Sermon 6—Easter Sunday

Sermon 6—Easter Sunday

Today is Easter. My original plan for an Easter sermon was to amalgamate some previous Easter sermons into one presentation; but then it struck me that my next Gospel of Philip sermon was going to be on Mary Magadalene, and I recalled that I have always taken a keen interest in Mary Magdalene’s role in the Resurrection story —in fact, I wrote an Easter anthem, many years ago in California, that recounted Mary’s experience at the tomb. I will read the text of that anthem at the end of this presentation. In the meantime, I have decided to present some material on Mary Magdalene, some of it from The Gospel of Philip, and some of it from various internet sources. 

But first let us review the story as told in The Gospel of John:

Gospel of John 20 

1 Now on the first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, while it was yet dark, unto the tomb, and seeth the stone taken away from the tomb.
2 She runneth therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him.
3 Peter therefore went forth, and the other disciple, and they went toward the tomb.
4 And they ran both together: and the other disciple outran Peter, and came first to the tomb;
5 and stooping and looking in, he seeth the linen cloths lying; yet entered he not in.
6 Simon Peter therefore also cometh, following him, and entered into the tomb; and he beholdeth the linen cloths lying,
7 and the napkin, that was upon his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but rolled up in a place by itself.
8 Then entered in therefore the other disciple also, who came first to the tomb, and he saw, and believed.
9 For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise from the dead.
10 So the disciples went away again unto their own home.
11 But Mary was standing without at the tomb weeping: so, as she wept, she stooped and looked into the tomb;
12 and she beholdeth two angels in white sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had lain.
13 And they say unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? She saith unto them, Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.
14 When she had thus said, she turned herself back, and beholdeth Jesus standing, and knew not that it was Jesus.
15 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, why weepest thou? whom seekest thou? She, supposing him to be the gardener, saith unto him, Sir, if thou hast borne him hence, tell me where thou hast laid him, and I will take him away.
16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turneth herself, and saith unto him in Hebrew, Rabboni; which is to say, Teacher.
17 Jesus saith to her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended unto the Father: but go unto my brethren, and say to them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and my God and your God.
18 Mary Magdalene cometh and telleth the disciples, I have seen the Lord; and that he had said these things unto her.” 

Thus the most significant point I can make all morning is that Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, not Peter, not John. I believe this is not a random accident, but a purposeful act, the first act performed by the risen Christ. The significance of Mary Magdalene has been vastly underestimated, as I hope I will be able to show.

Now we will begin our review of published material on the subject. This quote from a Wikipedia survey recapitulates the conventional wisdom concerning Mary:

“Mary Magdalene (/ˈmæɡdələn/ Hebrew: מרים המגדלית‎‎, original Biblical Greek: Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή), literally translated as Mary the Magdalene or Mary of Magdala, is a figure in Christianity who, according to the Bible, traveled with Jesus as one of his followers. She is said to have witnessed Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection. Within the four Gospels she is named at least 12 times, more than most of the apostles. Based on texts of the early Christian era in the third century, it seems that her status as an “apostle" rivals even Peter's.

The Gospel of Luke says seven demons had gone out of her, and the longer ending of Mark says Jesus had cast seven demons out of her. She is most prominent in the narrative of the crucifixion of Jesus, at which she was present. She was also present two days later, immediately following the sabbath, when, according to all four canonical Gospels, she was, either alone or as a member of a group of women, the first to testify to the resurrection of Jesus. John 20 and Mark 16:9 specifically name her as the first person to see Jesus after his resurrection.

Ideas that go beyond the gospel presentation of Mary Magdalene as a prominent representative of the women who followed Jesus have been put forward over the centuries.”

There are many possible ways to consider Jesus’ choice to reveal Himself first to Mary. There many opinions about Jesus’ relationship to Mary; some merely refer to a penitent sinner who joined Jesus’ traveling entourage, some attribute Christlike attributes to Mary Herself, and some make Mary Jesus’ wife and mother of His offspring. Some of this speculation is mere historical nosiness, and some of it is significant.

The following is a lengthy excerpt from The Mystery of Mary Magdalene by Robert Powell. Powell has done an enormous amount of purely scientific anthropological research to establish precise dates for events in the life of Jesus; however many of Powell’s biographical details are based on the recorded visions of a 19^th century German nun, named Sister Emmerich—visions which could hardly be called scientific, but which, when viewed in context, make a lot of sense. This text presents many controversial ideas which I will not attempt to affirm or refute; it is given because of its intrinsic interest, and because of its relationship to other material we will examine below:

“Mary Magdalene was the sister of Martha and Lazarus, and grew up in the family castle in Bethany, just northeast of Jerusalem. This is also where Lazarus was later raised from the dead by Jesus Christ. Mary Magdalene was the youngest of four children and was very beautiful. Her family was considered to be quite wealthy. Lazarus had inherited from his father and shared his wealth with his three sisters. The third sister was referred to as Silent Mary who, in modern terminology, would be called developmentally delayed or mentally ill. She did not speak but had profound inner visions. She died at a relatively early age on April 8 in c.e. 30, about six months after the ministry of Christ began on September 23 in 29 c.e., the day of the Baptism in the Jordan.  

Already by that time, Mary Magdalene was living in her own castle on the southwest shore of the Sea of Galilee in the town of Magdala, referred to by Sister Emmerich as Magdalum, located a few miles north of Tiberius. Being wealthy and beautiful she enjoyed life and, correspondingly, lived the “high life.” This was a great source of concern for her brother Lazarus and sister Martha, both of whom had in the meantime become disciples of Jesus of Nazareth. There had been links between the family of Lazarus and the Holy Family for a long time, even before Jesus was born, as the woman (her name was Noemi) who had looked after the Virgin Mary when she was a Temple virgin, was an aunt of Lazarus (she was the sister of Lazarus’s mother). Lazarus and Martha recognized Jesus as the Messiah, and did everything that they could to support him. 

In fact, Lazarus played an extraordinarily important role in the life of Christ. He was effectively the “patron” of Christ. It is well known that Jesus did a lot to help the poor by often distributing bread and other food—and sometimes money—to the poor when he went somewhere. Where did this abundance come from? Jesus himself had nothing. It was made possible through the support of Lazarus and Martha, who took care of the needs not only of Jesus but also of his disciples. As we can see from the fact that he was raised from the dead later, Lazarus was what we would nowadays call an initiate, someone who had attained an extraordinary level of spiritual development, endowed with remarkable suprasensory gifts. It is not too farfetched to call him the spiritual brother of Jesus. Reading between the lines, this is what is indirectly stated in chapter 11 of the Gospel of John with the words: “Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus.” The use of the word loved points to a special bond that Jesus had with this family. This bond offers us a key to understanding the relationship that Jesus had with Lazarus and also with Mary Magdalene. 

