www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Scripture and Patristic Writings Diadochos of Photiki: Involuntary sins

I always thought this teaching was mindful of both ideas of purgation and toll houses, but the primary interest I have in it at the moment is the reference to involuntary sins.

Eli


Vol. 1 of the Philokalia, p.295:

"If we do not confess our involuntary sins as we should, we shall discover an ill-defined fear in ourselves at the hour of our death. We who love the Lord should pray that we may be without fear at that time; **for if we are afraid then, we will not be able freely to pass by the rulers of the nether world. They will have as their advocate to plead against us the fear which our soul experiences because of its own wickedness. But the soul which rejoices in the love of God, at the hour of its departure, is lifted with the angels of peace above all the hosts of darkness. For it is given wings by spiritual love, since it ceaselessly carries within itself the love which 'is the fulfilling of the law' (Rom. 13:10)."

Glory to Jesus Christ!

This is an interesting quotation. It is the first patristic reference I've seen calling for specific confession of individual involuntary sins. It presumes, of course, that one KNOWS what those sins are, and that seems very significant to me. The kind of confession St. Diadochos encourages requires first the perfection of self-knowledge. This interior clarity is precisely the aim of the ascetic life. One could say that askesis is directed primarily toward the uncovering of all evil within oneself, both that which is merely potential (the "passions") and that which has been put into action (actual, "consumated" sins). Askesis is the persistent search for sin, both voluntary and involuntary. It is only by finding that lurking evil that one can then cast it out into the fire of Divine Love.

This is precisely what the Greek Fathers mean by "purgation", I think--especially as we see it in St. Gregory of Nyssa.

My own interest right now is how this ascetic theology becomes articulated in the great doctrinal project of St. John of Damascus. I believe it comes in most clearly in his theological anthropology. One of the great themes of St. John's work is his incredibly optimistic view of humanity's potential. This feature of his thought is what Fr. Andrew Louth calls the "integrity of the natural." St. John is absolutely consistent in holding human beings to the consequences of our creation in the Divine Image. We are naturally "hard-wired" for perfection, by which he seems to mean the complete subjection of body to soul, so that the body can fulfill the spiritual purpose for which it was created. Another way of saying this is that the perfection of the saints is one in which we never make an involuntary movement again. It is the complete coinherence of mind, soul and body. Integration vs. atomization.

Sin does not seem in St. John's view to corrupt nature. Rather it alienates us from our true nature, making room for the forces of chaos to reconquer some of the territory claimed by God in creation. Involuntary passions and sin would seem to be symptoms indicating the presence of that chaos.

The other thing that I think needs to be said is that St. John's vision is essentially an eschatological one. In other words, whatever potential human nature has for perfection can only really be acutalized through grace. This is especially clear in his treatment of the human will (based largely on the thought of St. Maximos) where it is quite clear that human perfection of the will is really only possible in union with Christ (the source of all knowledge, including knowledge of ourselves).

Gosh, so many words and so little really said. I will have to do better in my thesis!!

Off to Compline.

unworthy hierodeacon Maximos

I stumbled over it while doing a small bit of writing for some Carmelites on Teresa of Avila's Way of Perfection. Avila knew.

Thank you so much for writing a response. Once I found you here I did not want to go wandering off into the topic without you.

Maybe we can play with this a bit as you have time. I've been working on a little something myself but will break it down into smaller bits. Are you aware of Father William Most's small article on involuntary sin?

You know I was taught by a Greek monk-scholar something that I knew in part and suspected but am now able to look for more clearly. This monk-scholar was very aware of St. Thomas Aquinas and the influence of Pseudo-Dionysius, and the Damascene on Aquina's thinking. So he showed me that and in some part it is much as you are saying here about St. John.

Then he told me that the Greeks had long been suspicious of the Areopagite and did not receive him -fully- into the body of patristic teachings until after he became a voice in the west through Aquinas. That is not to say that he was rejected. More that he was neglected.

That I had reckoned with at some earlier time in a class with a Dominican patristic historian.

But then the Orthodox monk-scholar told me that the east did not welcome the Damascene with open arms either.

