Book Three Chapter Two: Man/Son of Man Pt. 3

TWO

Man/Son of man

Part Three

There is a natural progression from men to the children of men. It lies in the fact that the children are an upgrade of what came before them. Men see their children as a brighter future, but that future may be a little daunting; it might be better if the past did not have to linger. There is, along with the natural progression, a natural antagonism between the old school and the new school.

I say ‘school’ because the bone of contention is not found in the basic functions of life: earning a living, providing for one’s dependents, or any of the other pillars of normal existence. The bone of contention lies within the higher mental areas of politics, philosophy, personal/national faith, and spiritual interpretation.

If the old school could cease to exist once it engendered the new, all would be well. But all is not well: it is made to linger, made to maintain its place in all things, made to defend its strength and its power. The new school is nothing less than a threat.

All of that may be seen in the next verse, but there is even more than that to be seen in Mark 9:31, “For He taught His disciples, and said unto them, The Son of man is delivered into the hands of men, and they shall kill Him; and after that He is killed, He shall rise the third day.”

This may well reference Hosea 6:2, but please note Christ’s own words. He aligns Himself with the camp of the children of men, in opposition to the camp of men. He assigns Himself as the upgrade: the son of mankind. Our thoughts place Christ as the son of God. This section showcases the other side of that coin. He was also called the son of man, and men often called Him a man. Christ’s own reference of Himself was as ‘man’ and ‘son of man’.

My thoughts, here, are that Jesus had taken on the mantle of ‘leading by example’. In being an example, the epithet of ‘son of man’ was more a reference of those to whom He was a leader. The language takes a forward step: ‘children of men’ becomes ‘sons of men’. In that context, when Christ says the son of man will be delivered, He is also saying the sons of men will be delivered.

Note the connection in Luke 9:44, “Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.”

Let us look sideways at the language of the Bible. Try this exercise in the following verse: replace ‘firstborn’ with ‘example’ and replace ‘spirits’ with ‘minds’. Hebrews 12:23, “To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect.”

Let us remember two things for later: one, the term ‘just men’, for Jesus was called a just man, and two, John 3:27, “John answered and said, A man can receive nothing, except it be given him from heaven.”

We have broached the topic of the children of men, the son of mankind being the upgraded version of man. The two extremes, of course, are these: that the first is corporeal and the second is spiritual. It is as if we walk a fence. When it is shaken, which side will you fall on? It is that dual nature thing again. It is that God realizing Himself by reverse engineering thing again.

But I am putting forth nothing new. Men of old (or should I say, the children of men of old?) have considered these very things. See 1 Corinthians 15:47, “The first man is of the earth, earthy: the second man is the Lord from heaven.”

The difference between version 1.01 and version 1.02 is this: just a bit more unction. There are grades within grades; there are levels within levels. One may look down, and note with glee, that he stands on the shoulders of former giants; and then he looks up to realize that the one standing on his shoulders makes him feel somewhat smaller.

Tell me where you stand in Psalms 31:19, “Oh how great is Thy goodness, which Thou hast laid up for them that fear Thee; which Thou hast wrought for them that trust in Thee before the sons of men!”

There can be stars even in a white sky. Trust is neither a physical action nor an emotional inclination. It is a choice: an action of mentality that falls within the category of understanding. The same teacher that taught our ‘firstborn’ speaks to us as well.

Listen to Proverbs 8:4-5, “Unto you, O men, I call; and my voice is to the sons of man. O ye simple, understand wisdom: and, ye fools, be ye of an understanding heart (mind).”

We may say that Christ was an example of a spiritual God realized in a corporeal man. God, in order that He may inhabit man, must first reverse engineer the corporeal to achieve a compatible habitat. Jesus is the pattern for future habitats. There were two coexistent states, and in the person of Jesus, the spiritual and the corporeal were no longer mutually exclusive. However, friends, neighbors, family, and disciples only saw the physical man. They saw Him glow; they saw Him walk on water; they saw Him ascend and many other things as well, but it was the man they saw. They were men, and Christ strove to reach their higher natures: to get them to open their minds to higher possibilities.

See John 3:3 & 5, “Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God . . . Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.”

Did Jesus align Himself with the born again?

In speaking to Nicodemus, Jesus was telling him things that he was already supposed to know. That point is all too easily seen, but Jesus went on to say in verse 11, “We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.”

Indeed, it seems that Jesus did include Himself with the born again. Perhaps such meat will cause discomfort to some, but I ask this - is not the divinity of Jesus the Spirit inhabiting the flesh?

He told Nicodemus in verse 6, “that which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the spirit is spirit.”

Yet, He stood before Nicodemus as both; as one firstborn “of water and of the spirit.” It follows

that if we, being born again, are remade after the example of Jesus, then Jesus could have been that

first star in a sky of white - or: ‘son of man’ version 1.02.

Jesus was a man the people knew. They knew His family, His history, His hometown. They considered, spoke to, and spoke about Him both before and during His ministry. The man was His appearance. Some people judged Him to be only a man (for the question had been raised), but one has to ignore certain facts, or align oneself with philosophies of some other camp, to judge only by the appearance.

See John 7:24-27, “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment. Then said some of them of Jerusalem, Is not this He, whom they seek to kill? But, lo, He speaketh boldly, and they say nothing unto Him. Do the rulers know indeed that this is the very Christ? Howbeit we know this man whence He is: but when Christ cometh, no man knoweth whence He is.”

