Category Archives: Condemnation or Judgment?

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 16

Posted on by

Paul wrote believers in Colossae (Colossians 3:1-6 NET):

Therefore, if you have been raised with Christ, keep seeking the things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.  Keep thinking about things above, not things on the earth, for you have died and your life is hidden with Christ in God.  When Christ (who is your life) appears, then you too will be revealed in glory with him.  So put to death whatever in your nature belongs to the earth: sexual immorality, impurity, shameful passion, evil desire, and greed which is idolatry.  Because of these things the wrath of God is coming on the sons of disobedience.

A note (4) at the end of this passage in the NET reads:

The words ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας (…“on the sons of disobedience”) are lacking in Ì46 [correct symbol won’t display] B b sa, but are found in א A C D F G H I Ψ 075 0278 33 1739 1881 Ï lat sy bo. The words are omitted by several English translations (NASB, NIV, ESV, TNIV). This textual problem is quite difficult to resolve. On the one hand, the parallel account in Eph 5:6 has these words, thus providing scribes a motive for adding them here. On the other hand, the reading without the words may be too hard: The ἐν οἷς (en hois) of v. 7 seems to have no antecedent without υἱούς already in the text, although it could possibly be construed as neuter referring to the vice list in v. 5. Further, although the witness of B is especially important, there are other places in which B and Ì46 [ditto above] share errant readings of omission. Nevertheless, the strength of the internal evidence against the longer reading is at least sufficient to cause doubt here. The decision to retain the words in the text is less than certain.

Whether the words sons of disobedience were original or not is immaterial to me.  I’m more concerned with δι᾿ ἃ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ (“Because of these things the wrath of God is coming”).  First, ἔρχεται (a form of ἔρχομαι) is present tense; appears or shows itself might be a better translation.  Though because is a possible translation of δι᾿[1] (a form of διά), through would be more common (verse 17) and more in line with Paul’s teaching in the opening of Romans, the wrath of God…revealed from heaven.  So I would translate it, “through these (e.g., sexual immorality, impurity, shameful passion, evil desire, and greed which is idolatry) the wrath of God appears” or “shows itself.”  In other words, these are the evidence or symptoms of the depraved, unapproved, reprobate or debased mind to which God gave those over who did not like to retain God in their knowledge.[2]

God’s wrath was to give them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.[3]  Paul enumerated what should not be done for believers in Rome (Romans 1:29-32 NET):

They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice.  They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility.  They are gossips [Table], slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless [Table].  Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them.

A young mother put it this way on Facebook:

Parent shaming.  Judging.  Close mindedness.  Mass murders.  Hate on Nationalities.  Hate on skin colors.  Hate on LGBT’s.  Hate on parenting.  Hate.  I can honestly say I’m worried to bring my children up in the type of society we’ve become.  What will it take to change?  Will it get better before it gets worse?  I have to believe there’s more love in this world than hate.  Incredibly saddening that my happy, loving boys will one day learn the world is so ugly and destructive.

Even if sons of disobedience wasn’t original I don’t see why ἐν οἷς or ἐν τούτοις are “too hard” of a reading.  Paul’s contrast was to the lives the Colossians lived before they died and [their] life [was] hidden with Christ in God, not to some mysterious others called the sons of disobedience.  Even Ephesians reads διὰ ταῦτα γὰρ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας (for because of these things God’s wrath comes on the sons of disobedience[4]).  But again διὰ could be through, ταῦτα refers back to the person who is immoral, impure, or greedy[5] (probably immorality, impurity or greed) and ἔρχεται is present tense, appears or shows itself.

So I would understand it more like, “For through these [immoral, impure or greedy persons, or immorality, impurity or greed] the wrath of God shows itself upon the sons of disobedience.”  The sons of disobedience are no longer a mystery.  The Greek word translated disobedience is ἀπειθείας (a form of ἀπείθεια).  God has consigned all people to disobedience (ἀπείθειαν, another form of ἀπείθεια) so that he may show mercy to them all.  The sons of disobedience are old humans, they have not been born from above: Therefore do not be partakers with them, for you were at one time darkness, but now you are light in the Lord.  Walk as children of the light…[6]  Paul made this same contrast between the old human (παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον) and the new (νέον, a form of νέος) for the Colossians (3:7-11 NET):

You also lived your lives in this way at one time, when you used to live among them (ἐν τούτοις; literally “in these”).  But now, put off all such things as anger, rage, malice, slander, abusive language from your mouth.  Do not lie to one another since you have put off the old (παλαιὸν, a form of παλαιός) man (ἄνθρωπον, a form of ἄνθρωπος) with its practices and have been clothed with the new man that is being renewed in knowledge according to the image of the one who created it.  Here there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all and in all.

I think the Bible has been translated by those who expect most people to spend eternity in the lake of fire.  I don’t intend to dispute that view.  On the contrary, the idea I’m experimenting with here is that all old humans are condemned to spend eternity in the lake of fire.  How many new humans spend eternity with Jesus and his Father?  That depends on God’s mercy—I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion[7]—up to and including all—For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[8]

I’m a long way, however, from accepting Universalism, demanding that He save all.  Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners,[9] was a perfect opportunity to specify few, many or all.  Neither Paul nor the Holy Spirit chose to do so.  Enter through the narrow gate, Jesus said, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it.  But the gate is narrow and the way is difficult (τεθλιμμένη, a form of θλίβω) that leads to life, and there are few who find it.[10]  In the past I took this to mean that ultimately relatively few will be saved.  Now I think differently.

Since yehôvâh informed Cain, you must subdue [sin],[11] and Moses commanded Israel to choose life,[12] salvation was determined by the desire, or willingness, of human beings, whosoever will.  The result, there are few who find it, is what Jesus became human to change.  Someone asked Him directly, “Lord, will only a few be saved?”  Speaking in real time before his crucifixion and resurrection, He said, “Exert every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able (ἰσχύσουσιν, a form of ἰσχύω) to.  Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, then you will stand outside and start to knock on the door and beg him, ‘Lord, let us in!’  But he will answer you, ‘I don’t know where you come from.’” [13]  I tell you the solemn truth, Jesus also said, I am the door for the sheep.[14]  As I considered both of these together I wondered what door the head of the house gets up and shuts.

Surely, it was not Jesus but whosoever will.  The most immediate reason why the many could not enter was the shut door, but a survey of the word ἰσχύω suggests they were not good enough,[15] not strong enough,[16] not healthy enough,[17] not vigilant enough[18] and they would not endure long enough[19] in their own strength.  And so Jesus became the door.  No one can come to me, He said, unless the Father who sent me draws him…[20]  And I, Jesus promised, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.[21]

I’ve written elsewhere what I think about the Greek words translated draws and draw relative to “Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling.”  And I don’t think much of the old human’s free will in any sense beyond contingent choices.   I certainly don’t think it is sacrosanct to God.  It wasn’t sacrosanct when He gave old humans over in the desires of their hearts to impurity,[22] to dishonorable passions,[23] and to a depraved mind.[24]  Why should it be sacrosanct when one is born from above, not born by human parents or by human desire or a husband’s decision, but by God?[25]

Nor can I embrace patristic universalism.  I can’t believe in a purgatorial hell.  In fact, I think the Old Testament narrates how God has gone out of his way to demonstrate over and over again that the best that is ever achieved by punishment, or by the fear of punishment, is hypocrisy.  Jesus said (John 3:5-7, 10 NET):

I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.  What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.  Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must all be born from above.’…Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don’t understand these things?

J.W. Hanson painted the early universalist church fathers as elitists in his book Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years (p. 56):

Some of the fathers who had achieved a faith in Universalism, were influenced by the mischievous notion that it was to be held esoterically, cherished in secret, or only communicated to the chosen few,–withheld from the multitude, who would not appreciate it, and even that the opposite error would, with some sinners, be more beneficial than the truth….Origen said that “all that might be said on this theme is not expedient to explain now, or to all.  For the mass need no further teaching on account of those who hardly through the fear of aeonian punishment restrain their recklessness.”

I’m not oblivious to Origen’s concern, though it seems to me that someone who would return to sin because God is merciful really hasn’t finished with sin yet.  And I consider myself the rankest of the rank and file.  On the other hand Mr. Hanson characterized many of the patristic fathers as liars whenever they taught endless punishment (p. 59):

There can be no doubt that many of the fathers threatened severer penalties than they believed would be visited on sinners, impelled to utter them because they considered them to be more salutary with the masses than the truth itself. So that we may believe that some of the patristic writers who seem to teach endless punishment did not believe it. Others, we know, who accepted universal restoration employed, for the sake of deterring sinners, threats that are inconsistent, literally interpreted, with that doctrine.

I began this second round considering condemnation or judgment after I read John F. Walvoord’s commentary on Revelation 20 online (Revelation 20:11, 12 NET).

Then I saw a large white throne and the one who was seated on it; the earth and the heaven fled from his presence, and no place was found for them.  And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne.  Then books were opened, and another book was opened – the book of life.  So the dead were judged (ἐκρίθησαν, a form of κρίνω) by what was written in the books, according to their deeds.

I’m not aware of ἐκρίθησαν translated condemned in any English Bible, but that is what Mr. Walvoord took it to mean: “Their standing posture means that they are now about to be sentenced.”  John’s vision continued (Revelation 20:13-15 NET):

The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and Death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each one was judged (ἐκρίθησαν, a form of κρίνω) according to his deeds.  Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.  This is the second death – the lake of fire.  If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire.

Mr. Walvoord wrote, “The summary judgment is pronounced in verse 14 that ‘death and hell were cast into the lake of fire.’  In a word, this means that all who died physically and were in Hades, the intermediate state, are here found unworthy and cast into the lake of fire.”

I was shocked that the doctrine I’ve heard my whole life was based on a rationalist assumption that death and hell, or Death and Hades, were not entities that might be thrown into the lake of fire but merely euphemisms for “all who died physically and were in Hades.”  And this in an essay where literal was used 35 times, literally 12 times and literalness twice, mostly relative to the thousand years, but it was a consistent theme of Mr. Walvoord’s argument.  He wrote for example:

[Barnes] further holds that Revelation 20 should not be taken literally, and interposes the words “as if” before the judgment and resurrection of 20:4 as well as with the binding of Satan. This would seem to be adding to the book, so strongly forbidden in 22:18.