Mary Magdalene’s wild life was a source of great concern to Lazarus and Martha. They were praying for guidance as to how to go about introducing their sister to Jesus. Then one day Martha received guidance to go to Mary because she knew that Jesus was going to be teaching in the area of Magdala, in a place called Gabara— northwest of Tiberius—not far from the Sea of Galilee. Martha managed to persuade her sister to come and hear Jesus preach on a hill near Gabara on November 8, 30 c.e. Mary came with an attitude of curiosity to see the new prophet, but not with any sense of belief.  She came dressed in her finest clothes and she brought some friends who enjoyed living it up with her. However, while Jesus was speaking she had an extraordinary experience. We have to remember that when he spoke, his words had great power, possessing a strength that would move people, affecting them even down into their physical body. Mary became riveted by everything Jesus said, to the point that— and this is an event that is difficult for us to understand—Jesus cast a demon out from Mary Magdalene. In modern terminology we would probably call it some kind of psychological complex, but in those days it was said that the person was possessed by a demon.” 

[Sidebar: We are cutting the next paragraph; it contains a lot of astrological synchronicities which are interesting in the way they connect the career of Jesus with certain pre-existing mythological prophecies, but have little to do with Mary Magdalene.

Back to Powell:] 

“This event in the life of Mary Magdalene on November 8, 30 c.e., occurred a little more than a year after the Baptism of Jesus in the River Jordan, which had taken place on September 23, 29 c.e. Five days later, on November 13, 30 c.e., Jesus came to the town of Nain and raised a twelve-year-old boy from the dead. This event of the raising from the dead of the youth of Nain is described in the Gospel of Luke. There were many other miracles Jesus performed around the time of his encounter with Mary Magdalene, when he cast out a demon from her. The following words spoken by Christ apply to her: “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest; and finding none, he says: ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes he finds it swept and put in order. Then he goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state becomes worse than the first” (Luke 11:24). In fact, this is exactly what happened. Mary Magdalene did have a relapse; for she returned to her former lifestyle and become possessed again, this time by seven demons.” 

[Sidebar: Remember this is precisely the same demonic behavior we saw in The Gospel of Thomas, when the demon said he would go away for a while and then come back and re-possess (as it were) the single unmarried woman. Those demons are so slimy and so dumb!

Back to Powell:]

“Martha and Lazarus, who witnessed this, were of course now deeply concerned and kept praying for guidance as to what to do. This new condition lasted for almost exactly seven weeks. (Again and again we find this period of seven weeks in the life of Christ. For instance, Pentecost came seven weeks after the Resurrection.) 

Seven weeks after the encounter with Jesus at Gabara, on December 26, 30 c.e., Martha again managed to persuade Mary Magdalene to come and hear Jesus speak, this time in a place called Azanoth, a few miles northwest of Gabara. On this occasion Jesus cast out all seven demons, as described in great detail by Sister Emmerich, and as is referred to briefly also in the Gospel: “Mary, called Magdalene, from whom seven demons had gone out” (Luke 8:2). This was a kind of initiation. It was a freeing and opening of all seven of Mary Magdalene’s chakras. Through this initiation, she became the first fully redeemed soul. 

This was, of course, an event of great importance in the life of Mary Magdalene. Something truly extraordinary had taken place through which she was able more and more to find her true calling. Just as her brother, Lazarus, was a high initiate, so was Mary Magdalene in her own right a great initiate, having received her initiation from Christ, who opened her seven chakras. 

After he had cast out the demons, Jesus advised Mary Magdalene to stay in the company of the Virgin Mary. Just as Jesus himself had a circle of disciples, who were all men— remembering that it was a patriarchal culture—so the Virgin Mary had a circle of women around her, which Sister Emmerich refers to as the holy women. Mary Magdalene joined this circle of holy women and played an important role there. 

This was all preparation for the great event, later, when she was the one who, on the morning of the Resurrection, came to the empty tomb. There, in the Garden of the Holy Sepulcher, she turned around and saw someone whom she thought was the gardener—until she heard him speak. Then she knew: This is the Risen One. He has risen from the dead. Christ spoke with her and said that she should go to the disciples and tell them that he would be ascending to the Father. He gave her the task of being a messenger. One of the Greek words for messenger is Apostle. Because it was Mary Magdalene who brought the news of the Resurrection to the Apostles, particularly to Peter and John, she is called the Apostle to the Apostles. The initiation she received from Jesus was a preparation for this great event of being charged with Jesus’ message of his resurrection from the dead, thereby bearing witness to the Resurrection and becoming the Apostle to the Apostles.” 

Other New Age writings bestow on Mary a very High Messianic designation, based on older Gnostic traditions. For instance,

the Christian-Reincarnation.com website makes these remarks:

“On a somewhat lower level Sophia came into being, the Wisdom, as an emanation of Barbelo. She is also called “bride of Christ”.” 

Another source mentioned in Wikipedia says:

“In the Pistis Sophia, possibly dating as early as the 2nd century, the best surviving of the Gnostic writings, Pistis Sophia presents a long dialog with Jesus in the form of his answers to questions from his disciples. Of the 64 questions, 39 are presented by a woman who is referred to as Mary or Mary Magdalene. Jesus says of Mary:

"Mary, thou blessed one, whom I will perfect in all mysteries of those of the height, discourse in openness, thou, whose heart is raised to the kingdom of heaven more than all thy brethren". 

High praise indeed!

Again from Wikipedia:

“In the Bahá'í tradition there are many references to Mary Magdalene in the sacred writings of the Bahá'í Faith, where she enjoys an exalted status as a heroine of faith and the "archetypal woman of all cycles". `Abdu'l-Bahá, the son of the founder of the religion, said that she was "the channel of confirmation" to Jesus' disciples, a "heroine" who "re-established the faith of the apostles" and was "a light of nearness in his kingdom". `Abdu'l-Bahá also wrote that "her reality is ever shining from the horizon of Christ", "her face is shining and beaming forth on the horizon of the universe forevermore" and that "her candle is, in the assemblage of the world, lighted till eternity".`Abdu'l-Bahá considered her to be the supreme example of how women are completely equal with men in the sight of God and can at times even exceed men in holiness and greatness. Indeed he claimed that she surpassed all the men of her time, and that "crowns studded with the brilliant jewels of guidance" were upon her head.”