Isn’t it the spirit’s coming and going that cannot be determined? That is, at least, what Jesus told Nicodemus. There was, it seems, a general misunderstanding about the coming of Christ that even believers had a hard time getting around. And all the while, Christ remained a man in their eyes.

Look at John 7:28-31, “But I know Him: for I am from Him, and He hath sent Me. Then they sought to take Him: but no man laid hands on Him, because His hour was not yet come. And many of the people believed on Him, and said, When Christ cometh, will He do more miracles than these which this man hath done?”

So Jesus was thought of as a man. Many of the people in His day were unaware of His history, or else they lumped all His past into the current locality of Galilee. The movement stemmed from that region. Anyone who reasoned beyond the basic nuts and bolts of accepted argumentation was considered a case for either pride or insanity. But, even in the concession that Jesus might be a prophet, He was still considered only a man.

See John 7:50-52, “Nicodemus saith unto them, (he that came to Jesus by night, being one of them,) Doth our law judge any man, before it hear him, and know what he doeth? They answered and said unto him, Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.”

The problem is that there has never been one standard interpretation of Christhood or divinity. Both involve the person of corporeal man. To men, the children of men seem no more than themselves. It is a historical certainty that men saw Christ as a man. Even the higher thoughts of the divinity of Jesus were usually colored by the fact that He was a man.

See Acts 10:38 and 1 Timothy 2:5, “God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

In the verse from Acts, the ‘anointing’ seems similar to that of the apostles. Read Luke 24:49 and John 20:22. “And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost.”

Even as He died on the cross for the sins of the world, humanity thought of Him as a man. Matthew 27:47 puts it this way, “Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.”

As I said earlier, even believers have a hard time getting their heads around deeply ingrained dogma. Is Jesus the son of man or the son of God? Scripture indicates that early writers had little difficulty with the integrated concept of a man being the son of God.

For shades of grey see Mark 15:39, “And when the centurion, which stood over against Him, saw that He so cried out, and gave up the ghost, he said, Truly this man was the Son of God.”

A canon of our faith is that God created through the agency of His Son: see Colossians 1:13-17, “Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. ”

He is the potter, we are the clay. He is the builder, we each a house. That tenet is plainly displayed in Hebrews 3:3, “For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as He who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.”

Still, in all, the writer of this pivotal book counts Jesus a man comparable to Moses. Why do I point to such texts? I point to an underlying truth that contemporary thought must digest. It is not the easy milk of established dogma, it is the actual meat and gristle of the word. A hard truth disturbs the smooth skin of acceptable Christian preconception. That underlying truth is that corporeality and spirituality are not mutually exclusive.

Man is a beast with a keen interest in the spiritual. Man examines his spirit, but his eyes see only flesh. The issue has never been if there is spirituality in man, but where, precisely, the connection lies. That connection is mentality. I assert that the human brain is a corporeal engine that facilitates the spiritual intrusion of thought. We think, we dream, we hope. If these things were flesh, we would see them, but they are invisible; they are spiritual intrusions.

Remember the earlier assertion that the two trees in Eden were points of spiritual intrusion? Here is another of my wild rants - which, as it turns out, is a vague and very tame connection: the human brain, along with the spinal column, and its tree-likeness.

Note the rustling of mental branches in the following verse; a rustling that seemed all too real to the one being swayed. Note that Jesus is again called a man. Matthew 27:19, “When he was set down on the judgment seat, his wife sent unto him, saying, Have thou nothing to do with that just man: for I have suffered many things this day in a dream because of Him.”

Just as the wife of the Governor suffered a spiritual event in her sleeping body, the ‘centurion’ had a spiritual response to an event that was all too physical. The writers of the New Testament may seem a bit slow in their deification of the man Jesus: they retain Him in the writings as a ‘man’, as a ‘just man’, as a ‘righteous man’. Would they retain the flesh of the Son of God if the flesh was a real obstacle to His deity?

Luke 23:47, “Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, Certainly this was a righteous man.”

Again, note the writers of the New Testament portraying Jesus as a man, albeit a man of spiritual capability, in Acts 2:22, “Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by Him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know.”

I point to the spiritual within the body of a man. Above, the centurion glorified God. If God is glorified merely in the recognition of a “righteous man,” I ask, does that lessen Christ or elevate His adherents?

The faithful look to the deity of Christ, thinking that only by the piety and absolute sinlessness of the Son of God may the blood offered be effectual in the remission of sins. But the early writers must not have thought that spirituality and corporeality were mutually exclusive.

Our Redeemer was portrayed as a man: THE MAN through Whom forgiveness of sins was offered. See Acts 13:38, “Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins.”

It is the case that, over the span of centuries, certain romanticized notions have sprung up and taken root. The early writings, however, painted reality with fewer rose-colored tints. They, in fact, offer an image the contemporary Christian finds offensive. They show us a corporeal man whose miracles flowed from an internal spring: the spirit.

They painted a portrait that did not diminish the physical nature of the Son of God. This picture of

Christ, furthermore, received the endorsement of some early scholars and experts.

Nicodemus said this in John 3:2, “The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto Him, Rabbi, we know that Thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that Thou doest, except God be with Him.”

