Friday, May 5, 2023

SPARE - Prince Harry (Book Review by Stuart McKinlay)

April 2023

Stuart McKinlay

 “We are primarily one thing, and then we’re primarily another, and then another, and so on, until death – in succession. Each new identity assumes the throne of Self, but takes us further from our original self, perhaps our core self – the child… there’s a purity to childhood, which is diluted with each iteration.”

–– Prince Harry. Spare. Random House. Hardback. £28.

 Harry by gaslight

This is what Harry does and nobody does it better: He vomits his tormented guts in your face. He’s a self-seeking, self-absorbed, over-indulged self-serving narcissist who spews his troubles down your jacket when all you asked was: “Are you taking Meg?” Tell me truly: Would you invite this wazzock to your Coronation?

The recyclable floral invitation is carefully eyed by the Sussexes, rubbed between thumb and forefinger, as it were, and weighed for strategic utility. Perhaps a bargaining chip. Charles is trying discreetly to forget the treacherous outpourings splurged over the world’s eager press, the press Harry hates, but manipulates in retribution for supposed snubs and humiliations to him and his unconventional duchess.

His ruminations in Spare resonate of TMI, the “too much information” of some cathartic therapies, and Harry is on a revelatory roller-coaster. He is not only an anatomical spare part for his hierarchically superior brother but married to a voluble American actress who gives royalty the shivers. They haven’t forgotten Wallis Simpson: they even tried to have her buried elsewhere, he says.

Such deft slights are the inspiration of the book: that and his love of Meghan Markle, the woman he describes as “perfect, perfect, perfect”. His purpose is to explain his departure from “the Motherland”, “why my wife and I took the drastic step of picking up our child and just running like hell, leaving behind everything – house, friends, furniture.” Told in 150,000 words (Machiavelli managed his The Prince in 52,677, but who’s counting).

The press, encapsulated above, is the enemy if ever it were doubted, blunderbuss-happy with garish headlines touting tiaras and tantrums, broomsticks and bra straps, hormones and hissy fits. He says:

One day it was: Yuck – Meg’s bra strap was showing. (Classless Meghan.) The next day: Yikes – she’s wearing that dress? (Trashy Meghan.) The next day: God save us, her fingernails are painted black! (Goth Meghan.) The next day: Goodness – she still doesn’t know how to curtsy properly. (American Meghan.) The next day: Crikey, she shut her own car door again! (Uppity Meghan.)

Who was behind this caterwauling calumny? Was it Willy? Was it Kate? Was it a rogue PA? Or did the butler do it? His suspicions were twirling in a whirlpool of pretty colours and bewildered paranoia (see cocaine). Even blue blood was put up for microscopic examination:

…the Mail weighed in this time with an essay by the sister of London’s former mayor Boris Johnson, predicting that Meg would... do something... genetically... to the Royal Family. “If there is issue from her alleged union with Prince Harry, the Windsors will thicken their watery, thin blue blood and Spencer pale skin and ginger hair with some rich and exotic DNA.”

The papers were heroically pertinacious with hacks wheezing tenaciously in pursuit of Meghan’s mad social whirlerama too. Aha!

Next The Sun combed through Meg’s social media, discovered an old photo of her with a friend and a professional hockey player, and created an elaborate yarn about Meg and the hockey player having a torrid affair. I asked Meg about it. No, he was hooking up with my friend. I introduced them. So I asked the Palace lawyer to contact this paper and tell them the story was categorically false, and defamatory, and to remove it immediately. The paper’s response was a shrug and a raised middle finger. You’re being reckless, the lawyer told the newspaper’s editors. Yawn, said the editors.

Suddenly, there’s a counterblast as Harry and Meghan confide their accumulated insights in Oprah Winfrey (and 17.1 million CBS viewers). Result! Well, of a sticky-bomb sort. Even two years on from that celebrated alternative-reality show, the opprobrium clings.

He trashed his father, humiliated his brother, and threw down an accusation of racism (misconstrued, he insists later), but admits now: “Several close mates and beloved figures in my life had chastised me for Oprah. How could you reveal such things? About your family? I told them I failed to see how talking to Oprah was any different from what my family and their staff had done for decades – briefing the press on the sly, planting stories.”

Quite: The Guardian of 13 January, quotes the book, quoting the Independent, quoting “a source”:

In the memoir, Harry claims that William believed his brother was being “brainwashed” by his therapist. This language was echoed this week by a source “close to the royal family” who told the Independent: “The King, Camilla and William believe the situation will remain unchanged while the Duke of Sussex remains effectively ‘kidnapped by a cult of psychotherapy and Meghan’.” This is the kind of anonymous press briefing Harry suggests comes directly from his family, although we have no way of knowing if that is the case.

The familiar whiff of betrayal drifted over Frogmore Gardens as Charles, Willy and Harry walked together in the subdued hours after the Duke of Edinburgh’s funeral. The Oprah interview a month earlier was greatly on their minds. Prince Charles, says Harry, “allowed that journalists were the scum of the earth. His phrase.” 

Harry explains his stream-of-blame outburst: “Since leaving Britain the attacks on us had been increasing exponentially. We had to try something to make it stop. Being silent wasn’t working. It was only making it worse. We felt we had no choice. Willy was really steaming, shouting it was my fault for never asking for help. You never came to us! You never came to me! Since boyhood that had been Willy’s position on everything. I must come to him – bend the knee. Otherwise, no aid from the Heir.”

Charles’s summary was succinct: “Please boys – don’t make my final years a misery.” Perhaps he should also have put in a plea for Camilla, though her stare, it is said, could wilt a gorgon. Anyway, the Netflix series dropped the portcullis on that.

