Category Archives: Introduction

Romans, Part 46

Posted on by

If it is service (διακονίαν, a form of διακονία),[1] Paul wrote, to continue considering the different gifts (χαρίσματα, a form of χάρισμα)[2] that comprise the diversity of oneness,, he must serve (διακονίᾳ).[3]  Paul wrote to the Corinthians about different gifts (χαρισμάτων, another form of χάρισμα) and different ministries (διακονιῶν, another form of διακονία): the message of wisdom…the message of knowledge…faith…gifts (χαρίσματα) of healing…performance of miracles…prophecy…discernment of spirits…different kinds of tongues, and…the interpretation of tongues.[4]  Yet in the previous chapter of Romans Paul wrote, Seeing that I am an apostle (ἀπόστολος)[5] to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry (διακονίαν, a form of διακονία)…[6]  As I consider this and the historical fact that most of the different ministries (διακονιῶν, another form of διακονία) listed in 1 Corinthians above were associated with Jesus’ apostles, I assume that the ministry (διακονίαν, a form of διακονία) of an apostle was the service (διακονίαν, a form of διακονία) Paul had primarily in mind in Romans 12.

Still, the service (διακονίαν, a form of διακονία) most associated with the apostles is the ministry (διακονία) of reconciliation: God…reconciled us to himself through Christ, and…has given us the ministry (διακονία) of reconciliation.[7]  And the ministry (διακονία) of reconciliation is nothing less than the ministry (διακονία) of the Spirit, the ministry (διακονία) that produces righteousness (2 Corinthians 3:7-9 NET).

But if the ministry (διακονία) that produced death – carved in letters on stone tablets – came with glory, so that the Israelites could not keep their eyes fixed on the face of Moses because of the glory of his face (a glory which was made ineffective), how much more glorious will the ministry (διακονία) of the Spirit be?  For if there was glory in the ministry (διακονίᾳ) that produced condemnation, how much more does the ministry (διακονία) that produces righteousness excel in glory!

It was [Jesus], Paul wrote the Ephesians, who gave some as apostles (ἀποστόλους, another form of ἀπόστολος)…[8]  And God has placed in the church first apostles[9] (ἀποστόλους, another form of ἀπόστολος), he wrote the Corinthians.  Not all are apostles (ἀπόστολοι, another form of ἀπόστολος), are they?[10] Paul asked rhetorically.

If [the gift] is teaching (διδάσκων, a form of διδάσκω),[11] Paul continued in Romans, he must teach (διδασκαλίᾳ).[12]  In Corinth the Lord said to Paul by a vision in the night, “Do not be afraid,but speak and do not be silent, because I am with you, and no one will assault you to harm you, because I have many people in this city” [Table].  So he stayed there a year and six months, teaching (διδάσκων, a form of διδάσκω) the word of God among them.[13]  Paul[14] lived[15] [in Rome] two whole years in his own rented quarters and welcomed all who came to him, proclaiming the kingdom of God and teaching (διδάσκων, a form of διδάσκω) about the Lord Jesus Christ with complete boldness and without restriction.[16]

I was appointed, Paul wrote Timothy, a preacher and apostle (ἀπόστολος) and teacher (διδάσκαλος)[17] of the fact that our Savior Christ Jesus…has broken the power of death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.[18]  Apparently Timothy was also appointed as a teacher.  Until I come, Paul wrote to him, give attention to the public reading of scripture, to exhortation, to teaching (διδασκαλίᾳ).[19]  And he continued (1 Timothy 4:14-16 NET):

Do not neglect the spiritual gift (χαρίσματος, another form of χάρισμα) you have, given to you and confirmed by prophetic words (προφητείας, another form of προφητεία) when the elders laid hands on you.  Take pains with these things; be absorbed in them, so that everyone will see your progress.  Be conscientious about how you live and what you teach (διδασκαλίᾳ).  Persevere in this, because by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you.

It was [Jesus], Paul wrote the Ephesians, who gave some…as pastors and teachers (διδασκάλους, another form of διδάσκαλος), to equip the saints for the work of ministry (διακονίας, another form of διακονία), that is, to build up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God – a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ’s full stature.[20]  And God has placed in the church…third teachers[21] (διδασκάλους, another form of διδάσκαλος), he wrote the Corinthians.  Not all are teachers (διδάσκαλοι, another form of διδάσκαλος), are they? He asked rhetorically.  He also gave Timothy the following prophetic warning (2 Timothy 4:3 NET):

 For there will be a time when people will not tolerate sound (ὑγιαινούσης, a form of ὑγιαίνω) teaching (διδασκαλίας, another form of διδασκαλία).  Instead, following their own desires, they will accumulate teachers (διδασκάλους, another form of διδάσκαλος) for themselves, because they have an insatiable curiosity to hear new things.

In other words, the teachers most honored by people and the teachers spiritually gifted to equip the saints for the work of ministry, to build up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God – a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ’s full stature, may not be one and the same.  But the next gift to consider may provide a method for distinguishing between the two.

If [the gift] is exhortation (παρακαλῶν, a form of παρακαλέω), Paul continued in Romans, he must exhort (παρακλήσει, a form of παράκλησις)…[23]  Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul began his second letter to the Corinthians, the Father of mercies and God of all comfort (παρακλήσεως, another form of παράκλησις), who comforts (παρακαλῶν, a form of παρακαλέω) us in all our troubles so that we may be able to comfort (παρακαλεῖν, another form of παρακαλέω) those experiencing any trouble with the comfort (παρακλήσεως, another form of παράκλησις) with which we ourselves are comforted (παρακαλούμεθα, another form of παρακαλέω) by God.[24]

Paul wrote again about receiving God’s exhortation through the message brought by Titus:  But God, who encourages (παρακαλῶν, a form of παρακαλέω) the downhearted, encouraged (παρεκάλεσεν, another form of παρακαλέω) us by the arrival of Titus.  We were encouraged not only by his arrival, but also by the encouragement (παρακλήσει, a form of παράκλησις) you gave (παρεκλήθη, another form of παρακαλέω) him, as he reported to us your longing, your mourning, your deep concern for me, so that I rejoiced more than ever.[25]

The Corinthians’ longing, mourning and deep concern for Paul also exhorted him: I have great confidence in you; I take great pride on your behalf.  I am filled with encouragement (παρακλήσει, a form of παράκλησις); I am overflowing with joy in the midst of all our suffering.[26]  Therefore we have been encouraged (παρακεκλήμεθα, another form of παρακαλέω).  And in addition to our own encouragement (παρακλήσει, a form of παράκλησις), we rejoiced even more at the joy of Titus, because all of you have refreshed his spirit.[27]  And Paul told Timothy not only to teach but to comfort and encourage his people in a similar manner: Until I come, give attention to the public reading of scripture, to exhortation (παρακλήσει, a form of παράκλησις), to teaching (διδασκαλία).[28]

A teacher’s exhortation reveals that teacher’s knowledge and faith.  It may even be another valid way to test the spirits to determine if they are from God.[29]  Surely the Spirit from God knows the depth (βάθος)[30] of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God,[31] that from him and through him and to him are all things.[32]  For the Spirit searches all things, even the deep (βάθη, another form of βάθος) things of God.[33]  Every spirit that confesses Jesus as the Christ who has come in the flesh is from God,[34] John wrote.  Does a given teacher comfort me with the knowledge of the love that God has in us, or encourage me to believe the love that God has in us[35] in Jesus, the Christ who has come in the flesh, the Son of God, through his Holy Spirit?  Or does that teacher rob me of such comfort, and encourage me to know or to believe or to do something else instead?

Romans, Part 47

Back to Saving Demon, Part 2

Back to Fear – Exodus, Part 7

Back to Fear – Exodus, Part 8

Back to Romans, Part 87

[3] Romans 12:7a (NET)

[4] 1 Corinthians 12:4, 5, 8-10 (NET)

[6] Romans 11:13b (NET)

[7] 2 Corinthians 5:18 (NET)

[8] Ephesians 4:11a (NET)

[9] 1 Corinthians 12:28a (NET)

[10] 1 Corinthians 12:29a (NET)

[12] Romans 12:7b (NET)

[13] Acts 18:9-11 (NET)

[14] The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had ο παυλος (Paul) here.  The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

[16] Acts 28:30, 31 (NET) Table

[17] 2 Timothy 1:11 (NET)

[18] 2 Timothy 1:10 (NET)

[19] 1 Timothy 4:13 (NET)

[20] Ephesians 4:11-13 (NET)

[21] 1 Corinthians 12:28 (NET)

[23] Romans 12:8 (NET)

[24] 2 Corinthians 1:3, 4 (NET)

[25] 2 Corinthians 7:6, 7 (NET)

[26] 2 Corinthians 7:4 (NET)

[27] 2 Corinthians 7:13 (NET)

[28] 1 Timothy 4:13 (NET)

[29] 1 John 4:1 (NET)

[31] Romans 11:33a (NET)

[32] Romans 11:36a (NET)

[33] 1 Corinthians 2:10b (NET)

[34] 1 John 4:2 (NET)

Son of God – 1 John, Part 3

Posted on by

Dear friends, John wrote to fellow believers, let us love (ἀγαπῶμεν, a form of ἀγαπάω)[1] one another, because love (ἀγάπη)[2] is from God, and everyone who loves (ἀγαπῶν, another form of ἀγαπάω) has been fathered (γεγέννηται, a form of γεννάω)[3] by God and knows (γινώσκει, a form of γινώσκω)[4] God.[5]  John used the word ἀγαπῶμεν over and over again in his letters to describe this love (ἀγάπη).

For this is the gospel message that you have heard from the beginning: that we should love (ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους) one another…[6]  We know that we have crossed over from death to life because we love (ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τοὺς ἀδελφούς) our fellow Christians.[7]  Little children, let us not love (μὴ ἀγαπῶμεν λόγῳ μηδὲ τῇ γλώσσῃ) with word or with tongue but in deed and truth.[8]  Now this is his commandment: that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love (καὶ ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους) one another, just as he gave us the commandment.[9]  No one has seen God at any time.  If we love (ἐὰν ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους) one another, God resides in us, and his love (ἀγάπη) is perfected in us.[10]  We love (ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν) because he loved (ἠγάπησεν, another form of ἀγαπάω) us first.[11]  By this we know that we love (ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ) the children of God: whenever we love (ὅταν τὸν θεὸν ἀγαπῶμεν καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ ποιῶμεν) God and obey his commandments.[12]  But now I ask you, lady (not as if I were writing a new commandment to you, but the one we have had from the beginning), that we love (ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους)[13] one another.[14]

This love (ἀγάπη) is from God,[15] not from us.  It is the love (ἀγάπη) that does no wrong to a neighbor, and the love (ἀγάπη) that is the fulfillment of the law.[16]  It is the love (ἀγάπη) that is patient, the love (ἀγάπη) that is kind, and the love (ἀγάπη) that does not brag.[17]  It is the love (ἀγάπη) that never ends as opposed to prophecies, tongues and knowledge that will be set aside.[18]  It is one of the three that remain along with faith and hope, but the greatest of these is love (ἀγάπη).[19]  It is the love (ἀγάπη) of Christ[20] that controls (συνέχει, a form of συνέχω)[21] us,[22] and it is the love that holds the preeminent place in the fruit of his Spirit: But the fruit of the Spirit is love (ἀγάπη), joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.  Against such things there is no law.[23]

John emphasized, everyone who loves has been fathered (γεγέννηται, a form of γεννάω) by God and knows (γινώσκει, a form of γινώσκω) God.[24]  The person who does not love (ἀγαπῶν, another form of ἀγαπάω) me, Jesus said, does not obey (τηρεῖ, a form of τηρέω)[25] my words.  And the word you hear is not mine, but the Father’s who sent me.[26]  And Paul wrote, the one who loves (ἀγαπῶν, another form of ἀγαπάω) his neighbor has fulfilled the law.[27]

This love is the natural (e.g., super-natural) state of those born (γεννηθῇ, another form of  γεννάω) from above,[28] born (γεννηθῇ) of water and spirit,[29] not born (ἐγεννήθησαν, another form of  γεννάω) by human parents (οὐκ ἐξ αἱμάτων, literally, “not out of blood”) or by human desire (οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος σαρκὸς, literally, “neither out from the will of the flesh”) or a husband’s decision (οὐδὲ ἐκ θελήματος ἀνδρὸς, literally, “neither out from the will of a husband”), but by God (ἀλλ᾿ ἐκ θεοῦ ἐγεννήθησαν, literally, “but out from God born”).[30]

If you know (εἰδῆτε, a form of εἴδω)[31] that he is righteous, John wrote, you also know (γινώσκετε, another form of γινώσκω) that everyone who practices righteousness has been fathered (γεγέννηται) by him.[32]  Everyone who has been fathered (γεγεννημένος, another form of γεννάω) by God does not practice sin, because God’s seed resides in him, and thus he is not able to sin, because he has been fathered (γεγέννηται) by God.[33]  Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been fathered (γεγέννηται, a form of γεννάω) by God…[34]

I am the good shepherd, Jesus said.  I know (γινώσκω) my own and my own know (γινώσκουσι, another form of γινώσκω) me – just as the Father knows (γινώσκει, another form of γινώσκω) me and I know (γινώσκω) the Father – and I lay down my life for the sheep.[35]  And John added, The person who does not love (ἀγαπῶν, another form of ἀγαπάω) does not know (ἔγνω, another form of γινώσκω) God, because God is love (ἀγάπη).[36]  The point here is not for me to act like a hypocrite and turn Paul’s definition of  ἀγάπη into a list of rules I strive to obey to con people into believing that I have been fathered by God.  The point is for me to believe Him and receive all that He has given to me in Christ.