Is it possible to recognize God in a man? Of course, it is. When men are aware of a godly man, does that man’s corporeality cease? No. Many people looked right at the flesh of Jesus, recognized His divinity, and still called Him a man. One centurion compared Jesus to himself, suggesting that the position of Christ was neither at the top nor the bottom of the chain of command, but that His power and authority were both above and below.

For Christ as a man set under authority see Luke 7:6-8, “Then Jesus went with them. And when He was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to Him, saying unto Him, Lord, trouble not Thyself: for I am not worthy that Thou shouldest enter under my roof: Wherefore neither thought I myself worthy to come unto Thee: but say in a word, and my servant shall be healed. For I also am a man set under authority, having under me soldiers, and I say unto one, Go, and he goeth; and to another, Come, and he cometh; and to my servant, Do this, and he doeth it.”

The word sent by the centurion was the opinion of a working stiff; the opinion of a regular guy. He was not a great thinker, an expert in laws of religion, or an especially learned man. He was not even of the Hebrew persuasion or mindset. His interpretations were based in the things he already knew. But he recognized the power and authority in the man he had sent for. He was, in all likelihood, the type of man that ‘called a spade a spade’. But, if the witness of experts and common men is not good enough, let us turn to the witness of Jesus, Himself.

See John 9:4, “I must work the works of Him that sent Me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.”

If this verse does not convince you that the very Christ considered Himself a man, then we resort to

a verse where He actually says ‘I am a man’. See John 8:40, “But now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God.”

Christ associated Himself with the human condition. That is what lay behind the expression ‘Son of man’. It referred to the better man; it referred to the spiritually inclined man. The expression not only pointed a finger in the direction of Ezekiel but by extension, it pointed toward the children of men as potential Ezekiels: corporeal men filled with the spirit of God, in communication with God, dedicated in service to the will of God.

The Son of man offered Himself as example of all that the children of men could be. When Christ used the term ‘Son of man’, the sons of men were referenced inclusively. With that in mind, read Mark 2:27-28, “And He said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.”

You may have noticed the tremendous amount of conceptual overlap. In all, it is a process of realization. ‘B’ is changing ‘A’ into ‘B’ while ‘C’ is changing ‘B’ into ‘C’. We might properly say that we are exploring an entity with many faces. I put this thought forward only in the spirit of preparation for further thinking: ‘man’ is ‘children of men’ is ‘sons of men’ is ‘son of man’ is ‘angel’ is ‘son of God’.

I have asserted that man may indeed be attached to an angelic other. If we can consider that man may have within himself the makings of a more nearly spiritual being, might we not also be able to ask this question: can a ‘Son of Man’ be an ‘angel’?

In our language, a word is associated with another word. Two examples: we associate ‘Messiah’ with ‘Son of Man’; we associate ‘Prince’ with ‘angel’, or perhaps more precisely with ‘archangel’. The progressions are easy and comfortable due to familiarity. Jesus is the ‘son of man’, the ‘son of God’, the ‘savior’, the ‘Christ’, the ‘messiah’. But, how is it that angels are called Princes? Where is it? We find angelic appellations such as the ‘prince of the host’ (of heaven), ‘Michael one of the chief princes’, ‘Michael your prince’, ‘Michael the great prince’, in the book of Daniel.

Angels have a hierarchy as do men. Perhaps we learned it from the angels. ‘Principalities and powers’. The fallen angel, Lucifer, is also called a prince. Princes, traditionally, have been the elite, just under kings. Rulers come from the ranks of princes. Joseph was one of the twelve princes of Israel. He ruled in Egypt. Daniel was a prince of Judah; he was set up to rule just under the king of the Medes and Persians. ‘Prince of princes’ is found in the book of Daniel; ‘prince of peace’, in the book of Isaiah. Jesus, the son of man is called the ‘prince of the kings of the earth’ in the New Testament.

Could Christ have been an angel? It is possible. Could the spirit of God within the physical Jesus have been His angelic other? The connection is quick and painless. Daniel 9:25, “Messiah the Prince.”

If we, the children of men, are to become like our example, Christ, then what are we to become? What is the nature of Christ? Was Christ’s work bent toward the rejection of corporeality, or the formation of a ‘spiritual corporeality’? Is our Lord a man, a spirit, or both?

Read Ephesians 4:13, “Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto ( a formative verb ) a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ.”

What is the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ? Is it the ‘perfect man’? These are not light

and frivolous questions we ask. If our ‘savior’ is a perfect man (and I must add for the contemporary

Christians: ‘only a perfect man’), what does that say about God?

Read Hosea 13:4, “Yet I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but Me: for there is no saviour beside Me.”

We know that the ‘Son of God’ was a man of flesh and blood. Nothing new there. We know it was intentional that He was corporeal. Again, nothing new. But the mind wants to see that purpose and immediately pop back to the spiritual deity of Christ, rejecting the connection to His body. When one really stops on this point for any length of time, the realization begins to sink in that the purpose was not about a dissociated spirit inhabiting a body for the duration of the work, and then taking a cab home, but as part of the work, the purpose insisted that a spiritual savior be a flesh and blood man.

If otherwise, the death would not have been death but only the appearance of death; the resurrection would not have been resurrection but only the appearance of resurrection. A dissociated spirit inhabiting a body would have suffered nothing, would have sacrificed nothing. One must believe that the existence of a spiritual/corporeal sacrifice was intended for nothing short of a spiritual/corporeal salvation.