In addition to these suggestions that Mary is Sofia, the spiritual “Bride of Christ”, there are many sources that propose that Mary was the actual flesh and blood “Wife of Christ”. In my Introduction to The Gospel of Philip, I read the following from Wikipedia:

“As in the other gnostic texts, the Gospel of Thomas and Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Philip defends the tradition that gives Mary Magdalene special insight into Jesus' teaching, but does not support twenty-first-century inventions concerning Mary Magdalene as Jesus' wife and mother of his offspring.”

The idea that Jesus had a wife is a conventional heresy, in the carnal sense; but in terms of the Father/Mother God we have discussed in previous sermons, it is a subject that warrants expansion. Here is the text from Philip:

“32. There were three who always walked with the

Lord: Mary — His mother, His sister, and Mary   Magdalene— who was called His companion. So, there were three Maries: His mother, His sister, and His companion.”

Isenburg comments:

“(What was it that allowed these three women to be the companions of Jesus rather than the Twelve?)

The wording of the paragraph indicates that ‘Mary’ or ‘Miriam’ was being used as a spiritual name or title representing a spiritual function. Miriam was the sister of Moses who was a true leader and elder of her people who stood up to Moses, had the support of Aaron, and was greatly beloved when she died.”

Thus Mary, physically the “COMPANION” of Jesus, may or may not have been Jesus’ consort; but, symbolically, she seems to have been a counter-weight in the balancing act Jesus was performing. Then, on a larger cosmic proscenium, we get into the various mythological themes that suggest that Mary was Her own Christlike incarnation of Spirit.

The whole issue of Jesus’ celibacy and His relationship to Mary Magdalene becomes significant, if you want to adopt certain specific doctrinal beliefs. Was she or wasn’t she? etc. As you know, I attribute no authority to the spoken word, and think beliefs are bogus—but that doesn’t mean I still don’t have them. I have beliefs, like everybody else, whose rationality and reality give me comfort before the great void of unknowing. I have no belief in my beliefs, but I still cherish them. 

We cherish our beliefs because they give voice to an inner impulse toward order and harmony; we want invisible material to strengthen our faith—the more our faith is tested the stronger it will become. But our individualities create variation, such that one man’s version may easily form a dissonant relationship with another man’s version; where the paths diverge, there is the conflict. One wonders, since the teachings of Jesus apply to so many graduated levels of consciousness, whether He would ever really recommend one path over another. Or would He consider the whole issue to be of little or no importance? 

You can see from the foregoing, that the subject of Jesus and Mary’s personal relationship is food for argument and dissension, since many nuggets of doctrine depend on it. To me, the whole subject amounts to the same sort of nosiness that prompts us to guess which Hollywood starlet is sleeping with which leading man. My opinion of Jesus is unchanged whether I think of Him as a sexually active father or as a celibate saint. The hot issue is how the Spirit enters and integrates groups of people into One Spiritual Identity—and the magic of this Spiritual activity goes uncompromised in my mind either way. So, provocative as all this is, let us now return to the Gospel of Philip. It will be no surprise that the text revisits the subject of the Masculinity and Femininity of God, the Holy Spirit, as mentioned before, being the Feminine aspect:

“33. The Father and the Son are single names.

But the Holy Spirit is a Double name. For They are

everywhere: They are above, They are below, They are in

the hidden space, They are in the open (space).

(At that) the Holy Spirit is open below and hidden

above.”

The Antonov Commentary develops the idea of multiple identities, a concept that bears on the Mary Magdalene issue. He mentions Divine Individualities representing the Creator in different aspects, or states:

“In a collective sense, denoting concrete Divine Individualities— the Representatives of the Creator.

The Holy Spirits, coming from the Abode of God-the-

Father, are present in Their different states above the surface of the Earth (“the open space”) and inside our planet (“the hidden space”).

However, the Holy Spirits below the surface of the Earth can be seen by a spiritual warrior and can be invisible above it to a worldly person.”

Once again, Philip is referring to a hierarchy of consciousness states, the Earthly and the Heavenly, the Visible and Invisible. It is interesting how the spirit dwells on Earth and in Heaven, and is visible or invisible in either context depending on the level of soul evolution of the observer.

How quickly we come to casual conclusions about what we see on the Earthly plane, when a deeper consideration, viewed from a higher perspective, may reveal a higher truth. Notice the expression, “spiritual warrior”; indeed, to fight through the labyrinths of Material Illusion (we say, “Maya”), to get at this higher Truth, is the act of a warrior, determined and resolute, armed with the “Armor of God” to defeat the snares of Satan’s delusive trickery.

The next article I want to read is of peripheral interest, but bears on Mary’s mission in the world after Jesus left it:

The Story of Mary Magdalene and the First Easter Egg

March 27, 2016 By Gretchen Filz

Mary Magdalene has a special place among Jesus’ disciples.

It was St. Mary Magdalene‘s great love for Christ that kept her standing at the foot of the Cross, weeping and grief-stricken, until her Savior died. It was her heartbreaking pain of loss that drove her to his tomb at the first light of day in order to anoint his body.

As a reward for her great love and faithfulness, she is the privileged person to whom Jesus first appeared on Easter Sunday morning; she was the very first witness of the Resurrection.

It was Mary Magdalene, a woman, who went and told the twelve Apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead; for this she is called “Apostle to the Apostles.”

After Jesus’ Resurrection and Ascension, Mary Magdelene continued her mission as an evangelizer, contemplative, and mystic in the heart of the Church.

MARY MAGDALENE AND THE EASTER EGG

According to tradition, after Jesus’ Ascension into heaven, the Magdalene—a wealthy woman of some importance—boldly presented herself to the Emperor Tiberius Caesar in Rome to proclaim the resurrection of Jesus Christ, with an egg in hand to illustrate her message.

Holding the egg out to him, she exclaimed for the first time what is now the universal Easter proclamation among Christians, “Christ is risen!”

The emperor, mocking her, said that Jesus had no more risen than the egg in her hand was red. Immediately, the egg turned red as a sign from God to illustrate the truth of her message. The Emperor then heeded her complaints about Pilate condemning an innocent man to death, and had Pilate removed from Jerusalem under imperial displeasure.

Why would Mary Magdalene bring an egg to talk about Jesus with the Roman Emperor?