Harry’s scattergun strategy was both profitable and painful. The outbreak of garrulously fruitcake interviews was backed up by this journal – a pedestrian peregrination in as voluminous a compendium of genial humbug and waffle as might handily hold a kitchen door ajar. Yet it contains some sweating nitroglycerine. He and Meghan had packed their Louis Vuittons and skipped this sceptered isle, yes. Forever and ever! But headlines? He’d give them headlines.

Spare gains some moral traction from that bland undercurrent of honest Joe Citizen and a surfeit of affable self-abnegation – though multi-million-dollar cheques tend to banish any illusion of fiscal innocence. None of it, though, blunted the renowned unsavoury knavery of newspaper inventiveness: the press doesn’t do ordinary, and didn’t. It carried on regardless with unabated vigor, gutting the book for provocative squibs and malleable conjecture.

It seems in a curiously oblique way, in the weft and weave of a multi-layered mind, this memoir is a substantial feint towards conciliation (failed), through sharing it all, his foes and woes, getting off his chest a tempestuous “reality” that gave him such shattering panic attacks. And with this, another iteration of Harry comes to the fore. Can this be a further accessional step to the “throne of Self” as his latest identity assumes a further dilution from childhood’s purity: the latest of his precisely posited succeeding realities, from “primarily one thing to primarily another”? In short, ageing.

The ordinary, “primarily another” Harry, he wants to be, and to be seen to be, seems eclipsed by his own vivid habitualization of the extraordinary. He tells of killing the Taliban like chess pieces. Of losing his virginity (in a field, near the Vine Tree pub, since you ask). Of dressing up like Hitler’s little helper. Of fretting about Camilla (again). He even tells all of telling all to Oprah.

How else was he to make at least a nominal switch from rebel without a clue to reappear as a safe set of waggling tonsils on the world stage, to recast himself and “that awful woman” from bellyachers to a quiet couple to have round for afternoon tea: Another scone, vicar? Thank you, most kind. This subtly cast scenario is necessarily directed towards securing an apology from the Palace for treating him and her indoors as whining jerks. All he needs is a laptop and the world’s best ghostwriter.

JR Moehringer is a Pulitzer Prize winning journalist well qualified for his task: his own coming-of-age memoir, The Tender Bar, was turned into a film starring Ben Affleck and directed by George Clooney. It is through Clooney Harry met Moehringer. The agile hack’s staccato, single-sentence paragraph style suited Harry’s delivery and he goes to work. Sentence. Full stop. New par.

Of course, JR Moehringer and Harry Sussex could be JD Salinger and Holden Caulfield for all world’s news outlets should worry. Balance and verity flew out the window in a frenzy of hype and speculation exciting a frisson of prurient voyeurism. The expectation rose of a vast reservoir of bile bursting over in a blockbuster of spectacular sputum and spit. The royal effect is, as ever, efficacious: Spare flooded a gawping market. 

As the generic source blurb puts it: “One of the most searing images of the 20th century, two young boys, two princes walking behind their mother’s coffin…” The crux of interest is always the tragedy of his mother and thence her boys. Harry relates how Charles told him of Diana’s death:

[Pa] was standing at the edge of the bed, looking down. His white dressing-gown made him seem like a ghost in a play.

What is it, Pa?

He put a hand on my knee. Darling boy, Mummy’s been in a car crash.

Pa looked down into the folds of the old quilts and blankets and sheets.

Mummy was quite badly injured and taken to hospital, darling boy.

He was in shock, it seemed.

Oh. Hospital?

Yes. With a head injury.

I thought again: Injured… but she’s OK. She’s been taken to hospital, they’ll fix her head, and we’ll go and see her. Today. Tonight at the latest.

They tried, darling boy. I’m afraid she didn’t make it.

Harry deludes himself:

Her life’s been miserable, she’s been hounded, harassed, lied about, lied to. So she’s staged an accident as a diversion and run away.

The realization took my breath away, made me gasp with relief.

Of course! It’s all a ruse, so she can make a clean start! At this very moment she’s undoubtedly renting an apartment in Paris, or arranging fresh flowers in her secretly purchased log cabin somewhere way up high in the Swiss Alps. Soon, soon, she’ll send for me and Willy. It’s all so obvious! Why didn’t I see it before? Mummy isn’t dead! She’s hiding!

Even the blood and guts of his own royal genesis are itemised mercilessly, the analogous inspiration for the book’s title. He writes:

The Heir and the Spare – there was no judgment about it, but also no ambiguity. I was the shadow, the support, the Plan B. I was brought into the world in case something happened to Willy. I was summoned to provide backup, distraction, diversion and, if necessary, a spare part. Kidney, perhaps. Blood transfusion. Speck of bone marrow. This was all made explicitly clear to me at the start of life’s journey and regularly reinforced thereafter. I was twenty the first time I heard the story of what Pa allegedly said to Mummy the day of my birth. Wonderful! Now you’ve given me an Heir and a Spare – my work is done. A joke. Presumably.