By this the love (ἀγάπη) of God is revealed in us: that God has sent his one and only Son into the world so that we may live through him.  In this is love (ἀγάπη): not that we have loved (ἠγαπήκαμεν, another form of ἀγαπάω) God, but that he loved (ἠγάπησεν, another form of ἀγαπάω) us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.[37]

Dear friends (Ἀγαπητοί, a form of ἀγαπητός),[38] John continued, if God so loved (ἠγάπησεν, another form of ἀγαπάω) us, then we also ought to love (ἀγαπᾶν, another form of ἀγαπάω) one another.  No one has seen God at any time.  If we love (ἀγαπῶμεν, another form of ἀγαπάω) one another, God resides in us, and his love (ἀγάπη) is perfected in us.[39]  Once again, lest I stray into hypocrisy believing that this ἀγάπη originates with me so that I may prove that God resides in me, John made it plain.  By this we know (γινώσκομεν, another form of γινώσκω) that we reside in God and he in us: in that he has given us of his Spirit,[40] both gifts and fruit.  And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the world,[41] i.e., through his ἀγάπη (God has sent his one and only Son into the world so that we may live through him).

Then John connected knowing and believing this ἀγάπη with confessing that Jesus is the Son of God:  If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God resides in him and he in God.  And we have come to know (ἐγνώκαμεν, another form of γινώσκω) and to believe (πεπιστεύκαμεν, a form of πιστεύω)[42] the love (ἀγάπην, another form of ἀγάπη) that God has in us [Table].[43]  I began this study of the Son of God because I was curious[44] how Peter, James and John followed through on Jesus’ command to tell (after his resurrection)[45] about the vision when a voice from the cloud said, “This is my one dear Son, in whom I take great delight.  Listen to him!”[46]

Peter obeyed Jesus’ command to the letter.  He recounted the story of the transfiguration.[47]  But John wrote more in the spirit of Jesus’ command about the Son of God and all that meant.  From the very beginning of his ministry Paul proclaimed that Jesus was the Son of God: For several days [Paul][48] was with the disciples in Damascus, and immediately he began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “This man is the Son of God.”[49]  And the writings of John and Paul most vividly portray the truth, And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has in us.  I can’t say much about Peter’s knowledge or faith, but his writing did not convey this same knowledge and faith in God’s love.

You have not seen him, Peter wrote, but you love (ἀγαπᾶτε, a form of ἀγαπάω) him.  You do not see him now but you believe in him, and so you rejoice with an indescribable and glorious joy, because you are attaining the goal of your faith – the salvation of your souls.[50]  This sounds like my feeling for Jesus rather than his ἀγάπη in us.  You have purified your souls by obeying the truth, Peter continued, in order to show sincere mutual love (φιλαδελφίαν, a form of φιλαδελφία).  So love (ἀγαπήσατε, a form of ἀγαπάω) one another earnestly from a pure heart.[51]  This sounds like our love for each other.  Perhaps brotherly affection and ἀγάπη were essentially interchangeable in the Greek language when Peter wrote.  But this usage doesn’t indicate any appreciation for the meaning that Paul ascribed to the ἀγάπη from God, or that John carried forward in his Gospel and letters.

Peter continued to make brotherly affection equivalent to ἀγάπη.  Honor all people, love (ἀγαπᾶτε, a form of ἀγαπάω) the family of believers, fear God, honor the king.[52]  Above all keep your love (ἀγάπην, a form of ἀγάπη) for one another fervent, because love (ἀγάπη) covers a multitude of sins.[53]  The love in this quotation of Proverbs 10:12 was φιλία[54] in the Septuagint not ἀγάπη.  And Peter used ἀγάπη to describe a religious rite: Greet one another with a loving (ἀγάπης, a form of ἀγάπη) kiss.[55]

He did grant some ascendency to ἀγάπη over φιλαδελφίᾳ (brotherly affection) when he wrote, make every effort to add to your faith excellence, to excellence, knowledge; to knowledge, self-control; to self-control, perseverance; to perseverance, godliness; to godliness, brotherly affection (φιλαδελφίαν, a form of φιλαδελφίᾳ); to brotherly affection (φιλαδελφίᾳ), unselfish love (ἀγάπην, a form of ἀγάπη).[56]  But while I was busy adding all of these things to my faith I failed to understand that God’s divine power has bestowed on us everything necessary for life and godliness through the rich knowledge of the one who called us by his own glory and excellence.[57]  Or I thought the rich knowledge of the one who called us and the key to this life and godliness was the law.  

In other words I mistook the knowledge of sin[58] for the knowledge of God,[59] that intimate form of knowing alluded to in Romans 7:4, God is ἀγάπη,[60] ἀγάπη is from God,[61] and ἀγάπη is the fulfillment (πλήρωμα;[62] fulfilling KJV) of the law.[63]  Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets, Jesus said.  I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill (πληρῶσαι, a form of πληρόω)[64] them.[65]  Apart from Paul’s and John’s writings I never would have understood that this ἀγάπη from God was the fruit of the Spirit, and, in a word, the credited righteousness of God.

God is love, John wrote, and the one who resides in love resides in God, and God resides in him [Table].  By this love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment, because just as Jesus is, so also are we in this world.  There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment.  The one who fears punishment has not been perfected in love.  We love because he loved us first.[66]  For this is the love of God: that we keep his commandments.  And his commandments do not weigh us down, because everyone who has been fathered by God conquers the world.  This is the conquering power that has conquered the world: our faith [i.e., in Him, yes, and in this love (ἀγάπην, another form of ἀγάπη) that God has in us].  Now who is the person who has conquered the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?[67]

If we accept the testimony of men, John continued, the testimony of God is greater [referring, I think, to the vision of the transfiguration], because this is the testimony of God that he has testified concerning his Son.  (The one who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself; the one who does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has testified concerning his Son.)[68]  And this is the testimony… And here, I think, John made the ἀγάπη from God functionally equivalent[69] to the life that is eternal (Love never ends).[70]  God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.  The one who has the Son has this eternal life; the one who does not have the Son of God does not have this eternal life.  I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life.[71]

And finally having received this ἀγάπη from God (Give us today our daily bread[72]):  We know that everyone fathered by God does not sin, but God protects the one he has fathered, and the evil one (πονηρὸς, a form of πονηρός)[73] cannot touch him.  [And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one (πονηροῦ, another form of πονηρός).[74]]  We know that we are from God, and the whole world lies in the power of the evil one (πονηρῷ, another form of πονηρός).  And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us insight to know him who is true, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ.  This one is the true God and eternal life.  Little children, guard yourselves from idols.[75]

It takes a religious mind to be in close proximity to this ἀγάπη from God and yet reject it for the self-aggrandizing vindication of religious works.  For ignoring the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking instead to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.[76]  I’ve been there, and I’ve done that.

I now regard all things as liabilities compared to the far greater value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things – indeed, I regard them as dung! – that I may gain Christ,  and be found in him, not because I have my own righteousness derived from the law, but because I have the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness – a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness.  My aim is to know him, to experience the power of his resurrection, to share in his sufferings, and to be like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.[77]

[5] 1 John 4:7 (NET)

[6] 1 John 3:11 (NET)

[7] 1 John 3:14 (NET)

[8] 1 John 3:18 (NET)

[9] 1 John 3:23 (NET)

[10] 1 John 4:12 (NET)

[11] 1 John 4:19 (NET)

[12] 1 John 5:2 (NET)

[13] Why was “should” inserted into 1 John 3:11 (NET)? …that we should love one another… (ἵνα ἀγαπῶμεν ἀλλήλους).  1 John 4:19 (NET) We love because he loved us first (ἡμεῖς ἀγαπῶμεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς πρῶτος ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς).  1 John 5:2 (NET) By this we know that we love the children of God: whenever we love God and obey his commandments (ἐν τούτῳ γινώσκομεν ὅτι ἀγαπῶμεν τὰ τέκνα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὅταν τὸν θεὸν ἀγαπῶμεν καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς αὐτοῦ ποιῶμεν).

[14] 2 John 1:5 (NET)

[15] 1 John 4:7 (NET)

[16] Romans 13:10 (NET)

[17] 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NET)

[18] 1 Corinthians 13:8 (NET)

[19] 1 Corinthians 13:13 (NET)

[20] NET note: “The phrase ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Χριστοῦ (Jh agaph tou Cristou, “the love of Christ”) could be translated as either objective genitive (‘our love for Christ’) or subjective genitive (‘Christ’s love for us’). Either is grammatically possible, but with the reference to Christ’s death for all in the following clauses, a subjective genitive (‘Christ’s love for us’) is more likely.”

[22] 2 Corinthians 5:14 (NET)

[23] Galatians 5:22, 23 (NET)

[24] 1 John 4:7 (NET)

[26] John 14:24 (NET)

[27] Romans 13:8 (NET)

[28] John 3:3 (NET)

[29] John 3:5 (NET)

[30] John 1:13 (NET)

[32] 1 John 2:29 (NET)

[33] 1 John 3:9 (NET)

[34] 1 John 5:1a (NET)

[35] John 10:14, 15 (NET)

[36] 1 John 4:8 (NET)

[37] 1 John 4:9, 10 (NET)

[39] 1 John 4:11, 12 (NET)

[40] 1 John 4:13 (NET)

[41] 1 John 4:14 (NET)

[43] 1 John 4:15, 16a (NET)

[46] Matthew 17:5 (NET)

[47] 2 Peter 1:16-18

[48] The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had ο σαυλος (KJV: Saul) nere.  The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

[49] Acts 9:19b, 20 (NET) Table

[50] 1 Peter 1:8, 9 (NET)

[51] 1 Peter 1:22 (NET)

[52] 1 Peter 2:17 (NET)

[53] 1 Peter 4:8 (NET) Table

[55] 1 Peter 5:14a (NET)

[56] 2 Peter 1:5-7 (NET)

[57] 2 Peter 1:3 (NET)

[61] 1 John 4:7 (NET); love comes from God (CEV, GWT, ISVNT, TEV, TMSG); love has its origin in God (MSNT), Greek: ὅτι ἡ ἀγάπη ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν (“because this love [1) out of, from, by, away from] the God is”)

[65] Matthew 5:17 (NET)

[66] 1 John 4:16b-19 (NET)

[67] 1 John 5:3-5 (NET)

[68] 1 John 5:9, 10 (NET)

[71] 1 John 5:11-13 (NET)

[72] Matthew 6:11 (NET)

[74] Matthew 6:13 (NET)

[75] 1 John 5:18-21 (NET) Table (v. 18)

[76] Romans 10:3 (NET)

[77] Philippians 3:8-11 (NET)

Antichrist, Part 5

Posted on by

“After premiering at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival, where Gainsbourg won the festival’s award for Best Actress, [“Antichrist”] immediately caused controversy, with critics generally praising the film’s artistic execution but strongly divided regarding its substantive merit…The ecumenical jury at the Cannes festival gave the film a special ‘anti-award’ and declared the film to be ‘the most misogynist movie from the self-proclaimed biggest director in the world’.  Cannes festival director Thierry Frémaux responded that this was a ‘ridiculous decision that borders on a call for censorship’ and that it was ‘scandalous coming from an ecumenical jury’.”[1]

“The Ecumenical Jury (French: Jury Œcuménique) is one of three juries at the Cannes Film Festival…The award was created by Christian film makers, film critics and other film professionals.  The objective of the award is to ‘honour works of artistic quality which witnesses to the power of film to reveal the mysterious depths of human beings through what concerns them, their hurts and failings as well as their hopes.’”[2]  Given that objective I tend to agree in part with Thierry Frémaux that labeling Antichrist “the most misogynist movie” was a “ridiculous decision.”  But I still asked myself, was it misogynist?