In another tradition, it is said that Mary Magdalene brought a basket of white boiled eggs with her on Easter morning to the tomb of Jesus—perhaps as a meal for herself and the others as they waited for someone to roll the stone away. When she arrived at the site of the Resurrection, finding the stone already rolled away, she also found that the eggs in her basket had turned into bright shades of color.

Perhaps this is why she brought an egg to the Emperor; did she expect that Jesus would perform a similar miracle for her egg as he had done on that first Easter morning?

While we do not know if these stories are true with absolute certainty, we do know that the tradition of handing out red eggs at Easter is one that originated among Christians in Apostolic times. And we often find Mary Magdalene depicted in icons holding a red egg. Moreover, the story fits into the various cultural traditions already surrounding the symbol of the egg.

THE EASTER EGG TRADITION

For many cultures, even before the time of Christianity, the egg was a symbol of creation, spring, and rebirth. After the resurrection of Christ, the egg took on a new meaning for Christians and became a symbol of new life breaking forth while leaving the empty tomb behind. Perhaps this became even more pronounced due to the account of Mary Magdalene.

Eggs were what helped people to understand a new theological truth—the resurrection of the dead, and a new religion—Christianity—built around the first Resurrection.

In this way a symbol of Christ’s resurrection, the Easter egg then became a symbol for the rebirth of all mankind at the resurrection on the Last Day due to the merits of Jesus Christ. “Easter eggs” were shared with one another as a joyful symbol of Christian hope.”

As you know, I always like to let Martin Luther put in his two cents. The following is from “Christ Our Brother”: Sermon on John 20:11-18 The Resurrection of Our Lord (March 28, 1535).

“I propose to speak [today] about Mary Magdalene, how she had a conversation with the angel and afterwards with the Lord. These are stressed so strongly to let you know what the resurrection is and for whom it is valid. Christ did not have to make himself known for his own sake, nor for the angels who already knew him. But this happened and has been written down in order that we might learn to believe it and hold it fast. So, look at the story, how kindly the dear holy angels speak with Mary Magdalene and the other women, as though they are jesting with Magdalene. It seems almost like they, in their own certainty and joy, make fun of her and her weeping, and say, “What a dear fool you are, crying in the midst of such great and overwhelming joy.” They speak with her as one would with a playmate with whom one had been raised since childhood. The angels treat her as though she were their beloved sister, as though she were with them in the kingdom of heaven. In doing this, they want to inculcate in us the truths that they already know, as though we too already sat with them in heaven and had them for brothers and sisters; as though we too could play with them like comrades with whom we had been raised since childhood.

All this occurs to comfort and support us so that we come to know [the truth of] this article [on the resurrection]. The resurrection has happened now! It is true in reality and fact, not only in promise. For Christ the Head has been raised up. He is no longer, as before, merely the resurrected one according to the letter and word [of scriptural promise]. Now he has been raised up in person. He has become Lord over death and, in his own person, he has defeated death.

With this, the article is more than half [fulfilled]. That’s why the angels are so friendly to the people, and especially to these women, why they play and jest with [Mary] so happily. It is as though they said, “O dear Mary, are you not our comrade in heaven? There’s no reason for you to be crying. Not only have you not lost your Lord; you can rejoice with us for eternity, because he is already risen.”

First, the angels strengthen our faith and argue with us in the same way they argued with Magdalene and the women. They relate to us Christians as though we, too, were already in heaven; they come to us and let themselves be seen in their brilliant robes and act as though everything were already fulfilled. They make no distinction between themselves and us, and they almost ridicule our weeping, our cares, and our grief. Magdalene is a first image and example of how feebly we believe this article. She is still in the old skin of Eve, which will never be able to send her forth into a future life and the company of the angels. But nevertheless she is awakened and believes that Christ is raised from the dead. Those who, like the angels, can believe and take seriously that Christ is raised and is among us, who [do not seek] the living [among the dead], are as happy as the angels. The more firmly this article [is believed], the more firm our courage and spirit; then we will not fear the devil or Pilate or Herod. But if we are not as happy [as the angels], that is a sign of unbelief or little faith.

So, we must see to it that we do not deceive ourselves, regarding ourselves as Christians when we are nothing less [than the old Adam]. Then Christ is dead in us, and Adam lives. Then we are in the devil’s company, falling from the living Christ back into the dead Adam. We see enough examples of that. Although not all of us receive [the angel’s message], some do. And for these, it is not only the holy angels who are there, playing with us so positively, but Christ himself, the one who holds more in common with us than the angels, who belongs even more closely to us. For angels have no flesh and blood; nevertheless they joke with Magdalene and with all of us. But Christ [who shares our flesh and blood] did not come for his own sake but for the sake of Magdalene.

And he says to her: “Go and say to my brothers....” That goes far beyond the angels. It is much more loving and friendly than what the angels had to say, as they, in their merriment, make fun of Mary. When God speaks like this to a person’s heart, that person could never be sad. The Lord himself [acts in this way] to Mary, the one who had seven demons, who was a woman and human being like any other woman. Even Peter and the others, whom Christ calls brothers, were no better than we. They are [all made] of the same dough [as we]! If they are higher than anyone else, it is not because they were born that way; they will have to give credit to the one who calls them brothers. [They will say,] “But now he is gone from us; from now on [he is] no longer here in this life. It would have made sense [for him to call us brothers] earlier, when he was still on earth and not yet transfigured or transferred into our own resurrection from death and arrival in heaven. . . .

All Christians are already more than half [raised]! For Christ [is raised], and [with him] their souls. Only the sack [remains], in which the soul is held. But the body, too, [will be raised], after the Head has been taken away. The soul, i.e., the kernel, [is already raised with Christ]; and the shell will not remain behind. Thus, we learn firmly to believe that we are raised with Christ and transferred with him into heaven, that we are already more than halfway to [eternal] life. This is certain because he is our brother and we are his sisters and brothers. May the merciful God help us, that we may believe this and rejoice!”

In conclusion, I will now read, as a benediction Mary at the Tomb, written in 1987. Remember these are song lyrics.

Mary at the Tomb

Lo, how she weeps. 

Lo, how she weeps at her place by the tomb. 

(Lo, how her tears damp the stones.) 

Lo, how she weeps. 

Lo, how her swollen eyes search the vacant air 

for her master's breathless form.

Then comes a face 

who shows her 

something new,

something not seen before.

And lo she calls Him, 

“Master! Master! 

Precious precious Lord! 

Hallelujah Christ is risen! Hallelujah! 

Hallelujah Christ is risen! Hallelujah! 

Our glorious savior has risen again.