He said the semi-Pelegian tendencies of the east, and that was NOT an accusation of heresy mind you but a suggestion of emphasis, made it difficult for the Greeks to fold either the Damascene or the Areopagite, systematically, into their doctrinal theology except where one could not avoid their ideas inherent in the ascetic life and its apophatic expression.

This of course might explain some of the immediate negative response to the teachings of St. Gregory Palamas. It was not all "latinized" Greeks who opposed Palamas.

I think that has fascinating implications for any discussions of comparative doctrinal theology east to west on such teachings as "atonement" "original sin" "propitiation" "kenosis" "person" "nature"
"justification" and those suppporting teachings coming out of those revealed truths.

When I began thinking all the implications of these things, all the way through, while re-reading the Summa, that was when so many things began to fall into place. And it all began by seeing things, east to west, in terms of differences in emphasis and magnitude, and not differences in kind and substance and truth.

Not that I have the language skills to join that melee, but I certainly do have the heart for it.

Thank you so much for you gift of time here.

Eli

[/QUOTE]Maybe we can play with this a bit as you have time. I've been working on a little something myself but will break it down into smaller bits. Are you aware of Father William Most's small article on involuntary sin?[/QUOTE]

No I haven't, but I would dearly like to! Where can I find it?

[/QUOTE]You know I was taught by a Greek monk-scholar something that I knew in part and suspected but am now able to look for more clearly. This monk-scholar was very aware of St. Thomas Aquinas and the influence of Pseudo-Dionysius, and the Damascene on Aquina's thinking. So he showed me that and in some part it is much as you are saying here about St. John.[/QUOTE]

I completely agree. IMO the Aereopagite is the real, and all-too neglected link between Greek theology and the best of Scholastic thought, especially St Thomas. I have spent the last couple of years, while working on my Masters, living and, to some extent studying, with Dominicans in Berkeley. I don't have the time to put it all down now, but the ultimate conclusion I have reached is that real union between the Churches will take place when both have fully recovered their sense of the mystical heart of the Gospel.

Thankfully there is some wonderful scholarship in that area now, such as A.N Williams study of deification in Palamas and Aquinas, and David Bradshaw's recent book looking at the concept of "energeia" in patristic/scholastic thought (I think it's called, "Aristotle East and West.") The story of the "hellenization" of St Thomas is itself a fascinating one. One of my fellow students in Berkeley (who incidentally is being ordained tomorrow to the priesthood, prayers!), Br. Bernhard Blankenhorn wrote a very good article on how Aquinas became more of a sacramental "realist" (translation: a sacramental mystic!!!) through exposure to Greek patristic thought, especially that of St. Cyril. http://www.opwest.org/Archive/2006/200605/blankenhorn_article.pdf It may well be that St Thomas is far from the "poster child" for all the evils of later scholasticism. It may well be that we should begin to see him as the primary guarantor of the CONTINUITY within Latin theology of important patristic concepts. How's that for a controversial ecumenical position!

Yes, we have many things to talk about, and I look forward to continuing the conversation.

hierodeacon Maximos

PS I think the best writer today on St Dionysius is hieromonk Alexander Golitzin. Are you familiar?

Who do you 'spose that old Orthodox monk-scholar was to show me a thing or two way back when?

I never studied with him but I did read his published dissertation and wrote to him joyfully and we corresponded back and for a bit. It is exciting when the lights go on isn't it?

He is one fine scholar and thinker and one holy man!!

I'll write more later and get you the url for Father William's essay. It's a fine little known bit of Scripture wisdom.

Eli

Here [ewtn.com] is the address for Father Bill Most's article called Repayment for Works?. Don't let the title throw you. He moves very quickly into a discussion of covenant and sheggagah.

Eli

(moved from another thread)

Eli...

Upon waking this morning a nice concise way to talk about understanding involuntary sin came to me. If you will accept it - I will use modern metaphors - as �it is like this� is what I am doing. I am not giving theology - I am giving a little something that by it we might understand theology better.

So� it is LIKE this�

Christianity has been around for over 2000 years� our understanding of it has developed. And what was revealed (that which human reasoning can not attain by itself) is really not much in the way of amount - but was all that was needed and was complete (what the father had to say to us was said fully within Jesus Christ).