A blurb from “Gynocide: Hysterectomy, Capitalist Patriarchy, and the Medical Abuse Of Women” by Mariarosa Dalla Costa, read: “How much of contemporary medical practice still derives from a practice rooted in the witch-hunts that plagued Europe from the fourteenth to the seventeenth century, and burned at the stake, after horrible torture, hundreds of thousands of midwives and healers along with other poor women — the greatest sexocide in recorded history?  Women’s bodies and their medical knowledge were burned on those stakes to be replaced by a male “science” and a male gynecological profession controlled by the state and church.”[3]

From that perspective perhaps her defection from her thesis on gynocide in a story written by a man could be viewed as misogynist.  But she was far and away the more sympathetic character in my opinion.  He was at best a tool of male dominated “science,” and at worst the perpetrator of the very violence Mariarosa Dalla Costa decried.  I can reach no definitive conclusion, even in my own mind.  What was important to me was what the film brought to my attention about me.

I already mentioned how I repressed my own feelings and realized that my wife at least should know them and my reasons for acting contrary to them.  Another thing “Antichrist” brought to my attention (or perhaps I should say, the Lord brought to my attention through viewing and considering the film) was that despite the Scripture and my own experience I still harbor a romantic notion that there is some innate goodness in women that desires and pursues love (ἀγάπη)[4] over power, property and prestige.

Except for organized sports (and disorganized sports where I was socialized by peers), I was socialized by women.  They all believed themselves to be morally superior to men.  “You’re just like your father,” was not the way my mother expressed her approval of me.  But “Antichrist” compelled me to stare down my socialization and acknowledge the fact that a woman who rejects the grace of God in Jesus Christ and his credited righteousness is as lost as any man.

I was prepped for this by its inverse in the “Twilight” series.  Talking with a female coworker I mentioned that I understood why young men didn’t like the movie.  While female sexuality personified by Bella was all sweetness and light, male sexuality personified by Edward and Jacob was portrayed as dark and dangerous and evil.  “That’s kind of hard on young men,” I said.

“Because it’s so true,” she replied.

I said, no, I didn’t think it was true, but it got me thinking about my upbringing.  I learned that my only interest in females was to fuck them from women.  That’s partly true because I shunned boys or men who felt or talked that way about girls or women.  But my own feelings that she was pretty, or that I liked to hear her voice, or that we shared interests and liked to talk to one another were completely brushed aside for the occult truth that I wanted to fuck her.  And this was at a time in my development before I knew what fucking was, or, later, before I had overcome my childish aversion to fucking as silly, embarrassing and mildly disgusting.  But the only way I could be kept from fucking her was to have no friendships with girls when young, and no unchaperoned associations with young women when older.

God help the first woman who finds herself alone with a man socialized like this!  And, no, I didn’t rape her.  I did keep her out way too late—talking.  I had a lot of lost time to make up for.  But I didn’t have a clue that my desire to talk rather than fuck was the ἐγκράτεια[5] of the Holy Spirit.  I don’t recall knowing anything about the fruit of the Spirit at sixteen, though it’s hard to imagine that I hadn’t heard of it at all in a fundamentalist church.

I certainly didn’t understand that ἐγκράτεια (and love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and gentleness[6]) was formed in me by the Holy Spirit as mysteriously as a new human life is formed inside a woman.  I wouldn’t have made that sexual connection at all.  I thought self-control was something I did to prove my love for God, not something He did because He loves me (not to mention the women who crossed my path).  Or if I telescope back in time something I know I learned later, I thought ἐγκράτεια was something I had to earn by doing other religious deeds to prove my love for God.  Simply trusting Jesus’ Father for my daily bread of life was a long time coming.

There is another piece to all of this.  In my mid-twenties grappling with faith intellectually for the first time as an adult, I was troubled by “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness,” Paul’s recounting in Romans 4:3 (NET) of Genesis 15:6, Abram believed the Lord…  Why?

I was too immature in my thinking to regard “my faith” as “my share in Christ’s faithfulness.”  I only thought of it as the new work I must do to inherit eternal life.  What was wrong (or right) with Abram that after years of empirical proof (and one scientific experiment with Sarai’s maid) to the contrary he still believed God’s promise that he would have an heir by Sarai (Sarah)?

The sermon the next Sunday was on Genesis 17.  God addressed Himself to Abram as El Shaddai.  The pastor explained briefly that El meant power.  Shaddai had at its root the word shad, the female breast.  The pastor went on with his sermon.  I was stuck right there—shocked!  God called Himself “Power Tit!?”  A “Mighty Boob!?”  I suddenly had a whole new appreciation for Woody Allen armed with a crucifix luring a savage breast into a giant bra in “Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex.”  But it got my attention.

I was stuck there all afternoon, maybe for days.  I don’t actually remember.  Then, in a moment of weakness perhaps, when my religious guard was down, in my imagination I saw Abram, sweaty and spent, collapse on Sarai’s breast, resting there as if on a pillow, wondering, “could this be the time the promise of God would be fulfilled?  Will my wife’s breasts flow with life-giving milk to nourish my son?”

Then with fresh ears I heard God address Himself to Abram again as El Shaddai.  My hard heart was broken, tears flowed from my eyes, sobs and wailing erupted from my mouth as I understood that Abram believed God for the simplest reason of all.  No one would call so intimate a friend a liar to his face.

I wrote all this (minus the “Power Tit” and “Mighty Boob” part) in a letter to the pastor, part confession, part thanksgiving.  He answered my letter, writing that he used to teach the passage that way when he was younger, back East, but no longer, not in the conservative Midwest, not in a mixed congregation.  And I realized that the women of the congregation thought they were holier than God.

I wasn’t socialized by whores and prostitutes, but by wives.  And I’m old enough, from a blue collar religious background, that I think I’m safe to assume that most of their husbands were also virgins when they married, or married the woman they gave their virginity to.  These wives either had no intention to submit to their husbands in everything…as the church submits to Christ,[7] or no clue that submission would include fucking or carry any sexual overtones.  They knew that their husbands wanted to fuck more than they did, and they knew that was evil, and they endeavored to purify their sons of that evil.  And I never met a believing man who stood up to them.

Fear – Exodus, Part 6

Posted on by

The Lord spoke to Moses: “Go quickly, descend, because your people, whom you brought up from the land of Egypt, have acted corruptly [Table].  They have quickly turned aside from the way that I commanded them – they have made for themselves a molten calf and have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, which brought you up from the land of Egypt [Table].’”[1]

What follows is the classic story of the jealous Jehovah dissuaded by the brave hero Moses from carrying out his “evil” wrath on the descendants of Israel.  Moses seems to me like a man who would be horrified by this reading of his story.  I think his matter-of-fact writing style doesn’t convey tone or some of the nuance that a more artful writer (Luke, for instance) might convey.

I have seen this people, the Lord continued.  Look what a stiff-necked people they are [Table]!  So now, leave me alone so that my anger can burn against them and I can destroy them, and I will make from you a great nation[Table].[2]  In his response, O Lord, why does your anger burn against your people, Moses’ writing style paints himself as clueless as it paints Jehovah vengeful.  Yet the provocation for Jehovah’s anger is clearly stated in the rest of Moses’ rhetorical question.  O Lord, why does your anger burn against your people, whom you have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?[3]

Who wouldn’t be angry if his or her beneficence was credited by its recipients to their own work?  How angry should Jehovah be when we claim that his gift of righteousness through his bearing of our sins by his death on a cross and his resurrection is by our own efforts or our own intrinsic goodness?

As I read this I heard Jehovah shouting angrily, Look what a stiff-necked people they are!  So now, leave me alone so that my anger can burn against them and I can destroy them, and I will make from you a great nation.  But would Moses have disobeyed Jehovah’s direct command—leave me alone—spoken in anger?  Or did he hear the lamentation in Jehovah’s voice and understand that Jehovah was asking leave of Moses to stand aside and allow Jehovah’s anger to follow its natural course and burn against them and destroy them?

Why should the Egyptians say, “For evil he led them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth” Moses continued.  Turn from your burning anger, and relent of this evil against your people.[4]  Again, the writing here leaves the impression that Moses didn’t understand the covenant the people agreed to, Whoever sacrifices to a god other than the Lord alone must be utterly destroyed.[5]  They had violated the covenant.  Did Moses expect Jehovah to violate it, too?

Moses had told the people all the Lord’s words and all the decisions.  All the people answered together, “We are willing to do all the words that the Lord has said,” and Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord.[6]  He took the Book of the Covenant and read it aloud to the people, and they said, “We are willing to do and obey all that the Lord has spoken.”[7]  By what authority did Moses declare the Lord Jehovah’s intent to honor the covenant by destroying the people who violated it evil?

I am not saying that Jehovah did wrong by declining to carry out the punishment demanded by the covenant.  Jehovah never bound Himself to that, but said to Moses, I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.[8]  What I am saying is, though the collection of writings known as the Old Testament continues for many volumes, the Old Covenant as an agreement between Jehovah and the descendants of Israel to keep his commandments and receive his blessing came to its crashing conclusion right here.  When Jehovah declined to exact his vengeance on Israel according to the covenant they agreed to, when He did not purge[9] the evil from Israel by executing them but showed them mercy, He consigned all [Israel] to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[10]

Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel your servants, Moses pleaded, to whom you swore by yourself and told them, “I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken about I will give to your descendants, and they will inherit it forever.”[11]  And Paul wrote the Romans (Romans 4:13-17 NET):

For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith [Table].  For if they become heirs by the law, faith is empty and the promise is nullified.  For the law brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression either.  For this reason it is by faith so that it may be by grace, with the result that the promise may be certain to all the descendants – not only to those who are under the law, but also to those who have the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”).  He is our father in the presence of God whom he believed – the God who makes the dead alive and summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do.

Then the Lord relented over the evil that he had said he would do to his people.[12]  Moses was not as clueless as his writing style made him appear to be.  As for Jehovah—and I want to say this as reverently as possible—there is always a sense of theatricality in his interactions with human beings, for He knew this particular circumstance, this particular conversation and its particular outcome before the beginning, when He created the heavens and the earth.[13]  For many years I declined to tell Him about my day, my reactions to it, the ways I thought and felt about it all.  It seemed like a waste of time.  He knew me better than I knew myself.  Eventually I realized that fact alone made the retelling valuable—for me.  As I tell Him about it He points out things that I missed or didn’t understand, about me and the things that happened during the day.

As I turn my attention to the authority by which Moses declared the Lord Jehovah’s apparent intent to honor the covenant by destroying the people who violated it evil, I am confronted with three different instances.  All three however are the same word raʽ.[14]  Yes, the Hebrew word for evil sounds like the Egyptian word for sun god.  Allan Langner[15] wrote in the Jewish Bible Quarterly,[16] “in Exodus 32:12, when Moses pleads with God…The word for evil [b’raah] can also be taken as a reference to Ra.  The verse would then read: ‘Wherefore should the Egyptians say, Ra brought them out to slay them in the mountains?’”[17]  Perhaps the Egyptians would have said that.  Perhaps Moses would have said that the Egyptians would say that.  Or, perhaps Moses said that the Egyptians would say that Jehovah had led Israel into, or for, an evil purpose.

None of this compels me to conclude that Jehovah’s apparent intent to honor the covenant by destroying the people who violated it was in fact evil.  But in the next instance—Turn from your burning anger, and relent of this evil (raʽ) against your people[18]—Moses called Jehovah’s apparent intent to honor the covenant by destroying the people who violated it evil.  This was more troubling.  The note in the NET reads: “The word ‘evil’ means any kind of life-threatening or fatal calamity. ‘Evil’ is that which hinders life, interrupts life, causes pain to life, or destroys it.”  In other words, Jehovah’s apparent intent to honor the covenant by destroying the people who violated it would only be apparently evil from a human perspective, not actually evil from Jehovah’s perspective.