Hosanna! Christ Jesus most holy thou art. 

Oh wonderful! Wonderful!

Who lives in my heart. 

Lo, Lo how the world turns away from your light, to lie in dark shadows to weep and to mourn, 

when all round your throne is such 

power and might 

that the veil of all evil 

is lifted and torn.

Hallelujah Christ is risen! Hallelujah!  

All glory be thine.

Hallelujah Christ is risen! Hallelujah! Amen. 

Our glorious savior has risen again. 

Hallelujah Christ is risen! Hallelujah!

Forever be praised and your glory be mine. 

Unto all nations I promise to sing--

Christ is risen Hallelujah! 

The Prince become King.

All time is your homeland, 

All power is Thine. 

Forever and ever and ever 

Let your glory be mine. 

Amen.

Sermon 4—Philip 3

Sermon 4—Philip 3 –Verses 15-22

Last week our review of The Gospel of Philip ended with the exhortation that names can be deceiving. From this we inferred that it is not possible to COGNIZE the Truth without names, and yet it is not possible to EXPERIENCE the Truth with them. Words occupy a kind of Limbo position in the cosmography—we can’t live with them, but we can’t think without them. Thus, words must be thought of as an aspect of the Christ Consciousness in this way: they are MEDIATORS between the False and the True. With words, the answer to every True/False question is: Both.

Today’s section continues in the same vein, this time dealing with the NAME of Jesus. As we have seen, the entirety of the Gospel of Philip, so far, has been concerned with distinguishing between two hierarchical levels of spiritual consciousness—a lower and a higher level. We are encouraged to discern the difference between the proselyte and the Hebrew, the slave and the Son, the perishable and the imperishable. An extension of that thought, Verse 15 begins with a discussion of the Bread of Heaven and the distinction between spiritual food and material food.

“15. Before Christ came, there was no bread of Heaven. It was like in paradise at the time of Adam: there were many trees — food for animals, but no wheat — food for man. Man used to feed like animals. 

But when a Christ — Perfect Man — comes, He brings the bread from Heaven so that people may eat human food.

  

People without the true knowledge about their predestination and the Path, live a life quite comparable to the life of animals. God, through a Christ, gives them spiritual food appropriate to humans.” 

Notice the special (specialized?) use of the word “Human”. We have previously pointed out that the author of Philip uses the word “Human” to designate Spiritual beings as opposed the Animal beings—beings whose consciousness has embraced the Truth, as opposed to those beings whose minds labor in ignorance. In one translation the expression “human food” is translated as “the food of Men.” We recall the mention of blood sacrifices, and how the sprinkling of animal blood is ineffectual compared to the blood sacrifice of Jesus. The opposition of carnal vs. spiritual entities is the underlying cantus firmus of this entire section. 

Now, it cannot be denied that the author of Philip is politically conscious; he is not simply doling out advice in the abstract, he is very aware of the negative impact of the Roman mind set on the newly born Christians, and he wants to warn them away from the terrestrial temptations of the spiritually ignorant. 

Furthermore, he wants to place the blame for this ignorance on the Roman establishment—and for good reason: not only because the Roman, at his worst was a picture of excess and carnal debauchery, but because everybody loves a scapegoat, and this conscious attack on the pagan Roman values gave the new church a tangible, recognizable cause, and someone to feel superior to—and someone to blame. Thus, from the very first verse concerning proselytes, there is an undertone of criticism of the Romans at large. Moreover, in verse 13 we read:

“13. The earthly rulers wanted to deceive people,

since they understood that people have the same origin

with the really worthy. They took good names and gave

these names to bad things in order to deceive people and

bind them to the bad in this way.”

Thus, political propaganda is named as the villain who perverts the language of the people in order to “bind them to the bad in this way.” We cannot help but suspect that part of this propaganda is associated with the plethora of polytheistic gods who populate the religion of Rome. As Philip continues his attack on the Roman mind set, we now read in Verse 16:

“16. The earthly rulers thought that what they did they did by their own power and will. But in reality the Holy Spirit in secret accomplished all that through them — accomplished as He considered appropriate. They also sow everywhere the true knowledge, which existed since the beginning. And many people see it while it is being sown, but only a few of them recall about it by the time of the harvest.”

This verse is vibrant with mystical significance, because it hints at one of the great spiritual mysteries. Mystery is the stepping stone to Wonder, and Wonder is the stepping stone to Gratitude, and Gratitude is the most sacred of all emotions. Now, mind you, the slogan, “The Lord works in mysterious ways,” always sort of irritated me, because it is what people always say when God doesn’t do what they thought He should do. Still, I have often said that no terrible thing has ever happened to me that did not carry a positive end in its wake. The upshot is that even though people act in seemingly negative ways, the secret outcome is a positive; furthermore, sometimes this outcome is so secret the positive is not even visible. On this note, the commentator, Vladimir Antonov, writes:

“The Holy Spirit directs the acts of people when necessary, but people usually are not aware of this. He, among other things, creates — through vicious people — difficulties in the form of temptations and enticements (such as false doctrines) for other embodied people. This is done for the sake of their intellectual development. After all, they are sent here to learn, and not just to live. The meaning of our lives on the Earth consists in our self-development, which must go in three main directions: intellectual, ethical, and psycho-energetical. And our Teacher is God. Diligent students, after graduating from this School, are invited by the Father, if they are worthy of this, to His Abode to merge there with Him forever. But remedial students remain forever “repeaters”, become slaves of this world. The time of the “harvest” is the end of the world: the School is closed, the worthy students move to the Abode of God-the-Father, enriching Him with Themselves; the lot of the rest is the outer darkness: destruction, death of the souls. … A special comment has to be made concerning the use of the pronoun They with regard to the Holy Spirit in this fragment. This is not an error: the Holy Spirit is indeed an aggregate of former humans who attained in their development the right to be in the Highest eons.” 

There are two thoughts in this commentary which deserve elaboration; the first is:

“He, among other things, creates — through vicious people — difficulties in the form of temptations and enticements (such as false doctrines) for other embodied people. This is done for the sake of their intellectual development. After all, they are sent here to learn, and not just to live. The meaning of our lives on the Earth consists in our self-development, which must go in three main directions: intellectual, ethical, and psycho-energetical.”

