← Diary Entry Iannuzzi Citations →
This page has three parts: Independent Biblical Identification, Cross-Entry Synthesis, and Observation Notes.
15-1923-06-06 Biblical Resonance Analysis
Volume 15 — June 6, 1923 “The sign that the soul is all of God is that she has a taste for nothing but Him.”
STAGE ONE — INDEPENDENT BIBLICAL IDENTIFICATION
Divine Fullness and the Extinction of All Other Tastes
“The sign that there is nothing evil and that the interior of the soul is completely filled with God, is that nothing is left to her which is not all mine… she no longer has a taste for anything — her taste is only for Me and of Me. And not only with profane or indifferent things, but also with holy things, pious people, services, music, etc. — everything is cold, indifferent to her, and like something that does not belong to her. And the reason is natural: if the soul is completely filled with Me, she is also filled with my tastes.”
Psalm 73:25 — “Whom do I have in heaven? There is no one on earth whom I desire besides you.” The soul entirely filled with God discovers that exclusive divine desire is not a forced detachment but the natural consequence of fullness: where God is all, nothing else can claim desire’s territory. The verse expresses not ascetic striving but the state of realized union in which created attractions have lost their grip because a greater gravity has taken possession. Direct doctrinal parallel
Colossians 3:1–4 — “If then you were raised together with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated on the right hand of God. Set your mind on the things that are above, not on the things that are on the earth. For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ, our life, is revealed, then you will also be revealed with him in glory.” The soul’s experience of earthly and even holy things as “though dead for her” corresponds precisely to Paul’s metaphysical claim: the one who has died with Christ has no living claim on earthly things, and the life hidden in God constitutes the only locus of real desire. The coldness to music, pious services, and holy persons is not spiritual aridity but ontological consequence. Direct doctrinal parallel
1 John 2:15–17 — “Don’t love the world or the things that are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the Father’s love isn’t in him. For all that is in the world—the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life—isn’t the Father’s, but is the world’s. The world is passing away with its lusts, but he who does God’s will remains forever.” The structural dichotomy of divine fullness versus worldly desire exactly mirrors Jesus’ teaching: non-divine tastes are not only dangerous but transient. The will-of-God connection is pointed: the soul filled with divine taste is, by that very fact, the soul who does the will of God. Direct doctrinal parallel
Song of Songs 2:3–5 (translation pending) — “His fruit was sweet to my taste… I am lovesick.” The Beloved’s exclusive absorption in the one beloved renders all other food irrelevant; the lovesickness for His presence is the precise form Luisa’s privation pain takes. Cold indifference to all other things — even holy ones — is the experiential consequence of having tasted the Beloved’s fruit as sweeter than all else; there is no room for lesser flavors when this one has filled the palate entirely. Affective/meditative
Psalm 63:1–5 — “A Psalm by David, when he was in the desert of Judah. God, you are my God. I will earnestly seek you. My soul thirsts for you. My flesh longs for you, in a dry and weary land, where there is no water. So I have seen you in the sanctuary, watching your power and your glory. Because your loving kindness is better than life, my lips shall praise you. So I will bless you while I live. I will lift up my hands in your name. My soul shall be satisfied as with the richest food. My mouth shall praise you with joyful lips,” The psalmist’s cry from the “dry and weary land” where there is no water corresponds to Luisa’s condition under privation: the absence of Jesus produces a dryness that cannot be relieved by any other water, however holy. The love declared “better than life” is the scale by which all other tastes become trivially small in comparison. Affective/meditative
James 1:17 — “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom can be no variation nor turning shadow.” The connection of divine taste with divine immutability is implicit but exact: the Father of lights has no variation, and the soul filled with His taste acquires the same stable character. This prepares the entry’s central contrast — the empty soul oscillates while the full soul holds still. Direct doctrinal parallel
The Void of God: Instability and Alternation of Character
“The soul who is not completely mine is empty, and as things surround her, she feels as many tastes within herself, if those are things which she likes; if they are things which she does not like, she feels disgust… in a continuous alternation of tastes and disgusts… many variations of character can be noticed: now too sad, now too cheerful, now all irascible, another time all affable. It is the void of Me which she has in her soul that gives her so many variations of character — in nothing similar to mine, for I am always the same and I never change.”