Now let us use the metaphor of modern day computers.

Our human make up is comprised of two created natures. Mind (spirit or psychic) and body (soma). Each of these natures are fully functional on their own design for their specific purposes.

So let us talk about the �Law of the members�� since the way Paul uses the term means how a thing operates (by what rules and principles it operates).

Now the human mind (created spirit) is about 10% conscious and 90% automatic (subconscious). This is good. It allows us (as a combined nature) to operate really well. Once we learn to drive a car - most of the driving is done by our subconscious mind.

While the conscious mind is very well at focus and individual items � the subconscious mind is a little dumber, more rudimentary and concerned with the soma and its purposes and survival. It is the mind of our animal nature.

Nothing about the body and its senses can have an experience of God or know about God. The mind of the body (subconscious mind) does not know nor understand � God. Because God (uncreated spirit) is not an object approximate to its capabilities.

As I said, the subconscious mind, while not being as intelligent as the mind of our spiritual faculties� the subconscious mind processes a massive amount of data. It is constantly adjusting all aspects of our body to adjust to conditions. Heart rate, breathing, blood flow, physical reactions, etc having to do with all sensory perceptions. It does this through (shall we say) programming.

When the conscious mind does something often� the subconscious mind says �Here.. Let me make that automatic for you� and sets in place a program (habit) based upon a new arrangement of other existing and past programs (automatic habits). It - re-uses - data - in this way. To form a new habitual response.

OK.. So far this is pretty simple and thanks to Jesus and then Paul and many others - we understand all this a lot better. This type of stuff has become almost commonplace understanding in Christian civilization.

Now the way we (humans) adjust our subconscious programming is to attempt to - re-program troublesome areas of it. We adjust or set in place - new programs - over the troublesome programs. Psycho-therapy (spirit-therapy).

Ascetics (which is not to Christianity alone) are methods by which we �break� certain subconscious habitual programming. We interrupt - the running programs. And by this we gain some personal knowledge of their automatic operation. We also might use some aspects of ascetics to do some re-programming. Whether we do this in a religious setting or a social setting (psychotherapy). In either case (the setting) the reprogramming is done along the lines of, and for the purpose of better social compatibility. In other words to function in society better.

Now let us bring another set of concepts into this and later - - - join the two.
Reality (the experience of reality) is the first expression of God to us humans. Now I am not talking about what we know about reality in the way of the analytical mind� I am talking about our experience - of reality. The over-ridding importance of reality (for us humans) is not the science of it (knowledge about it) but the meaning of it. Our experience of reality imparts - meaning - to us.

If we take un-adulterated reality into ourselves - we are at a union with created nature (and its meaning) and we are necessarily also at union with God who created that reality - moment by moment. However (and we are speaking about involuntary sin) if certain programming of our subconscious has been placed there and tints our reception of reality - we rather live and function in un-reality. Now I will leave out all the details of that.

We know (through revelation) that reality is a person. It is the person of the Risen and Resurrected Jesus Christ - as the Logos - the Word. This is made clear by John in the prolog of his gospel. �All that is made to exist - is made to exist by the Word - an no-thing exists comes to exist without Him� (paraphrased).

This means that Reality (if we take that concept and add the idea of person to it) is what we call - Providence. Providence itself is then � a living person (of Jesus Christ).

Now ascetics alone � can not bring us back to (or forward to) an unadulterated experience of Reality and re-union with God and natural world which God creates. In other words no human set of programming has the capability to re-program (re-create) our original design and its well balanced functions. Unless God re-build the house (do the re-programming) the house (holiness) does not get built.

Providence itself (God/Jesus) must do the reprogramming. Another way to say this is that we must be re-programmed by Reality - itself. It is the daily events which reality forms and brings to us - that is God�s part in this re-programming effort. Our part is our cooperation. This is our daily bread. This is our baptism.

That daily Providence is that which sanctifies us - has always been the doctrine of the churches (East or West). It is not ascetics or even the sacraments (these are all aids to the primary action of Providence and our cooperation). Note that for any of the sacraments to be effective we must be in good conscience (proper cooperation with the will of God as it comes to us daily via Providence).