But Mr. Walvoord’s understanding of Revelation 20:13-15 presents us with the following rewrite:

Revelation 20:14, 15 NET

Revelation 20:14, 15 John F. Walvoord
Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.  This is the second death – the lake of fire.  If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, that person was thrown into the lake of fire. Then the dead that were in Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire.  This is the second death – the lake of fire.  No one’s name was found written in the book of life, so they were all thrown into the lake of fire.

Mr Walvoord concluded, without a Scripture quotation or any fear of contradiction:

If the point of view be adopted that the book of life was originally the book of all living from which have been expunged the names of those who departed from life on earth without salvation, it presents a sad picture of a blank space where their names could have been written for all eternity as the objects of divine grace. Though they are judged by their works, it is evident that their destiny is determined primarily by their lack of spiritual life. When the fact is contemplated that Jesus Christ in His death reconciled the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19) and that He died for the reprobate as well as for the elect, it is all the more poignant that these now raised from the dead are cast into the lake of fire. Their ultimate destiny of eternal punishment is not, in the last analysis, because God wished it but because they would not come to God for the grace which He freely offered.

What about the dead in the sea?  I think we can accept that the sea is not an entity that might be thrown into the lake of fire.  I would assume that the names of some, up to and including all, were written in the book of life.  Mr. Walvoord changed the subject:

A special problem is introduced by the resurrection of those who were cast into the sea with the presumption that their bodies have disintegrated and have been scattered over a wide area geographically. The special mention of the sea is occasioned by the fact that resurrection usually implies resurrection from the grave. The resurrection of the dead from the sea merely reaffirms that all the dead will be raised regardless of the condition of their bodies.

I would assume though Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire, the names of some of their dead, up to and including all, were written in the book of life.  The idea I’m experimenting with is that the new humans born of God are spared while the old humans, in a one for one correspondence, are judged according to their deeds and thrown into the lake of fire.  And this, because the names in the book of life are not written there by some who came “to God for the grace which He freely offered” but by the mercy of God (Romans 9:15, 16 NET):

I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.  So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion [e.g., “whosoever will”], but on God who shows mercy.

 

[1] Enter through (διὰ) the narrow gate, because the gate is wide and the way is spacious that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through (δι᾿, another form of διὰ) it  (Matthew 7:13 NET).

[2] Romans 1:28 (NKJV)

[3] Romans 1:28b (NET)

[4] Ephesians 5:6b (NET)

[5] Ephesians 5:5b (NET)

[6] Ephesians 5:7, 8 (NET)

[7] Romans 9:15 (NET)

[8] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[9] 1 Timothy 1:15b (NET)

[10] Matthew 7:13, 14 (NET)

[11] Genesis 4:7b (NET)

[12] Deuteronomy 30:19 (NET)

[13] Luke 13:23-25 (NET)

[14] John 10:7 (NET)

[15] It is no longer good (ἰσχύει, another form of ἰσχύω) for anything except to be thrown out and trampled on by people (Matthew 5:13b NET).

[16] No one was strong enough (ἴσχυεν, another form of ἰσχύω) to subdue him (Mark 5:4b NET).

[17] Those who are healthy (ἰσχύοντες, another form of ἰσχύω) don’t need a physician… (Matthew 9:12b NET)

[18] Couldn’t (ἴσχυσας, another form of ἰσχύω) you stay awake for one hour? (Mark 14:37b NET)

[19] I am able (ἰσχύω) to do all things through the one who strengthens me (Philippians 4:13 NET).

[20] John 6:44a (NET)

[21] John 12:32 (NET)

[22] Romans 1:24 (NET) Table

[23] Romans 1:26 (NET)

[24] Romans 1:28 (NET)

[25] John 1:13 (NET)

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 15

Posted on by

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a net that was cast into the sea that caught all kinds of fish.  When it was full, they pulled it ashore, sat down, and put the good (καλὰ, a form of καλός) fish into containers and threw the bad (σαπρὰ, a form of σαπρός) away.  It will be this way at the end of the age.  Angels will come and separate the evil (πονηροὺς, a form of πονηρός) from the righteous (δικαίων, a form of δίκαιος) and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.[1]  This parable about the kingdom of heaven focused commentators’ attentions on the church as opposed to the world at large.

“In the visible church,” Matthew Henry (1662-1714) wrote, “there is a deal of trash and rubbish, dirt and weeds and vermin, as well as fish….Hypocrites and true Christians shall be parted.”[2]  John Gill (1697-1771) added, “as many as [the angels] find to have a good work of grace wrought and finished in their souls, they will gather into Christ’s barn, into the everlasting habitations, the mansions in Christ’s Father’s house, he is gone to prepare: but as for the bad, who shall appear to be destitute of the grace of God, and righteousness of Christ, notwithstanding their profession of religion, they shall be rejected, as good for nothing, and shall be cast into the lake which burns with fire and brimstone.”[3]

“Our Saviour never fails to keep before our minds the great truth that there is to be a day of judgment,” wrote Albert Barnes (1798-1870), “and that there will be a separation of the good and the evil.  He came to preach salvation; and it is a remarkable fact, also, that the most fearful accounts of hell and of the sufferings of the damned, in the Scriptures, are from his lips.  How does this agree with the representations of those who say that all will be saved?”[4]

On the meaning of σαπρὰ (a form of σαπρός) the Pulpit Commentary (1884) reads: [5]

Not to be pressed to mean “corrupt, dead fish, in a state of rottenness” (Goebel), for surely fishermen seldom get many of these, but simply the worthless, the unfit for use.  This would include the legally unclean.  Tristram writes,” The greater number of the species taken on the lake are rejected by the fishermen, and I have sat with them on the gunwale while they went through their net, and threw out into the sea those that were too small for the market or were considered unclean” (‘Nat. Hist. of Bible,’ p. 291, edit. 1889)

Watch out for false prophets, Jesus said, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are voracious wolves.  You will recognize them by their fruit (καρπῶν, a form of καρπός).[6]  I can be fairly specific here: Does the would-be prophet demonstrate love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control,[7] the fruit (καρπὸς) of the Spirit?  Or does the would-be prophet practice (πράσσοντες, a form of πράσσω) sexual immorality (πορνεία), impurity, depravity, idolatry, sorcery, hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, envying, murder, drunkenness, carousing,[8] the works (ἔργα, a form of ἔργον) of the flesh?

Jesus continued, Grapes are not gathered from thorns or figs from thistles, are they?  In the same way, every good (ἀγαθὸν, a form of ἀγαθός) tree bears good (καλοὺς, another form of καλός) fruit, but the bad (σαπρὸν, another form of σαπρός) tree bears bad (πονηροὺς, a form of πονηρός) fruit.[9]  I think it worth mentioning that the word translated bears is ποιεῖ (a form of ποιέω) in both occurrences.  A good (ἀγαθὸν, a form of ἀγαθός) tree is not able to bear bad (πονηροὺς, a form of πονηρός) fruit, Jesus continued, nor a bad (σαπρὸν, another form of σαπρός) tree to bear good (καλοὺς, another form of καλός) fruit.[10]

Make a tree good (καλὸν, another form of καλός) and its fruit will be good (καλὸν, another form of καλός), Jesus said to religious people, or make a tree bad (σαπρὸν, another form of σαπρός) and its fruit will be bad (σαπρὸν, another form of σαπρός), for a tree is known by its fruit.[11]  I’ve written elsewhere how the religious mind reverses this teaching.  Every tree that does not bear good (καλὸν, another form of καλός) fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire, Jesus continued his warning about false prophets.  So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.[12]

This leads me inevitably to the old and new human (ἄνθρωπον, a form of ἄνθρωπος in Greek; I see no reason to specify gender).  You were taught with reference to your former way of life to lay aside the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires, to be renewed in the spirit of your mind, and to put on (ἐνδύσασθαι, a form of ἐνδύω) the new man who has been created in God’s image – in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth.[13]  The word ἐνδύσασθαι means to sink into.  In movies the femme fatale slips into something more comfortable.  To put on the new human is considerably more macho.

I am working class all the way, rarely wear a suit.  If I do, it is to fit in, to impress or to intimidate.  It is a put-on in every sense of the word.  “Fake it until you make it” works in those situations when “you can fool all of the people some of the time.”  It doesn’t work with the new human because no creature is hidden from God, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account.[14]  To put on the new human I must believe that God has prepared it beforehand, ready and able to respond as He would have me respond.

This new human is the one who has been fathered by God: We know that everyone fathered by God does not sin, but God protects the one he has fathered, and the evil one cannot touch him.[15]  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.[16]  This new human is the one who is led by the Spirit: For all who are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God.[17]  The old human is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires.  It gets progressively worse, never better.

This was vividly portrayed for me—in me—the Saturday before Mother’s day.  I had a rare opportunity to be home.  My eighty-four-year-old mother asked me to finish trimming her bushes.  Now, of course, she had a particular way it needed to be done.  As I untangled the long extension cord that powered the trimmer I recalled that handling that cord caused her fall last summer.  She broke her hip and lay on the driveway for ten hours, parched and burnt in the sun and then shivering in the rain, until my sister found her.  But the whole time I trimmed those bushes the old human did nothing but bitch, moan and complain about her.

It didn’t affect my behavior.  (I trimmed her bushes to the best of my ability.  No, it wasn’t topiary by any stretch of the imagination.)  The old human didn’t affect my attitude toward her.  (I called and asked her to make sure.)  But I can hardly wait to be rid of the foul thing!  So when I hear—Angels will come and separate the evil from [ἐκ μέσου; literally “out from the midst of”] the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth—I wonder if that describes my release from this sin condemned in my flesh.  And I’m confounded that so many pastors thought instead of members of their congregations.  Why?

Do we differ in our understanding of the fruit of the Spirit?

