Book of Hebrews
Lorin Friesen, April 2018
This is the second part of a three-part cognitive verse-by-verse analysis of the book of Hebrews. The general thesis of this essay is that Hebrew is describing the steps that are required to get from present society to the future existence described at the end of the book of Revelation. Saying this more clearly, Hebrews 1-13 describes the same general prophetic sequence that is found in Revelation 10-22. This correspondence is not always immediately obvious, but it becomes apparent as one compares what is happening cognitively, under the surface.
Hebrews refers frequently to Old Testament people, objects, and rituals. This essay attempts to analyze these references from a cognitive perspective. This provides a possible starting point for a cognitive analysis of Jewish halacha.
This essay will be discussing both theory and application. On the one hand, we will be looking theoretically at hypothetical modes of existence. On the other hand, we will be focusing upon what it would feel like personally to live in such a mode of existence, the primary choices that people in such an environment would face, and the consequences of making these choices.
Due to the length of the essay it has been split into three parts. This is the second part. The first part examines Hebrews 1-6. The second part looks at Hebrews 7-10, and the third part deals with Hebrews 11-13. I have also included a table of contents. All biblical quotations are taken from the NASB.
I would like to thank Angelina Van Dyke for the extensive feedback that she provided on this essay.
Notes were added to the first section on Hebrews 1-6 based upon the essay on Acts 1-12. Hebrews 7-13 appears to go beyond Acts 12. The rest of Acts describes the missionary journeys of Paul. The epistles of Paul appear to apply to this future time represented by Paul’s journeys. I have not analyzed these journeys because they are too far in the future.
Table of Contents
7:1-3 Melchizedek and Abraham
7:4-8 Beyond Technical Rules to Mental Networks
7:9-10 The Non-rigorous Foundation of Technical Thought
7:12-13 Dethroning Technical Thought
7:14-19 Power of an Indestructible Life
7:20-24 Swearing an Oath as Stability
7:25-28 Jesus-the-Man as Platonic Form
8:1-2 Heavenly Tabernacle
8:3-5 Copying the Heavenly Pattern on Earth
8:6-7 A New Covenant
8:8 Israel and Judah
8:9 Leaving Egypt versus Internal Law
8:10-13 A New Close Relationship
9:1-2 The First (Outer) Tabernacle
9:3-4 The Second (Inner) Tabernacle
Law Ten Commandments
9:5 Cherubim
9:6-7 Serving in the Two Tabernacles
9:8-10 Completing a Paradigm Shift
9:11 Platonic Forms from Christ
9:12 Christ Entering the Holy Place Once for All
9:13 The Red Heifer
9:13-14 A Purified Conscience
9:15-17 Consummation of the Ages
9:18-22 The Death of Christ
9:23-28 Cleansing Platonic Forms
10:1-4 Going Beyond Law
10:5-12 The Physical Appearance of Jesus-the-Man
10:13-21 The Physical Example of Jesus-the-Man
10:22-25 Actively Drawing Near
10:26-27 Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
10:28-29 Informal Justice
10:30-32 Re-emerging Morality
10:33-39 A Better Form of Ownership
Melchizedek and Abraham 7:1-3
Hebrews 7 talks about the meeting between Melchizedek and Abraham. If one reads this story literally, then it seems rather strange. After all, why would the author of Hebrews build an entire theology upon some obscure story in Genesis 14? But if one takes a cognitive perspective, then one finds that Hebrews 7 does not just makes sense, but also uses the right kind of logic that would be necessary at this point in time.
The chapter begins by describing the context for the meeting between Abraham and Melchizedek: “For this Melchizedek, king of Salem, priest of the Most High God, who met Abraham as he was returning from the slaughter of the kings and blessed him...” Abraham represents a mindset that leaves MMNs of culture guided by some promise by God. Abraham then has a military victory over some kings. The word translated slaughter occurs once in the New Testament and means ‘a cutting in pieces, slaughter’. Kings are mentally represented by MMNs with emotional status. Therefore, if kings are being cut into pieces, then MMNs with emotional status are being fragmented. Abraham encounters Melchizedek when he is returning from this slaughter. The victory has just happened, but his mind has now moved on to a different context, from slaughtering kings to encountering a king of peace.
This sequence describes how the mind can attain a mystical encounter with God. Teacher emotion comes from order-within-complexity; Teacher thought feels good when many items fit together in a simple way. Abraham starts by leaving the MMNs of culture and idolatry. This provides an emotional vacuum that gives Teacher thought an opportunity to emerge. Abraham will discover Teacher thought when he goes through an emotional sequence of complexity followed by order. The complexity comes from the kings—a multiplicity of emotional MMNs that rule over Mercy thought. This complexity then falls apart: the kings are cut to pieces. The mind has just experienced a sequence of complexity followed by order, because the kings are gone and all that is left is Abraham. Teacher thought thinks in terms of sequences. However, Teacher thought cannot think clearly when the mind is experiencing Mercy feelings. Therefore, when the event with its emotional experiences is finished, then Teacher thought will enjoy the order-within-complexity, represented by encountering a king of peace.
The word translated meet literally means ‘to come opposite’. Personal identity is composed of MMNs. When a person has a mystical encounter, it feels as if one is coming face-to-face or opposite with a strange kind of person. Verse 1 says that Melchizedek blessed Abraham. Similarly, a mystical encounter will feel as if personal identity is being emotionally blessed by Teacher thought. Mystics describe this encounter as ecstatic, and a mystical encounter will often shape the entire life of a person.
Summarizing, a mystical encounter typically requires a lifestyle of asceticism, and it follows a period of intense struggle. This is then followed by a breakthrough where everything suddenly becomes clear and unified. Mysticism was discussed in several previous essays. Cognitively speaking, mysticism combines Teacher overgeneralization with Mercy identification. Overgeneralization comes up with a Teacher theory by ignoring or suppressing details. For instance, a young child will overgeneralize rules of grammar, saying ‘I goed’ to the store, Instead of ‘I went’. Teacher overgeneralization feels more general if one struggles personally with complexity before breaking through to the realization that everything fits together in unity.
Many books on mysticism describe the process by which one achieves a mystical experience. If humans can encounter God by following a process, then this describes a priest of righteousness: a priest connects people with God, and righteousness describes behavior that is pleasing to God. Thus, the writer of Hebrews is taking the mystical encounter and placing it within the context of the priesthood of Melchizedek. I should emphasize that this is not how mystical experts discuss mysticism. Instead, the mystical expert will describe the process of mysticism, and then point out that one can only have a mystical encounter by mentally transcending any verbal description of this process. That is because mysticism is based in Teacher overgeneralization, and overgeneralization cannot handle any content, including content that describes the process of mysticism. But because mysticism is based in a Teacher theory, Teacher thought will be emotionally driven to try to analyze the process of mysticism. This leads to a cognitive contradiction. On the one hand, mysticism must not be analyzed, but on the other hand, mysticism creates a strong emotional desire to analyze. Hebrews 7 describes the process of mysticism and then places this process within the context of righteousness, instead of describing the process and then ignoring it as mysticism does.
This placing of mysticism within the context of righteousness is related to our discussion of the bowls of wrath, because it describes the mystical kingdom of the beast being transcended by the kingdom of God. My gut feeling is that it would take something extraordinary like the bowls of wrath to dislodge mysticism from its current pedestal. That is because I have attempted to discuss Christianity rationally with theologians who emphasize mysticism, and in each case, the theologian has known beyond a shadow of a doubt that he knows about the ultimate nature of God, and my words have had as much effect as shooting a pellet gun at a tank. This is not surprising because one can only achieve mysticism in a scientific society by achieving a mental breakthrough in ‘knowing’ that is impervious to rational logic.
The verb tenses in verse 1 are interesting. The original Greek talks about Melchizedek ‘having met Abraham’ and ‘having blessed him’. Thus, the mystical encounter is being described as something that has happened in the past, and that is what typically happens in the life of a mystic. Some mystical experience strikes a person out of the blue as a result of the cognitive factors mentioned. This person then retroactively tries to analyze why this mystical encounter happened as well as attempt to re-create this experience.
Verse 1 gives Melchizedek two additional titles: king of Salem and priest of the most high God. Salem is Hebrew for ‘peace’, as verse 2 explains. Both the Greek and Hebrew words for peace mean ‘wholeness, when all essential parts are joined together’. One of the primary attributes of a mystical experience is a feeling that everything fits together, that there is cosmic order behind the apparent complexity. Another primary attribute of a mystical experience is that one feels that complexity is transcended by unity. The complexity is not just held together. Instead, one senses a divine unity who resides above all of the complexity. This attribute is brought out in the term ‘Most High God’, because the word translated most high means ‘highest, most high, the heights’. This feeling of unity above complexity is naturally generated whenever Teacher thought comes up with some general theory.
In verse 2, Abraham responds by giving a tithe to Melchizedek: “to whom also Abraham apportioned a tenth part of all”. The NASB adds ‘the spoils’, but this is not in the original Greek, telling us that something larger is happening here which goes beyond the specific battle. Deuteronomy 14:22-29 describes the purpose of a tithe: 1) One is supposed to eat a tithe of produce “in the presence of the Lord your God, at the place where he chooses to establish his name… so that you may learn to fear the Lord your God always” (v.23). 2) The tithe was supposed to be given to the Levite, the alien, the orphan, and the widow (v.29). Thus, the purpose of a tithe is to connect a person with God, by eating somewhere where one is reminded of God, supporting those who are priests of God, or performing altruism that connects personal identity with God.
Cognitively speaking, a mystical experience opens one’s eyes to the idea that God transcends physical existence. This concept of a transcendent God will then be supported by a tithe—a giving of part of one’s resources in order to pursue, protect, honor, and spread the concept of a God who transcends physical reality. The first Biblical mention of tithing is in Genesis 14:20 with the story of Melchizedek.
Verses 1-3 accurately describe the mystical experience, but then interpret this experience in a radically non-mystical manner. Mysticism teaches that God transcends all human content. Verse 3, in contrast, ascribes this transcendence to Melchizedek, the priest of God: “Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.” Looking at this list cognitively, mysticism is not based in personal MMNs, and it is not the end result of some chain of mental networks. It also stands outside of time, with no start and no finish. The mystic would say that these attributes describe the transcendence of God, but that is not cognitively accurate. Instead, mysticism is a method of programming the mind that will cause a person to become aware of some of the attributes of God. Therefore, it is more accurate to describe mysticism as a priesthood of God. This attributing can be seen in the phrase ‘made like the Son of God’, which is more literally ‘having been made like the son of God’. This word occurs only once in the New Testament and means ‘to copy; to produce a facsimile, to be made like, rendered similar’. In other words, mysticism turns a cognitive method—a priesthood—into a facsimile or copy of the son of God.
Verse 3 finishes by saying that Melchizedek “remains a priest perpetually”, and the word translated perpetually means ‘to persist all the way; in an unbroken fashion’. Similarly, mysticism has managed to continue existing in an unbroken fashion throughout the various transformations of society. One can see a form of proto-mysticism in the serpent’s temptation of Eve in the Garden of Eden, because the serpent promised that Eve’s eyes would be opened and that she would become like God. When higher religions started emerging before the time of Christ, then mysticism turned into the religion of Buddhism. Similarly, most higher religions have mystical elements, such as Kabbalah in Judaism, Sufism in Islam, or the various forms of Christian mysticism. Mysticism has also been turned into a form that can coexist with modern scientific thought.
I am not suggesting that Hebrews 7 is promoting mysticism. Instead I am suggesting something deeper. Mysticism currently has to turn its back upon physical matter in order to generate the mental feeling of being united with God. A transition from matter-over-mind to mind-over-matter would feel like the ultimate version of turning one’s back upon physical matter in order to become personally united with God. Hebrews 6 finished by talking about ‘entering within the veil’. This entering would feel like distilled mystical ecstasy—with no way of escape. Therefore, it would be imperative at this point to place the mystical experience within the context of the high priesthood of Christ. Hebrews 7 is pointing out that it is the process of going from complexity to order that leads to the mystical experience. And if one encounters God by going through a process, then this process an aspect of the eternal priesthood of Melchizedek.
Saying this in more detail, mysticism is an emotional attraction between an overgeneralized concept of God in Teacher thought and personal identity in Mercy thought. Matter-over-mind provides an implicit path for the experience of mysticism: The complexity of living within physical reality provides a motivation for finding transcendental order in Teacher overgeneralization. This order can be found by turning one’s back upon physical reality in order to mentally contemplate the emotion of cosmic Teacher unity. Physical need, reinforced by mental networks based in physical reality, then provides the motivation for pulling the mind out of this identification with God back into reality. This implicit process is actually a ‘path of righteousness’, because it is a Server sequence that one follows personally which is being guided by a concept of God. If mind started to rule over matter, then this implicit ‘path of righteousness’ would cease to exist, while the mystical emotion generated by identifying with God through overgeneralization would be much stronger. Therefore, the mystical experience would have to be placed explicitly within a path of righteousness in order to maintain mental sanity.
Teacher thought thinks in terms of generality. A theory that is more general rules over lesser theories. Mysticism protects its overgeneralization of Cosmic Oneness by saying that the God of mysticism is above all rational content. Similarly, Hebrews 7 is preserving the concept of a God of righteousness by saying that the process of mysticism is itself a specific example of righteousness. Righteousness rules everything, including the process of mysticism.
Summarizing, mysticism asserts that everything fits together. However, it does not add any details to this overgeneralization, but rather insists that God is above petty details. We have now reached the point in Hebrews where everything is starting to fit together under a concept of God. This fitting together will create a strong mystical experience. Therefore, it is important to place this mystical experience within the context of the concept of a God who is fitting everything together.
Saying this another way, education typically goes through three stages: First, there is the beginner who thinks he knows everything but actually knows very little. Second, there is the student who knows many facts but does not know how they fit together. Third, there is the expert who knows facts and also understands how they tie together. Mysticism functions at the first level. Society is currently at the second level. If people started to ‘enter within the veil’, then society would begin functioning at the third level. What started out as merely saying and feeling that everything fits together would turn into a universe in which everything really did fit together. One could then look back on mysticism and see it as the childish mind glimpsing that everything can fit together. A society that is functioning at the second level of technical thought will tend to squelch childish dreams. But childish dreams provide the seeds for functioning at the third level of the intuitive expert.
Mental symmetry provides a partial illustration of what this means. Christians often quote Romans 12:2, which says “do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind”. However, most Christians stop there without continuing further, leaving the idea of being transformed by the renewing of the mind as a vague instruction without any details. However, the following verses of Romans 12 describe spiritual gifts, and if one pursues the topic of spiritual gifts, then one can develop a detailed understanding of what it means to be transformed by the renewing of the mind, making it possible to move from overgeneralization to generalization.
(Note from 2021: Interacting with primal beings might feel like mysticism because one would be having an encounter with supernatural beings that transcended the normal experiences of physical existence—because it would involve altering the DNA that defines the physical body which is the source of the experiences of physical existence. Thus, this transcendent experience would have to be viewed as a process from which one could recover. In other words, an angelic Server sequence of righteousness would have to be established that moved humans through such experiences back to human existence. And, like Abraham, such an experience would come after overcoming lesser MNs of society and culture.)
Beyond Technical Rules to Mental Networks 7:4-8
Verses 4-7 use the language of mental networks. Whenever a mental network is triggered, it will use emotional pressure to impose its content. Therefore, when two mental networks are simultaneously triggered, then the stronger mental network will impose its structure upon the weaker mental network, leading to an emotional hierarchy of mental networks. Free will is maximized when there are competing mental networks, because one can choose which mental network one will follow.
As far as I can tell, God controls human history primarily by manipulating mental networks. God will test a person or group to reveal core mental networks, and then use that person or group based upon these core mental networks. Technical thought must be used to understand the laws of nature. When matter is over mind, then technical thought will be regarded as the highest form of thinking, because technical thought is required to manipulate the physical world, and physical matter rules the mind. This relationship would change if mind started to rule over matter, because mental networks would become primary, while technical thought would be limited to specific realms.
This does not mean that technical thought would cease to exist. Instead, reality would become like a collection of games, each ruled by some system of technical thought and emotionally driven by the mental networks of the goals of that game. For instance, one could enter a ‘world of hockey’ with its technical rules and live within that game, motivated by a desire to shoot the puck into the opposing net. Or one could enter a ‘world of business’ with its technical rules and live within that game, motivated by a desire to make money. With matter-over-mind, all games exist within the structure of physical matter, allowing people to ignore the existence of larger mental networks such as a concept of God, or lasting mental networks such as personal life-after-death. With mind-over-matter, the structure of physical reality would no longer be solid, forcing the games of existence to be placed within the larger framework of larger and more lasting mental networks. (In both cases, the analogies and patterns provided by normal thought would make it possible to move from one technical game to another.)
Existence would not become chaotic, because a mental network does not lead to random emotional urges, but instead uses emotions to impose its structure upon the mind. Mental networks appear chaotic and random when the mind is filled with a multiplicity of childish MMNs that have been formed by emotional experiences from the physical body, because such a mind will be driven by the MMN that is currently being triggered by the environment. Saying this another way, matter-over-mind will naturally lead to chaotic childish MMNs, and the structure of physical matter will bring implicit order to this personal mental chaos by triggering the appropriate MMN at the appropriate time. This implicit structuring of personal chaos would no longer occur with mind-over-matter, forcing people to explicitly bring structure to the mind with the TMN of a concept of God
These two aspects of a mental network can be illustrated by the three stages that learning goes through: beginner, technician, and expert. A beginner is guided by mental networks that lack content. One can see this in the beginning musician, who plays poorly with feeling. As was mentioned before, mysticism functions at this first level, because it is also guided by a mental network of God that lacks content. The technician uses technical thought to develop skills and acquire knowledge, but loses the ability to express emotions. Law functions at this second level, because it follows technical thought with its precise definitions and clearly defined rules. The expert lets go of technical thought in order to be guided emotionally by mental networks. However, these mental networks now use emotions to impose the rational content that was acquired during the second stage.
Hebrews 7 describes this transition from law to mental networks. Theologically speaking, this describes the transition from Law to Grace, and Christians talk about being guided emotionally by the TMN of a concept of God as well as by the MMN of the Holy Spirit. However, what the typical Christian calls being guided by God and the Holy Spirit usually means being guided primarily by mental networks of church organization and Christian subculture. Hebrews 7 describes a transition from Law to Grace happening in reality, because physical existence itself is making a transition from Law to Grace. (Note from 2021: Acts 12 gives the impression that government with its laws is being replaced by genetically enhanced heroes and marketing. This would change the focus from technical thought to mental networks.)
Turning now to Hebrews, verse 4 compares the importance of Melchizedek with Abraham: “Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils.” The word translated observe means ‘gaze on for the purpose of analyzing’. Thus, the goal is not to worship Melchizedek as some mystical hero but rather to analyze the status of Melchizedek. Similarly, the word great does not refer to personal importance but rather means ‘how large, how great’. It is used twice in the New Testament, and the other occurrence is where Paul says in Galatians 6:11, “See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand”. Melchizedek is great because Abraham gave him a tenth. The word tenth is the same word for tithe that was used in verse 2. This Greek word occurs only in Hebrews 7, where it is used four times. And Abraham did not just tithe anything, but rather gave ‘the top of a heap’ (another word that is only used once in the New Testament).
Putting this together, verse 4 is saying that Teacher thought is greater than Mercy thought. On the one hand, Abraham is a patriarch, represented by an important MMN because he is the ‘head or founder of a family’. On the other hand, Melchizedek has greater Teacher generality, because Teacher thought asks what is larger, rather than looking at personal importance. Melchizedek is larger in Teacher thought because Abraham is tithing ‘the top of a heap’ to Melchizedek. We saw earlier that tithing recognizes that there is something in Teacher thought that is different from Mercy thought which needs to be honored, nurtured, and protected. One is supposed to respond to this contrast by using Teacher thought to analyze rather than using Mercy thought to worship. That is because one recognizes that Teacher thought is greater than Mercy thought by using Teacher thought rather than Mercy thought.
A similar question can be posed with respect to the Bible and church. Are these important because they were founded by church fathers with Mercy status? Or are they important because they deal with something that transcends physical reality? One can answer this question by looking at the behavior of the original church fathers. Why were they guided to write the Bible and start the church? They believed that something transcends physical reality. Many people are asking this question today because the Bible and church fathers are no longer regarded as an adequate basis for truth. This question would become of major importance if physical reality actually began to be transcended by something more that came directly from God.
Notice how Hebrews is again subverting typical mystical reasoning. Mysticism creates the feeling of being one with God by combining Teacher overgeneralization with Mercy identification. Verses 1-3 described Teacher overgeneralization as a process of righteousness. Verse 4 describes Mercy identification as a characteristic of tithing. A tithe gives 10% of my wealth to God, not 100%. Therefore, the basic premise of tithing is that one periodically stops focusing upon physical reality in order to devote one’s attention and resources to a God who is different than physical reality.
Looking at this cognitively, it is not possible to feel mystically united with God all of the time, because this feeling of cosmic union will eventually threaten core mental networks of personal identity. (Buddha handled this problem by refusing to discuss it. Buddhist Nirvana is defined as ‘blowing out’ or the absence of desire, which assumes the existence of a physical reality from which one can be ‘blown out’, and the existence of personal desire from which one can be liberated. Similarly, Buddhism says that the goal of those who have achieved Nirvana is to free others from bondage to physical matter, which assumes the existence of a physical universe from which one can be freed.) Instead, the complexity of living within reality provides the mental framework for occasionally turning one’s back upon physical reality in order to contemplate the unity of God. With mysticism one spends most of one’s time as an individual who is not one with God, which makes it possible to occasionally achieve the feeling of identifying with God. As before, Hebrews is focusing upon the process of tithing, a process that began with an experience of mysticism, and can be used to re-create feelings of mysticism. In contrast, mystical experts typically describe this process and then ignore it in order to maintain the fantasy of believing that a person is always one with God.
If society ‘entered within the veil’, then experiences of encountering God would emotionally overwhelm personal identity, causing people to feel one with God. Saying this another way, the praise and worship would be out of this world. The important thing would be to recognize this as a tithe. This feeling of cosmic oneness does not describe the nature of reality. Instead, this feeling is occasionally generated as one mentally ‘tithes’ by spending most of one’s time as an individual within reality while occasionally focusing on God. Saying this more simply, many individuals at this point in time would be like the little child who explores for a while and then runs back to mother and clings for emotional comfort, before becoming curious again and exploring further. (Note from 2021: This sounds like humans interacting with primal beings who interact directly with the divine light and are capable of altering human DNA. This would be a form of entering within the veil. Humans would interact with these beings occasionally but spend most of their time living in physical reality. Primal beings would want this interaction in order to have a more complete existence than working worm-like with sequences of information.)
A more complete solution would be to place both worship of God and personal existence within the larger structure of the Incarnation of God, and the rest of the book of Hebrews will describe the process of building this larger structure. However, in the same way that Jewish halacha created the foundation that made it possible for Jesus to become incarnate in human flesh, so Hebrews 7 is laying the foundation that will be required for Incarnation to live within mind-over-matter.
Verse 5 says that tithing then became institutionalized as part of the law: “And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priest’s office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham.” Two things are being compared in this verse. On the one hand, the physical descendants of Abraham regard Abraham as their source in Mercy thought. Similarly, the priests are physical descendants of Levi (as indicated even today by surnames such as Levi, Cohen, or Katz). On the other hand, there is the institution of the tithe, which recognizes that God transcends physical reality.
The relative generality of two competing mental networks can be determined by which mental network succeeds in imposing its structure on the other. Verse 5 says that tithing is more universal than genealogy because tithing is imposing itself upon genealogy: Normal Jews have to tithe to Levites even though they all are descendants of Abraham. (Note from 2021: Geneology describes DNA being passed from one generation to the next.)
Translating this into modern language, what is more fundamental, Bible and church, or searching for a God that transcends physical reality? Searching for God is more fundamental, because we continue to do this today even though we have the Bible and church. This is an important question that is being asked by many today, because Bible and church are being replaced by a general search for spirituality. And if society started to ‘enter within the veil’ and experience God in a new and direct manner, then this question would have to be addressed—at a very basic level.
Going further, this relationship was then formalized within the Law: “...have commandment in the law to collect a tenth”. Looking at this more generally, this explains why Jesus could say in Matthew 22 that the whole law and the prophets depend upon the two general principles of loving the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and loving your neighbor as yourself. The Law formalizes the more fundamental principle of searching for a God who transcends physical reality.
By saying that God transcends physical reality, I am not suggesting as mysticism does that one can ultimately say nothing about God. Instead, I am merely stating that God is higher than physical reality and different than physical reality. In essence, this summarizes the ‘two unchangeable things’ mentioned in 5:18. God can swear because he is higher than physical reality and he can give an oath because he has walled himself off from physical reality. These two unchangeable principles would remain unchangeable even if society ‘entered within the veil’. (Note from 2021: Similarly, the primal beings who are the source of DNA function close to God in Teacher thought but also need to be walled off from human existence.)
The same principles apply to natural law. What is more fundamental? Using technical thought to discover the laws of the universe, or recognizing that God transcends physical existence? The search for a transcendent God is more fundamental because people continue to do it even after discovering the laws of the universe. Going further, science is a technical way of searching for a God who transcends physical matter. It is important to maintain this priority. Science came to birth in Western Christendom because the general consensus was that a rational God lies behind physical reality, and scientific research is starting to fail today because the focus has shifted to the technical methodology of science and the culture of scientific research. As I have mentioned previously, if society were to start encountering God in a direct manner, then people would start asking deep questions about the relationship between God and natural law. The general principle is that a God will always exist who lies beyond physical existence, and the current universe with its physical law is merely one formalized expression of this general principle. (Note from 2021: Similarly, what would be more fundamental? Using technical thought to manipulate biological DNA or recognizing that God transcends this manipulation? This would be a critical question to answer because Genesis 6 also appears to describe genetically enhanced humans and the result was total godlessness. One would literally have to rethink what it meant to be a created being. What would remain is the idea of a righteous king— a Melchizedek. Physical righteousness would mean allowing personal behavior to be guided by DNA messages consistent with the character of God.)
Verse 6 builds upon this by pointing out that Melchizedek is not based in MMNs of culture or religion: “But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham and blessed the one who had the promises.” The word ‘put into a genealogy’ only occurs once in the New Testament. Looking at this historically, genealogy was important to Jewish society because, among other things, it determined who could or could not be a priest. The Bible contains a number of lists of genealogy and genealogical lists were maintained in the Temple until the time of King Herod. Today, DNA research is being used to re-establish who is a legitimate descendent of Levi.
Verse 6 states that Melchizedek does not have a genealogy that can be traced to Abraham or Levi. Saying this cognitively, Melchizedek is not rooted in MMNs of culture and religion. Despite this, Melchizedek collected a tithe from Abraham. (The Hebrew word for tithe means ‘tenth’.) Applying this to mysticism, all forms of mysticism share certain core features that are independent of culture. Looking at this cognitively, a concept of God is based in Teacher thought, which is independent of Mercy thought with its MMNs. Mysticism is also based in Teacher thought, but it comes up with a concept of God by using the simplest form of Teacher thought, which is overgeneralization.
(Note from 2021: Notice the explicit mention of DNA and geneology. DNA manipulation would lead to ultimate questions of racism. The tendency would be to regard genetic hybrids as less than human. Verse 6 says that those without a genealogy should be lifted up and not looked down on. I need to emphasize again that we are not dealing here with using genetic manipulation to produce genetic monsters. Instead, we are dealing with a king of righteousness, which implies using genetic modification to express aspects of God’s righteousness rather than using genetic modification to express aspects of hellish inhumanity. And the discussion of mysticism is appropriate, because my guess is that primal beings worshiping divine energy provide the ultimate motivation for human mysticism. Human mysticism is too belligerently stupid, too zombie-like, and too widespread to have merely a human motivation. Some angelic power has to be providing an underlying reinforcement.)
Summarizing, the description of interaction between Abraham and Melchizedek is consistent with how a person interacts with mysticism. First, Melchizedek has no genealogy, which tells us that mysticism is not based in MMNs of culture or religion. Second, Melchizedek collected tithes from Abraham, which means people will devote resources to maintaining and exploring the concept of God that arises from mysticism. Third, Melchizedek blesses Abraham. Similarly, mysticism is capable of helping a person emotionally by providing the feeling of encountering God. Fourth, Abraham has promises, but it does not say that these promises come from Melchizedek. Similarly, mysticism is incapable of providing content, because it is based in Teacher overgeneralization which cannot handle content. Instead, mysticism can only add emotional significance to content that is acquired from some other source—which allows human authorities to hijack mysticism and claim to speak for God.
Verse 7 points out the logic that we have been using, which is that greater mental networks impose their structure upon lesser mental networks: “But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater.” The phrase ‘without any dispute’ is more literally ‘apart from taking the opposite side to attack, supposedly on the basis of sound logic’. In other words, verse 7 is describing an emotional form of reasoning that is distinct from logical arguments. Blessing means to ‘speak reason which confers benefit’. Putting this together, this is saying that Teacher mental networks (TMNs) form an emotional hierarchy based upon generality, and this structuring of Teacher mental networks happens independently of logical reasoning. (Logic was initially defined by Aristotle as a formal way of recognizing this Teacher hierarchy, before being redefined in the late 19th century.) This would be a significant point if personal interaction with God started to override natural law, because one would literally have to come up with a new way of thinking, one guided by the Teacher generality of mental networks rather than by technical thought with its rigorous arguments.
In verse 8 the attention shifts from one location to another: “In this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on.” The English refers to ‘this case’ and ‘that case’, but in the original Greek, two locations are being contrasted: here and there, and this contrast is emphasized by a Greek grammatical construction used for contrasting. Here, tithes are being received by ‘dying humanity’. There, it is being testified ‘that lives on’. The pronoun ‘he’ is not explicitly in the original Greek, implying that the emphasis is not upon some person living but rather upon the general fact that life exists, and the word translated life refers to both physical and spiritual existence.
This contrast makes sense in the light of ‘entering within the veil’. Normal existence is ‘here’. Entering within the veil would unveil a new ‘there’. Humanity is examining ‘there’ and testifying based upon personal experience that life is ‘there’. Humanity is then returning to ‘here’ and realizing that what was thought to be a search for God is actually rooted in the assumptions of dying humanity. For instance, most sincere prayers to God are motivated by physical illness, physical hardship, dying, or death. Similarly, most Christians follow God with the assumption that they will go to heaven when they die. This assumption of death pervades every aspect of Christianity. I noticed this when reading a diary from the 1800s written by a preacher’s wife. Death was a reoccurring subject. People were getting sick and dying. People were getting injured and dying. She was continually attending funerals. Her life revolved around the reoccurring experience of dying. Thanks to modern medicine, Western society does not usually experience dying so intimately and repeatedly. (Note from 2021: Genetic modification would also change the focus from a ‘here’ of mortal existence to a ‘there’ of human regeneration. People would have to rethink what it meant to live as humans, because it would be possible to eliminate many of the hazards of mortal existence.)
Thinking in terms of life would become important if mind started to govern matter. Humans live in physical bodies composed of matter. When matter rules over mind, then these physical bodies continue to function regardless of what a person thinks. But if mind started to rule over matter, then thinking would eventually affect the physical matter of one’s physical body. Stated simply, people would have to think life in order to live life. This may sound like the words of a positive thinking guru, but remember that the environment has changed. Positive thinking words are spoken today in an environment of matter-over-mind. These words are only capable of guiding and/or manipulating the minds of people, and have to ignore cold hard facts of physical reality. If minds were to start ruling over matter, then positive thinking and positive speaking would turn into a full-fledged science of reality. (I have analyzed the thinking of Anthony Robbins in another essay, and he teaches many sound cognitive principles. The fundamental problem is that he makes a concept of God the servant of humans rather than the other way around.)
Speaking from personal experience, I have been struggling for several decades with tendinitis, and I have learned that one of the major factors is muscle tension. Mental conflict will lead naturally to muscle tension, and one will experience major mental conflict if one attempts to come up with a cognitive theory of religion, because this thinking will threaten core mental networks of religion and identity. Therefore, one of the reasons that I pursue mental wholeness is to break through to mental freedom in order to release my muscles from long-term tension, so that I can recover from tendinitis. I am not suggesting that all health problems can be cured through proper thinking, but rather that mind currently has some control over matter in the area of personal health, and that one can extrapolate from this limited ability to what the situation might be like if mind started to rule over matter.
To some extent, this interpretation would also apply to the transition from Judaism to Christianity, because one of the key concepts of Christianity is having an internal personal relationship with God. When one compares this internal life with the system of priesthood practiced by Judaism, one realizes that the entire system of Temple worship is based upon the assumption of dying. When Jesus rose from the dead, then people could testify from personal experience that there was life ‘there’.
The Non-rigorous Foundation of Technical Thought 7:9-10
Verses 9-10 make sense if one understands the foundation for technical thought: “And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him”. Levi represents the rigorous laws of technical thought. Technical thought prides itself on being rigorous. But when one looks at the origins for technical thought, one inevitably discovers that the technical thinking is built upon a non-rigorous foundation.
For instance, one of the basic equations for quantum mechanics is known as the wave function. A recent article on quantum mechanics complains that “this so-called rule for calculating probabilities was really just an intuitive guess by the German physicist Max Born. So was Schrödinger’s equation itself. Neither was supported by rigorous derivation. Quantum mechanics seems largely built of arbitrary rules like this, some of them—such as the mathematical properties of operators that correspond to observable properties of the system—rather arcane. It’s a complex framework, but it’s also an ad hoc patchwork, lacking any obvious physical interpretation or justification.”
Fundamental assumptions of human existence have just been questioned in verse 8. People are observing that ‘there’ has life, which is leading them to see that the thinking of ‘here’ assumes dying. Saying this another way, the mindset of materialism is being questioned at the very basic level of the ‘natural cycle of life’. This is leading to the basic realization that the rigorous thinking of scientific materialism began as a collection of intuitive guesses shaped by the human experience of growing up, living, and dying in a mortal, physical body. Using language of Hebrews, the rigorous thinking of ‘Levi’ actually has a non-rigorous source in the mindset of Abraham.
Summarizing, the development of technical thought is another example of a process of righteousness: “...for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him” (v.10). Abstract technical thought begins when people leave concrete thought and have an encounter with the abstract processes of Melchizedek. This happens before technical thinking becomes established—while Levi is still in the loins of Abraham. For instance, quantum mechanics began as a collection of intuitive leaps into the abstract thinking of mathematics thought. Using the language of Hebrews, it began with Melchizedek meeting Abraham. These intuitive leaps laid the foundation for the technical thinking that is now used by quantum mechanics. Using the language of Hebrews, Levi was in the loins of Abraham. (Note from 2021: Scientific thought has materialistic assumptions because it was developed by humans whose DNA caused them to be only weakly aware of non-physical reality.)
Verse 11 points out that academia with its technical thinking does not lead to perfection: “Now if perfection was through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the Law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron?” This is the only occurrence of Levitical in the New Testament. The word priesthood refers to ‘the abstract notion of the priestly office’, and it is only used in Hebrews 7, where it occurs three times. Thus, the phrase ‘Levitical priesthood’ describes the institution of academia with its technical thought.
Verse 11 adds that ‘completion, fulfillment, perfection’ did not come ‘on account of, by reason of’ the Levitical priesthood. Using modern language, academia with its rigorous thought has not brought fulfillment or perfection. Saying this more simply, technical thought is not enough. This limitation has become apparent to today’s society. In the 1950s, people thought that science and technology would bring paradise on earth. We now recognize that technical thought will not create paradise. It is inherently impersonal and does not care about people. It can be used for evil as well as good. And it leads to fragmented, specialized expertise.
But academia with its technical thinking has succeeded in imposing law upon the people: “for on the basis of it the people received the Law” (v.11). This is an accurate description of what has happened in today’s world. The average person has received law on the basis of the technical thinking of academia. All aspects of human society have tried to become more rigorous and more technical, motivated by the example and success of academia. Saying this another way, academia has functioned as a priesthood “according to the order of Aaron” (v.11). It has been a priesthood because it has connected the people with general understanding in Teacher thought. And it has been according to the order of Aaron because it comes up with general theories to explain empirical data. (‘Aaron’ means ‘mountain’, and a mountain is a high point on earth from which one can have a big picture of the surroundings.)
Because technical thought cannot bring people to perfection, what is needed is “another priest to rise according to the order of Melchizedek” (v.11). The word translated another means ‘another of a different kind’ that is ‘qualitatively different from its counterpart’. This different kind of priest is not being appointed but rather rises up. The phrase ‘another of a different kind’ is significant because academia is continually coming up with new paradigms and new ways of connecting people with abstract theory. But these new priesthoods are invariably another priesthood of the same kind. Academia may complain about the inadequacies of technical thought, but these complaints are always stated using technical thought, and the only new alternatives that will be considered are those that are based in technical thought. What is really needed is a new priesthood of a different kind, one which is not based in technical thought. (Note from 2021: Similarly, a new form of scientific thought is required developed by humans who have been genetically altered to be aware of non-physical reality, who would not just view the non-physical as something tacked on to physical reality. But this new formulation needs to include the rigorous thinking that has been developed by current scientific thought.)
Speaking from personal experience, the theory of mental symmetry may use technical thought, but it is not based in technical thought. Instead, it uses normal thought to look for patterns and similarities in a semi-rigorous manner. The success that I have had using mental symmetry to explain human thought leads me to the conclusion that one can find a priest of a different kind. Going further, the general lack of success that I have had promoting mental symmetry within academia leads me to the conclusion that this priest of a different kind will have to rise from outside of technical thought.
Dethroning Technical Thought 7:12-13
Applying this now to the big picture, Hebrews 7 is describing a future time when the laws of nature will start to become unreliable. When this happens, then academia with its technical thought will be forced to come up with a new priest of a different kind, as well as a new kind of thinking.
This new kind of thinking is described in verse 12: “For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also.” The word translated changed means ‘to turn one thing into another’. And the word priesthood is the same ‘abstract notion of the priestly office’ that was mentioned in verse 11. In other words, the whole concept of academia will change. People will no longer think of using technical thought or rigorous logic to connect God and man. This kind of shift would definitely happen if natural law became an expression of mental networks.
I know a little bit what this means from personal experience, because I have found that when one starts to analyze the kind of subjects that we are discussing in this essay, then what ultimately matters is not technical skills but rather core mental networks. I am finding that the biblical text makes sense because it resonates with my personal experience and not because I am using detailed technical analysis. This does not mean that we are not using technical thought, because we are looking at the precise meanings of words in the original Greek, and assigning precise meanings to words is the starting point for abstract technical thought. But technical thought is being used to add details to insight that is being provided initially by mental networks of personal experience. If the mental networks were not there, then the insight would not come. I suggest that a similar relationship would emerge in Hebrews 7. (Note from 2021: Similarly, those who could physically resonate with some aspect of the environment would be able to understand it better than those who had to use instruments to measure reality.
The word translated of necessity is a fairly strong word that means ‘compulsion, force, violence’. Thus, a more literal translation of the second half of verse 12 would be ‘out of force or compulsion a change of law comes into being’. One can understand this language by imagining what would happen if mind started to rule over matter. Everyone knows that one must use technical thought to understand natural law. That is one of the basic presuppositions of modern Western society. Suppose that mind started to rule over matter. For a while people would still be mentally driven by the memory of using technical thought to understand their environment, just as Western society at the end of the 20th century was still guided by the memory of belief in absolute truth and Christian morality. This mindset of following technical thought would create an external environment that expressed technical thought, leaving the impression that the external environment was still ruled by technical thought. But as the memory of using technical thought faded, it would become increasingly apparent that technical thought was no longer in charge. The end result is that a priest of a different kind would arise. And as this new kind of priesthood arose, people’s thinking would shift away from assuming the pre-eminence of technical thought, which would then lead to a change in the nature of physical reality, because mind would now be ruling over matter. Using the language of Hebrews, this change in priesthood would force a change in natural law to come into being.
Current society provides a partial illustration of this transition, because those who had a memory of absolute truth are dying and being replaced by a new generation which is no longer post-Christian but instead regards Christianity as something alien and foreign. This new generation is now forcing government legislation to change so that law no longer reflects even the memory of Christianity. I suggest that Hebrews 7 is describing a similar but larger transition happening at the level of physical existence itself. The transition in current society is being driven primarily by the Teacher overgeneralization of universal tolerance, while the future transition would be driven by a new form of existence based in mental networks. Thus, the same kind of questioning would be occurring, but the end result of the transition would be quite different.
The type of existence that would emerge is one in which cognitively natural symbolism would become reality. Looking at this in more detail, the book of Revelation obviously uses symbolic language. I have found that Revelation makes sense if one interprets it using symbols that resonate with the structure of the mind. For instance, Perceiver thought comes up with solid facts. Therefore, a stone symbolizes a solid fact in Perceiver thought, as illustrated by the apostle Peter; Peter was a Perceiver person, and the name Peter means ‘stone’. Similarly, liquid represents Mercy thought, because Mercy thought lives in a ‘sea’ of emotional experiences that are given stability by Perceiver thought. It is currently possible for cultures to be driven by a ‘sea’ of disconnected MMNs. This symbolism is described in Revelation 17:15: “The waters which you saw where the harlot sits, are peoples and multitudes and nations and tongues”. This ‘sea’ of disconnected MMNs will no longer exist in the new heaven-and-earth: “Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea” (Rev. 21:1). Going further, air represents Teacher thought. Heaven, a realm of Teacher thought, is biblically described as up in the air. Similarly, humans express Teacher thought through words, which also travel through the air.
This same symbolism makes sense when applied to other passages of the New Testament, such as the miracles of Jesus in the Gospel of John. I cannot state this categorically as a universal principle, because I have not analyzed the entire Bible. However, I have now analyzed enough of the Bible to be able to state with considerable confidence that this appears to be a general principle.
If mind were to rule over matter, then cognitively natural symbolism would become reality, and people would begin to experience the kind of symbolism that is portrayed in the Bible. Among other things, this means that the Bible would not become obsolete, because it has been written in a manner that is consistent with mind-over-matter. This is a significant statement. For instance, one of my friends, who is a messianic Christian, has often asked how biblical Judaism with its agricultural festivals can be translated into a form that is relevant to modern technological society. The Bible would not have to be translated to become relevant within a world of mind-over-matter, because it already reflects a mindset of mind-over-matter. This provides strong contextual evidence that the Bible really is describing an ultimate reality in which mind rules over matter. Using an analogy, if one discovers that major portions of a book are written in French, then is reasonable to assume the existence of a land of France in which people speak French.
(Note from 2021: If physical appearance and ability could be genetically altered, then people would want their physical appearance to be a reflection of the ‘real me’ inside. This is similar to the way that society now thinks that physical gender should be a matter of personal opinion. What is missing from current discussion is the recognition that personal opinion is a reflection of moral character. However, if biological DNA were altered to reflect core mental networks, then a relationship between symbolism and reality would become much more apparent. For instance, my hypothesis is that current aliens already inhabit physical containers that reflect their moral character. Thus, a reptilian alien looks reptilian because morally speaking, he is a reptile.)
Verse 13 adds that this will lead to a completely new kind of thought being used to connect God and man: “For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar.” The word tribe is only used twice in Hebrews, once in this verse and once in the next verse. And the word translated belongs to is a verb form of the familiar word ‘partake of, am a member of’ that we have seen several times in the book of Hebrews. Finally, another means ‘another of a different kind’. In other words, people are turning so fully to a different mindset, that they no longer consider themselves to be of the lineage of Levi. For instance, most scientists today feel that they are following in the footsteps of a tradition of scientific thought that began with pioneers such as Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton, and they regard earlier ways of thinking, such as scholasticism and alchemy, as obsolete forms of thought with which they have no connection. Similarly, a new of thinking will emerge that is so different from current academia with its technical thought that those who use this new form of thought will regard present-day science the way that science currently regards scholasticism and alchemy.
This new form of thinking will be one that has never been used to connect man with God: “… from which no one has officiated at the altar” (v.13). One would think that the word altar would be quite common in the book of Hebrews with its discussion of priesthood. But this word is actually used only twice, once in this verse and once in 13:10. The word translated officiated means ‘to pay attention to, devote myself to’. It is interesting that the NASB translates this word as ‘officiated’, because the other occurrences of this word in the New Testament are translated as paying attention, using words such as ‘beware’, ‘take heed’, or ‘be on your guard’. In other words, the translators of the NASB think that the relationship between God and man needs to be described using a technical term such as ‘officiate’, and that it is not appropriate to translate this word using an emotional term such as ‘pay attention to’, or ‘devote myself to’. I mention this because this mistranslation illustrates the point of the verse, which is that people will start to use a mindset that until now has been regarded as inappropriate.
Verse 14 describes this new mindset: “For it evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests.” Looking at this verse literally, the official Jewish priests were descendants of Levi, while if one examines the genealogy of Jesus, one finds that his family tree descended from Judah. Therefore, according to Jewish law, Jesus did not have the right to be a priest.
A cognitive interpretation expands upon the word mistranslated ‘officiate’ that was discussed in the previous paragraph. The name Judah means ‘praise’, which describes an emotional attraction, similar to the ‘pay attention to, devote myself’. Going further, the verb ‘descended’ in verse 14 is also a mistranslation, because the Greek word means ‘rise, shine’, and the other eight occurrences in the New Testament talk about something rising in the sky, such as the sun, a light, a cloud, or the morning star (and the NASB points out in a footnote that the literal translation is ‘has arisen from’). The sun represents the light that comes from the TMN of a general Teacher understanding. And a TMN is a form of mental network that provides an emotional focus.
Putting this together, one concludes that this new mindset will be characterized by emotional attraction. It rises like a sun from the mindset of praise, and it results in personal devotion at the altar. This may initially give the impression that Jesus has become replaced as a mediator, but I suggest that this is not the case. First, Jesus is explicitly mentioned in verse 22 as ‘the guarantee of a better covenant’. Second, the historical Jesus really was a descendent of Judah and not a descendent of Levi. (Note from 2021: Worship is guided by core mental networks. Genetic manipulation would make it possible to alter the physical body to make it more compatible with these core mental networks. A physical body with altered senses would view the physical environment in a different manner, which would lead to an altered technical understanding of physical reality.)
Instead, I suggest that an implicit side of abstract technical thought is becoming explicit. Academia with its technical thought likes to regard itself as the pursuit of pure rational thought, somewhat like Spock or Data in Star Trek, but that is only partially true. Whenever abstract technical thought continues to be used within some specialization, then the paradigm that is guiding the specialization will turn into an implicit TMN, and this implicit TMN will emotionally motivate a researcher to ‘pay attention to’ and ‘devote himself to’ the pursuit of that specialization. (A similar emotional fixation occurs with concrete technical thought when some bottom line continues to be pursued.)
When matter is over mind, then technical thought usually begins by using rational thought to analyze the content of some specific aspect of the material world, while the emotional fixation emerges later under the surface. If mind started to rule over matter, then one would have to start with some sort of emotional fixation and then add technical details to this fixation. Using the language of Hebrews, the starting point would no longer be the law of Levi, but rather the praise of Judah.
Jesus is often referred to as ‘prophet, priest, and king’ in theological circles, and there is scriptural backing for this concept. However, this is often treated as a form of Teacher overgeneralization, in which Jesus-as-God brings unity to the various complexities of the relationship between God and man. Similarly, when I have asked people about the cognitive style of Jesus, the most common response has been that Jesus must be all of the styles because Jesus is God. But if one looks at the details, then it makes most sense to view both Jesus-the-man and Incarnation in general as an expression of Contributor thought. Jesus is a prophet, because Contributor-controlled technical thought will accurately predict how the universal laws of God express themselves in the human realm of personal experiences. Jesus is a priest because personal identity in Mercy thought must connect indirectly through incarnation with God in Teacher thought and not directly through mysticism. And Jesus is also a king because God in Teacher thought will always rule over finite creatures through incarnation. If one views the phrase ‘Jesus is prophet, priest, and king’ as an overgeneralization without meaning, then one is actually following the path of mysticism and not treating Jesus as a prophet, a priest, or a king. Instead, one is attaching an implicit meaning to this phrase that contradicts what the phrase actually says.
Power of an Indestructible Life 7:14-19
Verse 14 clarifies that this emotional fixation is not like the kind of emotional fixation that one encounters when emerging from the realm of Mercy experiences: “… a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests”. Nothing ‘is a powerful negating conjunction’ that ‘shuts the door objectively and leaves no exceptions’. Moses represents a religion of absolute truth and/or ritualistic truth that is based upon a foundation of MMNs. Verse 14 emphasizes that basing truth in MMNs of emotional status has nothing in common with the starting point of mental networks that is being described in Hebrews 7. They may both start with mental networks, but they represent a completely different form of thought.
Verses 15-16 explain why this is the case: “And this is clearer still, if another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become such not on the basis of a law of physical requirement, but according to the power of an indestructible life.” Looking at this literally, Jesus can claim to be a legitimate priest because he rose from the dead.
