Analogue 1: Conversion & Receptivity

Introduction to Analogue 1 Session by Lynn Bauman

Conversion and Receptivity

       A person of Jewish faith can make another person a Jew—called a convert, but a convert cannot make anyone else a Jew.

       The truth is, some beings can make other beings as receptive as themselves. While others have no such capacity, they simply are as they are.

Synopsis

• The invisible interpretive context of this text is that it is written for early Jewish followers of the Messiah. It explores the many dimensions and mysteries of the Jewish and Christian mystical traditions of the first-centuries of the Common Era.

• Its Jewish character is the hermeneutical frame which surrounds and supports an understanding of this complex and multi-layered Gospel.

• The opening analogue expresses the level of receptivity necessary to read the Gospel of Philip properly, and also the kind of being that is required to work with and as an agent of the Messiah’s energies.

• Receptivity and deep structures of faith are the essential ingredients that one must possess to enter and understand this text hermeneutically, and more importantly enter into a full experience of Jewish mystical tradition.

• External conversion and nominal commitment (the surface structure of religion) will not suffice to give access to the understanding of and participation with these mysteries. This raises the important issue of the different between surface-structure versus deep structure religion and spiritual experience.

• Deep structure signals the ability to fundamentally change the nature of something—the real transformative possibility (metanoia or metamorphosis) as opposed to surface structure abilities which are always rearrangements of human construction what already exists or human additions to it (like "make-up" on the surface of skin).

• This analogue sets the conditions for the possibility of entering and understanding this text. These conditions include:

1. The characteristic features of Jewish versus Gentile Christianity.
2. The exoteric manifestations of religion versus its esoteric truths, the latter being what the Gospel of Philip describes.
3. Levels of transformation as opposed to cosmetic alterations.
4. The depth of a person’s faith and commitment to the work.
5. The creative nature of spiritual work—readiness and receptivity—making someone ready and receptive for this work. Who can do this? What aspects of the person must be changed? Is this a form of divine alchemy?

• These themes are what this commentary will discuss all of which are the necessary requirements for reading and understanding the complexities of this Gospel

COMMENTARY

Jewish Mystical Tradition

As we enter this beautiful and mysterious Gospel, we move through a portal that has clearly been shaped by Jewish culture and tradition. It is a doorway that appears to have been opened by an early form of Jewish mystical tradition predating Christianity. This Gospel is a unique treasury of Semitic metaphors, similes and symbols, most of which come directly from the earlier history, experience and sapiential teachings of the Jewish peoples. A critical word introduced by the text is musterion, translated as the mysteries. The Gospel of Philip appears to be a collection of the many “mysteries” reportedly told by the Jewish mystic, Yeshua of Nazareth. In both the canonical and non—canonical Gospels it is said that he lived and spoke these secret teachings to a handful of students when he was apart from the crowds, calling them the “hidden secrets” concerning the realities of Transcendence (the realm of the heavens, Matthew 13:11, Mark 4:11). These were not ordinary but advanced teachings hidden from those not ready to receive them. They were a powerful form of mystical thought apparently synthesized from the Wisdom tradition of the Jewish people, first-Temple esoteric teachings, and the visionary experiences of Yeshua himself, all of which were integrated later into the mind and heart of one of his first students, Philip.

Philip is said to have collected and reflected upon what he had learned from the Master over a long period of time and then (like John in the canonical tradition of the West) transmitted them. In some way no longer known to history now, he helped to bring this text into being, and this tradition was transmitted to a widening circle of students in lands primarily to the East of Palestine—becoming part of what we can call Oriental Christianity. Perhaps also like John, he added his own insights and reflections. It is clear that Philip was inspired by the same Spirit that informed Yeshua’s thought and teaching as was claimed by the Apostle John for his Gospel. There appears to be a similarity in these texts, both part of an early genre of reflective Gospels. Perhaps there is also a parallel dating between these two Gospels, although more scholarly work is needed to validate this assertion.  