Malachi 3:6 — “For I, the LORD, don’t change; therefore you, sons of Jacob, are not consumed.” Jesus’ self-description as “always the same and I never change” is the direct attribution of divine immutability to Himself; the soul who acquires divine taste acquires this immutability as a participated quality, while the empty soul remains at the mercy of each passing creaturely pressure. Direct doctrinal parallel
James 1:8 — “He is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.” The double-minded (dipsychos) man — the man of two souls — names precisely the person of alternating tastes and disgusts: he cannot be stable because he is drawn between the divine and the creaturely, and the created offers only the unstable, passing satisfaction that oscillates between attraction and disgust. Direct doctrinal parallel
James 4:8 — “Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners. Purify your hearts, you double-minded.” The call to abandon double-mindedness corresponds to Jesus’ teaching that the soul must be completely filled — not partially — with God; partial filling is effectively emptiness, because the unfilled space will be colonized by whatever creaturely things present themselves. Affective/meditative
Matthew 6:24 — “No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be devoted to one and despise the other. You can’t serve both God and Mammon.” The binary of full/empty that Jesus presents — either entirely His or effectively empty — corresponds to the impossibility of dual service: the soul oscillating between tastes and disgusts is in precisely the unstable position Matthew names, where loving one produces hating the other and the sequence repeats. Direct doctrinal parallel
Taste as the First Act of Good or Evil: The Threefold Taxonomy
“Every taste has this power: if it is my taste, it transforms the creature into Me; if it is a natural taste, it sweeps her into human things; if it is a taste for passions, it casts her into the current of evil. It may seem that a taste is something trivial; yet, it is not so. It is the first act of either good or evil.”
2 Corinthians 3:18 — “But we all, with unveiled face seeing the glory of the Lord as in a mirror, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord, the Spirit.” The transformative power of divine taste is Paul’s beholding-transforms mechanism: to taste God is to desire God is to behold God is to be transformed into God. The progression is not metaphorical but ontological — the same divine image-conformity that Luisa’s entire formation has been working toward operates through the faculty of taste. Direct doctrinal parallel
Romans 8:5–8 — “For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit, the things of the Spirit. For the mind of the flesh is death, but the mind of the Spirit is life and peace; because the mind of the flesh is hostile toward God, for it is not subject to God’s law, neither indeed can it be. Those who are in the flesh can’t please God.” The threefold taxonomy — divine taste transforming, natural taste sweeping into human things, passionate taste casting into evil — has its Pauline structural equivalent here. The “death” of setting the mind on the flesh corresponds to Jesus’ instruction to “give death” to human and passionate tastes; the “life and peace” of the Spirit-ordered mind is the transformation-into-God that divine taste produces. Direct doctrinal parallel
James 1:14–15 — “But each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own lust and enticed. Then the lust, when it has conceived, bears sin. The sin, when it is full grown, produces death.” This is the most structurally exact passage for Jesus’ taste-as-first-act theology: desire not killed at the root gives birth to sin, and sin fully grown brings forth death. The trajectory from “taste for passions” → “current of evil” is step-by-step the James sequence. Direct doctrinal parallel
Matthew 6:21 — “for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.” The taste-as-first-act principle stated from the angle of treasure: what the heart tastes as valuable is where it is located. Divine taste orients the whole interior toward God; natural and passionate tastes orient it away. The trivial-seeming first act of looking or tasting determines where the heart takes up residence. Direct doctrinal parallel
Psalm 34:8 — “Oh taste and see that the LORD is good. Blessed is the man who takes refuge in him.” The scriptural warrant for treating taste as a genuine mode of divine encounter: not metaphor but a named faculty of spiritual experience. To taste God is the very means by which He is known, and the soul who has tasted nothing but God has done so repeatedly until all other flavors have become unfamiliar. Affective/meditative
Sirach 18:30–31 — “Don’t go after your lusts. Restrain your appetites. If you give fully to your soul the delight of her desire, she will make you the laughing stock of your enemies.” The wisdom tradition’s warning names the exact mechanism Jesus describes: desire unrestrained is not merely morally risky but sets in motion a progressive degradation. The operative word is “allow” — passive permission of the desire’s growth is sufficient to initiate the cascade. Direct doctrinal parallel
Adam’s Fall as Paradigmatic Taste-Failure
“Why did Adam sin? Because he removed his gaze from the divine attraction, and as Eve presented to him the fruit to let him eat of it, he looked at the fruit, and his sight took pleasure in looking at it, his hearing took delight in hearing the words of Eve — that if he ate the fruit he would become like God; and his palate took pleasure in eating it. So, taste was the first act of his ruin.”