“And here we may observe that as sin is called the work of the flesh,” Matthew Henry wrote, “because the flesh, or corrupt nature, is the principle that moves and excites men to it, so grace is said to be the fruit of the Spirit, because it wholly proceeds from the Spirit, as the fruit does from the root…”  John Gill was a bit more equivocal:  “Not of nature or man’s free will, as corrupted by sin, for no good fruit springs from thence; but either of the internal principle of grace, called the Spirit, Galatians 5:17 or rather of the Holy Spirit, as the Ethiopic version reads it; the graces of which are called ‘fruit’, and not ‘works’, as the actions of the flesh are; because they are owing to divine influence, efficacy, and bounty…”

Albert Barnes was explicit: “That which the Holy Spirit produces…Paul does not trace them to our own hearts, even when renewed.  He says that they are to be regarded as the proper result of the Spirit‘s operations on the soul.”  In the Pulpit Commentary the fruit of the Spirit was rationalized as “dispositions and states of mind,” and demeaned somewhat as “states of mind or habits of feeling [rather] than concrete actions,” but are still acknowledged as produced by the Holy Spirit: “[Paul] reckons up the dispositions and states of mind which it was the office of the Holy Spirit to produce in them.”

Do we differ in our understanding of the necessity and efficacy of God’s mercy?

“It is not of him that willeth….Applying this general rule to the particular case that Paul has before him,” wrote Matthew Henry, “the reason why the unworthy, undeserving, ill-deserving Gentiles are called, and grafted into the church, while the greatest part of the Jews are left to perish in unbelief, is not because those Gentiles were better deserving or better disposed for such a favour, but because of God’s free grace that made that difference.  The Gentiles did neither will it, nor run for it, for they sat in darkness, Matthew 4:16.  In darkness, therefore not willing what they knew not sitting in darkness, a contented posture, therefore not running to meet it, but anticipated with these invaluable blessings of goodness.  Such is the method of God’s grace towards all that partake of it, for he is found of those that sought him not (Isaiah 65:1) in this preventing, effectual, distinguishing grace, he acts as a benefactor, whose grace is his own.  Our eye therefore must not be evil because his is good…”

John Gill wrote: “but of God that sheweth mercy; in a free sovereign way and manner, which he is not obliged to by anything the creature wills or works; he is at full liberty, notwithstanding whatever they will or do, to give his grace and mercy, when, where, and to whom he pleases; and therefore to give it to some, and deny it to others, can never be accounted an act of injustice, since he is not bound to give it to any.”

Albert Barnes wrote: “But of God that showeth mercy – Salvation in its beginning, its progress, and its close, is of him.  He has a right, therefore, to bestow it when and where he pleases.  All our mercies flow from his mere love and compassion, and not from our deserts.  The essential idea here is, that God is the original fountain of all the blessings of salvation.”  The Pulpit Commentary doesn’t comment on Romans 9:16 directly but reads: “The argument (thus introduced by γὰρ) requires two understood premisses—that God cannot possibly be unrighteous, and that what he himself said to Moses must be true.”

Do we differ on who may be shown mercy?

Matthew Henry didn’t comment directly on Romans 11:32: “He shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.  Christ’s errand into the world was to turn away ungodliness, to turn away the guilt by the purchase of pardoning mercy, and to turn away the power by the pouring out of renewing grace, to save his people from their sins (Matthew 1:21), to separate between us and our sins, that iniquity might not be our ruin, and that it might not be our ruler.  Especially to turn it away from Jacob, which is that for the sake of which he quotes the text, as a proof of the great kindness God intended for the seed of Jacob.”

So far so good.  Mr. Henry quoted Paul quoting Isaiah:

NET

 Parallel Greek

Septuagint
The Deliverer will come out of Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob.

Romans 11:26b

 ἥξει ἐκ Σιὼν ὁ ρυόμενος,

ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ἰακώβ.

Romans 11:26b

 καὶ  ἥξει ἕνεκεν Σιων ὁ ῥυόμενος καὶ ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ιακωβ

Isaiah 59:20

Then Mr. Henry quoted the same verse in Isaiah from the Masoretic text: “In Isaiah it is, The Redeemer shall come to Zion, and unto those that turn from transgression in Jacob, which shown who in Zion were to have a share in and to reap benefit by the deliverance promised, those and those only that leave their sins and turn to God to them Christ comes as a Redeemer, but as an avenger to those that persist in impenitence.”  Then he proposed an unbelievable solution: “Putting both these readings together, we learn that none have an interest in Christ but those that turn from their sins, nor can any turn from their sins but by the strength of the grace of Christ.”

In other words, no one can be saved since God will only show mercy to those who turn from their sins and none can turn from their sins apart from God’s mercy.  With a Gospel message like that we need not wonder at the “deal of trash and rubbish, dirt and weeds and vermin” in his church.  That’s not quite fair.  Mr. Henry didn’t specify whether the “deal of trash and rubbish, dirt and weeds and vermin” were members of his own congregation or another.  According to an online bio “he began his regular ministry as non-conformist pastor of a Presbyterian congregation…”  Perhaps he wrote thus of Anglicans or Catholics.  But I think I understand why he had no comment to make on Paul’s declaration: For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[18]

“Jews, though for the present unbelievers,” John Gill wrote, “yet it may be thought, that through the mercy the Gentiles had received, they would some time or other be provoked to seek for, and so obtain the same mercy, Romans 11:31, and the rather this may be given into and received, not only because they both have been in a state of unbelief, but the end and design of God in concluding them in it, were to have mercy on each of them, Romans 11:32…” I may be mistaken but I take Mr. Gill to mean that God will have mercy on some Jews and Gentiles (those who turn from their sins perhaps?).  Mr. Gill continued, “which dispensation of God both to one and to the other by turns, in different ways, was so amazing and unaccountable to the apostle, that he breaks out into admiration at the wisdom and knowledge of God…”

“Mercy is favor shown to the undeserving,” wrote Albert Barnes.  “It could not have been shown to the Jews and the Gentiles unless it was before proved that they were guilty.  For this purpose proof was furnished that they were all in unbelief….Thus, all people were on a level; and thus all might be admitted to heaven without any invidious distinctions, or any dealings that were not in accordance with mercy and love….It does not prove that all people will be saved; but that those who are saved shall be alike saved by the mercy of God; and that He intends to confer salvation on Jews and Gentiles on the same terms.”  I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.  So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy. [19]

“Thus the latter expression [e.g., Romans 11:32] is not in itself adducible in support of the doctrine of universalism,” the Pulpit Commentary reads.  “Certainly the prospect of a universal triumph of the gospel before the end rises here before the apostle in prophetic vision; and it may be that it carries with it to his mind further glories of eternal salvation for all, casting their rays backward over all past ages, so as to inspire an unbounded hope.  Such a hope, which seems elsewhere intimated (cf. 1 Corinthians 15:24-29; Ephesians 1:9, Ephesians 1:10, Ephesians 1:20-23; Colossians 1:15-20) would justify the glowing rhapsody of admiration and thanksgiving that follows more fully than if we supposed the apostle to contemplate still the eternal perdition of the multitudes who in all the ages have not on earth found mercy.”

Here the Pulpit Commentary referred to Romans 11:32-36 (NET):

For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.  Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God!  How unsearchable are his judgments and how fathomless his ways!  For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?  Or who has first given to God, that God needs to repay him?  For from him and through him and to him are all things.  To him be glory forever!  Amen.

I’ll pick this up again later.

[1] Matthew 13:47-50 (NET)

[2] Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary

[3] John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible

[4] Albert Barnes Notes on the Bible

[5] Pulpit Commentary

[6] Matthew 7:15, 16a (NET)

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

[8] Galatians 5:19-21a (NET)

[9] Matthew 7:16b, 17(NET)

[10] Matthew 7:18 (NET)

[11] Matthew 12:33 (NET)

[12] Matthew 7:19, 20 (NET)

[13] Ephesians 4:22-24 (NET)

[14] Hebrews 4:13 (NET)

[15] 1 John 5:18 (NET) Table

[16] 1 John 3:9 (NET)

[17] Romans 8:14 (NET)

[18] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[19] Romans 9:15b, 16 (NET)

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 14

Posted on by

In the movie Twilight Edward is a hundred-plus-year-old vampire with the emotional development of a seventeen-year-old boy.  Robert Pattinson plays Edward a little bipolar, sometimes the wise or world-weary centenarian at other times the soulful or petulant teen.  “You know, your mood swings are kind of giving me whiplash,” Bella (Kristen Stewart) says.  Mr. Pattinson’s acting choices remind me how I thought Jesus played yehôvâh.

 

The Long Name of God
yehôvâh The Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה), the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה), 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.

Exodus 34:6, 7a (NET)

 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.

Exodus 34:7b (NET)
First Advent

Second Advent
Jesus Here is my servant whom I have chosen the one I love, in whom I take great delight.  I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.  He will not quarrel or cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets.  He will not break a bruised reed or extinguish a smoldering wick, until he brings justice to victory.  And in his name the Gentiles will hope.

Matthew 12:18-21 (NET)

 He is dressed in clothing dipped in blood, and he is called the Word of God.  The armies that are in heaven, dressed in white, clean, fine linen, were following him on white horses.  From his mouth extends a sharp sword, so that with it he can strike the nations.  He will rule them with an iron rod, and he stomps the winepress of the furious wrath of God, the All-Powerful.

Revelation 19:13-15 (NET)

This understanding was part and parcel of the deal I made when I returned from atheism.  I became an atheist because I could no longer believe in an angry punishing god.  The idea that his wrath was deferred until the end offered me a window of opportunity to believe again.  Of course, the idea that Jesus was an actor (ὑποκριτής) playing yehôvâh doesn’t sit so well with me these days.

The Greek word translated rule in Revelation 19:15 above is ποιμανεῖ (a form of ποιμαίνω; shepherd).  After assembling all the chief priests and experts in the law, [King Herod] asked them where the Christ was to be born.  “In Bethlehem of Judea,” they said, “for it is written this way by the prophet: ‘And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are in no way least among the rulers (ἡγεμόσιν, a form of ἡγεμών) of Judah, for out of you will come a ruler (ἡγούμενος, a form of ἡγέομαι) who will shepherd (ποιμανεῖ, a form of ποιμαίνω) my people Israel.’”[1]  But I didn’t make too much of it at first.