See Romans 8:3, “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh.”

Let us return to the great reflection, that Alice in Wonderland Mirror we’ve been studying. Man, we have determined, is the image and glory of God, and no one more so than His own son, Jesus. We tend to see the body as a thing in and of itself. When people mourn the dead, they mourn the spiritless body. Indeed, it is dead for that singular reason. Our living existence is a physical and spiritual collaboration.

When we look at a physical (that is, a visible) man, there is a whole half to him we cannot see, but that unseen half is comprehended in and by those parts we do see, for that half that is visible to the eye is the mirror image of the invisible. Christ, Himself, fell into this category. The Jesus that walked this earth was a reflection of the Son of God.

See that reflection in Romans 8:29, “For whom He did foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He (the image) might be the firstborn among many brethren.”

This points very clearly to a plan where the many should become like the first. That was the mindset of the New Testament authors: that man should become more angelic in nature - corporeal beings fully reflecting the spirit within. Like us, Jesus was a man attached to His angelic other, though more

perfectly aligned.

That reflection is not so much a physical one, rather it is seen in the unseen things to do with each of us: If God is the mind of an angel, and that mind was fully realized in Christ, then it was by His mentality that He communicated the image to others. Within those others were the stirrings of a dual nature in balance: the spirit filled man. The New Testament authors wrote of common knowledge.

See Matthew 9:8, “But when the multitudes saw it, they marvelled, and glorified God, which had given such power unto men.”

Now, we know the players, but we seek to peer behind the masks. We look for new ways to understand. Thus, we climb ever higher, seeking a zenith from which we may have the broadest overview. We chisel away at the old stone dogmas. But, that we blunt our bronze blades: we shall soon trade them in for iron, and we shall make dull the keen edges of many more such tools.

Yet, in our dawning iron age of spiritual investigation, we may learn a tactic tailor-made for the seekers of truth, and that is from Proverbs 27:17 “Iron sharpeneth iron.”

Mark 8:38 says, “Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of Me and of My words (spiritual/mental communications) in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when He cometh in the glory of His Father (the spirit within) with the holy angels (sons of men, perhaps?) .”

Book Three Chapter one: Man/Son of Man Pt. 2

Book Three

The Upper Room

ONE:

Man/Son of Man

Part Two

I have had dreams of an upper room at the top of winding stairs. The stairwell became more difficult to navigate until, at the top, it was quite narrow and the entrance straight. Invariably, that upper room was the representation of my mind and the attainment of higher mentality. As I approach a more thorough study of spirituality, it will become increasingly clear that mentality and spirituality share common attributes. I have asserted that our cognitive abilities are spiritual, that ‘spiritual’ and ‘communication’ go hand in hand, that there is no action without communication. In this third book, we will zero in on those cognitive abilities.

The road we walk, as ever, will twist upon itself in serpentine fashion, and lest we be continually dazed, we must remember that we climb an upward path from man, through children of men, to the son of man. If we are temples, then Christ is the pattern shewed us on the mount. I think that when we reach our zenith, that pattern will be realized.

Marching men and marching angels; we march toward the union. The history of the children of men is a forward momentum of mentality. The spiritual strides that we will see in the children of men are meant for nothing less than an uphill struggle, and the trained eye will see this one intriguing fact: that we are, at once, both pushing and pulling ourselves forward.

We are men and children of men. We do cry out to our blind eyes that we see. Open your eyes to Psalms 107:8, “Oh that men would praise the Lord for His goodness, and for His wonderful works to the children of men!”

This is a trait of the children of men: we think about, we focus on the Lord. We rise above our earthly limits as we reach for the morning star of our inner man.

See Psalms 115:16, “The heaven, even the heavens, are the Lord's: but the earth hath He given to the children of men.”

There is a definite connection between God and the children of men: if you will, we are God’s work in progress.

God is keenly interested in us; He is keeping an eye on us, as recorded in Psalms 33:13, “The Lord looketh from heaven; He beholdeth all the sons of men.”

Note the hopeful allusion to ‘son of man’ as seen in the plural ‘sons of men’. Our attraction to the spiritual accomplishes within us that which is more nearly spiritual, as when gold is laid upon silver. A transmigration of molecules takes place so that the silver is infused with the nature of gold. As we

become more aware of the spiritual by way of infusion, we become more at ease with, and more trusting of, those truths unseen by the naked eye.

The shared nature produces the confidence that is seen in Psalms 36:7, “How excellent is Thy lovingkindness, O God! therefore the children of men put their trust under the shadow of Thy wings.”

Some of us know what it is to be brought up with a childhood friend that carries over into maturity, or even a brother or sister that becomes a friend. Such relationships guide lives. I know that in some of my relationships, the other person was like a lighthouse to a wayward ship. Such an influence they had on me that I took on many of their defining traits. I may still be somewhat of a wayward ship, but now I have my own spotlight - and sometimes I shine it on others.

I want to take a close look at a verse from the book of Proverbs. It is like a cupcake with sprinkles. We seekers love our sprinkles; they are the unexpected treats on top of something already dear to us. Count the sprinkles on Proverbs 8:30-31, “Then I was by Him, as one brought up with Him: and I was daily His delight, rejoicing always before Him; Rejoicing in the habitable part of His earth; and my delights were with the sons of men.”