I did entertain the idea that Moses meant trouble as opposed to evil.  The Israelite foremen saw that they were in trouble (raʽ) when they were told, “You must not reduce the daily quota of your bricks.”[19]  Moses used a different word (albeit the root verb) when he complained to Jehovah about it.  Moses returned to the Lord, and said, “Lord, why have you caused trouble (râʽaʽ)[20] for this people?  Why did you ever send me?  From the time I went to speak to Pharaoh in your name, he has caused trouble (râʽaʽ) for this people, and you have certainly not rescued them!”[21]  But the third instance was the kicker, if you will.

Then the Lord relented over the evil (raʽ) that he had said he would do to his people.[22]  It is simply a statement of fact, like, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.[23]  Here the Holy Spirit declared that Jehovah’s apparent intent to honor the covenant by destroying the people who violated it would have been evil from Jehovah’s perspective.  And here for Moses Jehovah Himself modeled the behavior of repentance, giving up his right of vengeance by covenant (by law) for a higher righteousness.  Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me, He said later, troubled by his own death.  Yet not my will but yours be done.[24]

This brings me back to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (raʽ).  We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard, Eve replied to the serpent, but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, “You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.”[25]  Adam’s gezerah—and you must not touch it—and the alteration (whether Adam’s or Eve’s) of you will surely die[26] to or else you will die seems to imply that Adam and Eve thought the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (raʽ) was poisonous or contained some intrinsic property that caused death.

This opened the door for the serpent to say, Surely you will not die.[27]  And Eve handled and tasted the fruit with impunity.  She didn’t die.  Of course, her eyes weren’t opened and she didn’t become like a divine being knowing good and evil (raʽ) either.  But when she approached her husband with the forbidden fruit she had at least part of the assurance of the shrewdest of any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made,[28] and (with every breath she took) a rapidly increasing quantity of empirical proof that Adam, too, would not die from eating forbidden fruit.  Adam had only his memory of God’s word.  When he ate the forbidden fruit, the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked…[29]  It was unpleasant no doubt, but was it death?

My point here is that God did not give Adam knowledge of forbidden fruit when He said, You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard [Table], but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die [Table].[30]  He gave Adam knowledge of God, what God would do; namely, the Lord God expelled him from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken [Table].  When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.[31]

I think it is important not to miss that distinction here as well.  When the Holy Spirit says, Then the Lord relented over the evil (raʽ) that he had said he would do to his people, He is teaching me knowledge of God rather than moral philosophy.  After this interaction with Moses, He said, I will make all my goodness pass before your face, and I will proclaim the Lord by name before you; I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.[32]  There is a sense here that He said to Moses my new name is, I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.

It is repeated when the event occurred: The Lord descended in the cloud and stood with [Moses] there and proclaimed the Lord by name.  The Lord passed by before him and proclaimed: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness, keeping loyal love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.”[33]  And for those who might rightly protest, “But the Lord is not a jolly old soul, an easy-going, devil-may-care sort of fellow,” Jehovah continued proclaiming his name: “But he by no means leaves the guilty unpunished, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children and children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.”[34]

Granted, it is a long name, but it does me good from time to time to remember Him by name and repeat it aloud.  It is knowledge of God, who He is, what He is doing and will accomplish—and it is eternal life.[35]

[1] Exodus 32:7, 8 (NET)

[2] Exodus 32:9, 10 (NET)

[3] Exodus 32:11 (NET) Table

[4] Exodus 32:12 (NET) Table

[5] Exodus 22:20 (NET)

[6] Exodus 24:3, 4a (NET)

[7] Exodus 24:7 (NET)

[8] Exodus 33:19b (NET) Table

[9] Deuteronomy 13:5 (NET)

[10] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[11] Exodus 32:13 (NET) Table

[12] Exodus 32:14 (NET)

[13] Genesis 1:1 (NET)

[15] From the footnote in “THE GOLDEN CALF AND RA”: Allan M. Langner was ordained by the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1948. He was Rabbi of Congregation Beth-El, Mt. Royal, Quebec, Canada, for 40 years, and is now Rabbi Emeritus.

[16] 31:1 January – March 2003, Vol. XXXI:1 (121), “THE GOLDEN CALF AND RA”

[18] Exodus 32:12b (NET)

[19] Exodus 5:19 (NET)

[21] Exodus 5:22, 23 (NET)

[22] Exodus 32:14 (NET)

[23] Genesis 1:1 (NET)

[24] Luke 22:42 (NET)

[25] Genesis 3:2, 3 (NET)

[26] Genesis 2:17 (NET)

[27] Genesis 3:4 (NET) Table

[28] Genesis 3:1 (NET)

[29] Genesis 3:7 (NET) Table

[30] Genesis 2:16, 17 (NET)

[31] Genesis 3:23, 24 (NET)

[32] Genesis 33:19 (NET)

[33] Exodus 34:5-7a (NET)

[34] Exodus 34:7b (NET)

Romans, Part 45

Posted on by

For by the grace (χάριτος, a form of χάρις)[1] given to me, Paul continued describing the will of God – what is good and well-pleasing and perfect,[2] I say to every one of you not to think more highly of yourself than you ought to think, but to think with sober discernment, as God has distributed to each of you a measure of faith.[3]  To offset my own tendency to think that sober discernment is necessary because God has distributed a niggardly measure of faith (μέτρον[4] πίστεως[5]) to me, I want to look at two other occurrences of χάριτος.  The first described the words Jesus read from the scroll of Isaiah in the synagogue in Nazareth (Luke 4:18, 19 NET):

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor.  He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor.

After Jesus returned the scroll to the attendant and sat down, he added, Today this scripture has been fulfilled even as you heard it being read.[6]  Luke wrote, All were speaking well of him, and were amazed at the gracious (χάριτος, a form of χάρις) words coming out of his mouth.[7]  So proclaiming 1) good news to the poor, 2) release to the captives, 3) the regaining of sight to the blind, 4) setting free those who are oppressed, and 5) the year of the Lord’s favor were called gracious (χάριτος) words.[8]  There was nothing niggardly about it.

For if, by the transgression of the one man, Paul wrote the first time he used χάριτος in his letter to the Romans, death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace (χάριτος, a form of χάρις) and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ![9]  Sober discernment entails all of these facts without implying a niggardly measure of faith, but the realization that any of the recipients of this χάριτος is one person among many.  For just as in (ἐν)[10] one (ἑνὶ, a form of εἷς)[11] body we have many members, Paul continued, and not all the members serve the same function, so we who are many are one (ἓν, another form of εἷς) body in (ἐν) Christ, and individually we are members who belong to one (εἷς) another.[12]

I think sober discernment was equivalent for Paul to walking worthily of the calling with which [we] have been called, as he wrote the Ephesians, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.[13]  For here, too, a description of oneness followed (Ephesians 4:4-7 NET).

There is one (῞Εν) body and one (ἓν) Spirit, just as you too were called to (ἐν) the one (μιᾷ, yet another form of εἷς) hope of your calling, one (εἷς) Lord, one (μία)[14] faith, one (ἓν) baptism, one (εἷς) God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in (ἐν) all.  But to each one (Ἑνὶ, still another form of εἷς) of us grace (χάρις) was given according to the measure (μέτρον) of the gift of Christ.

And we have different gifts (χαρίσματα, a form of χάρισμα)[15] according to the grace given to us, Paul continued to describe the diversity of this oneness in Romans, a theme he revisited often:

The Diversity of Oneness
And we have different gifts (χαρίσματα) according to the grace given to us. If the gift is prophecy (προφητείαν, a form of προφητεία),[16] that individual must use it in proportion to his faith.  If it is service, he must serve; if it is teaching, he must teach; if it is exhortation, he must exhort; if it is contributing, he must do so with sincerity; if it is leadership, he must do so with diligence; if it is showing mercy, he must do so with cheerfulness.

Romans 12:6-8 (NET)

 It was he who gave some as apostles, some as prophets (προφήτας, a form of προφήτης),[17] some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God – a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ’s full stature.

Ephesians 4:11-13 (NET)

 Now there are different gifts (χαρισμάτων, another form of χάρισμα), but the same Spirit.  And there are different ministries, but the same Lord.  And there are different results, but the same God who produces all of them in everyone.  To each person the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the benefit of all.  For one person is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, and another the message of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, and to another gifts (χαρίσματα) of healing by the one Spirit, to another performance of miracles, to another prophecy (προφητεία), and to another discernment of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, and to another the interpretation of tongues.  It is one and the same Spirit, distributing as he decides to each person, who produces all these things.

1 Corinthians 12:4-11 (NET)

I want to consider these different[18] gifts (χαρίσματα) individually.   If the gift is prophecy (προφητείαν), that individual must use it in proportion to his faith.[19]  I am assuming that in proportion (ἀναλογίαν, a form of ἀναλογία)[20] to his faith relates back to that measure (μέτρον) of faith God has distributed to each.  In the law the Lord said to Moses (Deuteronomy 18:18-20 NET):

I will raise up a prophet like you for them from among their fellow Israelites.  I will put my words in his mouth and he will speak to them whatever I command.  I will personally hold responsible anyone who then pays no attention to the words that prophet speaks in my name.  But if any prophet presumes to speak anything in my name that I have not authorized him to speak, or speaks in the name of other gods, that prophet must die.

Now if you say to yourselves, the Lord continued, “How can we tell that a message is not from the Lord (yehôvâh)?”[21] – whenever a prophet speaks in my name and the prediction is not fulfilled, then I have not spoken it; the prophet has presumed to speak it, so you need not fear (gûr)[22] him.[23]  But a fulfilled prediction alone was not sufficient to declare one a prophet of yehôvâh (Deuteronomy 13:1-5 NET):

Suppose a prophet or one who foretells by dreams should appear among you and show you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder should come to pass concerning what he said to you, namely, “Let us follow other gods” – gods whom you have not previously known – “and let us serve them.”  You must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer, for the Lord your God will be testing you to see if you love him with all your mind and being.  You must follow the Lord your God and revere only him; and you must observe his commandments, obey him, serve him, and remain loyal to him.  As for that prophet or dreamer, he must be executed because he encouraged rebellion against the Lord your God who brought you from the land of Egypt, redeeming you from that place of slavery, and because he has tried to entice you from the way the Lord your God has commanded you to go.  In this way you must purge out evil from within.

The prophet Jeremiah said to Hananiah (apparently a false prophet), From earliest times, the prophets who preceded you and me invariably prophesied war, disaster, and plagues against many countries and great kingdoms.  So if a prophet prophesied peace and prosperity, it was only known that the Lord truly sent him when what he prophesied came true.[24]  In this light I can begin to appreciate the proportion of Jesus’ faith when He read those gracious words—The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to proclaim good news to the poor; He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and the regaining of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor—and added, Today this scripture has been fulfilled even as you heard it being read.

And so Paul wrote, If the gift is prophecy (προφητείαν), that individual must use it in proportion to his faith.  And if I have prophecy (προφητείαν), he wrote the Corinthians, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith so that I can remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.[25]  I can’t tell if this was a hypothetical consideration to highlight the preeminence of love, or an actual concern.  It is difficult to imagine an individual who received so many of the different gifts[26] (Διαιρέσεις δὲ χαρισμάτων) of the Spirit, not shared by all (For one person is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom[27]…to another prophecy [προφητεία][28]…), and yet did not have the love that is given by the same Spirit to all believers.  If such a monstrosity is actually possible it would seem to be someone with a religious mind believing something other than the word of the Lord to quench the love that is the fruit of the Holy Spirit.

Love never ends, Paul continued to contrast love and prophecy in Corinthians.  But if there are prophecies (προφητεῖαι, another form of προφητεία), they will be set aside[29]…when what is perfect comes…[30]  Pursue love, he wrote, and be eager for the spiritual gifts (πνευματικά, a form of πνευματικός),[31] especially that you may prophesy (προφητεύητε, a form of προφητεύω).[32]  Then he contrasted prophesying to one speaking in a tongue.

Tongues

Prophecy
For the one speaking in a tongue does not speak to people but to God, for no one understands; he is speaking mysteries by the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 14:2 (NET)

 But the one who prophesies (προφητεύων, another form of προφητεύω) speaks to people for their strengthening, encouragement, and consolation.