Genesis 3:1–7 (paraphrase) — The fall narrative describes the woman seeing the fruit as good for food, pleasing to the eye, and desirable for gaining wisdom — precisely the multi-sensory seduction sequence Jesus names in Adam: sight, hearing, and palate each finding pleasure in the creature rather than the Creator. What Genesis narrates as event, Jesus here decodes as mechanism: the sequential yielding of each sense faculty to creaturely attraction is the anatomy of the fall. Typological
Romans 5:12, 15–19 — “Therefore, as sin entered into the world through one man, … sinners, even so through the obedience of the one, many will be made righteous.” The Pauline Adam-typology grounds Jesus’ use of Adam as paradigmatic not merely of personal history but of the constitutive moment for the whole human condition: Adam’s first taste-failure is the reason every subsequent human being inherits a disordered taste-structure, and it is precisely this disorder that the DW soul’s entry into the original creative moment (May 8) is commissioned to repair. Direct doctrinal parallel
1 Corinthians 15:45–49 — “So also it is written, “The first man Adam became a living soul.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit. However, that which is spiritual isn’t first, but that which is natural, then that which is spiritual. The first man is of the earth, made of dust. The second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the one made of dust, such are those who are also made of dust; and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. As we have borne the image of those made of dust, let’s also bear the image of the heavenly.” The anatomy of Adam’s taste-failure implicitly invokes the last-Adam Christological frame: the first Adam failed the first heroic act; the last Adam — and the soul who enters the DW — accomplishes the perfect orientation toward divine attraction that Adam refused. The soul’s exclusive divine taste is a participation in the last Adam’s sensory obedience. Christological/Trinitarian
1 Timothy 6:9–10 — “But those who are determined to be rich fall into a temptation, a snare, and many foolish and harmful lusts, such as drown men in ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some have been led astray from the faith in their greed, and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows.” The trajectory from unchecked desire to ruin mirrors the “current of evil” Jesus identifies: desire → temptation → snare → destruction is the Pauline version of taste → sweeping → casting. Adam desired to be like God through the fruit; the universal version of this pattern is the love of any creaturely good as an end rather than a transparent participation. Direct doctrinal parallel
Matthew 5:27–30 — “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery;’ but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna. If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna.” The Sermon on the Mount’s radicalization of the commandment to the level of first movements — the look, the interior pleasure — is the precise register of Jesus’ teaching here: the desire is the first act, and the first act is already the determinative moral act. Adam’s eye rested on the fruit; the rest followed necessarily. Direct doctrinal parallel
The First Heroic Act and the Crown of Faithfulness
“On the other hand, had he felt displeasure in looking at it, tedium and bother in hearing the words of Eve, disgust in eating it, Adam would not have sinned. On the contrary, he would have done the first heroic act of his life, by resisting and correcting Eve for having done that, and he would have remained with the everlasting crown of faithfulness toward the One to whom he owed so much, and who had all the rights for his subjection.”