First of all, to whom does this verse refer? It refers to Wisdom. Who is Wisdom with? Wisdom is with the Lord. Actually, this entire chapter is a necessary read, and I recommend it to all earnest seekers of truth. Wisdom is here presented as a feminine companion or sibling to the Lord as if they were raised together the way children are raised.

It is interesting that the term “brought up with Him” is used. It takes my mind back to a previously cited verse where God claimed that no God was ‘formed’ before Him. When we think of children being brought up, one of the expressions we resort to is ‘formative years’.

Secondly, a relationship is described. It is sweet and impassioned: the Lord ‘delighted’; Wisdom ‘rejoiced’. The word ‘delight’ implies choice: wisdom was the Lord’s chosen favorite: she was His delight. Wisdom, then, rejoiced in that state of favor. This is the beginning of a tiered design. I say that for the fact that wisdom’s rejoicing “before” was a location that just happened to be in the inhabited climes of earth.

Moreover, Wisdom’s “delights” (chosen favorites) were the “sons of men” (there’s that hopeful allusion to the son of man, again).

It follows that the children of men will rejoice in that state of favor. How can we rejoice in things unseen? We are, after all, infused with those invisible glories. Finally, there are two thoughts arising from this verse: they may be no more than interesting asides, but, one is the word ‘always’: if it speaks of completeness, as in eternity, and we have yet to reach the end of the linear timeline, then it is worthy of further investigation. It may only mean ‘at every opportunity’, otherwise, it may reference a nonlinear timeline.

The second thought is of the expression ‘habitable part of His earth’. To my mind, that sounds experimental, as in a colony: His part being an intrusion into an established hierarchy. What a nature we have! - that we are both ‘men’ and ‘children of men’ - that within us is not only the loam of the beast but the tended seed of Christlikeness.

That may seem, at once, both downbeat, and a very good reason to yearn upward.

See the sons of man in Ecclesiastes 3:18, “I said in mine heart concerning the estate (gift, endowment, inheritance, birthright, legacy) of the sons of men, that God might manifest them (the sons of man), and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.”

Of that dual nature, Psalms 53:2-3 has this to say, “God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God. Every one of them is gone back (to the loam of the beast): they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.”

Dare we call man two-faced? I ask, is ‘beast’ anything more than hollow invective? Is it primitive name calling, or is there any substance to the primal nature in ‘man’?

Check out Daniel 5:21 for a reversal of nature, “And he was driven from the sons of men; and his heart (his thinking) was made like the beasts, and his dwelling was with the wild asses: they fed him with grass like oxen, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven; till he knew that the most high God ruled in the kingdom of men, and that He appointeth over it whomsoever He will.”

We see contemporary reversals of nature each time a man or woman returns to an addiction or a destructive lifestyle. We see the beast in violence; we see the beast in ignorance. Beyond individuals, we see the forfeiture of our better nature each time society engages in war or terrorism. Within our dual nature, the thoughts of the beast may be found each time we imagine revenge: someone put the eye on the little lady; someone violated the turf; someone showed disrespect.

Our son-of man-ness is hard won, and easily lost! Nature reversal is, moreover, a cycle that may quickly spiral out of control. It is an un-state that negatively affects all things around us. Its origin may be found in the departure from rejoicing in the delights of Wisdom.

See Joel 1:12, “The vine is dried up, and the fig tree languisheth; the pomegranate tree, the palm tree also, and the apple tree, even all the trees of the field, are withered: because joy is withered away from the sons of men.”

Anyone who has been in prison or boot camp knows that while these institutions are extensions of the societies they are linked to, they are nothing like them. They are more like worlds unto themselves; they are as different from surrounding society as oil is from water. Why do we yearn upward? It may be that we all innately sense that life, this present world, indeed, all of corporeality is a confinement.

It seems a part of our very nature from childhood to test limitations, to push the envelop, to seek and strive to move beyond ourselves. That may well be our initial introduction to spiritual infusion, for they are, after all, mental qualities. There are many less than upbeat opinions about this world we live in, but there are also scriptural indications that life is less than rosy. Are the children of men prisoners of this planet? Is earth a prison?

See Lamentations 3:32-34, “But though He cause grief, yet will He have compassion according to the multitude of His mercies. For He doth not afflict willingly nor grieve the children of men, to crush under His feet all the prisoners of the earth.”

Imagine that! - God causing grief to the children of men. If He does not do it willingly, as it is said (that is, capriciously), then there must be a reason for all the really bad stuff that goes on. Prison is only one type of confinement. Another type is boot camp. I’ve been there, and I can attest to the fact that some very bad things are deliberately done to those who happen to be stuck there. I think the worst of all is that one has absolutely no autonomy. But, hey! They say it makes good soldiers.

See them run the obstacle course in Ecclesiastes 3:10, “I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.”

“The seed of men.” On the surface, this seems no different from the sons of men. Ah, but underneath that matte exterior! - a subdivision of the sons of men. They are set to one side as if they are not men at all. They certainly look and act like the ‘sons of men’, but perhaps their looks deceive us. Whatever they are, they are intrinsically nested deep within the worldly powers and stand highlighted as different from the rest of us poor earthly prisoners. They are platoon leaders; they are prison bulls.