As a part of an Oriental stream of early Christianity, Philip and his own disciples continued to teach and write using the familiar pattern of proverbs, sayings, metaphors, and images preferred in the Semitic worlds as a means to convey their thoughts and truths. The analogues in this text are often a collage of these metaphors sometimes in wild profusion, used to transmit the mysteries of Yeshua’s mystical vision. They prefer to use fewer words and many more images. This Gospel not only reflects this early Jewish heritage (what some scholars like Margaret Barker are today call First Temple Mysticism), it develops this theme in new and interesting ways that reflect Yeshua’s own deep insights. Philip begins precisely where the practices and principles of mysticism begin with a deep spiritual conversion—or point of turning. In the Greek language this is called metanoia: a reorientation of one’s being and consciousness from the horizontal to the vertical axis. Note the similarity of this focus with John’s third chapter and the Yeshua’s conversation about birth from Above with the religious leader (See John 3). The mystical experience of awakening and turning in a new direction is a parallel interest of both Gospel writers and it is the basis for all spiritual experience understood as essential by mystics of both the East and West.   

Empowerment and Spiritual Orientation

The wisdom found in this Gospel is meant to change an individual’s inner orientation in a manner illustrated in this Analogue by what happens when in the outer world a Gentile is converting into Jewish faith. This metaphor is used to describe a deeply profound ontological change toward which this Gospel as a whole points. Though perhaps rare, it was not unknown for a gentile to convert and become a practitioner of the Jewish tradition. The conversion process followed strict rules and protocols, typically involving the rite of baptism. The Baptizer (and this is metaphorically significant) had to be a “true Jew;” that is, born into the Jewish faith, not made Jewish in name only. In spiritual conversion (or inner reorientation), this Agent-of- change must not only have the power and authority to bring about this level of change but also have the specific power (or ability) to bring about the degree of receptivity that is required in the one being converted. In other words, such a transformative change must never be nominal but ontological—it must involve the entire being and consciousness of the person accepting this new path. It is not about a change of ideas or religious beliefs, but rather has to do with deep changes taking place at the level of an individual’s heart (which will later in this text be called the Bridal Chamber).

There are perhaps any number of people who, for whatever reason, would quickly accept a name change or a superficial change of loyalties. This Gospel, however, is aiming at something far deeper and long-term. It wants receptivity to be real, inward, and transformative—a change made at the core of a person’s being who has been fully prepared for it. Such a transformation can only be truly done when both the Agent-of-change (or Agent-of-conversion) and the one being converted experience this as a transmission of power at a very deep level which requires inner receptivity. The results of this change (about which more will be taught throughout this Gospel) create a fully receptive and transformed soul who is intimately connected to (and in an intimate relationship with) the divine Presence itself. Ultimately the changes that will occur are so radical as to create a whole new kind of human being—a future form of humanity married to the divine.

A Catalytic Being

The change Agent, therefore, must be catalytic, powerful enough to aspect some kind of divine alchemy. This is not about a nominal religious conversion. It involves living one’s life along the vertical axis, an orientation fundamentally different from the normal horizontal dimensions of space and time which the convert had known before. This is not simply a movement from one religious tradition or institution to another but is ultimately a complete remaking of one’s being (a process eventually called in the West theosis.) As the Gospel proceeds, it will detail the nature of this conversion or metamorphosis. The words and metaphors Philip uses will describe transcendent dimensions perpendicular to and beyond the horizontal worlds of space and time in which we normally exist.

Ultimately the one who converts, who turns and reorients to this new vertical world, must not simply carry the name “Jew” (as a practitioner and believer would) but the inner nature of the Messiah himself. He or she must also be an inhabitant of these same transcendental dimensions that made the Messiah so powerfully what he was. Using the metaphor of Jewish conversion, he or she must become fully “a Jew,”  that is, ontologically born from Above, like the Change-Agent who first made the convert receptive to this possibility. The level of receptivity to this unfolding must be deep and the changes profound so that what follows and unfolds will take one forward to their ultimate destiny. The Gospel of Philip begins here, with this reorientation of being and consciousness, using the metaphor of Jewish conversion, and then follows the path of changes in the convert as they occur At the conclusion of the Gospel, it will move toward an unimaginable destiny that is meant not only to aspect the individual but also all of humanity,  an ending which is far wider and more universal than this initial metaphor may initially convey.