But I suggest that there is also a larger meaning. Two different bases for priesthood are being compared. The first basis is ‘a law of physical requirement’. The word translated physical means ‘consisting of flesh’, which describes the mental programming that one acquires from living within a physical body in a physical universe. The word translated requirement means ‘ordinance, command, law’. Thus, living in the flesh means being commanded. Saying this more simply, when one lives in a physical body, then one is governed by physical consequences. This commandment of the flesh leads to ‘law as a general principle’. Putting this together, when one lives in a system of matter-over-mind, then one must come up with a system of natural law that is based upon physical cause-and-effect. The current priesthood has ‘come into being’ from this foundation of law based in physical cause-and-effect.
The second basis for priesthood is ‘the power of an indestructible life’. The word ‘power’ is dunamis, which means ‘might, power… ability to perform’. The word for ‘life’ is zoe, which refers to ‘both present and spiritual existence’. This life is indestructible, a word that is only used once in the New Testament, which means ‘indissoluble, cannot be broken up’. Cognitively speaking, this describes a mental network that cannot fragment, but rather retains the ability and power to continue performing. I have mentioned that mental networks naturally form an emotional hierarchy, with stronger mental networks imposing their structure upon weaker mental networks. A mental network will fall apart if it continues to receive incompatible input. If some mental network never falls apart, then this means that other mental networks never succeed in imposing their structure upon this mental network. A mental network that is never overcome by other mental networks will become the most powerful mental network. This is related to the way that Teacher thought comes up with a general theory. Teacher thought will pick something, put that something above everything else, and then see how long it survives intact. A successful general theory is simply a promoted idea that survives—a mental network that cannot be fragmented by other mental networks.
If mind were to gain power over matter, then physical cause-and-effect would no longer be the ultimate standard. Instead, the ultimate standard would be a mental network that never falls apart, because mind would be over matter, and the mind is ruled by mental networks. (Note from 2021: The current priesthood has to deal with the fundamental principle that human bodies are inescapably subject to natural law. Genetic manipulation would substantially reduce this imposition of physical cause-and-effect upon the mind. Instead, a new fundamental question would arise. The burning question would become determining which genetic modifications were compatible with personal integrity and mental wholeness. Thus, the bottom line would be achieving and and maintaining an ‘indestructible life’.)
Developing the theory of mental symmetry has taught me to some extent what this means. Whenever I analyze some system or person, I am comparing the TMN of theory of mental symmetry with the mental networks of some system or person. So far, the theory of mental symmetry has survived intact. In every case, I found that mental symmetry is capable of explaining the other system or person as an aspect of the theory of mental symmetry. This extensive comparison has transformed mental symmetry into a meta-theory that rules over other theories. Cognitively speaking, the theory of mental symmetry appears so far to have ‘the power of an indestructible life’.
Verse 15 explains that this new priest is not being officially appointed. Instead, it says that “another priest arises according to the likeness of Melchizedek.” The word translated arise is used 108 times in the New Testament and always refers to some person rising, standing up, or possibly rising from the dead. The word translated descended in verse 14 also means ‘rise’, but it refers to the rising of the sun. This suggests that the rising in verse 15 is a more personal version of the rising of verse 14. In verse 14, the TMN of a new sun is arising, while in verse 15, the MMN of a new priest is arising. Similarly, the theory of mental symmetry began as a theory of how the mind works, and gradually turned into a path for achieving mental wholeness. (Note from 2021: Similarly, personal integrity cannot be proclaimed but rather has to be demonstrated.)
This new priest is described in verse 15 as ‘another of a different kind’, the same adjective that was used in verse 13. Verse 15 does not say that this new priest is ‘according to the order of Melchizedek’, but rather ‘according to the likeness of Melchizedek’. The word order is ‘an ancient military term’ that ‘describes an ordered troop arranged in descending rank’. This describes the kind of official structure that technical thought will establish. In contrast, the new priest is according to the ‘likeness or resemblance’ of Melchizedek. This word occurs only twice in the New Testament, and the other occurrence is in Hebrews 4:15, where it talks about Jesus being tempted in all things in the likeness of us, yet without sin. Thus, one is dealing with two kinds of people who function in a similar manner, but come from a different substance or structure.
Putting this together, the new priesthood will function like Melchizedek, which means ‘righteous king’, but it will be made of different substance. This transition can also be seen in the description of the Great White Throne in Revelation 20. (The Great White Throne will be discussed in some detail later in this essay when looking at Hebrews 12.) Summarizing what is stated in the previous essay, what matters to God before this judgment is righteousness, which means acting in a manner that is consistent with a Teacher understanding of the character of God. That is because when matter is over mind, then the only way that one can use one’s mind to change matter is through physical action. However, after this judgment, what really matters is internal integrity and a mind that reflects the character of God. That is because mind-over-matter would open up new ways of using one’s mind to alter one’s environment which would go beyond physical movement. This would still be a kind of righteousness, because one would still be thinking and behaving as a finite creature within space/time in a manner that is consistent with character of God. But it would go beyond the current standard of righteousness, which is defined as doing Server actions that are consistent with a Teacher understanding of the character of God.
Mathematics loves to do this kind of generalization from reality. For instance, mathematics will start by talking about three-dimensional space, which one can physically imagine because physical space has three dimensions: height, width, and depth. Mathematics will then extrapolate to multi-dimensional space, which follows rules that are similar to the rules of three-dimensional space but can no longer be physically imagined. Similarly, the righteousness that will emerge under mind-over-matter will be a generalization of the righteousness that is currently possible within physical reality. For instance, my best guess is that angelic ‘righteousness’ means applying Perceiver power as a finite creature within time/space in a manner that is consistent with the Mercy unity of the Holy Spirit. This is the mirror image of current human righteousness, but it still describes personal behavior that is being emotionally guided by an internal concept of God. Future human righteousness would probably expand to include some elements of angelic righteousness.
The end result is that people will come to two conclusions through personal experience: “For it is attested of Him, ‘You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek’” (v.17). Notice that Jesus is not being officially proclaimed a priest. Instead, people will ‘bear witness, give evidence, testify’ that he is a priest, because they will experience what it means for a mental network to survive without falling apart. They will conclude that ‘you are a priest forever’, recognizing that this mental network survives intact, and they will notice the fundamental trait of righteousness: ‘according to the order of Melchizedek’. The word used here in verse 17 is order and not likeness. This implies that people will recognize the new righteousness of personal integrity as a continuation of the righteousness of the past. (Note from 2021: Over time it would become apparent what kind of genetic modifications are compatible with mental integrity. People would then realize that this leads to a human form that is like the current human form that was originally designed by primal beings. This is similar to the way that mental symmetry started with a search for mental wholeness and it became apparent later on that this leads to a system of thought that is like the Christian theology of the Bible.)
If an indestructible life is to become the standard for the new priesthood, and if this new priesthood is to be a continuation of the old priesthood, then there must be a deep relationship between an indestructible life, priesthood, Jesus the Incarnation, and historic Christianity. The theory of mental symmetry leads me to conclude that this is the case, consistent with what is found in Scripture. If mind were to rule over matter, then one would achieve an indestructible life by functioning in a way that is consistent with the structure of the mind. Saying this another way, if one always thinks and behaves in a manner that satisfies all seven cognitive modules, then the mind will never fall apart, and if mind rules over matter, then one will possess indestructible life. The theory of mental symmetry is based upon such a pursuit of mental wholeness. Going further, it is possible to use the theory of mental symmetry to develop a systematic Christian theology that is consistent in detail with biblical Christianity. One can also use the theory of mental symmetry to provide an integrated framework for the life of Jesus as described in the Gospel of John. Finally, a pursuit of mental wholeness will lead to a priesthood, because one must simultaneously follow the two halves of understanding the mind in Teacher thought as well as following a path of personal transformation in Mercy thought. And if mind were to rule over matter, then integrating Teacher thought and Mercy thought within the mind would provide the key for bridging God, who lives in Teacher thought, with humans, who inhabit Mercy thought. Summarizing, a new priesthood that is based in an indestructible life would be a more complete version of the old priesthood, and would include the content of Christianity and the person of Jesus.
Theologically speaking, I am not saying anything new, because Christian theology teaches that the priesthood of Jesus is eternal because Jesus rose from the dead never to die again. (In fact, when one is dealing with the priesthood of Jesus, then one can only claim to be a Christian if one does not make statements that are theologically new.) But I have found that the theory of mental symmetry makes it possible to add theoretical and practical details to this theological statement, turning it from a verbal doctrine that one pronounces with one’s mouth and/or a hope that one clings to within one’s heart to a general principle that can be used to guide one’s life.
Whenever there is a paradigm shift, then everything has to be rethought in the light of the new paradigm, similar to the kind of rethinking that was described in the previous paragraphs. Verses 18-19 describe this rethinking process: “For, on the one hand, there is a setting aside of a former commandment because of its weakness and uselessness (for the Law made nothing perfect), and on the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God.”
The word setting aside means ‘what is rendered no longer in effect’ and is ‘literally, no longer having a place’. In other words, reality will be transformed and there will no longer be any place where the old rules apply. And verse 18 explicitly says that what will be set aside is ‘a former commandment’, telling us that old rules are no longer applying.
This old rule is being set aside ‘because of its weakness and uselessness’. Weakness means ‘without vigor, living in a state of weakness’, and it is the adjective form of a noun that was used in 4:15 and 5:2 to describe the frailties of living in a mortal body. The word useless means ‘useless, unprofitable’ and it occurs twice in the New Testament. The other occurrence is in Titus 3:9, where Paul advises to “avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and strife and disputes about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.”
Looking at this literally, the Old Testament system of Jewish law is weak because it came into being in an age when most human thought was still ruled by the basic physical necessities of providing food and shelter. And it is unprofitable because many Jewish laws do not make physical sense. (Many Jewish laws do make physical sense.) There is no profit in doing things for which there is no personal benefit. Looking at this cognitively, Jewish law is weak because it governs physical activity, while personal transformation requires internal change. And Jewish law is unprofitable because it does not address the ultimate internal problem of childish MMNs.
However, Christianity that is based in absolute truth is also weak, because it is rooted in the inadequate foundation of MMNs that come from physical objects and physical people. And it is unprofitable because it can suppress childish MMNs through an attitude of following God through self-denial but it is incapable of fully transforming childish mental networks. Finally, natural law is also weak, because it is based in understanding the behavior of the physical universe, and does not directly address human motivation. And it is unprofitable because it leads to physical transformation while leaving subjective thought and personal identity unchanged.
Verse 19 points out this inability to reach the ultimate goal: “For the law made nothing perfect”. The word translated perfect means ‘working through the entire process to reach the final phase’. One can see this limitation in all four interpretations, because each method could start the process of personal change but was incapable of ‘working through the entire process’.
This abandoning of the old will not happen instantly, but will be a process. The word ‘setting aside’ is in the present in the original Greek, and the verb translated is actually means ‘to emerge, transitioning from one point to another’. A similar transition can be seen in post-Christian society. Christian thinking did not disappear overnight. Instead, it gradually vanished from one area after another, and only a few places remain now where Christian thinking is still applied.
Turning our attention now to what is replacing the old system, “On the other hand there is a bringing in of a better hope, through which we draw near to God” (v.19). Hope is a different kind of thing than law. Law is based in technical thought, while hope describes Exhorter motivation, which is based in mental networks. Again one sees a totally new kind of thinking emerging, based in emotional attraction rather than technical thought. The word bringing in is only used once in the New Testament and means ‘bringing in, besides or in addition, importation’. In other words, law and technical thoughts are not being thrown out the window. Instead, drive and motivation are being added to technical thought. This adding is brought out by the word better, which means ‘better because more fully developed’. Paul points out in Romans 8:24 that “Hope that is seen is not hope; for who hopes for what he already sees?”
Hope is currently limited by physical doability. For instance, there is no point in hoping that I will leap tall buildings in a single bound because my physical body is incapable of performing such actions. This inherent physical limitation is a natural byproduct of matter-over-mind. With mind-over-matter, one would no longer be limited by one’s physical body. Instead, the primary limitation would be mental structure and creativity. This would make it possible to have a much bigger hope—if one had the mental ability to come up with large ideas and hold on to them.
However, such a system would require personal security. Saying this more simply, I can handle chaos, uncertainty, and change in my environment if I know that I am OK. In essence, one is dealing with a version of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which says that physical needs must be met and personal safety must be guaranteed before a person will turn their attention to higher needs, such as love, esteem, or self-actualization. A similar principle would exist under mind-over-matter. Personal identity and personal existence would have to be secure before anybody would even think of venturing out into a new and brave world. That explains why an indestructible life is discussed in verses 16-17 before a better hope is described in verses 18-19.
(Note from 2021: Personally experiencing genetic modification would be very scary. One would need substantial guarantees that this would not lead to personal and societal insanity. I strongly suspect that some of the initial genetic manipulation would not be guided by moral constraints and would lead to personal and societal insanity. Thus, there would be vivid examples of what one should not do. This sort of thinking does not enter into current discussions about genetic manipulation, because this thinking is being done by humans living in physical bodies that are only aware of physical existence. I have only become aware of such issues because of the extensive thinking that I have done on the mind and mental wholeness combined with the extensive internal interaction that I have had with imaginary beings. This interaction began when I recognized that my mind is composed of seven cognitive modules and that I am only conscious in one of them. I then made a mental contract with subconscious thought giving my other cognitive modules the right to live without being shut down by conscious thought.)
This hope would motivate people to “draw near to God” (v.19). A mental concept of God emerges from a general Teacher theory that applies to personal identity in Mercy thought. If mind were to rule over matter, then drawing near to God in reality would require constructing a more adequate mental concept of God. Teacher thought looks for general theories. If one starts with an understanding of what is required for an indestructible personal life, and then extends this understanding to include the rest of existence, then one is mentally drawing close to God.
Saying this another way, the extent to which one can experience personal transformation in Mercy thought is limited by the greatness of one’s concept of God in Teacher thought. A person with a limited concept of God can only experience limited personal transformation. This is already true personally and socially. With mind-over-matter, this principle would also become true physically.
A similar transition happens when Christianity that is based in absolute truth is replaced by universal truth. Absolute truth can give the impression of great religious fervor because it motivates a person to deny self and focus upon God, but it is not possible to hold on simultaneously to self and the concept of God, because both are based in MMNs of personal status. In contrast, searching for universal truth leads to a more adequate concept of God that is based in the TMN of a general understanding. This makes it possible to draw near to God because one can simultaneously have a concept of God in Teacher thought and a concept of personal identity in Mercy thought.
A transition from absolute truth to universal truth also leads to a better hope. A hope that is based in absolute truth can never be turned into reality, because the Platonic forms come from Teacher words that are viewed as holy and different from reality. In contrast, a hope that is based in universal truth creates Platonic forms by using Teacher thought to idealize Perceiver facts about reality. Because the Platonic forms come from reality rather than from the words of a special book, it is possible to make reality more like Platonic forms.
This separation of Platonic form from reality can be seen especially clearly in Berkhof’s view of the millennium described in Revelation 20. Quoting from Berkhof’s book on Systematic Theology, “The Premillennial theory entangles itself in all kinds of insuperable difficulties with its doctrine of the millennium. It is impossible to understand how a part of the old earth and of sinful humanity can exist alongside of a part of the new earth and of a humanity that is glorified. How can perfect saints in glorified bodies have communion with sinners in the flesh. How can glorified saints live in this sin-laden atmosphere and amid scenes of death and decay? How can the Lord of glory, the glorified Christ, establish His throne on earth as long as it has not yet been renewed... What a mongrel state of things is this! What an abhorred mixture of things totally inconsistent with each other!” (p.793) Notice how Berkhof emotionally vomits at the idea of Platonic forms touching reality, and insists that there cannot be any interaction between his Platonic forms of heavenly perfection and the imperfect realm of human existence.
Swearing an Oath as Stability 7:20-24
Verses 20-22 return to the topic of the oath, which was first discussed at the end of Hebrews 6. I suggested that a distinction can be made between swearing, which is based upon the power of some superior being, and an oath, which is related to the idea of a fence or enclosure. Hebrews 7:20-28 uses a word that combines these two words, which is swearing of an oath. This Greek word is used four times in this passage and is not found anywhere else in the New Testament.
As 6:16 points out, swearing is always done on the basis of a more powerful person. For instance, one would swear by Jupiter or to Zeus, believing that one would be punished by this higher power if one failed to keep one’s word. In verse 21, God is doing the swearing: “The Lord has sworn...”, while verse 22 says that Jesus is the object of this swearing: “Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant”. This is the only time that the word guarantee is used in the New Testament, and it means ‘surety, security, guarantee’. The verb has become is the past tense of ‘transitioning from one point to another’. Thus, the indestructible life of Jesus has caused him to become a higher power by which God can make an oath.
Jesus is described as the guarantee of a better covenant in verse 22, and in verse 24 Jesus holds the priesthood permanently because he continues forever. The last time that the name Jesus was used was in 4:14, where Jesus is described as the son of God who has passed through the heavens. Thus, the guarantee of the covenant is not the divine side of incarnation, who is God and was with God, but rather the human side of incarnation.
That brings us to the oath side of ‘swearing an oath’. If Jesus continues forever, then there is an aspect of creation that always remains independent of God, and this independent existence of Jesus acts as a fence to the universality of God. Expanding upon what was discussed earlier, the indestructible life of Jesus is a guarantee that heaven will never turn into Nirvana where all finite existence is swallowed up in the infinity of God. Catholic Answers describes this loss of identity: “In Buddhism, nirvana is the final state the soul reaches on its journey through different lifetimes. These lifetimes are pictured as a series of lamps, one being lit by another, until the final lamp goes out. The word ‘nirvana’ means ‘going out’ or ‘extinguishing’… When a saint dies he enters nirvana proper, in which he loses his identity as a distinct individual. Buddha compared the question ‘Does a saint survive his death?’ to the question ‘Where does a flame go when it is blown out?’ Both questions are thought to be intrinsically unanswerable. Neither a dead saint nor a blown-out flame have individual identities anymore.”
In other words, Buddhism is ultimately caught in an existential crisis. A God of overgeneralization cannot handle details, and my personal identity is one of the details that God cannot handle. Stated bluntly, a God of mysticism ultimately demands the annihilation of all of creation. This divine requirement for personal annihilation can be sidestepped—as Buddha did—as long as some distance is maintained between me and God. But in Hebrews 6:19, people started to step through the veil that separated them from God, and in 7:19, people are drawing near to God in a physical manner that extends beyond drawing emotionally close to God. (As I mentioned at the beginning of this essay, I do not want to speculate what it means exactly to step through the veil in a physical manner, because this speculation will probably be inaccurate.) If the barrier between creation and God were taken away, then it would only be possible for people to come close to God if they knew at the deepest level that this would not lead to personal annihilation. Using an analogy, it is wonderful to bask in the warmth of the sun when one is safely on earth 150,000,000 km away. But if one were to move to the surface of the sun, where the temperature is 6000 degrees Celsius, then one’s primary concern would be avoiding instant physical annihilation. (Note from 2021: My analysis of Acts 1-12 is causing me to speculate on what this might mean. Primal beings appear to inhabit ‘bodies’ that naturally perform what humans regard as mystical worship. These primal beings originally designed biological DNA. Achieving righteous genetic manipulation would mean interacting with these primal beings. But this interaction would have the potential of overwhelming the human mind through actual mystical encounters, similar to the way that Saul was blinded on the way to Damascus. Thus, it would be imperative to institute a way of interacting with primal beings that would not fry the mind or denature human DNA.)
This interpretation is consistent with the Greek text, which can be seen by looking at the English translation: “...we draw near to God. And inasmuch as it was not without an oath...” (v.19-20). Notice that swearing an oath follows right after drawing near to God. And the double negative is in the original Greek, which means that the emphasis is not upon swearing an oath but rather that one will not draw near without swearing an oath. Using an analogy, the text is saying, ‘Let us visit the sun. We will not be stepping outside of the spacecraft.’
Verse 21 points out that this swearing of an oath did not happen previously: “For they indeed became priests without an oath, but He with an oath through the One who said to Him.” For instance, we have seen there is no such swearing of an oath with Buddhism. Using an analogy, Buddhism is saying, ‘Let us visit the sun. Our journey will be like a flame being blown out’. Similarly, a mindset of absolute truth talks about denying oneself for God, and typically thinks that heaven is a place of endless worship as portrayed in Revelation 4:8-11. The priesthood of science also ignores personal identity, and one can only preserve personal meaning by refusing to submit totally to a mechanistic view of the universe.
Summarizing, as was mentioned previously, matter-over-mind provides a buffer between God and humanity that implicitly preserves personal identity from being swallowed up by an Almighty God. If mind were to rule over matter, then God would explicitly have to guarantee that personal identity would survive intact—that it would be possible to visit the sun and return alive.
Verses 21-22 describe the oath that God takes: “but He with an oath through the One who said to Him, ‘The Lord has sworn and will not change His mind, “You are a priest forever”’; so much the more also Jesus has become the guarantee of a better covenant.” The word translated oath is ‘swearing with an oath’, which is only found in Hebrews 7. In contrast, the word sworn means to swear. Swearing is always done by someone else. God has sworn by Jesus that Jesus will be a priest forever. In other words, God is swearing by the indestructible life of Jesus that indestructible personal existence will be the basis of interaction between God and man forever. Stated bluntly, man can approach God forever without fear of being personally annihilated.
This swearing occurs within the context of a swearing-of-an-oath. The NASB says that God ‘will not change his mind’, which sounds rather clinical. The original Greek word means ‘to experience a change of concern after a change of emotion and usually implying to regret’. In other words, God is saying that he will not change his mind, even in the face of emotional pressure. One sees here both the emotional side of swearing and the fence side of an oath.
This same guarantee can be found in Jesus’ description of hell in Mark 9:43-48, because Jesus refers to hell as a place “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched”. In other words, personal identity and motivation will both survive intact, even in hell. This may be terrible, but I suggest that the alternative of personal annihilation is unthinkable.
Previous priests were incapable of making such a guarantee because they themselves did not continue: “The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently” (v.23). The word translated permanently is found only once in the New Testament and means ‘inviolable, unchangeable’. It is the negative of ‘transgress in a willful way, deliberately stepping over a known line’. Again one sees the concept of being limited by a fence, which constitutes the essence of an oath.
Looking at this literally, Jewish high priests were mortal humans who died, while Jesus was resurrected and lives forever. Looking at this cognitively, previous mental concepts of priests were based in MMNs of personal status. Each culture or religion reveres its own set of experts, and when a culture or religion changes, then a new set of experts will be exalted. A mental concept of incarnation, in contrast, is cognitively natural, because it is based in the structure of the mind. When abstract technical thought becomes integrated with concrete technical thought, then this will cause a concept of incarnation to form within the mind. This is independent of culture and religion. Therefore, a concept of incarnation will continue even when culture and religion changes. If mind were to rule over matter, then a mental concept of incarnation would lead to a person of Incarnation who is indestructible. Thus, God swearing-an-oath by the indestructible life of Jesus would be reinforced within people’s minds by a cognitively natural—and thus mentally indestructible—concept of Jesus as incarnation.
A distinction here needs to be made between Incarnation as the second person of the Trinity, and Incarnation as Jesus-the-man. Incarnation has always been God the second person of the Trinity, who translates between the Teacher thinking of God the Father and the Mercy thinking of God the Holy Spirit. But Incarnation as God took on human flesh expressed as Jesus-the-man, and this began at a certain point in history. Hebrews 7:22 specifically says that Jesus is the guarantee of a better covenant, and verse 24 says that Jesus continues forever. Thus, it is the indestructible life of Jesus-as-man that is providing the guarantee and not the eternal life of Incarnation-as-God. God is swearing that if Jesus-as-man can continue as an individual even while being an expression of Incarnation-as-God, then humans can also continue as individuals in the presence of God.
Jesus-the-Man as Platonic Form 7:25-28
The name ‘Jesus’ means salvation. “Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (v.25). One normally thinks of salvation as being saved from sin, but Jesus is not saving sinners in this verse, but rather saving those who draw near to God, which implies that the danger comes from drawing near to God. The word translated forever means ‘complete, entire, perfect, through all time’ and is only found twice in the New Testament. The other occurrence is in Luke 13:11, where Jesus meets a woman who “was bent double, and could not straighten up at all”. In other words, just as the woman was always bent double, so Jesus will always have the power to save. Notice that one has to draw near to God through Jesus. Using an analogy, Jesus is like a spaceship that makes it possible to visit the sun. That is because Jesus ‘always lives’—the spaceship is indestructible.
The word translated make intercession is an intensification of the opposite of sinning. Saying this more clearly, sinning means ‘to miss the mark’, the opposite is ‘to obtain by hitting the mark’, and ‘make intercession’ is an intensification of ‘hitting the mark’. In other words, Jesus translates human imperfection into a perfection that fits the character of God. Saying this another way, Jesus is the Platonic form of ideal humanity. When people approach God through Jesus, then God sees the idealized version of the character traits that humans are expressing in incomplete form.
A Platonic form emerges when Teacher thought comes up with the idealized essence of some set of Perceiver facts. The name ‘Jesus’ is used in 7:22 and 7:24. The previous mention of ‘Jesus’ was in 4:14: “We have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God”. Saying this cognitively, Jesus has been idealized by the heavens of Teacher thought and is now the Platonic form of the ideal human. As far as I can tell, heaven is currently a spiritual realm that expresses mental networks such as Platonic forms. Thus, this passage is probably also talking about an actual Jesus passing through an actual heavens and becoming an actual Platonic form.
This concept of Jesus as the idealized human is described in verse 26: “For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens.” The word translated fitting means ‘stand out, be conspicuous, especially in a way that is suitable’. In other words, Jesus is sticking out as the paragon of humanity. Jesus is described as holy, which means ‘what is sanctioned by a higher law… and hence deserves respect’. This portrays the concept of Jesus being an idealized version of humanity that is consistent with God’s view of what a human should be. Jesus is also innocent, which is the negative of ‘inner malice flowing out of a morally rotten character’. This word is only used twice in the New Testament and ‘means being constitutionally harmless, free from the desire to inflict harm’. In other words, Jesus is an idealized human who has never become tainted by childish or destructive thought. Jesus is also undefiled, another negative adjective that means not ‘stained with paint or dye’. This describes the sort of person who can walk through a mud puddle wearing white clothes without getting dirty. Finally, Jesus is described as having been separated from sinners, which means that a distance has emerged between Jesus and those who miss the mark. (The word translated separated means ‘depart, vacate, create space’.) Putting these traits together, one can accurately describe Jesus as God’s view of the idealized human.
It is interesting that the character of Jesus is being described using three non-negative terms: Jesus does not have inner malice, he is not stained, and he is different than sinners. This describes the typical starting point for a Platonic form that is based in reality. One starts with facts about reality, and then removes all imperfections until one ends up with something that is perfect. Greek and medieval philosophers struggled with this concept of perfection. As we continue through the book of Hebrews, we will see the idea of perfection changing from heaven being more perfect than earth, to heaven being a source of perfection for earth, to heaven and earth combining to create perfection. This shift in the definition of perfection is related to the three stages of personal transformation: constructing a concept of God through personal honesty, following a concept of God in righteousness, and becoming reborn within an environment of righteousness.
These traits applied to Jesus-the-man who lived in first century Israel: He stuck out as someone who was not subject to normal human imperfections. He could visit with sinners without becoming tainted by sin. And he lived a life that was separate from even his disciples. But when Jesus went to the next level of expressing the perfection of heaven on the Mount of Transfiguration, then his disciples became scared and confused and regressed mentally to the level of idolatry. Similarly, Christians may state theologically that Jesus is the incarnation of God in heaven, but in practice Jesus is typically viewed as the ideal sinless human, and not as the Incarnation of God.
The traits that we have discussed are mainly negations of negative traits. Verse 26 finishes with a positive trait: “and exalted above the heavens”. Verses 14 and 15 talked about Jesus rising. Verse 26 describes the extent of this rising. The heavens represent Teacher thought. (The real heavens would be a realm that is ruled by Teacher thought, which is inhabited by God who uses Teacher thought.) Hebrews 1:10 says that ‘the heavens are the works of your hands’. In 4:14, Jesus ‘passed through the heavens’ in order to enter God’s rest. In 7:26 Jesus is ‘exalted above the heavens’. Being exalted above the heavens means more general than Teacher thought. If God the Father swore by Jesus, then this would make Jesus above Teacher thought. (Note from 2021: Acts also talks about the Platonic form of the ideal human being lifted up to the throne of heaven.)
This is not the same as the mystical assertion that Jesus is above all thought. When one says that Jesus-as-God transcends human thought, then one is actually using a form of human thought to make this statement. More specifically, one is asserting that the type of human thought that comes up with the idea of transcendence is above other forms of human thought. Translating this into cognitive language, one is using Teacher overgeneralization to declare that a concept of God in Teacher thought is above all rational content. The end result is a God of Nirvana who demands the annihilation of finite beings, because finite beings live within rational content. Here, God the Father is allowing Teacher thought to be limited by Jesus-the-man, who lived as a finite human being within the human realm of rational content. Instead of declaring that all finite existence will ultimately be snuffed out like the flame of a candle, God is swearing-an-oath that Teacher thought will be limited by an indestructible person whose flame cannot be blown out.
This is cognitively significant because Teacher thought by itself is unstable. Thinking for the Teacher person often involves what I call interpreting elephants in the light of some gnat, which means taking some small idea and temporarily treating it as if it is larger and more general than major concepts. This is great for creativity—or for creating a universe, but it is disorienting to deal with as a person. Therefore, it is important for Teacher thought to submit itself to something that will be regarded as solid. This step of submitting to stability makes it possible for Teacher thought to discover a new form of generality, because it then becomes possible for others to add to the generality of the theory of the Teacher person.
For instance, my older brother is a Teacher person, who did the original research on Romans 12 spiritual gifts. A few years ago he decided that he wanted to replace mental symmetry with another theory, and he is now working on a third possible replacement theory. (If this link brings up a page that is under construction, then this means that he is still working on the replacement theory.) Because there is no long-term stability to his theorizing, it is not possible for others to expand or implement his theories. In contrast, I have found that mental symmetry works best as a meta-theory—a solid, unchanging, reference point that provides stability by residing above other theories of personality. For instance, mental symmetry can be used to tie together a number of specific psychological theories that explain what is happening cognitively when one learns a new language.
This unchanging reference point can be seen in verse 27. Jesus “does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself.” Looking at this literally, Judaism offered sacrifices every day, while Jesus died once as an atonement for sin. And because human priests commit sin, they also need to offer sacrifices themselves. That may be theologically accurate, but as usual, I suggest that there is also a deeper cognitive meaning.
The Greek text says more literally that Jesus does ‘not have every day have a need...’ The word day means ‘the period from sunrise to sunset’. If a sun represents a general Teacher theory, then a day describes the period during which some paradigm rules. When there is a paradigm shift, then everything has to be rethought in the light of the new paradigm, and even the textbooks will be rewritten to reflect the new paradigm. Quoting from verse 27 more literally, unlike Jesus, ‘the high priests first for their own sins offer up sacrifices’. Sin means ‘missing the mark’. Thus, whenever there is a paradigm shift, then all the priests of knowledge have to adjust their facts and theories to reflect the new general understanding. Once they have dealt with their own inadequacies, they can then turn their attention to dealing with ‘the sins of the people’. This is currently mainly a theoretical problem that does not impact the average person in the street. But if mind were to rule over matter, then a new paradigm would change the physical landscape, and a paradigm shift would lead to literal earthquakes, as facts became adjusted to fit the new ‘sun in the sky’. (Note from 2021: These notes have focused upon genetic manipulation. Acts also describes the development of a spiritual economy in which apostles make theoretical and spiritual breakthroughs which are then turned into spiritual powers as followers choose to apply these breakthroughs. This is similar to the way that government legislation only affects reality when citizens choose to apply this legislation.)
What survives intact across all of these paradigm shifts is the mindset of technical thought. This means that incarnation survives paradigm shifts intact, because a concept of incarnation emerges when abstract technical thought becomes connected with concrete technical thought. However, technical thought has the fatal flaw of always being limited to some particular specialization. Therefore, the mindset of technical thought needs to die and be brought back to life by God the Father in Teacher thought. That is why Jesus ‘offered up himself’ but only had to do this ‘once for all’ (v.27). If mind were to rule over matter, then it would be critical to find some source of stability that would survive paradigm shifts unchanged, just as it is critical to be able to take shelter in an earthquake proof building if one lives in an area that is prone to earthquakes.
(Note from 2021:
Verse 28 starts with a cause-and-consequence: “For the law appoints men as high priests who are weak.” The original Greek uses the logical conjunction gar, which means that ‘the law’ is leading to the consequence of ‘appointing men as high priests who are weak’. Looking at this cognitively, a system of law is something outside of people that rules over people. Whenever people are ruled by some system of law, then this leads to human weakness, because some outside force is imposing itself upon people and limiting people. Saying this another way, law presupposes matter-over-mind, which leads inevitably to human frailty. We saw earlier in Hebrews 5:3 that a human priest must submit to the rule of law in order to be acceptable to God in Teacher thought. And 5:4 added that a priest must not appoint himself but rather be officially appointed. Thus, a system of law results in appointing high priests who are weak.
The priesthood of Jesus uses a different method: “But the word of the oath, which came after the law, [appoints] a Son, made perfect forever” (v.28). (The word ‘appoints’ is not in the original Greek.) The word translated oath is the fourth—and final—use of ‘swear with an oath’ in Hebrews 7. Made perfect is more literally ‘having been perfected’, which means ‘working through the entire process to reach the final phase’. And this perfection is forever. Using cognitive language, Jesus has become the Platonic form of the ideal human. As a Platonic form, Jesus is ‘a son’ who is an expression of the Teacher generality of God. (This Teacher generality can be seen in the description of Jesus in Revelation 19:11-13). Jesus-as-idealized-human becomes a priest through the ‘swearing of an oath’. The indestructible life of Jesus provides both a fence that limits God and something outside of God by which God swears.
This ‘swearing of an oath’ can only happen ‘after the law’. Looking at this literally, Jewish law provided the environment in which Incarnation could become flesh as Jesus-the-man. Looking at this cognitively, one must first construct content before one can live intuitively within this content. Using the analogy of learning a skill, one must first practice technique before one can become an expert. Using the language of Paul, “Before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. Therefore the law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ” (Galatians 3:23-24). (Note from 2021: Similarly, regulations are imposed externally upon the economy, and there is always a natural tendency to try to sidestep these regulations. A more natural solution would be to be guided by the Platonic form of the ideal economy. This happens to some extent when other countries attempt to follow the pattern of a successful economy. But the Platonic form of the ideal economy will only emerge if some countries manage to impose economic rules that lead to a successful economy.)
Heavenly Tabernacle 8:1-2
(Note from 2021: The rest of Hebrews appears to go beyond what was discussed in the essay on Acts. Therefore, I will not be adding any more ‘Notes from 2021’. I think that the combination of genetic modification and a mature spiritual economy will eventually lead to a situation that can accurately be described as mind-over-matter.)Hebrews 8 opens by saying something that may appear initially to be obvious but is significant if one understands the nature of Teacher thought: “Now the main point in what has been said is this: we have such a high priest...” ‘What has been said’ refers grammatically to the end of chapter 7, with its ‘swearing of an oath’. But it also refers to what is happening in Teacher thought, because Teacher thought works with speech. As we know, Teacher thought evaluates speech in terms of generality. Thus, when Teacher thought comes up with ‘the main point’, then one would expect this to be the most general theory, such as God the Father giving Jesus a name that is above all other names, as described in Phil. 2:9-11. But the word translated the main point comes from the word for ‘head’ and means ‘the chief matter, the main point, a sum of money’. It is only used twice in the New Testament, and the other occurrence is in Acts 22:28 where a centurion tells Paul that he paid a large sum of money to become a Roman citizen. Looking at this cognitively, Teacher thought is using a new method of viewing a general theory. I have mentioned that Teacher thought comes up with a general theory by promoting some ‘citizen’ from the population and then seeing how long this citizen-made-monarch succeeds in ruling over the rest of the population. A citizen-made-monarch that survives then becomes a general theory that rules over other theories.
It is also possible to view Teacher thought in terms of concentration. The Teacher person has an unusually strong ability to focus upon some theory (The Mercy person has an equally strong ability to focus upon some experience.) When Teacher thought concentrates upon something or someone, then all of the rest of thought will be interpreted in the light of this fixation, effectively turning the focus of attention into a general theory. What is being described in verse 1 is this second kind of Teacher thought. When Jesus acquired indestructible life, then Jesus effectively became the focus of attention for Teacher thought around which all of existence started to flow. Instead of being above everyone else, Jesus became the head, the chief matter, the main point. And because Contributor thought thinks in terms of value, Jesus also became ‘a sum of money’.
This reformulation of Teacher thought may sound like a trivial distinction, but it is of cosmic significance, because it removes the antagonism between God and man by making their thinking compatible with one another. God the Father must have Teacher structure and cannot handle chaos. The problem is that Teacher structure fights Mercy individuality. This collision can be seen in the tension between divine sovereignty and human free will. When matter is over mind, then this tension can be resolved by using matter as a buffer to separate divine sovereignty from human free will. God interacts with the universe at the general level of natural law, leaving wiggle room for individuality through the statistical nature of quantum mechanics. For instance, “Radioactive decay is a stochastic (i.e. random) process at the level of single atoms, in that, according to quantum theory, it is impossible to predict when a particular atom will decay, regardless of how long the atom has existed. However, for a collection of atoms, the collection's expected decay rate is characterized in terms of their measured decay constants or half-lives.” In other words, there is divine sovereignty over a group of atoms, because it is possible to determine with mathematical precision what fraction of a group of atoms will decay in a certain period of time. But an individual atom has complete ‘free will’ because it is impossible to determine when any individual atom will decay. Similarly, God guides primarily the overall course of human history while giving individuals substantial freedom within this general flow. (This is explored further in the essay on physics.)
This division between divine generality and human specifics would no longer work if God came into close contact with humanity. Mysticism illustrates what happens when one attempts to unite infinite God with finite personal identity, because a God of mysticism demands the ultimate annihilation of all content, including the content of human identity. Therefore, it is only possible to pursue mysticism in an environment where matter rules solidly over mind. One can then temporarily gain the feeling of being one with God by mentally turning one’s back upon the structure of matter, secure in the knowledge that matter will survive intact while one is pretending that all matter is illusion. Saying this another way, mysticism views God as being totally distinct from the rational world of physical content. If mind were to rule over matter, then this wall would no longer be present.
Thus, if God and humans are to live in close proximity, then both human individuality and divine sovereignty have to be redefined. When matter is over mind, then humans will view individuality as uniqueness, difference, and personal choice. For instance, this is my piece of property, I can choose what I will do with my property, and I do not have to do what my neighbors are doing. Similarly, this is my body, I can choose what to do with my body, and I can make my body unique. But if mind were to rule over matter, then what would matter is personal stability—remaining an individual in the face of emotional pressure from other people and from the environment.
Turning now to the divine perspective, when matter is over mind, then God will view structure in terms of generality. Can all of the complexity of physical matter be tied together by general rules of behavior? But if mind were to rule over matter, then the behavior of the physical universe would start to become affected by finite minds and would no longer always behave consistently in the same structured manner. Thus, it would no longer be possible for God to find guaranteed pleasure in the universal laws of nature—because they would no longer be universal. But there would still be order-within-complexity if everyone found personal stability by thinking and behaving like Jesus.
Summarizing, we have now come up with three different ways in which Teacher thought can come up with a theory, corresponding to the three stages of personal transformation. These three different ways can be combined with one another, but one of these three methods will be dominant.
The first method is generality, and is associated with Teacher words. Teacher thought will arrange verbal statements in terms of explaining power. A statement that can explain more situations is more general than one that can only explain a few situations. This is the method that is used in mathematics, analytical philosophy, and hierarchies governed by command structures, such as the military. It is also the method that is used during the first stage of constructing a mental concept of God in Teacher thought.
The second method is the exemplar, and is associated with Server actions. The Teacher structure comes from some external system, such as the physical universe, the mind, or some constructed system or human organization. Server thought will observe the behavior of this system, this Server sequence will impose an implicit pattern upon Teacher thought, and Teacher thought will then generalize by noticing similar behavior in other situations. This is the method that is used by science, which is based in a study of natural processes. It also describes the primary method that I have used with mental symmetry, looking for cognitive principles by searching for similar behavior in different contexts. This corresponds to the second stage of allowing a mental concept of God to guide personal behavior through righteousness.
The third method is integrity, and is associated with mental networks. The Teacher structure comes from the inherent character of the divine and human minds. Mental networks that survive provide the reference points for other mental networks that are less stable. This appears to be the method described in Hebrews 8. This should not be confused with the method of tribalism, in which similar mental networks band together for mutual survival, and more powerful mental networks impose their structure upon weaker mental networks. In tribalism, mental networks all function within some assumed environment and fight each other for dominance. With integrity, all mental networks face the common enemy of chaos, and partial mental networks will find integrity in mental networks that are more complete (which adds depth to the general theory). With tribalism, personal mental networks spread their structure by imposing themselves upon neighboring personal mental networks. The leader imposes his will upon followers. With integrity, personal mental networks spread their structure by being examples of integrity.
Turning now to Hebrews 8, it may seem at this point that we have built a massive structure upon a few Greek words, but the rest of the chapter will expand upon the type of thinking that we have just described.
One can tell that a shift has occurred by comparing 8:1 with 1:3. The word majesty is only used three times in the New Testament: Hebrews 1:3, Hebrews 8:1, and Jude 1:25. In Hebrews 1:3, Jesus “sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high”, and 1:4 adds that Jesus has inherited a more excellent name than angels. In Hebrews 8:1, Jesus “has taken his seat at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heavens”, and 8:2 adds that Jesus is a minister in the true tabernacle. The two phrases ‘sat down at the right hand of’ and ‘has taken his seat at the right hand of’ are actually the same in the original Greek. But in 1:3 the word ‘high’ tells us that the emphasis is upon Teacher generality, which is expanded by the statement that Jesus has a more general name than angels. In contrast, the word ‘throne’ is added in 8:1. Jesus is now sitting down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty, and not just sitting down at the right hand of the Majesty, telling us that there is something solid associated with law and authority in the presence of God. This same emphasis can be seen in Revelation 20:11 in the description of the great white throne: “Then I saw a great white throne and him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away”. The person sitting on the throne is not identified, but merely referred to as the one sitting on the great white throne. In other words, the judgment is being transmitted through the throne and not coming directly from God or Jesus. Hebrews 1:4 talked about Teacher generality, saying that Jesus had a more excellent name than angels. Hebrews 8:2, in contrast, talks about integrity, comparing the true tabernacle in heaven with the copies on earth.
The relationship between the true heavenly tabernacle and earthly copies is discussed in Hebrews 8:1-6, and I suggest that one can explain this relationship in terms of Platonic forms. Verse 2 says that Jesus is “a minister in the sanctuary and in the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man”.
The word temple is used 71 times in the New Testament, almost always to refer to the Temple in Jerusalem. Similarly, the word shrine is used 45 times in the New Testament, which describes ‘that part of the temple where God himself resides’. Curiously, neither the word ‘temple’ nor the word ‘shrine’ is found in the book of Hebrews. Instead, the word tabernacle is used. ‘Tabernacle’ is used 20 times in the New Testament, with half of these occurrences in the book of Hebrews. The first use of ‘tabernacle’ in Hebrews is in 8:2. A temple is more permanent than a tabernacle. A temple is a solid building, while a tabernacle is a tent that can be packed up and moved. This flexibility is emphasized by the verb pitched in verse 2, another word that is used only once in the New Testament and means ‘to fasten together, to build by fastening together’. Notice the emphasis upon integrity. On the one hand, Jesus is ‘indissoluble and cannot be broken up’. On the other hand, the tabernacle is temporary and is ‘fastened together’.
Going further, the phrase ‘in the sanctuary’ in verse 2 does not seem to match the original Greek. The Greek phrase ton hagion can be found about 29 times in the New Testament. It is consistently translated ‘of the saints’ except in Hebrews 8:2 and 9:8 where it is translated ‘the sanctuary’ and ‘the holy place’. Thus, the original Greek of the Hebrews 8:2 says that Jesus is ‘a minister of the saints and of the true tabernacle’. This is consistent with the idea of building a new system of holiness upon mind-over-matter. When matter rules over mind, then places can become holy. But when mind rules over matter, then the holiness resides within people’s minds.
Looking at this cognitively, God is extending from the stability of incarnation using both Server and Perceiver thought, which makes sense because incarnation is based in Contributor thought which combines Server and Perceiver. On the Server side, Jesus is “a minister in the sanctuary”. The word minister means ‘an official servant who works for the good of the community’. Using modern language, Jesus is the ‘prime minister’, in the original sense of the word. As the prime minister, Jesus is performing Server actions that act as exemplars for other people. On the Perceiver side, Jesus is “in the true tabernacle”. The word true means ‘made of truth, real, genuine’, and this is the first time that the word true or truth is used in the book of Hebrews. Verse 2 adds that this true tabernacle is one “which the Lord pitched, not man”. This means that the true tabernacle is acting as a Platonic form, because a Platonic form emerges when Teacher thought works out the essential essence of Perceiver truth. However, in this case the Platonic form is functioning backwards. When matter is over mind, then Perceiver thought observes physical matter to come up with facts and categories, and the Platonic form emerges when Teacher thought derives the fundamental essence of the Perceiver facts that have been acquired by observing reality. For instance, Perceiver thought will notice many round objects in the physical world, and Teacher thought will then come up with the Platonic form of a circle, which summarizes the essence of what it means to be round. When mind is over matter, then the Platonic form is the starting point. God begins by coming up with some ideal Perceiver fact in the heavens of abstract thought. This heavenly ideal then becomes the pattern that is copied in incomplete form by finite humans (and presumably other created creatures).
Copying the Heavenly Pattern on Earth 8:3-5
This presence of a heavenly realm of ideal Platonic forms can be seen in the second distinction between Hebrews 1:3 and 8:1. In 1:3, Jesus sat down “at the right hand of the Majesty on high”. In 8:1, Jesus sat down “at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heavens”. ‘On high’ describes the concept of Teacher generality, while ‘heavens’ refers to a realm of Teacher thought. Saying this cognitively, the indestructible Jesus is creating a heavenly realm of Server exemplars and Perceiver Platonic forms for people to copy.
This assembling of a heavenly ideal can be seen in the relationship between verse 2 and verse 3. Verse 3 begins with the Greek conjunction gar. What precedes ‘gar’ provides the basis for what follows ‘gar’. Thus, verse 2 grammatically provides the basis for verse 3. Verse 2 talks about Jesus providing Server exemplars and Perceiver Platonic forms in the heavens of Teacher thought. Verse 3 says, “For every high priest is appointed to offer both gifts and sacrifices; so it is necessary that this high priest also have something to offer.” What Jesus offers as gifts and sacrifices is not explicitly mentioned, because in verse 4 the attention turns from heaven to earth. But the conjunction ‘gar’ tells us that the gifts and sacrifices are a result of what Jesus is doing in verse 3. Jesus is providing exemplars and Platonic forms and people are copying these heavenly examples, leading to the kind of order-within-complexity that God appreciates in Teacher thought. As mentioned when comparing integrity with tribalism, this is a leadership through example rather than a dictatorship through dominance. This combination of choosing to give something that pleases God can be seen in the words ‘gifts and sacrifices’, because the word gift ‘focuses on the free nature of the gift’, while a sacrifice is ‘an offering the Lord accepts because offered on his terms’.
Verses 4-5 expand upon the nature of a Platonic form: “Now if He were on earth, He would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the Law; who serve a copy and shadow of the heavenly things.” The word translated earth refers to ‘the physical earth… which operates in space and time’. Notice how exemplars and Platonic forms are now functioning in reverse, with the heavenly providing the ideal pattern for earth to copy, instead of the heavenly being an idealization of imperfect earthly categories. (This is similar to the way that Plato originally viewed physical reality as the shadow of the true reality of Platonic forms.) Looking at the phrase ‘serve a copy and shadow’ in more detail, the word serve means ‘to render technical, acceptable service because specifically qualified’. This describes technical thought. A copy is ‘a figure, copy, example’, while a shadow is ‘a shadow, thick darkness, an outline’. This describes normal thought, with its emphasis upon patterns and analogies. Those who live on earth “offer the gifts according to [the] law”. (‘The’ is not in the original Greek, which means that some generic system of law is being described rather than the Law of Scripture.) Putting this together, people are being guided by the rules of technical thought on earth. These earthly specializations of technical thought are being derived from the exemplars and Platonic forms of heaven through the analogies of normal thought.
Platonic forms are currently viewed through the lens of matter-over-mind: Humans live within a physical universe of imperfect matter and use their minds to form internal images of perfect Platonic forms which are postulated to reside within some invisible heaven where God dwells. This would all change with mind-over-matter. Mental Platonic forms would become visible within matter because mind would be over matter. I do not know exactly what that means in reality, but as we continue through the book of Hebrews, we will see a relationship developing between imperfect human reality and heavenly Platonic forms. Platonic forms will cease to be merely something static within an invisible heaven and start interacting with human reality.