Hebrews 2:14–18 — “Since then the children have shared in flesh and blood, he also himself in the same way partook of the same, that through death he might bring to nothing him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver all of them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For most certainly, he doesn’t give help to angels, but he gives help to the offspring of Abraham. Therefore he was obligated in all things to be made like his brothers, that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make atonement for the sins of the people. For in that he himself has suffered being tempted, he is able to help those who are tempted.” Christ’s temptation in the desert and in Gethsemane accomplishes what Adam’s first heroic act would have accomplished: holding the gaze on the divine attraction under maximal creaturely and demonic pressure. The heroic act Adam failed to perform is the act the Son of God performed perfectly, and its fruit is the ability to help others perform it. Christological/Trinitarian
James 1:12 — “Blessed is a person who endures temptation, for when he has been approved, he will receive the crown of life which the Lord promised to those who love him.” The “everlasting crown of faithfulness” Jesus names for Adam’s counterfactual obedience is exactly the crown James promises to the one who holds against temptation. The crown is not externally added but is the eternal form taken by the very act of steadfastness — faithfulness completed receives itself back as permanent dignity. Direct doctrinal parallel
Revelation 2:10 — “Don’t be afraid of the things which you are about to suffer. Behold, the devil is about to throw some of you into prison, that you may be tested; and you will have oppression for ten days. Be faithful to death, and I will give you the crown of life.” The crown of faithfulness toward “the One to whom he owed so much, and who had all the rights for his subjection” has its eschatological parallel in Revelation’s crown-of-life promise: the same faithfulness, the same crown structure, and the same relational ground — subjection to rightful lordship — as the form of the fidelity that wins the crown. Direct doctrinal parallel
Hebrews 12:1–2 — “Therefore let’s also, seeing we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, lay aside every weight and the sin which so easily entangles us, and let’s run with perseverance the race that is set before us, looking to Jesus, the author and perfecter of faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising its shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.” The call to lay aside every clinging weight — the tastes that sweep and cast — and fix the gaze on Jesus corresponds exactly to the heroic act: removing the gaze from the created attraction and holding it on the divine. Adam’s failure was a failure of gaze-direction; the soul in the DW accomplishes its reversal. Affective/meditative
Proverbs 31:30 — “Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain; but a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised.” The displacement of sensory beauty by fear of the LORD parallels Adam’s counterfactual: “as beautiful as they may be, they hold no attraction for the soul” — the soul filled with divine taste has undergone precisely the reorientation Proverbs names: the beautiful and the charming have been relativized by a superior knowledge of what actually merits praise. Affective/meditative
STAGE TWO — COMPARISON WITH HOGAN’S COMMENTARY
CORRESPONDENCES
Both identified 2 Corinthians 3:18 for the transformative power of divine taste (Hogan explicitly; Stage One structurally). Both identified the Genesis 3 narrative as the paradigmatic illustration of taste-failure, with the multi-sensory anatomy (sight, hearing, palate) as the key content. Both identified Matthew 5:27–30 for the first-movements theology — desire as the first act, the Sermon on the Mount’s radicalization of the commandment. Both noted the crown-of-faithfulness / heroic-act as the positive counterpart to Adam’s failure. Both noted the stability / immutability of the God-filled soul versus the oscillation of the empty soul.
DEVIATIONS
For the soul’s exclusive desire for God and the sign of divine fullness, Stage One centered on Psalm 73:25, Colossians 3:1–4, and 1 John 2:15–17; Hogan anchored primarily in Psalm 38:9, Psalm 40:6–8, Song of Songs 7:10, and Luke 17:21. Stage One approaches fullness from the angle of structural exclusion — once God fills, there is no room for other tastes; Hogan approaches it from the phenomenology of longing and the interior Kingdom. The angles are complementary: Stage One identifies the ontological mechanism (fullness displaces), Hogan grounds the experiential texture (longing, mutual desire, the Kingdom within).
For the holiness-excludes-sin principle (“wherever I am, there cannot be evils”), Hogan cites the 1 John abiding-cluster (3:2–6; 2:6, 17, 24–29), Hebrews 12:14, and Isaiah 35:8 comprehensively; Stage One identified the principle only tangentially through the fullness-of-God theme. Hogan’s citations are the stronger load-bearing texts for this specific claim.