Advanced Abilities

The last phrases of this analogue suggest something very extraordinary about the advanced spiritual abilities of certain human beings. It appears that the strength and power of an individual can become so great that they are able to powerfully influence the spiritual evolution of another being. They can, in fact, become spiritually catalytic. If one accepts the accounts about Yeshua in his own day, this was clearly the case for him. It is witnessed too at many other times during the millennia of spiritual history within Judaism and Christianity and is also known in the accounts of other sacred traditions. Some saints and sages have been able to enable the growth processes of other human beings, making them receptive and susceptible to transformation. This catalytic possibility may be rare, but it is not unknown.

What is this advanced ability? What kind of human being is this? Is it a natural gift, or is it the result of a form of spiritual evolution that brings this capacity into being? As it unfolds, the Gospel of Philip will answer these questions directly. Most human beings, of course, have not sufficiently evolved to aspect others in this way, but Philip tells us that the possibility for such an advanced form of spiritual evolution exists.

QUESTIONS FOR REFLECTION AND PRAXIS

1.  The Star of David (also called the Seal of Solomon) has become a symbol of the Jewish faith and the tradition of Judaism. When you see it, what meaning does it have for you? What do the upward (ascending) and the downward (descending) triangles mean to you?

2.  Have you ever had a conversion experience of some kind, perhaps not even religious?

What was it like?

3.  If you are able, talk to a person of the Jewish faith and ask them how they experience their faith and remember its history now.

4.  What does it feel like to be receptive? What is it like to be closed (or closed-minded)? How do you notice this in other people? What is your way of working with each of these attitudes in another person, especially when you feel you need to communicate something important? Do you know when you yourself are being closed minded?

5.  How would you describe an Agent-of-Change? Do you know someone that is able to make another person more receptive than they were before? How does this ability work? In your view, what creates the catalytic power of this agency?

6.  Are you open to spiritual change? How might you be closed?

7.  What would be the difference between a nominal conversion to a faith and one that entailed not only a change of one’s mind, but also one’s way of being, one’s heart? Has that ever happened to you?

8.  A very important question raised in this first Analogue concerns what makes a person (in this case a mystic) catalytic for someone else’s spiritual evolution. It is clearly not simply persuasion and definitely not coercion but is due to some powerful inner ability or power resident within the mystic to initiate change. In your view, what is that force, and how does one acquire it?

Notes for Reference and Study

A.  It is stated in the canonical Gospel tradition (and also in the Gospel of Thomas) that Yeshua did indeed have two kinds of teachings. One was public and for the crowds in which he primarily used stories and parables, and the other was private and for his close associates in which he explained subjects in greater detail. These he called “the mysteries” or the secret teachings for those who were ready to receive them (Matthew 13:11, Luke 8:10, Gospel of Thomas 62). You might wish to read and review these mysteries and compare the canonical text with the Gospel of Thomas.

B.  There is an important teaching in the wisdom traditions called “the beginner’s mind.” It means that an individual is not only open-minded but that he or she has no pre-judgements that will hinder the learning process or the reception of something entirely new. Wisdom traditions say that if we are to make spiritual progress, we must maintain a beginner’s mind. Without it we close ourselves o? to what is new and are not receptive when something important but unknown enters our world. It appears that this opening analogue encourages us to seek a beginner’s mind.