Verse 4 points out that Jesus cannot live within earthly technical thought and act as a high priest: “Now if he were on earth, he would not be a priest at all, since there are those who offer the gifts according to the law”. Jesus acts as a high priest by providing the exemplars and Platonic forms that connect between the generality of God in Teacher thought and the technical laws required by finite creatures on earth. In order to act as a high priest, Jesus must remain at the heavenly level of ideals.
However, both Jesus in heaven and finite humans living within technical thought on earth provide offerings to God. In verse 3 Jesus offers gifts of exemplars and Platonic forms, while in verse 4 people offer gifts according to the law. Notice that both Jesus and people offer gifts, but only Jesus offers sacrifices. That is because a sacrifice is by definition something that is acceptable to God, and God finds exemplars and Platonic forms acceptable. However, earthly gifts provide the useful function of adding details to the ideals that God finds acceptable.
This relationship between heaven and earth explains Rev. 21:24, which says of the New Jerusalem that “The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it.” If one believes that all Christians who die end up in the New Jerusalem, then what are the nations who walk by the light of the New Jerusalem? The answer can be found in the relationship between ideal and actual. The ideal can be seen in “the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God” (Rev. 21:2). This is a holy city, because it is a city of ideal exemplars and Platonic forms that descends from the heaven of Teacher thought where God lives. These exemplars and Platonic forms provide the light by which the nations walk. The nations respond by bringing their glory into the new Jerusalem, leading to order-within-complexity. Thus, the New Jerusalem focuses upon ideals, while the nations add details that ‘flesh out’ these ideals. Both are necessary to generate order-within-complexity.
The book of Hebrews does not use the words ‘temple’ or ‘shrine’. Similarly, in Rev. 21:22-23 John says of the New Jerusalem that “I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God the Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. And the city has no need of the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb.” Notice that God and Incarnation provide the starting point for the exemplars and Platonic forms of the New Jerusalem, consistent with what is being described at the beginning of Hebrews 8.
One finds the same kind of relationship between physics and engineering. Physics lives within the ideal realm of exemplars and Platonic forms, dealing with idealized objects and processes, such as frictionless surfaces, massless pulleys, or masses that exist at a point. Before one can solve any problem in physics, one must first turn all real objects and events into idealized objects and processes. One then uses mathematical equations to analyze this heavenly realm of idealized objects and processes. Engineering translates between the ideal realm of physics and the messy realm of reality. Both ideals and reality are required. On the one hand, the ideal realm of physics is compatible with the Teacher thinking of mathematics. But on the other hand, it is the messy realm of reality that adds details and substance to the ideal realm of physics. It is the combination of these two that creates order-within-complexity.
Physics and engineering are based in an understanding of the current world in which matter rules over mind. The starting point is messy reality and one heads in the direction of ideal exemplars and Platonic forms. In a future realm of mind-over-matter, the direction would be reversed, starting with ideal exemplars and Platonic forms and then adding to this an earthly realm of somewhat messy reality. Going further, physics and engineering can interact because physics uses math to understand the real world while engineering respects the mathematical approach taken by physics. This overlap between the two makes it possible for them to interact. Similarly, the interaction of Hebrews 7 will become possible because heaven is focusing upon the person of Jesus, while earth is being guided by the Platonic forms of heaven.
This alternate starting point is described in verses 5-6: “...just as Moses was warned [by God] when he was about to erect the tabernacle; for ‘See,’ He says, ‘that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain.’” The word Moses means ‘drawn from the water’, which describes a form of thought that is based upon Mercy experiences. The word translated warned actually means ‘to admonish on the basis of a valid standard’ and comes from ‘a legal agreement for transacting business’. And ‘by God’ is not explicitly mentioned in the original Greek. Thus, the focus is not upon God giving a personal warning to Moses, but rather upon Moses following the proper pattern. And this instruction comes when Moses is ‘at the very point’ of ‘completing, perfecting’ the tabernacle. In other words, when one starts from Mercy experiences and builds a tabernacle of Teacher order, the critical period is when one is putting everything together, because this determines the type of Teacher theory that one will worship and serve. Saying this another way, the empirical facts that are gathered by objective science are usually accurate, as are the specific structures that are formed by these facts. Instead, the error typically lies in the way that one constructs the final theory that holds everything together.
Moses is instructed to “see that you make all things according to the pattern which was shown you on the mountain”. Literally speaking, this refers to Moses following the instructions for building the tabernacle received on Mount Sinai. But a mountain symbolically represents a pragmatic form of Teacher understanding—what one learns when observing facts and data from the viewpoint of Teacher generality. This describes an internal mindset, because the word translated see means to ‘see, often with metaphorical meaning: to see with the mind’. The word ‘all things’ means that this perspective of Teacher generality should be followed without exception. Pattern means ‘strike repeatedly, a model forged by repetition’, which indicates that one should be guided by repeatability. Perceiver thought should look for connections that are repeated, while Server thought should look for sequences that are repeated. Finally, shown means ‘point out, show, exhibit, demonstrate’. Thus, one is constructing Teacher theory on the basis of righteousness, using Teacher thought to expand from examples of how things behave. All of these traits describe aspects of scientific thought, and I suggest that science is successful because it has these attributes: it observes facts and data from the viewpoint of Teacher generality, attempting to go beyond visible sight to seeing with the mind. Science looks for universal laws that apply without exception, guided by repeatability. And science observes how the natural world behaves and then extrapolates to form general theories. This correspondence may seem trivial, but remember that the book of Hebrews was written 1500 years before the birth of science.
However, Hebrews 8:6 says that something better than science has now emerged: “But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, by as much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.” This is the second time that the word more excellent is used in Hebrews. The first occurrence was in 1:4, where it says that Jesus inherited a more excellent name than angels, telling us that incarnation goes beyond technical thought. In 8:6, Jesus has obtained a more excellent ministry, and the word ministry is related to the word minister that was used back in verse 2 to describe the exemplars of Jesus in the heavens of Teacher thought. In other words, Hebrews 1 pointed out that incarnation is more excellent than technical thought, while Hebrews 8 says that starting with incarnation and then extending to technical thought is more excellent than starting with technical thought and heading towards incarnation.
Before we continue, I would like to refer briefly to Revelation 16. We have looked at the first six bowls of wrath. Each of these six bowls is poured out on a different location. The seventh bowl is poured out upon the air, and is accompanied by a loud voice coming out of the Temple saying that ‘It is done’ (16:17). Similarly, Hebrews 8 just talked about God reaching a final conclusion based in the heavenly tabernacle. This is followed in Revelation 16 by a great earthquake in which cities of the nations fall, islands flee away, and mountains are not found. Looking at this symbolically, what was solid within the human realm of earth is losing its stability because God is building from heaven in Teacher thought. Finally, verse 19 says that “Babylon the great was remembered before God”. Babylon represents the societal system that is based upon a split between objective and subjective. The seven bowls removed this split at an abstract heavenly level. God will now turn his attention to creating a new integrated society on earth that replaces Babylon. Similarly, Hebrews 8 will discuss a new covenant with humanity based upon what God has accomplished in heaven through Jesus.
A New Covenant 8:6-7
This reversal of direction is more excellent because it leads to a better covenant and better promises. A covenant is ‘a set agreement having complete terms determined by the initiating party, which also are fully affirmed by the one entering the agreement’. Using the analogy of the school, God would view a school as a covenant with students. God sets up the school with its curriculum, and the students agree to live by the rules of the school. This is the second time that the word ‘covenant’ has been used in the book of Hebrews, and this term will be used 17 times in this book, out of a total of 33 times in the New Testament. Thus, covenant is a major theme of the book of Hebrews. But ‘covenant’ is not used in the first half of the book of Hebrews. Instead, the first occurrence was in Hebrews 7:22, where God swears-an-oath four times and Jesus is described as the guarantee of a better covenant. In other words, the indestructible life of Jesus forms the basis for a better covenant, and the rest of chapter 8 will describe the nature of this better covenant. Using the school analogy, God recognizes Jesus as the founder of a better school at the end of Hebrews 7, this is expanded into a curriculum in the beginning of Hebrews 8, and the nature of this better school will be described in the rest of Hebrews 8.
Related to the word ‘covenant’ is the word mediator, which means ‘an arbitrator who guarantees the performance of all the terms stipulated in a covenant’, and the six times that this word is used in the New Testament all refer to a mediator between God and man. Looking at this cognitively, a mediator translates between God in Teacher thought and humanity in Mercy thought.
The word better means ‘what is better because more fully developed’. It may seem like a fairly ubiquitous word, but it is only used 15 times in the New Testament, 12 of these times in the book of Hebrews. And the word ‘better’ is actually used twice in 8:6, to describe a better covenant as well as better promises. This term is appropriate because Hebrews has described a number of situations in which a small seed grows into something that eventually displaces the alternatives because it is so obviously superior. Here in Hebrews 8, a better covenant is growing from the seed of the indestructible life of Jesus.
The word promise has already been seen several times in the book of Hebrews. For instance, in 4:1 a promise remained of entering God’s rest. In 6:12, after God’s rest has been entered, people are being instructed to imitate those who inherit the promises. A promise implies that there is a solid understanding in Teacher thought and that people are being told that this understanding will lead to benefits in Mercy thought. For instance, ‘I promise that you will get an ice cream’. Scanning through the 52 times that the word promise is used, something good is always being promised, usually by God. In other words, one never finds something like ‘I promise that you will get a spanking’. Using the school analogy, a better school is being opened, but the benefits of attending this school have not yet become apparent.
These better promises have official backing. This can be seen in the word promise itself, which ‘is a legal term that refers to an officially sanctioned promise’. And it is also seen in the verb enacted, which means ‘to make law, to ordain by law’. ‘Enacted’ is only used twice in the New Testament, both times in the book of Hebrews. The first occurrence was in 7:11, where it talked about the people receiving the law through the Levitical priesthood. That described the transition from the intuitive thinking of Abraham and his interaction with Melchizedek to the technical rules of the Levitical priesthood. As we saw previously, every system of technical thought begins with a set of intuitive premises and then makes a transition into technical thinking with its rigorous logic. The verb ‘enacted’ describes this transition into technical thought. The other occurrence of ‘enacted’ is in 8:6 where a better covenant has been enacted on better promises. Here the patterns established by Jesus in the heavenly realm of exemplars and Platonic forms are being transformed into a new system of technical thought. In 7:11 the law was enacted upon the foundation of the Levitical priesthood. Using academic language, some school or program is becoming officially accredited; the school or program is taking the steps that are necessary to function in a more technical matter, and some officially sanctioned accrediting board is then declaring that the school or program is now accredited. In 8:6 the new covenant is being enacted upon the foundation of better promises. Instead of having some group of experts define technical thought, technical thought is being used to turn the better promises into reality.
Technology provides a partial illustration of this transition. Science can be used as a basis for technology which can be used to transform reality. But transforming scientific promise into reality requires the adoption of extensive technical thought. For instance, if one wishes to construct computers and other electronic devices, then one must adopt extreme levels of rigorous production, starting with boules of single crystalline silicon that are 99.999999999% pure. (That is 11 nines.) Notice that the technical precision did not emerge as a result of a group of experts demanding rigorous thought, but rather was adopted voluntarily in order to realize the benefits that were promised by science. Hebrews 8:6 appears to be describing a similar reason for making a transition to technical thought.
Verse 6 described a positive reason for moving to a new covenant. Verse 7 describes a negative reason for moving away from the old covenant: “For if that first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.” The word faultless means ‘free from fault or defect’. Thus the emphasis is not upon some group of experts deciding that the old system is inadequate, but rather upon the system itself being found inadequate. For instance, single crystalline silicon may be sufficiently pure to construct computer chips, but it is inadequate if one wishes to perform quantum computing, because it is composed of two isotopes: Si-28 and Si-29. (An isotope has the same number of protons and electrons, but a different number of neutrons.) For quantum computing, what is required is pure silicon composed of the single isotope of Si-28, and it is now possible to produce small quantities of 99.9998% pure Si-28.
This new covenant was not enacted but rather sought, which means ‘to seek by inquiring; to search, getting to the bottom of the matter’. This is like the production of purer silicon, which is not being driven by legislation but rather by inquiry and research. If mind were to rule over matter, then this kind of intrinsic motivation would be needed to drive people to construct a system of technical thought. Legislation and force are only effective if people have physical needs and are physical vulnerable, and that only happens when matter rules over mind. Notice that this is the opposite of Hebrews 1. In Hebrews 1, incarnation was revealed to be better than the technical thinking of angels. In Hebrews 8, a better covenant is being sought by adding technical thought to the mental networks of Jesus.
The words ‘first’ and ‘second’ imply that this is a major transition. (The word third is not found in the book of Hebrews.) The text does not just say that an old covenant is being replaced by a new covenant. Instead, verse 7 says that a first covenant is being replaced by a second covenant. Looking at this literally, the coming of Jesus replaced the first covenant of Judaism with the second covenant of Christianity. From God’s perspective, what Jesus did when coming to earth completed the transition from first to second covenant. But as far as humanity is concerned, it appears that the transition from first to second covenant is happening much later in Hebrews 8. (This contrast is discussed in detail in the essay on the Gospel of John.) A similar sort of delay happens with science and technology. When some researcher makes a new discovery, then the societal benefits are not immediately apparent. Instead, it takes time for this scientific breakthrough to lead to the development and mass production of new gadgets that take advantage of this scientific breakthrough.
Technical thought by its very nature is always limited to some restricted realm. This limitation can be seen in verse 7, because a place is being sought for a second covenant, and place means ‘place, region, seat, opportunity’. This gives the impression that technical thought is not taking over all of existence but rather emerging first within specific places. This limited extent is implied by the rest of chapter 8, because what is being described is not a covenant between God and everyone but rather a covenant between God and Israel and Judah. One can find a possible illustration of this in the construction of computer chips. If everyone is to benefit from computers, then it is only necessary to build a few factories where ultra-precise machinery modifies ultra-pure silicon within ultra-clean surroundings. One can also find this distinction in the relationship between the new Jerusalem and the nations described in Revelation 21:24. This does not mean that only a few people will leave the first covenant for the second covenant, because Hebrews 8:13 talks about the first covenant becoming obsolete, growing old, and starting to disappear. However, it does appear that a group of people is spearheading the development of the new covenant, and that the rest of the population will eventually walk in the light of this new covenant, as described in Revelation 21:24. Again one can see a partial illustration in the spread of technology, because all of society now walks in the light of computing devices that are constructed using technical processes developed by a small group of people.
Verse 8 talks about a coming, new covenant, quoting from Jeremiah 31:31-34. This passage is typically interpreted as a prediction that Judaism would be replaced by Christianity. I suggest that there is theological truth to this statement, but that there is also more to the story. My general hypothesis is that it was God’s original plan for Judaism to discover science in Alexandria before the time of Christ. Obviously, this did not happen. Therefore, a gap opened up between God’s perspective and human reality. From God’s perspective, what Jesus did on earth completed the divine plan. But much of this plan had to be carried out symbolically through the use of parables. Using the analogy of school, Jesus completely set up a new school of the new covenant, but many of the advanced classes had to be taught as fantasy and literature rather than as scientific fact. (Similarly, many English nursery rhymes originated as coded political messages which could not be stated directly.) This partially functioning school describes current Christianity. Christianity teaches many of the classes of the new covenant, and it is based in the work of Jesus who completed all the preparation that was needed to set up the new covenant. But most (if not all) Christian theologians teach that major aspects of Christian theology are incomprehensible mystery. However, if one analyzes the New Testament from a cognitive perspective, then these so-called mysteries actually make detailed sense. The book of Hebrews begins with the theoretical return of Jesus, when it will become apparent to everyone that God’s dealing with humanity does make sense and is not incomprehensible mystery. When this happens, then all of the classes will begin to be taught as fact within the school of Christianity, and it will then become apparent that many of these classes are already being taught in incomplete form by Judaism. Thus, I suggest that the more complete version of Christianity will also end up being a more complete version of Judaism. This progression can be seen in Romans 9-11, where Christianity is described as a wild olive branch that has been grafted in to the olive tree of Israel (11:17-24). But Paul adds in 11:25-26 that this Christian interlude will eventually come to an end. In other words, instead of viewing Hebrews as a description of Christianity replacing Judaism, I suggest that it should be viewed as a more complete version of Christianity-plus-Judaism replacing what has come before. If science had emerged in Alexandria, then there would have been no need for a Christian interlude, and Jeremiah 31:31-34 would have referred to a new covenant of God with Israel. But because science was not born, Christianity had to come into being. Theologically speaking, the new covenant of Jeremiah 31 applies to Christianity. But practically speaking, it will only apply fully to the combination of Christianity-plus-Judaism that emerges in Hebrews 8. This explains why Jesus fulfilled many Old Testament prophecies while leaving other prophecies either unfulfilled or only partially fulfilled.
Jeremiah 31:35-37 contains an interesting postscript that is not mentioned in Hebrews, but relates to our analysis of the book of Hebrews. Verse 35 describes the cycles of society symbolically, using the language of the order of nature. Verse 36 then says that “‘If this fixed order departs from before me,’ declares the Lord, ‘then the offspring of Israel also will cease from being a nation before me forever.’” It does not say that the fixed order will stop or that Israel will be eliminated. Instead, it says that Israel will stop being before God’s face if the fixed order departs from God’s face. What is being described here is not existence but rather Teacher significance in the eyes of God. Stated simply, if some other system of Teacher order catches the attention of God, then God will take his attention off of Israel. Verse 37 describes the sort of Teacher order that would attract the attention of God away from Israel: “‘If the heavens above can be measured and the foundations of the earth searched out below, then I will also cast off all the offspring of Israel for all that they have done,’ declares the Lord.” The Teacher order that is required is that the heavens have to be measured and the foundations of the earth beneath have to be searched out. Notice the order. Measuring the earth is not enough. That is what science does, and it is insufficient. Instead, the heavens have to be measured, and then the Earth needs to be studied as something that is beneath the heavens, and the foundations of the earth have to be searched out. I suggest that this describes what we are attempting to do in our analysis of the book of Hebrews, and it definitely describes the kind of mindset that is emerging in the beginning of Hebrews 8. Heaven has been measured and the foundations of the earth are being laid beneath the heavens. When this happens, then God will abhor the ‘seed or offspring’ of Israel for all that they have done. This does not mean that Israel will cease to exist. Instead it means that a divine paradigm shift will happen in which God will regard Israel as inherently untrustworthy. This typically happens during a paradigm shift, because Teacher thought will promote certain elements as more general while rejecting other elements as inherently unreliable.
Israel and Judah 8:8
Returning to Hebrews 8, verse 8 introduces the quote from Jeremiah 31 by saying “for finding fault with them, he says...” The word for finding fault is a variation of the word faultless that was used in the previous verse. Thus, the focus is upon inherent shortcomings associated with the old covenant. The quote begins, “Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, when I will affect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah”. Looking at this literally, Judaism at that time was split into the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Jeremiah is looking forward to a new covenant with God that will supersede the existing system of Jewish law and sacrifice. As I mentioned in previous paragraphs, I suggest that current Christianity is a partial fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy. One can tell that it is only a partial fulfillment because we will see that many aspects of current Christianity are more like the old covenant than the new covenant.
The word translated behold means ‘to see with the mind’, which tells us that Jeremiah is talking primarily about an internal paradigm shift rather than an external change in government. One of the primary reasons why Jews rejected (and still reject) Jesus as Messiah is because he focused upon God ruling internally rather than God governing physically. The word affect ‘focuses on the endpoint of two or more related factors working together to reach fulfillment’. In other words, God cannot just arbitrarily introduce a new covenant. Instead, God must cause various factors to work together in order to make it possible to enable the new covenant. This describes what we have seen in our analysis of Hebrews, because a number of factors have worked together in the previous chapters to make it possible to reach the current state. The word translated new means ‘fresh in development or opportunity because not found exactly like this before’. This adjective is only used twice in the book of Hebrews, here in verse 8 and then again five verses later when referring back to verse 8. I think that one can safely say that a rigorous form of thought based upon mind-over-matter is something totally new that has never been seen before. This principle also applies to Christianity, which was the first religion to be based upon theology rather than upon culture or religious rituals. But while Christianity transformed internal interaction with God, which changed the way that a person views physical reality, Hebrews 8 is describing a transformation of all interaction with God, which will change the way that a person exists within physical reality.
This new covenant is with the house of Israel and the house of Judah. If one attempts to interpret this literally, then one ends up with some form of replacement theology, which asserts that all biblical promises made to Israel or Judah now apply to the Christian church. The fundamental problem with replacement theology is that Christianity is not a replacement for Judaism. It corrects some shortcomings of Judaism but contains its own inadequacies. The biblical requirements for replacement theology are actually given in Jeremiah 31:35-37. This passage is sometimes mentioned in the context of replacement theology, but it is typically interpreted as a set of rhetorical questions describing requirements that could never be met. Instead, I suggest that Jeremiah 31:31-37 needs to be regarded as an integral unit. In order to reach the new covenant of Hebrews 8, one must first go through Hebrews 1-7. Going through Hebrews 1-7 will satisfy the conditions of Jeremiah 31:35-37, making it possible for God to fully enact the new covenant of Jeremiah 31:31-33. As long as the conditions of verses 35-37 are regarded as rhetorical impossibilities, there can be no replacement for Israel, because God will be using Israel to help reach the conditions of verses 35-37.
We have looked at Israel and Judah from a literal perspective. Let us now adopt a cognitive perspective. The name Israel means ‘God strives’, and this name was given to Jacob when he wrestled with an angel for a blessing from God. This is described in Genesis 32:26-28. “Then he [the angel] said, ‘Let me go, for the dawn is breaking.’ But he [Jacob] said, ‘I will not let you go unless you bless me.’ So he said to him, ‘What is your name?’ And he said, ‘Jacob.’ He said, ‘Your name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and have prevailed.’” God refers to himself several times in the Old Testament as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. I suggest that this relates to the three stages of personal transformation. Abraham left the MMNs of childish identity guided by a concept of God, Isaac describes the emotional drive of a TMN that emerges when one does not follow MMNs. (The name Isaac means ‘he shall laugh’, and God promised Sarah that she would have a child even though she was past the childbearing age.) Jacob describes the return to Mercy experiences in order to receive a blessing from God. Thus, house of Israel would refer symbolically to those who have completed the three stages of personal transformation and are now seeking to live a transformed life in the real world. We will look at this in more detail when examining Hebrews 11.
Judah means ‘praise’, and we saw in 7:14 that Jesus descends from Judah. Praise focuses emotionally upon a concept of God. Jeremiah’s combining of the house of Israel with the house of Judah is historically impossible because Israel fell to Sennacherib in 722 BC and ceased to exist as a nation, while Jeremiah was writing 150 years later when the kingdom of Judah was a client state in the Babylonian Empire. Talking about Israel and Judah would be like discussing an alliance between the Russian Empire and the Turkish Empire in the 21st century. The Russian Empire has turned into post-communist Russia, while the Turkish Empire no longer exists. Thus, one is forced to come up with a symbolic interpretation, or postulate that it will become possible to determine the identity of the ‘ten lost Tribes of Israel’.
Historically speaking, Israel separated from Judah after the death of Solomon. Symbolically speaking, Israel naturally becomes separated from Judah when matter is over mind. On the one hand, the cognitive path of Abraham→ Isaac→ Jacob, culminating in Israel, will naturally become truncated into becoming an expert in some specialized, objective skill. Constructing a concept of God in Teacher thought is not necessary if one lives in the physical universe where everything is held together by universal laws of nature. Similarly, dealing with personal identity and Mercy thought is not necessary if one lives in a physical body that remains one piece regardless of personal MMNs. People often recognize this incompleteness, but any attempt to become more complete is still happening within the general context of matter-over-mind.
On the other hand, praise can take a mystical shortcut, by turning its back upon the structure of physical matter in order to create the feeling of identifying with God through a combination of Teacher overgeneralization and Mercy identification. Or if science and technology exist, then praise can take the alternate shortcut of using technology to create awe-inspiring events and then jumping mentally from this physical content to an emotional focus upon God, a method which I call the immersive experience. People often recognize this inadequacy and try to emphasize that God rules over all of creation, but this is still happening within an environment of matter-over-mind that encourages people to emotionally identify with God. Summarizing, the house of Israel tends to focus upon objective prosperity, while the path of Judah tends to focus upon the subjective worship, and these two remain distinct from one another.
This symbolic interpretation also seems to apply to the literal kingdoms of Israel and Judah. On the one hand, God condemns Ahab king of Israel in 1 Kings 20 for choosing to pursue economic wealth when fighting Damascus, while Amos 6 warns Israel against resting in physical prosperity. On the other hand, the center of Jewish worship resided in the temple in the kingdom of Judah, and King Jeroboam, the first king of Israel, deliberately constructed two golden calves in Bethel and Dan in order to prevent his subjects from visiting Jerusalem and leaving Israel (1 Kings 12:26-28).
In contrast, the beginning of Hebrews 8 describes technical thought naturally emerging from mental networks. Thus, those who follow the transformation of Israel have no choice but to pursue personal well-being guided by a concept of God. Going the other way, Hebrews 7 indicates that worship of God will only be possible if people have strong guarantees that personal identity will survive worship intact. Thus, I suggest that it only makes cognitive sense to talk about the house of Israel and the house of Judah if mind rules over matter.
Leaving Egypt versus Internal Law 8:9
Verse 9 summarizes what naturally happens when one starts with absolute truth: “Not like the covenant which I made with their fathers on the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt.” The verb translated took is an aggressive word that means ‘take hold of, seize’. Hands represent Perceiver facts and Server sequences (a person uses hands primarily to manipulate objects). Thus, if God is seizing people by the hand, then cognitively speaking, a mental concept of God is imposing Perceiver facts and/or Server sequences upon personal identity. This describes what happens in the case of absolute truth, because the emotional status of a concept of God is imposing absolute truth and religious rituals upon personal identity.
This absolute truth was originally revealed to the fathers in a previous age and is now being viewed as revealed truth from the past. For instance, the New Testament was revealed to the apostles in Roman times and became accepted as revealed truth from God during the succeeding Western civilization. Using the language of the literal Greek text, the covenant was made with the fathers on the day of God having taken hold of them by the hand. A day represents a period of time that is ruled by the ‘sun’ of some general paradigm, and the holding of the hand happened on a day that was previous to the present day.
In contrast, “to lead them out of the land of Egypt” is in the present tense. The emphasis is upon exiting because the word lead itself means ‘lead out’ and then the preposition ‘out’ is specifically added. What is being exited is the land of Egypt, and land here means ‘the physical earth’. This also describes a primary characteristic of absolute truth. As I have already mentioned several times, absolute truth naturally leads to an attitude of self-denial because one will feel that the source of truth is far more important than personal identity. This feeling of self-denial will be felt most strongly with physical pleasure, because physical pleasure makes me feel good, which is the opposite of self-denial. This assumption that following God means being physically miserable can be seen even today in the wearing of a cilice, a shirt of hair or chain of prickly metal that is specifically designed to be uncomfortable. Using the language of Hebrews, belief in absolute truth will lead to a focus upon exiting the land of Egypt, a symbol of worldly pleasure. (This symbol of leaving Egypt was used back in Hebrews 3.)
This starting point of physical self-denial prompted by absolute truth is not stable, and the rest of verse 9 describes what will eventually happen: “For they did not continue in my covenant, and I did not care for them, says the Lord.”
The first phrase describes what will happen in concrete thought. It is necessary to leave behind the childish and hedonistic MMNs of ‘Egypt’. Therefore, if the content that was revealed is actually from God, then following this content will lead to substantial mental wholeness which will result in personal prosperity. Saying this another way, the Protestant work ethic may be rooted in physical self-denial, but it does lead to material prosperity. This will lead to a contradiction between the attitude of absolute truth and the content taught by absolute truth, causing many people to conclude that seeking personal prosperity implies turning one’s back upon God and revealed truth. I am not suggesting that the Bible teaches the pursuit of material prosperity. Instead, the Bible teaches personal transformation, and one of the byproducts of becoming internally whole will be a more prosperous society. When this byproduct of material prosperity emerges, then a conflict will emerge between physical self-denial and material prosperity. The end result is that people will not ‘remain or abide in, abide by, maintain’ the original covenant of being saved from Egypt through absolute truth. A similar progression can be seen in the typical acquisition of wealth. The original generation who acquires the wealth will tend to live frugally, the second generation will abandon the self-denial in order to enjoy the wealth, while the third generation will squander the fortune. That is because the third generation will lack the internal wholeness that is required to create and sustain material prosperity.
The second phrase describes what will happen in abstract thought. If the content that was revealed is actually from God, then thinking about this content will lead to rational thought and Teacher understanding. This rational thought will be easiest to pursue in non-emotional areas that are free of the strong emotions of absolute truth. The end result will be a rational Teacher understanding that avoids Mercy emotions and personal identity, as illustrated by the current attitude of science. This will eventually lead to the result described in the final phrase in verse 9: “And I did not care for them, says the Lord”. The word translated did not care means ‘viewing something as being without significance, without perceived value’. Similarly, scientific thought regards subjective emotion as something irrelevant that needs to be eliminated from scientific thought because it has no significance or value. Notice that this is a verbal statement being made by God. Similarly, modern science is motivated by general Teacher understanding to verbally declare that personal identity is irrelevant.
Cognitively speaking, people will naturally develop a concept of God in Teacher thought that does not care about individuals and personal feeling, but rather treats individual humans as merely cogs in the cosmic machine. Thus, I suggest that a lot of modern Christian praise and worship is actually motivated by a deep subconscious desire to feel that God really does care about me and that I am more than just a nameless cog in the machine of existence. Going further, I suggest that the real God will have to treat humans as cogs in the machine, because God can only guide individuals and society by manipulating the core mental networks that actually rule the mind, which are often different than what a person or group claims to worship and obey.
Summarizing so far, it may be theologically accurate to say that Christianity is the new covenant that has replaced Judaism, but if one examines current Christianity with its basis in absolute truth, one finds that it actually corresponds to the description that is given in Hebrews 8 of the old covenant.
Verse 10 describes the new covenant. In brief, I suggest that this verse describes the requirements for maintaining a society when mind is over matter. Human existence requires Teacher structure. In the current system of matter-over-mind, this structure comes from the order of the physical universe. Because matter inescapably imposes order upon the mind, it is possible for people to mentally ignore this order and pretend that it does not—or should not—exist.
If mind were to rule over matter, then God would have to impose divine order upon creation through created minds. Verse 10 describes the presence of this mental order: “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws into their minds, and I will write them on their hearts.” The law of God is currently written upon the structure of physical nature, which has no choice but to submit to this divine order. Verse 10 is describing the law of God being written upon people’s minds, who would then be emotionally driven to submit to this divine law.
Looking at this in more detail, the first phrase says “I will put my laws into their minds”. The word laws refers to ‘law in general’, while the word minds actually means ‘full-orbed reasoning, critical thinking’. Thus, critical thinking would be devoted to a study of divine law. I believe that I have learned from personal experience and observation how this would function. In brief, using abstract technical thought creates a mental prison. That is because using technical thought within some specialization will cause a TMN to form, and this Teacher mental network will emotionally drive a person to continue developing that specialization. When matter is over mind, then this is not an insurmountable problem, because one will be driven by physical need to regularly leave one’s specializations for normal life, and one can interact with other specializations by physically moving from one location to another. For instance, a mathematician has to eat, and when a mathematician is hungry he can go to the store and buy some food. This would no longer be the case if mind were to rule over matter. The mathematician, for instance, would no longer feel a physical need to eat, because he would gain physical sustenance from his mental food. And if a mathematician did get hungry, he would not be able to walk next door for food, but instead would have to descend down from his mountain of theoretical mathematics in order to meet specific personal needs.
Summarizing, a general Teacher theory that turns into a TMN already acts as a mental prison within matter-over-mind, but physical need and physical reality make it possible to break out of this mental prison. With mind-over-matter people would come face to face with this fundamental problem of living within the TMN of a mental prison. Going further, a concept of God emerges when a general theory applies to personal identity. Thus, a TMN that imprisons personal identity is actually a concept of God that is imposing divine law upon the mind and the heart, which means that God writing his law upon people’s minds and hearts can be viewed both as a promise and as a threat. The new covenant could be viewed as God leading a group of people to form mental concepts of a God of mental wholeness.
Looking at this from personal experience, I know that I have become emotionally trapped within the theory of mental symmetry. Therefore, I no longer try to escape this theory. Instead, my goal is to make my emotional prison as large and as comfortable as possible. Instead of specializing in some specific details of personality, I think about universal truths and how they apply to personal identity, because I want my personal identity to live within the largest possible prison.
Using the language of Hebrews, I put the law of God within my critical thinking. The verb put means, offer, give, put, place’, which is a much less aggressive verb then the ‘take’ of verse 9. This means that absolute truth will not be imposed upon people’s minds, but rather people will choose to think about the law of God. King David talks about thinking of God’s law in Psalm 119, and the principles that David describes would also apply today as well as in the future. But David could only think about the small subset of God’s law that had been revealed to tribalistic Jews living in an Iron Age society. In a future realm of mind-over-matter, people eventually would have to think of all of God’s law.
Swedenborg described this emotional imprisonment in his depiction of heaven: “In our material world, a person can settle down and live almost anywhere; but in the spiritual world there is only one place where any individual can feel at home, and this is determined by his or her deep-down attitude towards God and the neighbor. Those are near together who are alike in character. Love attracts, and hate repels. ‘Birds of a feather flock together.’ It is possible, of course, to leave one’s home for short periods at a time; but, if one does so, there is always a feeling of strain and anxiety, a ‘home sickness’ until one returns.”
Moving on, the second phrase says, “and I will write them on their hearts”. The Bible always uses heart in a figurative manner, and the heart describes ‘the affective center of our being’. Using cognitive language, the heart refers to Mercy thought. The word translated write is an intensified form of the verb ‘write’ that means to ‘write upon, inscribe’. Normal writing can be erased. Inscribing leaves an indelible impression of words that cannot be removed. Writing involves words, and words are used by Teacher thought. Therefore, if God’s laws are being inscribed upon people’s hearts, then Mercy thought is being permanently molded into a form that is compatible with Teacher thought.
Looking at this from personal experience, I have learned over the years that it is only possible to continue doing research on the mind if understanding is applied personally. Saying this more simply, either Teacher understanding will mold Mercy identity, or Mercy identity will warp Teacher understanding. If this kind of personally applied research continues for long enough, then one finds that Mercy identity will become a source of Teacher understanding. This has become especially apparent when studying the book of Hebrews, as well as when looking previously of the Gospel of John, because in both cases the biblical text is talking about something that is quite different than current culture. However, I am finding that the text is making sense because it resonates with my personal experience. Using the language of Hebrews, it appears that the law of God has become inscribed upon my heart.
Something similar would happen if mind ruled over matter, because there would no longer be any such thing as mere words. Instead, all words would have implications, because words are an expression of the mind, and mind would be over matter. Therefore, one would always have to consider the personal implications of one’s words. Initially, this would feel like a major limitation, but it would eventually lead to a supercharged form of thinking, because the law of God would become inscribed upon one’s heart.
A New Close Relationship 8:10-13
Verse 10 finishes by describing the close relationship between God and people: “And I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” In the original Greek, the words ‘their’, ‘God’, ‘they’, and ‘my’ are not implied from the grammar but rather explicitly mentioned. Thus, a more literal translation would be ‘and I will be to them God, and they will be to me people’. What typically happens today is that one finds one or the other but not both together at the same time. For instance, absolute truth defines following God as focusing upon God and suppressing identity. In contrast, modern praise-and-worship regards following God as occasionally getting excited about God while spending most of one’s time acting as if God does not exist. Going the other way, being the people of God typically means following rules that have been established by humans who claim to speak for God. Looking more generally at the modern division between religion and science, religion focuses personally upon God, but tends to have a rather inadequate concept of God, while science has a more developed concept of God but refuses to think of God in personal terms.
Looking at this another way, when one currently studies the physical universe, one finds that there is a deep connection between the words of mathematics and the physical behavior of the universe. The behavior of the physical universe always expresses the universal laws of God, and one can always learn about the universal laws of God by studying the behavior of the physical universe. I suggest that ‘I will be to them God, and they will be to me people’ describes a similar deep relationship between the universal laws of God and the personal behavior of people.
This deep personal knowledge of God is described in verse 11: “And they shall not teach everyone his fellow citizen, and every one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ for all will know Me, from the least to the greatest of them.” The first know in this verse means knowledge through personal experience, while the second know means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. Thus, people will not be telling each other to have a personal encounter with God, because everybody will be able to form a concept of God through empirical evidence. This is precisely the opposite of the current emphasis of evangelical Christianity, because the primary focus is upon knowing God through personal experience. In the words of one popular hymn, “You ask me how I know He lives? He lives within my heart.” I am not suggesting that it is wrong to ‘ask Jesus into your heart’, or that this kind of relationship would stop with mind-over-matter. Instead, I am suggesting that what is currently limited to the heart in matter-over-mind would become apparent externally within mind-over-matter. As it says in verses 8 and 13, Hebrews 8 really appears to be describing a new covenant that has not been seen before.
One can gain an understanding of what this would be like by looking at the current relationship with physical matter. People do not go around teaching each other to have a personal encounter with the structure of the physical universe. That is because sensory evidence makes it blindingly obvious to every human being that we all live in a physical universe of law and order. This is called common sense, and physical common sense naturally emerges when matter rules over mind. Those who grow up in the artificial environment of a city generally have less physical common sense than those who grow up in direct contact with the natural world. A similar kind of mental common sense would emerge if mind ruled over matter.
In contrast, there is currently a major emphasis upon people teaching ‘fellow citizens’ to have personal encounters with God. It used to be relatively common in some Christian churches, for instance, for every Sunday sermon to end with an altar call in which the pastor invited people from the congregation to ask Jesus into their hearts to know God personally. Praise-and-worship provides a more modern version of this same emphasis, in which the praise team leads the rest of the congregation into a personal encounter with God, and many people attend church because of this feeling of knowing God experientially. Similarly, the goal of mysticism is to experience the feeling of being one with God. Why is there such an emphasis upon teaching ‘fellow citizens’ to have a personal experience with God? I suggest that this is because the impersonal, technical laws of the physical universe make it difficult to maintain a feeling of being personally connected with God. Therefore, people continually have to reach out to others with similar mental networks who can help them regain the feeling of being personally connected to God. If mind were to rule over matter, then the physical universe would reinforce the mental sense of being connected with God, because physical matter would become a reflection of mental content.
This does not mean that everyone in the future would automatically be a Christian, just as living within a technological society does not ensure that everyone is technically literate. Instead, becoming mentally and spiritually whole would still require walking a path of personal faith, but this path of faith would look different—which is what it means to live under a different covenant. This idea of the same walk of faith looking different within different societies will be discussed in detail when looking at the historical heroes of faith in Hebrews 11. This does not mean that all covenants are equal, because it is more pleasant for us to learn faith in a modern world of technological conveniences than it was for King David, for instance, to learn faith while hiding in caves with his gang of political refugees in the Iron Age.
The phrase “from the least to the greatest of them” is significant because God is normally associated with generality in Teacher thought. The word translated least means ‘little, small’, while the word greatest means ‘large, great, in the widest sense’. Thus, words are being used that describe Teacher generality rather than personal status in Mercy thought. Verse 11 does not say that everyone, from peasant to king, will know God, but rather that everyone, from small to large, will know God. Going further, the word translated to actually means ‘until, as far as, up to’. In other words, a knowledge of God will start with the smallest, and the greatest will actually be the last to know God. There is a cognitive reason for this. It is easier for a small person to know God because small people know what it is like to live under authority. In contrast, a large person has to stop being a source of general Teacher understanding and learn what it is like to submit to general Teacher understanding, and that can only happen if small people submit to the Teacher understanding that was formulated by the large person, making it possible for the large person to submit to this Teacher understanding as well. A large person may be fluent at talking about generality and thinking about the rule of law. But that is not the same as submitting personally to the rule of law. A similar sequence can be found in the order of seeing the resurrection of Christ described in 1 Corinthians 15. (This is also the primary theme of the second half of 2 Corinthians.) Using secular language, it is difficult for a politician to learn what it means to be guided by the rule of law. Instead, it is natural for politicians to think that rules only apply to all of the little people out there.
Verse 12 deals with the topic of sin: “For I will be merciful to their iniquities, and I will remember their sins no more.” Looking first at the phrase “I will be merciful to their iniquities”, the word translated merciful only occurs twice in the New Testament, and it means ‘appeasing divine wrath, describing God’s covenant-mercy which rescues the believer by His atonement’.
This other occurrence of ‘merciful’ is in Matthew 16:22, just before the death of Jesus. Quoting the surrounding verses, “From that time Jesus began to show His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day. Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, ‘God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.’ But He turned and said to Peter, ‘Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.’” As a footnote in the NASB points out, the phrase “God forbid it, Lord!” is literally “[God be] merciful to You”, with God being implied by the religious connotations of the word ‘merciful’. Summarizing, Jesus says that he has to go through death and resurrection. Peter rebukes Jesus and says that Jesus should experience the ‘appeasing of divine wrath’. Jesus responds by saying that this attitude is Satanic (which means ‘adversarial’) and has nothing to do with God. Looking at this cognitively, Peter is a Perceiver person, and a Perceiver person makes a good conservative who tries to hold on to what is good. In contrast, Jesus is a Contributor person who brings salvation by going through death in order to be resurrected.
In contrast, verse 13 says that God will be merciful to the unrighteousnesses of his people in the new covenant. I suggest that God will be able to do this because their unrighteousness will punish itself and lead inevitably to frustration and a dead end. When mind is over matter, then only those who have whole minds will be successful, while those who lack mental wholeness will end up defeating themselves. So, if unrighteousness does emerge, then God will simply have to wait a little while and it will go away. This may sound like an empty threat, but I suggest that this is because we are viewing this statement from the vantage point of matter-over-mind, in which people can claim to be following God while in practice spending most of their time hiding from God by focusing upon physical reality. With mind-over-matter, a concept of God would eventually grow to rule all of existence. King David describes what this feels like in Psalm 139: “Where can I go from Your Spirit? Or where can I flee from Your presence? If I ascend to heaven, You are there...”
Looking at this more generally, I suggest that the mercy of God needs to be viewed within the context of the holiness of God. God can temporarily overlook the shortcomings of people if these people are following a path of personal rebirth that will eventually eliminate these shortcomings. But God finds it abhorrent to be merciful upon people who use the mercy of God as an excuse to avoid personal transformation. Paul says this in Romans 6:1-4: “Are we to continue in sin so that grace may increase? May it never be! How shall we who died to sin still live in it? Or do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus have been baptized into His death? Therefore we have been buried with Him through baptism into death, so that as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too might walk in newness of life.” Saying this another way, I suggest that the concept of justification becomes meaningless if it is not combined with sanctification, because justification without sanctification will inevitably degrade into people creating a God in their own image and then giving the label ‘justification’ to the resulting feelings of divine approval.
Turning now to the phrase “and I will remember their sins no more”, the atonement of Jesus is often described as God forgetting about our sins. But the word translated remember means ‘actively remember intentionally, not offhandedly or merely incidentally’. In other words, God is not forgetting about sins but rather choosing not to focus on them.
Looking at this cognitively, when matter rules over mind, then a concept of God will always notice a discrepancy between Teacher structure and personal behavior. Looking at this in more detail, a concept of God forms when general Teacher understanding applies to personal identity. The structure of the physical universe will lead to a Teacher understanding of universal law. But when the matter is over mind, then minds can be ruled by childish MMNs and survive—for a while. Thus, when the Teacher understanding of science is extended to personal identity, then the primary observation will be that people are childish beasts compared to the structure of the universe. And this is how the theory of evolution treats humanity, attempting to explain present human religious behavior in terms of primitive proto-human savages attempting to survive in the jungle. If this sounds like an overstatement, please read the essay on Minds and Gods, which attempts to explain religion in terms of savage proto-human adaptation.
If mind were to rule over matter, then the feeling of discrepancy between natural order and personal chaos would be eliminated. The end result is that a concept of God will no longer be actively reminded of people ‘missing the mark’. Notice that this describes God no longer being actively aware of sin, and not sinful people no longer being aware of God. A similar transition occurs within the mind whenever a habit is truly broken. A habit that is being suppressed will come to mind whenever it is triggered by the environment. But a habit that has been broken will no longer be present within one’s mind, because the underlying mental network has fallen apart and no longer exists. This idea of no longer being actively aware of sin will be discussed in greater detail in Hebrews 9-10.
Verse 13 finishes by saying that the old covenant will not disappear instantly, but rather grow obsolete and gradually disappear. “When He said, ‘A new covenant,’ He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear.” Thus, one could view Christianity as a stage in the process of the old covenant becoming obsolete and disappearing. But verse 13 is probably talking about something in the future, because the word translated ready to actually means ‘near in place or time’. And disappear is a fairly final word that is only used once as a noun in the New Testament (and only five times as a verb) which means ‘disappearance, obliteration’. The old covenant will not disappear because it is abolished but rather because the new covenant has made the old covenant obsolete, and the word ‘obsolete’ is used twice in verse 13, a word that is only used two other times in the New Testament: The new covenant has made the old covenant obsolete, and the old covenant is growing obsolete. One can see a partial illustration of this in the way that new computers make old computers obsolete.
Turning briefly to the book of Revelation, the seven bowls of wrath ended in 16:19 with God remembering Babylon the Great, and the word translated remember means ‘actively remember, not offhandedly or merely incidentally’. In other words, when mind takes precedence over matter, it then becomes possible to deal with the society of Babylon that naturally emerges when matter-is-over mind. Revelation 17 describes the nature of Babylon and the cognitive mechanisms that drive Babylon. Similarly, Hebrews 8 compares the first covenant with the second covenant.
Revelation 18 begins: “After these things I saw another angel coming down from heaven, having great authority, and the earth was illumined with his glory. And he cried out with a mighty voice, saying, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! She has become a dwelling place of demons and a prison of every unclean spirit, and a prison of every unclean and hateful bird” (18:1-2). Angels live within abstract thought. Therefore, if a powerful angel comes down from heaven and illumines the earth, then this implies that some new form of abstract thinking is emerging from the heaven of God in Teacher thought and bringing the light of understanding to the earth of human rational thought. This would correspond to the proclamation of a new covenant as described in Hebrews 8.
The word unclean is repeated in verse 2 and means ‘not pure because mixed’. Thus, when mind rules fully over matter, then a mental split between objective rational thought and subjective mental networks will become an expression of internal impurity and no longer be a reflection of the inherent split that exists within mind-over-matter. Such internal divisions will become a prison because they will lock a person away from interacting with the new form of reality. Saying this another way, matter-over-mind leads naturally to the mindset of Babylon because one must use rational thought in the objective realm to interact successfully with the physical universe, but one does not have to use rational thought in the subjective realm to deal with people. Mind-over-matter would eventually eliminate this type of split thinking—but not right away. Instead, people would have to follow the new covenant of having God’s law in their minds and hearts to the extent of creating an alternative foundation for objective existence.
Revelation 18:4 talks about this alternative: “Another voice from heaven, saying, ‘Come out of her, my people, so that you will not participate in her sins and receive of her plagues.’” This indicates that a new alternative now exists. Using the language of Hebrews 8, a second covenant has now been proclaimed, and it is important for people to let go of the first covenant and become part of the second covenant because the first one is “becoming obsolete and growing old… ready to disappear” (Heb. 8:13).
This principle has become clear to me while working on the theory of mental symmetry. One cannot defeat the system of Babylon merely by telling people to believe in God. Instead, one must come up with a rational understanding of God and personal transformation and then continue to develop this theory until it reaches the intellectual standards that are expected within rational, objective thought. Similarly, mind over matter would not immediately solve the problem of Babylon. Instead, a group of people would have to follow the new covenant until this obedience reached the standards of professionalism that are currently demanded by objective thought. In other words, the transition from matter-over-mind to mind-over-matter would happen from the inside out and from the subjective to the objective, and it would only be possible to let go of Babylon when the subjective and internal transformation provided a legitimate alternative to the subjective motivation of Babylon.
The First (Outer) Tabernacle 9:1-2
Hebrews 9 begins by talking about the Jewish tabernacle. The tabernacle had two rooms: an outer holy place and an inner holy of holies. Looking at the big picture, Chapter 8 talked about a new covenant in which God becomes close to people. When the Jewish tabernacle was first constructed in the wilderness, God also intervened in human activity at a detailed level, and often found human behavior intolerable. Therefore, if God is to come into close contact with people, then God must come up with a method of being able to handle human shortcomings. Thus, it makes sense that the topic would turn from closeness-to-God to the tabernacle.
Hebrews 8:7 referred to the old and new covenants as ‘first’ and ‘second’, without explicitly mentioning the word covenant. Similarly, 9:2 refers to the outer room of the tabernacle as ‘first’, while 9:3 refers to the inner holy of holies as a tabernacle that lies behind the ‘second veil’. 9:6 refers again to the ‘first’ tabernacle, as does 9:8, while 9:7 mentions the ‘second’ without explicitly saying the word tabernacle. Going further, 9:15 mentions the ‘first covenant’, while 9:1 and 9:18 say ‘first’ while implying the word covenant. Putting this together, the language strongly implies that the first covenant is associated with the holy place, while the second covenant is related to the holy of holies. Looking at this theologically, when Jesus died, then the way was opened into the holy of holies, as symbolized by the curtain that separated the holy place from the holy of holies being torn from top to bottom when Jesus died.