In my life there have been many villains whose actions toward me were vicious and destructive; to hate such a person is easy, but to realize that this person is the bearer of a benevolent gift from God which, though hidden at first, reveals itself over time as being more than adequate compensation for the destructive act. For instance, we all remember the member of the Copper River School Board who got it in her head that I was a bad person, and worked to have me fired; and we all remember that the settlement I got from them, when I sued for wrongful termination, not only paid for one son’s year at an expensive college, and another son’s two years at UAA, but freed me to get the much better job I now have in Anchorage. It is now a knee-jerk reflex to look for the silver lining behind every terrible thing that happens to me—the armor of God is strong and safe.

The other enticing thought from above is: 

“And many people see it while it is being sown, but only a few of them recall about it by the time of the harvest.” 

This sentence is particularly enticing in its mysterious connotations. I have always wondered about the relationship of “dream state” to what we call the “conscious state”; in sleep we seem to disappear from existence, and yet there is some motor still running in the background that is fully conscious. Why do we not remember events that take place in this state? How can our holistic consciousness be so divided that there are aspects of self which are completely invisible to us? What is the purpose of this invisibility?

In my favorite Christmas movie, The Bishop’s Wife, one of the plot elements explores this idea, in terms of angelic intervention in the affairs of men. In the movie, the angel tells us that once he has performed his service for the humans entrusted to his care, the humans retain no memory that an angel has visited them. Did the shepherds on the hillside, after it was all over, even remember seeing angels singing bright hosannahs in the sky, while time stood still in Bethlehem? It just goes to show that the “mysterious ways” in which the Lord works are mysterious for a reason, albeit a reason which may be invisible to us on this  plane of consciousness.

I have had some thoughts on the subject of pre-destination and free will. Invisibility is one of the problems of Human Spirituality—we experience so much more than we can understand. We feel but we cannot see. Sometimes it seems like we are in a play that has already been written; and then we realize we are changing the play with each line we speak. I have previously suggested that the basic templates for our Earthly careers are originated outside time, and yet the details of execution have been mapped out in time, since time began. What is it that the soul pre-destines itself to, for each life? What’s the plan for what we are we going to do? It can’t be about which fork we are going to use at Aunt Deirdre’s wedding, it has to be something more general, more sweeping in its inclusion. Perhaps the core of pre-destination is INTENTION: the intention dictates the essence of the plan, the vision of a life, while the actual working out of the material mechanisms is subject to the whim of the elected manifestation; each act realizing specificities out of the endless variety of possibilities available to us on the physical plane. Thus, our Earthly careers are comprised of technical variations on a motto theme of supernatural knowledge.

At this point, Philip takes an abrupt turn in a different direction. Remember that many critics insist that the Gospel of Philip is a sort of random collection of Valentinian sayings, and this change in subject at verse 17 supports that idea. I suppose an artificial connection might be drawn between any two or three separate things, so that some kind of inner structure may be appropriately invented. Moreover, as a catechesis, it makes perfect sense to change subjects, just as the Apostle’s Creed speaks of a number of unrelated beliefs in an order that is not particularly organic. To further complicate things, there are a couple of remarks in this section that are perceived by Antonov as JOKES.

Verse 17 is actually pretty funny, but, in order for you to get it, I have to explain the joke before I tell it: Antonov’s is as follows:

“In Greek, in which the Gospel was written, the Holy Spirit is of feminine gender. This is the reason for the irony of Philip in the beginning of the fragment.”

Thus, the gag is, “How can a female beget in another female?” Here is the verse:

  

“17. Some said that Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit.

They are in error. They do not understand what they say.

When did a woman ever conceive by a woman?

Mary at the same time is the immaculacy, which was

not defiled by violence.”

This section, in no uncertain terms, not only poo-poos the idea of the immaculate conception, but ridicules it, with that crack about, “how can a female (Virgin Mary) conceive by a female (Holy Spirit)?” This ridicule is not surprising, in a way; indeed, the polytheistic religions that existed side by side with the new Christianity—I refer to the many gods of the Egyptian, the Syrian, the Babylonian, even the Buddhist religions—are fraught with immaculate conception myths; myths which must have been  just as difficult to believe in 100 A.C.E. as they are now. It might be shocking for some to see one of the basic dogmatic beliefs of Christianity, the Virgin Birth, so belied by this author, and we almost don’t want to believe it is so written; but it must not be overlooked that, in a work so permeated by descriptions of the Divine Mysteries, one of the basic Christian Miracles is denied. Is this a “both” True/False answer?

In the Isenburg commentary he says this:

 “(Do you mean Jesus did not come straight down from heaven in Mary but had a human father?)

The second sentence, again, identifies the Holy Spirit as feminine as well as denying the virgin birth in the first.  The third sentence blows the Roman cover story that Mary the mother of Jesus was a placeholder or substitute for Sophia-Wisdom-the Holy Spirit.  “Virgin whom no power defiled refers to the Sophia Mythos. 

(Christ has everything in Himself, whether man…)”

Further comment on this subject comes from Facts Behind Faith by Sid Jeffries:

“The Holy Spirit is Sophia, Wisdom: Consort of God; and the Logos, the Aquarian Spirit of Truth for the New Age: One Spirit, Many Names. The whole subject of the Holy Spirit in the Bible is as interesting as it is complex. Yet typically simple at heart. There is one Spirit with many names. Generally this is recognised by biblical commentators. Yet there is also some disputed confusion we shall try to dispel at the end: Christ vying with the Dove as the spirit of Wisdom, the logos.

To properly present a portrait of the Holy Spirit it is important to trace its evolution through the Old Testament. This involves the rather conventional heresy of identifying the transformation of the Old Testament ‘goddess,’ Sophia, Wisdom, into the New Testament Holy Spirit.

This is a conventional heresy because this identity between the two has been recognised over many centuries but it is not officially acknowledged by the churches. It is interesting to note why.

The Spirit Becomes Sophia, Female Partner of Jehovah:
The earliest Books of the Bible present a prominent role for the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Jehovah, which is the creative power in the Genesis Creation story. This Spirit is also the spirit of prophecy which inspires the prophets but can also inspire ordinary people, just like the Holy Spirit. Both roles of the Spirit of God are later recognised in the personification of Sophia, Wisdom, in the Wisdom Books, towards the end of the Old Testament period. Sophia is recognised as the female partner of Jehovah with her ‘throne of glory’ in ‘the holy heavens.’”