If a ghostwriter’s hand, however careful, can perhaps contaminate the purity of a subject’s stream of thought, it might be wondered whether another language could similarly tinker with verisimilitude. Perhaps not, yet it seems (to me) the butcher’s list of Harry’s guts is a little more ameliorative in the mellifluous cadence of French; a nice concern, but it helps. Here it is mirrored in Le Suppléant:

L’Héritier et le Suppléant – aucun jugement dans ces sobriquets, mais aucune ambiguïté non plus. J’étais l'ombre, la doublure, le plan B. J’avais été expressément conçu au cas où il arriverait malheur à Willy. Mon rôle était de soutenir, de distraire, de faire diversion et, si nécessaire, de fournir les pièces de rechange. Un rein, peut-être. Transfusion de sang. Un bout de moelle osseuse. On me l’a fait comprendre de manière explicite dès le tout début de mon existence, et répété avec de plus en plus d’insistance depuis. J’avais vingt ans la première fois que j’ai entendu l’anecdote selon laquelle Papa aurait dit à Maman, le jour de ma naissance : Merveilleux ! Voilà, tu m’as donné un Héritier et un Suppléant – mon boulot est terminé. C’était une blague. Sans doute.

No doubt however it is translated, that’s how destiny is carved up at the top table. Diana’s coyly delivered bombshell on her broken marriage is just as crisply relayed by Harry:

My mother legendarily said there were three people in her marriage. But her maths was off. She left Willy and me out of the equation. We sensed the presence of the Other Woman because we suffered the downstream effects. Willy long harbored suspicions about the Other Woman, which confused him, tormented him, and when those suspicions were confirmed, he felt tremendous guilt for having done nothing, said nothing, sooner. I was too young, I think, to have suspicions. But I couldn’t help but feel the lack of stability, the lack of warmth and love, in our home.

He frequently wondered where his mother was. He says: She’d either bolted or been thrown out, depending on whom you asked, though I never asked anyone. It is this distance, he admits, that brings the boys to accept Camilla at first, but the uneasy truce founders. The brothers, he says, pondered:

If she’d be like all the wicked stepmothers in storybooks. But she wasn’t. Like Willy, I did feel real gratitude for that. The only thing we asked in return was that he [Charles] not marry her... It would make the whole country, the whole world, talk about Mummy, compare Mummy and Camilla, and nobody wanted that. Least of all Camilla. Just please don’t marry her. Just be together, Pa. He didn’t answer.

Harry’s bitterness is acrid:

But she answered. Straightaway. Shortly after our private summits with her, she began to play the long game, a campaign aimed at marriage and eventually the Crown. (With Pa’s blessing, we presumed.) Stories began to appear everywhere, in all the papers, about her private conversation with Willy, stories that contained pinpoint accurate details, none of which had come from Willy, of course. They could only have been leaked by the one other person present. And the leaking had obviously been abetted by the new spin-doctor Camilla had talked Pa into hiring.

Against a background of such perpetual intrigue, the press remained ever alert: Harry’s confession he had killed 25 Taliban had the broadcasters frothing about his supposedly careless attitude to human rights. He is candid:

Twenty-five. It wasn’t a number that gave me any satisfaction. But neither was it a number that made me feel ashamed. Naturally, I’d have preferred not to have that number on my military CV, on my mind, but by the same token I’d have preferred to live in a world in which there was no Taliban, a world without war. Even for an occasional practitioner of magical thinking like me, however, some realities just can’t be changed.

While in the heat and fog of combat, I didn’t think of those twenty-five as people. You can’t kill people if you think of them as people. You can’t really harm people if you think of them as people. They were chess pieces removed from the board, Bads taken away before they could kill Goods. I’d been trained to “other-ize” them, trained well. On some level I recognized this learned detachment as problematic. But I also saw it as an unavoidable part of soldiering.

Another reality that “just can’t be changed”.

Amid the revelations of frozen personal parts in polar extremities, described in inordinate detail, cocaine snorting leading to unexpected forgetfulness (he more or less recalls), character-building expeditions, and the miscellaneous jollifications expected of his class, we have moments of personal and national solemnity.

When the Queen has gone:

She [Aunt Anne] led me upstairs, to Granny’s bedroom. I braced myself, went in. The room was dimly lit, unfamiliar – I’d been inside it only once in my life. I moved ahead uncertainly, and there she was. I stood, frozen, staring. I stared and stared. It was difficult, but I kept on thinking how I’d regretted not seeing my mother at the end. Years of lamenting that lack of proof, postponing my grief for want of proof. Now I thought: Proof. Careful what you wish for.

Or farce – that fancy dress party:

I went up and down the rows, sifting through the racks, seeing nothing I liked. With time running out I narrowed my options to two.

A British pilot’s uniform.

And a sand-coloured Nazi uniform.

With a swastika armband.

And a flat cap.

I phoned Willy and Kate, asked what they thought.

Nazi uniform, they said.

I rented it, plus a silly mustache.

The tabloids loved it: Heil Harry! Heir Aberrant! Royal Heil to Pay! Kate and Willy denied complicity, the Chief Rabbi “didn’t mince words”, and sulphurous outrage imperilled his admission to Sandhurst:

No matter what I did, the calls grew louder for me to be barred from the Army. The top brass, however, were holding fast. If Prince Harry had been in the Army when he dolled himself up as the Führer, they said, he’d have been disciplined. But he’s not in the Army yet, they added. So he’s perfectly free to be a thicko.

Moehringer has been, it seems, exquisitely careful, yet throughout the book the uneasy thought recurs: are we in sympathy with Harry or a protective amanuensis one step ahead of some charming, loopy quirk? Perhaps not – the ghost does let it run that Charles “was always sniffing things. Food, roses, our hair. He must’ve been a bloodhound in another life. Maybe he took all those long sniffs because it was hard to smell anything over his personal scent. Eau Sauvage. He’d slather the stuff on his cheeks, his neck, his shirt. Flowery, with a hint of something harsh, like pepper or gunpowder, it was made in Paris. Said so on the bottle.”