Hebrews 9:1 opens by saying that there is a divine side and a human side to the tabernacle: “Now even the first [covenant] had regulations of divine worship and the earthly sanctuary.” (The word ‘covenant’ is not in the original Greek.)
On the one hand, there were “regulations of divine worship”. The word regulation means ‘an act which is right according to the Lord, an act of righteousness, a concrete expression of righteousness’. In other words, Server actions are being done that are consistent with a Teacher understanding of God. This meaning is emphasized by the word divine worship which means ‘service rendered to God; technical, priestly service’. Thus, the emphasis is upon performing Server actions that express the character and structure of God.
On the other hand, there was “the earthly sanctuary”. The word translated earthly is only used twice in the New Testament, and means ‘belonging to the present earthly world as opposed to the heavenly and future’. The other occurrence is in Titus 2:12, where Paul says that the grace of God is “instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age”. In contrast, the word sanctuary ‘has the technical meaning “different from the world” because “like the Lord”’. Thus, the earthly sanctuary was a special place in normal existence that reflected the character of God in a way that normal life did not.
Looking at this literally, the original tabernacle carried out ritualistic worship that symbolically expressed the righteousness of God in the midst of a society guided by idolatrous, tribal thinking. Applying this to current society, science and technology follow ‘regulations of divine worship’, while personal transformation is usually limited to some religious ‘sanctuary’ surrounded by worldly thinking and behavior.
The word ‘almond’ will show up several times in the next verses, so before looking at the text we should determine what an almond represents. The Hebrew word for almond is shaqed, which is derived from the verb shaqad, which means ‘watching’. This symbolism can be seen in Jeremiah 1:11-12: “The word of the Lord came to me saying, ‘What do you see, Jeremiah?’ And I said, ‘I see a rod of an almond tree.’ Then the Lord said to me, ‘You have seen well, for I am watching over My word to perform it.’” Thus, an almond tree represents God watching, and there are other Old Testament passages that connect almond with God watching.
Verses 2-5 describe the major elements of the tabernacle. In order to understand what they mean, we will have to look at some of the symbolism behind the tabernacle, which will mean examining some Old Testament passages.
Verse 2 describes the outer holy place. As I mentioned, the outer holy room is referred to as ‘the first’, without mentioning the words ‘outer’, ‘room’, or ‘holy’: “For there was a tabernacle prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the sacred bread; this is called the holy place.”
The lampstand is first described in Exodus 25:31-37. Instead of quoting the entire passage, I will mention significant highlights: 1) It has a total of seven branches. 2) It is made of a single piece of gold. 3) It is made of pure gold. 4) The lampstand has a stem and three pairs of branches. 5) The seven cups look like almond bulbs and flowers. 6) The stem has four almond bulbs and flowers. 7) The lampstand provides light to the area in front of it.
Light symbolizes understanding. What is being described here is not the light of the sun but rather the personal light of a lampstand. I suggest that the lampstand represents cognitive styles, for the following reasons: 1) The lampstand has seven branches and there are seven cognitive styles. 2) The seven cognitive styles can also be viewed as the seven major parts of the single mind. 3) Gold represents purity and the absence of corruption. If one combines how the Perceiver person uses Perceiver thought, how the Server person uses Server thought, and so on, one gains a composite picture of how the mind could function if it were whole and uncorrupted. 4) Symmetry plays a major role in cognitive styles, with Teacher being the opposite of Mercy, Server being the opposite of Perceiver, and Exhorter and Facilitator also being a related pair. 5) The theory of mental symmetry is a theory of consciousness, because it suggests that each cognitive style is conscious in one of the seven cognitive modules. Consciousness implies awareness, which means that consciousness could be described as a form of internal watching. This consciousness is both limited, as represented by a bulb, and alive, as represented by a flower. 6) Four of the seven styles (Perceiver, Server, Teacher, and Mercy) provide the content for thought and behavior. Saying this another way, the mind branches out from what I call the four simple styles. 7) The light that is provided by cognitive styles is a local light that provides illumination to one’s immediate, personal, surroundings. Saying this more personally, the theory of mental symmetry was not developed all at once, but rather emerged gradually from the shadows one step at a time as I continued to walk a personal path of seeking mental wholeness. 8) Both the lampstand and cognitive styles come originally from passages in the Bible. Thus, it is religiously appropriate to compare one with the other.
Summarizing, there is a substantial similarity between the theory of mental symmetry and the description of the lampstand in Exodus 25. I also suggest this symbolism because a knowledge of the seven cognitive styles has provided the key to constructing a meta-theory of cognition that has made it possible to analyze aspects of thought and behavior that until now had been considered holy and out of reach to rational human understanding. Looking at this the other way, I have found that using the theory of mental symmetry requires a level of personal commitment to God and mental wholeness which the average person is not willing to make. In other words, if one defines holiness as being different than the world, then mental symmetry appears to be a theory that both requires holiness and sheds light upon holiness. If holiness means related to God, then the theory of mental symmetry also qualifies as holy, because it leads to the concept of a Christian Trinitarian God.
While the theory of mental symmetry appears to be connected with holiness, this is also a holiness that can be reached in the first covenant of matter-over-mind. One can treat mental symmetry purely as a theory of cognition, looking at a mental concept of God, reaching mental wholeness, and looking at the emotional pressure exerted by mental networks. There is no need to postulate the existence of a real God, a supernatural realm, a spiritual realm, or any form of mind-over-matter. Mental symmetry can be extended to include all of these additional aspects, but it can also be regarded merely as a theory of cognition that describes how the mind functions in the current environment of matter-over-mind.
The second element of the holy place is “the table and the sacred bread”. The word translated sacred means ‘a setting forth in advance for a specific purpose’. This word is used 12 times in the New Testament, four times to refer to the showbread, five times to talk about God’s purpose, and three times to talk about some human purpose. Thus, what is often referred to as showbread would more accurately be called ‘bread of the presence’. Exodus 25:30 says that “You shall set the bread of the presence on the table before Me at all times.” More literally, ‘you shall set on the table faces-bread before my face always’. ‘Before my face’ is a Hebrew idiom, but the double mention of face emphasizes a personal, emotional interaction with God. Looking at this cognitively, a concept of God emerges when a sufficiently general theory applies to personal identity, which means that a TMN of understanding is interacting emotionally with MMNs of identity, because mental networks interact emotionally.
Bread represents intellectual food—a package of understanding that is broken into pieces and then chewed and digested. If bread is always supposed to be before the face of God, then one concludes that interaction with God should always be at the level of packaged understanding. This is a significant statement, because mysticism teaches that one should ultimately interact with God at an intuitive level that transcends all packaged understanding. Every religion that I have examined so far practices mysticism at its core, and every theologian that I have read so far appears to hold on to some core concept of mysticism. Looking at this further, mysticism purports to be a secret, special, holy method of coming into close contact with God. In contrast, what one finds in the holy place is bread, not just sometimes but always.
Leviticus 24:5-10 add some details to the ‘bread of the presence’. Every week, twelve fresh-baked loaves are to be placed on ‘the pure table’. The bread is to be arranged in two rows. Pure frankincense is to be placed on top of each row as a ‘memorial for the bread’ and an ‘offering made by fire’. Fresh bread is to be placed every Sabbath continually before the Lord as an everlasting covenant for the sons of Israel. The sons of Aaron are then supposed to eat the old bread in the holy place.
Looking at the symbolism behind these details, fresh-baked loaves tells us that fresh understanding is required. Obviously, reading services out of prayer books that were written many years ago would not qualify as fresh-baked loaves. (The church I currently attend follows a liturgical calendar, but the liturgy is written afresh for every week.) The Sabbath is the one day in the week during which one stops being motivated by MMNs of personal desire and need, and focuses instead upon the TMN of God. Placing fresh loaves every Sabbath would mean that God wants understanding that is guided by the TMN of a concept of God. These are not just incidental requirements, but rather form the basis for an everlasting covenant between God and the ‘sons of Israel’. In other words, it is vital to regard one’s relationship with God as a form of school: Each week one needs to show the administration what one has learned that week. And this learning is to be presented in a structured form, and not just dumped haphazardly upon the table. Going further, once the bread has been presented to God, then it needs to be eaten personally. Thus, the initial purpose of learning is to ‘feed’ Teacher understanding so that it grows, but this needs to be followed by feeding upon Teacher understanding, which means personally eating and digesting this material with an attitude that recognizes that Teacher understanding is holy and different than MMNs of culture and identity.
Before we look at the frankincense, we need to examine the symbolism of smell, which can be done quite easily using neurology. The sense of smell is strongly connected with the orbitofrontal cortex, and the orbitofrontal cortex is next to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which appears to be the core brain region for mental networks. Saying this more simply, smell is a method of directly triggering mental networks. This explains Exodus 30:22-33, where it describes a specific perfume that is to be applied to all the objects of the tabernacle as well as to the priests of the tabernacle. Verses 31-33 conclude by saying that “This shall be a holy anointing oil to me throughout your generations. It shall not be poured on anyone’s body, nor shall you make any like it in the same proportion; it is holy and it shall be holy to you. Whoever shall mix any like it or whoever puts any of it on a laymen shall be cut off from his people.” Smell triggers mental networks. Therefore, if holy items and holy people are all given a scent that never appears anywhere else, then this will create a distinction between mental networks of God and mental networks of culture and identity at a basic, neurological level. Mysticism violates this prohibition, because the primary goal of mysticism is to generate the feeling of being one with God at the emotional level of mental networks. Saying this more simply, mysticism bathes personal identity with the perfume of divine holiness. Exodus 30 does not approve of this emotional mixing of divine and human, but instead states that ‘whoever puts any of it on a layman shall be cut off from his people’. In other words, the ultimate premise of mysticism is that ‘I am God’, while the ultimate premise of Christianity is that ‘I am not God’. (Christian and Jewish mysticism may verbally state that God and humans are totally different, but mystical union with God is still being practiced at the emotional level of mental networks; the holy fragrance of God is still being poured on personal identity.)
Summarizing, the instruction to place fresh baked bread of packaged understanding before God continually forever as a covenant in the holy place is combined with a prohibition against personal identity identifying emotionally with God.
One might think that I am overstating the case by emphasizing that the symbolism of the Jewish holy place forbids mysticism. However, Jewish Kabbalah defines monotheism—the core belief of Judaism—as a mystical belief in God, and Kabbalah “is the received wisdom, the native theology and cosmology of Judaism.” Looking at the big picture, it is possible to practice mysticism when matter-over-mind pulls the mind back into reality after emotionally identifying with God. But if mind were to rule over matter, then the primary concern would not be achieving mystical union from God but rather avoiding being swallowed up by an infinite deity. That is why Hebrews 7 is filled with such strong guarantees based upon the indestructible life of Jesus. Kabbalah recognizes this danger of becoming mentally disconnected from content, because “Kabbalah and Jewish mysticism, were traditionally not even taught to people until the age of 40, when they had completed their education in Torah and Talmud”. Stating this more bluntly, Christianity often claims that the fundamental error of Judaism is that it rejected Jesus as Messiah. But I suggest that there is a deeper error. The fundamental error of Judaism is that it has embraced mysticism, which causes Judaism to automatically reject the very concept of an incarnation of God (while being receptive to the mystical spirituality of India).
Returning now to the frankincense placed upon the bread, the word frankincense comes from the word for ‘white’, because it begins as a milky-white sticky liquid. White represents purity and light. Pure frankincense is supposed to cover the loaves, implying that the packages of understanding are supposed to be covered by a mental network of purity and light. Saying this another way, one is not just presenting knowledge to God, but rather packaging this knowledge in a way that generates a pure mental network of understanding. This sounds simple but it is not. That is because most thought is a combination of rational thinking—which seeks Teacher understanding, and rationalizing—which twists understanding to justify personal MMNs. The frankincense is a ‘memorial for the bread’ because a mental network brings an entire package of content to mind when it is triggered, and it is also an ‘offering made by fire’ because personal MMNs have to be eliminated from the bread to make it acceptable to God.
Presenting God with fresh loaves of understanding is a basic element of the first covenant in which matter is over mind. Stated succinctly, one uses one’s mind to understand the structure of matter, and one presents this understanding to God because the structure of matter is a reflection of the character of God. Humans may assemble physical matter in ways that are abhorrent to God, but the matter itself will continue to behave in a manner that expresses the character of God. As finite creatures, it is only possible to learn one step at a time, which means that one must eat one’s daily bread.
The Second (Inner) Tabernacle 9:3-4
Moving on, verses 3-5 describe the holy of holies, which is introduced in verse 3: “Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies.” As far as I can tell, this the only time that the phrase ‘holy of holies’ is used in the entire New Testament. In contrast, this composite term (kodesh hakadeshim) is used quite often in the Old Testament. This is probably not just a matter of Hebrew grammar, because the term ‘holy of holies’ can also be found numerous times in the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Jewish Bible. Instead, there may be a possible cognitive explanation. When matter is over mind, then studying matter will lead to scientific thought with its technical formulation of the laws of nature. God will then be seen as someone who lies beyond rational thought in some sort of unapproachable holy of holies, symbolized by a holy of holies that was a place of total darkness into which the high priest only entered once a year. Similarly, Hebrews 8 describes a transition from the first tabernacle to the second tabernacle. During such a time of transition, the second tabernacle would appear temporarily as a holy of holies that lies beyond normal holiness. In contrast, Hebrews 10:19 refers to the holy places, implying a more integrated understanding of holiness, as does Hebrews 8:2, which describes the true heavenly perspective.
A similar transition happened within my mind as I was going through the book of Hebrews. Initially, it felt as if I was mentally stepping beyond the present into a future realm of intimate relationship with God. But as I continued to look at Hebrews, it gradually dawned upon me that this future realm will also be a time of learning, living, choice, personal transformation, and faith.
The word veil is used six times in the New Testament, three times in the synoptic Gospels to describe the veil of the temple being torn from top to bottom, and three times in the book of Hebrews. The first usage was in 6:19, which talked about a sure and steadfast hope ‘which enters within the veil’. We interpreted that as people coming into close personal contact with God—as opposed to pretending to be one with God. The second reference to a veil is in verse 3, which specifically refers to a second veil. (10:20 will talk about a new and living way through the veil.) Verse 3 clearly refers to the holy of holies, but it describes it as if it is a separate tabernacle, instead of merely a second room within the same tabernacle. The implication is that the second covenant will be associated with a second way of viewing holiness.
Verse 4 describes two items of furniture: a golden altar of incense, and the Ark of the Covenant. Looking first at the altar of incense, Exodus 30:6 says that it was located within the holy place in front of the curtain: “You shall put this altar in front of the veil that is near the ark of the testimony, in front of the mercy seat that is over the ark of the testimony, where I will meet with you.” We have already seen that incense represents a mental network, because incense literally triggers mental networks.
Exodus 30:7-9 explains that “Aaron shall burn fragrant incense on it; he shall burn it every morning when he trims the lamps. When Aaron trims the lamps at twilight, he shall burn incense. There shall be perpetual incense before the Lord throughout your generations. You shall not offer any strange incense on this altar, or burnt offering or meal offering; and you shall not pour out a drink offering on it.” Like the anointing oil mentioned earlier, Exodus 30:34-38 says this incense was also supposed to be a special, unique mixture that was only used in the tabernacle.
Cognitively speaking, this tells us that God is supposed to be mentally represented by a mental network that is special and unique. This mental network of God is a ‘perpetual incense’, which means that it should remain constant throughout the various transitions of society. Going further, if twilight represents the fading of an existing paradigm and daybreak represents the emergence of a new paradigm, then trimming the lamps at morning and twilight implies that one should reassert this TMN of God whenever there is a paradigm shift. The purpose of trimming a lamp is to cut the wick so that the flame is clean and bright. This implies that whenever there is a paradigm shift, then it is important to re-examine a mental concept of God to ensure that it continues to shine pure and bright within Teacher thought.
At first glance, there appears to be a contradiction between Hebrews and Exodus. Hebrews 8:4 seems to say that the altar of incense was located within the holy of holies: “…which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense and the Ark of the Covenant...” In contrast, Exodus 30:6 says that the altar of incense was located within the holy place in front of the curtain: “You shall put this altar in front of the veil that is near the ark of the testimony, in front of the mercy seat that is over the ark of the testimony, where I will meet with you.” This webpage addresses the apparent contradiction, pointing out that both Exodus and Hebrews agree that the altar of incense is descriptively and ritualistically connected with the Ark of the Covenant.
As usual, there may be a cognitive reason for this apparent discrepancy. Looking at the original Hebrew text of Exodus 30:6, the following points are mentioned: 1) The altar of incense is before the veil. 2) The veil is by (over?) the ark of the testimony. 3) This is in front of the mercy seat that is over the testimony. 4) God says that ‘I will meet with you there’. Translating this into cognitive language: 1) One enters the realm of mental networks and realizes that God lies behind a veil. 2) One goes beyond this veil through the testimony of personal experience. 3) This encounter with God leads to a covering of mercy from God. (The word translated mercy seat is based in the Hebrew word that means ‘a lid’, and this word is only used to describe the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant.) 4) One meets with God personally.
At first glance, this process sounds like mysticism, and I suggest that many will interpret it as mysticism, as illustrated by Jewish Kabbalah. This explains the need for a strong taboo against personally wearing the perfume that is associated with God. But I suggest that it is imperative to recognize that this is describing a process to encountering God and not a depiction of God. This distinction was made in the beginning of Hebrews 7, where the process of mysticism was described as a priesthood based upon the eternal righteousness of Melchizedek. I suggest that these four stages will always exist in some form when matter is over mind: 1) One uses technical thought to analyze the laws of nature that govern matter. If one wishes to encounter God, then one must look beyond the veil of physical reality to enter the spiritual realm of mental networks. (My hypothesis is that the spiritual realm interacts with the mind through mental networks.) 2) Physical matter functions objectively, and understanding the physical universe leads to objective understanding. If one wishes to interact with God at the level of mental networks, then subjective experience must be added to this objective understanding. 3) When subjective experience is added, then there will always be a sense in which personal inadequacy is being covered. That is because physical matter inescapably obeys the universal laws of God, while human minds have to learn to obey God. Even the most moral individual is still less righteous than the inherent righteousness of the physical world. 4) One will then have an encounter with God. One cannot go directly to an encounter with God, because one is immersed in a world of physical matter that is one step removed from the character of God.
These four steps are each subtly different than mysticism: 1) God is not within physical matter, but this does not mean that God transcends all rational content. 2) The TMN of a general theory is needed to grasp the nature of God, but this TMN should be acquired through the theorizing of generalization and not through the mystical shortcut of overgeneralization. 3) Personal inadequacy needs to be covered through God’s mercy, but this does not mean that God unconditionally accepts everyone and everything in a ‘loving’ manner. 4) Because the mind is ruled by matter, one must break free mentally of the tyranny of matter in order to encounter God. But this does not mean that God has nothing to do with matter. Instead, the material world with its universal laws should be viewed as a schoolmaster that leads us to God.
Now let us return to Hebrews 9:3-4: “Behind the second veil there was a tabernacle which is called the Holy of Holies, having a golden altar of incense and the Ark of the Covenant covered on all sides with gold.” When one starts to live within mind-over-matter, then a second covenant will emerge—as described at the end of Hebrews 8, and one will have to go beyond a second veil to enter the tabernacle. Instead of viewing mental networks as something that leads to a God who transcends physical reality, one will realize that God lives in a spiritual realm based upon mental networks within a heaven of Platonic perfection that lies behind the veil of finite human existence.
This idea of God living within a realm of mental networks is conveyed by the phrase ‘God inhabits the praises of his people’, which is taken from Psalm 22:3. Looking at this cognitively, it is possible to reinforce a mental concept of God by gathering with a crowd of people to sing and say emotional words about God—and modern praise-and-worship takes advantage of this cognitive mechanism. However, if one examines the entire Psalm, then it becomes apparent that praise-and-worship is a rather insipid interpretation of this verse. Psalm 22 is a prophetic Psalm that talks about the crucifixion of Jesus. It begins with the phrase “My God, my God, why have You forsaken me?”, includes the specific prediction that “they divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots” (v.18), and describes in detail what it would feel like to be crucified. Thus, Psalm 22 is not talking about standing in a comfortable air-conditioned building with upbeat music, waving one’s hands around and saying ‘Praise Jesus’. Instead, it is a verbal recognition that the TMN of God is still in control even when one is hanging on a cross while being jeered by the crowds.
In Exodus 30, the emphasis was upon the mercy seat as a lid or covering. Hebrews 9 opens up this lid and describes what is contained within. Before we examine the content of the Ark of the Covenant, I would like to point out a curious feature of the word ‘ark’. The Greek word translated ark is used only twice in the book of Hebrews—to describe two totally different objects that use totally different Hebrew words. Hebrews 9:4 talks about the Ark of the Covenant, while Hebrews 11:17 talks about Noah’s ark, and the same Greek word is used for both of these objects. Going further, this Greek word is used six times in the New Testament, three times to refer to the Ark of the Covenant, and three times to refer to Noah’s ark. In contrast, the Hebrew word for Ark of the Covenant means ‘chest or box’, while the Hebrew word for Noah’s ark is used 26 times to describe Noah’s Ark, and twice to refer to the little ark in which baby Moses floated.
This double meaning is cognitively significant, because it encapsulates the two sides of incarnation, as illustrated by the school analogy. (Remember that incarnation combines the precise definitions of abstract technical thought with the cause-and-effect of concrete technical thought.) On the one hand, the Ark of the Covenant describes God’s viewpoint as the administrator of the school. Instead of seeing the chaos of individual people, God sees the structure of the school curriculum. Saying this theologically, the Ark of the Covenant is a covering for sin. On the other hand, Noah’s ark describes the human viewpoint as students of the school. For the students, school is a journey from judgment to salvation.
It may sound like a stretch to base an interpretation in a double meaning like this, but one can find this same double meaning in both the Ark of the Covenant and in Noah’s ark. The Ark of the Covenant spent most of its time sitting hidden in darkness in the holy of holies, viewed only by God, representing the view of the school administrator. But when the Israelites went through some major transition, then the Ark of the Covenant would be carried ahead of the people on the journey, illustrating the view of the students. The first major transition was leaving Mount Sinai after receiving the law and constructing the tabernacle. Numbers 10:33 says that “They set out from the mount of the LORD three days’ journey, with the Ark of the Covenant of the LORD journeying in front of them for the three days.” Similarly, when the Israelites crossed the river Jordan to enter the promised land in Joshua 3, then the priests went ahead of the people and stepped into the river carrying the Ark of the Covenant. The river then backed up making it possible for the Israelites to cross on dry ground. And in Joshua 6, the walls of Jericho fell down after the Israelites walked around these walls for seven days, with the Ark of the Covenant being carried along in the midst of the soldiers. Thus, one sees the Ark of the Covenant being treated as a sort of Noah’s ark.
Going the other way, Hebrews 11:7 describes Noah’s ark using the language of atonement: “By faith Noah, being warned by God about things not yet seen, in reverence prepared an ark for the salvation of his household, by which he condemned the world, and became an heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.” Notice that the flood is not mentioned. Instead, the emphasis is upon Noah constructing the ark. And the text describes the status of righteousness that Noah acquired before God as a result of allowing his Server actions to be guided by the Teacher words of God.
Summarizing, in the first covenant the emphasis is upon the ark as a covering for sin, while in the second covenant the ark represents the dual perspective of incarnation, simultaneously representing an ordered structure for God and a journey of transformation for humanity. This connection between incarnation and a journey is implied in Revelation 21:23-24. The new Jerusalem is described as having two kinds of light: “And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God has illumined it, and its lamp is the Lamb. The nations will walk by its light.” One might wonder why a small lamp is needed when the glory of God is illuminating the entire city. After all, there is no need for a flashlight when the sun is shining. But the lamp of incarnation will still be needed when going from one location in the city to another through dark places, and this human perspective of traveling on a journey is brought out in the next phrase, which says that ‘the nations will walk by its light’.
Now that we have looked at the general symbolism of the Ark of the Covenant, let us look at the contents of the ark. Verse 4 says that the ark contained three items: “a golden jar holding the manna, and Aaron’s rod which budded, and the tables of the covenant”.
Manna is first mentioned in Exodus 16. The Israelites had just left the Red Sea, they complained about lacking water in Exodus 15, and now they are complaining about having no food. In verse 32, God tells Moses to preserve a jar of manna “that they may see the bread that I fed you in the wilderness, when I brought you out of the land of Egypt”. Stated simply, manna is bread from heaven. And in John 6, Jesus explicitly states that he is this ‘bread from heaven’. Looking at this cognitively, manna appears to be the opposite of showbread. With showbread, humans are presenting God with ordered packages of understanding. Manna, in contrast, is God presenting humans with fragments of digestible knowledge. When matter is over mind, then showbread describes the natural direction of thinking, because people observe the structure of physical matter to gain understanding and then use this understanding to form a concept of God. If mind were over matter, then the starting point would be a TMN of God, which would then lead to personal understanding.
Manna had to be collected in the morning before the sun was hot, and everyone gathered enough manna to meet their personal needs. This kind of sequence would be necessary if mind were to rule over matter, which can be illustrated by the laws of a successful society. The first stage is for people to internalize understanding, which is driven by personal need. Similarly, I have found consistently in my research that I get understanding if I need it badly enough. This internal need for understanding is illustrated by the word manna, which comes from the Hebrew question ‘What is this?’ And in the same way that each person had enough manna regardless of how much they gathered, I have found that I seem to make about the same steady, daily process, no matter how hard I work. Work is still required—one must go out daily in order to collect the manna, but working too hard is counterproductive because then one is no longer mentally and spiritually fresh. The second stage is for people to construct an external environment that reflects internal understanding. Using the language of Exodus, the internal bread from heaven turns into the light of a sun shining from heaven. Similarly, people who have internalized understanding will set up the rules of a society that expresses this understanding. The focus of attention then turns away from internal understanding to external structure, as illustrated by the rising of the sun and the melting of the manna. Focusing upon external structure gradually causes internal content to fade, leading to the setting of the sun followed by the renewal of internal hunger.
The second item is Aaron’s rod that budded. This event occurs at the end of the story of Korah’s rebellion told in Numbers 16-17. Korah, along with 250 other leaders, “assembled together against Moses and Aaron, and said to them, ‘You have gone far enough, for all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is in their midst; so why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?’” (Numbers 16:3). In simple language, Korah and the other leaders are asking why they have to submit to Moses and Aaron. After all, a doctrine of fairness would feel that everyone is equal before God. Moses says that each of these 250 leaders should offer incense to God, and that God will choose which one to accept. The ground then opens up to swallow Korah and his household, while fire from heaven consumes the other 250 men. The people then respond by blaming Moses and Aaron for the death of these people, and God responds with a plague. It is at this point that the incident with Aaron’s rod occurs.
Before we look at Aaron’s rod, let us examine Numbers 16 from a cognitive perspective. In simple terms, I suggest that Mercy status is being confused with Teacher generality. God has chosen to promote Moses and Aaron in order to create Teacher order. The other leaders are complaining that they have just as much personal status in Mercy thought as Moses and Aaron. Moses responds by appealing to Teacher thought: Each leader is supposed to offer the incense of a mental network to God in order to see which one God will choose. Korah is swallowed up by the earth, and the earth represents rational thought. Cognitively speaking, Korah’s sacrifice fails because it is rationally incoherent; it is swallowed up by the Perceiver facts and Server sequences of ‘the earth’. The other leaders are consumed by fire, implying that they reach a dead end through frustration.
I suggest that these two forms of punishment correspond to the two ways of testing a paradigm, or Teacher theory. Testing a general Teacher theory is quite different than merely checking the facts. Checking the facts is possible when matter is over mind, because one can test one’s thinking with a reality that functions independently of thought. However, if mind were to rule over matter, then one would have to test understanding at the more general level of mental networks. Using an analogy, if a paradigm is like a set of glasses through which one observes the world, then one can test a set of glasses by how much one can see with these glasses, as well as how clearly one can see. If the glasses only permit a person to see some fragment of reality, then this will lead to the fire of frustration. If the glasses make everything look blurry, then the facts will end up swallowing the theory. For instance, if one applies this test to the theory of mental symmetry, one sees that this theory can be used to describe many aspects of reality, and that one can go beyond hand-waving arguments to detailed analysis. The end result is Teacher order-within-complexity, or in other words, the incense of a mental network that God would find pleasing. When matter rules over mind, then one can always step outside of one’s paradigm in order to live within reality. However, if mind were to rule over matter, then a limited paradigm really would lead to the fire of frustration, and a blurry paradigm really would cause the ground to open up and swallow the understanding. That is because a blurry paradigm would lead to unstable reality which would be incapable of supporting human existence.
The people respond by blaming Moses and Aaron, telling us that they are focusing upon people in Mercy thought rather than upon understanding in Teacher thought. Saying this another way, they are responding to an unpleasant message by blaming the messenger. This leads to a plague which is only stopped when Aaron offers incense to atone for the people. Looking at this cognitively, what is being described is a form of deconstructionism, in which people are being viewed as the source of truth and the existence of truth is being questioned. Deconstructionism is self-destructive because it tears down the foundations for society without providing a replacement. The only cure is to redirect the attention from Mercy thought to Teacher thought, as illustrated by the incense offered by Aaron.
We now come to the story of Aaron’s rod in Numbers 17. Each of the 12 tribal leaders is to write his name upon a rod and all of these rods will be deposited in the tent of meeting. God will choose one of the rods by causing it to sprout. Verse 8 describes the results: “Now on the next day Moses went into the tent of the testimony; and behold, the rod of Aaron for the house of Levi had sprouted and put forth buds and produced blossoms, and it bore ripe almonds.” I have mentioned several times that Teacher thought comes up with a general theory by picking some ‘citizen’ and putting him in charge. Numbers 17 portrays this process. Names involve Teacher thought, and a rod represents leadership. Therefore, if each leader writes his name upon a rod, then people are being evaluated as potential leaders from the perspective of Teacher thought. When a theory continues to be used, then it will turn into a TMN, and the mind uses mental networks to represent living beings. This is illustrated by the sprouting of Aaron’s rod. We saw earlier that almonds represent God watching. Therefore, what emerges is not just any mental network, but rather a mental network that fits within the TMN of God. This rod is then placed within the Ark of the Covenant as a memorial.
Looking at this story more generally, many have concluded that the God of Exodus is an especially vindictive, judgmental God prone to flying off the handle and killing masses of people. But it is important to remember that God the Father is interacting with a human tribe living in the bronze age. Therefore, almost all of this interaction is happening at a purely physical level, because no other level of interaction is possible. This also means that any correction by God is also happening at the physical level. And as we shall see later when looking at Moses, it is imperative for this physical interaction to happen in a manner that preserves the character of God, because what God does with the Israelites in the wilderness will shape the nature of religion for thousands of years to come.
Ten Commandments
The final item in the ark is the “tables of the covenant”. Exodus 34:28 tells us the Ten Commandments were written on these two tablets: “And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments.” Some experts suggest that all ten Commandments were written on each tablet, while others suggest that each tablet contain five of the Commandments. Either way, the primary point is that the Ten Commandments describe eternal principles that apply to both matter-over-mind and mind-over-matter.
The Ten Commandments were written twice, once in Exodus 20 and again in Deuteronomy 5. Generally speaking, the last five commandments tend to be respected while the first five commandments tend to be ignored. That is because the first five commandments lay the cognitive foundation for the second five, and cognitive foundations tend to get ignored when matter is over mind.
We will look briefly at Exodus 20, mentioning the verses rather than the number of the commandment. That is because the numbering of the Ten Commandments varies slightly dependent upon religious tradition.
2: “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.” The starting point is to recognize that a TMN of God rescues a person out of bondage to MMNs of culture and identity. This is an eternal principle, and not just a description of being saved from sin, because one can only escape existing mental networks by holding on to a different kind of mental network. Mental growth is only possible because the mind contains two kinds of mental networks: Teacher mental networks and Mercy mental networks.
3: “You shall have no other gods before Me.” When mental networks come into direct contact with each other, then they will struggle for dominance. The TMN of a concept of God must always be regarded as more general than other TMNs. The TMN of a concept of God is more general than other TMNs because it is based upon universal principles, but other TMNs may temporarily appear to be more general because humans are finite beings who naturally focus upon some limited aspect of existence. Saying this another way, it is natural for humans to think that ‘if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail’. But if all I have as a finite being is a hammer, then I should recognize that God is more than just the ultimate nail.
4-5: “You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.” A TMN of God should not be based in any finite experience or finite structure. One’s ultimate allegiance must always be to the TMN of God and not to any specific external object, country, person, or organization. Verses 5-6 say that violating this rule will have long-term consequences. One can see that this is the case when one observes what happens when God is equated with some country, tribe, or organization. Dictators with ulterior motives will demand subservience in the name of God.
7: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes his name in vain.” The word translated in vain actually means ‘emptiness or nothingness’. In other words, a mental concept of God must retain emotional significance and must not be belittled. The word translated leave him unpunished means ‘to be empty or clean’. Thus, belittling the name of God will eliminate the possibility of feeling forgiven. Using the school analogy, enrolling in a school will only generate good feelings of ‘being a student’ if one enrolls in a respected school. It feels special to be a student at Harvard University. It does not feel special to be enrolled in Smallville Community College. Thus, I suggest that this verse is not describing God zapping a person who swears. Instead it describes a message of God’s forgiveness becoming ineffective. This does not mean that this commandment has nothing to do with swearing, because swearing is an effective method of belittling one’s concept of God.
8-9: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath of the Lord your God.” Saying this cognitively, most personal activity should be guided by MMNs of personal desire and culture. But one should regularly take one’s attention away from MMNs in order to focus upon the TMN of God. Notice that this is different than either hedonism or self-denial, because one is alternating between focusing upon self and focusing upon God. Verse 11 then describes the relationship between human rest and God’s rest, which was discussed back in Hebrews 4. A cognitive interpretation does not mean that one is free to work seven days a week, because mental and physical well-being require regular rest. But Hebrews 4 makes it clear that Sabbath rest extends beyond avoiding a list of prohibited activities once a week.
12: “Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be prolonged in the land which the Lord your God gives you.” The word translated honor means ‘to be heavy, weighty, or burdensome’. Thus, this passage is not teaching blind obedience to parental authority. Instead, it is warning against the attitude that is taken by the typical teenager, who suddenly regards parents as blathering idiots who do not deserve respect. Using cognitive language, childhood experiences of growing up with parents will create strong mental networks that represent father and mother. These childhood mental networks must not be suppressed but rather treated with care. This same principle would apply to any collection of strong mental networks out of which some organization or movement grows. Growth must never suppress the past, because if it does, then the growth will come to an end, because the suppressed mental networks will continue to function under the surface, eliminating the growth.
Summarizing, the first five commandments describe the sequence by which one constructs the TMN of a concept of God that is capable of transforming personal and societal MMNs. If one includes the preamble in verse 2, then the six steps are: 0) A TMN of God makes it possible to move beyond being enslaved by cultural and personal MMNs. 1) A TMN of God must be regarded as more general than other TMNs. 2) A TMN of God must not be represented by, or equated with, any external person, object, or structure. 3) A TMN of God must not be emotionally belittled. 4) Personal life should be guided by MMNs, while taking time out regularly to stop thinking about MMNs in order to focus upon the TMN of God. 5) Childhood MMNs of authority should be respected and not suppressed.
Notice that these commandments are all stated using the language of mental networks. This means that these commandments would still be applicable in a world of mind-over-matter that was ruled by mental networks. Going further, I suggest that these first five commandments tend to be ignored by most societies precisely because they replace traditional MMNs of authority with the TMN of a concept of God. However, a simple glance at the English biblical text tells us that the first five commandments should not be ignored because four times as many words are used to describe the first five commandments as are used to state the last five. (And this verbal imbalance is even more pronounced in the original Hebrew.)
Moving on to the final five Commandments:
13: “You shall not murder.” Cognitively speaking, murder eliminates the MMN that represents some person.
14: “You shall not commit adultery.” The word translated adultery mean sex outside of marriage, and is used for both men and women. This may currently be the most controversial commandment, but I suggest that it encapsulates two eternal cognitive principles: First, mental wholeness requires an internal marriage between male thought and female thought. Male thought emphasizes technical thought, female thought emphasizes mental networks, and these two need to be married through the use of normal thought. Second, physical sex needs to occur within the framework of an internal relationship. When matter is over mind, then it is possible to have physical sex without having any mental relationship. If mind were to rule over matter, then a mental relationship would be a prerequisite for any physical relationship, because matter would be an expression of mind, especially when dealing with close intimacy between personal mental networks.
15: “You shall not steal.” Stealing is typically defined in material terms as taking a physical object from some physical location. But ownership and theft can also be defined in terms of mental networks. I own some object if I can use my mental networks to impose structure and content upon this object. An object becomes stolen from me when some other person imposes their mental networks upon the object and prevents me from imposing my mental networks. The difference between these two definitions of ownership is becoming apparent in today’s world of computers. For instance, when I buy a computer then I take a physical device home and put it on my desk. As long as this physical object resides on my desk, then using the material definition of ownership, that computer has not been stolen from me. But suppose that some company controls my computer and prevents me from controlling aspects of my computer. This computer may still belong to me physically, but in terms of mental networks, it has been partially stolen from me, because I have lost the ability to impose my mental networks upon this computer. If mind were to rule over matter, then I suggest that the only form of ownership that would remain is ownership based in mental networks.
16: “You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.” Notice that this is formulated in terms of mental networks. The emphasis is not upon violating the facts, but rather against violating the facts in order to gain an advantage over neighboring MMNs. When matter rules over mind, then empirical evidence provides an objective standard by which truth can be evaluated. But if mind were to rule over matter, then Perceiver truth would provide the framework within which personal mental networks could interact. For instance, in a civilized society, the interaction between people is governed by the rule of law. When matter rules over mind, then it is possible to hide from lawless people behind physical walls. But if mind were to rule over matter, then the fabric of society would have to be protected by choosing not to bear false witness against one’s neighbor.
17: “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.” When social interaction occurs within a framework of the rule of law, it then becomes possible to channel motivation into personal growth. Using an analogy, if one wishes to generate energy with a hydroelectric dam, then one must first trap the water behind a dam that is capable of handling the pressure without failing. A rule against coveting traps the ‘water’ of personal desire behind a ‘dam’ of ownership.
Summarizing, the final five Commandments also revolve around mental networks, and they form a sequence: 1) Allow personal mental networks to exist. 2) Intimacy between mental networks must occur within the rule of law. 3) People must be given permission to impose their mental networks upon aspects of physical reality. 4) A person should not use personal mental networks to override neighboring mental networks. 5) A person should not be motivated by neighboring mental networks.
Cherubim 9:5
Verse 5 turns to the covering of the Ark of the Covenant: “And above it were the cherubim of glory overshadowing the mercy seat”. This is the only mention of cherubim in the New Testament. The original mention of cherubim is in Genesis 3:24, where God stationed cherubim with a flaming sword to guard the way to the tree of life. Cherubim are mentioned numerous times throughout the Old Testament, mostly as overshadowing the Ark of the Covenant with their wings. God is described as being ‘enthroned above the cherubim’ in several passages, such as Psalm 99:1, 2 Samuel 6:2, and Isaiah 37:6. The impression one gains from these passages is that God is trying to protect himself from being affected by sinful humanity. It appears that God does this by surrounding himself with finite creatures that embody universal traits.
The idea of God protecting himself may seem incompatible with the theological statement that God is omnipotent. But the primary purpose is not to protect God from harm but rather to protect people from harm. This can be seen in Exodus 33:2-3, where God tells Moses: “I will send an angel before you and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite. Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey; for I will not go up in your midst, because you are an obstinate people, and I might destroy you on the way.” God is carrying out a plan of salvation for the Israelites—and ultimately the universe—which requires interaction with rebellious humans. The Israelites have just constructed the golden calf in the previous chapter, presenting God with noxious fumes of worship. God does not respond by stopping his plan, but rather by telling the Israelites that he will now interact with them through an angel in order to protect the Israelites. Saying it simply, the unpleasant odor may cause God to sneeze and wipe out the Israelites. And this is not an empty threat, because God does ‘sneeze’ several times throughout the journey of the Israelites in the wilderness, and when God sneezes then Israelites die.
Cherubim are mentioned 21 times in Ezekiel 10. Ezekiel explains in verse 15 that “they are the living beings that I saw by the river Chebar”, referring to the vision in Ezekiel 1. Four living creatures are also described in Revelation 4:6-8. Thus, it appears that cherubim are living creatures and that these three passages are all describing the same kind of beings. The two visions in Ezekiel have been studied extensively over the millennia from the viewpoint of Jewish Merkabah mysticism, and many Christian authors have attempted to compare Ezekiel’s description with the description in Revelation 4.
Cherubim also figure prominently in Ezekiel 10 when God’s glory departs from the Temple. The description of cherubim in Ezekiel 10 gives the impression of finite creatures attempting to be as universal as possible. The four cherubim in v. 10 all have the same appearance and they exhibit Teacher order-within-complexity: “As for their appearance, all four of them had the same likeness, as if one wheel were within another wheel.” They are covered with eyes, symbolizing universal awareness: “Their whole body, their backs, their hands, their wings and the wheels were full of eyes all around” (Ez. 10:12). Similarly, Rev. 4:8 says that they “are full of eyes around and within”. They are described as moving on space, somewhat like a mouse pointer on the screen, rather than moving within space: “When they moved, they went in any of their four directions without turning as they went; but they followed in the direction which they faced, without turning as they went” (Ez. 10:11). Ezekiel 1:13-14 gives the impression that they are continually in movement, and find it difficult to remain in a single finite location: “In the midst of the living beings there was something that looked like burning coals of fire, like torches darting back and forth among the living beings. The fire was bright, and lightning was flashing from the fire. And the living beings ran to and fro like bolts of lightning.” Both Ezekiel 1 and Ezekiel 10 talk extensively about intersecting, whirling wheels, in which the spirit of the living beings resides. A wheel symbolizes universality, because a circle is a simple generic shape that has no start or finish. Thus, whirling wheels would symbolize universality, and if the spirit of the living beings is in the wheels (1:21), then there is something inherently universal about living creatures. Finally, Rev. 4:8 says that the four living creatures “do not cease to say, Holy, Holy, Holy is the Lord God, the Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come”. Thus, these creatures are fixated upon universality and continue to make universal statements about God.
Summarizing, a spacesuit allows a person to temporarily visit a place that is hostile to life. It appears that the living creatures act as a sort of spacesuit for God, making it possible for a universal Being who lives within universality to be able to handle interaction with the human realm of finite experiences. Jesus Christ is the ultimate, eternal ‘spacesuit’ for God. But we are dealing here with a period of time before the coming of Jesus which is laying the foundation that will make it possible for Jesus to come. Similarly, the description in Revelation 4 of the living creatures ceaselessly praising God happens before Revelation 5 which describes incarnation showing up before the throne of God. Later on in the book of Revelation, John is spoken to by one of the living creatures, indicating that new concepts of universality are emerging. We saw this kind of transition at the end of Hebrews 7 with God swearing by the indestructible life of Jesus.
I suggest that the rest of Hebrews 9 will deal with the inherent incompatibility between the universal perfection of God and the finite, incomplete, nature of humanity. By using the word spacesuit, I am not implying that God is some sort of space-alien. Instead, in the same way that finite humans need a spacesuit to survive the infinite void of space, so it appears that God, who is at home in the infinite void, needs some kind of ‘spacesuit’ to handle the incompleteness and fallibility of human existence.
And the mercy seat is precisely where God interacts with human incompleteness and fallibility. The word translated mercy seat is used twice in the New Testament, and it means ‘a covering; a sin offering by which the wrath of a deity shall be appeased’. This idea of covering or appeasing the wrath of God can also be seen in Romans 3:24-25, where this word is translated as propitiation: “Jesus Christ; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in his blood through faith to demonstrate His righteousness because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed.” Notice how God is covering the problem of sin, rather than dealing with it or eliminating it.
The verb form of ‘mercy seat’ also occurs twice in the New Testament, and it means ‘appeasement or satisfaction of divine wrath on sin’. In Luke 18:13, the tax collector, in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, asks God to ‘be merciful to me, the sinner’, conveying the idea of someone asking God not to punish them for their sins. Similarly, Hebrews 2:17 says that Jesus “had to be made like his brethren in all things, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.” In other words, Jesus knows personally what it is like to live as a finite human, and therefore can make allowances for human shortcomings.
Finally, the adjectival form of mercy seat occurs twice in the New Testament. The first time is in Matthew 16:22 where Jesus says that he has to go to Jerusalem and die, and Peter responds by saying that God should show mercy upon Jesus and not make him die. As we saw previously, Jesus rejects the idea of God showing mercy. The second occurrence is in Hebrews 8:12 where it says that God will be merciful to the unrighteousness of people in the new second covenant.
Summarizing, I suggest that atonement should not be viewed only in terms of propitiation. Atonement solves the problem of sin, while propitiation only covers sin. God can only cover sin temporarily within a larger context of permanently eliminating sin. And it appears that God has to ‘hold his nose’ when covering sin, protected by a ‘space suit’ of cherubim. That is why I use the analogy of school to illustrate atonement. School does not just gloss over ignorance but rather solves the problem of childish stupidity by turning ignorant children into intelligent adults. Saying this more clearly, when God merely covers sin through a mercy seat, then God needs to protect his holiness. Using an analogy, God is potentially exposing himself to noxious fumes by covering sin through a mercy seat. Therefore, it is important for God the Father to protect his purity through the ‘space suit’ of cherubim who are mentally fixated upon Teacher universality. In other words, when I say that God uses Teacher thought, and that Teacher thought hates exceptions to the rule, this does not belittle the holiness of God. Instead, it attempts to define God’s sense of holiness more carefully, and defining God’s holiness does not limit this holiness in any way, shape, or manner, just as defining the nature of a deadly poison does not make this poison any less lethal. Magic loses its potency when it is explained away. God is not magic.
Verse 5 ends by saying “but of these things we cannot now speak in detail”. A more literal translation would be ‘now is not the time to speak in detail’. This seems to be saying that people may be tempted to start using technical thought to analyze the details of the tabernacle. I have noticed a similar trait in the Contributor person, who is conscious in the part of the mind that controls technical thought. In brief, the Contributor person tries to make a transition from mental networks and normal thought to technical thought as quickly as possible. Instead of becoming a well-rounded person, the Contributor person will develop some fragment of personality and then specialize in that fragment. The end result is a kind of idiot savant, who excels in some area of specialization while being deficient as a person.
One can see this tendency in Jewish gematria, which attempts to find hidden patterns in the numerical values of Hebrew words. (In Hebrew, every letter also has a numerical value.) Similarly, many have tried to find hidden meaning in the numbers mentioned in the book of Revelation. There may be something to gematria, and the numbers in the book of Revelation may have significance. But I suggest that ‘now is not the time to speak in detail’. This kind of technical analysis is premature and leads to rabbit trails that have little personal benefit. That is why the essay on the book of Revelation largely ignores numbers and focuses instead upon character development.
Applying this to Hebrews, God has been rebuilding existence upon a foundation of lasting mental networks and is now turning to the next step of rebuilding technical thought upon these lasting mental networks. The temptation will be to forget about fundamental questions and use technical thought to specialize. But that will leave the foundation for eternal life incomplete.
Instead, I suggest that it is important at this point to continue focusing upon fundamental questions such as what does the infinite God need to survive, and what do finite humans need to survive? That is why I use the analogy of a space suit, because the purpose of a space suit is survival. Technical analysis of living creatures may be a fun mind game, but it is a dangerous game to play. In contrast, if one reads the original biblical stories behind manna, Aaron’s rod, and the tablets of the law, one finds that the basic theme was staying alive. God gave the Israelites manna because they were starving of hunger in the wilderness. Aaron’s rod brought an end to an insurrection in which thousands died as a result of God’s wrath. And when God gave the tablets to Moses on Mount Sinai, the Israelites were warned that they would die if they approached the mountain too closely.
Serving in the Two Tabernacles 9:6-7
Verses 6-10 compare the first tabernacle with the second tabernacle. Looking at this literally, priests entered the holy place of the tabernacle continually, but only entered the holy of holies once a year. Theologically speaking, when Jesus died, then the veil that separated the holy place from the holy of holies was torn in two (Matt. 27:51), and the Holy Spirit was given to Christian believers (John 14:16). This describes the standard interpretation of this passage, which I suggest is theologically accurate and resulted in the birth of Christianity. However, if one looks at the text in detail, then one notices that it is written in such a manner that appears to be describing something deeper.