C.  The hermeneutical approach taken by this commentary for the Gospel of Philip reflects a little known part of early Jewish mystical tradition explored and uncovered largely through the work and research of Margaret Barker, a British Hebrew scholar and researcher. Her explorations into Jewish history prior to the time of Yeshua lead her to the conclusion that there was an important tradition of what she calls First Temple Mysticism which fundamentally informed and influenced Yeshua’s teaching, insights and personal experience. A formal review of this interpretive theory is found in the introduction to this text. Information on her website as well as many of her published works have been extraordinarily important resources for this commentary.

D.  The initial analogue in this Gospel which introduces us to Jewish themes, metaphors and tropes is the first evidence that this is not, as many have suggested, a formal Gnostic text. Instead it appears to be a text reflecting the teachings of Jewish mystical tradition (and as it has been suggested, a unique form called First Temple Mysticism). This form of mysticism had a major influence on Yeshua’s teaching but ran counter to the conventions of Jewish thought in his day. Much like the Essenes who withdrew from conventional religion practiced in Jerusalem and Judaea, Yeshua was a dissenter, but he did not withdraw from normal society.

E.  Oriental Christianity refers to those lands and people populated by followers of Yeshua to the East of Palestine. This tradition of Christian faith and teaching spread eventually all the way to Africa, India, and China and the lands in between. Occidental Christianity, on the other hand, went west into Europe, north to Russia and to the Americas. These two forms were distinctly different in their cultures, doctrines and sensibilities. The former, Oriental Christianity, had its roots in the Aramaic language of Yeshua which continued to be used for centuries in the East; whereas in the West it was translated into Greek and later Latin and reflected their linguistic and cultural differences from its original Semitic culture and homeland.

F. There is an implicit metaphysics that is the background to this Gospel and the teachings of Yeshua. At its most basic level, this metaphysical understanding can be expressed by means of a double horizontal and vertical axis with human beings living at its center point. The horizontal axis stands for the dimensions of space-time and the world of duality. The vertical axis which pierces space-time and every being has access to many transcendent and immanent realities and dimensions up and down its scale of being if that doorway is opened inside of them. A full mapping of all these domains and dimensions lies at the heart of the metaphysical teachings found in every major religious tradition. In the original Greek texts of early Christianity the vertical dimensions are called collectively the “heavens,” for they are multiple.

G.  The word convert is used to translate the Greek word for proselyte. To convert to a new faith by a process of conversion is often a very dramatic and troubling event both for the individual undergoing it as well as for the society in which that individual lives. It is often associated with personal drama, turmoil, and sometimes danger. People talk about conversion experiences as radical changes of thought and loyalty. These can be sudden, happening in a moment, as it apparently did for St. Paul as recorded in the Book of Acts, or they can be gradual and incremental, but both resulting finally in a completely different mindset and point of view. The time duration in either case is different, but in the logic of this analogue it is not time that is essential but the depth of the change. Does it touch the true nature (the ontological structure) of an individual, and is that process somehow alchemical?

H.  The term alchemy is fraught with a mixture of historical meanings, some of which are critically important for understanding this text. Here the term is being used to express metaphysical and ontological changes taking place when the horizontal and vertical axes intersect and aspect one another. This is when a mysterious hidden process is at work within the human soul and spirit which is able to change their very nature. The distinction between the surface structure and the deep structure of any form of communication was first explored in the linguistics of Noam Chomsky. Religious traditions can be thought of as symbolic languages that seek to express transcendent and immanent realities. They communicate through their own symbolic and metaphoric syntax and semantics. In his study of language, Chomsky came to realize that there was a surface structure that made languages very different from one another, but there also existed a deeper and more hidden structure that they shared.. The surface structure of a religious tradition consists of its outer symbols, rites, and doctrines while deep structure is found in its inner mystical teachings and practices. The Gospel of Philip is focused upon the latter, that is, the deep structure of Yeshua’s wisdom.

Footnotes to the Translation

• The word Jew (or Jewish) translates the term Hebrew In the original Coptic text.

• The term convert translates the original word proselyte.

• The verb to make carries the force of turning someone into something that they were not before.