ADDITIONS — MINE
- Psalm 73:25 — exclusive desire for God as the mark of the fulfilled relationship; all earthly desire displaced by divine fullness as its natural consequence
- Colossians 3:1–4 — the “died with Christ / hidden in God” anthropology as the mechanism by which all created things lose their attractive power
- James 1:8 / 4:8 — double-mindedness as the precise canonical name for the instability produced by the void of God; the alternation of tastes and disgusts as the double-minded soul’s structural condition
- Matthew 6:24 — the impossibility of dual service as the binary logic underlying Jesus’ full/empty dichotomy; partial filling functions as emptiness
- Malachi 3:6 — divine immutability as the governing anchor for “I am always the same and I never change”
- Romans 8:5–8 — the mind-set-on-Spirit vs. mind-set-on-flesh as the Pauline structural equivalent of the threefold taste taxonomy, including the “death” terminus for flesh-ordered desire
- 1 Corinthians 15:45–49 — last-Adam Christology as the implicit frame for Adam’s taste-failure and its reversal; the DW soul’s exclusive divine taste as participation in the last Adam’s sensory obedience
- Romans 5:12, 15–19 — the Pauline Adam-typology grounding the paradigmatic weight of Adam’s first act for the whole human condition
- 1 Timothy 6:9–10 — desire-to-ruin trajectory as the Pauline anatomy of the current-of-evil arc
- Sirach 18:30–31 — wisdom-tradition identification of permitted base desire as the mechanism of progressive ruin; the passive “allow” as sufficient to initiate the cascade
- James 1:12 — the crown of life for steadfastness as the precise canonical parallel to the crown of faithfulness Adam would have received
- Hebrews 2:14–18 — Christ’s temptation-and-resistance as the Christological fulfillment of the heroic act Adam failed to perform
- Revelation 2:10 — crown-of-life as the eschatological parallel to Adam’s counterfactual crown; same faithfulness, same crown structure
- Proverbs 31:30 — the displacement of beauty and charm by fear of the LORD as the form of the reorientation the DW soul has undergone
- Song of Songs 2:3–5 — the Beloved’s exclusive absorption in the one beloved as the experiential form of divine fullness; lovesickness as the phenomenology of privation
ADDITIONS — HERS
- Psalm 10:3 — the wicked boasting in the desires of his soul as the contrary case; the unredeemed taste-structure in its most assertive form
- Psalm 21:2 — God giving the soul its heart’s desire; the reciprocal aspect of divine taste — God fulfills what He has first inspired
- Psalm 38:9 — “All my longing is before you; my sighing is not hidden from you” — the soul’s desire fully exposed to God; Luisa’s privation pain as total transparency before the divine
- Psalm 40:6–8 — “I delight to do your will, O my God; your law is within my heart” — Christological delight-in-the-will as the supreme form of divine taste; the taste for the will itself as the highest register of the entry’s teaching
- Luke 17:21 — “The kingdom of God is within you” — Jesus moving in Luisa’s interior as the locus of the encounter; the inner Kingdom as the proper place of the divine presence
- 1 John 3:2–6 — “No one who abides in him keeps on sinning” — the abiding-excludes-sin principle; wherever Jesus is, there cannot be evil, because abiding in the Holy One and continuing in sin are mutually exclusive
- 1 John 2:6, 17, 24–29 — the abiding-in-Christ cluster; the anointing of the Spirit as the interior criterion of divine presence, distinguishing genuine fullness from imitation
- Hebrews 12:14 — holiness without which no one will see the Lord; the negative condition establishing that divine presence requires purity of interior
- Isaiah 35:8 — the Way of Holiness on which the unclean cannot walk; the road of the redeemed as inherently self-selecting by taste — only those of divine taste can remain on it
- Song of Songs 7:10 — “His desire is for me” — God’s desire meeting the soul’s desire as mutual; the reciprocal filling in which God’s taste for the soul answers the soul’s taste for God
- John 8:32 — “The truth will set you free” — Jesus’ pedagogy keeps Luisa at the sharp edge of truth as the liberating force; the taste for truth as the form divine taste takes in the intellect
Citation correction: Hogan cites “one Timothy, I think it’s three, I’m not sure” for “God wants everyone to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth.” The verse is 1 Timothy 2:4, not chapter 3. Hogan correctly identifies the book but assigns the wrong chapter; her uncertainty is explicit but the chapter she names (3) is incorrect.
VIP / SPECIAL DESIGNATIONS
Hogan uses emphatic language about the taste-as-first-act statement (“that’s a very, very important statement”), but this is commentary emphasis rather than the formal VIP designation language. No VIP recorded.