I found the following more troubling: And to the one who conquers and who continues in my deeds until the end, I will give him authority over the nations – he will rule (ποιμανεῖ, a form of ποιμαίνω) them with an iron rod and like clay jars he will break them to pieces, just as I have received the right to rule from my Father – and I will give him the morning star.[2]  Who conquers the world (1 John 5:1-5 NET)?

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been fathered by God, and everyone who loves the father loves the child fathered by him.  By this we know that we love the children of God: whenever we love God and obey (ποιῶμεν, a form of ποιέω) his commandments.  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 (νικᾷ, a form of νικάω) the world.  This is the conquering power (νίκη, a form of νίκη) that has conquered (νικήσασα, another form of νικάω) the world: our faith.  Now who is the person who has conquered (νικῶν, another form of νικάω) the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

The words, to the one who conquers, are the translation of νικῶν (another form of νικάω) in Revelation 2:26 (NET).  I take continues in my deeds to mean the deeds which have been done in God, the deeds which flow from the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control of the Holy Spirit.  I wondered how believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and living by the Spirit qualified someone to rule the nations and break them to pieces like clay jars.  Here again, rule is shepherd in Greek.

This time I pursued it.  A note in the NET (90) informs that, he will rule them with an iron rod and like clay jars he will break them to pieces, is a quotation of Psalm 2:9.  Note 26 on Psalm 2:9 after the words, You will break them, reads: “The LXX reads ‘you will shepherd them.’  This reading, quoted in the Greek text of the NT in Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:15, assumes a different vocalization of the consonantal Hebrew text and understands the verb as רָעָה (ra’ah, ‘to shepherd’) rather than רָעָע (ra’a’, ‘to break’).  But the presence of נָפַץ (nafats, ‘to smash’) in the next line strongly favors the MT vocalization.”

The Hebrew words רָעָה (ra’ah H7462) and רָעָע (ra’a’ H7489) are apparently homographs in some forms, words that are spelled the same but have different meanings.  We determine their meanings primarily by context: The wind blows my hair as I wind my watch.  Here are some of the instances in the Psalms.

Reference Hebrew NET

Strong’s Number
Psalm 2:9 תרעם break H7489
Psalm 22:16 מרעים evil men H7489
Psalm 27:2 מרעים evil men H7489
Psalm 28:9 ורעם Care for them like a shepherd H7462
Psalm 37:9 מרעים Wicked H7489
Psalm 49:14 ירעם as their shepherd H7462
Psalm 64:2 מרעים evil men H7489
Psalm 78:72 וירעם David cared for H7462
Psalm 92:11 מרעים the defeated cries of the evil foes H7489

This is where accountability comes into play for me.  I can’t stand before Jesus and tell Him (Revelation 1:12-20 NET) He quoted an erroneous translation of Psalm 2:9 in Revelation 2:27 but the Masoretes corrected his mistake.  Don’t get me wrong.  I thoroughly appreciate the notes in the NET.  I long for more.  But I can’t follow the translators on this point.

Jesus said shepherd (ποιμανεῖ, a form of ποιμαίνω).  The Septuagint implies that the original Hebrew word was shepherd (ποιμανεῖς, another form of ποιμαίνω) before Israel rejected Jesus as Messiah.

NET

 Parallel Greek

Septuagint
he will rule them with an iron rod

Revelation 2:27a

 καὶ ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ράβδῳ σιδηρᾷ

Revelation 2:27a

 ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ

Psalm 2:9a

I think the Masoretes changed the word with vowel points.  Their motive[3] seems fairly obvious, to invalidate Jesus as Messiah: Jesus did not break the Gentile nations with an iron scepter nor smash them like a potter’s jar, therefore Jesus was not the Messiah.  But I’m not convinced that believing He will return to do that is the best retort.  Perhaps it is the human religious mind’s last desperate hope for vindication.  Granted, accepting shepherd as the correct homograph in Psalm 2:9 won’t establish that.  Shepherd was used nearly as ironically in Psalm 49:14 (NET):

[Fools] will travel to Sheol like sheep, with death as their shepherd.  The godly will rule over them when the day of vindication dawns; Sheol will consume their bodies and they will no longer live in impressive houses.

But it opens the door to consider other homographs for nâphats (תנפצם) since it caused the NET translators to favor the Masoretes over Jesus.

I’ll turn my attention to a more thorough consideration of ὡς τὰ σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ συντρίβεται (like clay jars he will break them to pieces) in Revelation.  My contention is that the translation of the Greek has been shaded significantly to conform to the image of Jesus using his shepherd’s rod[4] to shatter the nations like fired pottery in Psalm 2:9 of the Masoretic text.  This shading didn’t begin with the NET translators.

The King James translators rendered it, as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers.  There is a word for potter in Greek: Has the potter (κεραμεὺς) no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use?[5]  The translators of the NET were right to change the translation of κεραμικὰ (a form of κεραμικός) from of a potter to clay.  My electronic edition of Strong’s Concordance numbers broken and to shivers as if two forms of συντρίβω followed one after the other in the Greek text.  But even in the textus receptus συντρίβεται is the only instance of a form of συντρίβω in Revelation 2:27.

The Greek word σκεύη (a form of σκεῦος) with no modifier was translated property in Matthew 12:29 and Mark 3:27 (NET) and goods in Luke 17:31 (NET).  All are finished products, no doubt.  The other occurrences are modified in some way.

Reference NET

Parallel Greek
Romans 9:22 objects of wrath σκεύη ὀργῆς
Romans 9:23 objects of mercy σκεύη ἐλέους
2 Timothy 2:20 gold and silver vessels σκεύη χρυσᾶ καὶ ἀργυρᾶ
Hebrews 9:21 utensils of worship σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας

It occurs to me to ask what the Holy Spirit would need to say beyond σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ (objects, vessels, utensils or jars of clay) to make us understand that these objects, vessels, utensils or jars are still malleable, made of clay?  [6/11/16: In the NET it may be ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν or ὀστράκινα (a form of ὀστράκινος).]  In fact, isn’t it the translation—broken to shivers—which forces us to think otherwise?  Why was συντρίβεται (a form of συντρίβω) translated broken to shivers (KJV) or break them to pieces (NET)?  Another form was translated crush (bruise, KJV) in Paul’s letter to the Romans (16:20a NET):

The God of peace will quickly crush (συντρίψει, another form of συντρίβω) Satan under your feet.

To crush is an apt description of what a potter does as he begins to refashion a ruined vessel of clay.

Now while Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, reclining at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar (ἀλάβαστρον) of costly aromatic oil from pure nard.  After breaking open (συντρίψασα, another form of συντρίβω) the jar (ἀλάβαστρον), she poured it on his head.[6]  Did she break the ἀλάβαστρον to pieces?  Or did she take its body in one hand, its lid in the other and rub (τρίβος) them together (σύν), or twist them to break the wax seal?

The Greek word translated “alabaster box” in the KJV, as well as “flask,” “jar” and “vial” in other translations, is alabastron, which can also mean “perfume vase”….The boxes were often sealed or made fast with wax, to prevent the perfume from escaping.[7]

A man described his son to Jesus: A spirit seizes him, and he suddenly screams; it throws him into convulsions and causes him to foam at the mouth.  It hardly ever leaves him alone, torturing (συντρῖβον, another form of συντρίβω) him severely.[8]  How the spirit crushed him isn’t readily apparent in the text, but it didn’t break him to pieces.  Another form of συντρίβω (συντετριμμενους) was in the prophecy Jesus read from Isaiah in the textus receptus: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal (ιασασθαι, a form of ἰάομαι) the brokenhearted (συντετριμμενους[9] την καρδιαν)…[10]  Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, healed (ἰάσατο, another form of ἰάομαι) the boy who was tortured, crushed, bruised or broken, and gave him back to his father.[11]

But I can’t make this a slam dunk, not without the correct homograph for the Hebrew word nâphats (תנפצם).  I can’t tell, for instance, if the man with the unclean spirit had broken (συντετρῖφθαι, another form of συντρίβω) the shackles in pieces (Mark 5:4 NET) or rubbed them together until he wriggled free.  A form of συντρίβω was contrasted to a form of κατάγνυμι in Matthew 12:20 (NET): He will not break (κατεάξει, a form of κατάγνυμι) a bruised (συντετριμμένον, another form of συντρίβω) reed or extinguish a smoldering wick, until he brings justice to victory.  But in the Septuagint συντρίψει (another form of συντρίβω) was used in place of κατεάξει and τεθλασμένον was used in place of συντετριμμένον.

That wouldn’t be particularly problematic.  I’m perfectly willing to prefer the New Testament to the Septuagint.  My primary interest in the Septuagint is as corroboration of the instances where the Masoretes altered the Hebrew of the Old Testament.  In John 19, however, forms of κατάγνυμι were used interchangeably with a form of συντρίβω (John 19:31-33, 36 NET):

Then, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not stay on the crosses on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was an especially important one), the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to have the victims’ legs broken (κατεαγῶσιν, another form of κατάγνυμι) and the bodies taken down.  So the soldiers came and broke (κατέαξαν, another form of κατάγνυμι) the legs of the two men who had been crucified with Jesus, first the one and then the other.  But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break (κατέαξαν, another form of κατάγνυμι) his legs.

For these things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled, “Not a bone of his will be broken (συντριβήσεται, another form of συντρίβω).”

Each of the Old Testament prophecies used a form of συντρίβω for broken in the Septuagint:

NET

 Parallel Greek Septuagint Septuagint

Septuagint
Not a bone of his will be broken

John 19:36b

 ὀστοῦν οὐ συντριβήσεται αὐτοῦ

John 19:36b

 καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ

Exodus 12:46b

 καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψουσιν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ

Numbers 9:12

 ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐ συντριβήσεται

Psalm 34:20

I haven’t found a way to search Hebrew homographs online.[12]  I definitely need help from someone who knows Hebrew extremely well.

I’ve often quipped to friends, if there is anything left of me when I see Him face to face, my first question will be: a written language without vowels?  Dr. Thomas M. Strouse, arguing for the necessity and inspiration of vowel points in an essay titled “A Review of and Observations about Peter Whitfield’s: A Dissertation on the Hebrew Vowel-Points,” gave me a glimpse into the beauty and economy of biblical Hebrew.  After eliminating the options that could be disregarded by context, Dr. Strouse proposed three options for Genesis 1:26: “Did Jehovah say ‘let us make’ man, or man ‘he was made,’ or ‘we will be made’ man?”