1 Corinthians 14:3 (NET)
The one who speaks in a tongue builds himself up…

1 Corinthians 14:4a (NET)

 …but the one who prophesies (προφητεύων, another form of προφητεύω) builds up the church.

1 Corinthians 14:4b (NET)
I wish you all spoke in tongues…

1 Corinthians 14:5a (NET)

 …but even more that you would prophesy (προφητεύητε, a form of προφητεύω).

1 Corinthians 14:5b (NET)
…unless he interprets so that the church may be strengthened.

1 Corinthians 14:5d (NET)

 The one who prophesies (προφητεύων, another form of προφητεύω) is greater than the one who speaks in tongues…

1 Corinthians 14:5c (NET)

Since you are eager for manifestations of the Spirit, Paul concluded, seek to abound in order to strengthen the church.  So then, one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret.[33]  And, I thank God that I speak in tongues more than all of you, but in the church I want to speak five words with my mind to instruct others, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.[34]  Then he quoted the Old Testament prophecy concerning tongues: By people with strange tongues and by the lips of strangers I will speak to this people, yet not even in this way will they listen to me…[35]  So then, tongues, he concluded, are a sign…for unbelievers.  Prophecy (προφητεία), however, is…for believers.[36]

So if the whole church comes together and all speak in tongues, and unbelievers or uninformed people enter, will they not say that you have lost your minds?[37]  In other words, the Old Testament prophecy holds true: unbelievers hearing strange tongues will not listen to the Lord.  Rather, they say, you have lost your minds.  But if all prophesy (προφητεύωσιν, another form of προφητεύω), and an unbeliever or uninformed person enters, he will be convicted by all, he will be called to account by all.  The secrets of his heart are disclosed…[38]  So prophecy is for believers, their rightful occupation that brings an unbeliever or uninformed person to faith and repentance, and in this way he will fall down with his face to the ground and worship God, declaring, “God is really among you.”[39]

Still, It was [Jesus] who gave…some [not all] as prophets (προφήτας, another form of προφήτης) …to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God – a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ’s full stature.[40]  And God has placed in the church…second prophets (προφήτας, another form of προφήτης)…Not all are prophets (προφῆται, another form of προφήτης), are they?[41]  No, because we have different gifts (χαρίσματα, a form of χάρισμα) according to the grace given to us.[42]  For just as in one body we have many members, and not all the members serve the same function, so we who are many are one body in Christ, and individually we are members who belong to one another.[43]

 

Addendum (7/18/2015): Jim Searcy has published that the Septuagint is a hoax written by Origen and Eusebius 200 hundred years after Christ.  “In fact, the Septuagint ‘quotes’ from the New Testament and not vice versa…”  His contention is that the “King James Version is the infallible Word of God.”  So, I’ll re-examine the quotations above with the KJV.

My thoughts on Luke 4:18, 19 are too long to append to this essay.  This addendum is found as Study: Luke 4:18-19.

Romans, Part 46

Back to Fear – Exodus, Part 6

Back to Son of God – 1 John, Part 3

Back to Saving Demons, Part 2

Back to Romans, Part 49

[2] Romans 12:2b (NET)

[3] Romans 12:3 (NET)

[6] Luke 4:21 (NET)

[7] Luke 4:22a (NET)

[8] Luke 4:22 (NET)

[9] Romans 5:17 (NET)

[12] Romans 12:4, 5 (NET)

[13] Ephesians 4:1-3 (NET)

[18] κατὰ τὴν χάριν τὴν δοθεῖσαν ἡμῖν διάφορα (literally, “according to the grace given to us differently”) Romans 12:6 (NET)

[19] Romans 12:6b (NET)

[22] Septuagint: ἀφέξεσθε receive in full or abstain http://lexicon.katabiblon.com/?search=ἀφέξεσθε

[23] Deuteronomy 18:21, 22 (NET)

[24] Jeremiah 28:8, 9 (NET)

[25] 1 Corinthians 13:2 (NET)

[26] 1 Corinthians 12:4 (NET)

[27] 1 Corinthians 12:8 (NET)

[28] 1 Corinthians 12:10 (NET)

[29] 1 Corinthians 13:8 (NET)

[30] 1 Corinthians 13:10 (NET)

[32] 1 Corinthians 14:1 (NET)

[33] 1 Corinthians 14:12b, 13 (NET)

[34] 1 Corinthians 14:18, 19 (NET)

[35] 1 Corinthians 14:21 (NET)

[36] 1 Corinthians 14:22 (NET)

[37] 1 Corinthians 14:23 (NET)

[38] 1 Corinthians 14:24, 25a (NET)

[39] 1 Corinthians 14:25b (NET)

[40] Ephesians 4:11-13 (NET)

[41] 1 Corinthians 12:28, 29 (NET)

[42] Romans 12:6a (NET)

[43] Romans 12:4, 5 (NET)

Fear – Exodus, Part 5

Posted on by

The next occurrence of yârêʼ[1] in Exodus is found in the song Moses and the Israelites sang…to the Lord.[2]  It was a song of praise and thanksgiving, looking back to the events when the Egyptian army chased them through the sea:  I will sing to the Lord, for he has triumphed gloriously, the horse and its rider he has thrown into the sea.[3]  The chariots of Pharaoh and his army he has thrown into the sea…[4]  The depths have covered them, they went down to the bottom like a stone.[5]  Who is like you, O Lord, among the gods?  Who is like you? – majestic in holiness, fearful (yârêʼ) in praises, working wonders?[6]

The rabbis who translated the Septuagint chose θαυμαστὸς.[7]  One of the definitions of θαυμαστὸς in the NET online Bible is “1c) causing amazement joined with terror.”  So the word is a legitimate choice, but something in me still wonders if “marvelous in expectation” (θαυμαστὸς ἐν δόξαις[8]) carries any of the sense of the costliness of Israel’s salvation that I perceive in the linkage of fear (yârêʼ) and praise (tehillâh).[9]  I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked (râshâʽ),[10] the Lord told Ezekiel.  How much less in the death of those He had hardened and those who followed them into battle?

Though θαυμαστὸς does not appear in the New Testament in its root form, the first occurrence was Jesus’ question to the chief priests and elders.  “Have you never read in the scriptures: ‘The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.  This is from the Lord, and it is marvelous (θαυμαστὴ, a form of θαυμαστός) in our eyes’”?[11]  Whatever my concern about the costliness of Israel’s salvation, as well as my own, it is harder to miss when Yahweh Himself—not Egyptian military officers and soldiers—died for us, in our place.

After writing that I walked away.  It felt like I was straining at gnats and still not getting to the root of what was gnawing at me.  I did other things.

When I walked to the Redbox to satisfy my daily movie fix I had already decided to rent “Killing Them Softly.”  I didn’t know why.  I had avoided it because I heard it was excessively violent, and because I had worked for Linara (the only woman in the cast) on another film she co-produced with her husband.  Ordinarily, I would have run to see a movie with someone I knew in it.  But I had overheard her talking about being topless in the scene with James Gandolfini.  Between the violence and my own indecision (whether I wanted to see Linara or her breasts in action) I had put it off until that evening.

It was an underworld crime story set in the turmoil of the 2008 economic crisis and presidential election.  Brad Pitt played a mob enforcer.  Linara’s topless work had been cut, but she played well with the big boys, Pitt and Gandolfini.  There was a heavy-handed capitalists-are-like-gangsters theme, and no real ending.  It seemed primed for “Killing Them Softly 2” where the mysterious “corporate types,” who hired Brad Pitt’s character Jackie through an intermediary, would be revealed as they hired someone to kill Jackie, and possibly their intermediary.  I don’t think the movie did well enough financially to warrant a sequel however.  And then I went to bed.  But when I awoke the next morning lines from the movie were buzzing around in my head.  They actually helped me clarify what I was thinking about cultivating fear in Exodus the day before.

This is a spoiler alert for anyone who finds a movie ruined by knowing its story.

The story got started when John Amato (aka Squirrel) hired Frank and Russell to rob a mob card game run by Markie Trattman.  They thought they could get away with it because Trattman had robbed his own card game years earlier.  He withstood the enhanced interrogation techniques Dillion the enforcer used on him, but when the subject came up in another card game with his cronies he couldn’t stop laughing, and confessed the whole thing.  Everybody liked Markie so they let it slide.  Squirrel assumed that Trattman would be the primary suspect if his own card game was robbed again, that he would be killed, and then that would be the end of it.  He rightly perceived that cultivating a righteousness based on fear was more important to the powers-that-be than recovering the money.

Squirrel had an insight into mob righteousness.  He didn’t want Russell on the job because his attitude and manner would invite confrontation.  “Then you gotta…shoot somebody,” he told Frank, “and I don’t want that.  There’s no reason for that, you know?  You don’t get any more money…”  What he failed to realize was that Jackie (Dillion’s replacement as mob enforcer) was smart enough to know that Markie Trattman was too smart to think that he could get away with it twice.  Jackie immediately suspected other culprits.  And he had a firm grasp on fear based righteousness, too.

Jackie lobbied with the Counselor (the intermediary for the corporate types running things) to kill Trattman anyway and correct the real issue:  “It don’t make a bit of difference if Trattman did it or someone did it to Trattman,” Jackie explained.  “If people think he did it and he’s still walking around, you’re gonna have kids waiting in line to knock them…games over.”

Jackie even had a fear based redemption scheme for Frank.  Frank had to confess where Squirrel would be and then witness the execution, or be executed himself.  “I got to be there and everything?” Frank whined.  “Frank, you made a mistake,” Jackie explained patiently.  “Now you gotta show you understand you made a mistake.  And you gotta make things right…”

As they waited in the car for Squirrel to arrive, Frank tried to intercede for him: “Look, Jackie, he’s not a bad guy, you know?  I mean, he’s not a bad guy at all.”

“None of them are, kid.  They’re all nice guys.”

Then Jackie got out of the car and shot Squirrel with a shotgun from across the parking lot, because he liked “killing them softly…from a distance, not close enough for feelings.”  Of course, he did walk across the parking lot and finish the job up close.  And he wasn’t that far from Frank when he shot him in the head.  Ultimately, Jackie’s fear based redemption scheme didn’t fare well against the necessities of fear based righteousness.

None of this is to say that I think God is, or was, like a mob enforcer.  My question is, why did One with foreknowledge put Himself in the position to be mistaken for a mob enforcer by wicked people?  (Who among us hasn’t wished for God to get those guys, those evildoers, or wondered incredulously why He waits so long?)  The answer that comes to me is that God risked it for my benefit, that I might know the difference between fear based righteousness and Holy Spirit based righteousness (faith is integral to both: When Israel saw the great power that the Lord had exercised over the Egyptians, they feared the Lord, and they believed in the Lord…[12]).

Israel, like Frank, was compelled to participate in and witness the destruction of the Egyptian army.  Then at Sinai they experienced a non-lethal fear as they stood at the base of a mountain, described as something like a volcano in full ash eruption,[13] and lived to tell the tale:  All the people were seeing the thundering and the lightning, and heard the sound of the horn, and saw the mountain smoking – and when the people saw it they trembled with fear (nûaʽ)[14] and kept their distance.[15]  The word translated fear here was φοβηθέντες (a form of φοβέω)[16] in the Septuagint.  After Jesus calmed the storm with a word his disciples were afraid (φοβηθέντες) and amazed, saying to one another, “Who then is this?  He commands even the winds and the water, and they obey him!”[17]

Do not fear (yârêʼ), Moses said, for God has come to test you, that the fear (yirʼâh)[18] of him may be before you so that you do not sin.”[19]  The rabbis who translated the Septuagint chose θαρσεῖτε (a form of θαρσέω)[20] for Do not fear.  It is the same Greek word Jesus used when the disciples saw Him walking on the water and were terrified that he was a ghost:  Have courage (θαρσεῖτε)!  It is I.[21]  For yirʼâh, the fear of him, the rabbis chose φόβος.[22]  And Zechariah, visibly shaken when he saw the angel, was seized with fear (φόβος).[23]

When I began this study I hoped to find a clear delineation between the fear that puts to flight and the reverence that binds and draws one to God.  A cursory look at the concordance seemed to justify that hope in the words yârêʼ and yirʼâh.  The first occurrence of yirʼâh in Abraham’s explanation to Abimelech—I thought that there would be no one here who has reverence (yirʼâh) for God[24]—was translated θεοσέβεια[25] in the Septuagint and I thought I was on the way.  It is a compound of θεός[26] and σέβομαι,[27] the reverence or worship that is negated by the ἀσέβειαν (a form of ἀσέβεια)[28] of people that brought the wrath of God in Romans 1:18.