STAGE TWO SYNTHESIS
The entry operates within two dominant biblical traditions that converge on a single doctrinal claim. The Wisdom literature (Psalms, Sirach, Proverbs, James) and the Pauline anthropology of the Spirit-ordered versus flesh-ordered mind (Romans 8, 2 Corinthians 3, Colossians 3) both identify desire/taste as the determinative faculty — not a peripheral appetitive response but the first act by which the entire trajectory of the soul’s life is set. The Genesis illustration is not merely rhetorical: Adam’s fall is paradigmatic because it was the founding instance of taste-failure, and its anatomy (the sequential yielding of sight, hearing, and palate to creaturely attraction) is precisely the pattern the DW soul’s formation in divine taste is reversing. The combined findings are most theologically significant at two points: (1) the Psalm 40:6–8 / Colossians 3:1–4 convergence, in which delight in the will (Hogan) and dying to earthly things (Stage One) identify the same ontological state from different angles — the soul whose taste is entirely divine has ceased to belong to earthly things even while remaining in them; and (2) the 1 Corinthians 15:45–49 last-Adam frame, which situates the soul’s exclusive divine taste not as ascetical achievement but as participation in Christ’s own obedient sensory orientation toward the Father.
Cross-Entry Synthesis
Volume 15 — June 6, 1923 “The sign that the soul is all of God is that she has a taste for nothing but Him.”
Divine Fullness and the Extinction of All Other Tastes
The entry opens with what Jesus presents as a diagnostic criterion: the sign that the soul’s interior is completely filled with God is that she has no taste for anything else — not for profane things, not for holy things, not for music, not for pious persons. Everything is cold, indifferent, “as though dead for her.” The sign is comprehensive, and the reason Jesus gives is anthropological rather than ascetical: it is not that she has successfully renounced these things through effort, but that there is no space for other tastes when she is filled with His. The mechanism is one of displacement, not mortification.
The Psalm 73:25 register — “there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you” — names this state at its apex: exclusive divine desire is not a discipline achieved but a condition inhabited. Hogan’s Psalm 38:9 (“all my longing is before you”) and Psalm 40:6–8 (“I delight to do your will”) supply the phenomenological texture: the soul’s longing is entirely exposed to God, and the form that divine taste takes in the deepest register is delight in the will itself. Where Psalm 73 names the negative aspect (nothing else desired), Psalm 40 names the positive: what fills the soul is not merely God in general but the will of God, the same will whose full possession has been the structural subject of the entire Volume 15 sequence. Hogan’s Song of Songs 7:10 (“his desire is for me”) adds the relational dimension that Colossians 3:1–4 supplies from the Pauline side: the soul whose life is hidden with Christ in God has died to earthly things — not by renunciation but by location. She is not there anymore; her life is elsewhere.
Luisa’s response confirms the phenomenology: the pain of privation “absorbs me, embitters me down to the marrow of my bones, makes me forget about everything.” This is the Song of Songs 2:3–5 register — the lovesick absorption of one for whom the Beloved’s fruit has become the only taste. All other flavors, including religious ones, are simply not present to the palate that has been formed in this way.
The Void of God: Character Instability and Divine Immutability
The contrast section reveals the structural theology beneath the diagnostic. The soul not completely filled with God is empty — and the empty vessel takes the shape of whatever is poured into it. Things liked produce tastes; things disliked produce disgusts; and the swing between them produces the characteristic signature of the incomplete soul: variations of character, oscillation between sadness and cheerfulness, irascibility and affability. Jesus names the cause precisely: “it is the void of Me which she has in her soul.”
The James double-mindedness texts (1:8, 4:8) name this condition canonically: dipsychos, the soul of two orientations, is structurally unstable in all its ways because it cannot anchor in anything permanent. Matthew 6:24’s impossibility of dual service supplies the binary logic: the soul is either entirely God’s or effectively empty, because partial filling is functionally equivalent to emptiness — the unfilled space is immediately colonized by whatever creaturely pressure presents itself. There is no stable middle.