They are mentioned in Daniel 2:38-44, “And wheresoever the children of men dwell, the beasts of the field and the fowls of the heaven hath he given into thine hand, and hath made thee ruler over them all. Thou art this head of gold. And after thee shall arise another kingdom inferior to thee, and another third kingdom of brass, which shall bear rule over all the earth. And the fourth kingdom shall be strong as iron: forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdueth all things: and as iron that breaketh all these, shall it break in pieces and bruise. And whereas thou sawest the feet and toes, part of potters' clay, and part of iron, the kingdom shall be divided; but there shall be in it of the strength of the iron, forasmuch as thou sawest the iron mixed with miry clay. And as the toes of the feet were part of iron, and part of clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong, and partly broken. And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay. And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever.”

It is just too interesting to pass over. They walk among us, being alien, and call themselves by our names. Yet, their faces are only imitations of our own. They sit in seats of power, yet they count themselves among the common seed. There are plenty of so-called secret societies, but their manner of dress is easily spotted; their language, too - well, that may be secretive, but we know that it is not about the potatoes in the back garden. If we have angelic others, perhaps our taskmasters also have angelic others: fallen angelic others. In closing, let me just point out that another walked among us. He, too, was very different. And just like all the rest of us, He was called man.

Book Two Chapter Eight: Man/Son of Man Pt. 1

EIGHT

Man/Son of Man

Part One

In this section I wish to contrast the levels of mankind (as formative) with the hoped for, but

less than alacritous result of man’s march into his fulfillment. We will look at three types of man.

They are, first, ‘man’ (the worldly); second, ‘the children of men’ (the transitional); and third, ‘the

son of mankind’ (the hoped-for outcome).

The first type of man is worldly. He is of the earth; of the world, his center is in the corporeal.

There is an indication that his sole justification lies in the production of a better type, and as such

may be considered little more than a tool in God’s hand. God uses him, but has given him his place

in the world and sustains him from that alone.

See Psalms 17:13-14, “Arise, O Lord, disappoint him, cast him down: deliver my soul from the wicked, which is Thy sword: From men which are Thy hand, O Lord, from men of the world, which have their portion in this life, and whose belly thou fillest with Thy hid treasure: they are full of children, and leave the rest of their substance to their babes.”

That it was known in early times that man was the first in a series, see Ecclesiastes 6:10, “That which hath been is named already, and it is known that it is man: neither may he contend with him that is mightier than he.”

That early man knew of types by placement, see Revelation 5:3, “And no man in Heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon.”

Man, as a type, it is written, may not contend with the superior type. We may here be tempted to think that the word “mightier” was meant to convey the angelic, but then, perhaps we would be correct. Angels often were called men. I wonder if the mighty and the angels of old might simply have been man upgraded, or, the children of men. If men were tools in the hand of God, then the children of men would have been advanced instruments. We have seen that types of man may be found in station from the pillars of the world all the way to Heaven itself.

God begins to work with the upgraded man. They receive the appellation ‘children of men’, a term that derives from the common notion that a son is the strength of his father.

See Genesis 49:3, “Reuben, thou art my firstborn, my might, and the beginning of my strength, the excellency of dignity, and the excellency of power.”

Like a spark sputtering into a flame, mankind begins to produce its transitional descendants. They are the less worldly. They are men centered in the spirit; men to whom God may communicate.

See Psalms 11:4, “The Lord is in His holy temple, the Lord's throne is in Heaven: His eyes behold, His eyelids try, the children of men.”

Note the word ‘try’. Another word for "try" is ‘prove’. We may see such in our own time. Carmakers ‘prove’ their vehicles with batteries of tests. They strap in the dummies and crash them again and again. The end result is an improved product. Not every model makes the grade. If we looked at early man as a model that did not make the grade, we might say that Noah’s generation was ‘recalled’. 

The product, moreover, is reworked from within.

Notice that God is in His Holy Temple. Is that not the body inhabited by spirit? It is interesting to note the connotation of Psalms 11:4 - that God seems to have left the throne (but has He really?), that the throne’s Heavenly location is referenced in regard to God’s presence in the temple. Note, too, that ‘eyes’ and ‘eyelids’ are plurals, whereas earlier concepts of God give Him only a single eye. The temple is the child of man: the new improved model - with God at the wheel.

The new and improved man was not a common occurrence. When one was found, it was as noteworthy as finding a nugget of gold in a stream bed of ordinary rocks. Just men were given mention in early writings simply because they shined brighter than those around them. John the Baptist was mentioned as a just man. He was a man of spirit and virtue whose life was like a well-honed scalpel rather than the commonly filed knife. As a tool in God’s hand, everything about John: his words, his thoughts, the mere glance of the eye, made a difference or had an effect in the lives of those about him.

See Mark 6:20, “Herod feared John, knowing that he was a just man and an holy, and observed him; and when he heard him, he did many things, and heard him gladly.”

In mankind’s attempt to pull itself up by its bootstraps, the ‘children-of-men-mentality’ must apply pressure against the older state of mind. Why is mankind attempting all? It is the new and improved mankind: it is the ‘children-of-men-mind set’; it is the intrusion of the mind of God. The new message is this: we no longer want to be the old worldly man; we want to rid ourselves of the old trappings. The old man was corporeal, carnal, centered in this present world.

See the transition begin in 1 Corinthians 3:3, “For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?”