I also expected to find that the fear of the Lord was something different, something other than a conviction to act in accordance with the word of the Lord, the functional equivalent in the Old Testament of the fruit of the Spirit,[29] the desire and the effort brought forth by God for the sake of his good pleasure,[30]  because it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy,[31]  and the love of God[32] that is the fulfillment of the law.[33]  That equivalence took me by surprise and has colored everything.  The Good News Translation of the Bible captured the essence of fear based righteousness when the translators (paraphrasists?) skipped the middle man as it were in their paraphrase of yirʼâh.  Don’t be afraid (yârêʼ); Moses said, God has only come to test you and make you keep on obeying (yirʼâh) him, so that you will not sin.[34]

So this alchemist’s notion of deriving reverence (σέβομαι) for God from the human fear (φόβος) of death or punishment seems like a doomed enterprise from the very beginning, a folly of the religious mind.  It was difficult enough to title an essay “Paul’s Religious Mind,” so I did not and will not call this “God’s Religious Mind.”  But that is what I’m thinking.

Why would an Omniscient One with foreknowledge embark on such a futile course?  Again, I can only assume that it was for my benefit.  I am the one, after all (and probably not the only one), whose knee-jerk reaction to the way of righteousness (for other evildoers, of course) is swifter “justice,” harsher punishment and longer prison sentences.  But does anyone really believe that those things produce righteousness?  (Does anyone really believe that our municipal, county, state or federal governments can afford to do this anymore?)

In that light I can’t help but see the giving of the law at Sinai as a massive psychological experiment to test the power and potential of fear based righteousness.  The finding of this particular experiment was forty days.[35]  After forty days the descendants of Israel returned to the worship practices[36] they learned in Egypt.[37]  And they did this 1) after witnessing the destruction of the Egyptian army; 2) after seeing Mount Sinai…completely covered with smoke because the Lord had descended on it in fire, and its smoke went up like the smoke of a great furnace, and the whole mountain shook violently;[38] and 3) after agreeing to abide by a covenant[39] that they would not sacrifice to a god other than the Lord alone [or] be utterly destroyed.[40]

[2] Exodus 15:1a (NET)

[3] Exodus 15:1b (NET)

[4] Exodus 15:4a (NET)

[5] Exodus 15:5 (NET)

[6] Exodus 15:11 (NET)

[10] Ezekiel 33:11 (NET)

[11] Matthew 21:42 (NET)

[12] Exodus 14:31 (NET)

[15] Exodus 20:18 (NET)

[17] Luke 8:25 (NET)

[19] Exodus 20:20 (NET)

[21] Mark 6:50 (NET)

[23] Luke 1:12 (NET)

[30] Philippians 2:13 (NET)

[31] Romans 9:16 (NET)

[33] Romans 13:10 (NET)

[38] Exodus 19:18 (NET)

[40] Exodus 22:20 (NET)

Son of God – 1 John, Part 2

Posted on by

Who is the liar but the person who denies (ἀρνούμενος, a form of ἀρνέομαι)[1] that Jesus is the Christ?  This one is the antichrist: the person who denies (ἀρνούμενος, a form of ἀρνέομαι) the Father and the Son.[2]  This is one of the things John wrote to his contemporaries about those who are trying to deceive you.[3]

It is interesting that this became a problem among believers after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, after those in Israel who rejected Jesus as Christ (or, Messiah) were compelled to accept Him as a credible prophet: Now while some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and offerings, Jesus said, “As for these things that you are gazing at, the days will come when not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down!”[4]  And, I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down![5] All will be torn down![6]

Believers were not particularly troubled by the unbelief of enemies of the Gospel (enemies for your [believers’] sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers[7]) so long as the enemies defamed the Lord Jesus and threatened and harmed his followers.  The trouble began when the enemies softened their approach, accepted Jesus as a prophet, even a good man—but not the Messiah, not the Christ.

John continued: Everyone who denies (ἀρνούμενος, a form of ἀρνέομαι) the Son [i.e., denies that the Son is the Christ] does not have the Father either.  The person who confesses the Son has the Father also.  As for you, what you have heard from the beginning must remain in you.  If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.[8]  For John, what you have heard from the beginning was the Gospel, and he had written more about it previously, or perhaps it was more warning about those who are trying to deceive you (1 John 2:12, 13 NET):

I am writing to you, little children, that your sins have been forgiven because of his name.  I am writing to you, fathers, that you have known him who has been from the beginning.  I am writing to you, young people, that you have conquered the evil one (πονηρόν, a form of πονηρός).[9]

The note on the evil one in the NET reads: “The phrase the evil one is used in John 17:15 as a reference to Satan. Satan is also the referent here and in the four other occurrences in 1 John (2:14; 3:12; 5:18, 19).”  But in the definition of πονηρός they effectively acknowledge that they added the word one because the nominative case in Matthew 6:13 means “‘The Evil,’ and is probably referring to Satan.”

I think this is too limiting in both verses.  When I pray, And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil (πονηροῦ, another form of πονηρός),[10] I am not praying to be delivered from Satan only, but from the meaningless deeds that are 1) full of labours, annoyances, and hardships; from being 1a) pressed and harassed by those labours; I pray to be delivered from 1b) this time full of peril to Christian faith and steadfastness that causes so much pain and trouble;  to be delivered from everything 2) bad, or of a bad nature or condition; from 2a) disease or blindness; as well as from that which is 2b) evil or wicked.

Likewise I believe that John wrote to young people that you have conquered the evil (πονηρόν, a form of πονηρός); not Satan only, but the meaningless deeds that are 1) full of labours, annoyances, and hardships; they are not 1a) pressed and harassed by those labours; they have overcome 1b) this time full of peril to Christian faith and steadfastness that causes so much pain and trouble; they have conquered everything 2) bad, or of a bad nature or condition; 2a) disease or blindness; as well as that which is 2b) evil or wicked.  John continued (1 John 2:14 NET):

I have written to you, children, that you have known the Father.  I have written to you, fathers, that you have known him who has been from the beginning.  I have written to you, young people, that you are strong, and the word of God resides in you, and you have conquered the evil (πονηρόν, a form of πονηρός)…

I fantasize sometimes what the world might be like if young people were taught that they are strong, and the word of God resides in them, that they have conquered the evil, and how all of this is true in Christ through his Holy Spirit, rather than being taught the rules their elders have devised for them.  In my mother’s day the path of righteousness was that girls shouldn’t wear lipstick.  My mother and her contemporaries religiously put on their lipstick every Sunday morning, some even refreshed it in the pew during the service.  In my day the path of righteousness was not listening to rock music.  Most of my contemporaries attend churches that rock.  Why not try John’s approach?  Could it be any worse?

At best these rules are equivalent to gezerot.  A gezerah (singular of gezerot) according to the online Jewish Encyclopedia was a “rabbinical enactment issued as a guard or preventive measure….The Rabbis based their institution of such enactments upon the Biblical passages, ‘Thou shalt not depart from the sentence,’ etc. (Deut. xvii. 11), although at the same time they transgressed another commandment: ‘Ye shall not add unto the word which I command thee, neither shall ye diminish from it’ (Deut. iv. 2; Shab. 23a; Ab. R. N. 25b).”[11]  Perhaps any particular “preventive measure” was a good idea at a particular time in a particular place.  But gezerot are not the Gospel.

The first gezerah followed swiftly after God’s first prohibition: The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed.  The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food.  (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)…The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it.[12]

God’s Prohibition

Eve’s Knowledge of God’s Prohibition
Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”

Genesis 2:16, 17 (NET)

 The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’”

Genesis 3:2, 3 (NET)

The circumstantial evidence points to Adam as the originator of the first gezerah, and you must not touch it.  It sounds like a good idea.  “If you don’t touch it, Eve, you won’t eat it and you won’t die—whatever that means.”  But in practice when Eve touched it she did not die—whatever that means.  She saw with her own eyes that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, and it was attractive to the eye.[13]  She had the serpent’s assurance that she would not die—whatever that means—and that God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like divine beings who know good and evil.[14]

If I take the sequence of events recorded in Genesis literally, after she took some of its fruit and ate it nothing happened, neither the serpent’s promise nor God’s.  After all, God’s prohibition was given to Adam.  Eve was created afterward.  Perhaps it was reasonable for Adam to assume that God’s prohibition applied also to his wife, but nothing happened until Eve also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.  Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked [Table].[15]  I sincerely doubt that realizing she was naked was the wisdom Eve desired.[16]

So the Lord God expelled [Adam] from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken [Table].  When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.[17]  Adam and Eve and all their descendants will surely die.  Perhaps Adam and Eve understood death when, The Lord God made garments from skin for [them], and clothed them.[18]  If not, they certainly understood it about a century later[19] when their firstborn Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.[20]  But I want to remove the serpent from the equation for a moment.

If I suppose that the serpent did not persuade Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, and Eve did not persuade Adam, and if Adam raised his sons to stand guard over the tree of the knowledge of good and evil like the angelic sentries guarded the way to the tree of life, if they, or we to this very day, faithfully kept Adam’s gezerah not to touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, would that be the righteousness of God?  My answer is an unequivocal, “No.”  It would simply mean that tanks and machine guns and the fear of death had kept us from sinning against Adam’s gezerah, which only incidentally also kept us from violating God’s prohibition.

So at worst gezerot when practiced promote actions that ignore the righteousness that comes from God, and [seeks] instead to establish [one’s] own righteousness.[21]  It is a catastrophe if those who believe and practice them do not submit to God’s righteousness.  For Christ is the end (τέλος;[22] “the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose”) of the law, with the result that there is righteousness for everyone who believes.[23]  This people honors me with their lips, Jesus said, but their heart is far from me, and they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.[24]  As a teaching practice gezerot are sin relative to the Gospel.

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, John continued, indeed, sin is lawlessness.  And you know that Jesus was revealed to take away (ἄρῃ, a form of αἴρω) sins…[25]  John also used ἄρῃ in his Gospel account.  After Jesus died Joseph of Arimathea…asked Pilate if he could remove (ἄρῃ, a form of αἴρω) the body of Jesus.[26]  So as Joseph sought to take away the body of Jesus from the cross, Jesus was revealed to take away (ἄρῃ) sins from us, and in him there is no sin, John continued.  Everyone who resides in him does not sin; everyone who sins has neither seen him nor known him.  Little children, let no one deceive you: The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as Jesus is righteous.  The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.[27]

But there is still hope: For this purpose the Son of God was revealed: to destroy the works of the devil.[28]  Jesus was still revealed to take away even the sin of rejecting his righteousness for our own gezerot.  Everyone who has been fathered by God does not practice sin, because God’s seed resides in him, and thus he is not able to sin, because he has been fathered by God.  By this the children of God and the children of the devil are revealed: Everyone who does not practice righteousness – the one who does not love his fellow Christian (ἀδελφὸν, a form of ἀδελφός)[29] – is not of God.[30]

Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue but in deed and truth.  And by this we will know that we are of the truth and will convince our conscience in his presence, that if our conscience condemns us, that God is greater than our conscience and knows all things.  Dear friends, if our conscience does not condemn us, we have confidence in the presence of God, and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do the things that are pleasing to him.  Now this is his commandment: that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he gave us the commandment.  And the person who keeps his commandments resides in God, and God in him.  Now by this we know that God resides in us: by the Spirit he has given us.[31]

I included the Greek text of Jesus’ quote from Isaiah for completeness.

Jesus

Septuagint

Parallel Greek Text – NET
This people honors me with their lips,but their heart is far from me, and they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

Matthew 15:8, 9 (NET)

 ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν[32] τιμῶσίν[33] με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ μάτην[34] δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας

Isaiah 29:13

 ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν με τιμᾷ,[35]ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ μάτην δὲ σέβονται μεδιδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων

Matthew 15:8, 9

Translation from a contemporary understanding of ancient Hebrew
These people say they are loyal to me; they say wonderful things about me, but they are not really loyal to me.  Their worship consists of nothing but man-made ritual.[36]

Isaiah 29:13 (NET)

 

Addendum (7/15/2015): Jim Searcy has published that the Septuagint is a hoax written by Origen and Eusebius 200 hundred years or so after Christ.  “In fact, the Septuagint ‘quotes’ from the New Testament and not vice versa…”  His contention is that the “King James Version is the infallible Word of God.”  So, I’ll re-examine the quotations above with the KJV.