Anyways� this has all been something of modern metaphor by which we can understand something of involuntary sin as habitual and subconscious tendencies that automatically substitute un-realities (in-direct and tinted experience of Reality) � for a real and direct experience/cooperation/union with the person of Reality itself.

The original sin (at operation still in all of us) is our own free choice of self-providence in place of God�s all-providence. And the residue of our past self-providence is within our subconscious nature.

Sanctification takes place in the memories (in the subconscious) as Paul says our fight is in spiritual places (the mind - not the body). Self-knowledge helps (so that we recognize certain things) but self-reprogramming does nothing but imitate what we think is sanctification (but really is not). Only Reality itself - can reprogram us - back to our original design. Now if Reality were NOT a person - this would be impossible as it would be chaos. But Reality IS a person. And so reality each day is tailored exactly for each of us. Hence - contemplation has always been the effective form of any ascetic practices as it makes us more receptive to Reality and let dependent upon our habitual ways.

This view might (or might not) be of use to you.

Peace to you and your church.

-ray

Dear Ray I have to take all this in small bites. This is the first place where I had to stop and scratch my head. No. Not fleas. Not this year.

Two natures. Two created natures?

What do you mean by "nature" here. And if by that you mean that human nature is a duality then we've got a severe rupture with Church teaching about to begin here.

But I need to offer the benefit of the doubt and say "Huh?"

Eli

When we use the word �nature� in conjunction with the technical phrase �human nature� � we are using the word �nature� to indicate � a class or kind of species (as the word �human� indicates a particular class of species).

When we use the term �spiritual nature� and �body nature� we are not talking about species (spirit and body are not in the classes of species) and so we are using the word �nature� to indicate � an inner force, character, or type � the essential qualities or characteristics by which something is recognized. (Example: �Bob, is a good natured man.�)


The difference between ... type and kind.

We may also use the word �nature� to indicate the natural physical world including plants and animals and landscapes and such. (Example: �Mother nature�)

It makes no sense to use the word �nature� in a meaning to indicate that human nature (one kind of species) is composed of two other kinds of species. While it is correct to say that human nature is a composite of two types of faculties which have different essential qualities and characteristics.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/nature

Eli � I don�t think this is going to work out. I am not a theologian and I assume you are not one either. We are just two guys talking. This is just an internet bulletin board and so any thoughts of a possible rupture with church teaching � seem to me to be a sever judgment for a bulletin board discussion that is confused by semantics.

I have been burned at this board many times before by some people insisting that they knew better what I meant � than I knew what I meant. They did not seek to understand � they rather sought to apply their own meaning to my words as if to prove to others that they had the best theology or they were master theologians.

You - are probably not like that at all - I am sure - but I am skittish (it is I who am handicapped here) because that type of discussion harms the body of Christ� and I want no part or even hint of it.

So before we even get the chance to get there (and perhaps we would not) � I withdraw my posts. You will do better without me.

Peace to you and your holy church.

-ray

Thank you so much for your time. Sorry you do not feel sufficiently safe to work out a common lexicon.

We are not the first to walk this path and there are precedents that might have been tapped. Others besides myself have noted that there can be much confusion by naming the parts as if they were the whole or by not recognizing that the person, or the whole person, is far greater than the sum of its parts.

Seemed reasonable to me to avoid the common bog of dualism explicitly, not for you or me but for others who might be watching. I am always aware that these are not private conversations between people who can presume upon one another's meanings.

That is the only place I was trying to go, not because of any of my training but because I love God and his revelation. My thought was that we could walk to a place of mutual understanding together using a simple language that was also as precise as possible.

Your thoughts are clearly different and I respect that and forgive your personal pre-judgments of me. I do try to stay with ideas in these kinds of discussions. The mere suggestion that I would even think to "burn" you was far more personal that any warning that I raised about dualism.

Eli

A kind reply.

Believe me ... it is me .. and I am npt ready to re-enter this type of discussion. I found that out. I used to like them. It is so good to see what all His churches have in common ) a lot more than we think). I am not ready to open that door of possibility (arguments of division) again right now. Let us let that dog die.

We appeared to be headed towards a discussion of theology diffrences ... East and West. I am not in favor of any value to that imaginary division. It should have died years ago and I will not breath any life into it.