Once begun, the process of reverse engineering sweeps forward exponentially. Many pressures are brought to bear. Seeds take root where they had never grown before.

See the sprout in Daniel 6:26, “I make a decree, that in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for He is the living God, (inhabiting the temple) and stedfast for ever, and His kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and His dominion shall be even unto the end.”

For the beginnings of exponentiality, see Matthew 4:19, “He saith unto them, follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

That is a message at once both given to men and the children of men. The former goes out to the children of men.

For man, the message is Mark 1:17, “Jesus said unto them, Come ye after me, and I will make you to become fishers of men.”

There are real differences between men and the children of men. The new became a subculture vying for dominance. Man thought his place in the world was assured. When threatened, he lashed out. Religious differences: there are two mindsets, and therefore two intrusions. If the mindset of the children of men clearly states the nature of God via reflection and spin-off, then the mindset of worldly man must represent the nature of God’s competitor and antagonist.

See Mark 8:33, “When He had turned about and looked on His disciples, He rebuked Peter, saying, Get thee behind Me, Satan: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that be of men.”

So again, what are the things of men? They are ‘envying’, ‘strife’, and ‘divisions’. Those are what the enemy savors. As well, those may typify the nature of very early civilization: the civilization of man. The mind set of the children of men is inclusive. Yet, the mind of worldly man, when not included into the spiritual, becomes useful for little other than kindling. They are the men beneath the earth. The children of men obtain the additional function of torching the old and useless.

In that may be seen an allusion to angels: John 15:6, “If a man abide not in Me, he is cast forth

as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are

burned.”

It may be said of the human nature that it has a dual nature. The dual function of the children of men (to place the good fish in vessels, and cast the fuel into the furnace) may well stem from that dual nature.

See the dual nature in 1 Corinthians 7:34, “The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit.”

See it again in 1 Corinthians 6:20, “For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.”

The spirit in the children of men is that which may be communicated with; it is the image and glory of God: it is the mind. When a scriptural verse says ‘body and spirit’, we may interpret that to mean ‘body and mind’. In the broader language of this study, of course, we mean ‘corporeal and spiritual’.

In that the dual nature concerns the body and the mind, see Romans 7:23 and 25, “But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.”

Mankind is a spastic creature in the throes of self-defeat. By self-defeat, I mean the transition from corporeal to spiritual. The newer model will replace the older model. The spiritually centered mindset will recruit from the corporeally centered mindset. What is left over will be used to stoke the furnace on the engine of transition.

We have examined the differences between ‘men’ and ‘children of men’. The two may, as a single entity, be placed over against the third type for comparison. In doing so, we compare ‘man’ to ‘the son of man’. We will see in future study that the manhood of the son of God is often referred to. To get to the truth of that matter, we will have to wade through opinion and general consensus.

We have our hip waders standing by.

For now, suffice it that a simple, brief comparison be put forth. Man is type one. Children of men (as in society) is type two. The example, or type, of the firstborn (under the common notion that the son was the strength of the father), is set forth in the ‘son of man’ as the design by which it will be judged that the children of men have progressed. It is the mark that mankind must aim for.

See the comparison in 1 Samuel 15:29, “And also the Strength of Israel (that has ‘son’ written all over it) will not lie nor repent: for He is not (like) a man (envying, strife, and divisions), that He should (needs to) repent (turn back from a corrupt state).”

See also Numbers 23:19, “God is not (like) a man, that He should (needs to) lie (coax, cajole, or wheedle); neither (is) the son of man (like a man), that He should (needs to) repent (turn back from a corrupt state).”

Book Two Chapter Seven

SEVEN

Working the Lines

What is a handshake? Used for greetings and farewells or to seal an agreement, in human relations the handshake is a signal acknowledging that communication or the transfer of information can take place. That is about all that the encyclopedia says on the topic. A handshake may also presuppose acceptance and/or common ground. As in most other things, there is a scope to handshaking that implies many levels between the extremes. A weak and listless handshake may come from a person of bohemian inclinations; a person to whom little matters; a person to whom everything is pretty much the same. On the other hand, may be found the firm grip of someone with a cause; someone who is out to prove himself in some way; and you can pretty much guess that he is about to try and sell you something. People rarely find themselves accidentally clasping hands; one has to either reach out and take the other hand, or reach out and accept the other hand.

Handshakes occur most between friends. They occur also between friendly people, as well as those who use friendliness to achieve goals. Sometimes they occur between enemies, as when a bargain of peace is struck. However, as in a dance, one of the two will play the prominent role. That is as it should be: in terms of the fulcrum, one up and one down. We think of a handshake as a means whereby a balance is struck between two differing forces. It is a thing that works. A handshake done wrongly tells a different story. Two bohemians quickly exchange a limp, cold handshake, and whereas normally it’s all pretty much the same, now they repel one another. Two salesmen stand locked in a monumental handshake, trying to out-squeeze the other’s grip. A proper balance must include both a dominant and a subservient element, else the purpose is lost.

To witness the handshake done wrongly, see Numbers 20:11-12, “Moses lifted up his hand, and with his rod he smote the rock twice: and the water came out abundantly, and the congregation drank, and their beasts also. And the Lord spake unto Moses and Aaron, Because ye believed Me not, to sanctify (bless) Me in the eyes of the children of Israel (rather than yourself), therefore ye shall not bring this congregation into the land which I have given them.”