Jesus

KJV

Parallel Greek Text – NET
This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Matthew 15:8, 9 (KJV)

 Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

Isaiah 29:13

 ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ μάτην δὲ σέβονται μεδιδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων

Matthew 15:8, 9

If as Jim Searcy claimed the Septuagint was written after the New Testament, But in vain (μάτην δὲ) was not a part of Isaiah’s original prophecy as Jesus claimed.  Rather, Jesus added it on the spot.

[2] 1 John 2:22 (NET)

[3] 1 John 2:26 (NET)

[4] Luke 21:5, 6 (NET)

[5] Matthew 24:2 (NET)

[6] Mark 13:2 (NET)

[7] Romans 11:28 (NET)

[8] 1 John 2:23, 24 (NET)

[10] Matthew 6:13 (NET)

[12] Genesis 2:8, 9, 15 (NET)

[13] Genesis 3:6a (NET)

[14] Genesis 3:5 (NET) Table

[15] Genesis 3:6b-7a (NET)

[16] …the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise… (Genesis 3:6a NET)

[17] Genesis 3:23, 24 (NET)

[18] Genesis 3:21 (NET)

[19] Genesis 4:25; 5:3

[20] Genesis 4:8 (NET)

[21] Romans 10:3a (NET)

[23] Romans 10:3b, 4 (NET)

[24] Matthew 15:8, 9 (NET)

[25] 1 John 3:4, 5a (NET)

[26] John 19:38a (NET)

[27] 1 John 3:5b-8 (NET)

[28] 1 John 3:8b (NET)

[30] 1 John 3:9, 10 (NET)

[31] 1 John 3:18-24 (NET)

[36] NET note: “Heb ‘their fear of me is a commandment of men that has been taught.’”

Antichrist, Part 4

Posted on by

Back at Eden in Lars Von Trier’s “Antichrist” she explained an incident that happened the past summer.  She heard her son Nic crying.  She searched everywhere for him.  When she found him, he was playing contentedly, but the crying persisted for a time in the air in Eden.

“What you’re experiencing is panic, nothing more,” he said.  “The screaming wasn’t real.”

She took that in as he walked away.  Then she jumped him and started hitting him.  He wrestled her to the ground.

“You’re just so damn arrogant,” she said.

Later she shared her own conclusion about hearing Nic cry:  “Now I could hear what I couldn’t hear before,” she said, “the cry of all things that are to die.”

“That’s all very touching,” he said, “if it was a children’s book….That’s what fear is.  Your thoughts distort reality, not the other way around.”  But he had already experienced some of the “reality” distortion of Eden, and his words had begun to ring hollow.

“Satan’s church,” she said later.

“Satan!? Jesus!” the rationalist psychologist, who believed in neither, exclaimed.

“Nature is Satan’s church,” she asserted.

The earth was ruined in the sight of God, the book of Genesis reads, the earth was filled with violence.  God saw the earth, and indeed it was ruined, for all living creatures on the earth were sinful.[1]  We accept the violence of animals (and even that of human beings sometimes) as “natural,” because fallen nature is natural to us.  But the Creator did not: God said to Noah, “I have decided that all living creatures must die, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.  Now I am about to destroy them and the earth.”[2]

In “Antichrist” her husband couldn’t tolerate her conclusion about fallen nature being Satan’s church.  He began to talk to her about nature.

“The kind of nature that causes people to do evil things against women?” she asked.  He agreed.

If you continue to follow my teaching, Jesus said to those who had believed him, you are really my disciples and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.[3]

We are descendants of Abraham, they protested, and have never been anyone’s slaves![4]

I tell you the solemn truth, Jesus answered, everyone who practices sin is a slave of sin.[5]  I know that you are Abraham’s descendants.[6]  But now you are trying to kill me, a man who has told you the truth I heard from God.  Abraham did not do this!  You people are doing the deeds of your father.[7]

We were not born as a result of immorality (πορνείας, a form of πορνεία)! They protested again.  We have only one Father, God himself.[8]

If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come from God and am now here.[9]  You people are from your father the devil, Jesus continued, and you want to do what your father desires.  He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not uphold the truth, because there is no truth in him. Whenever he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies.[10]  The one who belongs to God listens and responds to God’s words.  You don’t listen and respond, because you don’t belong to God.[11]

“That kind of nature interested me a lot when I was up here,” she continued.  “That kind of nature was the subject of my thesis.  But you shouldn’t underestimate Eden….I discovered something else in my material than I expected.  If human nature is evil then that goes as well for the nature of…”

“…of the women,” he finished her thought, “female nature.”

“The nature of all the sisters,” she agreed.  “Women do not control their own bodies.  Nature does.  I have it in writing in my books.”

“The literature that you used in your research was about evil things committed against women,” he clarified for her.  “But you read it as proof of the evil of women?  You were supposed to be critical of those texts.  That was your thesis.  Instead you’re embracing it.  Do you know what you’re saying?”

“Forget it,” she said.  “I don’t know why I said it.”

Later he attempted to drive his point home.  But by that moment in the film it seemed like he was trying to persuade himself, more than her, that the strange visions and dreams he was having in Eden weren’t real.

“Good and evil have nothing to do with therapy,” he assured her.  “Do you know how many innocent women were killed in the 16th century alone just for being women?  I’m sure you do—many—and not because they were evil.”

“I know.  It’s just sometimes I forget,” she said without conviction.

“The evil you talk about is an obsession.  Obsessions never materialize.  It’s a scientific fact.”

She caught up with him in the shed later and attacked him.  She feared that he would leave her.  As he wrestled with her and fended off her blows he protested that he loved her.  Just as it seemed that their fighting would become fucking, she hit him in the groin with a heavy object (a toolbox, I think, by the sound of it; I winced both times I saw it).  Though he lost consciousness from the pain, he still had an erection.  She massaged it to a bloody ejaculation.  Nature, it seems, also controlled his body.

I, too, have nothing but a woman’s word for the way my body responded when I was unconscious from driving all night to get home to her.  I awoke refreshed and whole.  In “Antichrist” he awoke to find a whole drilled through his calf and a heavy grinding stone bolted to his leg.  While she was outside disposing of the wrench under the shed, he attempted to escape, dragging his hobbled leg.

She found him hiding in a fox’s lair and dug him out.  She dragged him back to the shed.  She grabbed scissors and hid them from him as she began to masturbate with his hand.  I expected that he was about to be emasculated.  But she exposed and put her own clitoris in between the scissor’s blades instead.

I remember the Sunday afternoon during my first divorce when I considered cutting off my penis according to Jesus’ command.  He said, “You would need to cut off your head.”  It was the way He knew my thoughts from afar that persuaded me He was speaking.  I had gotten well beyond the act to its aftermath in my mind.  There was no way I would call for help and have to explain why I cut off my own penis.  I had considered cauterizing the wound because stitching seemed out of the question.  I wasn’t sure if I could stop the blood flow or not.

“That will kill me for sure,” I said.

His answer was “precisely” or “exactly,” something to that effect.  I had been studying Romans.  At that moment I began to take Jesus’ command to cut off my penis (literally, a hand or a foot)[12] more figuratively, and Paul’s insight—we have been buried with [Christ] through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life[13]—more literally.

“Antichrist” is a horror movie.  She was not studying Paul’s letter to the Romans.  No still small voice intervened to enlighten her.  She snipped off her clitoris with the scissors.  As she writhed in pain, he recovered the wrench and freed himself from the grinding stone.  And though he didn’t believe in Satan’s church, he joined her in worship.  He choked her to death with his bare hands, after he silenced her voice by crushing her larynx.

As he limped away, the last man standing, he had a vision.  He was surrounded by women, the victims of gynocide, I think.  When asked at Cannes to account for “Antichrist,” Lars Von Trier resisted.  But if the featurette on the DVD was edited honestly, eventually he said something to the effect that it was the hand of God.

Though Trier claimed not to know, the closing scene of “Antichrist” reminded me of a scene Jesus described: The people of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented when Jonah preached to them – and now, something greater than Jonah is here!  The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon – and now, something greater than Solomon is here![14]  The people of Ninevah and the queen of the South were portrayed by the victims of gynocide, while he, the rationalist psychologist, was this generation.

[1] Genesis 6:11, 12 (NET)

[2] Genesis 6:13 (NET)

[3] John 8:31, 32 (NET)

[4] John 8:33 (NET)

[5] John 8:34 (NET)

[6] John 8:37a (NET)

[7] John 8:40, 41a (NET)

[8] John 8:41b (NET)

[9] John 8:42a (NET)

[10] John 8:44 (NET)

[11] John 8:47 (NET)

[13] Romans 6:4 (NET)

[14] Matthew 12:41, 42 (NET)

Romans, Part 44

Posted on by

Therefore I exhort you, brothers and sisters, Paul continued, by the mercies (οἰκτιρμῶν)[1] of God…[2]  The Greek word οἰκτιρμῶν (a form of οἰκτιρμός), translated mercies, is the noun that corresponds to the verb translated compassion in, I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion (οἰκτιρήσω, a form of οἰκτείρω)[3] on whom I have compassion (οἰκτίρω, another form of οἰκτείρω).[4]  It was translated mercy again in Paul’s conclusion written to the Colossians: Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with a heart of mercy (οἰκτιρμοῦ, another form of οἰκτιρμός), kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if someone happens to have a complaint against anyone else.  Just as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also forgive others.[5]

Jesus said, love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back.  Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to ungrateful and evil people.  Be merciful (οἰκτίρμονες, a form of οἰκτίρμων),[6] just as your Father is merciful (οἰκτίρμων).[7]  The Greek word οἰκτίρμων is essentially the adjective of the noun οἰκτιρμός and the verb οἰκτείρω.  Taken together these three passages give me some understanding of what it means to present [my body] as a sacrifice in Paul’s conclusion: Therefore I exhort you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a sacrifice – alive, holy, and pleasing to God – which is your reasonable service.[8]

It took me some time to get here.  At first I thought the phrase by the mercies of God (διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ) applied only to Paul’s exhortation.  I thought that because of God’s mercies to me it was reasonable that I present my body as a sacrifice to Him.  My religion had no rite or ritual for accomplishing this, but it did have a saying: Those who attend faithfully on Sunday morning love the church; those who attend faithfully Sunday morning and Sunday evening love the Pastor; but those who attend faithfully on Sunday and Wednesday evening prayer meeting love the Lord.  I assumed that presenting my body as a sacrifice had something to do with attending church every time the doors were open and doing whatever the Pastor said: Obey your leaders and submit to them, the author of the letter to the Hebrews wrote, for they keep watch over your souls and will give an account for their work.[9]

I might have continued trying to prove how much I loved God rather than being transformed by his love.  But I continued studying the Bible and the Holy Spirit brought Scriptures to mind that disagreed with, or severely limited, the points my various Pastors made in their sermons.  It was a difficult and confusing time.  But eventually I began to see the Bible, not as a rule book, but as a way to know the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom [He] sent.[10]

The Bible changed then from a discussion of many things into a discussion of primarily one issue from many perspectives, namely, this eternal life in Jesus Christ.  In that light it was easier to recognize that the phrase by the mercies of God (διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ) also described how to present my body as a sacrifice: διὰ (through) the mercies of God, sharing in his compassion, clothed with [his] heart of mercy, his kindness, his humility, his gentleness, and his patience…forgiving one another…Just as the Lord has forgiven [me], being merciful just as he is merciful.

Do not be conformed to this present world,[11] Paul added more detail.  I assume that this present world is equivalent to the works of the flesh:[12] hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, and envying.[13]  I didn’t leave sexual immorality (πορνεία),[14] impurity, depravity, idolatry, sorcery and murder[15] out of this list because I think they are any less the works of the flesh.  Given my background and upbringing they are the obvious works of the flesh while hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, and envying might seem virtuous if directed against sin or sinners or heretics or people who don’t accept my interpretation of the Bible.

