their naturally weaker abilities to deal with temptations coming through the senses. (Of course, he may also try to make the very same people self-righteous about their strengths, in comparison to other people!)
When Mr. Ames wrote the following earlier this year, certain tests based on one aspect of this threefold theory were among the potential tools of self-examination he had in mind. “Many of us have taken aptitude tests, interest inventories and personality profile analyses. Some of these tests are of greater value than others, but if you approach them with the right care” – and practitioners of “personality typing” strongly urge that one get competent and ethical guidance from a certified counselor, as misunderstandings about oneself through being “mistyped” can have far-reaching consequences – “you can often learn more about yourself through using these tools” (“Self-Examination: A Vital Key to Growth”, in Living Church News, March-April 2009, p. 6).
I have taken due care with this theory, under wise guidance, and have learned a great deal about myself (and others) in the process. One thing I have learned has motivated this article: the realization that many people have too narrow and too imprecise a view of what “leadership” means. So let us go back to the Bible for an overview of personality (and leadership) that “dovetails” very neatly with what man can discover on his own.
“Servant Leadership” Now and Later
“Servant leadership” at its best in God’s Church uses the spiritual gifts that become associated with a person’s natural talents, as that person becomes increasingly aware of who and what he is before God (no more and no less). In that light, Paul describes various spiritual gifts that Jesus Christ gives the Church, each one like one of the members of a human body: prophecy, ministry (or service of a particular kind), teaching, exhortation, giving with liberality, leadership with diligence, showing mercy with cheerfulness (Romans 12:3-8).
It’s certainly possible that God can place people in particular roles in the Church for which they hardly seem suited naturally. In fact He seems to do this quite often at first with a person, to show that the transcendent power belongs to Him and not to us (cf. 2 Corinthians 4:7). Sooner or later, though, God can (and usually does) bring a person’s role in line with his natural talents and the gifts of grace that God adds to those talents.
Consider what God does when He adds His grace to our natural talents. People having certain personality types are noted for their unusual natural insight into the future. Some naturally seem to enjoy particular kinds of service more than others do. Some are naturally apt teachers, even more than the others. Some are outstanding at exhortation. Some seem to be natural givers of their time, resources and personal attention. Some are natural leaders who “take charge” without straining themselves or others overmuch. Some are naturally merciful, sometimes even to a fault. And there are those rare people like Paul himself, multifaceted people who are able to look at a problem from all angles, to “connect the dots” between many branches of learning and to do almost anything they set their hands to do well. All these personality types are magnified, and then bit by bit brought into balance, when God’s Spirit is added to the “spirit in man” and His gifts of grace are given through that Spirit to each Christian.
This is part of what lies behind Paul’s wish that our whole spirit, soul and body be sanctified and preserved until Jesus Christ comes. God has a spirit, a soul and a body too (He speaks of them all in both Testaments), and He wants to make ours like His! Yet while God as a Being (the Father and the Son taken together, united by the Holy Spirit) has the most complete Personality there is (for example, Jesus Christ, in the Four Gospels, famously manifests the abilities of all four human temperaments), God the Father apparently wants varieties of personality among His children. He wants us all to duplicate His character – but He would have no reason to take such trouble to make us all different in personality, only to erase our personality differences at the resurrection of the just.
God has a reason for making each of us as we are! The reason may be stated in different ways, and here is one way: being “in charge” is not all there is to being a king and a priest! In fact, many of us will not be interacting as leaders with humanity in a “take-charge” way most of the time. Rather, all of us (each according to the talents and gifts we are developing now) will be inspiring and motivating people, helping the things they do run smoothly, charting the course for them and keeping them pointed toward right goals, as well as telling them what to do when necessary. All of us will be giving people the right kind of freedom to act, giving them a sense of belonging, helping them to achieve competence and self-mastery, and helping them to attain unique identities as individuals. And each of us will always prefer to do some of these tasks, even though we likely will become able to do any of them at need.
This is what being part of Christ’s spiritual Body is and always will be about: one Body, many members, each member having a different function, with all members working together in cooperation. Even when that “rod of iron” needs to be employed, chances are, if you prefer not to use one, then you will not be called upon to use one. But here is the “bottom line”: if using a “rod of iron” is demanded of you – are you willing to use it, and use it wisely, no matter how much you might dislike doing so personally?
If you can answer “yes” to that question, then read the results that will arise in the world ruled by the Kingdom of God:
“Behold, a king [Jesus Christ] will reign in righteousness, and princes [the resurrected saints] will rule with justice. A man [preferably each, as in the RSV – the Hebrew word is the same] will be as a hiding place from the wind, and a cover from the tempest, as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land. The eyes of those who see will not be dim, and the ears of those who hear will listen. Also the heart of the rash will understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers will be ready to speak plainly. The foolish person will no longer be called generous, nor the miser said to be bountiful; for the foolish person will speak foolishness, and his heart will work iniquity: to practice ungodliness, to utter error against the LORD, to keep the hungry unsatisfied, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail. Also the schemes of the schemer are evil; he devises wicked plans to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaks justice. But a generous man devises generous things, and by generosity he shall stand” (Isaiah 2:1-8).
You will be made a king and a priest so that you may then have a part in making this state of affairs come to pass! And you will enjoy your part in it – guaranteed!
– John Wheeler (יוחנן רכב)