Whether God said, let us make man or man he was made, is inconsequential to me as it pertains to meaning, though I suspect that the latter may be eliminated by context in the very next verse.  But the realization that the Hebrew, without vowel points, means that God said let us make man and we will be made man in one and the same verb, is too beautiful a prophetic truth for mere words.

[1] Matthew 2:4-6 (NET)

[2] Revelation 2:26-28 (NET)

[3] I might do the same if I believed that Jesus was not the Christ.  I was surprised to learn (though now I wonder why) that some believe the Hebrew vowel points are inspired.  Thomas D. Ross in an article titled “Evidences for the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points” wrote that the Greek word κεραία meant the vowel points were already part of Scripture before Jesus’ earthly ministry: I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter (κεραία) will pass from the law until everything takes place (Matthew 5:18 NET).  The “Lord Jesus,” Mr. Ross wrote, “affirmed the inspiration and preservation of all the Hebrew consonants and vowels through His statement that not the smallest of the consonants (the yod) or vowels (the chireq) would be corrupted.”  Even if this is true it doesn’t account for the discrepancy between the Masoretic text of Psalm 2:9 and Jesus’ words in Revelation 2:27.

[4] NET note 27: “The Hebrew term שֵׁבֶט (shevet) can refer to a ‘staff’ or ‘rod,’ but here it probably refers to the Davidic king’s royal scepter, symbolizing his sovereignty.”

[5] Romans 9:21 (NET)

[6] Mark 14:3 (NET)

[7] “What is an alabaster box?”

[8] Luke 9:39 (NET)

[9] another form of συντρίβω

[10] Luke 4:18a (KJV)

[11] Luke 9:42b (NET)

[12] Addendum: December 2, 2019 – I found a site called morfix.  It slows down my computer if I leave it open but for a quick look it’s helpful.  Copy and paste the Hebrew word into the box at the top and click “Translate.”

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 13

Posted on by

This is the conclusion of my consideration of a pastor’s advice.

Accountability
Find a group of strong Christ-followers who you can be transparent with and who will hold you accountable. Arrogance peaks when we consider our strength to be above the accountability of others.

Walk in grace, walk in obedience.

Seek healing, seek accountability.

Apart from the ordinary peer pressure to conform to the norms of any group, accountability, as a conscious concept, was not part of my religious upbringing.  Yes, I had parents and teachers but my introduction to accountability as any kind of formal religious structure came through my association with “charismania.”  That wasn’t a common term in my church.  I heard it from a friend who married into the church.  But when her husband was diagnosed with a degenerative eye disease she encouraged him to attend a charismatic healing service.  (No, he wasn’t healed.)

My primary association with charismatic believers was through a roommate.  The first time we roomed together he was a charismatic alcoholic.  The second time he was a sober charismatic computer student who became a civilian programmer for the military.  His Christian works by any objective measure were sub-par (not that mine weren’t) and I always considered mine superior to his.  Faith was another matter entirely.  His faith in Jesus’ love and personal concern for him was ludicrously insane—and he was never disappointed.  He taught me to trust Jesus by his example.  Perhaps I should say that the Holy Spirit taught me to trust Jesus through my roommate’s example, but my scale is linear and incremental while his was logarithmic.  I hate to blame that on the Holy Spirit.

If asked to characterize my religious upbringing vis-à-vis the Holy Spirit, I would say we didn’t believe in Him.  But that’s nonsense.  We sang the Gloria Patri every Sunday morning, and recited the Apostle’s Creed often enough.  (Of course, it was made very clear that catholic did not mean Catholic but universal.)  So I suppose we believed in the things the Apostle’s Creed said, and that the Holy Spirit came to believers on Pentecost, and worked miracles through the apostles, and made sure that the New Testament was accurate and authoritative, and after that—I draw a blank.

When I began to study the Bible I was surprised how often[1] the Holy Spirit was mentioned.   And that’s not quite true either.  I thought my task was to distinguish the Holy Spirit from spirit, a hyper-emotional state bordering on the delusional.  But over time that “hyper-emotional state bordering on the delusional” receded and was replaced by Holy Spirit or evil spirits as real beings.  My pastor was very big on Jesus’ work being finished at the cross—He “is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty”—and I added I suppose, that the rest was up to me.

The words of J. Hampton Keathley, III on accountability ring true to me.[2]  (And his essay is probably more helpful than my floundering.)  He recalled the “raspy voice” of his sergeant at the U.S. Army Ranger School at Fort Benning, Georgia:

“We are here to save your lives. We’re going to see to it that you overcome all your natural fears. We’re going to show you just how much incredible stress the human mind and body can endure. And when we’re finished with you, you will be the U.S. Army’s best!”

Then, before he dismissed the formation, he announced our first assignment. We’d steeled ourselves for something really tough—like running 10 miles in full battle gear or rappelling down a sheer cliff. Instead, he told us to—find a buddy.

“Find yourself a Ranger buddy,” he growled. “You will stick together. You will never leave each other. You will encourage each other, and, as necessary, you will carry each other.”

So accountability at one extreme means a really good friend like a brother but at the other extreme a formal inquest or inquisition.  I tend to shy away from the police functions of accountability.  But I tell you the truth, Jesus said, it is to your advantage that I am going away.  For if I do not go away, the Advocate (παράκλητος) will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you.  And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong concerning sin and righteousness and judgment…[3]

The religious mind treats the fruit of the Spirit as little more than a measure of its own achievement, and certainly does not consider the Holy Spirit competent to prove the world wrong concerning sin and righteousness and judgment without its aid.  Instead of offering Him a living, breathing example of the peaceable fruit of righteousness we—when we are controlled by the religious mind—become snarky busybodies or self-righteous inquisitors, not unlike Saul before Jesus saved him.

Before considering the biblical concept of accountability I want to acknowledge that I have called this teaching[4] of Mr. Reid’s pastor confusing directions.  That doesn’t mean I know some secret shortcut from unbelief to faith; well, trust Jesus, but that’s no secret.  Would I even know how to rely on the fruit of the Spirit for righteousness if I hadn’t tried and failed to do righteousness on my own?  That’s an unanswerable question because I did try on my own.   Viewed from this perspective, the pastor’s advice may have been a teaching technique.  After all, yehôvâh did not sit Cain down and explain the Gospel to him.  He allowed Cain to fail to subdue sin on his own at the cost of Abel’s life.

I tried first to keep the ten commandments, the commands of Jesus and Paul and the traditions of my church.  When I heard that love fulfills the law, I tried to keep Paul’s definition of love as my new law.  And when I began to suspect that I was going about it all wrong I diligently read the Old Testament to confirm or deny my growing understanding of the New.  Put in a different way, as I began to learn the things I’ve presented in these essays my questions took the form of, “Well, if that is true where has it been hiding for thousands of years!?”  And then I began to try to keep yehôvâh’s law in my own strength.

I call the latter an occupational hazard of reading the Old Testament with a willing heart.  When I do word studies I’m very aware of the context.  Context is all I have to understand the meaning of the words.  But simply reading the Old Testament is much more existential, in the moment.  If yehôvâh said do this or don’t do that, I said okay, and woke up somewhere in the story of David to the fact that I was striving again to keep the law in my own strength, without malice or forethought.  Still, I never tried to keep any part of yehôvâh’s law that included animal sacrifice.  I actually believed that Jesus’ crucifixion superseded all that.

I was intrigued when I stayed the night as a guest of a lovely Christian family.  The children were very excited because they had just celebrated Passover.  I quietly looked (and sniffed) around their beautiful California home.  I detected no evidence that a farm animal had dwelt there for four days.  I couldn’t find any telltale sign that it had been slaughtered and butchered there.  And certainly none of its blood had been smeared on the doorframe.  Perhaps they ate a meal dressed to travel, [their] sandals on [their] feet, and [their] staff in [their] hand.[5]  But I assumed that most of their celebration was either made up or based on the traditions of those who reject Jesus.  And it never occurred to me to “hold them accountable” to my assumption.

Therefore, each of us will give an account (λόγον, a form of λόγος) of himself to God.[6]  This is the New Testament concept of accountability.  The writer of the letter to the Hebrews wrote (Hebrews 4:12, 13 NET):

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart.  And no creature is hidden from God, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account.

In English this sounds like that same moment each of us will give an account of himself: For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God.”[7]  The Greek word translated exposed in Hebrews 4:13 is τετραχηλισμένα (a form of τραχηλίζω), to pull back the head to expose the neck to a blade.  It would be a fearful moment indeed, naked on our knees, neck exposed to the killing cut, our fate determined by our words: For by your words (λόγων, another form of λόγος) you will be justified, Jesus said, and by your words (λόγων, another form of λόγος) you will be condemned.[8]

But I can’t forget John (1 John 4:15-19 NET):

If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God resides in him and he in God.  And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has in us.  God is love, 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.

That everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of God is a beautiful, graphic description of his omniscience, but it says nothing about his attitude.  We get more of that from John.  There is another image of τετραχηλισμένα in the movie Twilight.  When Bella (Kristen Stewart) realizes that her beloved Edward (Robert Pattinson) is a vampire she has a romantic fantasy of being his victim, her neck exposed to his bite.  Later in the film, dancing at her prom with him, Bella tries to make her romantic fantasy real, exposing her neck to Edward, hoping to be made like him.

In Greek Romans 14:12 is: ἄρα [οὖν] ἕκαστος ἡμῶν περὶ ἑαυτοῦ λόγον δώσει.  The phrase translated give an account is λόγον δώσει.  Hebrews 4:12 and 13 in Greek is:

Ζῶν γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐνεργὴς καὶ τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν δίστομον καὶ διϊκνούμενος ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος, ἁρμῶν τε καὶ μυελῶν, καὶ κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν καρδίας καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν κτίσις ἀφανὴς ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, πάντα δὲ γυμνὰ καὶ τετραχηλισμένα τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ, πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος

The phrase translated to whom we must render an account is πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος.  In other words in verse 12 ὁ λόγος was translated word and in verse 13, must render an account.  In Greek it leaps off the page that the word of God (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ) and our word (ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος) were meant to be the same.  That is lost somewhat in translation, though the passage might have been translated:

For the [account] of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart.  And no creature is hidden from God, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we account.