The word translated envying for instance is φθόνοι (a form of φθόνος).[16]  Pilate knew that [Jesus’ accusers] had handed him over because of envy[17] (φθόνον, another form of φθόνος).  If I were writing myself as a character in a movie it would make perfect sense for that character to envy Ingmar Bergman, a creative genius, a talented and successful director of both theater and film.  So much in his films seems like anti-religious agitprop.  I have never heard that he repented or showed any signs of faith in Jesus.  By all rights I, like Bess from Lars Von Trier’s “Breaking the Waves,” should say of Ingmar Bergman, “He will go to hell; everyone knows that.”

Yet when I search myself I find instead that I hope against hope for God’s mercy.  I can’t find an explanation for it apart from the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control[18] that floods into me and through me from the Holy Spirit.  I am not as creative or talented or successful as Ingmar Bergman, but I have received a superabundance of mercy and grace while he suffered unspeakably from religious minds, his own as well as those of others.  Do not be conformed to this present world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, Paul continued in Romans, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God – what is good and well-pleasing and perfect (τέλειον, a form of τέλειος).[19]

Love never ends (πίπτει, a form of πίπτω),[20] Paul wrote the Corinthians.  According to the definitions listed in the NET online Bible this means that love never 1) descends from a higher place to a lower; love never 1a) falls, 1a1) is thrust down 1b) (metaph.) falls under judgment, or comes under condemnation; love never 2) descends from an erect to a prostrate position 2a) falls down 2a1) is prostrated, or falls prostrate;[21] love never 2a2) is overcome by terror or astonishment or grief or under the attack of an evil spirit or of falling dead suddenly; love never 2a3) is dismembered like a corpse by decay 2a4) prostrates itself 2a5) renders homage or worship to one 2a6) falls out, falls from, perishes or is lost; love never 2a7) falls down, or falls into ruin 2b) is cast down from a state of prosperity 2b1) falls from a state of uprightness; love never 2b2) perishes, comes to an end, disappears, ceases; love never 2b3) loses authority, or no longer has force 2b4) is removed from power by death 2b5) fails of participating in, or misses a share in [Christ’s salvation because love (ἀγάπη) is his salvation and his righteousness in a word].

This was in contrast to prophecies, that will be set aside…tongues, that will cease…and knowledge, that will be set aside.[22]  For we know in part, and we prophesy in part, but when what is perfect (τέλειον, a form of τέλειος) comes, the partial will be set aside.[23]  Love not only transcends this coming perfection, it facilitates it according to John: whoever obeys his word, truly in this person the love of God has been perfected (τετελείωται, a form of τελειόω).[24]  By this we know that we are in him.[25]

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of the gift of Christ,[26] Paul wrote the Ephesians.  It was he who gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God – a mature (τέλειον, a form of τέλειος) person, attaining to the measure of Christ’s full stature.[27]  I have begun to wonder: if the apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors and teachers aren’t encouraging me to be perfected in God’s love, are they acting as ambassadors for Christ[28] or emissaries of the religious mind?

Paul wrote the Colossians, I became a servant of the church according to the stewardship from God – given to me for you – in order to complete (πληρῶσαι, a form of πληρόω; or, fulfill) the word of God, that is, the mystery that has been kept hidden from ages and generations, but has now been revealed to his saints.  God wanted to make known to them the glorious riches of this mystery among the Gentiles, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.  We proclaim him by instructing and teaching all people with all wisdom so that we may present every person mature (τέλειον, a form of τέλειος; e.g., perfected in and by God’s love) in Christ.[29]

When I consider the justice of God’s mercy in and through Christ I am reminded of Friedrich Nietzsche.  Jesus said, Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.[30]  The soul cannot be killed with weaponry.  But Friedrich Nietzsche came about as close to being a soul killer as I can imagine a human being becoming.  Who can calculate his devastating impact on the souls of academics and the intelligentsia?  But if I imagine him in torment in hell for all eternity, cursing his nonexistent god, I realize that I can imagine no greater destruction of the personality I know as Friedrich Nietzsche than to find him one day clothed and in his right mind,[31] and sitting at the feet of Jesus.

[2] Romans 12:1a (NET)

[4] Romans 9:15 (NET)

[5] Colossians 3:12, 13 (NET)

[7] Luke 6:35, 36 (NET)

[8] Romans 12:1 (NET)

[9] Hebrews 13:17a (NET)

[11] Romans 12:2a (NET)

[17] Matthew 27:18 (NET)

[18] Galatians 5:22, 23 (NET)

[19] Romans 12:2 (NET)

[20] 1 Corinthians 13:8a (NET)

[21] At the end of the movie “The Lord of the Rings – The Return of the King” as the newly crowned king approached, the Hobbits—Frodo, Sam, Merry and Pippin—bowed.  The king said, “My friends, you bow to no one.”  Then he and all present knelt before them.  In the context of the fruit of the Spirit love certainly does not fall prostrate before rules or laws:  Against such things there is no law (Galatians 5:23b NET).  On the contrary, Love does no wrong to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law (Romans 13:10 NET).  The fear that I might love too much, be too joyful, too peaceful, too patient, too kind, too good, too faithful, too gentle, or too controlled by the Holy Spirit, that I should intervene and hold myself aloof from being engulfed, buoyed up and carried along by that living stream that makes glad the city of God, that I should draw back to some Aristotelian mean between the extremes, is not from God.  In this sense then I understand “Love never falls prostrate” (or never “renders homage or worship”), not that Love is god, but that God is love.

[22] 1 Corinthians 13:8b (NET)

[23] 1 Corinthians 13:9, 10 (NET)

[25] 1 John 2:5 (NET)

[26] Ephesians 4:7 (NET)

[27] Ephesians 4:11-13 (NET)

[28] 2 Corinthians 5:20 (NET)

[29] Colossians 1:25-28 (NET)

[30] Matthew 10:28a (NET)

Saving Demons, Part 1

Posted on by

If senseless[1] Gentiles, chosen for salvation to make Israel jealous, reject the righteousness that comes by way of Christ’s faithfulness – a righteousness from God that is in fact based on Christ’s faithfulness to pursue their own righteousness derived[2] from a select subset of the law and their own religious rules, will that open Christ’s salvation to demons and fallen angels?

On the surface of it the question seems absurd to me, too speculative, though I appreciate the symmetry of the pattern.  My problem, however, is that I remember when I believed that Paul’s “commandment”— So you too consider yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus[3]—was a pious fiction, a mind game based on the flimsiest of pretexts: Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?[4]

Now, of course, I believe that Paul’s “commandment” was a carefully wrought conclusion based on a solid truth.  And so I believe that I, too, have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.  So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.  I do not set aside God’s grace, because if righteousness could come through the law, then Christ died for nothing![5]  Furthermore, I now believe that this death facilitates forgiveness and the new resurrected (eternal) life by creating the distinction between me (the new man born of the Spirit) and the sin in my flesh (Romans 7:14-20 NET).

For we know that the law is spiritual – but I am unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin.  For I don’t understand what I am doing.  For I do not do what I want – instead, I do what I hate.  But if I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is good.  But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me.  For I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh.  For I want to do the good, but I cannot do it.  For I do not do the good I want, but I do the very evil   (κακὸν, a form of κακός) I do not want!  Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me.

As John the Apostle wrote, We know that everyone fathered by God does not sin, but God protects the one he has fathered, and the evil one (πονηρὸς, a form of πονηρός) cannot touch him.[6]  That experience prompts me to keep an open mind and a running account as touch points come up.  One of the first things that came to mind was Jesus’ response to the religious leaders’ charge that He blasphemed by claiming to be the Son of God: Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’?[7]

When I wrote about it before[8] I focused on verses in Exodus where the Holy Spirit called human judges elohim.[9]  But Jesus apparently quoted Psalm 82:6 as well.  The note in the NET reads: “The problem in this verse concerns the meaning of Jesus’ quotation from Ps 82:6. It is important to look at the OT context: The whole line reads ‘I say, you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.’ Jesus will pick up on the term ‘sons of the Most High’ in 10:36, where he refers to himself as the Son of God. The psalm was understood in rabbinic circles as an attack on unjust judges who, though they have been given the title ‘gods’ because of their quasi-divine function of exercising judgment, are just as mortal as other men. What is the argument here? It is often thought to be as follows: If it was an OT practice to refer to men like the judges as gods, and not blasphemy, why did the Jewish authorities object when this term was applied to Jesus? This really doesn’t seem to fit the context, however, since if that were the case Jesus would not be making any claim for ‘divinity’ for himself over and above any other human being – and therefore he would not be subject to the charge of blasphemy. Rather, this is evidently a case of arguing from the lesser to the greater, a common form of rabbinic argument. The reason the OT judges could be called gods is because they were vehicles of the word of God (cf. 10:35). But granting that premise, Jesus deserves much more than they to be called God. He is the Word incarnate, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world to save the world (10:36). In light of the prologue to the Gospel of John, it seems this interpretation would have been most natural for the author. If it is permissible to call men “gods” because they were the vehicles of the word of God, how much more permissible is it to use the word ‘God’ of him who is the Word of God?”

The psalm itself reads (Psalm 82 NET):

God (elohim)[10] stands in the assembly of El; in the midst of the gods (elohim) he renders judgment.  He says, “How long will you make unjust legal decisions and show favoritism to the wicked?  (Selah)  Defend the cause of the poor and the fatherless!  Vindicate the oppressed and suffering!  Rescue the poor and needy!  Deliver them from the power of the wicked!  They neither know nor understand.  They stumble around in the dark, while all the foundations of the earth crumble.  I thought,[11] ‘You are gods (elohim); all of you are sons of the Most High.’  Yet you will die like mortals; you will fall like all the other rulers.”  Rise up, O God (elohim), and execute judgment on the earth!  For you own all the nations.

And the note in the NET on gods reads: “The present translation assumes that the Hebrew term אֱלֹהִים (’elohim, ‘gods’) here refers to the pagan gods who supposedly comprise El’s assembly according to Canaanite religion. Those who reject the polemical view of the psalm prefer to see the referent as human judges or rulers (אֱלֹהִים sometimes refers to officials appointed by God, see Exod 21:6; 22:8-9; Ps 45:6) or as angelic beings (אֱלֹהִים sometimes refers to angelic beings, see Gen 3:5; Ps 8:5).”

In the prophetic Song of Moses we read: They made him jealous with other gods,[12] they enraged him with abhorrent idols.  They sacrificed to demons, not God,[13] to gods (elohim) they had not known; to new gods[14] who had recently come along, gods your ancestors[15] had not known about.[16]  And Paul wrote: I mean that what the pagans sacrifice is to demons and not to God.[17]  So I can side with the unbelievers Jesus addressed and believe that Psalm 82 was about Israel’s judges, or I can take the psalm at face value and believe that it was the pagan gods who made unjust legal decisions and showed favoritism to the wicked.

If God meant to save these demons, these rebellious angels, these fallen sons of the Most High, the first step would be that they die like mortals so they could be resurrected to a new life:  And the Lord God said, “Now that the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, he must not be allowed to stretch out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever”[18] (e.g., immortality corrupted by sin).

On the other hand the letter to the Hebrews reads: Therefore, since the children share in flesh and blood, he likewise shared in their humanity, so that through death he could destroy the one who holds the power of death (that is, the devil), and set free those who were held in slavery all their lives by their fear of death.  For surely his concern (ἐπιλαμβάνεται, a form of ἐπιλαμβάνομαι)[19] is not for angels, but he is concerned (ἐπιλαμβάνεται, a form of ἐπιλαμβάνομαι) for Abraham’s descendants.[20]  Once again death played a pivotal role but God’s ἐπιλαμβάνεται (taking hold to rescue) might be limited to human beings here.  Of course when I turn that around and say, “Hebrews 2:16 limits God’s mercy to human beings,” I feel more like Gollum,[21] saying, “It’s mine! My precious,” than an obedient follower of Jesus, who commanded, Freely you received, freely give.[22]

[3] Romans 6:11 (NET)

[4] Romans 6:3 (NET)

[5] Galatians 2:20, 21 (NET)

[6] 1 John 5:18 (NET) Table

[7] John 10:34 (NET)

[11] NET note: “Heb ‘said.’”

[16] Deuteronomy 32:16, 17 (NET) Table1 Table2

[17] 1 Corinthians 10:20a (NET) Table

[18] Genesis 3:22 (NET)

[20] Hebrews 2:14-16 (NET)

[21] In “The Lord of the Rings” movies Sauron’s ring of power gave Gollum a corrupt immortality, dead in [his] transgressions and sins (Ephesians 2:1 NET).

[22] Matthew 10:8b (NET)