My spiritual life centers around two things (and all I post can be reduced to these two).

Attention to and cooperation with daily Providence.

Attention to conscience in whatever situation or circumstances which Providence sends my way each day.

All else is entirely secondary and is fulfilled by the first two.

I don't know if you would 'burn' me. I know a few others that have and would. I am not about to offer them that opurtunity again right now. It does no one any good. I can take it... but it does others (public readers) no good.

Peace to you and your church my friend.

-ray

This topic has nothing to do with any divisions east and/or west. It is what it is and it stands on its own merit or falls.

Clearly you have had something happen to you that has incrementally increased your sensitivity. I have as well but I don't avoid it. I keep getting back up and trying again till I find that I am doing a bit better than I had been. That is simply my way. I do not say that to judge you. I can be very stubborn.

There isn't much we have that we can control but ourselves. That is more than enough for anyone I know. Sometimes we must get up and do something without knowing whether it is according to Providence or not. That leap of faith business can be a bit unsettling.

What is your prayer discipline?

Sounds as though it has not done you much good either.

See how this goes from here and maybe there will be something that inspires you again and I'll be more careful next time. Ok?

Eli

OK Eli� you have convinced me that you have a good heart and head and will not be a mad man.

Now our subject is - involuntary sin.

A real good place to crack this nut - is - St. Paul who writes�.

Now this is a most right-on description of the human condition of involuntary sin.

Despite the difference of language and terms and culture .. . we and Paul share the same single human nature� and so should be able to recognize within our own human nature something of that same experience. And certainly we have cause to trust St. Paul.

Those who are addicted to certain things (drugs, drink, sex, etc..) know full well that they are ruining their health both of mind and body. My wife works in an ER and it is the saddest thing to see some young person come into the ER on their third heart attack from heavy drugs. Twenty years old and on their third heart attack. Cocaine, Oxicotton(sp), amphetamines. Alcohol is usually for the older. And every one of us has something (perhaps milder) of a similar experience. Something we do seem driven to do (again and again) which was not good for us in the long run but seemed to demand some temporary relief - in the short term.

And so we know that knowledge alone (the knowledge that what we are about to do is harmful to us) is not enough to change that inner drive that overwhelms us and crashes all our faculties of reason, logic, and even morals. And so we will do what we will surely regret� because not to do it seems worse to us. We get into a state in which we can not function� and that is really intolerable (chaotic to the mind). We are about to flip out and lose all control. And what we do (even if it involves a temporary increase and crescendo of inner tension) does finally break - that which has been building up - and gives us temporary relief (even if with regrets).

We would like to NOT do what it is that we are about to do� but we see no other immediate alternative except to go ahead and do what we should not do - so that once we have done it - some form of emotional and mental peace is restored to us.

Because we have become like a house divided against itself. Our logic has many conflicting voices � and maybe that is just what we wanted to escape - listening to our own logic! which was continually presenting to us some bleak future (for what ever reasons).

Paul (ever the one to bare his own inner struggles to us) shows us the seat of this conflict which lies in the highest regions of our soul. There is discord in the council chambers of the soul and the whole kingdom suffers from this lack of union amongst its rulers (desires and passions and such which motivate and animate us and allow us to function).

Paul is giving his directly intended readers (other Jews of the time) this description in words and language and symbols which were appropriate for his time and place and culture etc� he fully means himself to be understood very well. He is not stating a mystery - he is rather clearing up - a mystery. And while our culture and language and terms differ from his own - we have a bridge in that we share the same human nature. And so if we look inside to our own experiences what we find is� this matches our own struggles with the subconscious habits/movements/motivations etc� of what we call the subconscious mind.

And Paul sees a pattern to this. A �nature of the beast� � so to speak. (meaning here - the way a thing tends to operate by its own internal laws).

He goes on to names four �laws�.

The law of the members.
The law of sin.
The law of the spirit.
The law of Christ.

Now when Paul says �law� what he means in our modern way (we are not Jews of the 1st century living in Palestine and speaking Aramaic and Greek or Hebrew) he is meaning something very much like when we say �the laws of physics� the laws of science, etc.. and this is in the same way that the �Law of Moses� had originally meant �the way reality works� (under the Will of Providence). But all in all we should understand him to mean � the principles and rules by which something operates and functions. Its nature.