Against this oscillation Jesus sets His own immutability: “I am always the same and I never change.” Malachi 3:6 and Hogan’s consistent theme of God-as-stable-center identify this as divine self-predication, not merely description of disposition. The soul who is filled with His taste acquires this immutability as a participated quality — not her own stability but the reflection of His. This is the same 2 Corinthians 3:18 transformation-by-beholding mechanism that governs the positive half of the teaching: divine taste transforms the creature into God, and the divine attribute most immediately communicated through taste is immutability.
Taste as the First Act: The Threefold Taxonomy
The doctrinal center of the entry is the claim that taste is not trivial but is “the first act of either good or evil.” The threefold taxonomy follows: divine taste transforms the creature into God; natural taste sweeps her into human things; passionate taste casts her into the current of evil. The verbs escalate — transforms, sweeps, casts — and the escalation is significant. Divine taste is active from within, operating through the beholding-and-becoming mechanism of 2 Corinthians 3:18. Natural taste is a lateral current; it sweeps without necessarily destroying, but it removes the soul from God. Passionate taste is a downward force — it casts, and the current that receives her is not merely other-than-God but actively contrary.
Romans 8:5–8 supplies the Pauline structural equivalent: mind set on Spirit = life and peace; mind set on flesh = death. The “death” terminus of the flesh-ordered mind corresponds to Jesus’ instruction to “give death” to human and passionate tastes — the mortification is not optional but a matter of trajectory: the taste, if allowed to live, follows its natural arc to destruction. James 1:14–15 is the step-by-step anatomy: desire, when it has conceived, gives birth to sin; sin, fully grown, brings forth death. The taste is the conception-moment; everything subsequent is biological in its necessity once conception has occurred.
The Sirach 18:30–31 wisdom-tradition register frames this in the most straightforward ascetical language: do not allow. The operative word is permission — passive allowance of the desire’s growth is sufficient to initiate the cascade. Hogan’s practical application (the spiritual exercise of standing outside the shop and walking on) is the enacted form of the same discipline: the first movement, caught and released before it germinates, never reaches conception.
Adam’s Fall as Paradigmatic Taste-Failure
The Genesis 3 illustration functions as more than example. Jesus names Adam’s sin not as disobedience in general but as taste-failure specifically: he removed his gaze from the divine attraction and his three sense faculties — sight, hearing, palate — each found pleasure in the creature. The anatomy is sequential: sight rests on the fruit; hearing delights in the promise (becoming like God through the creature rather than through God); palate consumes. Each faculty’s yielding follows from the one before; the first movement of the eye was the determinative act.
Matthew 5:27–30 is the New Covenant articulation of the same principle: the look that takes pleasure has already committed the decisive act in the heart. Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount radicalization of the commandment is not legal strictness but anthropological truth — the moral act occurs at the level of the desire, and everything subsequent is consequence. Adam’s eye was Adam’s will in its first movement, and the will’s first movement was already the first act of ruin.
Romans 5:12, 15–19 supplies the weight that makes Adam paradigmatic rather than merely illustrative: sin entered the world through one man, and the disordered taste-structure now afflicting every human being is the inherited consequence of that first failure. The soul who enters the original creative point (May 8) to “retie all the harmonies” is not engaged in a private spiritual exercise but in the reversal of the constitutive act of human history. The 1 Corinthians 15:45–49 last-Adam frame makes the Christological dimension explicit: the first Adam failed the first heroic act of his life; the last Adam accomplished it perfectly; and the soul who lives in the DW participates in the last Adam’s sensory obedience — her exclusive divine taste is not her achievement but His, transmitted through the same Will that governed His entire Humanity.
The First Heroic Act and the Crown of Faithfulness
The counterfactual is as precise as the anatomy of failure: had Adam felt displeasure in looking, tedium in hearing, disgust in eating — each faculty refusing the creaturely pleasure in turn — he would have done “the first heroic act of his life.” The heroism is not spectacular; it consists entirely in the negation of what was presented and the maintenance of orientation toward the One who “had all the rights for his subjection.” The crown he would have received — the everlasting crown of faithfulness — is exactly James 1:12’s crown of life, the crown Revelation 2:10 promises to those who are faithful to death.