Verse 6 describes the first tabernacle, “Now when these things have been so prepared, the priests are continually entering the [outer] tabernacle performing the divine worship.” As a footnote in the NASB points out, the word translated outer actually means ‘first, before, principal, most important’. This does not accurately describe the holy place in the Jewish tabernacle, because both the holy place and the holy of holies were built at the same time, and the holy of holies was the more important of the two rooms. In other words, the standard theological interpretation requires a mistranslation of the Greek text, which suggests that something deeper is being described. The existence of a deeper structure is also indicated by the verb prepared, which means to ‘make exactly ready, skillfully using implements according to a tooled design’. This is consistent with Hebrews 8:5, which describes the earthly tabernacle as a copy of a heavenly pattern. The verb ‘having been prepared’ is in the past tense, indicating that the structure has to be set up before it can start to be used. Similarly, we are seeing that God is building a new structure upon the foundation of swearing-an-oath by the indestructible life of Jesus.
Verse 6 says that that the priests are ‘continually entering the first tabernacle’ in order to ‘perform the divine worship’. The word translated divine worship means ‘sacred technical service’, and was used in verse 1 to describe the first ‘regulations of divine worship’. These sacred services are being performed, which means ‘complete, accomplish, perfect’. Putting this together, some outside force is continually messing up the relationship with God, forcing the priests to make things right again by perfecting divinely ordained methodology. Looking at this literally, Jewish society has been driven since its inception by the two contrary forces of tribalism and monotheism. Posed simply, is God only a God of the Jewish people or is God a God of everyone? One of the primary reasons why Jews rejected Jesus as Messiah is because he did not fit the expected mold of a tribal, nationalistic redeemer. Therefore, sacred services have to be repeatedly perfected in order to replace the mindset of tribalism with a focus upon the God of monotheism. A similar principle applies to Christianity that is based in absolute truth. Is the character of God only revealed in the Bible, or is the character of God expressed universally in the structure of creation? Here too divine services have to continually be perfected in order to go beyond the closemindedness of fundamentalism to viewing God as the creator of all things.
Notice that in both of these cases following God turns into a bridging of opposites: God is the God of everyone, but the Jews are a chosen people of God; God speaks through the book of nature, but the Bible is a special book written by God. Notice also that both of these apparent opposites contain part of the answer, and they are being viewed as opposites because of an inadequate understanding of the nature of God. Gaining a more complete concept of God means continually bridging these opposites, which means continually re-entering the tabernacle.
Looking at this most generally, matter-over-mind also leads to a struggle between two opposing forces: Should one be ruled by the laws of nature that govern matter, or should one submit to the cognitive principles that govern the mind? If one wishes to approach God, one must continually perform sacred services in order to go beyond the mindset of materialism to focus upon the living God, while continuing to recognize that God created the material universe.
In each of these cases, it is important to perform ‘sacred technical service’ that has content. Mysticism does not perform sacred technical service. Instead, it asserts that ‘sacred’ and ‘technical’ cannot belong together because God transcends all content. Thus, Jewish tribalism can coexist with monotheism if one asserts—as Jewish Kabbalah does—that monotheism means mysticism, because Jewish tribalism will provide the content that a mystical concept of God is incapable of providing. Similarly, Christian fundamentalism can coexist with an omnipotent and omnipresent God if one asserts that the nature of God is ultimately incomprehensible. Most generally, scientific materialism can coexist with religion if one equates religion with mysticism.
Summarizing, matter-over-mind will lead naturally to two apparently opposing concepts of God, one based in matter and the other in mind. Mysticism perpetuates this split, leading to a Jewish juxtaposition between tribalism and mysticism, a Christian juxtaposition between secular existence and the transcendence of God, and a societal juxtaposition of scientific materialism and spirituality. In contrast, ‘sacred technical service’ will bridge these opposites, laying the foundation for the a second covenant with its integrated concept of God and existence.
I suggested earlier that the lampstand symbolizes cognitive styles while showbread represents structured, rational thought. Over the centuries, these two have played a continual corrective role in guiding thought in the direction of an integrated concept of God.
Cognitive styles may not be discussed explicitly, but they function implicitly whenever a person uses conscious thought to bring balance to MMNs of culture, tribalism, authority, or materialism, because each cognitive style is conscious in one of the seven cognitive modules of the mind. Saying this in more detail, the cognitive style of a person becomes apparent as a person individuates. When a person individuates, then mental networks of identity become distinct from mental networks imposed by culture and environment, and a person will then feel driven to ensure that society reflects conscious thought. For instance, I am a Perceiver person. In order to recognize that I am a Perceiver person, I had to break free of mental bondage to the MMNs of society and authority. When I became an individual, then I wanted society to respect Perceiver thought, because I am a Perceiver person who is conscious within Perceiver thought. Similarly, each cognitive style will do their best to ensure that society respects conscious thought. But this will only happen if people become mentally free of mental networks imposed by culture, authority, or the physical environment.
What commonly happens instead is that people have some sort of defining experience, often of a traumatic nature. This will impose mental networks upon the mind, causing people to band together with others who have similar mental networks, who will then put pressure as a group upon society to have these mental networks recognized and respected as a lifestyle or a special need.
Individuation is based upon mental hardware, because a person learns how to use his mind without being overwhelmed by the software of society. Lifestyle, in contrast, is based upon mental software, because people with similar core mental networks are banding together in order to support and protect their common mental networks. A mind that is emotionally controlled by mental networks of lifestyle and culture is not capable of performing the self-analysis that is required to recognize mental hardware. Instead, any attempt to discover personal capabilities will trigger emotional hot buttons and shut down rational thought. That is why cognitive style is within the holy place. One must develop an internal world of understanding that is different from the pressures of society or the needs of the physical body in order to discover one’s cognitive style.
Packaged rational understanding also functions largely at an implicit level. Academia claims to pursue the ‘loaves’ of packaged rational understanding in order to present these loaves continually before the ‘God’ of universal understanding. But academia tends to regress into methodology and schools of thought. In order to go beyond this appearance of thinking to actual rational thought, a researcher has to become an individual who is willing to walk apart from the crowd of consensus. Similarly, education claims to present ‘loaves’ of packaged rational understanding to students in order to provide them with a general understanding. But here too it is easy to confuse curriculum and classroom management with education, and the real teacher is one who has internalized understanding and is willing to go beyond merely preparing for the exam by teaching from the textbook.
Moving on, verse 7 talks about the second tabernacle: “But into the second, only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.” The NASB is accurate here because the original Greek mentions ‘second’ while implying tabernacle. I cannot find any passage in either the Old Testament or the New Testament where the word ‘second’ is used to describe the holy of holies, outside of the book of Hebrews. And the word second means ‘in the second place’ or ‘for the second time’. Thus, it appears that Hebrews is trying to convey the deeper meaning of a second tabernacle connected with a second covenant, as opposed to a first tabernacle connected with a first covenant.
Looking at this verse literally, the high priest would only enter the holy of holies once a year during the day of atonement. Leviticus 10:1-3 describes the incident that led to this restriction. The two oldest “sons of Aaron, took their respective fire pans, and after putting fire in them, placed incense on it and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he had not commanded them. And fire came out from the presence of the Lord and consumed them, and they died before the Lord. Then Moses said to Aaron, ‘It is what the Lord spoke, saying, “By those who come near me I will be treated as holy, and before all the people I will be honored.”’” We have seen that incense represents mental networks. Thus, Aaron’s sons brought mental networks before God that were incompatible with the instructions of God. Using an analogy, they placed poisonous gas within the ‘spacesuit’ of God, and God had to eliminate the noxious fumes as well as the source of these noxious fumes. This focus on mental networks can be seen in the rest of the chapter, because Aaron is specifically instructed that he must not mourn for his sons or “even go out from the doorway of the tent of meeting, or you will die; for the Lord’s anointing oil is upon you” (v.7). In other words, Aaron must not contaminate the mental networks of God with any MMNs of culture or personal desire. Verse 10 explicitly states that they must “make a distinction between the holy and the profane, and between the unclean and the clean.”
This may sound like a harsh overreaction by God, but remember that a God who uses universal Teacher thought is attempting to interact directly with a pre-scientific tribal society that is permeated with childish MMNs. A partial analogy would be asking unwashed, jungle natives to work in a semiconductor factory that requires ultra-clean conditions. The natives would have to follow instructions of cleanliness to the letter in order to ensure that the product was not destroyed. A semiconductor plant requires physical purity, while Leviticus is talking about purity of mental networks. However, if mind were to rule over matter, then purity of mental networks would determine physical purity. And impure mental networks would lead to physical contamination.
God does not try to shut down the MMNs of tribalism, because in verse 6 God allows the relatives of Aaron to mourn the death of Aaron’s sons. Using an analogy, the factory does not require perfect cleanliness within the tribal village, but only in the factory where the semiconductors are being fabricated. In the case of Jews, what was being divinely fabricated was a culture of Jewish righteousness in which the Word of Incarnation could eventually be made flesh. (I think that there is more to Judaism than just preparing for the Messiah, but how could Judaism discover this additional significance if it got stuck in mysticism, ran down rabbit trails of gematria, missed the opportunity to discover science, treated Jewish ritual as mindless tradition, and distorted the form of God’s laws through the addition of fence laws?)
Leviticus 16 then takes an entire chapter to describe the process that Aaron should go through in order to enter the holy of holies once a year, a process that involves extensive washing, sacrifice, and change of clothes. Verse 2 says that Aaron will die if he enters the holy of holies whenever he wishes, while verse 13 adds that “he shall put the incense on the fire before the Lord, the cloud of incense may cover the mercy seat that is on the ark of the testimony, otherwise he will die.” Thus, if one compares a poison or contaminant with a mental network that is incompatible with the eternal character of God, then God is essentially saying that he will eliminate any poisonous vapors that enter his spacesuit. Saying this more clearly, John 4:24 says that “God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.” As far as I can tell, the spiritual realm interacts with the mind through mental networks. Thus, if God is choosing to interact with the physical world through the Ark of the Covenant, then it would be imperative to approach this portal to the divine spiritual realm with divinely approved mental networks.
Returning to Hebrews, verse 7 summarizes the extensive preparations mentioned in Leviticus 16: “Only the high priest enters once a year, not without taking blood, which he offers for himself and for the sins of the people committed in ignorance.” The holy place is continually being entered by the priests, but the holy of holies is only being entered once a year by the high priest. This entry is ‘not apart from blood’. The word ‘sin’ is not mentioned in the original Greek. Instead, the word translated sins committed in ignorance literally means ‘that committed through ignorance or thoughtlessness’, a term only used once in the New Testament. (The day of atonement is also discussed in a later essay.)
Looking at this cognitively, we have seen that the second covenant is based in mental networks. It is necessary, every once in a while, to correct the errors of society at this deeper level of core mental networks. This deeper error-correcting does not happen ‘apart from blood’. If blood represents MMNs of personal identity, and blood is being offered to God, then MMNs of personal identity are being fragmented by encountering the TMN of God. Saying this more bluntly, when God intervenes in society at the level of core mental networks, then people will get offended, traumatized, or even killed. God has to do this because both the high priest and the people are being misled by ignorance. Saying this another way, entering the holy of holies deals with systemic flaws that pervade all of a society. For instance, Western society before World War I was permeated by the systemic flaw of an attitude of blind obedience to God and country. World War I was driven by this attitude, and it took several years of global horror to exorcise Western society of this flaw. Entering the holy of holies appears to symbolize this deeper level of divine intervention that deals with core mental networks and systemic flaws. Saying this another way, when a society enters the holy of holies, it will then come face-to-face with some of the universal principles of God, and these universal principles will force society to change no matter what the cost. For instance, Western society is now post-truth, and we are starting to discover what it means to be ruled by leaders who have no concept of truth. This error of society will eventually be corrected at the deeper level of core mental networks, this corrective process will be painful, and it will involve coming face-to-face with some of the universal principles of God.
Verse 8 makes only partial sense if one interprets it literally: “The Holy Spirit is signifying this, that the way into the holy place has not yet been disclosed while the outer tabernacle is still standing.” As was mentioned when looking at Hebrews 8:2, the phrase translated ‘into the holy place’ is ton hagion, which is consistently translated ‘of the saints’ in the rest of the New Testament. Thus, a more literal translation would be ‘the Holy Spirit is making it internally evident that the way of the saints has not yet been made visible while the first tabernacle has an insurrection.’ One could interpret this literally as saying that it was not possible for Christianity to spread widely as long as the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem remained intact. There may be some truth to this, because the Temple was destroyed about 35 years after the death of Jesus. This is when Christianity emerged as a religion that was distinct from Judaism, and the destruction of the Temple forced Judaism to reinvent itself as rabbinic Judaism, based upon the thinking of the Pharisees.
But the context suggests a deeper meaning related to mind-over-matter. I have suggested that entering the holy of holies means dealing with systemic flaws of society. Such deep-rooted flaws will naturally emerge when matter is over mind. For instance, this will lead to the systemic error of materialism, which goes beyond submitting to natural law to insisting that nothing exists except physical reality. It will also lead to the systemic error of mysticism, which goes beyond recognizing that God transcends physical matter to insisting that God transcends all rational thought. Mind-over-matter could be described as ‘the way of the saints’ because it is a path of righteousness that is based in the mental networks of people who have internalized the character of God.
This may sound at first glance like the Catholic practice of praying to saints, but I suggest that comparing these two is like comparing a witch doctor with a physician. In both cases one is seeing a special person in order to treat some ailment. But a witch doctor carries out rituals that are based in religious or cultural MMNs, while a physician performs procedures that are based in a TMN of understanding how the natural body functions. Similarly, I suggest that praying to saints also usually means carrying out rituals based in religious or cultural MMNs. In contrast, ‘the way of the saints’ involves performing procedures that are based in a TMN of understanding the character of God and the structure of the mind. I am not suggesting that all Catholic prayer to saints is meaningless. It is possible that some of it is breaking through to the spiritual realm in a righteous manner, just as some of the rituals carried out by witch doctors involve herbs with legitimate medicinal properties.
Completing a Paradigm Shift 9:8-10
Returning to verse 8, I suggest that what is being described is the final stage of a paradigm shift. When a paradigm shift occurs, the last step is to remove all vestiges of the old paradigm. By this final stage, any remnants of old thinking will be reviewed as insurrections against the new regime. For instance, any questioning of the gay/lesbian lifestyle is now being viewed (in 2018) in Canada as an insurrection against what has become the societally accepted standard of unconditional acceptance.
Because this is currently such a caustic subject, I would like to make three additional comments: First, when unconditional acceptance reaches this final stage of eliminating opposition, then this will lead to the self-contradiction of intolerant tolerance, because tolerance will become intolerant of any opposing views, which is by definition intolerance. Second, the intolerance shown by unconditional acceptance will be stronger than normal because unconditional acceptance is based in Teacher overgeneralization. A general Teacher theory cannot handle contradictory content, while an overgeneralized Teacher theory cannot handle any content. Therefore, a theory of unconditional acceptance that reaches this final stage will be unusually intolerant. Third, an overgeneralized Teacher theory shuts down Perceiver thought. But Perceiver thought gives a person the ability to learn facts about personal identity. Therefore, those who impose tolerance in an unusually intolerant manner will be blind to this self-contradiction.
Returning to the book of Hebrews, verse 9 explains that the discussion about the tabernacle is a parable for what will be happening at that time: “… which is a symbol for the present time”. The word translated symbol is used to describe the parables of Jesus in the Gospels. And the word time means ‘season or occasion’ rather than chronological time. Thus, it is clear that verse 9 is not just talking about the physical tabernacle but looking symbolically at some future societal stage.
In verse 9, people are internally realizing that the new ‘way of the saints’ will not become externally apparent as long as pockets of the ‘first tabernacle’ are still holding out. The underlying problem is that people cannot get a clear conscience: “Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience” (9:9-10). The word translated perfect means ‘working through the entire process to reach the final phase’. One can see a similar emphasis upon removing any vestiges of guilt in the current Canadian debate over gender and identity. Initially this debate was framed as ‘coming out of the closet’ in order to recognize alternate lifestyles. Then the focus shifted to changing the laws of the country in order to prevent alternate lifestyles from being persecuted. However, the focus now is upon eliminating any sort of thinking that does not unconditionally accept alternate lifestyles. In other words, the focus has shifted from legislation to the mind, from law to conscience. I suggest that this is because one is dealing with two incompatible methods of using the mind. Tolerance uses Teacher overgeneralization which eliminates Perceiver facts, while traditional morality programs the mind with Perceiver facts. Any attempt to hold on to Perceiver truth will limit the spread of tolerance. If tolerance is to be universally accepted, then any remaining thinking that involves moral Perceiver truth must be eliminated. Similarly, matter-over mind and mind-over-matter also use the mind in two incompatible ways.
The previous section warned against making the transition from new mental networks to technical thought too quickly, because that would build the new covenant upon an incomplete foundation. That is why it is important to continue dealing with core issues of survival and existence. If this path is followed, then this will lead eventually to a struggle of conscience, in which remnants of the previous way of thinking create feelings of guilt that prevent people from living completely within mind-over-matter.
Comparing this future transition with the current struggle, the future transition will be towards the new covenant that will be motivated by the benefits of living completely within mind-over-matter. In contrast, the present transition is away from absolute truth which is motivated by a desire to become totally free of the condemnation that is imposed by absolute truth. However, in both cases, people are being forced to deal with deep emotional issues that are normally swept under the rug, which makes it possible to compare these two transitions.
Speaking from personal experience, I have tried over the years to follow the theory of mental symmetry in order to pursue the goal of mental wholeness. However, I find that this cannot be done fully in the current world of matter-over-mind, because one must always make allowance for physical necessity. Therefore, I have tried to pursue mental wholeness as much as possible while still taking care of physical needs. In most cases, following mental wholeness is compatible with maintaining physical well-being, because both the mind and the physical universe were created by the same God. But one is still attempting to obey two masters, one which rules the mind and another which rules the body, and sometimes these two masters make conflicting demands. One of the results of having to serve two slightly incompatible masters is that it is not possible to have a ‘perfected conscience’. Saying this another way, if one builds for eternity, then one’s life within current temporal reality will not be optimal. Present life may be reasonably comfortable, but it will not be optimal. I think that Hebrews 9 is addressing this sort of conflict, which can only be resolved by eliminating any remaining pockets of matter-over-mind.
Verses 9-10 explain the problem associated with matter-over-mind: “Accordingly both gifts and sacrifices are offered which cannot make the worshiper perfect in conscience, since they relate only to food and drink and various washings.” Looking at this literally, the Jewish sacrificial system focused upon literal food, literal drink, and literal washing. But guilt is a mental problem that can only be dealt with partially through external means. This limitation can be seen in obsessive-compulsive behavior, in which a person performs some physical activity in order to gain mental confidence. For instance, a person may repeatedly check the stove in order to know that stove is off. But checking is a physical activity while knowing occurs within the mind. Christianity is able to deal with guilt better because it internalizes the concept of God and sacrifice.
But Christianity itself is only a partial solution because we still live in a world of matter-over-mind. For instance, the church which I currently attend has many older members. Therefore, most of the prayers involve physical illness and physical frailty. But because matter rules over mind, these prayers focus upon having the right mental attitude, or guiding the minds of those who deal with physical problems. A prayer for physical healing is usually added as an addendum, but everyone knows that this postscript will probably not be answered, whereas prayers regarding the mind often seem to be answered.
Jesus talks about the peripheral nature of food and drink in Matthew 6:24-25, precisely within the context of attempting to serve two masters: “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and wealth. For this reason I say to you, do not be worried about your life, as to what you will eat or what you will drink; nor for your body, as to what you will put on. Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothing?”
Hebrews 9 describes the problem of trying to serve two masters and says that the solution is to remove any remaining elements of the first tabernacle. Jesus says in Matthew 6 that the two masters are God and wealth. The fundamental assumption of a belief in God is that a divine mind rules over matter. The fundamental assumption of pursuing wealth is that one can only protect one’s mind by gathering matter. Jesus then adds that life is more basic than food and drink, and that the body is more basic than clothing. Similarly, when matter is over mind, then it is only possible to deal with personal issues in a peripheral manner. One can give a person food, drink, and clothing, but one cannot address the underlying problem of the mind being trapped within a physical body that will eventually stop functioning.
Notice that there are two levels to this dilemma. At the cognitive level, life already is more basic than food and drink; pursuing mental wholeness already is more fundamental than pursuing peripheral wealth. But at the physical level, matter still rules over mind. Therefore, one can either adopt an attitude of mind-over-matter by pursuing cognitive wholeness rather than physical wealth, or one can adopt an attitude of matter-over-mind by seeking physical prosperity at the cost of cognitive wholeness. The second option is already a dead end at the physical level because everyone will physically die, and it is also a dead end at the cognitive level because material prosperity will only last as long as people have mature minds. But it takes faith to follow the first option because it is non-optimal at the physical level, and one must mentally believe that the system of matter-over-mind will eventually be replaced by a system of mind-over-matter. If I wish to live within mind-over-matter, then I must acquire a mind that is capable of ruling over matter, which means that the faith that is currently required to adopt an attitude of mind-over-matter will make it possible for me to live within a future realm of mind-over-matter.
The final phrase of Hebrews 9:10 summarizes the problem and the solution: “...regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.” The word regulations means ‘a judicially-approved act; an act God approves, focusing on its result’. And the phrase for the body is literally ‘of the flesh’. Looking at this literally, this describes doing the commandments of Jewish Torah. (For Jews, the focus is upon doing law.) Looking at this most generally, God-approved actions of the flesh would describe behaving in a manner that is consistent with the physical laws of nature, a fundamental requirement of matter-over-mind. These regulations of the flesh are being imposed, which is an accurate description of what it means to live within matter-over-mind. And this imposition will continue until a period of ‘improvement, amendment, reformation’. Looking at this literally, this describes Jewish sacrificial rituals being replaced by Christianity. But as we have just seen, Christianity still does not address the underlying problem of matter-over-mind. Thus, verse 10 seems to be saying that a time of improvement will occur in the future when physical law will no longer be imposed upon people.
This final stage of eliminating the last remnants of matter-over-mind can be seen at the end of Revelation 18. In verse 21, “A strong angel took up a stone like a great millstone and threw it into the seas, saying, so will Babylon, the great city, be thrown down with violence, and will not be found any longer.’” The word translated violence only occurs once as a noun in the New Testament and actually means ‘a rush, impulse’. Thus, people are being emotionally driven to get rid of the last remnants of Babylon, similar to the manner in which people are currently feeling emotionally driven to get rid of the last remnants of Christian thought.
Revelation 18 continues by describing the split mindset of Babylon becoming eliminated from thought: It will no longer drive entertainment and industry (v.22), and it will no longer guide the relationship between male and female thought (v.23).
Platonic Forms from Christ 9:11
If physical law were to stop being imposed, then some other standard would have to intervene in order to preserve order and prevent chaos. Verses 11-14 describe this new standard, referring to the heavenly Platonic forms and exemplars that were introduced at the beginning of Hebrews 8: “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come, He entered through the greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this creation.” The NASB describes Christ appearing in the past tense and the good things coming in the future tense, but in the original Greek both appearing and coming are in the past tense. The word translated appeared means ‘come on the scene, arrive at’, while come means ‘emerge, transition from one point to another’, and good things refers to intrinsic goodness. Thus, a more literal translation would be: ‘Christ having arrived as high priest of the intrinsic goodnesses that have come into being’. The ‘intrinsic goodnesses’ have come into being as a result of the new covenant of mind-over-matter taking over, and Christ has now arrived on the scene to be a high priest of this new goodness.
How did Christ arrive on the scene? ‘Through the greater and more perfect tabernacle’. As the NASB points out, the words [He entered] are not in the original Greek. These words were obviously added to fit the literal interpretation of entering a tabernacle. But the Greek text says that Christ arrived ‘through’ or ‘on account of’ the tabernacle. Looking at this cognitively, Christ constructed the Platonic forms of a perfect tabernacle in the beginning of Hebrews 8. The essential elements of this perfect tabernacle were added in the beginning of Hebrews 9, and this perfect tabernacle is now appearing in order to act as the Platonic form for what is happening on earth. Saying this another way, the rules of natural law are being replaced by the ideals of a Platonic form. Instead of being ruled by the ‘stick’ of natural law, people are being drawn by the ‘carrot’ of Platonic perfection.
Verse 11 describes the fundamental characteristics of a Platonic form: 1) This tabernacle is greater, which means ‘large, great, in the widest sense’. A Platonic form is greater because it is based in universal Perceiver facts that apply more widely. 2) The tabernacle is more perfect, which means ‘complete in all its parts, full-grown, of full age’. This describes Teacher order-within-complexity, and a Platonic form is a set of Perceiver facts that have been made more perfect by Teacher thought. 3) The tabernacle is not ‘made with hands’. Similarly, a Platonic form is shaped by Teacher thought and not by doing Server actions or working with Perceiver facts. Server actions and Perceiver facts provide the raw material for a Platonic form, but Teacher thought does the shaping that perfects this raw material and transforms it into a Platonic form. 4) Summarizing, the tabernacle is ‘not of this creation’, a phrase which means ‘not of this order of created things’. Similarly, Platonic forms do not exist within physical reality, but rather are idealized abstractions of perfected reality which only exist within the mind as a result of Teacher thought. Going further, real Platonic forms would only exist within the Teacher realm of heaven, and Christ is arriving as high priest via the Platonic forms of the perfect tabernacle in heaven.
Notice that Christ is arriving and not Jesus. Christ refers to the divine side of Incarnation while Jesus describes the human side of Incarnation. Jesus is not mentioned in Hebrews 9, and the last mention of Jesus was in 7:22. Christ is mentioned four times in Hebrews 9: in verses 11, 14, 24, and 28. The last mention of Christ was back in 6:1 where it talked about moving beyond the elementary teachings about Christ. In chapter 6 people were only talking about the divine side of Incarnation. In chapter 9, Christ is arriving on the scene through the route of Platonic forms in order to act as a high priest for what has emerged. Using an analogy, in Hebrews 6 people are discussing the concept of Lady Justice, while in Hebrews 9, Lady Justice is showing up as an actual person in order to oversee the administration of justice.
I think that this is because Platonic forms form a symbiotic relationship with righteous reality. The Platonic forms provide the ideal, while the righteous reality fills in the details. Saying this another way, Teacher thought wants order-within-complexity; the Platonic forms provide the order, while the righteous reality provides the complexity. Righteous reality is required because the Platonic form can only bond with reality if reality is close to the Platonic form. This sort of symbiotic relationship can be seen in engineering. Engineering deals with reality, but it does so in a manner that is righteous, by recognizing natural law, respecting natural law, and attempting to apply natural law. This righteousness with respect to natural law makes it possible for engineering to form a symbiotic relationship with physics, which uses math to analyze the Platonic forms behind reality.
On the surface, verses 12-14 appear to be a theological comparison between Jewish atonement and Christian atonement. Verse 12 says that Jesus died once in order to replace the continual animal sacrifice of the Old Testament, while verses 13-14 say that animal sacrifices deal only with physical actions while the sacrifice of Jesus can lead to a clear conscience. There is truth to this interpretation, because a mental concept of incarnation and atonement is capable of dealing with internal feelings of guilt, while external sacrifices cannot address internal problems. As I mentioned previously, this is illustrated by checking behavior, in which a person attempts to use physical behavior to generate an internal sense of knowing. In the words of the Ten Commandments, if one makes the name of God empty of content, then the mechanism for dealing with guilt will no longer function. Instead, one will become like the person who checks the stove endlessly to see whether it is off, while being incapable of internally knowing that it is off.
But current Christianity is an incomplete solution, because it leads to the incompleteness of internally looking forward to eternal redemption while continuing to live within a physical universe subject to the weaknesses of the flesh. This is not a contradiction, because internal maturity will already lead to substantial physical benefits, but is is an incompleteness, because the underlying problem of matter-over-mind still remains. Thus, I suggest that the transition from Judaism to Christianity has only made this passage partially true, and that it will become fully true in the future. In order to understand this fuller meaning, one has to look at the symbolism behind the physical description.
Verse 11 talked about Jesus going through ‘the greater and more perfect tabernacle’. Verse 12 explains that this was “not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.”
This is referring to entering the holy of holies during the day of atonement, described in Leviticus 16. Verses 11-14 tell the high priest to offer a bull as a sin offering for himself and his family and then sprinkle some of the blood of the bull on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant, while verses 15-17 instruct the high priest to offer a goat as a sin offering for the people and then sprinkle this blood on the mercy seat as well.
The sin offering is described in Leviticus 4. The Hebrew word for sin is similar to the Greek word for sin, because both mean to ‘miss the mark’. Sin is viewed in Christian circles as a moral shortcoming, but the original sense of Jewish sin was strongly related to ritual uncleanness. According to the Jewish Encyclopedia, “the sin-offering was not primarily an offering for real sins, but for the unconscious violation of mere taboos. It was demanded in the case of actual sins only sporadically, and then only to a slight degree.” And if one skims through the Torah, it appears that most of the sin offerings involve ceremonial purity, such as making a priest or tabernacle holy in the sight of God, or cleansing a building or person that has become unclean. This ritual concept of sin is expanded to include moral sin in the later books of the Old Testament, and Jesus extends sin in the Sermon on the Mount to include thought as well as behavior, but the original definition of sin appears to involve primarily ceremonial purity, especially with respect to God. Saying this another way, the original definition of sin appears to focus upon preserving a spacesuit for God. This relates also to the three stages of personal transformation: The first stage is constructing a concept of God, while the second stage is allowing this concept of God to guide behavior in a righteous manner. Thus, the original definition of sin focused upon preserving a concept of God, and the definition of sin was then expanded later on to apply to normal human behavior.
Hebrews 9:12 is describing this sort of ceremonial purity, because the holy of holies is being entered through the blood of goats and calves. Modern scholarship typically interprets this using what mental symmetry would refer to as a combination of mental networks and technical thought. In other words, holy MMNs must be kept mentally separate from secular MMNs, which can be done by separating one from the other using external walls and religious taboos. For instance, in many Catholic churches, only the clergy are allowed to enter the chancel, which is separated from the rest of the church by a rood screen. Movement between religious and secular is then performed by using technical thought to carry out some religious ritual. Something similar is happening cognitively when an athlete tries to ensure success by performing some superstitious activity. This is a valid cognitive mechanism that explains much religious activity, and it is possible that the rituals of entering the holy of holies were originally viewed by most Jews in this manner. But this reduces religion to the physical level of actions and experiences, which explains why athletes are prone to superstitious activity, because an athlete lives within the physical realm of actions and experiences.
I suggest that one can come up with a deeper explanation if one recognizes that a concept of God is based in the TMN of a general understanding. God wants righteousness: Server actions that are consistent with the character of God in Teacher thought. But God is a universal Being who lives within universal law. On the one hand, this means that God cannot handle any exceptions to the rule, but instead wants laws to be applied everywhere without exception. On the other hand, a universal law can be applied in many different specific ways, which means that God can use ritual as a covering for sin. If some religious ritual expresses the universal law in symbolic form, then God can view this specific ritual as a possible expression of the universal law, making it possible for a person to approach God and survive. But this will only work if the religious ritual is kept separate from the chaotic MMNs of normal life. In other words, holiness must be kept separate from the MMNs of normal life, as stated by most modern scholarship. But what resides within the walls of holiness is not the MMN of some holy experience, but rather the TMN of God’s universal order as expressed by the Server actions of God-ordained religious ritual. These religious rituals will feel universal to Teacher thought as long as they are not connected with the MMNs of normal life. Thus, God is not covering sin in some random manner, but rather covering sin by having priests perform a religious ritual that expresses universal Teacher understanding in some symbolic manner.
As was mentioned previously, this ceremonial purity relates to the first stage of personal transformation, because the goal is to establish and preserve the character of God. But ceremonial purity is not the final goal. Instead, it lays the foundation for the second stage of righteousness, which one sees being developed through the rest of the Old Testament. This also is not the final goal, but instead laid the foundation for the Word to be made flesh by living in Jewish righteousness in order to open the door to the third stage of personal rebirth.
Christ Entering the Holy Place Once for All 9:12
Now let us jump forward to a time in the future when the last vestiges of matter-over-mind are being eliminated. (I do not think that this means that all matter in the universe is being eliminated, but rather that minds living within mind-over-matter have developed to the point where they are influencing matter whenever minds come into contact with matter.) The problem of serving two incompatible masters has been eliminated by choosing to fully follow mind-over-matter. But what remains is the problem of human finiteness. Finite humans are not following God directly, but rather attempting to follow a concept of God to the best of their abilities. The result will be sins of ignorance, committed both by the priests and by the population. For instance, modern science tries to think and act in a righteous manner by following the universal laws of nature. But this is being done in an incomplete manner because the laws of nature are not yet fully known, and scientists themselves are attempting to apply science in a righteous manner while remaining unrighteous individuals themselves. This sort of systemic inconsistency would become apparent when entering the holy of holies. This inconsistency is already present but it is not apparent because it is being masked by more critical problems. However, once these more critical problems were dealt with, then this problem would come to the fore.
The solution is for Christ to enter the holy place once for all in order to obtain eternal redemption (v.12). Notice that Christ is entering and not Jesus. Jesus describes the finite side of Incarnation while Christ refers to the divine, infinite side of Incarnation. Because the problem is being addressed in a universal manner, it only needs to be solved ‘once for all’. The universal nature of this solution is emphasized by the verb obtain, which means to ‘find, learn, discover, especially after searching’. One does not simply find a general solution. Instead, it has to be learned and discovered through a process of searching. The phrase ‘the holy place’ is not an accurate translation. Instead, the original Greek is ‘the holies’, in the plural without mentioning the word ‘place’. Thus, what is being entered is more general than some specific holy of holies, consistent with the idea that this is happening at the generic level of Platonic forms.
This is actually the only time that the noun redemption, the verb redeem, or the related noun ransom is used in the book of Hebrews. (These three words are only used a total of 8 times in the New Testament: in Matthew, Mark, Luke, Titus, Hebrews, and 1 Peter, but not in Romans.) Redemption means ‘the payment of the full ransom price to free a slave’. Thus, something unique is happening in this verse, because the word that is being used is unique. This definition makes sense in terms of Platonic forms beginning a symbiotic relationship with righteous reality. The basic problem is that God lives in the universal realm of Teacher perfection, while humans live in the fallible realm of Mercy specifics. From the divine side, the only kind of finite being that can bring pleasure to God is a Platonic form, which embodies the ideal essence of some object or person. Using an analogy, God cannot enjoy real circles, because all real circles are imperfect, and God demands perfection. But Platonic forms are currently imaginary concepts that do not exist in reality. Therefore, incarnation has to go through a process that makes it possible to appear as a Platonic form within physical reality. Turning now to the human side, finite humans have to reach the stage where they are being guided by Platonic forms of perfection rather than by childish MMNs or by mental networks based in physical reality. When these two requirements have been met, it then becomes possible for the real Platonic form of a real Christ to interact with the imaginary Platonic forms of Christ that are guiding people’s minds. Until then, people are in slavery, disconnected from God because of being finite and fallible. This bonding of imaginary Platonic form with real Platonic form pays the price that is required to redeem humanity from slavery. This happened theologically when Jesus died on the cross, but it will happen in reality in the future as described in verse 12. Going further, this redemption is described as eternal, which means that it does not have to be repeated. Putting this into cognitive perspective, a concept of the Holy Spirit emerges when Platonic forms combine to create what Plato called a Form of the Good. Consistent with this, verse 14, which we will examine a moment, explains that this transition will happen “through the eternal Spirit”.
For instance, lengths were measured in feet back in Greek times, but the length of one foot varied from city to city, ranging from 270 mm to 350 mm. This sort of individual variation was inevitable because measurement was based in the length of a person’s physical foot. In the 16th century, this was regularized using averaging. Sixteen men emerging from a church on Sunday morning would be picked at random, and they would be told to place all of their left feet in a row. The official foot would then be defined as 1/16th of this total length. During the French Revolution, this was replaced by the universal definition of a meter, which was first defined as 1/10,000,000th of the distance from the equator to the North Pole, and then as a Platinum bar stored in the national archives in 1799. In 1959 the foot was redefined as exactly 0.3048 meters. Looking at this cognitively, standards based in personal MMNs were replaced by a universal standard based in the TMN of an integrated metric system of measurement. The personal standard was then ultimately redefined in terms of the universal standard. But the underlying problem of basing length in a physical object still remained. In order to solve this problem, a real Platonic form would be required, something which does not currently exist. Even though the Greeks talked about Platonic forms, the Platonic form of a foot would have been meaningless to the Greeks because they based their measurement of feet in MMNs of personal identity rather than in the TMN of a general understanding.
Christianity does not currently function at this level of Platonic forms. Instead, when a Christian emphasis upon the Spirit comes into contact with culture, then culture usually wins. One major result is that Christian praise-and-worship, which supposedly focuses upon the holiness and perfection of God, has generally become uglier, stupider, and louder over the last few decades in order to continue adapting to the path of secular society. More specifically, instead of perfecting human inadequacies, recent movements that have focused on the Holy Spirit have typically brought the Holy Spirit down to the level of a childish idiot. More personally, I have found that charismatic and Pentecostal Christians can be lacking in common sense. In summary, one can currently find a better illustration of the work of the Holy Spirit in the measurements made by scientists who deny the existence of the Holy Spirit than one can in the typical Christian who claims to worship and follow the Holy Spirit.
The Red Heifer 9:13
Verse 13 introduces a new element, which is the ashes of a heifer: “For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who are being defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh...” This is referring to the red heifer, which is described in Numbers 19. A heifer is a young cow that has not had a calf, and the word heifer is only used once in the entire New Testament. (The English word ‘heifer’ specifically means a young cow that has not had a calf, while both the Hebrew and the Greek words only refer to a young female cow. However, Jewish tradition would regard mating as ‘work’, leading indirectly to the conclusion that the young cow has to be a ‘heifer’.) According to Numbers 19, a legitimate red heifer must be entirely red, without blemish, and must not have been used to perform work. Jewish tradition adds that this means that this cow can only have one hair on its entire body that is not red, and no one can even lean on this cow or put a piece of cloth on its back, because that would force the cow to ‘work’. Numbers 19 says that such a red heifer is to be burned completely and its ashes placed within water. A person who has touched a corpse can then be made ritually clean by sprinkling such a person with this ash water. Rabbinic experts regard the red heifer “as a classic example of a hukkah (i.e., a statute for which no rational explanation can be adduced, but which must be observed because it is divinely commanded)”, declaring that “the mysterious red heifer... left even King Solomon, the wisest of all men, scratching his head in wonderment.” However, I keep discovering that one can make sense of so-called theological mysteries if one approaches the topic from a cognitive perspective. (If biblical mysteries make sense when one analyzes them in terms of the functioning of the mind, this provides strong corroborative proof that the Bible was ultimately written from the perspective of mind-over-matter.)
Looking at this from a cognitive perspective, I suggest that there is a strong resemblance between the red heifer and the anointing of Jesus by Mary, described in John 12:1-8. (Mark 14:3-9 and Matt. 26:6-13 are probably referring to the same event, while Luke 7:36-50 is probably describing a different event.) John, Mark, and Matthew all mention that Jesus responds to the anointing by saying that it is for his burial.
The general cognitive principle is that a mental network can bridge the gap when technical thought falls apart. Incarnation is based in technical thought, and we have seen that technical thought is inherently limited to some context, and it has to fall apart in order to expand beyond this context. We have also seen that continuing to use the technical thought within some context will lead to the formation of a mental network which will motivate technical thought to continue developing this context. Hebrews 9 has described this process in reverse, with technical thought being reconstructed from a foundation of core mental networks. A similar kind of reconstruction occurs when a mental network bridges a gap in technical thought. One may not have a technical understanding of what is happening, but if one has an emotional comprehension of what is happening at the level of mental networks, then one can follow intuition until technical thought has a chance to regroup and reconstruct.
This emotional bridging is different than the factual bridging that is provided by Perceiver thought—as represented by Jesus giving the keys of heaven to Peter. A ‘Peter’ uses normal thought to connect one specialization with another by finding similarities and common patterns. A red heifer uses mental networks to make it emotionally possible to handle the transition from one specialization to another. (The relationship between these two is discussed in the essay on 1 Peter.)
For instance, this often happens when attempting to fix some machine. One may not know exactly what the problem is, but one has a gut feeling that the problem lies in some particular direction. One then pursues this gut feeling until the precise nature of the problem and its solution become clear.
Gut feeling, intuition, and mental networks are all expressions of female thought, while male thought naturally emphasizes technical thought. Using biblical language, Mary, a female, anointed Jesus with the fragrance of a mental network, and this anointing was for the burial of Jesus, a male Contributor person. This interplay between Mary and Jesus is analyzed in the essay on John 11-17. Most mental networks emphasize the status quo, driving a person to continue acting or thinking in the current manner. A mental network will only bridge the gap if this mental network motivates a person to behave in a manner that is consistent with the other side of the gap. And part of this emotional bridging is the emotional conviction that something actually exists on the other side of the gap.
Looking now at the big picture, the purpose of the red heifer is to bring ritual purity to those who come into personal contact with death. Similarly, Mary was anointing Jesus for his burial. Likewise, the reference to the ashes of a heifer in Hebrews 9:13 is followed by Hebrews 9:15-17, which talks about a new covenant being introduced through death. Thus, all three passages are discussing anointing for death in some manner. Finally, one of the key features of the anointing of Mary is that female thought with its mental networks is being used to bridge a gap in male technical thought. Mary was obviously a female. Similarly, sacrificing a male bull is mentioned about one hundred times in the Torah, but Numbers 19 is the only case where it specifically states that a female cow needs to be offered. The only other Old Testament reference to offering a cow is in 1 Samuel 6, where the Philistines return the Ark of the Covenant to Israel on a cart that is drawn by two cows, and these cows are eventually sacrificed by the Israelites. That reference may be appropriate because the Ark of the Covenant was passing from one official jurisdiction to another—from Palestine to Israel.
This kind of mental network that focuses upon the future can be seen in the case of Mary and Jesus. The name Mary has a curious double meaning: In ancient Egyptian, Mary means ‘love or beloved’, while in Hebrew, Miriam means bitterness or rebellion. This conveys the impression that the worldly loves of ‘Egypt’ have been left behind in order to follow God, and that these abandoned hedonistic pleasures are now being viewed as rebellion against God, along with a tinge of bitterness that they can no longer be enjoyed. When pleasures are abandoned, then all that remains is the memory of good experiences. When Lazarus got sick, then Jesus waited until Lazarus died before visiting Mary and Martha. This delay would have reinforced the feeling that following God means losing out on the good life. In John 11:21, Martha complains to Jesus that “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died”. Similarly, in verse 32, Mary says “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died”.
Jesus responds by turning the focus from the lost past to a future resurrection, first by telling Martha that Lazarus will rise again, and then by physically resurrecting Lazarus. This resurrection of Lazarus (which means ‘God has helped’) sets the context for Mary anointing Jesus for his burial in John 12. This anointing has lasting symbolic significance because both Matthew 26:13 and Mark 14:9 say that this story will be related wherever the gospel is proclaimed in the whole world.
The Gospel of John emphasizes the connection between the anointing of Mary and the raising of Lazarus, because John 11 introduces the story of the raising of Lazarus by clarifying that “it was the Mary who anointed the Lord with ointment, and wiped his feet with her hair, whose brother Lazarus was sick” (v.2). Going the other way, the story of Lazarus in John 11 is followed in the beginning of John 12 by the story of Mary anointing Jesus.
There is also a curious connection between the anointing of Mary and the red heifer through the name ‘Lazarus’. This name is used 15 times in the New Testament, but only in the context of two stories. First, Jesus calls the beggar Lazarus in the rather strange parable about Lazarus and the rich man found in Luke 16:19-31. Second, the name Lazarus is mentioned in the resurrection of Lazarus and the response to this resurrection described in John 11-12. The name Lazarus does not occur anywhere outside of these two passages.
The parable of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16 contains an unusual combination of elements. First, this is the only time that Jesus gives a specific name to one of the characters in his parables. Second, this is the only parable that describes life after death. Third, Lazarus is in ‘Abraham’s bosom’, while the rich man in the parable is separated from Lazarus by an uncrossable gap. In John 11, Lazarus dies and crosses the uncrossable gap. Similarly, Mary anoints Jesus in preparation for Jesus dying in order to cross an uncrossable gap. Likewise, in Luke 16 Lazarus dies and ends up across an uncrossable gap. Similarly, Numbers 19 says that the purpose of the ritual of the red heifer is to restore holiness after coming into personal contact with death.
Going further, the name Lazarus is the Greek form of the Hebrew name Eleazar. (The meaning ‘God has helped’ comes from this Hebrew name ‘Eleazar’.) And Eleazar is explicitly mentioned in the ritual of the red heifer described in Numbers 19. Numbers 19:3 says that the red heifer should be given to Eleazar the priest and slaughtered in his presence, verse 4 says that Eleazar should sprinkle the blood on the tent of meeting, while verse 5 says that the heifer should be ‘burned in his sight’. It is curious that this command would be given explicitly to Eleazar, even though the chapter begins by saying that “the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, saying...”
As far as I can tell, God only gives specific instructions to Eleazar two other times while Aaron is living. One occurrence is in Numbers 16, after the rebellion led by Korah and other priests: “Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Say to Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, that he shall take up the censers out of the midst of the blaze, for they are holy; and you scatter the burning coals abroad. As for the censers of these men who have sinned at the cost of their lives, let them be made into hammered sheets for a plating of the altar, since they did present them before the Lord and they are holy; and they shall be for a sign to the sons of Israel” (v.36-39). Notice that Eleazar is rescuing holiness that has been defiled by rebellion and death. The ritual of the red heifer that is described three chapters later appears to be a formalization of the process of restoring holiness after death. The only other divine instructions given to Eleazar are in Numbers 4:16, where God says in a general way that Eleazar the son of Aaron is to be responsible for the oil for lighting, incense, and anointing, in addition to the grain offering. Thus, in the same way that Lazarus played a major enabling role in Mary anointing Jesus for his burial, so Eleazar plays a major role in anointing and holiness related to death.
Now let us turn to the ritual of the red heifer as described in Numbers 19. Red probably represents blood, and blood is a cognitively natural symbol for personal identity. Looking at this in more detail, blood has the color of red. In addition, the Hebrew word for red is spelled the same as the Hebrew name Adam, emphasizing the connection between the color red and personal identity, because Adam means ‘mankind’ as well as being the specific name given to the first human. Finally, if one removes the initial ‘aleph’ from the name ‘Adam’, then this spells the Hebrew word for blood, which is ‘dam’.
The red heifer is supposed to be free of ‘blemish or defect’. Looking at this cognitively, this describes personal identity which is not emotionally bound to the current circumstances by any flawed MMNs. Going the other way, the red heifer should never have had a yoke placed on it. A yoke places an individual within some system of authority. Being un-yoked describes personal identity which is not emotionally bound to the current circumstances by any human TMNs of organization and structure.
After the red heifer is slain, Eleazar sprinkles the blood of the heifer seven times on the tent of meeting and then the red heifer is burned completely in his sight, preserving the ashes. Looking at this cognitively, this gives the impression that personal identity is not just dying to the current context, but dying completely. Burning the heifer in the sight of Eleazar implies that this dying affects the belief that God will help, as reflected by the response shown by Mary and Martha to Jesus when Lazarus dies.
What makes the ritual of the red heifer so puzzling to Jewish scholars is that the ashes of the red heifer bring ceremonial cleanness to someone who has touched the dead, but everyone who prepares the ashes and who participates in the ritual becomes ceremonially unclean until the evening—including the person who has been sprinkled with the ashes and water. Saying this more simply, the ceremony that brings purity to those who have personally encountered death also brings temporary impurity.
I suggest that this is because two basic principles are being played against one another, and that the stories involving Eleazar and Lazarus describe various ways in which these two principles can interact.
The first principle is spiritual sowing-and-reaping, which is described by Paul in Galatians 6:7-9: “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap. For the one who sows to his own flesh will from the flesh reap corruption, but the one who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life. Let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we will reap if we do not grow weary.” Paul begins by warning that the person who ignores this principle is self-deceived and mocking God, telling us that this is a fundamental law based in the character of God. This is a law of cause-and-effect, but it is not a law of natural cause-and-effect. Instead, a person sows to the spiritual realm and then eventually reaps eternal life from the spiritual realm. Looking at this cognitively, concrete Contributor-controlled technical thought thinks in terms of cause-and-effect. Incarnation combines concrete technical thought with abstract technical thought. The law of spiritual cause-and effect says that the ‘cause’ of going beyond the physical to the spiritual will eventually be followed by an ‘effect’ of receiving a lasting, personal result from the spiritual. Using an analogy, natural cause-and-effect is like believing that if one works hard enough, then one can construct a building. This may be true, but it also has its limitations. Spiritual cause-and-effect is like believing that if one gives resources to research, then research will eventually come up with machines that make it possible to construct buildings more efficiently. Notice that the spiritual cause-and-effect does not solve the problem itself but rather enables a person to solve the problem. For instance, one does not sow $10 to the spirit and then reap $20 back from the spirit. Instead, what is reaped from the spirit is eternal life—one becomes the sort of person who is capable of solving the problem. Similarly, giving money to research does not in itself construct a building. Instead, it provides the ideas and the skills that are needed to build machines that are capable of constructing buildings.