I think the passage in Hebrews here refers more to our daily account, coming into the light, walking in the light, than to that final account at the judgment seat of Christ.  (The daily practice of our account to Him, however, probably has everything to do with making the anticipation of that final accounting comfortable.)  I’ll return to the peaceable fruit of righteousness.

The writer of the letter to the Hebrews wrote, εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε[9] (literally, “unto training endure”) to people to whom it is difficult to explain, since you have become sluggish in hearing.  For though you should in fact be teachers by this time, you need (χρείαν, a form of χρεία) someone to teach you the beginning elements of God’s utterances.  You have gone back to needing (χρείαν, a form of χρεία) milk, not solid food.  For everyone who lives on milk is inexperienced in the message of righteousness, because he is an infant.  But solid food is for the mature, whose perceptions are trained (γεγυμνασμένα, a form of γυμνάζω) by practice (ἕξιν, a form of ἕξις) to discern both good and evil.[10]

For you need (χρείαν, a form of χρεία) endurance (ὑπομονῆς, a form of ὑπομονή), the writer of Hebrews had written previously, in order to do God’s will and so receive what is promised.[11]  But the fruit of the Spirit, Paul wrote believers in Galatia, is love, joy, peace, patience (μακροθυμία), kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.[12]  Consider by way of contrast that John wrote his readers, the anointing that you received from him resides in you, and you have no need (χρείαν, a form of χρεία) for anyone to teach you.  But as his anointing teaches you about all things, it is true and is not a lie.  Just as it has taught you, you reside in him.[13]  This anointing is the baptism in the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised.  The Holy Spirit is the best Ranger buddy anyone could find.

Now all discipline (παιδεία) seems painful at the time, not joyful.  But later it produces the fruit of peace and righteousness for those trained (γεγυμνασμένοις, another form of γυμνάζω) by it.[14]  The Greek word γυμνάζω means “to exercise naked.”  The writer of Hebrews used it very effectively to refer back to our daily account to God from whom no creature is hidden…but everything is naked (γυμνὰ, a form of γυμνός) and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we…account.  Those who are led by the Spirit expose themselves daily to God that they may be made like Him.  And I predict that the more time we spend willingly, mindfully naked and exposed to the Holy Spirit the more inclined we will be to clothe the naked when we gather together again, and to love one another with the love that covers a multitude of sins.

So for me, it is a minor matter that I am judged by you or by any human court, Paul wrote believers in Corinth.  In fact, I do not even judge myself.  For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not acquitted because of this.  The one who judges me is the Lord.  So then, do not judge anything before the time.  Wait until the Lord comes.  He will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the motives of hearts.  Then each will receive recognition from God.[15]

[1] There are 383 occurrences of forms of πνεῦμα in the New Testament.  There are only 116 occurrences of forms of ἀγάπη and another 143 of forms of ἀγαπάω by comparison.

[2] Here are two other articles I found interesting: 1) Cover Me; 2) Authority and Accountability in the Bible

[3] John 16:7, 8 (NET)

[4] Also Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 11 and Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 12

[5] Exodus 12:11a (NET)

[6] Romans 14:12 (NET) Table

[7] Romans 14:11 (NET)

[8] Matthew 12:37 (NET)

[9] Hebrews 12:7a (NET)

[10] Hebrews 5:11-14 (NET)

[11] Hebrews 10:36 (NET)

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

[13] 1 John 2:27 (NET)

[14] Hebrews 12:11 (NET)

[15] 1 Corinthians 4:3-5 (NET)

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 12

Posted on by

I am considering a pastor’s advice offered in another blog as an example of confusing directions and as a case in point: If wicked (râshâʽ, לרשע) sinners (raʽ, רע) are those who refuse to stop trusting in human beings, whether others or themselves, we all qualify.  And this journey to discover just who these sinners are was prompted by my bias that—He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, And with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked[1] (râshâʽ, רשע)—prophesies Jesus’ return to earth to preach the Gospel effectively (as opposed to executing people for a thousand years).

The pastor’s advice was essentially a to-do list: refuse, consider the consequences, focus on God and ignore the lies of the enemy, avoid/run, and accountability.  I considered the first two in the previous essay and will pick up again here.

Focus on God and ignore the lies of the enemy
Find fulfillment in your first love and ignore the enemy’s temptation towards the satisfaction of the flesh.

I have no quarrel with this if it is by the Holy Spirit.  This should be item number one on the list.  I, however, found a way to attempt this in the flesh.  My Dad could calculate how much I cost him to the penny, even a scuff mark on the floor.  I had already cost Jesus his life.  I didn’t want to cost Him anything more.  I thought my emotions in response to his sacrifice should motivate me to live a sinless life.  (I don’t think I even considered righteousness at the time or anything beyond not sinning.)  So, I didn’t believe Paul’s words in the sixth chapter of Romans were true, but merely hyperbole to affect my emotions, to motivate ME to action, not something I should believe to be saved (Romans 6:3, 4 NET):

Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  Therefore we have been buried with him 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.

That new life (ἐν καινότητι ζωῆς περιπατήσωμεν; walk in newness of life [ESV]) is here and now: Now this is eternal life – that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.[2]  For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death,[3] Paul continued; that is if we believe that we have been buried with him through baptism into death, then and only then we will certainly also be united in the likeness of his resurrection.[4]

We know that our old man was crucified with him so that the body of sin would no longer dominate us, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.[5]  Should I deny this because of my behavior?  No, I believe until it changes my behavior.  Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him.[6]  Paul continued (Romans 6:11-14 NET):

So you too consider yourselves dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus.

Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its desires, and do not present your members to sin as instruments to be used for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who are alive from the dead and your members to God as instruments to be used for righteousness.  For sin will have no mastery over you, because you are not under law but under grace.

But if I attempt to find fulfillment in laws or rules or procedures, even the pastor’s to-do list, I have fallen away from grace and committed a superπορνεία.  And that is essentially the context of the concept first [e.g., foremost as opposed to first in temporal order] love: But I have this against you, Jesus said to the church at Ephesus, You have departed from your first love![7]

[Addendum 8/16/16: The words translated you and your are singular.  Though the letters were intended to be read by the churches the content is addressed primarily to the angel of each individual church.  I found a pdf online with color codes highlighting when the pronouns and verbs are singular and plural.  The commentary to the right of this pdf assumes that angel meant human pastor, which I also assumed until very recently.  I haven’t thought through the implications yet of angel as a higher order being in this particular context.  I don’t know whether a plural church might be addressed with singular pronouns and verbs.  My understanding of the message to/about the church in Ephesus which follows was predicated on a false assumption that the pronouns and verbs were plural.]

I know your works as well as your labor and steadfast endurance, He had said previously, and that you cannot tolerate evil.  You have even put to the test those who refer to themselves as apostles (but are not), and have discovered that they are false.  I am also aware that you have persisted steadfastly, endured much for the sake of my name, and have not grown weary.[8]

The Ephesian church was a successful church.  Am I wrong to imagine that they had developed offices and procedures, filled with officers operating under strict protocols?  That they had constructed this self-sustaining church with their own hands?  But what happens when the love which is the fulfillment (πλήρωμα) of the law[9] becomes an office, a ministry, a subdivision of the Church rather than the fruit of the Spirit empowering every individual believer?  Therefore, remember from what high state you have fallen and repent, Jesus continued.  Do the deeds you did at the first [e.g., first in temporal order since knowing Christ]; if not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place – that is, if you do not repent.[10]  In other words, their first (πρῶτα, a form of πρῶτος) deeds when they were more faithful and less successfully sophisticated were their foremost (πρώτην, another form of πρῶτος) in Jesus’ eyes.

What was that high state?  I take Paul’s prayer as my starting point (Ephesians 3:14-19 NET):

I kneel before the Father, from whom every family in heaven and on the earth is named.  I pray that according to the wealth of his glory he may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit (πνεύματος, a form of πνεῦμα) in the inner person, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith, so that, because you have been rooted and grounded in love, you may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and thus to know the love of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled up (πληρωθῆτε, another form of πληρόω) to all the fullness (πλήρωμα) of God.

I don’t have much to say about ignoring “the enemy’s temptation toward the satisfaction of the flesh.”  Satan is finite.  I doubt that many of us merit his personal attention.  I was confronted by what I assume was a demon once.  I don’t recall what it said.  I said something like, “Jesus wouldn’t like it if I did that.”  It growled and left.  No, I wasn’t frightened in the moment, but the memory of it bothered me for weeks.  That’s probably why I don’t remember what it said.

So submit to God, James wrote.  But resist the devil and he will flee from you.[11]  I’ve never found resisting the devil particularly helpful since temptation usually comes from my own desires: But each one is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desires.[12]  Though I didn’t always think so, I now assume that the sin in my flesh (Romans 7:15-20) and the evil ideas, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, and slander that come out of my heart function apart from the inspiration or activation of demons, evil spirits or devils.  Believing the Gospel is far more fruitful as it pertains to sin and righteousness.  Perhaps I am being very slow and dense.  Believing the Gospel is probably the best way to submit to God which is in turn the most powerful way to resist the devil relative to any frontal assault I might mount on my own.

Nathan’s response to David, however, has been particularly helpful with sexual temptation (2 Samuel 12:1-4 NET):

So the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) sent Nathan to David.  When he came to David, Nathan said, “There were two men in a certain city, one rich and the other poor (Table).  The rich man had a great many flocks and herds (Table).  But the poor man had nothing except for a little lamb he had acquired.  He raised it, and it grew up alongside him and his children.  It used to eat his food, drink from his cup, and sleep in his arms.  It was just like a daughter to him (Table).

“When a traveler arrived at the rich man’s home, he did not want to use one of his own sheep or cattle to feed the traveler who had come to visit him.  Instead, he took the poor man’s lamb and cooked it for the man who had come to visit him (Table).”

Here there is no mention of resisting the devil or the “lies of the enemy.”  After David committed adultery with Uriah’s wife, Nathan as yehôvâh’s prophet pictured sexual desire as a hungry traveler who should be shown hospitality with that which is one’s own as opposed to that belonging to another.