The blood has been sucked out of this magnum opus for inglorious headlines, with money to be made by anyone with an angle to dangle, but do not wither in despair. A second volume looms. At least some of the tears staining the pages of his first purging clear-out are persuasively Harry’s own; moments when his pain is your pain: the real thing, the kind of grief Harry calls simply “the stab of sorrow”. 

Where will it all end? A hummingbird flutters into Little Archie’s nursery. “You’re free. Fly away,” Prince Harry counsels the bird. “And then, against all odds, and all expectations, that wonderful, magical little creature bestirred itself, and did just that.”

Harry did, after all, bolt like his mother’s son.

Friday, April 21, 2023

MORAL INJURY

 
Human beings demonstrably are moral agents. But where do our morals come from? From our parents? Our community? Thin air? If morals are really just applied “Common Sense” then why, no matter how low they are, do none of us ever live up to our own moral standards? And why then do we judge the conduct of others to be wanting at times?

In the following we shall argue that morals are spiritual. By spiritual we mean that morals reside in the innermost being of humans, i.e., the conscience so-called, and as such, morals are invisible to the naked eye. The individual’s conscience is injured when the conscience refuses to excuse his/her thoughts and/or words and/or deeds.
Our actions (whether thought/word/deed) have consequences, moral consequences, i.e., spiritual consequences. Thus, Moral Injury is a spiritual problem.

Monday, April 17, 2023

THE CASE FOR CHRISTIAN NATIONALISM

If the idea of The Case for Christian Nationalism is to generate discussion on Christian nationalism, then it has accomplished its mission. However, one is left to wonder why this subject even needs to be discussed. For even a cursory reading of the so called “Great Commission” passage of Matthew 28:18-20 would leave one not having to guess that any nation that has been fully discipled i.e., has become obedient to Christ, ought to be called a Christian nation. Verily, Christian Nationalism seeks to fulfill this Biblical goal.

I am onside with Stephen Wolfe’s conclusions about Christian Nationalism regardless of the many detours and his getting me lost up dimly lit backstreets before we arrived at his final destination. Wolfe’s Thomistic views of nature and grace, secular and sacred, upper story and lower story, and his “two-kingdoms” approach had me constantly checking the road map to see if we really were traveling in the right direction. Yes, we got there in the end, and I suppose a very useful part of the discussion on the way was about the views of Thomas Aquinas (and those under his influence, such as Roman Catholicism, and some of Protestantism) with regard to the aforementioned dualistic dichotomies. They are false! For there can be only one kingdom because there can only be one King, the Lord Jesus Christ, the King of Kings, to Whom has been given all authority “in heaven and on earth.” (See, also Daniel 7:14.)

The Case for Christian Nationalism is a must read for Christians as we seek to fulfill the Great Commission. It has a wealth of quotes and footnotes from Christians past and present. His final chapter, Epilogue: Now What? is excellent and very insightful. Stephen Wolfe has made a great and invaluable contribution to the contemporary discussion on the highly important subject of Christian Nationalism.

The following is a link to an article by Peter Leithart who also passes comment on The Case for Christian Nationalism: Christian Nationalism – Theopolis Institute

Monday, April 3, 2023

FORGIVENESS

                                                                Forgiveness

My photo of Dali's Christ on the Cross, Glasgow
‘Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they do’ is one of the seven statements Christ made while on the cross (Luke 23:34). Another is Jesus quoting Psalm 22:1, ‘My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?’ (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34). Both these statements are easily understood, even by a casual reading of the Bible – during His execution Jesus is asking God to forgive His executioners and experiences an awful feeling that God has deserted Him. For a deeper understanding (and therefore growth in the grace and knowledge of God) we must apply the three things needed for accurately studying the Bible, viz., context, context, and context!

The immediate context is that while being put to death, Jesus addresses the crowd, and He addresses God. The words forgive and forsake, (though different words in the original language), have similar meanings here. Perhaps we may sum it up thus: ‘Father, forsake their sins but why do I feel as if You do not forgive Me?’ Why would God forsake His Son if His Son had never sinned? ‘All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned, every one, to his own way; and the Lord has laid on Him the iniquity of us all’ (Isa. 53:6). To forgive those who trust in Jesus to save them from being forsaken forever in hellish torments, God placed their sins on His Son on the cross where He experiences the hellish torments each deserve for their iniquities. So, the immediate context is that Jesus is asking that sinners be forgiven, and God is responding by handing over their sins to His Son. Thus His words, ‘Why Have You forsaken Me?’

The historical context is that God had promised to supply a Redeemer, a Saviour of His people, His people being all who believe in the salvation He has supplied through Jesus. Old Testament believers believed in the One who was to come, New Testament believers in the One who has come. So, Jesus on the cross is the fulfilment in history of God’s promise to forgive His people. ‘For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him’ (2 Cor. 5:21).

The Biblical context is that the historical event of the cross was God’s bringing His unthwartable plan to pass, through the birth, life, and death of His only begotten Son Jesus, ‘the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world’ (Rev. 13:8). And by what means were the eternal counsel of the Godhead’s plans brought to pass? ‘This Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men’ (Acts 2:23). So, if we were to add ‘context, context, and context’ together we might say: God’s eternal plan to grant forgiveness to His people can be found in the words spoken by Jesus Christ on a cross over 2,000 years ago.