Recall that two weeks ago I read, in my intro to Philip, this paragraph:

“It must be remembered that Jesus brought a new perspective to World Religion. A not insignificant contribution was the way He integrated the Hebrew concept of the Father God into the polytheistic concept of the Mother God. As we have seen, many of the religions of the surrounding regions relied heavily on polytheism, with abounding plethoras of Gods associated with every human activity imaginable, from coronations, to marriage, to dish-washing and fish-gutting. To these religions, the Mother God was a central figure in the pagan cosmography. Thus, Jesus took the Jewish idea of a Father God one step further, by claiming Sonship. We must read the joke in Philip where the idea of a virgin impregnated by a virgin is made fun of. It is not a trivial issue to confront. One aspect of the Father God is that He has a PERSONALITY—a focus in the Christ Consciousness—a spiritual modality that cannot be mistaken for any quality other than MALE.”

So what (WHO) is this Male Father God, and how is His manifestation in the Christ Consciousness different from the Mother Spirit, this “Female Partner of Jehovah”? 

What I find at least as interesting a question as any other, concerning the Virgin Birth is that, once again, we are forced to confront a pair of opposing entities—a male Father God, and the Holy Spirit, ostensibly a Female God. This certainly lends a certain rational sense to the idea of Virgin Birth, but it also puts us right back in the nitty-gritty of carnal life by having to admit the PRACTICAL impossibility of the Virgin Birth. This is another logical quandary created by doctrinal statements which only make sense outside of time and space.

By this, I mean: I still believe in the Virgin Birth even though this scholar of the time does not. But my disagreement on this point does not render invalid all the other opinions of this author(s) which I find correct, profound, and meaningful. Indeed, I take almost every scripture with more than a grain of salt, and refuse to be pinned down on any but a very few dogmatic principles. Like I say to the Creationists who say the world is 6,000 years old and not billions of years old as science teaches us: “Why can’t it be both?”

Going on with Philip:

“She is a great temptation to Hebrews, both to those

who preach and to those who listen to their preaching.

Her immaculacy, which was not defiled by violence, is

pure. But the mighty of this world defiled themselves

(through their fantasies).

And the Lord (Jesus Christ) would not have said, “My

Father Who is in Heaven,” if He had not had another father. He would have said simply: “My father”.

This last bit sounds a bit like quibbling: “if he only had one father he would have not said “Father in heaven, so there!”” The more argumentative you are the less seriously I take you. Nevertheless, this paragraph restates a key concept emphasized in the Gospel of Philip: the notion that the Son bears a blood relationship to the Father, and therefore has only ONE FATHER IN HEAVEN. He may have a father on Earth, too, but that relationship is weak compared to the ETHERIC BLOOD relationship he experiences with the Father.

Going on with the Father idea, Philip leads us a merry chase over some dogmatic principles:

“18. The Lord said to the disciples, “Enter the House of

the Father. But do not take anything in the House of the

Father, nor carry anything out.”

Commentary:

“The last phrase of Jesus is a joke, because in “the House of the Father” — in the highest eon — there are no material objects that can be carried out as from the house of an earthly father. But to enter the Abode of the Heavenly Father and to settle there forever is the

Goal of the evolution of every person.”

Going on with Philip:

“19. Jesus is a human name. Christ is a title. For this

reason the name Jesus is not found in other languages; He

was just named Jesus.

Christ in Syriac is Messiah; Christ is a Greek word.

Other languages also have this word — according to their

spelling.

The Nazarene means “The One Who came from the

Truth.”

Commentary:

“Christ, Messiah, Avatar — all these are just different expressions of the same phenomenon in different languages. Jesus Christ was one, but there were many Christs throughout the entire history of mankind. Jesus was the only and the first Christ for those people with whom He communicated directly during His earthly life.”

I was so happy to read that last bit: “Christ is not the last name of Jesus”, because this has been a pet peeve of mine for many years, this misuse of the word “Christ”. You will recall the story of the young assistant pastor who, at an interview for a church choir leader position, earnestly asked me, “WHOOOOO do you think CHRIST IZZZZZZS??? I couldn’t answer without giving him a Bible lesson, so I just said, “That’s very personal,” and left it at that. I did not get the job.

That last sentence, “Jesus was the only and the first Christ for those people with whom He communicated directly during His earthly life,” is a little murky in meaning: we easily buy, “Jesus was the only and the first Christ”, but why add, “for those people with whom He communicated directly”? I believe I either don’t understand this comment, or I disapprove of the way the commentator lumps Jesus Christ together with whole menagerie of other historical Christs; no doubt the Christ Consciousness has been available to some over the tens of thousands of centuries that man has walked the Earth, but we have said many times, and have read ample material from Rudolf Steiner in support of the idea, that Jesus Christ was the one and only Big Guy in the Cosmic Administration. He suffered in ransom for all, canceled the stain of original sin, and acts as a mediator between the Heavenly Man and the Earthly Man. I believe that part of this commentator’s error lies in a lack of appreciation of the true  blood relationships that constitute Jesus’ Earthly Family.

Going on:

“20. Christ has everything in Himself: both human and

angelic, and even more mysterious, and the Father.

I love this sentence so much because it (once again, for Philip) plots out a cosmic hierarchy, in this declension: human, angelic, the Father. So far, the principle in the Gospel of Philip that has impressed me most is that there are a vast number of levels of existence—this is implied in practically every sentence—every sentence stimulates our imaginations and leads us to the frontier of the Cloud of Unknowing; we get a real sense of eternity from these ponderings.

Commentary:

“In the Gospel of John, there is a statement of Jesus where He compared Himself with a vine: its trunk is above the surface of the Earth, and its root comes from the Abode of God-the-Father. Since He, as a Consciousness, is present everywhere, He can veraciously tell people about the highest eons and represent God-the-Father to them in the material world.”

The idea of consciousness present everywhere has been of interest to me lately. Let me digress. Many years ago I was in meditation, and I suddenly knew everything that everybody in Pullman Washington was thinking. It was an inkling, an impression, and, of course, I can’t remember anything now—but I swear to you, the experience was real, and for an instant I was perceptive of a grand corporate consciousness. Now, mind you, I have a similar experience every time I conduct a group—I go into a trance and can see into everybody’s minds, and can tell what they are going to do—but this experience was several quantum leaps in advance of this normal psychic event. Furthermore, it is to this single instantaneous experience that I have a glimmer of understanding about how Jesus can be in contact with the whole of the Human Race, ALL AT ONCE. I’m sure this has to do with TIME. Experiences OUTSIDE TIME are available to all those who are susceptible and have the desire.

Back to Philip:

“21. They who say that the Lord died first and then

rose up are in error, for He rose up first and then died (by

the body). The one who has attained the Resurrection will not die. For God lives and will be living always.”