The second principle is that “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble” (James 4:6). This is also a fundamental principle that is repeated several times throughout the Bible. The word proud means ‘showing oneself above others, overtopping, conspicuous above others, pre-eminent’, while opposed means ‘to reject the entire makeup of something… from its very set up to the final way it is ordered’. Looking at this cognitively, God in Teacher thought is opposed to the entire mindset of building upon Mercy status. That is because Teacher thought wants rules to apply without exception, and anyone who uses Mercy status to become a source of rules is—by definition—not subject to rules. Instead, God “gives grace to the humble”. A person who is humble places himself within the rule of law, making it possible for the universal law in Teacher thought to apply to that person as well.
Now let us apply these two principles to the ritual of the red heifer. Sacrificing a red heifer is a symbol of sowing to the spirit. Instead of being used in the present, the red heifer is being sacrificed to the spiritual realm in the present in order to gain future benefits of life from the spiritual realm. But what is being offered is not just any cow but rather a cow without any blemish, and we saw earlier that an offering of human perfection can form a relationship with the Platonic forms of the spirit. Using Christian theological language, Jesus had to be sinless in order to be acceptable to God as an offering. God started with the physical symbol of a flawless bovine in Numbers with the Israelites in order to lay the foundation for the more complete sacrifice of Jesus as a flawless human later in the Gospels.
But killing a red heifer is an example of pride, because a flawless specimen is being killed. Violence is being done to an innocent victim. Thus, participating in the ceremony makes a person unclean. This inherent contradiction can be seen in the words of Jesus just before he is betrayed: “The Son of Man is to go, just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed!” (Matt. 26:24). This same contradiction can be seen in the words of Jesus from the cross: “But Jesus was saying, Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing’” (Luke 23:34). Jesus is asking God to focus upon the first principle of spiritual sowing-and-reaping rather than the second principle of pride-versus-humility.
In the case of the red heifer, the principle of spiritual sowing-and-reaping leads to lasting purification, because it involves human life, while the principle of pride-versus-humility leads to temporary impurity because it involves animal life. Human life is higher than animal life. However, many ancient civilizations practiced human sacrifice, a practice described in the Bible in connection with the God Molech. In Jeremiah 7:31, God declares this human sacrifice as something “which I did not command, and it did not come into My mind.” Looking at this in terms of the two fundamental principles, sacrificing human life to God would lead to temporary spiritual power because one is sowing to the spirit, but it would also lead to lasting personal damnation, because one is exhibiting the ultimate form of pride over an innocent human being. Leviticus 20:1-5 makes this clear by saying that anyone who sacrifices their offspring to Molech should be stoned to death and will be cut off from the Jewish people because “he has given some of his offspring to Molech, so as to defile My sanctuary and profane My holy name” (v.3). In addition, if this offending person is not put to death, then God will set himself “against that man and against his family” (v.5).
This may explain why there is no reference to incense in the ritual of the red heifer. This is strange because incense figures so prominently in these rituals and Eleazar was in charge of maintaining the oil for the incense. Despite this, incense is not mentioned once in Numbers 19. This is quite different than the anointing of Mary, because John 12:3 says that the house was filled with the fragrance of Mary’s perfume. In contrast, what dominates the ritual of the red heifer is ashes, the only time that ashes are mentioned in the Law of Moses. Ashes represent death—physical death as well as the death of mental networks. When pride-versus-humility is the dominant feature of a ritual, then it makes sense that God would not want to smell this ritual. In contrast, the anointing of Mary covers the death of Jesus with the fragrance of a positive mental network, making spiritual cause-and-effect the dominant theme rather than pride-versus-humility. This transformation of transformation is described in Isaiah 61:1-4: “The Lord has anointed me to bring good news to the afflicted… to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord… to grant those who mourn in Zion, giving them a garland instead of ashes, the oil of gladness instead of mourning… then they will rebuild the ancient ruins, they will raise up the former devastations.” Notice that society is going through a transitional period of death and rebuilding, but the ashes are being replaced with the oil of gladness.
Turning now to the New Testament references to Lazarus, in both cases the concept of ‘God helping’ is being transformed. In Luke 16, Lazarus is a poor man lying outside of the gate of the rich man who is “habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, joyously living in splendor every day” (v.19). Lazarus dies without ever being able to enjoy any of this earthly wealth. Saying this symbolically, Lazarus is like the red heifer that dies completely to the present. The death of Lazarus satisfies the first principle of spiritual cause-and-effect, because he is “carried away by the angels to Abraham’s bosom”. Going further, the rich man dies and ends up in the torment of Hades. He sees Abraham far away and says “Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame” (v.24). This request is strikingly similar to the manner in which water filled with the ashes of the red heifer was sprinkled upon the person and items contaminated by death. Abraham responds by saying that they are separated by an uncrossable chasm. In other words, Lazarus has managed to make it to the other side. Saying this symbolically, the concept of God helping has become transformed. The rich man then asks Abraham to raise Lazarus from the dead in order to warn his brothers, but Abraham responds that “If they do not listen to Moses and the prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead” (v.31). This was literally true, because in John 11 Jesus did raise the other Lazarus from the dead and most of the Jews were not persuaded to believe. But I suggest that it is also cognitively true, because visible evidence is by definition sowing to the flesh. If one wishes to sow to the spirit, then one must in some way follow unseen principles.
One can see how the concept of help from God is being transformed by looking at the preceding verses in Luke 16. Jesus told the audience in verse 13 that “you cannot serve God and wealth.” But “the Pharisees, who were lovers of money, were listening to all these things and were scoffing at Him” (v.14). Jesus responds by telling the Pharisees that “You are those who justify yourselves in the sight of men, but God knows your hearts; for that which is highly esteemed among men is detestable in the sight of God” (v.15).
Summarizing so far, the Pharisees regard help from God as physical help; they are functioning at the level of the typical prosperity preacher who believes that physical wealth proves that one is receiving help from God. They are also thinking in terms of pride-versus-humility because they ‘justify themselves in the sight of men and they respond to Jesus’ words with scoffing, a strong word that means ‘deride, scoff at, mock greatly’. Jesus responds that they should not regard their personal status and physical wealth as help from God, because God finds their attitude detestable, an equally strong word that means ‘what admits a foul odor and hence is disgustingly abhorrent’. (Notice the reference to God and smell.)
Jesus then adds that help from God is currently undergoing a major transformation: “The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached” (v.16). This preaching about the kingdom of God is not just verbal talk but rather involves help from God because “everyone is forcing his way into it” (v.16). (This word use force is only used twice in the New Testament, here and also in the parallel passage in Matthew 11:12.) Force implies behavior that violates the current standards of society. But if one wishes to enter the kingdom of God then one must use the right kind of force. First, one must hold on to God’s law in Teacher thought rather than clinging to current existence: “It is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one stroke of a letter of the Law to fail” (v.17). Second, one cannot simply divorce the existing culture, or become part of some new culture that has become divorced from the existing culture: “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery” (v.18). This verse would apply to physical marriage, but within the context it would refer to divorcing existing female mental networks of culture and religion.
That brings us back to the requirement that a red heifer must not have done any work. The red heifer can only make a transition to the new by being emotionally free of the present. Similarly, Lazarus in the parable can make the transition to the new because he was a complete outsider to the current system of physical prosperity. Cognitively speaking, Lazarus did not divorce his wife or marry a woman who was divorced. I do not think that this means that only the poor can enter heaven. Instead, Abraham represents the transition of leaving existing culture in order to follow God by faith. If Lazarus is in the bosom of Abraham, then Lazarus has become a kind of red heifer who also has left existing culture in order to follow God.
Turning now to the resurrection of Lazarus in John 11, the idea of God helping was transformed in several ways. Most obviously, Lazarus, which means ‘God has helped’, was physically resurrected. But Lazarus had to go through a sort of red heifer experience, being abandoned to death by Jesus in order to be resurrected. Mary and Martha’s concepts of help from God were also transformed, with Jesus transforming the idea of God healing Lazarus to the greater idea of God resurrecting Lazarus. Mary’s anointing of Jesus was also a transformation of God helping, because Mary and Martha were not just providing for the needs of Jesus within the current context, but giving an anointing that made it easier to move to a better context. Most significantly, the death and resurrection of Jesus transformed the manner in which God can help humans. And Jesus was following the principle of spiritual cause-and-effect in a manner that did not actively violate the principle of pride-versus-humility. Jesus waited passively until Lazarus was dead, but Jesus did not take any active steps to kill Lazarus. Compare this with the chief priests who decide in John 12:10 that they need to preserve their personal status by killing both Lazarus and Jesus.
We currently live in a post-Christian world in which belief in absolute Christian truth is almost totally dead. Using the language of Matthew 24, all of the temple stones of absolute religious truth have become torn down until not one stone is left standing upon another. One of the goals of mental symmetry is to provide an anointing that can bridge the gap between this destruction of absolute truth and the arrival of universal truth described at the beginning of the book of Hebrews. In order to do this, one must go beyond male technical thought to female mental networks, which means developing and applying the theory of mental symmetry to the extent of reprogramming core mental networks of identity. The red heifer never had a yoke placed upon it. Similarly, I have managed so far to avoid submitting to the yoke of some large corporation, academic system, or union, and I have found that this has made it possible to think outside of the box. This has also meant living as an outsider, “wanting to be fed with the crumbs which were falling from the rich man’s table” (Luke 20:20). This has caused my concept of help from God to become transformed, as illustrated by the concepts being described in this essay on the book of Hebrews. In other words, I am not just suggesting theoretically that there is some sort of relationship between the various stories involving Lazarus and Eleazar. Instead, I am longing personally for there to be a relationship, and my theoretical analysis resonates with this personal longing. Finally, I have tried to be guided by the two principles that we discussed, sowing to the spirit and waiting for results, and choosing not to push the theory of mental symmetry upon others.
A Purified Conscience 9:13-14
We have looked at the red heifer in some detail. Let us now return to Hebrews 9, starting with verses 13-14: “For if the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling those who have been defiled sanctify for the cleansing of the flesh, how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?” The word translated defiled means ‘ceremonially defile, by treating what is sacred as common or ordinary’. Sanctify means to ‘make holy, set apart as holy’, which is the opposite of ‘defile’. The word cleansing is only used once in the New Testament and means ‘purification, particularly a type resulting from ceremonial cleansing’. Thus, the emphasis of verse 13 is upon restoring ritual purity.
The emphasis of verse 14, in contrast is upon the internal. The word translated cleanse is slightly different than the word translated ‘cleansing’ in verse 13, and means ‘to make pure by removing all admixture’. Thus, the focus is upon getting rid of impurities rather than upon being ceremonially clean. What is being cleansed is not the flesh but rather conscience, and the word translated conscience means ‘an innate discernment, self-judging consciousness’. Notice how both of these terms relate to self-consistency, the sort of purity that comes from being ruled in an integrated manner by a single master rather than being driven by more than one master. The word serve does not mean to be a slave but rather means ‘someone hired to accomplish a technical task because qualified’. Again the focus is upon having the right internal content rather than upon satisfying ritual requirements.
One can interpret this comparison literally as the transition from Judaism to Christianity. Judaism restored ritual purity using a system of animal sacrifice, which included the ashes of the red heifer. Christianity replaced this system of ceremonial purity with a focus upon conscience and internal purity. Instead of having to perform the actions of animal sacrifice, one could build an internal relationship with a concept of God.
The tendency among Christians has been to regard Christianity as a replacement for Judaism, leading typically to some form of replacement theology. One is supposed to follow conscience rather than ceremonial ritual. But humans live in physical bodies and are not just disembodied minds. Therefore, following only conscience creates an emotional void that will naturally be filled through religious ritual. But instead of returning to the God-ordained rituals of the law of Moses, Christianity has created its own set of religious rituals. In contrast, verse 14 does not describe conscience and the blood of Christ as a replacement for Jewish ceremony but rather as something better, because the word translated more ‘refers to what is better as compared to what is merely good. This involves prioritizing or ranking to elevate the better over the good’. Our analysis has been trying to follow this better path by viewing Jewish ritual purity as a physical expression of universal principles, seeing the external as an illustration of the internal rather than something that one abandons to focus upon the internal.
That brings us to the deeper meaning of verses 13-14. The words in verse 14 refer to internal purity and self-consistency. It is impossible to achieve total internal purity when one attempts to follow God mentally in a world that is guided by matter-over-mind. That is because one will be subject to two masters: one will be following conscience guided by what one believes to be the internal voice of God, and one will be physically following the character of God as revealed through matter. And whenever one is forced to submit to the laws of matter, one will feel as if one is turning one’s back upon serving God, and one will need ritual to cleanse one’s mind from the defilement of the flesh. Saying this more crudely, it will feel disrespectful to have to pee in the middle of a church service—and I am deliberately describing this body function in a manner that feels non-religious. More generally, I have often heard worship leaders begin a church service by telling the congregation to forget about the physical cares of the week and focus upon worshiping God. Cognitively speaking, I suggest that this is why praise-and-worship begins with praise and ends with worship. The praise is loud and exciting in order to draw the emotional focus towards a concept of God, while the worship is quiet and contemplative in order to allow this concept of God to bring comfort to personal identity.
This serving of two masters can lead to more extensive problems, as illustrated by today’s society with its focus upon objective science and physical matter. If one defines conscience as a drive to achieve internal consistency, then today’s society is being driven by a conscience of dead works, because it is attempting to view every aspect of human existence as an expression of lifeless natural process. For instance, love is defined as merely chemical attraction driven by brain structure, while life itself is asserted to be the result of complicated molecules emerging through random change. When conscience is driven at such a deep level to serve dead works, then some version of a red heifer is needed to cleanse the mind of this intimate contact with death.
The long-term solution is replace matter-over-mind with mind-over-matter and then bring purity to minds through Platonic forms. Verses 6-9 eliminated the final remnants of matter-over-mind, while verses 11-14 guide the mind with the Platonic forms of Christ, the eternal spirit, and the more perfect tabernacle. Mind-over-matter removes the problem of trying to serve two masters, making purity possible, while Platonic forms ensure that minds reflect the universal character of God, providing a standard of purity. It is possible to do this to some extent within current matter-over-mind. One can build an understanding of God within Teacher thought, this will lead to the formation of Platonic forms of the Spirit within Mercy thought, and these Platonic forms can provide the lasting values which shape the goals of daily life. But this is all happening mentally within the context of living physically within physical reality; one is still attempting to serve one master within the context of serving another master. Mind-over-matter would make it possible to achieve total purity by following this process both mentally and physically, because both mind and matter would be ruled by one master. Christians may say that one God has revealed himself through both the Word and the world—and this is a fundamental principle, but when it comes to the nitty-gritty details, then one is continually juggling submission to two slightly different masters. This future purity describes following a single divine master—even in the nitty-gritty details.
This integrated view of holiness can be seen in the description of the New Jerusalem. On the one hand, Revelation 21:22 says that there is no temple in the New Jerusalem, indicating that there is no longer a split between focusing upon God and living in physical reality. On the other hand, the city itself is referred to as holy in verse 2, indicating that all of human existence has become a reflection of God’s character. Verses 24-27 say that this city acts as a Platonic form for the nations, because the nations walk by its light, while the glory and honor of the nations is brought into the city. Even though the gates are never closed, nothing unclean (and unclean here means ‘ceremonially defiled’) enters into the city. In other words, even though there is a symbiotic relationship between the perfection of Platonic forms and the variety of reality, reality never profanes the Platonic forms. Compare this with current Christianity where the profanity of secular worship, entertainment, and consumerism is continually being invited into the Christian sanctuary where God is supposedly being worshiped. (Much of this is being driven by an attempt to serve the two masters of a God-of-the-Bible and a God-of-the-world.)
Consummation of the Ages 9:15-17
The language in verses 15-28 is strange. However, we will assume as usual that the writer of Hebrews means what he says and is not using hyperbole or poetic language. The main topic is death and covenant. This can be seen in the beginning of verse 15: “For this reason he is the mediator of the new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption...”
Verse 28 tells us who is dying: “So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many.” This is not talking about the death of Jesus on the cross, because Jesus is not mentioned in Hebrews 9 while Christ is mentioned four times. Thus, it is the divine side of Incarnation that is dying. Verse 28 also says that this is a unique event that happens only once.
Verse 24 tells us where this is happening: “For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” This is not happening on earth but rather in the heavenly realm of Platonic forms, in the presence of God.
Finally, verse 26 says when this happens: “But now once at the consummation of the ages he has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself”. The word consummation occurs only once in the book of Hebrews, and it ‘is not strictly termination but rather consummation that ushers in a new time-era/age’. The word consummation is also used five times in the Gospel of Matthew, always in the form of the phrase ‘end of the age’ (which is more accurately ‘consummation of the age’). The five references in Matthew talk about ‘the consummation of the age’ in singular, while Hebrews talks about ‘the consummation of the ages’ in plural. This phrase ‘the consummation of the age’ actually appears as the last four words in the gospel of Matthew, and they are spoken by Jesus to his disciples after his death and resurrection. If the one-time sacrifice of Christ happens at ‘the consummation of the ages’, and if Jesus talks after his physical resurrection about ‘the consummation of the age’ as something in the future, then one concludes that the sacrifice of Christ must be a different event than the physical death and resurrection of Jesus. One could suggest that ‘the consummation of the ages’ refers to some eternal cosmic moment, but verse 28 describes this event as something that has a before and after in human time: “Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.” If Christ is appearing for a second time to people, this implies that Christ appeared to people a first time before this event, and verse 11 talked about Christ appearing in anticipation of some future event: “But when Christ appeared as a high priest of the good things to come...”
If one interprets these verses as a description of some future once-for-all death of Christ at the level of Platonic forms, then the strange language makes sense. Looking at this cognitively, I suggest that the following is happening: 1) Christ at the level of Platonic forms became integrated with a system of righteousness that was internally guided by Platonic forms. 2) This makes it possible for the Christ to die at the level of Platonic forms. 3) Christ will then reappear as a partner with righteousness. 4) This new integration of Platonic forms and a system of righteousness will eliminate both the possibility for sin and the sense of sin.
This is a theologically radical concept, which is why I am trying to describe as clearly as possible what the biblical text appears to be saying. The standard interpretation is that the once-for-all death of Christ happened at the same instant that Jesus-the-man died on the cross 2000 years ago. I suggest that this interpretation is a natural result of using Teacher overgeneralization to define a concept of God. That is because overgeneralization makes sweeping statements by ignoring the details. Therefore, if God does anything, it must all happen within a single eternal moment which contains no details. And if Jesus is God, then the death of Jesus Christ must also have happened within one single eternal moment. This may sound like a caricature, but it is precisely what Berkhof states in his systematic theology. The problem with this interpretation is that overgeneralization cannot affect reality because overgeneralization ignores reality. Therefore, one ends up believing theologically that Jesus Christ the creator of the entire universe was reborn, while continuing to live in a physical universe that remains stubbornly un-reborn.
A different interpretation emerges if one uses generalization to construct a concept of God in Teacher thought. Transforming a general theory involves several stages. First, the seed of the new theory is born through the work of some individual. Second, this seed grows as this new theory spreads. Third, there is a watershed transition where the new theory replaces the old theory. Fourth, the new theory extends into the various pockets where the old theory still remains. Fifth, the old theory dies as the last vestiges of this theory are eliminated. If Jesus Christ created the entire physical universe, then this means that the entire universe will eventually have to go through these five stages.
Applying this to the death-and-resurrection of Jesus Christ, the physical death of Jesus-the-man in Roman times was a once-for-all event which gave birth to the seed of a resurrected Jesus Christ. This seed has been growing and spreading over the last two millennia. The future introduction and spread of spiritual technology will lead eventually to a watershed transition in which matter-over-mind is replaced by mind-over-matter. This new form of existence based in the indestructible life of Jesus will then extend into the various remaining pockets of matter-over-mind. The once-for-all death of Christ will happen when the last vestiges of the old covenant are eliminated, as described in Hebrews 9. Saying this more simply, replacing a universal theory is very difficult, because one must apply the replacement theory to every single area where the old theory applies.
I suggest that something similar is happening to Platonic forms today in the transition from absolute truth to universal truth. Studying the Bible will cause Platonic forms of heavenly perfection to emerge within the mind, because Teacher thought is being used to analyze Perceiver truth. But these Platonic forms have nothing to do with physical reality because they come from a book that is viewed as separate and distinct from normal reality. Using Teacher thought to analyze Perceiver facts about cognitive styles will also cause Platonic forms of human perfection to emerge, because one can combine facts about each cognitive style to form a composite picture of how a whole mind could function. It appears that the Platonic forms that come from the Bible are compatible in detail with the Platonic forms that describe mental wholeness. This makes it possible to reformulate the revealed truth of Christianity as a meta-theory of human cognition. One can then die mentally to the concept of biblical revealed truth.
One can see five stages in the death of absolute truth. First, some individuals took the radical step of proposing that absolute truth should be questioned. Second, this new viewpoint spread throughout society. Third, a watershed happened where moral relativity became the dominant mindset. Fourth, this new worldview of moral relativity extended to the various pockets which continued to believe in absolute truth. Fifth, the Western world is now becoming post-truth as the last remaining individuals who believe in absolute truth are dying off and the last vestiges of belief in absolute truth are being hunted down. I suggest that Hebrews 9 is describing this kind of death happening at the cosmic level.
Reformulating Christianity as a cognitive theory has not led to the abandonment of biblical revelation. Instead, it is now possible to interpret Scripture from a cognitive perspective, as we are doing in this essay on the book of Hebrews. Similarly, I suggest that the death of Christ will lead to a similar cooperation between the Platonic perfection of heaven and a human system of righteousness.
Now that we have a big picture, we can look at Hebrews 9 in more detail. Verse 15 describes Christ as the mediator of a new covenant: “For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.” ‘For this reason’ refers back to the previous verses which talk about the relationship between Platonic forms and a system of righteousness. That relationship lays the foundation for the new covenant.
The word new means ‘fresh in development or opportunity because not found exactly like this before’. This word is used three times in the book of Hebrews, always to describe a new covenant, and the other two uses were in Hebrews 8 where Jeremiah 31 was quoted with its reference to a new covenant. This means that Hebrews 9 is describing a form of covenant that has not been seen before, which cannot be interpreted using the existing covenants of Judaism or Christianity. The cooperative nature of this new covenant can be seen in the word mediator, a person who ‘intervenes to restore peace between two parties, especially as it fulfills a compact or ratifies a covenant’. Paul emphasizes that a mediator bridges two sides in Galatians 3:20: “Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one.”
We now come to the first strange phrase. What are being redeemed are not people but rather ‘the transgressions that were [committed] under the first covenant’. (If this sounds strange, then please read the interlinear text.) Redemption means ‘buying back what was previously forfeited or lost’. As the NASB indicates, the word ‘committed’ is not in the original Greek. Instead, what is bought back is the transgressions under the first covenant, and transgression means ‘overstepping, a deliberate going over the line’. Saying this more clearly, Christ is not redeeming people from sin in this verse but rather buying back transgressions. These infractions are not being repurchased in order to punish the wicked but rather so “those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (v.15). This is an important distinction which I can illustrate from personal experience. As a Perceiver person, I have a naturally keen sense of justice. Over my lifetime, I have been wronged by others several times in major ways. It gradually dawned on me that I could call for justice in one of two ways: I could either ask God to judge the person who had wronged me or I could ask God to bless me because I had been wronged. I have come to the conclusion that it is much preferable in every way for me to be blessed than to have the brief schadenfreude of seeing someone else squirm and be punished. A similar transition is happening in verse 15, because ‘transgressions under the first covenant’ are being bought back as ‘promises of eternal inheritance’.
This may give the impression that wickedness is not being punished, but it is actually being punished at a much deeper level. The wicked are being personally impoverished, because they are not receiving the blessing that will be required to flourish within mind-over-matter. Instead, those who have been wronged are being given the personal power to flourish. The problem today is not just that people are wicked, but rather that wicked people have the power to inflict their wickedness upon others. Blessing the righteous would give power to goodness, while limiting the power of the wicked.
But why would these transgressions be lost, and why would Incarnation want to buy them back? A massive transition has just occurred, in which all of existence is being rebuilt upon the indestructible life of Jesus. When such a major transition occurs, then all of the details of the past will be lost, similar to the way that all existing court cases and police files become null and void when there is a major regime change. But cause-and-effect is the basic element of concrete technical thought. Incarnation cannot exist without cause-and-effect, and because incarnation adds the personal and the divine to technical thought, incarnation cannot exist without moral cause-and-effect, especially as it relates to the eternal character of God. Saying this another way, God has sworn by the indestructible life of Jesus, and the very nature of Jesus—who embodies concrete technical thought and whose name means ‘salvation’—demands that the cause-and-effect of the first covenant be repurchased. Closure must be brought to the open police files of the first covenant.
This relates to the two basic principles of spiritual cause-and-effect and pride-versus-humility discussed when looking at the red heifer. Overstepping the bounds is an example of pride, because one is asserting personal desires instead of submitting humbly to the rules. The problem is that punishing these transgressions also means imposing personality. For instance, an official executioner may be killing people according to the law, but he is still killing people. This buying-back transforms pride-versus-humility into spiritual cause-and-effect. As we saw when looking at the stories of Lazarus, help from God is being transformed into a higher level of spiritual cause-and-effect.
This redeeming of transgressions is implied at the end of Revelation 18, because verse 24 concludes by saying that in Babylon “was found the blood of prophets and of saints and of all who have been slain on the earth.” The word translated found means ‘learn, discover, especially after searching’. This is a strange verb to apply to ‘the blood of prophets and of saints’, but it makes sense if one is examining the injustice of the past in a detailed manner in order to bring justice in the present.
Continuing with verse 15, the phrase ‘a death has taken place’ is not an accurate translation. A more literal rendering would be ‘a death has come into being’. The word death is used 120 times in the New Testament, and the only other time that it is combined with the verb ‘come into being’ is in Romans 7:13, where Paul asks, “Did that which is good become a cause of death for me?” Paul is saying that the law is good but it ‘came into being as’, or was transformed into death. Similarly, verse 15 says that a death has come into being. Something has become transformed into death, and this is not just any death but rather the death of Christ.
Christ is a universal person and killing a universal person is hard—very hard. That is because all vestiges of the existing universal understanding must be eliminated. That kind of elimination was described back in verses 6-10. One must go through the five steps mentioned earlier, and the actual death only happens at the end of the last step. Verse 24 says that Christ will “appear in the presence of God for us” which means that this dying of Christ is being driven by the TMN of a concept of God.
Speaking from personal experience, I know what it is like to transform a mental concept of incarnation, and I presume that the transformation of the real Incarnation would involve a similar process. The transformation of my concept of incarnation did not happen overnight but rather took several decades of research, as I gradually rethought different aspects of salvation and incarnation. This process has been driven by the TMN of the theory of mental symmetry and encouraged by the realization that mental symmetry leads to a better—and more scriptural—concept of incarnation than the fundamentalist concept of incarnation that I acquired as a child. In my personal experience, it is imperative at every step in this process to continually seek a better concept of incarnation, and never try to kill the old concept of incarnation. One reason is that seeking a better concept follows a path of sowing-and-reaping while attempting to kill the existing concept follows a path of pride-versus-humility. This is not just a theoretical distinction, but rather will help determine whether one’s spirit becomes full of light or full of darkness.
The second reason is that if Incarnation really is God, then it is actually impossible to kill a concept of incarnation. One kills a mental network by suppressing it and never allowing it to experience anything that is consistent with its structure. This total suppression is represented physically by crucifixion, and this comparison is discussed in the essay on John 18-21. Whenever a mental network experiences any input that is consistent with its structure, then this will revive the mental network and give it new life. For instance, suppose I want to kill a mental network of eating chocolate. This will only happen if I totally quit eating chocolate, because any time that I take a nibble of chocolate, this will give new life to my habit of eating chocolate. God is a universal being. Therefore, if Incarnation is God, then one should see evidence of Incarnation everywhere, and trying to kill a concept of Incarnation would be like trying to break a habit of eating chocolate while living in a world that is made out of chocolate. Avoiding the taste of chocolate would be impossible. Similarly, even an inadequate concept of Incarnation will experience enough consistent input to stay alive. For instance, the theory of evolution has been trying to kill the concept of incarnation for over a century, but evolutionists continually find themselves adopting the language of intelligent design and purpose. (Intelligent design summarizes the functioning of abstract technical thought while purpose summarizes the functioning of concrete technical thought.) Instead, the only way to kill an existing concept of Incarnation is by continually and repeatedly pointing out that there is a better way of forming a concept of Incarnation. If one continues this process for long enough, then one will eventually find that ‘death comes into being’. The old inadequate concept of Incarnation will finally die when the last vestiges of a concept of Incarnation have been formed in a better way. (This paragraph has looked at the concept of Incarnation. A similar principle applies to a concept of God.)
Moving on, verses 16-17 introduce a second meaning to the word ‘covenant’. The word translated covenant can mean ‘a covenant between two parties’ but it also means a ‘will or testament’. This second meaning of a will is used in these verses: “For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.” In other words, when a person dies, then the will of that person is read and applied. A will is not enforced while the person is still living.
But the original Greek uses an unusual verb to which the NASB refers in a footnote. The original Greek says that it is necessary ‘to bear, carry along, especially to a definite conclusion’ a death. And the other instances of this verb are consistently translated as some version of ‘bring, carry, take, or bear’. Again one sees that the death of incarnation is the byproduct of pursuing a new concept of God in Teacher thought; it is being carried along or brought by the growth of the new covenant.
The next sentence is more literally: A will ‘over the dead’ is ‘solid enough to walk upon’, for it does not have ‘embodied strength that gets into the fray’ while the one having made it is living. This strange language makes sense when a person is the source of truth. One can see this illustrated by the Bible or some other holy book. When the authors of a holy book are still alive, then they could presumably change the contents of the book by receiving some new revelation. But once the authors have died, then what has been written can no longer be changed and the contents can become solid enough to walk on.
A similar shift in attitude can be seen in the Catholic and Protestant view of the Bible. Catholicism views both the Bible and the Catholic Church (with a capital ‘C’) as sources of absolute truth, largely because the Church was instrumental in choosing which books would be part of the New Testament. Protestant churches (with a small ‘c’), in contrast, regard the Bible as the primary source of absolute truth. That is because the organization that collated the Bible still lives within the minds of Catholics, while this organization died within the minds of Protestants when they left the Catholic Church. Catholicism views itself as the guardian of Scripture, while Protestants view Scripture as something that was organized by some other group.
If mind were to rule over matter, then this principle would be fundamental. Paul says of Christ in Colossians 1:16 that “by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities – all things have been created through Him and for Him.” With matter-over-mind, humans live in an environment that was created by Incarnation but now functions independently of Incarnation. Therefore, even though the structure of the universe reflects the character of Incarnation—because the universe was created by Incarnation, science can study the universe in an objective manner as being separate from Incarnation, similar to the way that Protestants view the Bible as being something that is separate from the Protestant church. Saying this another way, a scientist can form a mental concept of Nature without worrying that this mental concept will alter the fabric of physical reality. (The scientist may say that Nature ‘created’ everything, but the scientist is still confident that his mental concept of Nature will not affect the physical reality that he is currently studying.)
This would no longer be the case if mind were to rule over matter, because Christ as the ultimate mind behind matter could always use his mind to arbitrarily alter matter. This would be like attempting to conduct a Bible study in which the apostle Paul was one of the participants. Except even in this case one still would have the independent content of the letters that Paul has written. However, all remaining instances of matter-over-mind have just been removed. This would mean that whenever mind came into contact with matter, then mind would be more solid than matter. Thus, a more accurate analogy would be attempting to study the Quran in the presence of Mohammed the prophet, because Mohammed might receive a fresh revelation from Allah that would abrogate anything written previously in the Quran. This problem already exists to some extent within the soft sciences, because the bias of the researcher can affect the results of an experiment. Therefore, researchers often conduct what is known as double-blind experiments, in order to ensure that their minds will not affect the matter that is being studied.
The Death of Christ 9:18-22
The solution is for Christ to die. Notice that I said Christ and not Jesus. The death of Jesus-the-man in Jerusalem fully accomplished everything that was needed to carry out God’s plan. Besides, God has sworn-an-oath by the indestructible life of Jesus back in Hebrews 7. Instead, what is dying is Jesus-the-God, the creator of the universe. This death of Christ would result in people ‘receiving the promise of the eternal inheritance’ described in verse 15.
Verses 26 and 28 suggest what will happen. In verse 26 it says that Christ “has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself”. The word translated manifest means ‘to make clear, visible, manifest, make known’. Here the sacrifice is described as something about to happen. Verse 28 describes the sacrifice as something that has happened: “Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin.” The word translated appear means ‘see, often with metaphorical meaning: to see with the mind’. In other words, a material manifestation of Christ is being replaced by a mental manifestation of Christ.
I suggest the following interpretation, based partially upon the concept of Christ that has become apparent within my mind. Over the years, I have often asked God to intervene physically on my behalf, and I have consistently found that God has not answered this prayer. Instead, I have felt each time as if God has stepped back personally from the situation and instead allowed the door to the spiritual realm to open one crack further. Saying this another way, instead of directly answering my prayers, it seems as if God provides the spiritual resources that make it possible for me to walk a path that will end up in my prayers being answered. This relates to Paul’s description of sowing to the spirit being followed by reaping eternal life from the spirit. This waiting for an answer can also be seen at the end of verse 28: which says that Christ “will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.” The word translated eagerly await is ‘a triple compound meaning welcome from and out of’, and ‘therefore is used of looking completely away from this world – and to the upcoming redemption’. Thus, those who have ‘sown to the spirit’ and have not ‘sown to the flesh’ will receive salvation after the reappearance of Christ.
Putting this together, whenever any individual throughout human history looks to God for an answer without receiving a physical reward or human justice, then this individual will make a breakthrough in the spiritual realm. This attitude is described in Hebrews 11:13, which says that “all these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.” Hebrews 11:16 adds that “God is not ashamed to be called their God; for he has prepared a city for them.” Christ currently holds everything together externally. But when Christ dies, then this external glue will die and every individual who has sown to the spirit will become a little part of the glue that holds existence together. Colossians 1:16 says that “in Him all things hold together”. I suggest that this principle would still remain true. But instead of holding the universe together, Christ would then be holding people’s minds together. This already happens to some extent to those who ‘walk by faith and not by sight’, but the current universe does not stop functioning for a person who does not walk by faith. After the death of Christ, walking by faith and not by sight would affect my experience of the physical universe. Using an analogy, the faith that is being exhibited in the present is like flying an airplane in an aircraft simulator, while the faith that would be required in the future is like flying a real airplane. When I crash in an aircraft simulator, this crash still happens on solid ground. When I crash in a real airplane, The crash affects my reality.
This interpretation provides an explanation for verse 15, in which the transgressions under the first covenant are being redeemed so that those “who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance”. Instead of punishing transgressions, the universe is being rebuilt upon the structure of the spiritual progress that has taken place in people’s minds as a result of transgressions. Notice that I am being somewhat vague in describing the nature of these transgressions. This is deliberate, because the goal is to move beyond thinking in terms of transgressions to thinking in terms of sowing to the spirit. Notice also that we are looking at something that goes beyond ‘going to heaven when I die’. Instead, what is being described is a person’s future ability to use mind to manipulate matter.
I do not think that this will result in the instantaneous destruction of the existing universe, because the universe currently functions independently of arbitrary divine decree. If God did directly control the movement of every atom in the universe, as many Christians maintain, then the entire universe would instantly turn into chaos if Christ died. However, if the natural universe currently functions in a statistical manner independent of the will of God, then it would be possible for the natural universe to continue functioning in this manner independently of the will of God after the death of Christ. Saying this more personally, I suggest that God is currently permitting personal disaster to strike people in a statistical matter in order to preserve the long-term existence of existence itself.
A similar principle applies when the ruler of some kingdom dies. If there is to be a smooth transfer of power, then the ruler must set up a system of law while he is still alive and allow this system of law to function independently of his personal will. This system of law will then continue to function when the ruler dies and provide continuity for the people. But if the ruler makes every decision personally while being alive, then the kingdom will fall apart when the ruler dies.
I am not saying that God never steps in. But I am suggesting that God usually allows natural processes to occur and then steps in by causing “all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose” (Romans 8:28). Looking at this verse cognitively, if people interact with God the way that God will interact with people after the death of Christ, then God will respond by also starting to interact with people the way that he will after the death of Christ. This glimpse into a future arrangement relates to the personal comments made earlier about prayer being followed by a cracking open of the door to the spiritual realm. And it also expresses the comment made in Hebrews 11:13 that those who died in faith without receiving the promises “welcomed them from a distance”.
If Christ were to die to holding everything together directly, and started to hold things together indirectly through people’s minds, then it would be possible to have independent solid existence within a realm of mind-over-matter. This is similar to the situation faced by government. Nothing is certain under an absolute monarch, because the ruler can decide to change anything at random. But if an absolute monarch allows government services to function independently of personal edict, then the stability of the rule of law can be achieved.
It may seem at first glance as if I am suggesting something similar to the Catholic practice of praying to saints, but the direction is the opposite. The Catholic (and Orthodox) direction tends to be from matter to mind. For instance, the physical matter of bread and wine is believed to turn into the spiritual body of Jesus in the Eucharist. Similarly, saints are typically invoked through the use of physical objects, such as good luck charms or candles. In contrast, the transition of Hebrews 9 is happening in the context of mind-over-matter. Thus, I suggest that a more accurate analogy would be going to a professional to deal with help in some particular matter, because one is turning to a person with the right mental content in order to find a solution. If carrying the business card of some successful physician does not save me from car accidents, then why should wearing a medallion of St. Francis protect me when I drive? However, it is possible that if I have a car accident, I might be saved through some new medical procedure that was introduced by this successful physician. Similarly, the Old Testament describes many heroes of faith who discovered new attributes of God, and thus indirectly benefited those who followed.
Verse 18 says that a similar situation existed under the first covenant: “Therefore even the first [covenant] was not inaugurated without blood.” (The word ‘covenant’ is not explicitly mentioned.) The word translated without means ‘apart from, separately from’. This is not saying that blood was required to inaugurate the covenant, but rather that it could not be avoided. Looking at this cognitively, the first covenant applies within matter-over-mind. Every person growing up in this kind of environment will acquire a set of childish MMNs from the physical environment via the physical body, as described by Piaget’s stages of development. These childish MMNs will get in the way of constructing a mental concept of God in Teacher thought, and reaching maturity will require tearing apart and rebuilding these childish mental networks. Thus, the first covenant cannot be inaugurated without the blood of fragmenting MMNs of personal identity. This principle applies both to the introduction of the first covenant to society as well as its introduction to the mind.
Commentators find verse 19 confusing because the details do not match what is mentioned in the Old Testament. In Exodus 24:3, “Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances.” Then “they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls” (v.5). Some of the blood was sprinkled on the altar (v.6), the book of the covenant was read to the people (v.7), and then “Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, ‘Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you’” (v.8).
Verse 19-20, in contrast, says that “When every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with some water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and the people, saying, ‘This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.’” The restatement in Hebrews adds goats, water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, and says that the book was sprinkled with blood as well.
I do not have a complete explanation for this discrepancy. That is mainly because I do not know the symbolism behind calves, bulls, and goats. There probably is a symbolic meaning, because Hebrews mentions these animals four times, and each mention is slightly different. Hebrews 9:12 describes “the blood of goats and calves”. Hebrews 9:13 talks about “the blood of goats and bulls”. Hebrews 9:19 refers to “the blood of the calves and the goats”. And Hebrews 10:4 talks about “blood of bulls and goats”. (I have also included the definite article where it is included in the original Greek.)
A partial explanation of verse 19 emerges if one interprets Exodus 24 as a description of what was required to introduce Judaism, and Hebrews 9:19 as a description of what was needed to introduce Christianity. Theologically speaking, Judaism is the first covenant, while Christianity is the second covenant. But in practice, Christianity is also a first covenant because it exists within matter-over-mind, while the second covenant is only fully possible within mind-over-matter.
The spilling of blood represents the fragmenting of personal mental networks. Thus, if blood is being sprinkled upon something, then this indicates that personal MMNs will be need to be dismantled and reassembled in this area. In Exodus 24, the altar and the people are sprinkled with blood, symbolizing the fact that this new covenant with God would require the transformation of personal MMNs as well as MMNs of worship. The history of the Israelites in the wilderness makes it clear that they were not willing to allow these MMNs to become transformed. First, they continually wanted to go back to the personal pleasures of Egypt. Second, they constructed a golden calf to worship in Exodus 32, even after seventy of the elders saw the God of Israel (Exodus 24:9-11), while in the very shadow of a mountain that was glowing with the presence of God (Ex. 24:17-18).
In Hebrews 9:19 both the people and the book are sprinkled with blood, while in Exodus 24 only the people are sprinkled. Cognitively speaking, the commands given through Moses were compatible with the existing mindset of tribalism. Thus, the book itself did not have to be sprinkled with blood. However, as N.T. Wright has pointed out, Christianity introduced the new element of theology. Christianity is still unique among religions in that it is founded upon theology. It starts with the words of a holy book, and these words are supposed to be analyzed and understood. This means questioning the way that people naturally treat holy books. As has been mentioned several times in this essay, the natural response is to view the Bible as a source of absolute truth based in MMNs of personal status. Sprinkling blood upon the book indicates that this basis in personal MMNs needs to fall apart and be reprogrammed: absolute truth needs to be replaced by universal truth, because an attitude of absolute truth will fight the concept of theology, while universal truth is consistent with the idea of building a religion upon theology. And in the same way that the Jews continually longed for Egypt and regressed into idol worship, so Christianity tends to view the Bible as mystical poetry, allegorical myth, or absolute truth. This sprinkling is happening primarily at a cognitive level, because a book is not reality but rather uses words to convey mental concepts.
Moving on, Hebrews 9:19 includes water, scarlet wool, and hyssop, which are not mentioned in Exodus 24. These items are only mentioned twice in the law of Moses: in Numbers 19 in connection with the ritual of the red heifer that was discussed earlier, and also in Leviticus 14 in the ritual used to declare a healed leper as ceremonially clean. This implies that introducing Christianity had two additional requirements. First, some kind of red heifer—or anointing of Mary—was needed to make the transition from Judaism to Christianity. Second, the word leprosy in the Old Testament ‘most likely meant a variety of infectious skin diseases, and even mold and mildew on clothing and walls’ which probably included what is now known as leprosy. A person interacts with the physical world through the skin, and physical sensations of pain and pleasure are the primary source of MMNs in the childish mind. Thus, the introduction of Christianity requires a healing in Mercy thought. This is also true at the personal level, because an individual becomes a Christian by believing in the atoning death of Jesus, being cured symbolically of skin disease. Historically speaking, Christianity has been afflicted by numerous ‘skin diseases’—abnormal ways of treating physical sensations of pain and pleasure. Gnosticism claimed that physical matter is evil and has nothing to do with God. The early monks in Egypt went to extreme lengths to try to deny physical sensation. Self-denial, especially in the realm of physical sensation, has long been a hallmark of Christendom. And Christianity has continually struggled to come to terms with the physical feelings of sexuality. Summarizing, Exodus 24 accurately describes the struggles faced in introducing the covenant of Jewish law, while Hebrews 9:19 accurately describes struggles faced in introducing the covenant of Christianity.
This symbolic interpretation is backed up by the words of Moses quoted in verse 20: “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” Saying this cognitively, the TMN of God is imposing a relationship upon people that will require the rebirth of certain personal MMNs. The ‘phrase which God commanded you’ is more literally ‘which God commanded in ‘motion towards to interface with’ you’. In other words, the commands of God start in Teacher thought and move towards the direction of Mercy thought, leading to the reprogramming of personal MMNs.
Verse 21 refers to another incident of sprinkling with blood: “And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood.” Here too commentators have noted that there is a discrepancy with the original account in Exodus. In Exodus 40:9-15, the tabernacle and everything in it, as well as Aaron and his sons, are anointed with the anointing oil that was mentioned earlier when discussing the separation between sacred and secular. However, in Hebrews 9:21, everything is being sprinkled with blood. I suggest that this discrepancy can also be explained in terms of introducing Judaism versus introducing Christianity. The purpose of the anointing oil was to create sacred mental networks that were different than the mental networks of normal culture. In contrast, the purpose of Christianity is to create sacred mental networks that can transform the mental networks of normal culture. Anointing with sacred oil is sufficient for creating mental networks of holiness. But anointing with blood is required if these mental networks of holiness are to transform personal MMNs. Saying this another way, in the Old Testament holiness had to be protected from being contaminated by the profane, while in the New Testament holiness reaches out to transform the profane. Thus, I suggest that any form of Christianity which tries to preserve holiness from being contaminated is actually regressing to the earlier mindset introduced by Moses to the Israelites. (One can see in the later books of the Old Testament that God is trying to bring Israel beyond this initial concept of holiness.)
Verse 22 summarizes with a generalization: “And according to the law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.” The word cleansed here does not mean ceremonially clean but rather to ‘make pure, removing all admixture’. And ‘the law’ with the definite article refers to the Law of God. Looking at this cognitively, the TMN of a general understanding will drive a person to become pure by applying a rule consistently without any exceptions. But the childish mind is driven by a hodgepodge of contradictory MMNs, each driving the mind in a different direction. Therefore, when the law of God is introduced, then the collection of self-contradictory MMNs will have to be made self-consistent, which will require the shedding of cognitive blood.
It is interesting that Hebrews describes this as a heuristic and not as a universal principle. A heuristic is usually true while a universal principle is always true. That is because some children grow up in a law-abiding culture and learn to keep the rules as a child. Like the rich young ruler in Matthew 19, when Jesus tells them to keep the Commandments they can answer “All these things I have kept; what am I still lacking?” Looking at this another way, it is possible for some cup to contain pure milk or pure water. But most cups are filled with impure mixtures of various liquids.
The second phrase says that “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”. There is no ‘almost’ with this phrase, which means that it is a universal principle. This is the only use of the word ‘shedding of blood’ in the New Testament, and the word actually means a ‘pouring of blood’, which implies that a lot of blood is being shed. The word forgiveness means ‘something sent away; releasing someone from obligation or debt’. This goes beyond trying to keep the contents of some container pure to getting rid of the underlying problem of impurity. This is difficult to do with absolute truth because the system of absolute truth itself is based in MMNs of personal status. A lot of Mercy ‘blood’ will have to be poured out if one wishes to go beyond a system that is based in MMNs. This is cognitively true because the MMNs that are the mental source of absolute truth will have to fall apart. And World War I suggests that this may also be physically true, because millions of people had to die before Western civilization was willing to let go of a mindset of absolute truth based in the MMNs of nobility and clergy.
Summarizing, a system of absolute truth can lead to some examples of personal purity—people who are naturally good and do not appear to need a Savior, but if one wishes to actually eliminate the problem of sin, then this will take extensive transformation within Mercy thought. This extensive transformation can be seen in Romans 7. Paul begins the chapter by saying that “I am speaking to those who know the law.” Paul then says that the ‘husband’ of law must die if one wishes follow God in a better way. Verses 7-25 then describe the long and arduous process—the pouring of blood—by which a person becomes internally free of a legalistic mindset.
Cleansing Platonic Forms 9:23-28
Verses 23-28 have already been partially discussed, but some additional details can be added. Verse 23 makes the transition back to heavenly Platonic forms: “Therefore it was necessary for the copies of the things in the heavens to be cleansed with these, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these.” The word copies means ‘figure, copy, example’ and is the same word that was used in Hebrews 8:5 when describing earthly religious service as ‘a copy and shadow of the heavenly things’. The word ‘things’ is not in the original Greek. Instead the phrase is more precisely ‘of the in the heavens’ (this is awkward in English but accurately reflects the original Greek), and the word translated heavenly things means ‘heavenly, referring to the impact of heaven’s influence on the particular situation or person’ and is in the plural. In other words, the specific things are not in the heavens. Instead, generic Platonic forms in heaven are impacting particular situations on earth, which themselves are copies of the heavenly Platonic forms. The word cleansed means to ‘remove all admixture’, consistent with the idea of a Platonic form representing the purified essence of many specific ‘earthly copies’. The word better means ‘better because more fully developed’, also consistent with the idea of a Platonic form being an idealization of specific situations on earth. Finally, sacrifice means ‘an offering the Lord accepts because offered on His terms’. Saying this cognitively, Platonic forms naturally speak the language of God the Father, which is the language of universality and order-within-complexity.
Verse 24 continues with the comparison between Platonic forms and reality: “For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.” The NASB adds the words ‘place’ and ‘one’, because the translators are thinking in terms of specific objects, but the original Greek language is more generic: Christ has entered ‘holies’ which are copies of the ‘true’.
The word copy in verse 24 is different than the word ‘copies’ in verse 23, and is only used twice in the New Testament. This word antitupos means ‘an antitype which corresponds to or fulfills a type’. The one other use is in 1 Peter 3:21 where the salvation of Noah through the flood is described as an anti-type of the internal transformation that baptism represents. Thus, verse 24 is emphasizing the fact that the earthly copies are representing some heavenly Platonic form, by describing them as anti-types of the true.