Did the ‘lawless men’ know God was using them to kill Jesus to fulfil His ‘definite plan’? No! Thus Jesus’s asking for their forgiveness, ‘for they do not know what they do.’ The unbelieving Jews wanted Jesus crucified and the Romans authorities unjustly condemned Him. The Roman soldiers followed orders by carrying out their sinful demands after the most unfair trial in the history of Man. What’s it all about? From our perspective it’s about forgiveness! ‘For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.’ (John 3:16). From God’s perspective? ‘Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and they will be His people’ (Rev. 21:3).

Tuesday, March 28, 2023

What is this book about?

We know we've really tested your patience, but Rudi and I are now almost finished writing our The Unfaithful Bride & The Faithful Groom paperback book. We're just dotting I's and stroking T's and then it'll be available for your reading pleasure. NEWS FLASH! Out now:

What is this book about?
The Bible is an organic unity. Although consisting of two testaments, it is one book. It begins in paradise with the first Adam and ends with a description of another paradise with the Second Adam. Sometimes we don’t see this unity. We read the chapters but miss the line of development through the Scriptures. We might prefer to read the New Testament only; but without the Old Testament we will not understand the development from first Adam’s fall to the fulfilment of Christ’s ministry as the Second Adam. What holds this story of redemption together, is God’s covenant promises. He promised fallen Adam that He would provide Someone Who would crush the head of the serpent. Christ was that Person. What He did, was to open eternal paradise for those who believe in Him.
In our book, we endeavoured to follow this line. God called His people to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Exod. 19:5). His people were to be His bride church. Yet, they failed miserably by breaking covenant with God, becoming the unfaithful bride. In this book, we recall the nature of the failure of the Old Covenant church and draw some lessons for the New Covenant church. We try to learn from the disappointment of her priests, prophets, and kings. Against this, we contrast the perfect ministry of Christ as Priest, Prophet, and King. We try to understand how Adam’s frustrated Cultural Mandate is restored and enlarged in the Great Commission of Second Adam who sends His disciples to the ends of the earth. To Him is given all power and authority. He gifted His church bride with the Holy Spirit to be His witnesses.
As we interpret the Great Commission in light of Christ’s Kingship, we try to rent the veil of pessimism that has obscured the bright future of God’s Kingdom on earth. Christ called His church to be the “salt of the earth” and the “light of the world” (Matt. 5:13-16). As Israel had a land to conquer and occupy, so the church has the world to ‘invade’ and influence nations, cultures, and lifestyles with the Gospel. There must be victory under Christ’s Lordship. But success is only secure for as long as the bride remains faithful to the Groom.
This book is not designed to be a Systematic or a Biblical theology. However, it is not void of theological truths. We deliberately avoided technical academic language. If you are a lay preacher or a Bible study leader, you will find some helpful chapters or paragraphs to glean from.
With us, read, study, love, and apply the Scriptures. Be willing to learn from the past failures of the bride of Christ. Fix your eyes on Him (Heb. 12:2). “But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you” (Matt. 6:33). Look over the levee bank; there’s a whole world to reach with the fulness and power of the Gospel message (Rom. 1:16-17). We must finish the task.
Once we have done what Christ commissioned us to do, we will enter the eternal Promised Land.
Soli Deo Gloria.
Amen.

Tuesday, March 21, 2023

THE RESURRECTED JESUS AND THE CLOSED DOORS

 The following is a sample from The Unfaithful Bride & The Faithful Groom, a book I am working on with D. Rudi Swartz. We are working on the paperback version, but it is already out as an e-Book at Amazon - The Unfaithful Bride and the Faithful Groom: The Biblical Story of Covenant Making, Breaking and Renewal eBook : McKinlay, Neil, Schwartz, D. Rudi: Amazon.com.au: Books

The resurrected Christ and the closed doors 

When Neil Armstrong stepped through the door of Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969, he became the first person to walk on the moon, and thus proved for all time that the moon is not made of cheese! Armstrong may have expected, perhaps, more layers of dust than what he encountered, but the moon is made of rocks and dust, not cheese. Likewise, unless he had one in the pocket of his spacesuit, he would not have expected to find a sardine sandwich on the moon. Why would we not expect to find cheese or fish and bread on the moon? Our prior assumptions would preclude it. 

Picture from Net
If you worked in an office on the twenty-fifth floor of a building, you wouldn’t expect to look out of the window and see a fish flying past, not even a flying fish! Why? It is against the nature of fish to fly twenty-five stories up or to survive for that long out of its element, i.e., water. It is to go against its nature as a fish.
Now, one of the things we already know about Christ Jesus is that He has two natures. He is fully God while at the same time is fully human. To be sure, it can boggle the mind when we consider that the Godman “Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:52). Why would the fully human Jesus “growing in wisdom” boggle our minds? It’s to do with His other nature, His divine nature. As God He is Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent but as a man His wisdom is limited by His human nature. We assume that as God He can do everything that God can do. But what are our assumptions about the man Christ Jesus, especially after His resurrection? Please remember that we are not talking about two Jesuses, a divine Jesus and a human Jesus, i.e., two persons. Rather, we are simply acknowledging that Jesus is one divine Person with two natures forever as per the creeds and confessions. 

Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you.” (John 20:19). 

Now, this is a well-known verse where people make much use of their prior assumptions. Please forgive us if you find the following a bit too technical. However, it is necessary that we alert you to the subtlety of the serpent. Let us state for the record that Christians do not worship the humanity of Christ. We are not to worship any created thing. We worship Christ because He is God, who has attached a fully human nature to Himself. Before we progress any further, let’s first heed the following:  

The acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by himself, and so limited by his own revealed will, that he may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan. (WCF 21, included in section 1). 

With that in mind, let’s proceed with exegeting John 20:19, (and don’t let the smooth-talking Piano Man distract you from carefully reading any the following). Let’s quote the text first. 