Avoid/Run
Keep yourself out of a situation that may cause you to fall. If tempted, run while it’s still light.

Flee sexual immorality (πορνείαν, a form of πορνεία),[13] Paul wrote the Corinthians.  I’ve written elsewhere what I think about πορνεία, that it can mean adultery.  I think the “sin of premarital sex,” however, has more to do with middle-class values than yehôvâh’s law.  It is unfortunate, to say the least, that the meaning of πορνεία was stretched to free young men primarily (when they repent of their “sins of premarital sex”) from their marital obligations to pursue their educations and higher earning potentials.

I expect Jesus to speak to us as He spoke to other religious people (Mark 7:6-9 NET):

“Isaiah prophesied correctly about you hypocrites [e.g., actors], as it is written: ‘This people honors me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.  They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.’  Having no regard for the command of God, you hold fast to human tradition.”  He also said to them, “You neatly reject the commandment of God in order to set up your tradition.”

Be that as it may if temptation is external to the one being tempted, leaving is good advice.  If you find that you only lust in your heart during or after your visit to a strip club, stop going to strip clubs.  I think that coincides well with flee πορνείαν if Paul meant sexualized pagan worship: Don’t go to church there.

I won’t eat at Hooter’s, not because I lust after the young waitresses.  I stared a nude woman dead in the eyes when I needed to talk to her on set.  But put a clothed woman in front of me with great cleavage and my eyes wander away from hers, even away from her lips (and I do a lot more lip reading as I age).  Well, they don’t mind, a friend told me.  I do.  An old man like me staring at young women’s cleavage is embarrassing and not worth the effort it takes not to do it.  I get my chicken wings to go (and, yes, I tip my waitress).

Music was the big thing for me.  I consider myself a recovering musician.  For years I played nothing but hymns and tried to compose a non-sensual music.  I didn’t know how to do that so I wrote music to accompany Scripture.  The only thing that changed was the calendar-age of the women I gave goose bumps when I played.  Eventually I gave it up and have been relieved not to have music in my head all the time.  This is not to say that playing or composing music is inherently evil.  I am considering only my hyper-sensual relationship to music.  Frank Zappa described it best.  Who knows, maybe it was his relationship, too.

I would like to highlight two rather obvious limits to fleeing and to the meaning of πορνεία.  If anyone thinks he is acting inappropriately toward his virgin, if she is past the bloom of youth and it seems necessary, he should do what he wishes; he does not sin.  Let them marry.[14]  The Greek word translated thinks he is acting inappropriately is ἀσχημονεῖν (a form of ἀσχημονέω).  To what manner of inappropriateness does ἀσχημονεῖν refer?  It comes from ἀσχήμων, which Paul used obliquely for the penis or vagina a little later in this letter: and those members we consider less honorable we clothe with greater honor, and our unpresentable members (ἀσχήμονα, a form of ἀσχήμων) are clothed with dignity…[15]

Love, by the way, does not act inappropriately: It is not rude (ἀσχημονεῖ, another form of ἀσχημονέω).[16]  So we have behavior between a man and his woman that is not sin: Let them marry.  And it is not love either.  Again, I will make my appeal for fuck and fucking.  They are very evocative words in the English language, distinguished and distinguishable from love, if we abandon our religious pretensions in favor of accurate verbal communication.

Therefore they were seeking again to seize Him, and He eluded their grasp.[17]  I remember vividly the moment I stared at this verse and realized it wasn’t describing some otherworldly event.  Jesus hiked up his skirt, hoofed it and outran the old men who wanted to stone Him.  And I imagine young John was huffing it out right beside Him.  As they lost their pursuers around a corner, leaned against a wall to catch their breath and laughed together, the Son of God became human to me.

Perhaps Simon the Pharisee expected Jesus to hike up his skirt and hoof it, if He were a prophet.  Had Jesus fled from Mary we would have a very different story to consider.  Maybe it would be more to our liking; that’s difficult to say.

I’ll conclude this in another essay.

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 13

Back to The Angels Will Gather

Back to Paul’s Religious Mind Revisited – Part 1

[1] Isaiah 11:4b (NIV)

[2] John 17:3 (NET)

[3] Romans 6:5a (NET)

[4] Romans 6:5b (NET)

[5] Romans 6:6 (NET)

[6] Romans 6:8 (NET)

[7] Revelation 2:4 (NET)

[8] Revelation 2:2, 3 (NET)

[9] Romans 13:10b (NET)

[10] Revelation 2:5 (NET)

[11] James 4:7 (NET)

[12] James 1:14 (NET)

[13] 1 Corinthians 6:18a (NET)

[14] 1 Corinthians 7:36 (NET)

[15] 1 Corinthians 12:23 (NET)

[16] 1 Corinthians 13:5a (NET)

[17] John 10:39 (NASB)

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 11

Posted on by

My bias that—He shall strike the earth with the rod of His mouth, And with the breath of His lips He shall slay the wicked[1]—prophesies Jesus’ return to earth to preach the Gospel effectively (as opposed to executing people for a thousand years) led me to investigate just who the wicked are.  I found a succinct definition of wicked sinners as those who would not Stop trusting in human beings, whose life’s breath is in their nostrils.[2]  Isaiah’s prophecy about the life these wicked sinners lead continued (Isaiah 3:12-15)

NET

 NETS

Tanakh
Oppressors treat my people cruelly, creditors rule over them.  My people’s leaders mislead them; they give you confusing directions. O my people, your extractors strip you clean, and your creditors lord it over you. O my people, those who congratulate you mislead you and confuse the path of your feet. As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
The Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) takes his position to judge; he stands up to pass sentence on his people.   But now the Lord will stand up to judge, and he will make his people stand to judge them. The LORD standeth up to plead, and standeth to judge the people.
The Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) comes to pronounce judgment on the leaders of his people and their officials.  He says, “It is you who have ruined the vineyard!  You have stashed in your houses what you have stolen from the poor.   The Lord himself will enter into judgment with the elders of the people and with their rulers. But you, why have you burned my vineyard, and why is the spoil of the poor in your houses? The LORD will enter into judgment with the ancients of his people, and the princes thereof: for ye have eaten up the vineyard; the spoil of the poor is in your houses.
Why do you crush my people and grind the faces of the poor?”  The sovereign (ʼădônây, אדני) Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) who commands armies has spoken. Why do you wrong my people and shame the face of the poor? [In the Septuagint “This is what the Lord says” begins verse 16.] What mean ye that ye beat my people to pieces, and grind the faces of the poor? saith the Lord GOD of hosts.

The NET translators explained their word choices in verse 12 in a long note (29).  Perhaps only the leaders (zâqên, זקני) and officials (śar, ושׁריו) were the wicked sinners, but I’m not hearing it that way.  I think the leaders and officials merited special mention because they led and encouraged yehôvâh’s people to become wicked sinners, those who trust in human beings, who rebel (mârâh, למרות) against yehôvâh, both their words (lâshôn, לשונם) and their actions (maʽălâl, ומעלליהם).  This definition of wicked sinners more or less applies to all of us.  As a case in point I’ll quote from a blog I receive regularly.

John Wesley Reid ended a post with advice from his pastor:  “My pastor laid out a pretty solid approach to avoiding sexual temptation, while the model can be used for any form of temptation.”  It was essentially a to-do list: refuse, consider the consequences, focus on God and ignore the lies of the enemy, avoid/run, and accountability.  I asked Mr. Reid if this was presented as an alternative or adjunct to our death to sin and the fruit of the Spirit, but haven’t received a reply.  He may not remember.  It is exactly the kind of list I would have fixated on to the exclusion of everything else.

The list follows in detail with my comments:

Refuse
Just say no. Remember that you’re made for more than this.

“Just say no” from the Nancy Reagan anti-drug campaign reminds me of yehôvâh’s words to Cain (Genesis 4:6, 7 NET):

Why are you angry, and why is your expression downcast? [Table] Is it not true that if you do what is right, you will be fine?  But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door.  It desires to dominate you, but you must subdue it [Table].

This is where sin (chaṭṭâʼâh, חטאת) enters the pages of the Bible, pictured as a four-legged beast about to pounce on its prey, Cain.  And this is yehôvâh at his most aloof.  He prophesies what is about to happen to Cain and says simply—rule (mâshal, תמשל).  As I’ve said before I don’t know Hebrew, but you must subdue it looks and sounds to me like a religious mind trying to turn a word into a law long before the law was given.  In fact, knowing what is about to happen and what He is not doing about it, yehôvâh seems to be actively not making a specific commandment for Cain to disobey.

Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.”  While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.[3]

Though my religious mind wants to argue that Cain was more wicked than itself, Cain was a fair representative of the descendants of Adam.  Seth wasn’t the only one born in Adam’s own likeness, according to his image.  On the contrary, though Adam and Eve were made (ʽâśâh, עשׁה) originally in the likeness of God[4] (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהים) after he violated God’s command Adam had children in his own likeness, according to his image.  Look, I was guilty of sin (ʽâvôn, בעוון; Septuagint: ἀνομίαις, a form of ἀνομία) from birth, David confessed, a sinner (chêṭʼ, ובחטא; Septuagint: ἁμαρτίαις, a form of ἁμαρτία) the moment my mother conceived me.[5]  Paul explained (Romans 5:12-19 NET Table):

So then, just as sin (ἁμαρτία) entered the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned – for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law.  Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed.  But the gracious gift is not like the transgression.  For if the many died through the transgression of the one man, how much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ multiply to the many!  And the gift is not like the one who sinned.  For judgment (κρίμα), resulting from the one transgression, led to condemnation (κατάκριμα), but the gracious gift from the many failures led to justification.  For if, by the transgression of the one man, death reigned through the one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one, Jesus Christ!

Consequently, just as condemnation (κατάκριμα) for all people came through one transgression, so too through the one righteous act came righteousness leading to life for all people.  For just as through the disobedience of the one man many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of one man many will be made righteous.

Again Paul contrasted the image of Adam and the image of Christ (1 Corinthians 15:20-22, 45-49 NET):

But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.  For since death came through a man, the resurrection of the dead also came through a man.  For just as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive.