The phrase ‘appear in the presence of God’ is more literally ‘make visible, appear in person’ in the ‘face, countenance’ of the God. Thus, Christ is not just communicating with God in some peripheral manner, but rather appearing personally in the face of God. This is the only time in the New Testament that this specific phrase ‘face of the God’ is used. A similar phrase can be found in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, which describes those who “will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord”. Going the other way, Matthew 18:10 warns “Do not despise one of these little ones, for I say to you that their angels in heaven continually see the face of my Father who is in heaven.” Both of these passages imply a deeper level of emotional interaction that goes beyond normal communication.
Looking briefly at Matthew 18, Jesus begins the chapter by saying that one must become like a child in order to enter the kingdom of heaven, he warns against causing such little children to stumble, and he ends by talking about their angels in heaven seeing the face of the Father. I suggest that this relates to the contrast between spiritual sowing-and-reaping and pride-versus-humility that was discussed earlier. Spiritual sowing could be described as becoming like a child. Children personify everything and think in terms of mental networks, and children exhibit childlike trust. Spiritual sowing places a childlike trust in the belief that everything will eventually be made right via the spiritual realm with its mental networks. Opposed to this childlike trust is the attitude of pride, which is more than willing to take advantage of weak and helpless victims. The proud person despises (‘treats with contempt or disregard’) such childlike trust. But this childlike trust sees what the proud person cannot see. From a supernatural angelic perspective, it continually sees the face of the Father—it sees the essential character of God the Father.
Turning briefly to Revelation, Revelation 19 begins with a ‘fourfold hallelujah’, the only time that the Hebrew word hallelujah is actually used in the New Testament. The focus of this hallelujah is upon the fall of Babylon and the reign of God. (The word hallelujah is an imperative which commands a group of people to praise God.) Similarly, Hebrews 9 has been bringing closure to the past and laying the foundation for the future.
Continuing with Hebrews 9, Christ is appearing in person in the face of God “for us”. The goal is not to achieve some objective result involving things, but rather on behalf of people. The infractions against the law that occurred in the first covenant are going to be redeemed as inheritances for people in the new covenant. Going further, we saw earlier that entering the holy-of-holies represents major societal changes and paradigm shifts. This is mentioned in Leviticus when describing the national and institutional atonement for systemic shortcomings that happens on the Day of Atonement: The high priest “shall make atonement for the holy place, because the impurities of the sons of Israel because of their transgressions in regard to all their sins; and thus he shall do for the tent of meeting which abides with them in the midst of their impurities” (Leviticus 16:16). Similarly, Christ is about to perform the ultimate paradigm shift before the face of God.
Verse 25 emphasizes that this ultimate paradigm shift is a one-time event: “Nor was it that he would offer himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year-by-year with blood that is not his own”. Interpreting this literally, the death of Jesus on the cross was a one-time event that replaced the yearly entrance of the Jewish high priests into the holy place. But what is being described here is not the death of Jesus on earth but rather the death of Christ in heaven. The once-for-all death of Jesus on earth started the process of transforming Incarnation while the once-for-all death of Christ in heaven will complete this process of transforming Incarnation. What began as the finite death of Jesus-the-man and gradually spread to the rest of existence will culminate in the universal death of Jesus-the-God.
Looking at this symbolically, we have interpreted entering the holy-of-holies as society going through major corrections in order to restore a relationship with God in Teacher thought. These major corrections have to be repeated because they do not deal with the problem behind the problem, which is that the high priest is always offering blood that ‘belongs to another’. I have noticed this sort of problem repeatedly when analyzing systems and theories. Time and again I find that systems fall apart when they are applied to themselves. The researcher or author is continually trying to correct societal flaws by offering the blood of another, analyzing others but not himself, shining light on the shortcomings of others without shining the same light on himself. The end result is that a correction will be incomplete because it will be affected by the biases of the researcher or author. This will then have to be followed by another correction that eliminates the biases of the previous author, which itself will have to be followed by another correction because the correcting author did not include his own biases.
Behind all of these lesser shortcomings lies the ultimate problem of the relationship between mind and matter. If matter is over mind, then one can never solve personal problems completely, because no matter how mature one becomes mentally, one still remains subject to the implacable laws of nature. And if mind were to rule over matter, then humans could never solve the problem completely, because no matter how reborn humans became, the ultimate problem of Christ being the mind behind creation would still remain. There would still remain the possibility that Christ could change his mind, and thus change everything. The only lasting solution is for Christ himself to die, in order to allow creation and creatures to have an existence that is independent of the breath of God.
When Jesus Christ the Incarnation of God created the universe, then he stepped back from the universe in order to allow it to function independently. When matter is over mind, then people will interact with God through these independent laws of nature, because mind is under matter. This solves the problem of allowing creation and creatures to exist independently of God, but it leads to the problem of personal suffering, because minds are being ruled by matter. Mind-over-matter eliminates the problem of human suffering but then brings humans face-to-face with the Incarnation who created them. The only lasting solution is for incarnation to die to the role of being creator in order to live among created beings.
Notice that this is different than the problem encountered earlier of entering into the presence of God the Father. Hebrews 6-7 dealt with that problem of mysticism, which is that personal identity becomes snuffed out when encountering God too closely. The solution to that problem was to find an anchor for the soul in the indestructible life of Jesus. The problem in Hebrews 9 results from coming into close contact with God the Son. The danger here is that the creator of all life might decide to change the rules. And the danger is not just that Jesus Christ might decide to change the rules in some sort of malicious way, but rather that Jesus Christ might act in any way according to his nature as God the Creator and make some change to the rules. Using an analogy, when one is in bed with an elephant, then any movement by the elephant becomes personally threatening.
Looking at this theologically, I am suggesting that the relationship between God the Father and God the Son is changing. This is a significant statement, therefore it needs to be examined more carefully. This change in relationship was explicitly described in Hebrews 1. In verse 5, God the Father talks of begetting the Son today, and in verse 6, God the Father brings his firstborn into the world again. And the new relationship of living within creation among fellow creatures is described in John 20 by Jesus right after the resurrection when he says to Mary, “Go to My brethren and say to them, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God” (v.17). This transition through rebirth that started with Jesus-the-man in John 20 is culminating in the rebirth of Christ-the-God in Hebrews 9. As Hebrews 9:26 emphasizes, it is a single extended event that began with the once-for-all death of Incarnation-as-man and ends with the once-for-all death of incarnation-as-God.
Going further, Revelation 13:8 refers to those “whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” (I am quoting here from the KJV. The NASB says that the names have not been written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, but the KJV accurately reflects the order of the words in the original Greek.) The word translated world is ‘cosmos’, which refers to the mindset that develops as a result of living within physical matter. In other words, the death of Incarnation actually started when the physical universe was created and allowed to exist independently of Incarnation, because that is when God the Creator first stepped back from his role as Creator.
Verse 26 describes this one-time event: “Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.” The word suffer means ‘to feel heavy emotion, especially suffering’, and is the same word that was used in Hebrews 2:18 and 5:18 when talking about the sufferings of Jesus on earth. I suggest that there is a cognitive reason why it would have been absolutely necessary for Christ to suffer many times since the foundation of the universe.
The physical universe currently obeys the laws of God with inhuman perfection, and every structure that is created by humans falls short of this inhuman, Christ-ordained perfection. This is a technically accurate statement and not a Teacher overgeneralization, because all physics can be redefined in terms of a Lagrangian, which says that every natural process will always occur in a manner that is in some way optimal, and not just optimal but inhumanly optimal. This universal principle was first discovered by Fermat in 1662, who realized that light will always travel from one point to another by following the fastest path. Humans go to great effort to attempt to travel from point A to point B in the quickest manner. Light does this always. (The Lagrangian is discussed in a later essay.)
Thus, if Christ turned creation over to the rule of finite creatures before the point in history that has been reached by Hebrews 9, then this would be like handing over an impeccably clean and perfectly functioning mansion to a group of rebellious teenagers.
The history of Zimbabwe provides a recent historical example of this principle, because Robert Mugabe has single-handedly managed to destroy what used to be a prosperous country. Something similar would happen on a cosmic scale if Christ turned over the reins of power to created beings that were incapable of handling the responsibility. Christ would have to suffer again and again. On the one hand, Christ would continually suffer because of the emerging discrepancy between the incredible order of the universe-that-was and the chaos instituted by created children now in charge. On the other hand, Christ would repeatedly suffer because he would have to intervene painfully in order to set the universe back on track. That is why the sacrifice occurs once at the ‘consummation of the ages’, and the word consummation means ‘when the parts come together into a whole’.
When this transition finally occurs, then ‘the sin’ will be put away, which means ‘annulment, cancellation, rendered no longer in effect’. I suggest that there are two reasons for this. On the finite side, living creatures (including humans) will have reached sufficient maturity to handle the responsibility without messing up. On the divine side, Platonic forms of created perfection will become redefined as idealizations of reality.
This is an important distinction that needs to be clarified with an example. The Platonic form of a perfect circle can be defined in one of two ways. First, one can start by defining a perfect circle mathematically as ‘the set of points equidistant from a center’ and then use this mathematical definition to classify real circles. This provides a perfect starting point, but it also means that there will always be an unbridgeable chasm between imperfect real circles and the Platonic form of a circle. Using the language of Hebrews 9, it will be impossible to have a pure conscience because every real circle that one constructs will fall short of the Platonic form of a circle. This describes the current situation with matter-over-mind. Christ, the living Word, created the universe to function with inhuman perfection, leading to an irreconcilable gap between the perfection of the universe and the imperfection of human activity.
The second option is to define the Platonic form of a circle as the ideal essence of all real circles. The problem of conscience has now been eliminated, because the Platonic form is no longer an inhuman perfection revealed from heaven, but rather a goal to which humans can aspire. But it is only possible to redefine the Platonic form of a circle as the perfected essence of all real circles if one lives in a society that is full of circles that are reasonably perfect. This may sound like a trite statement, but we now live in a technological environment that is filled with real objects that are reasonably perfect circles. This type of environment does not exist in the subjective, because modern society has redefined human perfection as the idealization of how humans behave, and the result has not been to lift up society but rather to degrade standards. Instead of becoming more like the ideal, we have redefined the ideal to be existing stupidity and childishness, giving everyone a ‘gold star’ for ‘excellent behavior’ regardless of how they behave.
Christ refers to the abstract side of incarnation, which is based in precise definitions. Christ the Creator is the originator of all of the Platonic forms of creation because they give precise definitions to existence. Christ the Creator who laid the foundation of the cosmos can only die when all of finite existence reaches the level at which circles have reached within modern technological society. When I was teaching math in an International School in Korea, I taught Geometry, the study of circles and other Platonic shapes, to Grade 9 students as an introduction to abstract thought. Similarly, I suggest that the way we currently treat circles in technological society is an introduction to the way that humanity needs to learn how to treat everything.
Verse 27 is often quoted out of context: “And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment.” I suggest that this misquoting is still valid because a general principle is being described. However, the wording is somewhat strange. A more literal rendition would be: ‘As much, as great as’ it is ‘laid away, stored, reserved’ for the humans to ‘die off’ ‘once for all’, after this ‘to separate, distinguish, judge’. Dying off is not normally described as something that is reserved or stored up. But this language makes sense within the larger context. Living as a human within matter-over-mind could be described as a sort of mental ‘fossil fuel’ that is laid away in order to be burned up in the future. This could be interpreted at many different levels. The personal character that was developed during the physical hardships of the depression in the Second World War died off during the era of postwar prosperity. Similarly, the moral character based in the revealed truth of Christianity died off during the era of post-Christian questioning. And faith that is built by studying the revealed truth of the Bible will typically die off during a charismatic renewal. Looking at the big picture, the internal content that humanity acquired while living within matter-over-mind will die off after the transition to mind-over-matter. One could describe each of these transitions as a battery being drained of charge. Each of these transitions is followed naturally by a judgment or dividing, because some people will dissipate this ‘fossil fuel’ while others will use this temporary content to build lasting content. And each is ‘once for all&rsuo; in the sense that the charging of the battery happened with a mindset of innocence that is lost once the battery begins to be discharged.
This transition will apply to Christ ‘as great as’ it applies to humanity: “So Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await him” (v.28). The word translated so means ‘in this manner, in this way’, telling us that Christ will go through the same kind of process that is experienced by humanity. The ‘once for all’ offering of Christ is now described in the past tense. And the word offering is a generic word for gift or sacrifice, without any religious or ritualistic overtones. Similarly, the word bear is also a generic term that means ‘carrying something through its sequence to reach its needed consummation’. (The use of generic terms implies that this verse applies to all of existence and not just to the realm of morality and sin.) This ‘bearing’ was described back in verse 15 where Christ redeemed the transgressions that were under the first covenant. Similarly, verse 28 says that sins are being carried through to their needed consummation. This consummation is described at the end of verse 28, because Christ will appear a second time ‘apart from sin’ to those ‘waiting eagerly for’ salvation. As was mentioned previously, the word ‘waiting’ means waiting for something while not waiting for other things. Notice that sin has been eliminated in the second appearance. As verse 15 describes, the sins of the first covenant have been transformed into promises of eternal inheritance. Thus, when Christ reappears, the mindset of sin is gone, having been replaced by an eager expectancy for the salvation of an eternal inheritance.
Notice that a different group of people is involved in these two stages. In the first stage, Christ is bearing sins of many, and the focus is not upon people but rather upon all of the various transgressions. In the second stage, Christ is not reappearing to the people who committed these transgressions, but rather appearing to those who are eagerly awaiting him for salvation. Christ is not reappearing to those who were wronged. Instead, Christ is reappearing to those who have ‘sown to the spirit’ by looking to Christ for salvation while not looking for some other form of justice or punishment. Saying this another way, all of those who responded in a positive fashion to being wronged by building internal character are now being rewarded by corporately being given the responsibility for holding the universe together, with each individual responsible for some fragment of existence. This means that people will no longer think in terms of who did what to whom. Instead, all that will matter is the sowing-to-the-spirit that was done in response to things happening to people and people doing things to each other. In the words of Epictetus, the Greek Stoic philosopher, “It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.”
One final point. The word translated appear means ‘to see, often to see with the mind’. The current perfect order of the natural universe makes it possible to physically see the nature of Christ. If the physical universe became held together by finite people, then there would no longer be universal physical perfection. Instead, one would have to look beyond the reasonable perfection of physical reality to see mentally the perfect nature of Christ. I do not think that this means that the entire universe would instantly lose its structure. Instead, my guess is that observing the universe would invariably impose the structure of the observer’s mind upon the aspect of reality that was being observed. This kind of effect already occurs within physical matter at the atomic scale as described by Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. And it also already occurs at the human scale when conducting social experiments.
Going Beyond Law 10:1-4
Chapter 9 ended by talking about Christ reappearing apart from sin. In cognitive terms, this means redefining the Platonic forms of godly perfection as idealizations of human thought and activity. Hebrews 10 will look at the implications of this and describe what it means to live within such a universe. At first glance, chapter 10 may appear to be a repetition of chapter 9 with its discussion of Platonic forms, but chapter 10 has a pragmatic twist which is not found in the previous chapters.
Looking at the big picture, existence is being rebuilt from the inside out. At the end of chapter 7, God swore-an-oath by the indestructible life of Jesus. In chapter 8 this expanded first into the Platonic form of the tabernacle in the heavens, and then into a new covenant between God and humanity. Chapter 9 examined the various furniture of the tabernacle, which we interpreted as various means of correcting major personal and societal shortcomings. At the end of chapter 9 Christ died in order to allow created beings to hold external existence together. In chapter 10 people will start living in this new framework.
Verse 1 describes the limitations of ‘the law’: “For the Law, since it has only a shadow of the good things to come and not the very form of things, can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near.” If one interprets this literally, then ‘the law’ with the definite article refers to the Law of Moses that was revealed to Israel by God. But if one thinks more generally in terms of mind and matter, then the law would also refer to the laws of nature that God has revealed to humanity with matter-over-mind.
The law is described as possessing a shadow of the coming good things. This word is used only twice in Hebrews. Previously, in 8:5 the earthly tabernacle was described as a copy and shadow of the heavenly. A shadow is the indirect result of light but it has no light itself; a shadow conveys a shape, but this is only a two-dimensional shape; a shadow is not alive, but it can indicate the movement of life. Applying this to natural law, the laws of nature express the light of a general Teacher understanding, but one must look beyond sensory experience to grasp the underlying Teacher structure; the laws of nature express the character of God, but they do so in a partial form that does not convey fully the nature of God; the laws of nature are lifeless, but they imply the existence of some ultimate designer who has life.
Looking at this more generally, matter-over-mind will always lead to an indirect knowledge of God, because God is creating lifeless matter to behave in some manner and then forcing humans to submit to the behavior of this lifeless matter. This would be like interacting with a person through letters and photos sent through the mail. All that one would receive would be lifeless words and pictures, and one would have to infer the character of the person from these limited clues.
Going further, the law is “not the very form of things”. The word form means an ‘image that exactly reflects its source’, it ‘assumes a prototype, of which it not merely resembles, but from which it is drawn’. Using cognitive language, a form is something in real life that closely resembles a Platonic form. We have seen that Platonic forms have become symbiotically connected with idealizations of reality. The form is the idealization within reality that is almost the same as the perfect Platonic form.
This is the only time that the word ‘form’ is used in Hebrews. In Hebrews 8, the earthly tabernacle was described as a copy and shadow of the heavenly, while in 10:1, the law is described as a shadow and not a form. The word ‘copy’ indicates a one-way relationship from original to copy, as well as implying that the copy is inferior to the original. In contrast, a form is ‘more than a shadow; rather it is a replication’.
This change in terminology reflects the new relationship between Platonic forms and reality that has emerged after the death of Christ at the end of Hebrews 9. Instead of starting with a heavenly ideal that is created by God, which is then copied perfectly on earth, Platonic forms have become the idealization of reality while reality is now an expression of Platonic forms.
Going further, the word translated things is pragma, which means ‘the habit needed to accomplish what is necessary in a practical, reliable way’. Notice the strange combination. One would expect the text to say, like the beginning of Hebrews 8, that the law is not the very form of heavenly perfection. But what is being described here is something that is literally more pragmatic: the law is not the very form of how one needs to behave pragmatically. Using an analogy, this is like saying that reading a guidebook that describes some foreign location does not accurately convey what it means to actually visit this location.
Continuing with this analogy, verse 1 says that the same guidebooks are being reissued every year in an attempt to more accurately describe the distant culture. The law “can never, by the same sacrifices which they offer continually year by year, make perfect those who draw near” (v.1). The correct sacrifices are being carried out because the word translated sacrifice means ‘official sacrifice prescribed by God’. And these sacrifices are being carried out with the right attitude because people are ‘drawing near’. However, the method of officially approved sacrifice cannot perfect people, which means ‘working through the entire process to reach the final phase’.
The verb ‘perfect’ has been used several times in Hebrews, but this is the first time that this term has been applied to people. In 2:10, Jesus the author of salvation is being perfected. In 5:9, Christ is described as having been made perfect. 7:19 says that the law made nothing perfect, while 7:28 describes Jesus as a son who comes after the law who has been made perfect forever. 9:9 says that gifts and sacrifices cannot make the worshipper perfect in conscience. Finally, 10:1 says that the law cannot perfect people. Notice how Jesus is first being made perfect, then conscience is being perfected, and now people are being made perfect.
Verse 3 points out that people have not been perfected because they still have guilty consciences: “Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, because the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have had consciousness of sins?” The word translated consciousness is actually conscience, which means ‘together with knowing, or joint-knowing’, which suggests that behavior in various contexts is being compared to search for internal consistency. Verse 3 is referring to the end of conscience because the word translated no means ‘no one, nothing, not even one’. This goes beyond 9:9 which was talking about perfecting conscience, because people are now being perfected by having no conscience. Putting this together, verse 2 says that something is wrong because those who have been ‘hired to accomplish a technical task because qualified’ are still having ‘feelings of internal inconsistencies’ once they have been ‘cleansed from impurity’.
The idea of having ‘no conscience’ may bring to mind the amorality of today’s post-Christian world, but it is important to distinguish the content of conscience from the presence of conscience. Today’s typical post-Christian individual may reject the content of Christian morality, but will preach tolerance and environmentalism with great moral conviction. Thus conscience has been reprogrammed but it is still present. Having no conscience corresponds more closely to the mindset that I encountered when living in Asia, because the average Asian does not think in terms of conscience, but rather in terms of culture and saving face. ‘Face’ is cognitively incomplete, because it describes a mind that is ruled by MMNs of culture and status. However, I suggest that conscience is also cognitively incomplete, because the mind is being ruled by some outside source; my personal behavior is falling short of some objective standard. Hebrews 10 is talking about moving beyond conscience to a form of existence that is totally integrated, in which one no longer thinks about me being here and ‘the law’ being over there.
Looking at this cognitively, the problem is that standards are being received indirectly from God. God is revealing a set of laws in some manner either through revelation or through natural law, and then people are keeping this law. This is like trying to manage a group from a distance by writing down instructions and mailing them to the employees. There will always be a gap between what the employer really wants and what is being communicated through written form. The employees will have to periodically meet face-to-face with the employer in order to eliminate discrepancies between what the employees thought that the employer wanted and what the employer really wants. This will cause employees to feel that they are never quite living up to the expectations of the employer. Similarly, the year-by-year sacrifices are required to realign God’s wishes with what people are actually doing, because God’s wishes are being communicated indirectly to people through some system of law. As verse 3 says, “But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year by year.’ The word translated reminder means ‘deliberate recollection, done to better appreciate the facts of what happened’. This word is only used once in Hebrews, and the other three occurrences in the New Testament talk about eating bread and drinking wine in remembrance of what Jesus has done. This brings to mind the typical annual performance review in which an employee meets personally with the employer to review any discrepancies between expected and actual performance. The point is that these yearly meetings will always be required.
Verse 4 describes the problem from a slightly different perspective: “It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins”. Saying this cognitively, any system of periodic correction cannot eliminate errors. Using an analogy, suppose that one is driving a car in a snowstorm in a condition of whiteout in which one can only see the road every few seconds. One will probably end up in the ditch, and even if one is not going off the road, one will still fear that one is heading for the ditch—one will still be conscious of sin. The solution is to figure out directly what the employer wants instead of going indirectly through some system of law. That is why the next section focuses upon what gives God pleasure.
This type of direct connection is only possible after Platonic forms become intertwined with reality. This can be seen in the definition of the word ‘perfect’. Jesus says in Matthew 5:48 that “you are to be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” The average person views this as a demand for sinless perfection in which one never makes a mistake but always obeys God’s moral code in the same way that physical matter always obeys God’s natural law. But the word perfect means ‘developed into a consummating completion by fulfilling the necessary process’, which can be interpreted in terms of mental wholeness. A person’s mind is perfect if all seven parts of the mind function together in harmony, and one can work out what this means by combining how each cognitive style uses conscious thought in a mature manner: Everyone should use Contributor thought the way a mature Contributor person uses Contributor thought; everyone should use Mercy thought the way a mature Mercy person uses Mercy thought, and so on. Notice that this definition of perfection realized through mental wholeness is based in an idealization of real mature human behavior. One is not averaging people’s behavior, and one is not merely cataloging the best of people’s behavior. Instead, one is assembling the best of people’s behavior guided by an understanding of the mind in Teacher thought.
The Physical Appearance of Jesus-the-Man 10:5-12
At first glance, verse 5 appears to be describing the coming of Jesus to earth 2000 years ago: “Therefore, when He comes into the world, He says, ‘Sacrifice and offering You have not desired, but a body You have prepared for Me.” But the language is unusual. The statement uses the present tense: ‘coming into the world he says...’ Going further, Jesus came into the world the first time for the specific purpose of dying as a sacrifice. But verse 5 says that God does not want sacrifice and offering. And this is also the first time that the word ‘body’ (soma) is used in the book of Hebrews. Hebrews has talked twice about the foundation of the cosmos, and will refer twice to the cosmos in Hebrews 11, but this is the only time that it talks about entering the cosmos. Thus, it appears that this verse is referring to a future physical appearing of Incarnation within creation. The word prepared means ‘adjust to be in good working order’. Therefore, this does not appear to be describing the birth of Jesus as an infant, but rather a fully developed incarnation becoming physically visible via a physical body.
Verse 6 refers to a different set of offerings than the offerings discussed in Hebrews 9: “In whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have taken no pleasure.” Burnt offerings are mentioned three times in the New Testament, once in Mark 12:33 where Jesus says that loving God is more important than burnt offerings and sacrifices, and then twice in Hebrews 10—once in verse 6 and once in verse 8. The burnt offering is described in Leviticus 4. The ritual involved both the priest and the layman, and the animal was sacrificed “on the altar of burnt offering which is at the doorway of the tent of meeting” (v.7) and not in the holy place. This was also a regular sacrifice, because Numbers 28 says that the burnt offering should be sacrificed twice a day.
Putting this together, what is being described here is normal human interaction with God. Chapter 10 began by pointing out that yearly corrections are not sufficient to produce a clear conscience. Verse 5 talks about living in a body in the physical universe, while verse 6 refers to daily sacrifices that were carried out on the large altar located in the inner court of the Temple. Looking at the divine side, Hebrews 10 describes an attribute of God that has not been discussed so far, which is the pleasure of God. The word translated pleasure is used three times in Hebrews, and all three of these occurrences are in Hebrews 10. Thus, Hebrews 10 is not talking about surviving the wrath of God, but rather discussing how normal human activity can make God happy.
God is not taking pleasure in the daily sacrifices of burnt offering. A burnt offering was burnt entirely, with only the skin being saved for the priests. This brings to mind the attitude of religious self-denial, which attempts to make God happy by denying self completely. If only the skin is preserved in a burnt sacrifice, this implies that one is serving God through self-denial inside, while only interacting with the universe in a peripheral manner in order to stay physically alive. Compare this with Romans 12:1, which talks about presenting one’s bodies as a living and holy sacrifice that is well-pleasing to God. The word sacrifice means ‘an offering the Lord accepts because offered on his terms’. Presenting means to ‘stand close beside’, which is different than burning up entirely. And a living sacrifice is different than a burnt sacrifice. Summarizing, what makes God happy is living alongside God in a manner that reflects the character of God, rather than suppressing self in order to devote oneself to God.
Verse 7 describes the response: ‘Then I said, ‘Behold I have come (In the scroll of the book is written of Me) to do your will, O God.’” The word then means ‘then, at that time’, consistent with the idea that some specific event in the future is being described. The word translated I have come means ‘to reach the end-destination or goal’. When Jesus was born as a baby, this was the start of a journey through life and not the end-destination.
Behold means ‘to see with the mind’. Thus, people are being instructed to view this physical appearance from a mental perspective. This is reinforced by the phrase in parenthesis which points out that this appearance is a fulfillment of written prophecy: “in the scroll of the book it is written of me”. The word translated scroll is not a scroll but rather a word that only occurs once in the New Testament which means literally ‘little head’ and refers to ‘the knob at the end of the wooden core of a roll of papyrus’. This could refer to a specific volume within a scroll, but there may be another cognitive interpretation. Paul describes Christ as the head of the church, and the word used here is a diminutive form of ‘head’ that means ‘little head’. If Christ, the divine side of incarnation is referred to as the ‘head’, then it makes sense that Jesus, the human side of incarnation, would be called the ‘little head’. (There are several New Testament references to Christ or Christ Jesus being the head of the church, but no mention of Jesus being the head of the church.) The word book (which means ‘scroll’) is used twice in Hebrews, once in 9:19 where the book was sprinkled with blood and here in 10:7. Surprisingly, even though the verb write appears 192 times in the New Testament, this is the only time that it is found in the book of Hebrews.
If one interprets these words at face value, then what is being described is a physical reappearance of Jesus as a man in fulfillment of written biblical prophecy. This may appear at first glance to be a reintroduction of fundamentalism with its attitude of absolute truth, but I suggest that exactly the opposite would happen. We saw earlier that absolute truth will only remain solid if the author of truth steps out of the way. Similarly, an attitude of religious self-denial cannot handle success, because success implies that personal identity is important, and if personal identity acquires sufficient emotional importance, then absolute truth will fall into doubt because the source of absolute truth will no longer be regarded as far more important than personal identity. This transition of absolute truth falling into doubt can be seen in the mindset of the typical teenager.
Thus, if a physical Jesus showed up in the physical universe as a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, then this would ironically ensure the demise of absolute truth, as well as the end of the burnt offering with its total sacrifice to God. One can see this illustrated by post-World War II America. The material success of consumerism ensured that the average person would eventually lose respect for biblical truth.
What replaces revealed truth is Jesus doing the will of God: “I have come… to do your will, O God”. Jesus says numerous times in the gospel of John that he has come to do the will of the Father. It is clear from reading the Gospel of John that no one understood what this meant when Jesus came to earth 2000 years ago. I suggest that this is largely because scientific thought had not emerged in Alexandria. This time around, people will understand what it means to do the will of the Father. The result will be to replace absolute truth with the example of righteousness. Jesus, the possessor of indestructible life, will illustrate what it means to do what the Father is doing.
Verses 8-9 repeat the essence of what has just been stated. Verse 8 describes the old situation: “After saying above, ‘Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin You have not desired, nor have You taken pleasure in them’ (which are offered according to the Law).” The various corrections of the old system are summarized: sacrifices, offerings, burnt offerings, and sin offerings. God does not desire or take pleasure in any of these. Notice the emotional language. Desire means ‘wanting what is best because someone is ready and willing to act’, while take pleasure means ‘what seems good, pleasingly acceptable’. The problem with these is that they are offered ‘according to law’. (The definite article is not in the original Greek.) Like the old parlor game of telephone, what emerges at the end is always a distortion of the initial message, because God’s will is being conveyed through some system of revealed standards.
Verse 9 describes the new alternative: “Then he said, ‘Behold, I have come to do your will.’” Saying this cognitively, it is more effective to reveal the will of God through the living example of a physical Jesus-the-man come to do the will of God. Verse 9 adds that “He takes away the first in order to establish the second”. The word translated takes away is usually translated ‘take away the life of, make an end of, murder’. Thus, the mindset of law is not just being removed but murdered. We see again the drive of Teacher thought to remove all exceptions to the rule. God revealing himself through an independent system of technical law is now an exception to the general rule, and this mindset is being eliminated. But, as usual, something better is being ‘made to stand’. The terms first and second relate back to the two covenants described in Hebrews 8. A system of law is a relic of the first covenant of matter-over-mind, while Jesus as a living example expresses the second covenant of mind-over-matter.
The end result is to make all of human existence holy: “By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all” (v.10). This is the first time in the book of Hebrews that the entire name Jesus Christ has been used. All previous references have been to either Jesus or to Christ, but not to both of them together. The implication is that Incarnation has now become fully integrated.
Verse 10 ends by saying that this offering is ‘once for all’. At first glance it might appear that this contradicts the suggestion that Jesus-the-man died in Jerusalem under the Romans while Christ is dying at some time in the future. But dying is not mentioned in verse 11-24. Instead, the focus of these verses is upon replacing sacrifices and offerings with doing the will of God. Verse 8 says that God does not want sacrifice, verse 9 says that Jesus has come to do the will of God, verse 9 adds that the first method of sacrifice is being killed in order to set up a new second method, and verse 10 states that what sanctifies people is Incarnation coming to do the will of God in a physical body.
The emphasis is that this does not have to be repeated. It is a once-for-all sanctification that permanently solves the problem of sin. Looking at this more generally, I suggest that one can understand what is happening by placing these verses within the context of pride-versus-humility and spiritual sowing-and-reaping. Jesus-the-man died once-for-all in first century Jerusalem. As I have mentioned several times in the essay on the Gospel of John, Jesus-the-man fully completed the plan of God. But much of what Jesus did on earth had to be accomplished symbolically through the use of parables and analogies, largely because scientific thought had not yet developed.
One of the results of this was that Jesus had to die a gruesome death. When the average person thinks of the crucifixion of Jesus, what comes to mind is primarily pride-versus-humility: Jesus humbled himself and submitted to the pride of sinful humanity. But Jesus himself prayed that God would look beyond pride-versus-humility, “saying, Father forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing’” (Luke 23:34). And Hebrews 12:2 explains that Jesus himself was focusing upon spiritual sowing-and-reaping: “fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of faith, who for the joy set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” The word translated despise means to ‘esteem lightly, seeing as insignificant or detestable; pay no regard to because something seems of no account’. In other words, Jesus is belittling the humility of suffering at the hands of people in order to focus emotionally upon spiritual sowing-and-reaping.
The beginning of Hebrews 10 describes a critical stage in this transition. Jesus-the-man died once-for-all. But the attitude of focusing upon the humility of Jesus needs to be transformed into a focus upon spiritual sowing-and-reaping. This transformation can only happen if Christ-the-God redeems all of the humility and transgressions under matter-over-mind into the spiritual sowing-and-reaping of eternal inheritance. This transformation carried out by Incarnation-as-God makes it possible for Incarnation-as-man to reappear physically within a universe that is now ruled by spiritual sowing-and-reaping. Once this process is complete, then Jesus Christ the God-man has been offered once-for-all, and this complete solution will never have to be repeated.
Saying this more simply, when Jesus-the-man reappears in a physical body to do the will of God within a context of the universe transformed into mind-over-matter, then this will make all of human existence holy. Never again will there be a gap between what God likes and what humans are doing, and because this gap will be permanently eliminated, there will no longer be any need for sacrifice or offering.
If all that will ever exist is matter-over-mind, then the physical death and resurrection of Jesus-the-man might be sufficient. But if matter-over-mind is temporary and will eventually be replaced by mind-over-matter, then the mindset of Jesus being killed by evil must also be fully replaced by a mindset of Jesus reaping the benefits of sowing to the spirit. (The essay on John 18-21 examines the death of Jesus-the-man from this new perspective.)
Verse 11 explains that under the current system there is always a gap between what God wants and what humans are doing: “Every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.” The word time after time means ‘many times, often, frequently’. Ministering means ‘to minister in an official capacity, especially on behalf of the community’, while a sacrifice is ‘an official sacrifice prescribed by God’. Thus, the priests are doing the right thing in the sight of God, ministering officially in a theologically correct manner, on behalf of the people. But the very fact that this has to be repeated again and again tells us that a gap is continually opening up between God’s desire and human behavior. This is obviously true of Old Testament sacrifice, but I suggest that it is also true of any system of law in which moral standards are revealed from some source. One can see this illustrated by the current gap that exists between technology and legislation. Legislation is always trying to keep up with new technology, and the faster technology changes the more outdated legislation becomes. The word take away means ‘remove totally, leave behind entirely’. This word is used five times in the New Testament, and only once in the book of Hebrews. In other words, the sacrifices can temporarily eliminate sin, but they cannot remove it totally or leave it behind entirely.
In contrast, verse 12 says “but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God.” The word translated for all time actually means ‘continuous, continually, unbroken’. In other words, there will be no gap; the effect of the sacrifice will be continuous and unbroken. This contrast is explicitly emphasized by the two verbs in verses 11 and 12. In verse 11, every priest stands daily, while in verse 12 Jesus Christ sat down. And it is also implicitly emphasized by the fact that verses 11-14 do not mention the name of Jesus Christ but rather refer to him through the use of the pronoun ‘he’. The person of Jesus Christ was emphasized in verse 10, while verses 11-14 are focusing upon the fact that the offering of Jesus Christ does not have to be repeated. (This is not the only time that it talks about Jesus Christ sitting down at the right hand of God. The emphasis here is upon the continuous nature of this sitting down. Jesus Christ does not have to repeatedly get up and sit down.)
The Physical Example of Jesus-the-Man 10:13-21
Verse 13 makes it clear that this does not mean that all sin will be instantly eliminated at this point in human history: “Waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.” This phrase was originally quoted way back in 1:13, in the context of submitting the specialized thinking of angelic thought to the universal understanding of incarnation. It is now being re-quoted in the much larger context of submitting all of existence to the pleasure of God the Father.
‘Finally, from now on’, Incarnation will adopt a new attitude of ‘welcoming from the heart, looking to the end result of the waiting’. Saying this more practically, from this point on, Jesus Christ will stop carrying out a plan of eliminating evil from the universe, relying instead upon God the Father. We shall see in a few verses what this means in practice, because things will temporarily get somewhat chaotic.
Verse 14 describes the positive side of this waiting: “For by one offering he has perfected for all times those who are being sanctified.” (A footnote in the NASB as well as Greek grammar suggests that ‘being’ should be added.) The word offering simply means ‘presentation or offering’. The word perfected means ‘reached the end stage’, while all times means ‘continuous, continually, unbroken’. Thus, handing the plan over to God the Father means that the final stage of the plan has been reached, and this final stage will continue without being broken. But this once-for-all perfection applies to those who are being sanctified. Looking at this cognitively, a complete system of new core mental networks has now been set up that will inevitably make the new realm of mind-over-matter consistent with the good pleasure of God. But it will take time for these new core mental networks to impose their structure upon existing mental networks that oppose the character of God. I should also point out that this does not say that everyone will end up in heaven. Instead, all enemies will be overcome, and the process of perfection applies to those who are being sanctified. It may sound strange to connect a state of perfection with the process of sanctification, but once the final stage of the plan has been reached, people will still have to learn how to live within this perfection.
Verse 15 begins by saying that “the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying...” As far as I can tell, this is the only verse in the New Testament that talks about the Holy Spirit bearing witness. John 15:26 says that the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father will bear witness, and in 1 John 5:6, the Spirit who is truth bears witness, but this is the only time that one finds a Holy Spirit witnessing. Cognitively speaking, a concept of the Holy Spirit emerges when all Platonic forms coalesce into a Form of the Good. Until now, this Form of the Good has been seen as an unreachable ideal of which humanity always fall short, leading to a sense of sin, which requires systems of sacrifice. The new covenant that was promised in Hebrews 8 will now be internally realized at the level of conscience and platonic ideals.
Verses 16 and 17 summarize what the Holy Spirit will be testifying. The law of God will no longer be indirectly transmitted to humanity through some system of law. Instead, it will be directly written upon people’s hearts and minds: “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws upon their heart, and on their mind I will write them” (v.17). The re-quote in Hebrews 10 is slightly different than the original quote in Hebrews 8.
Hebrews 8 talked about making a new covenant with the house of Israel, while Hebrews 10 simply talks about making a covenant with them. In Hebrews 8, a new covenant was being applied to some group of people, as opposed to the old covenant being followed by other people. By Hebrews 10, there is no longer any consciousness of the old covenant, and people are simply thinking of God making a covenant with people. This is similar to the mindset that is starting to emerge within current society. For several decades, post-Christian thinking has been viewed as a new way of thinking that replaces the old Christian mindset—hence the term post-Christian. But now it is being viewed as the only way of thinking because people no longer have to contend internally with any mental networks based in Christianity.
The other difference between Hebrews 8 and 10 is a reordering of statements. Hebrews 8 says first that God will put his laws into people’s minds and then adds that He will write them on their hearts. In Hebrews 10, putting the laws on their hearts comes first, while inscribing them on the minds come second. In other words, Hebrews 8 starts with rational content and then extends to include mental networks of identity, while Hebrews 10 begins with mental networks of identity and then extends to include rational thought.
Verse 17 describes the result: “And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” The NASB separates these two re-quotes by ‘He then says’, but this is not in the original Greek (which the NASB indicates by placing these words in italics). Instead, the second quote follows directly from the first one. Cognitively speaking, God no longer actively remembers sins and lawless deeds because the law of God is now being written directly upon people’s hearts and minds.
There is also a slight difference between the original quote and the re-quote. Hebrews 8 says that God will not remember their sins and unrighteousness, while Hebrews 10 says that God will not remember their sins and lawlessness. Lawlessness is more fundamental than unrighteousness. Unrighteousness means acting in a way that is inconsistent with the character of God in Teacher thought, while lawlessness means acting in a way that rebels from any system of law, whether this system of law is consistent with God or not. One can be unrighteous but lawful if one submits to a system of law that is inconsistent with the character of God. Looking at this cognitively, Hebrews 8 is being reinforced by the TMN of a concept of God together with the Platonic forms of heavenly perfection, while Hebrews 10 has the additional reinforcement of the MMNs of the Holy Spirit combined with the physical example of Jesus Christ.
Verse 18 concludes “Now where there is forgiveness of these things, throken’. In other words, there will be no gap; the effect of the sacrifice will be continuous and unbroken. This contrast is explicitly emphasized by the two verbs in verses 11 and 12. In verse 11, every priest stands daily, while in verse 12 Jesus Christ sat down. And it is also implicitly emphasized by the fact that verses 11-14 do not mention the name of Jesus Christ but rather refer to him through the use of the pronoun ‘he’. The person of Jesus Christ was emphasized in verse 10, while verses 11-14 are focusing upon the fact that the offering of Jesus Christ does not have to be repeated. (This is not the only time that it talks about Jesus Christ sitting down at the right hand of God. The emphasis here is upon the continuous nature of this sitting down. Jesus Christ does not have to repeatedly get up and sit down.)
The Physical Example of Jesus-the-Man 10:13-21
Verse 13 makes it clear that this does not mean that all sin will be instantly eliminated at this point in human history: “Waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet.” This phrase was originally quoted way back in 1:13, in the context of submitting the specialized thinking of angelic thought to the universal understanding of incarnation. It is now being re-quoted in the much larger context of submitting all of existence to the pleasure of God the Father.
‘Finally, from now on’, Incarnation will adopt a new attitude of ‘welcoming from the heart, looking to the end result of the waiting’. Saying this more practically, from this point on, Jesus Christ will stop carrying out a plan of eliminating evil from the universe, relying instead upon God the Father. We shall see in a few verses what this means in practice, because things will temporarily get somewhat chaotic.
Verse 14 describes the positive side of this waiting: “For by one offering he has perfected for all times those who are being sanctified.” (A footnote in the NASB as well as Greek grammar suggests that ‘being’ should be added.) The word offering simply means ‘presentation or offering’. The word perfected means ‘reached the end stage’, while all times means ‘continuous, continually, unbroken’. Thus, handing the plan over to God the Father means that the final stage of the plan has been reached, and this final stage will continue without being broken. But this once-for-all perfection applies to those who are being sanctified. Looking at this cognitively, a complete system of new core mental networks has now been set up that will inevitably make the new realm of mind-over-matter consistent with the good pleasure of God. But it will take time for these new core mental networks to impose their structure upon existing mental networks that oppose the character of God. I should also point out that this does not say that everyone will end up in heaven. Instead, all enemies will be overcome, and the process of perfection applies to those who are being sanctified. It may sound strange to connect a state of perfection with the process of sanctification, but once the final stage of the plan has been reached, people will still have to learn how to live within this perfection.
Verse 15 begins by saying that “the Holy Spirit also testifies to us; for after saying...” As far as I can tell, this is the only verse in the New Testament that talks about the Holy Spirit bearing witness. John 15:26 says that the Spirit of truth who comes from the Father will bear witness, and in 1 John 5:6, the Spirit who is truth bears witness, but this is the only time that one finds a Holy Spirit witnessing. Cognitively speaking, a concept of the Holy Spirit emerges when all Platonic forms coalesce into a Form of the Good. Until now, this Form of the Good has been seen as an unreachable ideal of which humanity always fall short, leading to a sense of sin, which requires systems of sacrifice. The new covenant that was promised in Hebrews 8 will now be internally realized at the level of conscience and platonic ideals.
Verses 16 and 17 summarize what the Holy Spirit will be testifying. The law of God will no longer be indirectly transmitted to humanity through some system of law. Instead, it will be directly written upon people’s hearts and minds: “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, says the Lord: I will put my laws upon their heart, and on their mind I will write them” (v.17). The re-quote in Hebrews 10 is slightly different than the original quote in Hebrews 8.
Hebrews 8 talked about making a new covenant with the house of Israel, while Hebrews 10 simply talks about making a covenant with them. In Hebrews 8, a new covenant was being applied to some group of people, as opposed to the old covenant being followed by other people. By Hebrews 10, there is no longer any consciousness of the old covenant, and people are simply thinking of God making a covenant with people. This is similar to the mindset that is starting to emerge within current society. For several decades, post-Christian thinking has been viewed as a new way of thinking that replaces the old Christian mindset—hence the term post-Christian. But now it is being viewed as the only way of thinking because people no longer have to contend internally with any mental networks based in Christianity.
The other difference between Hebrews 8 and 10 is a reordering of statements. Hebrews 8 says first that God will put his laws into people’s minds and then adds that He will write them on their hearts. In Hebrews 10, putting the laws on their hearts comes first, while inscribing them on the minds come second. In other words, Hebrews 8 starts with rational content and then extends to include mental networks of identity, while Hebrews 10 begins with mental networks of identity and then extends to include rational thought.
Verse 17 describes the result: “And their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more.” The NASB separates these two re-quotes by ‘He then says’, but this is not in the original Greek (which the NASB indicates by placing these words in italics). Instead, the second quote follows directly from the first one. Cognitively speaking, God no longer actively remembers sins and lawless deeds because the law of God is now being written directly upon people’s hearts and minds.
There is also a slight difference between the original quote and the re-quote. Hebrews 8 says that God will not remember their sins and unrighteousness, while Hebrews 10 says that God will not remember their sins and lawlessness. Lawlessness is more fundamental than unrighteousness. Unrighteousness means acting in a way that is inconsistent with the character of God in Teacher thought, while lawlessness means acting in a way that rebels from any system of law, whether this system of law is consistent with God or not. One can be unrighteous but lawful if one submits to a system of law that is inconsistent with the character of God. Looking at this cognitively, Hebrews 8 is being reinforced by the TMN of a concept of God together with the Platonic forms of heavenly perfection, while Hebrews 10 has the additional reinforcement of the MMNs of the Holy Spirit combined with the physical example of Jesus Christ.
Verse 18 concludes “Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer [any] offering for sin.” As the NASB implies, the word ‘any’ is not in the original Greek. In other words, what is being stopped is not just specific offerings for sins but rather the very concept of offering for sins. That is because there is now forgiveness, and the word forgiveness means ‘something sent away, releasing someone from obligation or debt’. Using an analogy, if all health problems went away, then there would no longer be any need for physicians. If everyone always had perfect physical health, then the very concept of physician would become redundant.
There is both a positive and a negative side to this. Verses 19-25 describe the positive side while verses 26-31 explain the negative side.
Verse 19 is addressed to brethren: “Therefore, brethren, since we have confidence to enter the holy place by the blood of Jesus, by a new and living way which he inaugurated for us through the veil.” In some Christian circles, the term ‘brethren’ is used almost as ubiquitously as the term ‘comrade’ in communism. (Would the female version of brethren be cistern?) But when this term is used in the book of Hebrews, then this means that the text is specifically focusing upon those who are actively following incarnation. If Jesus Christ has just sat down at the right hand of the Father and is now waiting for the Father to make his enemies a footstool, then this means that the followers of Incarnation are going to have to step in and play an active role. This does not necessarily mean that anyone who is not a ‘brethren’ is bound for hell. Revelation 21 describes three realms and not two: the New Jerusalem, the nations, and the lake of fire.
Confidence to enter ‘the holies’ through the veil is something new that has not yet been mentioned in Hebrews. Hebrews 4:16 talked about drawing near with confidence to the throne of grace, but this was prefaced by saying that we have a high priest who sympathizes with our weaknesses. Hebrews 6:19 described a hope which enters within the veil, but said that Jesus has entered as a forerunner for us. Hebrews 9 discussed entering the holies, but Christ was entering as high priest. In 10:19, brethren—followers of incarnation—are having confidence to enter the holies. A modern equivalent would be having confidence to enter a nuclear reactor. This confidence is based ‘in the blood of Jesus’. The NASB translates this as ‘by the blood of Jesus’ but the preposition en means ‘in the realm of, operating from within’. ‘By’ gives the impression that the blood of Jesus is like a ticket that one possesses, while ‘in the realm of’ gives the idea of functioning in a certain manner. In other words, the confidence comes from continually allowing MMNs of personal identity to be transformed in a manner that reflects the physical example that is being set by Jesus-the-man.
Verse 20 explicitly says that people are now learning directly about the will of God from the physical life of Jesus: “...by a new and living way which he inaugurated for us through the veil, that is, his flesh. The word translated new is only used once in the New Testament and means ‘freshly slaughtered’. That is a bizarre word, but it fits within the context. The problem with a system of law is that one is always following the will of God indirectly, allowing a gap to open up between what God wants and what one is doing. If blood represents MMNs of personal identity falling apart, and if the way is ‘freshly slaughtered’, then this means that one will always have a fresh understanding of what God wants and how this impinges upon personal identity. This way is also living, a word which means ‘I live, am alive’ and describes both physical and spiritual life. Notice the impossible juxtaposition: The way is both freshly slaughtered and alive. How can something be simultaneously dead and alive? I suggest that this combination is possible because Jesus-the-man will not be a normal independent human person, but rather be a finite physical window into the God-man of Jesus Christ.