Then, the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said to them, “Peace be with you.” (John 20:19). 

The phrase in question is “Jesus came”. (In the text above, “came” is the Greek word ἦλθεν, which is the third person aorist singular of the verb ἔρχομαι). 

In the New Testament, the word “come” is particularly connected to two aspects of Christ’s mission – His ministry, and His coming again at the end of time.   

  • The ministry and office of Christ is described in verses like Mark 1:38, 2:17, Luke 5:32, 12:49, 19:10, Matthew 10:34, John 5:43, 7:28, 8:42 12:47. 

His office is to minister and to give His life a ransom for many (Mk. 10:45; Mt. 20:28). Jesus declared that He “came” to fulfill His life’s assignment, in Mt. 11:19 cf. Lk. 7:33 ff. The arrival (coming) of Christ inaugurated the time of salvation (Matt. 21:9 – most translations render this “coming” as “appear”; the Greek word is also ἔρχομαι).  

  • The eschatological coming of Christ describes the consummation of His ministry when He will physically return from heaven to judge the living and the dead (Matt. 24:30, 26:64, 21:22). It is defined as Day of the Lord! (1 Thess. 5:2). 

Both these meanings of Christ’s “coming” can be grouped under one heading: CHRIST HAS COME AS THE SAVIOUR LORD. It is important to keep this truth in mind in our approach to John 20:19 and 26. 

The paragraph heading of John 20:19 was added by the translators. The word they chose is “appear”. This translation is somewhat ambiguous. In modern English “appear” can mean “come into sight”, “materialise” or “show up”. Jesus did not “materialise” like a ghost out of thin air; He simply went to where His disciples were gathered. There He disclosed Himself to them.  

The joy of the disciples was not connected to the “how” of His arrival, but to the “that” of His coming to them as the resurrected Jesus. With Him they had walked the previous three years. Their faith was revived when they saw the same Jesus, now with the scars of the cross on His body, yes, the self-same body that had been nailed to the cross. 

John 20:19 is recorded as historical narrative: it describes what happened in space and time. It records the time of a day, which day of the week it was, and the location of both Jesus and His disciples. It speaks of closed doors, and fear amongst the disciples. 

The coming of Jesus into the midst of His disciples thus plainly describes His being with them. Louw and Nida place the verb “come” within the semantic field of words which plainly means to arrive.190 There is nothing in this verse which specifically refers to either His ministry or to His office. Read carefully, the passage is more about the ensuing mission of the apostles who were at that point gripped in fear behind closed doors (cf. Mk. 16:14). The same meaning of “come” is therefore also applicable to the next point in John’s narrative. Thomas was not with them when Jesus “came”. However, a week later, Jesus “came” again. The parallel paragraphs in Mark 16:14 and Luke 24:36ff, do not mention anything of closed doors. (Matthew only mentions the appearance of Jesus to His disciples “in passing”, “Suddenly Jesus met with them.” This “meeting” with the disciples (Greek: ὑπαντάω) does not carry the meaning of a gathered group of people at a specific place but describes a brief encounter. See also Mt 8:28, Lk. 8:27, John 4:51, 11:20, 30, 12:18. 

Christ showed them His physical body with the marks of His suffering as signs that He had accomplished His ministry, a sign of His Lordship over death. His Kingship will be consummated at His final return. At that point the disciples feared, and they needed assurance and peace. 

Between the incidents described in John 20:19-29 and the consummation of the Kingdom, the disciples needed confirmation that Jesus is the risen Lord so that they would be effective witnesses of His Lordship. This truth would be the driving force for their mission till Christ’s return. Note that this confirmation did not come by Jesus’ walking through closed doors; the Lordship of Christ was validated when they saw His hands and His side. The Person in their midst was the same One they had walked with, received instruction from, had seen performing miracles, and had witnessed dying on the cross. Now He is risen! Earlier, Peter disowned Christ out of fear of the authorities (then he “sat down”, Mt. 26:69); what changed his fear into boldness (then he “stood up”, Acts 2:14) was his belief in the resurrection of Christ, “whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it” (Acts 2:24). He proclaimed, “Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified” (Acts 2:36). 

Paul testified before Agrippa, “… to this day I stand, witnessing … that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead” (Acts 26:22–23). 

There is no reference in the further witness of the apostles, or even in the rest of the Scriptures, that they believed and put their lives on the line because Jesus walked through a closed door. That fact is immaterial in the advancement of the Gospel. If any preacher today would want to convince people to follow Christ on account of His power to walk through a closed door and neglect to focus on the fact that He is Lord over death, sin, and hell, he would preach a foreign and useless gospel. Further, it would be an adulteration of the Word if such a “gospel” is preached to make people believe that they will receive the same power – it’s no gospel at all! 

The question is now, how did Jesus get through the closed doors? Be careful, for this is where our assumptions about Jesus can really be tested. 