The law of the members - translates to something like � the inner way my animal nature (body) works. The rules it follows in its operations that are associated with and do affect my - mind.

The law of sin - translates to: the inner tendency and force by which ways sin influences or drives us.

The law of the spirit - translates to: the way in which reason and proper logic works inside us. (Keep in mind that spirit/psyche = of the mind).

And the law of Christ - translates to: a balance and spiritual integrity of which we were designed to live like. Call it enlightenment � call it sanctification� call it holiness�. It is a �state� of virtue (or to say it in Eastern theology it would be a condition of being filled with the un-created energies of God). There are many ways to point to it by words - but we all know something of what it is by a bit of experience - and we all feel the tug toward it (but don�t necessarily know how to obtain or keep it).

Back to our original question.

So how is it that we fall to involuntary sin??

Paul gives the answer.

The law of the members � leads us to the law of sin.

While the law of the spirit leads us to the law of Christ.

That is pretty simple.

One set of laws leads us to spiritual ruin and the other set leads us to be salvaged from ruin.

And so now� what had seemed so mysterious (the four laws) can begin to make sense.

The cause of involuntary sin is within the operations of our subconscious mind. The cause may be triggered by external things - but the mechanism has its seat within the gears and accoutrements of our own subconscious mind.

Sanctification (the acts of God that come to us) has as its goal and purpose� the re-creation of some of the subconscious layers of our mind. A change in our personality (which personality certainly included our subconscious). A re-making of some of our habits, deeply held beliefs, hidden motivations, etc�

A resurrection in the sense of restoring us to the vitality of life - and restoring us to the original design and functioning of our own full nature to the way God had originally designed it to operate.

So in a simple and casual way of speaking we can say that God wants to re-programs us on a subconcious level... so something better able to work with the reality which he is creating at any given moment.

If sin is "missing the mark" (the hebrew definition)... than the 'mark' is Reality (which is the only thing God creates. We need go no further than that at this point.

God wants to re-create the habits and stuff of our subconcious in a better way to recieve and work with Reality as he knows it and creates it.

Shall we move onto the next question? - which is �how is that done? How to we do that or how to we help and cooperate with God to do that??

Or would we like to stay on this for a while and examine it?

(are you with me?)

-ray

If 'are you with me?' means do I agree with or understand all that you've said as you have said it? Then the answer simply put is "No."

But I understand and agree with enough to suggest that you go ahead and finish what you've got going there and then we can read the whole thing.

If I feel safe enough to ask a question when I have the whole piece to look at, then I will.

Nah! You know me, even if I don't feel safe, I will ask. Stubborn.

Eli

>Nah! You know me, even if I don't feel safe, I will ask.
Be yourself.

And after I am done (not a whole book!) I would love to hear your views and want to understand how you see things. You do not necessarily have to crack my view apart� as I am interested in your view as it is.

We are busy learning each other�s �language� and use of terms. So I do not consider there is a right or wrong here.

I would guess that you kind of agree with the concept that that the work of sanctification takes place in the spiritual places that we today call the subconscious mind.

It seems pretty clear that this is one of the main tasks and work of the monastic life. It is the task of some of the regimentation and acetic practices. And by these we not only praise God and worship God (on a conscious level and hopefully from the heart also) but also (and now to our human nature) we become somewhat aware of our own inner �man�.

An examination of conscience is part of prayer. A cleaning of conscience is necessary for the effectiveness of the sacraments. Where is the conscinne? But in the heart? The depths of yourself which depts are rightly called - mind.

Without being too precise � there is a similarity (if not in necessarily in methods or ultimate purpose) a similarity between � dedication to a spiritual life and spiritual growth � and psycho-therapy. In a fundamental way they are both a spiritual-therapy. Both seek to recognize troublesome things in our depths of mind - and fix them. Both seek (in their own way and for their own purposes) to de-fragmentate our personality and move us to a more integrated healthy spiritual whole.