You will notice that there are lots of word games in this gospel; plays on words, jokes, and now this little logical brain twister: Jesus rose up first and then died. The gag is simply WHEN FIRST IS. Since Jesus was born of spirit first, He could not die except in His incarnated body. I find the distinction here to be of trivial significance, nevertheless, it simply means that Philip will leave no rational stone unturned to make his point.

Antonov’s commentary expands the idea thus:

“The true Resurrection is the Resurrection in the highest eons, and not in the world of matter. Jesus attained this a long time ago and came to the Earth as a Part of God-the-Father.

The One Who has traversed the Path up to Mergence with God-the-Father — attains the true immortality and after the death of the body rises in the eon of the Father in Mergence with Him.

But Jesus “rose” for embodied people in this world as well, by materializing His new body every time. He could do this by His Divine Power.”

Back to Philip:

“22. One never hides a thing of great value in a large

vessel, but very often countless treasures are placed into

a vessel worth an assarion. [An assarion is a Roman coin, bronze or copper worth about a farthing (one tenth of a drachma—in other words, not very much.] One never hides a thing of great value in a large vessel, but very often countless treasures are placed into a vessel worth an assarion.... It is the same with the soul. Being a precious thing, it is placed in a contemptible body.”

I love how this passage denigrates the body as a worthless thing. The metaphor is the kind of image that would appear in a parable. The metaphor encourages us to fix our attention on the imperishable soul rather than the pitifully worthless sheath wrapped around it.

Antonov’s commentary:

“Atheists as well as most of those who call themselves

Christians believe that man is a body.

But in reality man is a soul, a consciousness. And the body is just a temporal container, in which man has to go through the next stage of studying in the School in the material world.

Incarnate states of people are usually much shorter parts

of their lives as compared to non-incarnate states.

However, the development of man can take place only in the incarnate state. It is for this reason that incarnations are necessary, it is for this reason that God creates material worlds.”

This is one of the great mysteries: why are incarnations necessary? Antonov here states the conventional new age position that multiple incarnations of the soul are an established fact, and that each incarnation offers the soul opportunities for development unavailable to it in the spiritual state. Now, this concept is nowhere specifically stated in this gospel nor any other that I know of, and yet the argument appeals to an intuitive understanding of how the universe works. Other new age authors would add that each person has a different life goal that is to be accomplished in his current incarnation, so no broadly summarized generalization is possible. Nevertheless, Antonov spins out his explication with another metaphor—the idea of the body as a “factory”:

“The point is that the body is a “factory” for transformation of energy. In the body, the energy extracted, first of all, from ordinary food can become the energy of the consciousness, of the soul. It is thanks to this that the process of qualitative and quantitative growth of the consciousness can take place.”

He says, “It is thanks to this that the process of qualitative and quantitative growth of the consciousness can take place.” He doesn’t say why or how this energy transformation takes place, and he doesn’t say how the physical food is transformed into spiritual food, but if we go deeper into his logic we might eventually stumble onto an essentially truthful answer. At this point the ability of Faith to accept irrational premises must be our fallback position.

Recently, in meditation, I was given a metaphor that helped me understand why “the development of man can take place only in the incarnate state.” I had always thought of the carnal life and the afterlife as separate things—first one then the other; but if we think of the carnal life as an appendage of the spiritual life, a permanent imprint on the face of the Cosmic host, then a transcendental relationship between death and life may be perceived. As such, we can see that the experiences in the body do not simply disappear when we pass on to the higher planes, but they continue to resonate in the mind and memory of God. 

It was explained to me that life on Earth is kind of like the slow repetitious process of practicing on a musical instrument—a process which is tedious and essentially meaningless for its own sake, but which is necessary to prepare us for the performance onstage. Without the physicalization of technical practice, the soul would not be free to express itself through the physical; furthermore without this physicalization the soul would not be able to experience the ecstasy of musical expression which is purely spiritual. Hence, Terrestrial Life=Practice, Heavenly Life=Performance. These are comfortable thoughts, which work to validate Earthly existence, and which affirm the spiritual resonance of everything we DO on this plane.

Recall our previous discussion of the term “pleroma”:

“It is interesting how many different ways “pleroma”, the totality of divine powers, is translated. These four translations of Colossians 2:9 all translate pleroma as “fullness”, and 3 out of 4 of them include the word “body”:

In the King James 21st Century it says:

“For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.”

The Amplified Bible gives practically a textbook definition of pleroma:

“For in Him all the fullness of Deity (the Godhead) dwells in bodily form [completely expressing the divine essence of God]. ‘

The Common English Bible simplifies it to:

“All the fullness of deity lives in Christ’s body.”

The Contemporary English Version simplifies it even more:

“God lives fully in Christ.”

All this talk of the fullness of God in the physical makes me take this verse more seriously:

1st Corinthians 6:19:

“Don't you realize that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourself.”

Many so-called “ascetic” philosophies disparage the body, attribute to the body no significance compared to the spirit; in these verses we are encouraged to think of the body as an legitimate extension on spirit, and somehow on an equal level as spirit. These thoughts must give us pause, those of us who eat too much, sit around too much, smoke too much, etc.

One of my favorite lines from the poetry of Wallace Stevens occurs at the end of “Peter Quince at the Clavier”. This poem is about the rape of Susanna by the elders as told in the book of Daniel. The poem ends thus:

                              

“Beauty is momentary in the mind— 

The fitful tracing of a portal; 

But in the flesh it is immortal. 

The body dies; the body's beauty lives. 

So evenings die, in their green going, 

A wave, interminably flowing. 

So gardens die, their meek breath scenting 

The cowl of winter, done repenting. 

So maidens die, to the auroral 

Celebration of a maiden's choral. 

Susanna's music touched the bawdy strings 

Of those white elders; but, escaping, 

Left only Death's ironic scraping. 

Now, in its immortality, it plays 

On the clear viol of her memory, 

And makes a constant sacrament of praise.”

I have to admit that I have not adequately understood these lines until now—the paradox of the “immortal flesh” struck me as a poetical construction designed generate a feeling of wonder in the audience, and that was all I got out of it. Immortal flesh seemed a contradiction in terms. Now I see that Stevens was cherishing the REALITY of the immortal spirit incarnated in the sympathetically immortal flesh—thus, timeless memory makes all being immortal.

With that thought we will close. Next week we will continue with the pondering of Philip on the flesh-to-spirit paradox. Let us pray.

Jesus, thank you for bringing us wholeness in mind body and spirit. You and only you can work this magic, and we stand in awe as you pull rabbit after rabbit out of the hat. Amen.