Carson is of the opinion that:  

… the function of the locked doors in John’s narrative, both here and in v. 26, is to stress the miraculous nature of Jesus’ appearance amongst his followers. As his resurrection body passed through the grave-clothes (v. 6–8), so it passed through the locked doors and simply ‘materialized’.191 

We have to disagree with Carson. Firstly, the function of the closed doors was to stress the fear of the disciples and nothing more. Secondly, the disciples did not rejoice because Jesus walked through a closed door; they believed because they witnessed the risen Christ by seeing His hands and His side (John 20:20). Thirdly, the two natures of Christ had never fused into one and never will. We agree with Hendriksen and Kistemaker: 

We believe that neither in the state of humiliation nor in that of exaltation are the two natures ever confused or blended, so that one partakes of the qualities of the other. We believe that our Lord Jesus Christ is to be acknowledged “in two natures inconfusedly and unchangeably, as well as indivisibly and inseparably” (Symbol of Chalcedon). “Moreover, we believe that the words “There came Jesus” are best interpreted literally. He not only suddenly stood in their midst, but he actually came and stood! Had his human nature been omnipresent, he would not have to come (unless this coming be taken in a metaphorical sense).192 

Without any proper exegesis, Keener merely concludes that, “Jesus’ appearance in the locked room suggests a resurrection body whose nature is superior to that normally envisioned in ancient Jewish literature.”193 Smell something fishy here? See any flying fish? Where is the exegesis to substantiate this conclusion? This is what we mean about making assumptions.  

At school we had to demonstrate to the maths teacher how we arrived at our answer. We had to show our “working.“ The answer may very well be correct, but the teacher needed to know how we arrived at it. It is the same with important texts, such as the ones that are assumed by some to be teaching that the human nature of Christ had taken on the properties that belong only to His divinity.  

The opposite of exegesis is iesegesis, whereby one’s own prior assumptions are read into a text. But let’s not ascribe divine attributes to Christ’s humanity (or human attributes to His divinity, for that matter). Notice it again, with even more subtlety this time, in the following. Blum determines that “Jesus passed through the door, as indicated by the fact that when the doors were locked, He came and stood among them (cf. v. 26). This showed the power of His new resurrection body. But His body had substantial form and continuity with His pre-Cross body.”194 

This observation is closer to the mark but, once again, it does not rest on exegetical analysis but on assumption. He plainly supposes that the “resurrection body” was something different from the body Christ had before His death. There is no indication that the resurrection body of Christ has more power or different qualities than what it had before He was crucified and buried. Fact is, during His ministry on earth, there was never a moment which ascribed power to the “body” of Christ. He, in His human nature, like all people born of the flesh, always had a body which was never separated from His spirit or soul, apart from the three days His body (which saw no corruption) was in the tomb. However, we should note that He was still united to His body, (as will our bodies still be united to Him when we are in our graves). When Christ and the repentant thief died, they went to the highest heavens without their bodies. That is the place of the “Intermediate State”, where the departed souls of the invisible church: 

Behold the face of God in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies, which even in death continue united to Christ, and rest in their graves as in their beds, till at the last day they be again united to their souls. WLC, 86. 

Jesus, of course, by His resurrection, is the “firstfruits” of this future resurrection. His body was reunited with His soul on the third day. 

Even before His resurrection, Jesus, according to His Divine nature, performed miracles: He walked on water, healed the blind and the sick, calmed a storm and raised the dead. He could teach with authority because He was always both man and God. When He became hungry, God was not hungry. When He needed rest, God did not need rest. When He bled under the cruel sufferings of the soldiers, God did not bleed and suffer. But never did His human nature and His divine nature mix. He was always both God and man. 

God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world. Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ. One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God. One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.195 

WCF (8:2) states: 

The Son of God, the second person in the Trinity, being very and eternal God, of one substance and equal with the Father, did, when the fulness of time was come, take upon Him man’s nature, (John 1:1, 14, 1 John 5:20, Phil. 2:6, Gal. 4:4) with all the essential properties, and common infirmities thereof, yet without sin … two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion. (Luke 1:35, Col. 2:9, Rom. 9:5, 1 Pet. 3:18, 1 Tim. 3:16) (VIII:2). On the third day He arose from the dead, (1 Cor. 15:3–5) with the same body in which He suffered, (John 20:25, 27) with which also He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of His Father (VIII:4). 

Berkhouwer provides us with a clear statement regarding the two natures of Christ:  

Each nature retains its properties and the properties of the one can never become the properties of the other. The properties or attributes of the divine nature are said to be: almighty, eternal, infinite, omnipresent, omniscient, and these can never become the attributes of the human nature. The “properties” of the human nature are: being a physical creature, flesh and blood, finite; suffering, death, movement from one place to another, hunger, thirst, experiencing cold and heat; and these can never become properties of the divine nature.196 

Although we distinguish between the two natures of Christ, we must never separate His divine nature from His human nature. As Berkhouwer points out, “For at stake here is the unique mystery of the one Christ in the singleness of the person. He is the subject of all his deeds. And he is the object of our praise and worship as the One who performed his work in the absolute unity of and faithfulness to his office.”197 

We are not allowed to believe that, after His resurrection, Jesus existed interchangeably between physical and spiritual substance – then in thin air and then on earth – only to take on flesh when He appeared to many people. What was the nature of His body when “He also presented Himself alive after His suffering by many infallible proofs, being seen by them during forty days and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3, cf. 1 Cor. 15:5-8). 

Mark 16:12 (also v. 14)198 might give rise to this idea: “After that, He appeared in another form to two of them as they walked and went into the country.” (Mk. 16:12). The terms “appeared” and in “another form” calls for closer examination. 

Behm writes of Mark 16:12: 

…the risen Lord appears to two disciples by the way (Lk. 24:13 ff.) is a human form, but different from that which Jesus bore during his life on earth. The idea rests on reflection on Lk. 24:16, but is also reminiscent of popular Gk. [= Greek] beliefs concerning the epiphany of divine beings.199 

Did we just see another fish fly by our window? Did you catch it? To say that Jesus manifested Himself in human form is correct, but for the rest of Behm’s statement does not consider the context. 