Moses, after being instructed to do a thing in a particular way, let his feelings get in the way of obedience. In doing so, he sought to temporarily assume the dominant position, and the balance was lost. After a long and exemplary career, Moses was fired on the spot. God turned away from a gainsaying Moses, and the mantle of leadership was transferred to a more subservient host.

For gainsaying see Romans 10:20-21, “But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them that sought Me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not after Me. But to Israel He saith, All day long I have stretched forth My hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.”

Here, I would like to list four synonyms for the word ‘gainsaying’ - they are: contradictory, dismissive, contentious, and antagonistic. A balance between man and God is not equality. We must never adopt a familiar attitude with God. What good is it to see or hear or know if we do not act on it? The proper balance is the dominance of superiority and the submission of subservience. Both the fulcrum and the mirror agree: if God reaches out to you - reach back.

Man’s trouble is clearly seen in Proverbs 1:24, “Because I have called, and ye refused; I have stretched out My hand, and no man regarded.”

Luke 18:13, cited earlier, provided us with the ‘body language’ of balance. Compare the case of Moses’ self-promotion with the case of Ezra found in Nehemiah 8:6, “Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. And all the people answered, Amen, Amen, with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the Lord with their faces to the ground.”

This is the handshake done rightly. Notice men reaching back toward God; notice the straight-line balance between man humbled and God exalted. If God reaches down to you - reach up. This is no isolated theme, but one returned to often.

See Psalms 134:2, “Lift up your hands in the sanctuary, and bless the Lord.”

Bless the Lord. It is not simply an empty ritual of physical posturing: lifting hands mirrors your own spiritual willingness; your open-mindedness, for it is your mind that spirit communicates with.

For open-mindedness see Job 11:13, “If thou prepare (open) thine heart (mind), and stretch out thine hands toward Him.”

Your physical act of lifting up your hands completes the straight line of balance between man humbled and God exalted. It is the turning of the part of you that may be communicated with back to the mirror. The physical act mirrors the spiritual response.

For just what lifting your hands actually is see Psalms 25:1, “Unto Thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul.”

And our willful humility just may be the exaltation of our angelic other: see Psalms 86:4, “Rejoice the soul of Thy servant: for unto Thee, O Lord, do I lift up my soul.”

Now, therefore, we ask this: if lifting up hands is the same as lifting up the soul, what are the

mechanics involved? I have previously suggested that as our corporeal sense of self includes the

brain housed in the body, our spiritual sense of self includes the mind housed in the soul. That the

spiritual identity is a concept that must necessarily be filtered through our corporeal identity, we have

reviewed and accepted. The result of the filtering is an augmented corporeal identity (actually the

corporeal identity plus the mind): just a little thing we like to call our ‘soul’. But if, in a higher

reality, the soul is a spiritual body inhabited by a portion of God (the mind), then our turning back

to the mirror assumes a wholeness and a balance that is seen upon a straight line between a dominant

and a subservient.

The subservient follows suit: is the mirror image of the dominant. If then we are crying out to God, Who is communicated through our angelic other, does the soul likewise cry out to the corporeal self? Might it be along the lines of two shipwrecked men adrift on the sea? The fog has dropped a solid curtain between them so that they must cry out to one another: “Here!” “Here!” They swim toward the voice. Ask yourself if the next verse depicts a mirror image of something spiritual.

Psalms 88:9, “Mine eye mourneth by reason of affliction: Lord, I have called daily upon Thee, I have stretched out my hands unto Thee.”

Those things we connect to God, we call holy; in other words: ‘special’ maxed out.

I want to study the wording of 1 Timothy 2:8, “I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.”

Men are called upon to lift their hands. Those hands are called holy. Is it the restraint upon wrath and doubting (a more conductive state of mind) that makes raised hands holy? Are raised hands special? Is it because they are raised in relation to the communication of prayer? I have asserted that raised hands are equal to lifting the soul. In lifting the soul, man is actually lifting up his corporeal identity augmented by the addition of the mind.

But according to the fulcrum theory, a corporeal ‘up’ would be associated with a spiritual ‘down’. Don’t be confused. Lifting up the soul is just that: exaltation of the angelic other. The lifting of hands, thus the lifting of the soul is, for our part, a humbled state: returning to the mirror, and with lowered face, calling out for the help we’ve finally realized we cannot do without. Our angelic other has called to us; we swim toward the voice. Raised hands is a picture of subservience; of a proper, or holy

handshake.

If our desire is to achieve the exaltation of our spiritual identity, to raise our future wholeness closer to God, then we must willingly work the lines of balance. To close out this section, let me draw your attention to a couple of corporeal illustrations of balance. Christ was once asked if a particular man was in a bad state because of his parent’s, or his own, sins. The answer given was that neither case was the cause, but that the reality of God could be seen in the healing. Of course, it was immediately of benefit to the healed man, but in a broader scope, the healing was accomplished as an illustration of balance.

See Matthew 12:13, “Then saith He to the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it forth; and it was restored whole, like as the other.”

See also Mark 3:5, “And when He had looked round about on them with anger, being grieved for the hardness of their hearts (closed-mindedness), He saith unto the man, Stretch forth thine hand. And he stretched it out: and his hand was restored whole as the other.”