The fact that psychiatry and the medical profession of today has, in general, drifted from its founding ethics is regrettable. Be that as it may�.

One has only to read the rather lengthily and detailed observations of St. John Climacus (Ladder of Divine Ascent) where he makes observation of his ascetic charge (spiritual master of an early monastic community).

From the introduction to the Eastern Orthodox book�
If we are honest we can see that we have at times admired the �mystic� ability of many saints to uncover in others some deep and hidden aspects of their soul. They can do this mostly because they have dug so deeply into their own hidden nature. (Witness: Climacus).

�Our battle is in spiritual places� St. Paul tells his contemporaries. This has no other meaning than our battle takes place in the depths of our - mind. �No one has ever seen God.� John tells us and the simple reason is that none of our senses are capable of perceiving anything of God - our body can not know or experience God in his own nature. The experience of God - to us - is had in the mind. The psyche - our spirit.

(one last example)

St. John the apostle refers to himself as �the one whom Jesus loved�. And at the last supper � the English translations have it that John was reclining close to Jesus and leaned onto his chest to ask �Lord � who is it? (the identity of the one who would betray him).

The translators have a picture of Jesus and John reclining at table and John brings his head onto or near Jesus� chest to ask this question. And so they selected the English to express this physical action.

However � if one examines the Greek and is aware of Jewish traditions and colloquial phrases � John is describing something further - of which any physical action is entirely secondary and almost - unimportant. To understand what John is saying we need to understand how Jesus used the phrase �Abraham�s bosom� in his parable regarding the judgment (immediately after thier death) of the poor man and the rich man.

In the parable, both men die. Immediately they are judged. The poor man rests within (or upon) the bosom of Abraham � (an eden and paradise like condition) and the wealthy man is assigned to Hades (the underworld).

This phrase and idea was well known to the Jews. It signified to rest within the heart of Abraham the father of their faith. It signified to be at - union - with the very heart of Abraham. The �heart� being considered as the seat of the very �person� and personality. To know someone intimately and fully.

Certainly, if we see someone resting his head upon the chest of someone else - we can assume a bond of love in some way.

But what John is expressing is something much deeper - it is full union.

That John should use this phrase �resting � in the bosom of Jesus� would not be missed by any Jewish reader of his time who knew very well what �resting in the bosom of Abraham� means. It signifies a depth of union that goes far beyond a physical position of his head. So much so - as to make the literal position of John�s head - unimportant. It signifies a spiritual union.

The �heart� of someone includes - the subconscious. It is the whole person. We can know something of someone by speaking to them and hearing them (physical ways) and what we know them by is what they consciously present. And what we consciously perceive. We may have indications of the subconscious part of the man - but we have no direct knowledge.

However when we know the �heart� and we rest in the bosom � we know the full man including the layers of mind which are usually hidden.

�And the people believed/trusted in Jesus, but Jesus did not believe/trust the people - because he knew their hearts.� So the gospel tells us after Jesus had done a sign for the crowd.

Clearly we act consciously very differently than our heart. We can be dishonest. Knowingly or unknowingly. We may come to know (and be surprised at) our true motivations at some later time.

If we point to it by words .. we can use many words of it. Heart. Bosom. Personality. Character. But whatever it is � it includes in a primary way � what we today call the subconscious� as it is the total �man� and personality. Indeed it is often the bigger part.

It is relatively easy to change the conscious part of man. We can simply imitate. Imitate ways of speech, way of dress, mannerisms, etc� we can do behavioral changes. We can do these things on the exterior with out them coming out of our hearts. And of all creatures man is the only one who has difficult and trouble - knowing his own - heart.

We can go on plenty� displaying the biblical concept of heart� in proof that its primary meaning is regarding its motivations and desires and subconscious �thoughts� as differentiated from conscious thoughts.

And certainly when the heart is broken in love - is is deep pain within the psychology of the subconscious layers - that we feel. A trigger that fires off emotions and we may not nessesarily know fully - why - we are so attrated to that person or whay we should feel so heart broken when it is over.

-----

My next post (when I have time - and it will be my last on this subject) will be on how God re-builds us within the heart and subconscious levels of our make up. Our cooperation and our interference with his efforts. I will try and keep it short.

-ray