What the entry establishes is that the soul whose interior is filled with divine taste has, through that filling, accomplished structurally what Adam’s heroic act would have accomplished: the attractive power of the creaturely has been displaced not by effort but by fullness. The heroic act is now natural to her — not because she is heroic but because she is full. There is nothing to resist because there is no appetite available for the creaturely to engage. This is the entry’s deepest claim: the DW is not primarily a school of mortification but a fullness that renders mortification unnecessary by removing the ground on which temptation could operate.
Hebrews 2:14–18 and 12:1–2 supply the Christological and practical frames: Christ’s temptation accomplished what Adam’s resistance would have accomplished, and the race run by “laying aside every weight” is the race whose first act is the fixing of the gaze on Jesus rather than on the creature. The soul who has learned to fix her gaze exclusively on Jesus has entered into the same race at the point where the gaze is already secured — she is running toward what she already tastes, and the tastes that used to claim her attention are simply not present on the course.
Synthesis
Dominant biblical imagination: The entry draws on the convergence of Wisdom-tradition anthropology (Psalms, Proverbs, Sirach, James) and Pauline theological anthropology (Romans 8, 2 Corinthians 3, Colossians 3, Galatians) around a single operative claim: desire/taste is the first act, and the first act determines everything. The Genesis 3 paradigm provides the historical-theological anchor.
Most load-bearing traditions: The Pauline last-Adam / first-Adam architecture (1 Corinthians 15:45–49, Romans 5:12–19) is the deepest structural frame: the soul’s exclusive divine taste is a participation in the last Adam’s perfectly obedient sensory orientation, and the DW’s work in her is precisely the accomplishment of what Adam’s first heroic act would have initiated. The James 1:14–15 desire-conceives-sin-bears-death sequence is the most precise doctrinal anatomy of the taste-to-current-of-evil trajectory. The combined Psalm 40:6–8 / Colossians 3:1–4 / 2 Corinthians 3:18 cluster identifies the positive terminus: the soul whose taste is entirely divine is the soul who delights in the will, who has died to earthly things, and who is being transformed into God by the very act of beholding and desiring Him.
Three findings of highest theological significance: First, the displacement mechanism — fullness eliminates other tastes not by mortification but by occupation of all available interior space, which reframes the entire ascetical tradition in terms of filling rather than emptying. Second, the last-Adam identification — the soul’s exclusive divine taste is a participation in Christ’s own perfectly oriented Humanity, not a human achievement, which grounds the DW teaching in Christology rather than merely spiritual psychology. Third, the Adam-paradigm connection with the May 8 entry — Jesus’ command to reach the original creative point and retie all harmonies finds its doctrinal anatomy here: Adam’s failure was a taste-failure, and the soul commissioned to retie the harmonies must first be the one in whom all creaturely tastes have been displaced by the divine. The two entries form a doctrinal unit: May 8 names the mission, June 6 names the interior condition required to carry it.
Observation Notes
See this note in volume context →
15-1923-06-06
Adam-fall / IDR-1 elaboration: Jesus names Adam’s sin specifically as taste-failure — the sequential yielding of sight, hearing, and palate to creaturely pleasure, each faculty following from the one before. This is the most anatomically precise account of the IDR-1 image-disfigurement event yet offered: it connects the harmonies broken (April 25, May 8) to the first act by which they were broken, identifying that act as a disordering of the sense faculties away from divine attraction. The heroic act Adam failed to perform corresponds to the state the DW soul has entered through fullness — not mortification but displacement. The Adam-anatomy here and the May 8 commission to retie all harmonies form a doctrinal unit: the mission names what must be accomplished; the June 6 entry names the interior condition that accomplishes it.
Displacement mechanism as structural doctrinal claim: Jesus explicitly distinguishes the DW soul’s indifference to all creaturely things from ascetical detachment: the soul is not cold to other things because she has denied herself but because she is full and there is no space for other tastes. This is not a formal new tracking item, but it is a theologically significant anthropological claim — fullness eliminates by occupation rather than by renunciation — that will be worth tracking if it recurs with further elaboration.