Using an analogy, I can stick my finger into the water of an aquarium and pull my finger out again. My finger will appear to the fishes as if it is being born and then dying to their realm of water. But I am merely sticking in my finger and pulling it out again. Similarly, I suggest that what humans will perceive as the physical person of Jesus-the-man will be merely ‘the finger’ of Jesus Christ the God-man being temporarily placed within the water of human experience. When Jesus Christ pulls out his ‘finger’ and places it in a different location, humanity will view this as being ‘freshly slaughtered’, but this movement of Jesus-the-man in and out of physical existence will merely be a small aspect of the living movement of Jesus Christ. Saying this another way, I suggest that Jesus Christ will be a multi-dimensional being and Jesus-the-man will be a ‘slice’ of this multidimensional being that appears within human space-time. Using computer language, Jesus-the-man will be an avatar of Jesus Christ the God-man. But this finite slice of Incarnation will provide an accurate, up-to-date picture of the will of God that makes it possible to enter with confidence through the veil. Verse 20 finishes by clarifying that this new way specifically involves the physical life of Jesus-the-man: “that is, his flesh”. And flesh is the word that Paul uses to describe the physical nature that is acquired from living in a physical body. Hebrews 5:7 used the same word to discuss the original life of Jesus on earth, talking about ‘the days of his flesh’.
Verse 21 is also consistent with the idea of Jesus-the-man being a physical window into the multidimensional existence of Jesus the God-man: “and since we have a great priest over the house of God”. The words ‘priest’ and ‘high priest’ have been used a number of times, and Hebrews 4:14 talked about a ‘great high priest who has passed through the heavens’ in the context of entering the rest of God, but this is the only time that the term ‘great priest’ is used. This gives the impression that Jesus-the-man is functioning in a manner that is superior to other human priests but also in a manner that is subordinate to the high priesthood of Jesus Christ the God-man. This great priest is “over the house of God”. Hebrews 3 made a distinction between Jesus the builder of the house and Moses who was faithful in the house. The same kind of distinction is made and made here between Christ-the God and Jesus-the-man, who is being set over the house of God.
Turning again to Revelation, two primary events have been described in Hebrews 9-10: 1) Christ turning over the rule of the universe to created beings. 2) Jesus appearing physically as a finite expression of Jesus Christ the God-man. Similarly, Revelation 19:7-10 describes the ‘marriage supper of the Lamb’, emphasizing the bride of Christ clothing herself in ‘the righteous acts of the saints’. And Revelation 19:10-16 talks about heaven opening and Incarnation appearing physically. The description of Incarnation is not that of a normal human being but rather gives the impression that one is seeing a finite expression of a universal person who lives within Platonic forms.
Looking at this in more detail, verse 12 says that ‘his eyes are a flame of fire’. This reminds one of the comic book hero Superman, who also has eyes that are flames of fire. Looking at this more generally, researchers in the cognitive science of religion have found that the average person will say that God is a universal being while implicitly regarding God as a type of finite Superman; they will state that God is an expression of universal Teacher understanding while implicitly viewing God as an important person in Mercy thought. The description of Incarnation in Revelation 19 sounds like a real live Superman-like being. This does not mean that either God or Jesus Christ are merely Supermans. Instead, I suggest that the reappearing Jesus-the-man will be a finite expression of Jesus-the-God who will convey the impression of being like some sort of Superman.
This is followed in Revelation by ‘the great supper of God’ in 19:17-18, in which ‘the birds which fly in midheaven’ are instructed to ‘eat the flesh of kings and the flesh of commanders...’ Looking at this cognitively, all living mental networks of material human existence are being torn apart and submitted to the TMN of an integrated concept of God. Similarly, in Hebrews 10:12, Jesus Christ sits down at the right hand of God, waiting until his enemies be made a footstool for his feet. This waiting for God can also be seen in Revelation 19. In verse 15, a sharp sword comes from the mouth of Incarnation, suggesting that a verbal weapon of Teacher understanding is being wielded, and Incarnation is treading the winepress of the fierce wrath of God. In verse 17, it is an angel who announces ‘the great supper of God’ and not Incarnation. And in verse 19, Incarnation is not described as attacking the enemy but rather as ‘sitting on the horse’. I know that the standard interpretation is that the returning super-Jesus will only have to show up on the scene in order to instantly win the battle over evil. But I suggest that this viewpoint is another example of Teacher overgeneralization, in which all facts magically disappear in response to a Teacher theory. However, Revelation 19 does not seem to be describing an instant victory. In verses 17-18, the birds are being instructed to eat all flesh, giving the impression that everyone is now dead. But then verse 19 says that “the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war.” If everyone is killed in verse 18 including kings, commanders, and captains, then where do the kings and their armies in verse 19 come from? Summarizing, my best guess is that Revelation 19 describes Jesus-the-God sitting at the right hand of God the Father, while Jesus-the-man is returning in glorified form together with his ‘brethren’ to work out the pragmatic details of victory over evil, guided by God the Father in Teacher thought. Saying this another way, the final paradigm shift has occurred within abstract thought, and all of concrete reality is now being re-examined in the light of this new paradigm.
Actively Drawing Near 10:22-25
Verse 22 describes how one should enter the holies: “Let us draw near with a sincere heart in all assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.” ‘Draw near’ implies that this is supposed to be an emotional encounter and should not be approached in an objective manner. The word sincere is literally ‘true, real, genuine’. Therefore, a sincere heart would be an attitude of personal honesty, in which one accurately acknowledges MMNs of personal identity without trying to hide, justify, or rationalize personal feelings. The phrase full assurance is a single word in Greek that means ‘full carry-through’. Full assurance of faith means performing an action to completion guided not by what one sees but by an internal understanding of how things work.
‘Having been sprinkled clean’ is also a single word which was used previously to describe the sprinkling of the red heifer. This would describe letting go of all negative feelings of loss or injustice by allowing them to be transformed into a positive feeling of expecting to reap from the spirit. Verse 22 explicitly states that hearts are supposed to be ‘sprinkled from an evil conscience’. The preposition from means ‘from, away from’. This is the only time in the New Testament that conscience is described as evil, and evil means ‘pain-ridden, emphasizing the inevitable agonies that always go with evil’. Thus, the danger will be to think in terms of justice and right-versus-wrong. As a Perceiver person I know how easy it is to slip into this mindset. But the very mindset of conscience is being described as pain-ridden and full of agony. One needs to be sprinkled away from this mindset of justice and rules by the ashes of transforming conscience into inheritance. When rules are broken, then one does not try to enforce them but rather one uses injustice as a starting point for pursuing life. And this is not just a mental sprinkling but rather a sprinkling of hearts. One must feel at the level of personal MMNs that one really is seeking life rather than calling for justice. Obviously, making this transition would be much easier for those who have been the recipients of injustice rather than those who have imposed injustice. But experiencing injustice is not a guarantee that one will seek life, and one occasionally reads of individuals who have imposed injustice repenting of their former life and breaking through to a new mindset based in life rather than justice.
The final requirement is ‘bodies washed with pure water’. The word washed means ‘a complete bathing to cleanse the entire person’, pure means ‘without admixture’, while body refers either to the literal or figurative body. If water represents Mercy experiences, then this means living with pure motives within the physical world, not trying to serve a multiplicity of masters in an impure manner.
Verse 22 described how one draws near. Verse 23 talks about holding fast: “Let us hold fast the confession of our hope without wavering, for He who promised is faithful.” The verb confess means to ‘voice the same conclusion, speak the same thing’. Thus, confession is inherently verbal. Most scriptural references talk about ‘confessing Jesus’ or ‘confessing our sins’, but this verse talks about holding to the confession of our hope. Hope means ‘expectation of what is sure’ and relates to Exhorter thought. Putting this together cognitively, a lasting TMN has just emerged as a result of the final paradigm shift. Exhorter thought needs to focus upon this lasting TMN and Teacher thought needs to be guided by this TMN.
Going further, the word without wavering is only found once in the New Testament and literally means ‘not causing to bend’. This is an interesting description because the Exhorter person who fixates on some vision will plow straight ahead without bending in any direction. Normally, this is not a desirable type of behavior because it does not make allowances for situations or people. But in this case the direction is being set by the example of Jesus-the-man and all that remains is to head in this direction without bending. In other words, the final paradigm has emerged in Teacher thought and the ultimate example has emerged in Mercy thought. It is possible to continue ‘without wavering’ because one can follow the ultimate example. And one can know that following this ultimate example will succeed because ‘He who promised is faithful’. God is promising in Teacher thought that all enemies will be made a footstool, and the physical expression of Jesus-the-man is demonstrating the direction that needs to be followed.
Verse 24 talks about helping one another: “And let us consider how to stimulate one another to love and good deeds.” The English translation sounds quite innocuous but the original Greek is not. Let us consider means ‘to think from up to down, to a conclusion’, which indicates a thorough form of thought. This thinking is supposed to focus upon ‘one another’. But the purpose of this extensive thinking towards one another is stimulation. This noun occurs only twice in the New Testament (as well as twice in verb form) and means ‘a provocation which literally jabs someone so they must respond’. The other occurrence of ‘stimulation’ is in Acts 15:39, where a sharp disagreement—a stimulation—between Paul and Barnabas caused them to split up and go their separate ways. But the goal of this stimulation is not to cause division but rather to motivate ‘love and good deeds’.
Putting this into context, Christ has officially turned over the running of the universe to created beings and has sat down at the right hand of the Father. The implication of this is that nothing will get done unless people do it. Therefore, if one wants something done, then one has to jab one’s neighbors until they respond. But the purpose of this poking and jabbing is not to harm one’s neighbors but rather to motivate them to start living within the inheritance that they have been given by Christ. When matter is over mind, then there is no need to jab one’s neighbors. Instead, one can simply point out where one’s neighbor is being jabbed by the laws of nature. However, Hebrews 10 is describing a new environment in which people are ruling over nature. Given such an environment, the only option left would be to directly jab one’s neighbor.
Verse 25 indicates that there will be a natural tendency at this stage for individuals to avoid each other: “Not forsaking our own assembling together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another.” Forsaking means ‘leave in the lurch, abandon... left in dire circumstances’, and this is the word that Jesus used on the cross when he said ‘My God, why have you forsaken me?’ The word assembling together means ‘grouping together that builds on the specific purpose of the gathering together’. This is not just meeting together in order to chat but rather meeting together in order to reach some common purpose. In other words, there will be a natural tendency for people to turn into hermits, but if progress is to be made, then people will have to combine their gifts in order to reach a common purpose.
Swedenborg’s description of heaven provides a possible explanation for this tendency towards fragmentation. Repeating a quote from Swedenborg made earlier: “In our material world, a person can settle down and live almost anywhere; but in the spiritual world there is only one place where any individual can feel at home, and this is determined by his or her deep-down attitude towards God and the neighbor. Those are near together who are alike in character. Love attracts, and hate repels. ‘Birds of a feather flock together.’ It is possible, of course, to leave one’s home for short periods at a time; but, if one does so, there is always a feeling of strain and anxiety, a ‘home sickness’ until one returns.” Using the language of mental symmetry, every mind is driven by its core mental networks to stick with familiar people and familiar situations and to avoid anything strange or different. In the words of Swedenborg, ‘Birds of a feather flock together’. (This is an oversimplification because Exhorter thought looks for novelty and gets bored when nothing changes. But this Exhorter drive for novelty is still happening within the general context of clinging emotionally to familiar mental networks.) These xenophobic tendencies are counterbalanced in the current realm of matter-over-mind by the mental networks that everyone shares in common as a result of living within similar physical bodies in the same physical universe. But this common ground would disappear—literally—if physical reality itself became subject to personal mental networks. Physical reality would naturally fragment into the type of cultural clinging described by Swedenborg in his concept of heaven.
This kind of culturally driven isolation can be seen in the phrase ‘as is the habit of some’. As means ‘in proportion, to the degree that’, while habit is actually ‘an unwritten custom; behavior based on tradition fixed by the religious social life of a nation’. Thus, the text is warning that cultural MMNs will drive groups to fragment in the manner described by Swedenborg, and that one is not supposed to follow that pattern. Instead, one should be ‘encouraging one another’, which means to ‘make a call from being close-up and personal’, and John uses this same word in noun form (paraclete) to describe the Holy Spirit in John 14-16. Using cognitive language, one should interact personally with others who have differing mental networks, rather than allowing these differences to fragment society. This principle is always true, but it would be especially true during the initial stages of rebuilding existence upon personal mental networks.
The final phrase of verse 25 provides a positive motivation for getting together: “...and all the more as you see the day drawing near”. Verse 13 says that Jesus Christ is ‘waiting from that time onward’ until God makes his enemies his footstool. From a human perspective, this spread of the divine rule of God would be seen as the day drawing near, because a day represents society being lit by the sun of a general Teacher understanding. If mind were to rule over matter, then day would only approach as God’s rule spread over more individuals, and if Jesus Christ was waiting from that time onward, then God’s rule would only spread if individuals chose to cooperate together.
In the English, ‘all the more’ sounds like a simple comparative, but the Greek suggests a deeper meaning. Two words are being combined, the noun ‘so great, so large, so many’, and the adverb more than, a ‘comparative adverb that refers to what is better as compared to what is merely good’. This leaves the impression that one should focus on large projects rather than personal concerns. The word see means ‘to see something physical, with spiritual results’. Putting this together, as one physically sees an integrated society lit by the TMN of a concept of God starting to emerge, one should increasingly focus upon large projects in order to further the integration of society.
Putting this together with the earlier comments about Exhorter thought plowing straight ahead, the natural tendency at this stage will be for society to fragment into various special-interest groups. Exhorter thought needs to disrupt this balkanization by jabbing one’s neighbor (the Exhorter person is naturally gifted at prodding people to change). The purpose of this interpersonal poking is to head in the direction of the new paradigm in Teacher thought and the revealed example in Mercy thought. Exhorter thought will be able to do this without getting bored because plowing straight ahead in this direction will lead to the continual novelty of development and expansion.
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely 10:26-27
Verses 26-31 look at the negative side. The language of this section is unusual because it focuses strongly upon personal opinion. However, if mind were to rule over matter, if Christ were to turn the universe over to finite creatures, and if a day of integrated Teacher understanding was approaching but had not yet arrived, then only personal opinion would remain. Here too one can see a day approaching because the section begins by discussing personal opinion but ends by mentioning the vengeance of God.
Verse 26 is usually viewed as a judgment from God, but I suggest that it merely a statement of fact given the current situation, based in universal laws of cognitive cause-and-effect, which would still be applicable. “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sin.” The context is ‘receiving the knowledge of the truth’. This is the only time that the noun truth is used in the book of Hebrews. (Hebrews 8:2 and 9:24 referred to the true tabernacle in the heavens.) If the true tabernacle is composed of Platonic forms, then it makes sense that the truth would refer to Platonic forms in general. (There is a general connection between truth and Platonic forms, and the language of Hebrews appears to be emphasizing this connection.) In verse 26, people are receiving the knowledge of the truth, and the word translated knowledge means ‘knowledge gained through first-hand relationship, first-hand experiential knowing’. In other words, Platonic forms have become connected with empirical knowledge. People are not just thinking in terms of Platonic forms, but rather having personal experiential knowledge of Platonic forms, the type of experiential knowledge that would emerge if finite creatures were given the responsibility of holding existence together. The word receive means ‘to lay hold by aggressively accepting what is available’ and ‘emphasizes the volition of the receiver’. In other words, this experiential knowledge of Platonic forms is happening deliberately and consciously. Saying this more clearly, if mind were to rule over matter and if finite creatures held existence together, then people could literally choose to change the laws of nature within a limited environment. This can already happen to a limited extent when people pray. Thus, praying can teach a person what it might be like to live within this future environment. But what is being described in verse 26 goes far beyond prayer occasionally affecting the course of Nature in minor ways.
It is said that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Many individuals are being given absolute power within some small facet of existence. It would be natural to conclude that moral cause-and-effect no longer existed, and there would be a strong temptation to ‘go on sinning’. A similar effect occurs whenever moral standards of society become questioned, and one can see this illustrated by the amorality of current post-Christian society. The ultimate example of this would be the period of transition between Christ handing over control of the universe and ‘the day’ drawing near. This period of transition would feel like the ultimate expression of free will, similar to the manner in which free will has become the absolute standard in today’s post-Christian society. However, in the same way that people within current society are losing free will, so there would only be a finite window of cosmic free will during this time of transition. This interpretation is consistent with the original Greek because the word willingly is only found twice in the New Testament and means ‘willingly, of one’s own accord, spontaneously’. The other occurrence is in 1 Peter 5:2 which talks about being a church elder voluntarily (or willingly) and not under compulsion. This is the only time that one finds this particular conjugation of sinning, which I think means ‘going on sinning’ as translated in the NASB. In other words, verse 26 is not talking about making a choice and then experiencing failure, but rather making a choice, experiencing failure, and then continuing to assert free will in the face of negative consequences. A current example would be individuals who choose to behave in a certain manner, experience negative consequences, and then respond by demanding that their personal choices be supported by society as an officially approved lifestyle.
Verse 26 warns that “there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins”. The word sacrifice means ‘an offering the Lord accepts because offered on His terms’. This is not saying that God will reject the sacrifice of such a person but rather that the process of offering a sacrifice will cease to function. This is because sacrifice presupposes a system of law that is independent of personal opinion. For instance, it is meaningless for me to tell my neighbor that his sins are forgiven, because I do not have the authority to make such a statement. Going further, it is also meaningless for a dictator to tell someone that their sins are forgiven, because the dictator could change his mind the next day. But it does make sense for a judge to tell someone that their sins are forgiven, because the judge is speaking on behalf of a system of law that exists independently of personal opinion. An independent system of law has just ceased to exist at the cosmic level. All that remains is cognitive cause-and-effect. If a person chooses to ignore these cognitive consequences, then no alternative exists upon which to base a system of sacrifice.
What will happen instead is that mental networks will come into direct contact with one another, leading to a brute struggle for survival. Verse 27 describes this as: “a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.” The word terrifying means ‘fearful, prompting a person to withdraw’. Expectation is only used once in the New Testament, and means a ‘personally-felt expectation of receiving one’s just desserts’. And the word judgment ‘stresses the results that go with a particular judgment’. In other words, interaction will descend to the level of animal fear, the type of ‘struggle for survival’ that is emphasized by the theory of evolution. People will be driven by core mental networks to flee from each other in fear, knowing that others have the power to wreak justice. This type of ‘law of the jungle’ naturally emerges when societal structure breaks down. This describes a transition in the structure of existence itself, in which each gang leader or warlord would have the power to rain revenge on adversaries by using free will in an arbitrary manner.
This wreaking of revenge can be seen in the phrase ‘fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries’. Fury means ‘inner feeling boiling over’, which tells us that mental networks are nakedly expressing themselves. This fury is a ‘fury of fire to consume’, and the word consume means ‘eat, partake of food, devour, consume’. In other words, tyrants with strong mental networks are swallowing up lesser powers, driven by raw emotion. This rage is being directed towards adversaries, which means ‘set over against, opposite’. Summarizing, anything that opposes the will of tyrants is being consumed by raw displays of cosmic force motivated by mental networks. The phrase ‘which will consume’ gives the impression that the universe has descended to the level of gang warfare. But the word translated will means ‘at the very point of acting, about to happen’. Thus, this verse is not saying that cosmic civil war is actually happening but rather that people who go on sinning willfully will have a terrifying expectation that cosmic civil war is about to happen, similar to the way that the last half of the 20th century was largely driven by the fear of global thermonuclear warfare. And in the same way that the fear of nuclear warfare drove an arms race between the Soviet bloc and NATO, so mind-over-matter would transform an attitude of fear into a physical world of paranoia.
Looking briefly at Revelation, this initial response of rebellion is implied by 19:19, which says that “the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against him who sat on the horse and against his army.”
Informal Justice 10:28-29
Verse 28 describes the initial response, which is informal justice: “Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses”. Hebrews talks several times about ‘the law’ as well as mentioning Moses, but this is the only reference in the book of Hebrews to ‘the Law of Moses’. Moses means ‘drawn from the water’. Thus, what is being emphasized is a personal source of law being drawn from experience. The law is not standing on its own at this point, but is rather an expression of personal opinion. It may seem strange to describe the law of Moses as an expression of personal opinion, but God could not present the Israelites with universal principles in the Pentateuch, because he was dealing with a tribe of people incapable of abstract thought which was driven mentally by MMNs of personal opinion. Therefore, God had no option but to present his universal principles within this concrete framework of tribal personal opinion—and to present himself as a tribal leader imposing his personal opinion upon the Israelites. That is what it means for a system of law to be ‘drawn from the water’.
A similar mindset is prevalent within today’s post-Christian society, because most people believe that there is no such thing as independent law, but rather that all laws are merely opinions which important people are imposing by force upon others. Verse 28 appears to be describing a reappearance of this mindset of the Law of Moses. Similarly, current society is looking back at previous laws and viewing them as laws of Moses: rules of personal authority drawn from personal experience without any basis in universal truth or a concept of God.
This Law of Moses is being interpreted in terms of tribal justice. To set aside means ‘reject as invalid; refuse to respect’. Setting aside the Law of Moses would mean refusing to respect or acknowledge the pronouncements of some authority. The Law of Moses is being replaced by dying without mercy. The word die is more accurately ‘die off, focusing on the separation that goes with the dying off’. Mercy means ‘deep feeling about someone’s difficulty or misfortune. If someone is dying off and being separated without any personal feelings, then this implies that when personal feelings are absent, then nothing remains. No one is saying ‘I love you but I must still punish you because of the rule of law’, because there is no rule of law. Instead, people are either being personally accepted by others or personally rejected; the tyrant either likes you or he hates you. This decision to hate some victim is not being guided by the rule of law but rather ‘on the testimony of two or three witnesses’. And, as the NASB indicates through the use of italics, the phrase ‘the testimony of’ is not in the original Greek. Testimony implies rational dialogue. Instead, a more literal translation would be ‘dies off without mercies on the basis of two or three witnesses’. Thus, the emphasis is not upon telling the truth, but rather upon witnesses agreeing that some victim needs to die off without mercy. A similar form of mob justice is emerging in today’s post-truth, post-Christian society. Justice is not a matter of truth anymore, but rather a matter of manipulating social media. If a sufficiently important—or vocal—person complains on Facebook or Twitter, then society will call for justice by turning on the offender without mercy. Justice on the basis of two or three witnesses may be a low form of justice, but it is a step up from the personal fury that was described in verse 27. Thus, one sees a progression starting to happen from specific people to a universal concept of God.
Before we continue I would like to make a quick peripheral note. Scripture clearly states that God was displeased with how the Israelites responded in the wilderness. The book of Judges portrays Israelite Canaan as a form of societal mob justice driven by tyrants who attempted to guide a society in which everyone did what was right in their own eyes. The cosmic chaos of Hebrews 10 that we are currently examining is a transition to something far superior. One gains the impression that the chaos in the book of Judges was also supposed to be a transition to something far superior, because when the Israelites decided that they wanted a king, then God treated this decision as a rejection of his rule. Saying this more generally, I suggest that the book of Judges describes a lost opportunity similar to the opportunity that was lost when Jews and Greeks did not discover science in the city of Alexandria. I do not know exactly what was lost during this earlier opportunity, but Scripture is abundantly clear that a major opportunity was lost. Exploring the lost opportunity of Alexandria is relatively easy because it happened more recently and there is also corroborating extra-biblical evidence. Exploring the lost opportunity of Canaan is more difficult, but we will see later when looking at Moses that there are clues. I suspect that at least two factors are involved: First, society was supposed to be guided by individual moral decision, instead of being ruled by a king, like surrounding kingdoms. Second, Jewish society was supposed to be guided by a combination of human individuality and supernatural intervention from God, instead of being misguided by the worship of false deities.
Continuing now with Hebrews 10, verse 29 describes an expansion and internalization of this mindset of mob justice. “How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?” The word think in this verse does not mean careful thought but rather ‘directly reflects the personal perspectives of the person making the subjective judgment call’. In addition, the noun punishment only occurs once in the New Testament and means ‘punishment meted out from the view of the offended party, emphasizing the value system of the punisher’. This describes vengeance or retribution rather than carrying out the rule of law. (The verb form punish is only used twice, in both cases by Paul to describe how he used to punish the church.) I do not know of any other passage in the New Testament that advocates a vigilante form of justice based upon personal vengeance in this manner. In other words, these terms do not make sense in a context of matter-over-mind, but they do make sense in the context of mind-over-matter, combined with delegated personal authority over the universe. Going further, the word deserve means ‘to reckon as worthy, matching value to actual substance’.
Putting this together, verse 29 does not say that one should carry out personal vengeance, but rather that one should form a subjective personal opinion of how people should be punished based upon what they deserve. With matter-over-mind, this subjective personal opinion can be lined up with some objective standard. But Hebrews 10 is describing a future time of mind-over-matter in which an independent standard of law no longer exists. However, if mind ruled over matter, then personal opinion would lead indirectly to justice, because the subjective personal opinions of people would automatically affect reality. Notice again a progression, because instead of merely expressing raw rage, people are using personal opinion to come up with value judgments. Saying this another way, principles of cognitive cause-and-effect are causing a system of law to re-emerge.
These value judgments are not being shaped by any independent system of universal truth. Instead, verse 29 appeals to the personal status of God. The first reference is to the one ‘who has trampled under foot the Son of God’. Trample under foot means ‘to trample down; figuratively, to reject with disdain’ and this is the only use of this term in the book of Hebrews. Rejecting with disdain is a personal insult. It also contrasts with verse 13, where Jesus Christ is waiting until God makes his enemies a footstool. Eventually the enemies of Jesus Christ will be under his feet, but right now the position is reversed because these enemies are trampling under foot the Son of God.
The second reference is to the one ‘who has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified’. The word translated unclean means ‘stripped of specialness because treated as ordinary or common’. This also describes a personal value judgment, because something that was regarded as emotionally special has lost its emotional intensity and is being treated as common, and this is the only usage of this word in the book of Hebrews. The blood of the covenant refers here to the process by which conscience was transcended, making it possible for the will of God to be expressed directly through the example of Jesus-the-man as a physical expression of incarnation. I suspect that the physical appearance of Jesus-the-man would cause people to lose respect for Jesus Christ the God-man: ‘Jesus lives in a normal house in Jerusalem. Why should I listen to him or follow his example? Besides, we can all do what we want now.’ In other words, because God is not imposing law upon people through some independent system of law, and allowing people to come into close personal contact with the source of law, people are losing emotional respect for law. But they do not realize that cognitive cause-and-effect is itself a sufficient basis for eternal law, and that their society is following a path that is being guided inexorably by these principles of cognitive cause-and-effect. This same principle would apply to a lesser extent to current society, because those who reject all laws as merely the opinions of discredited experts do not realize that society is following a path dictated by principles of cognitive cause-and-effect. They think that they are free, when in fact they are imprisoned by the law of the mind.
The third reference is to the one who ‘has insulted the Spirit of grace’. The normal Greek term for insult means ‘to injure, bring loss, especially to damage someone’s reputation’. The word translated insult in verse 29 is an intensified version of this normal word for insult that only occurs once in the New Testament. Putting this bluntly, God has ‘freely extended to give himself away to people’, and they are responding by acting like little tyrants. God has literally turned over the entire universe to created beings in order to make perfect paradise possible, and they are responding by transforming paradise into personal hell. One can find a partial example in present-day America. No other country on earth has ever been blessed with such economic, personal, and societal prosperity, or been gifted with so much personal freedom. But what does one now find on North American television and movies? Initially, entertainment was primarily sweetness and light. But what one now finds is primarily an overflowing of dark, diabolical evil and violence. American society has ultimately responded to the grace of God by despising goodness, innocence, and cuteness as unrealistic, in order to embrace the ugly nastiness of so-called real life. If such an abomination happens when people are given some freedom within matter-over-mind, one can only imagine the level of abomination that would occur if people were given total freedom within mind-over-matter. This passage does not say how many people will respond in this manner, but one can conclude that enough people will act in this way to drive the positive response that will be described in verses 32-39.
Re-emerging Morality 10:30-32
This kind of spiral into hell cannot be halted through personal vengeance, because responding to evil with more evil would amplify the problem. That is why verses 26-29 do not tell a person what to do. Instead, they instruct a person how to think and feel at the level of core mental networks in order to develop a replacement for conscience. I learned what this means when teaching in South Korea. As a Western Christian, I naturally think in terms of conscience, and my natural tendency is to appeal to the conscience of others. I discovered in South Korea that an appeal to conscience would often fail because the Asian mindset is not driven primarily by conscience. Instead, the conscience circuit has been reprogrammed by personal standards such as face, esteem, family, and social status. A similar reprogramming of the conscience circuit is occurring in Hebrews 10. Conscience has been eliminated, but something has to take its place, and what is emerging is a set of values based ultimately upon the personal status of God and his covenant.
Verse 30 describes this new moral attitude being applied to a concept of God: “For we know him who said, vengeance is mine, I will repay.’ And again, ‘The Lord will judge his people.’” The word translated vengeance means ‘judgment which fully executes the core values of the particular judge’. In other words, in the same way that people are attacking each other motivated by their core mental networks, so the fundamental internal character of God will eventually be expressed externally. The word know here means ‘seeing that becomes knowing’. What is being known is not the vengeance of God but rather the one having said that ‘Vengeance is mine’. Using current society as a partial example, when everyone blatantly carries out free will, then society will be full of visual examples that illustrate principles of moral sowing-and-reaping. One simply has to observe the thinking and behavior of people in order to know that behind all of the insanity lies a Person who has said that vengeance is mine.
Going further, one can see a progression in the redevelopment of morality. What emerges first is a version of karma (but without the Eastern overtones of reincarnation) combined with a vague sense that some divine person lies behind karma. The first half of verse 30 does not mention God by name but rather focuses upon vengeance and repayment as a general principle. The second half of verse 30 explicitly refers to the Lord without using only a pronoun: ‘The Lord will judge his people’. And instead of vengeance and repayment the Lord will judge, which means to ‘pick out and choose by separating’. Cognitively speaking, mental networks of karma are being organized into various categories, leading to the conclusion that personal mental networks are being organized and categorized by some Universal Being in Teacher thought. What ultimately emerges is the TMN of a living God who plays for keeps: “It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (v.31). The word terrifying was used earlier in verse 27 to talk about people being terrified of each other. And the word fall into means ‘fall in, am cast in, am involved in’.
A similar progression occurred in my study of personality. As I continued to study cognitive styles together with my brother, it became clear that there were general cognitive principles of sowing-and-reaping, because one continually observed people and groups experiencing consequences in similar ways. This grew into the realization that those who violated principles of morality did not have to be explicitly punished. This understanding matured over time into a general system of moral and cognitive development, resulting in the concept of a God who is sifting and sorting His people. Eventually what emerged was the TMN of a living God who is manipulating human history to carry out his cosmic plan. And this cosmic plan of a living God began to feel like the gears of a very large machine. Everything will be fine as long as one respects this machine and moves in concert with it. But it would be terrifying to be caught in these massive gears and mangled. This does not lead to an attitude of fatalism, because one also starts to see that amazing things can be achieved if one learns how to move in harmony with God’s cosmic plan..
Turning to Revelation, this gradual emerging of justice can be seen in the final verses of chapter 19. First the beast and the false prophet are seized (v.20). Then, they are thrown alive into the lake of fire (v.20). Finally, “the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who was sat on the horse” (v.19). Notice the strange juxtaposition. On the one hand, the person on the horse is still sitting. On the other hand, the sword that comes from the mouth of the person sitting on the horse is killing all opponents. Similarly, what began as informal group justice in Hebrews 10:27-29 grows by verse 31 into a terrifying falling into the hands of the living God.
Verses 32-35 describe why God would permit such cosmic chaos to occur. We saw at the end of Hebrews 2 that God used the threat of personal persecution to motivate people to extend spiritual technology to matters of physical life and death. A similar purifying and extending appears to be happening in Hebrews 10.
Verse 32 instructs people to remember how they arrived at their current state: “But remember the former days, when, after being enlightened, you endured a great conflict of sufferings.” One could interpret this literally as the persecution endured by the early Christians under Jewish and Roman authority, but the language suggests that there is also a larger meaning. The word remember means ‘to journey where the remembrance extends to’. This goes beyond remembering facts to becoming personally involved in these memories. A day represents the rule of some paradigm in Teacher thought. Thus, remembering former days would mean thinking personally about previous paradigms. Applying this to the context, a new form of integrated existence based upon mental networks is starting to emerge. It is vital to rethink the past in the light of the current paradigm, and this rethinking is an aspect of the redeeming the transgressions from the past that was described earlier. For the last few years, I have been doing something similar with the theory of mental symmetry, using it as a meta-theory to evaluate previous ways of thinking.
These previous days began with ‘being enlightened’, gaining the internal light of some general Teacher understanding. This enlightenment was then followed by ‘a great conflict of sufferings’. The word conflict occurs only once in the New Testament and means ‘a struggling as in an athletic contest’, while suffering means ‘the capacity and privilege of experiencing strong feeling’. This suffering was endured, which means to ‘remain under the load’. Putting this together, the enlightenment of a general understanding is being transformed into personal character by struggling with strong emotions for an extended period of time within some system of rules. This process has occurred several times in the book of Hebrews, and it is happening again in Hebrews 10.
This suffering was expressed “partly by being made a public spectacle to reproaches and tribulations, and partly by becoming sharers with those who were so treated” (v.33). Reproach describes ‘an insult aimed to damage reputation’, while tribulation is ‘used of a narrow place that hems someone in’. This reproach and tribulation incurred as a public spectacle, a word used only once in the New Testament which means ‘making a public spectacle out of someone, putting them on exhibit for public jest and mockery’.
Notice that this kind of mental and social mistreatment could still happen in an environment of mind-over-matter. It might not be possible to attack someone physically, but one could still try to damage the reputation of another person, or try to squeeze that person out through some form of shunning. And if minds with their mental networks have become a source of power, then the best way to increase one’s power is to try to influence the minds of others in a social environment in order to belittle the mental networks of opponents. One can see this happening currently on social media. One cannot physically harm someone over a computer, but verbally attacking, shaming, belittling, or shunning people can be very effective—but only if one can manage to do this in a public way that grabs the attention of a large audience.
And guilt-by-association is also prevalent in social media. If one ‘likes’ a disapproved person or links to some disapproved site, then one will become lumped together with the person or group that is being publicly shamed. Thus, verse 33 refers both to those being publicly shamed as well as those who become partners with those who are following a path of being publicly shamed.
Putting this together, verse 32 instructed to ‘remember the former days’, while verse 33 describes the kind of persecution that could happen in a universe of mind-over-matter held together by finite people. These two verses belong together, because the persecution would provide a motivation to remember the former days. Saying this in more detail, people are now living in a new universe that is held together entirely by personal mental networks. If the universe is to become physically integrated, then people will have to become mentally integrated, and this mental integration will have to involve mental networks, because everything that people experience—without exception—is now a reflection of mental networks. Thus, the past is being remembered as something that is similar to mental networks of rejection that are being experienced in the present. In other words, normal thought, which looks for patterns and similarities, is being used to connect present mental networks with previous memories.
A Better Form of Ownership 10:33-39
The reason for this is cognitive ownership, a concept that was discussed in the essay on the Gospel of John, as well as earlier in this essay. In a world of matter-over-mind, ownership will naturally be regarded as something physical and spatial. I own an object if it is physically close to me, or if I have a piece of paper which states that this object belongs to me. But ownership can also be defined in terms of mental networks. I own something if it is under the control of my mental networks and not the mental networks of others. Cognitive ownership is becoming increasingly apparent in today’s world. For instance, I may own a house, but if it has been declared a heritage site, then cognitive ownership of this house actually belongs partially to the government, because they are using mental networks of power to prevent me from making major modifications to the house. Similarly, I may physically own some computer program, because the computer code resides on a physical computer that belongs to me and is physically in my presence, but if I am prevented from making changes to this program and if some company can reach into my computer and alter the program at will, then the cognitive ownership of this program actually belongs largely to the company and not to me.
Now suppose that one lived in a universe of mind-over-matter, in which everything was held together by mental networks. The only form of ownership that would remain is cognitive ownership. Thus, one would get rich and powerful by attaching memories to mental networks. One can already see this happening on the Internet, because the monetary wealth that a person can gain through advertising depends upon how many people click on that person’s video or website. This means that the public shaming that was described in verse 33 actually relates to wealth, because people are trying to get rich by increasing their own cognitive ownership while decreasing the cognitive ownership of others.
Verse 34 describes a better way of gaining cognitive ownership: “For you showed sympathy to the prisoners and accepted joyfully the seizure of your property, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one.” Notice that this verse is talking explicitly about a better kind of possession.
Looking at the details, one method of increasing cognitive ownership is by ‘showing sympathy to the prisoners’. The word sympathy means ‘sympathize with, have compassion on’. I have mentioned several times that a person eventually becomes imprisoned by their core mental networks. This imprisoning effect was described in the quote from Swedenborg. In today’s realm of matter-over-mind, people become mentally imprisoned by their mental networks, unable to escape the box of their limited ways of thinking. Listening to people with an an empathetic ear can occasionally help them to escape their mental prisons. But with mind-over-matter, mental imprisonment would lead to physical imprisonment, as reflected in verse 25, which pointed out the danger of ‘forsaking assembling together’. Sympathizing with a physical prisoner means little today, because the prisoner still remains physically imprisoned. As James points out in James 2:14-16, saying kind words to someone who has physical needs is not enough. But if mind were to rule over matter, then sympathizing with a prisoner would mean very much, because one would be building connections with the mental networks of the prisoner. These connections would make it possible for the prisoner to escape, and helping someone escape would also increase one’s cognitive ownership. For instance, using mental symmetry as a meta-theory to explain other theories is a version of showing sympathy with prisoners. Most researchers who write a book or develop a theory have become imprisoned by the TMN of their limited understanding. On the one hand, using mental symmetry to explain a book or theory makes it possible for those who adhere to this theory to escape their prison. But on the other hand, using mental symmetry as a meta-theory also increases the cognitive ownership of the theory of mental symmetry, because the book or theory that has been explained has become ‘owned’ by the theory of mental symmetry.
Another method of increasing cognitive ownership is by ‘accepting joyfully the seizure of your property’. The NASB translation reflects a mindset of matter-over-mind, but the original Greek is more compatible with mind-over-matter. The word seizure means ‘plunder fueled by violent greed’, which emphasizes the mental networks that are driving the robbery. In other words, people are not trying to acquire things and objects, but rather attempting to grow mental networks by disrupting the mental networks of others. This type of behavior is becoming increasingly common today because laws of private property prevent people from physically stealing the possessions of others. With mind-over-matter, this would be the only way of stealing property from others.
The word property means ‘to be ready or at hand’, and is usually translated as possessions. Again, the focus is not upon things but rather upon the relationship with personal mental networks. Something is my possession if it is ‘at hand’, available to be controlled by my mental networks. (This brings to mind the philosophy of Heidegger.) One can see this type of seizure of property within the world of computers. The original idea of a personal computer was to have a computing device that was ‘at hand’, ready to be controlled by the user. However, individual users are increasingly losing cognitive ownership of computers to companies, governments, hackers, and entertainment industries, which are all trying to increase their mental networks of control at the expense of the user.
There is also a higher principle of spiritual sowing-and-reaping, which also functions at the level of mental networks. This principle is described by Jesus in Matthew 6:1-6 in the passage on righteousness. Righteousness is action that is consistent with the character of God. Righteous action will only become connected with a TMN of God—and rewarded by God—if it is not motivated by MMNs of personal approval. Saying this another way, if an action is cognitively owned by social MMNs, then it will not be cognitively owned by a TMN of God.
A similar principle can be found in verse 34, because people are ‘accepting joyfully’ the plunder of their possessions. Joy is different than happiness. Happiness comes from pleasant experiences and MMNs within Mercy thought. Joy is a longer-term emotion that comes from Teacher thought and is connected with a concept of God. This means that there is a relationship between joy and grace, which is favor from God. The definition of joy explains that there is ‘an etymological link between ‘rejoice because of grace’, ‘joy because of grace’, and grace—because they are all cognates’. The word translated accepting actually ‘expresses expectant waiting where a person is ready and willing to receive all that is hoped-for’. In other words, people are responding with joy when their possessions are being plundered. Using cognitive language, when oppressors use MMNs of personal status to increase cognitive ownership, then those who lose cognitive ownership are responding with TMNs of understanding. With matter-over-mind, this would have primarily a cognitive benefit: Mercy thought might be finding the experiences unpleasant, but this Mercy pain is being balanced by Teacher pleasure.
With mind-over-matter, this would lead to a higher form of ownership: “knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and a lasting one”. The word translated knowing means ‘to know through personal experience’, which tells us that MMNs of personal identity are involved. Possession is the noun form of the verb ‘property’ that occurs earlier in verse 34, which was discussed in the previous verse. And the word better means ‘better because more fully developed’. Thus, people have learned through personal experience that there is a superior form of ownership that is more lasting. But one can only acquire this greater form of ownership by sowing to the spirit, which one does by letting go of existing ownership in response to injustice. This sowing to the spirit includes forgiveness but goes beyond forgiveness.
One can find a partial example of this principle with small countries such as Hong Kong or Singapore. Because these countries are physically small, they cannot follow traditional paths of conquering neighbors and gaining physical territory. Instead, traditional energies of nation-building have been redirected into higher paths involving education, infrastructure, and manufacturing.
This better form of ownership requires internal confidence: “Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward.” The word throw away only occurs twice in the New Testament and means ‘throw away from, throw overboard’, while confidence means ‘a proverb or statement quoted with resolve’. Great means ‘large, great, in the widest sense’. Reward means ‘payment of wages’ and is only used three times in the New Testament, in Hebrews 2, 10, and 11. Putting this together, a new form of business is being described with economic sowing and reaping. However, this new form of business is based upon mental networks and cognitive ownership, and Contributor-controlled technical thought with its sowing and reaping does not naturally get together with mental networks. In today’s world of matter-over-mind, the tendency is to focus upon technical thought and ignore mental networks. In the future realm of mind-over-matter, the tendency would be to try to manipulate mental networks while ignoring technical thought. This type of mindset can already be seen in some Contributor (and Exhorter) persons who specialize in manipulating people and public opinion while minimizing the realm of facts and objects. Combining technical thought with mental networks requires internal confidence. And responding with joy to the seizure of possessions will build the internal confidence that is required to function within the new economy in an integrated manner.
Saying this more simply, the text appears to be promoting a form of Power of Positive Thinking, in which one achieves material success by quoting positive statements with conviction. I suggest that this type of mindset is not optimal in today’s realm of matter-over-mind, because we live in a universe that is controlled by natural law, and positive thinking replaces universal natural law with personal wishful thinking. However, Hebrews 10 describes a universe that is subject to personal wishful thinking and no longer governed by universal natural law. Given such an environment, quoting verbal statements with conviction is a major step up from being driven by the rage of mental networks, as described in verse 27, or by the manipulation of public opinion, as described in verse 33. It also heads in the direction of constructing a general concept of God, because personal mental networks are being guided by words in Teacher thought. Applying this to the positive thinking of today, I have written an essay on the pop psychology of Anthony Robbins. I expected to find very little of content in his writings, but was surprised at the depth to which he accurately discusses cognitive principles. The primary inadequacy that I noticed was that the relationship between God and man was wrong. Robbins describes many universal principles but he uses these principles to create a concept of God in Teacher thought that will be the servant of personal identity in Mercy thought, instead of viewing personal identity as the servant of God.
This final inadequacy is addressed in verse 36: “For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised.” Endurance means ‘remaining under, especially as God enables the believer to remain under the challenges He allots in life’. Notice the implicit relationship between mental networks. Anthony Robbins and authors like him advocate creating and adjusting the TMN of a concept of God in order to satisfy the current needs of MMNs of personal identity. Endurance, in contrast, respects the TMN of a concept of God even if this makes MMNs of personal identity feel uncomfortable. This personal submission to the TMN of a concept of God can be seen in the phrase ‘when you have done the will of God’. Notice that the direction of cognitive development is still from personal identity to a concept of God. Looking at the context, if the entire universe is handed over to finite people, then a concept of God has to be rebuilt starting from the foundation of personal identity. The key is doing the will of God; acting in a manner that is consistent with the character of God, because this will build Server confidence in sequences that provide a mental framework for a concept of God in Teacher thought. This principle is described in John 3:21: “But he who practices the truth comes to the light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” If a concept of God is lacking in Teacher thought, then one can still lay the mental foundation for this understanding by doing the truth, and this will cause a person to be mentally attracted to the light of God when it does appear in Teacher thought. Once a concept of God has been reconstructed in Teacher thought, then God can step in and reward those who have sown to the spirit.
One can gain a partial understanding of what this means by looking at current society. What does it mean to do the will of God? It means understanding what God is doing and then cooperating with this divine plan. What is God doing today? God is moving away from absolute truth towards universal truth. Therefore, being a missionary and preaching the Bible is not really following the will of God today, because this assumes that God is trying to restore absolute truth. Instead, following the will of God today involves primarily reconstructing a concept of God upon a foundation of universal truth. Similarly, following the will of God at the end of Hebrews 10 would involve primarily reconstructing a concept of God upon a foundation of personal mental networks, because that is what God would be doing at that time.
Verse 37 emphasizes the need for waiting: “For yet in a very little while, he who is coming will come, and will not delay.” The Greek says literally ‘yet very very little’. And the word delay describes a period of physical, chronological time. The implication is that things will feel very dark. Those who are doing the will of God will feel as if the entire universe is against them, because hostile minds will literally cause the universe to turn against those who do the will of God. But the principle of spiritual sowing-and-reaping can only function at the level of a God of the entire universe if people are doing the will of God despite what is happening within the entire inhabited universe. That is why one can be very close to the solution precisely when the answer appears to be farthest away. And a similar principle would apply today to the transition from absolute truth to universal truth.
Looking at this personally, I have tried over the decades to do the will of God, but instead of receiving a physical reward from God, I keep feeling that God is merely raising the stakes, forcing me to either give up or be driven more extensively by an ever-growing internal concept of God.
One finds this described in verse 38: “But My righteous one shall live by faith; and if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him”. This is the first time in the book of Hebrews that the adjective righteous has been applied to a normal person. Hebrews 1:9 said that Incarnation loves righteousness, Hebrews 5:13 talked about the word of righteousness, Hebrews 7 discussed Melchizedek, the king of righteousness, but no normal human has yet been called righteous.
Verse 38 says that “My righteous one shall live by faith.” More literally, ‘he will live in the future out from faith’. The internal structure of faith will create the foundation for life to emerge. Saying this cognitively, personal identity will become internally guided by the TMN of a concept of God, and this mental network of God will provide an internal environment for MMNs of personal identity. This may sound like a trivial statement, but remember that one is dealing with an environment of mind-over-matter in which Jesus Christ has sat down and is waiting for God the Father to ‘make his enemies a footstool’. Stated bluntly, there will be no mental or physical evidence that God is still in charge of the universe. It is within this environment that the righteous will be living by faith. Thus, one is not talking about acts of righteousness guided by some faith but rather about a complete attitude of righteousness guided by total faith.
Verse 38 adds, “And if he shrinks back, My soul has no pleasure in him.” The word shrink back means ‘to withdraw, back off, especially due to compromise’. Thus, what God will want at this point is a complete attitude of righteousness guided by total faith. And the word ‘want’ is appropriate, because the verse specifically refers to the pleasure of God.
The reference to the soul of God is significant. The soul describes the mind of a person as a whole. Using cognitive language, a soul emerges as normal thought integrates the various fragments of mental networks and technical thought. The focus of this section has been upon extending mental networks to include all aspects of thought. This would bring pleasure to the soul of God, because God is a universal being who ties everything together.
Verse 39 refers to the human soul: “but we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul.” The word preserving means ‘completely obtain as a full possession’. Thus, preserving the soul would mean integrating all of the various fragments of the mind. In other words, the ultimate purpose of having faith is mental integration, and if the entire inhabited universe has become an expression of personal identities, then the universe itself would become integrated as a result of individuals becoming mentally integrated. And if the universe became integrated as an expression of integrated minds, then this would bring pleasure to the soul of God.
The alternative is to shrink back to destruction. The word shrink back is the noun form of the verb ‘shrink back’ used in verse 38. Verse 39 warns that shrinking back will lead to destruction, which ‘does not imply annihilation but instead loss of well-being’, ‘causing someone to be cut off from what could or should have been’. Saying this more simply, when God finally appears, there will be a massive transfer of wealth to those who have walked in faith and righteousness. But this wealth will now be placed in the hands of individuals with healthy souls.
Turning briefly to Revelation, 20:1-6 describes thrones of judgment being set up, and people who were denied the opportunity of living a godly life being resurrected in order to live during the millennium. The setting up of thrones relates to Hebrews 10:32-39, where people are looking to a better form of ownership. In both cases, the emphasis is upon the soul. In Hebrews 10:38-39, people are having faith to the preserving of the soul, while those who shrink back are not giving pleasure to the soul of God. Similarly, Revelation 20:4 says that the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus are coming to life.
This evaluation of heroes of faith from the past that is mentioned in Revelation 10:4 is described in detail in Hebrews 11. Thus, I suggest that Hebrews 11 describes the kind of souls that will be resurrected to live during the millennium.