When Jesus appeared (Greek: φανερόω) He made Himself manifest (i.e., He revealed, or disclosed Himself). This is the meaning of the verb in most instances in the Gospels. One cannot assume that He was invisible or drifting in a phantom-like state and then suddenly – there He was! He was present at the geographical location (maybe near Emmaus – Luke 24:13). Like in other instances where Jesus appeared to His disciples, the emphasis rests on the unbelief of the people, and not on the state of the resurrected body of Christ. “… He reproached them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who had seen Him after He had risen” (Mark 16:14). 

Before we plunge deeper, let’s check our diving apparatus. Let’s see that we have enough oxygen in our tanks lest we start seeing things due to a lack thereof. What conclusions should we draw as we look at the following incident? a) That Jesus withheld their sight as He walked through the midst of the people that wanted to chuck Him off a cliff? b) That He had morphed or transubstantiated into something or someone they didn’t recognise? Or c) That the text doesn’t say? And keep in mind that this took place before His resurrection:  

They got up, drove Him out of the town, and took Him to the brow of the hill on which the town was built, in order to throw Him off the cliff. But He walked right through the crowd and went on His way (Luke 4:29-30). 

Remember the lesson of the loaves and the fishes. Leave the divinity and humanity of Jesus intact. Don’t be in a rush to ascribe divine attributes to His creaturely nature. Yes, the Creator and the creature are united forever in Jesus but must forever be kept distinct (lest we become like those “who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen”) (Rom. 1:25). 

The context must be our guide to understand what the phrase “in another form” (Greek ἑτέρᾳ μορφῇ) means. The risen Christ appeared to three different groups as it is recorded in Mark 16. The meetings appear in sequence: 

  • Verse 9 records the first appearance. Verses 1-9 describes the movements of Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James. They arrived to find the grave empty. Jesus Himself was not present but “a young man dressed in a white robe” spoke to them. He made a startling announcement: “He is not here! He has risen!” They did not personally see Jesus. He “disclosed” Himself by an emissary angel. 

  • Verse 12 records the second appearance. After the first appearance (Greek: μετά ταῦτα – “after that”, “consequently”) Jesus appeared (manifested, revealed, disclosed) Himself to the two people on their way to Emmaus (16:9). 

  • Verse 14 records the third appearance. Jesus met with the twelve (16:14). They were having a meal together.200 

The body of Christ did not change into other forms and appearances; rather, the circumstances in which He appeared were different in each of the three cases mentioned above. 

If we go back to John 20:30, there, the NKJV translates σημεῖον as “signs”. (The NIV translates the same word as “miraculous signs”.)201 Of significance in this verse (20:30) is the reference to “other” (or “more”) signs. Do the signs here refer to the miracles recorded in the whole of John’s Gospel, or do they refer a miracle other than what is being described in the narrow context of John 20:19-29)? If we opt for the latter, we could interpret the “coming” of Jesus into the midst of His disciples, even when the doors were shut, as one of those miracles. We exclude the false assumption that He could walk through closed doors because He now had a “different” resurrected body, a new body that had taken on divine qualities – as opposed to His putting on imperishable incorruptible immortality, i.e., as per glorification, and as per what Scripture clearly teaches us to expect at our resurrection (1 Cor. 15:50-54).  

From the episodes described in John 20 and Mark 16 we learn not to focus on the closed doors, but on the present Christ as Lord. He died but was physically resurrected and will return to judge the living and the dead. 

We should learn something more from the context. Jesus commanded the gathered disciples: 

As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit” (John 20:21–22). 

The doors of the room were shut, but the door to the world has been opened by the death and resurrection of Jesus. There is no need to hide from opposition. The resurrected Christ authorised His disciples: 

Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age. Amen (Matt. 28:19–20). 

That’s exactly what they did after they received the Holy Spirit even when they were threatened: “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you more than to God, you judge. For we cannot but speak the things which we have seen and heard” (Acts 4:19–20). 

Let’s not lightly pass over the confession of Thomas in John 20:28, “And Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!”” (John 20:28). Thomas, like the other disciples a week earlier “handled”202 (cf. 1 John 1:1) the body of the resurrected Christ. He saw Christ, heard Him, touched Him, and then worshipped Him! Lenski quotes A.T. Robinson, saying, “Thomas ‘gave Christ full acceptance of his deity and of the fact of his resurrection.’”203 

It speaks of childlike obedience to believe what the Scripture plainly says, rather than to speculate about what it does not clearly reveal. Speculation leads to bad theology, which on its part leads to confused ideas like consubstantiation and transubstantiation (which are dependent on the erroneous and misleading belief in the ubiquity of Christ’s humanity. Smell anything fishy here? 

What was the state of the bodies of the dead who were raised after their tombs were broken open? Did they have “glorious” bodies when they “appeared to many people” (Matt. 27:53)? Were they raised only later to be “taken” up into heaven in the manner Jesus was “taken” up bodily (Acts 1:9)? Did they die again? We cannot say for sure because the Bible does not reveal any of these details to us. Speculation will lead us nowhere. Jesus declared: “Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed” (John 20:29). John declares: 

And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30–31). 

Paul underscores this truth: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:16–17). We need nothing more than that which was recorded in the Scriptures because they are sufficient! 

Will we have magical resurrected bodies like Jesus allegedly had when we are resurrected from the dead at the return of Christ? Well, from the context of John 20 it is clear that He did not have a “magical” body. If we want to know more about our resurrected bodies, we need to go look elsewhere in the Scriptures. 1 Corinthians 15 is a good place to study the topic, but don’t forget to keep a harness on your assumptions lest you go galloping off to join a travelling rodeo show!