So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living person”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.  However, the spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and then the spiritual.  The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven.  Like the one made of dust, so too are those made of dust, and like the one from heaven, so too those who are heavenly.  And just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, let us also bear the image of the man of heaven.

“I tell you the solemn truth,” Jesus said to Nicodemus, “unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.  What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.  Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must all be born from above.’”[6]

So if I am tempted to sin and the Holy Spirit reminds me—you are more valuable than many sparrows[7]—or— do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own[8]—or any other Scripture, and I hear and believe and turn from that sin, that is walking or living by the Spirit.  But to turn back then and say—I refused to sin; I just said no; I ruled—is to misunderstand what happened, mislead those who hear me and grieve the Holy Spirit.

Consider the consequences
Sin fosters sin and sexual sin carries implications of insecurity and a lack of self-worth.

This is Old Testament law plain and simple.  Today I invoke heaven and earth as a witness against you that I have set life and death, blessing and curse, before you.  Therefore choose life so that you and your descendants may live![9]  And, Then Joshua read aloud all the words of the law, including the blessings and the curses, just as they are written in the law scroll.[10]  We know how this worked out for Israel: not only did they fail to obey yehôvâh’s law, they rejected Him  when He came to forgive them for it and fulfill (πληρῶσαι, a form of πληρόω) the law and the prophets.

Is the law therefore opposed to the promises of God?  Absolutely not!  For if a law had been given that was able to give life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.  But the scripture imprisoned everything and everyone under sin so that the promise could be given – because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ – to those who believe.[11]  Through the law comes the knowledge of sin.[12]  God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh,[13] born in the likeness of Adam, according to his image.  If I try to fulfill my desire for righteousness by obeying rules I play to sin’s strength; the power of sin is the law.[14]

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 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.[15]

For God achieved what the law could not do because it was weakened through the flesh.  By sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and concerning sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous requirement of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.[16]

So, my brothers and sisters, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you could be joined to another, to the one who was raised from the dead, to bear fruit to God.  For when we were in the flesh, the sinful desires, aroused by the law, were active in the members of our body to bear fruit for death.  But now we have been released from the law, because we have died to what controlled us, so that we may serve in the new life of the Spirit and not under the old written code.[17]

For those who live according to the flesh have their outlook shaped by the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit have their outlook shaped by the things of the Spirit.  For the outlook of the flesh is death, but the outlook of the Spirit is life and peace, because the outlook of the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to the law of God, nor is it able to do so.  Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.  You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you.[18]

When Olive (Emma Stone) finally confessed her fake prostitution in the movie “Easy A”, her mother (Patricia Clarkson) shocked her daughter, confessing:

“I had a similar situation when I was your age.”

“What?” Olive asks incredulously.  “Everyone called you a slut?”

“I had a horrible reputation and people said awful things about me.”

“Why?”

“Because I was a slut.  I slept with a whole bunch of people.  A slew, a heap, a peck.  Mostly Guys.”

“Mom!”

“Sorry, I got around.  Before I met Dad, I had incredibly low self-worth.”

I can’t say that I think much about my self-worth.  I am not loved because I am worthy but because God is love (1 John 4:7-19).  I do consider whether He is getting what He is owed out of me.  Jesus said, So you too, when you have done everything you were commanded to do, should say, “We are slaves (δοῦλοι, a form of δοῦλος) undeserving of special praise; we have only done what was our duty.” [19] The Greek word translated was our duty is ὠφείλομεν (a form of ὀφείλω), literally “what was owed.”  Why is it owed?

Aren’t five sparrows sold for two pennies?  Jesus asked.  Yet not one of them is forgotten before God.  In fact, even the hairs on your head are all numbered.  Do not be afraid; you are more valuable than many sparrows.[20]  And my God will supply your every need according to his glorious riches in Christ Jesus,[21] Paul wrote the Philippians, including the gift of righteousness, the love that is the fulfillment of the law, the fruit of his Spirit.  But I say, live by the Spirit and you will not carry out the desires of the flesh.[22]

I’ll pick this up again next time.

[1] Isaiah 11:4b (NIV)

[2] Isaiah 2:22a (NET)

[3] Genesis 4:8 (NET)

[4] Genesis 5:1 (NET)

[5] Psalm 51:5 (NET) Table

[6] John 3:5-7 (NET) Table

[7] Matthew 10:31b (NET)

[8] 1 Corinthians 6:19 (NET)

[9] Deuteronomy 30:19 (NET)

[10] Joshua 8:34 (NET)

[11] Galatians 3:21, 22 (NET)

[12] Romans 3:20b (NET)

[13] Romans 8:3a (NET)

[14] 1 Corinthians 15:56b (NET)

[15] Romans 7:15-20 (NET)

[16] Romans 8:3, 4 (NET)

[17] Romans 7:4-6 (NET)

[18] Romans 8:5-9a (NET)

[19] Luke 17:10 (NET)

[20] Luke 12:6, 7 (NET)

[21] Philippians 4:19 (NET) Table

[22] Galatians 5:16 (NET)

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 10

Posted on by

Too bad for the wicked (râshâʽ, לרשע) sinners (raʽ, רע)!  For they will get exactly what they deserve.[1]  As I begin to discover just who the wicked are one might argue that wicked sinners are worse than the wicked.  I won’t dispute that.

In the Septuagint râshâʽ wasn’t translated ἀσεβῆ (a form of ἀσεβής) here but ἀνόμῳ (a form of ἄνομος); râshâʽ raʽ was ἀνόμῳ πονηρὰ (a form of πονηρός).  I’m starting here all the same because this verse is part of a couplet at the end of a description of what the wicked sinners were about to get.

I’ll consider (Isaiah 3:1-3) from the NET, a contemporary translation of contemporary Hebrew by believers in Jesus, the NETS, a contemporary translation of the Septuagint, and the Tanakh, a contemporary translation of contemporary Hebrew by those who reject Jesus as Messiah (and may or may not accept Him as a prophet).

NET NETS

Tanakh
Look, the sovereign (ʼâdôn, האדון) Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) who commands armies is about to remove from Jerusalem and Judah every source of security, including all the food and water, Behold now the Sovereign, the Lord Sabaoth will take away from Judea and from Ierousalem a strong man and a strong woman, strength of bread and strength of water, For, behold, the Lord, the LORD of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the stay and the staff, the whole stay of bread, and the whole stay of water.
the mighty men and warriors, judges and prophets, omen readers and leaders, a mighty one and strong one and soldier, both judge and prophet, and diviner and elder The mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient,
captains of groups of fifty, the respected citizens, advisers and those skilled in magical arts, and those who know incantations. both officer of fifty and wonderful counselor, both skillful builder and intelligent listener. The captain of fifty, and the honourable man, and the counsellor, and the cunning artificer, and the eloquent orator.

In verse 2 the Hebrew word translated omen readers in the NET and prudent in the Tanakh was qâsam (וקסם).  The Greek στοχαστὴν, translated diviner, is undefined in any source I found, but sounds similar to our word stochastic.  The root στοχοσ translates objective in a contemporary Greek news magazine online.  Perhaps that lends some credence to translating the guesswork of the omen reader or diviner prudent.

In verse 3 the Hebrew word translated magical arts and artificer is chărâshı̂ym (חרשים).  A note (7) in the NET reads: “’and the wise with respect to magic.’  On the meaning of חֲרָשִׁים (kharashim, ‘magic’), see HALOT 358 s.v. III חרשׁ.  Some understand here a homonym, meaning ‘craftsmen.’  In this case, one could translate, ‘skilled craftsmen’ (cf. NIV, NASB).”  The Septuagint’s ἀρχιτέκτονα translates architect in contemporary Greek.

The Hebrew word translated incantations and orator is lachash (לחש).  The Greek word translated listener is ἀκροατήν (a form of ἀκροατής) in the Septuagint.  The rabbis it seems were more sensitive to the character of the people carried off into Babylonian captivity or to them who were called the stay and the staff of Jerusalem and Judah.  Many of us would prefer to think that the stay and the staff of our security were comprised of people of better character than our pundits portray their enemies.

Why was yehôvâh about to remove from Jerusalem and Judah every source of security?  I turn to Isaiah’s indictment (Isaiah 2:6-9):

NET NETS

Tanakh
Indeed, O Lord, you have abandoned your people, the descendants of Jacob.  For diviners from the east are everywhere; they consult omen readers like the Philistines do.  Plenty of foreigners are around. For he has abandoned his people, the house of Israel, because their country, like that of the allophyles, was filled with divinations as it had been at the beginning, and many allophyle children were born to them. Therefore thou hast forsaken thy people the house of Jacob, because they be replenished from the east, and are soothsayers like the Philistines, and they please themselves in the children of strangers.
Their land is full of gold and silver; there is no end to their wealth.  Their land is full of horses; there is no end to their chariots. For their country was filled with silver and gold, and there was no number to their treasures, and the land was filled with horses, and there was no number to their chariots. Their land also is full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures; their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots:
Their land is full of worthless idols; they worship the product of their own hands, what their own fingers have fashioned. And the land was filled with abominations, the works of their hands, and they did obeisance to the things their own fingers had made. Their land also is full of idols; they worship the work of their own hands, that which their own fingers have made:
Men bow down to them in homage, they lie flat on the ground in worship.  Don’t spare them! And so a person bowed down, and a man was humbled—and I will not forgive them! And the mean man boweth down, and the great man humbleth himself: therefore forgive them not.

A note (17) in the NET acknowledges that the translators added the word diviners in verse 6.  The Hebrew word translated omen readers and soothsayers is ʽânan (ועננים).  The Greek word κληδονισμῶν translated divinations is quite similar in the Septuagint.  The final clause in verse 6 (final sentence in the NET) was yeled (ובילדי) nokrı̂y (נכרים) śâphaq (ישׁפיקו) in Hebrew, translated three different ways above.  The Greek words ἀλλοφύλων and ἀλλόφυλα (both forms of ἀλλόφυλος) in the Septuagint mean “of another tribe, foreign.”  I don’t know why they weren’t translated in the NETS.

The wicked sinners consulted omen readers, foreigners who did not know yehôvâh, or, perhaps, made their own children like foreigners yehôvâh did not know.  They had great wealth and had made provision for war.  They worshiped the work of their own hands.  It sounds all too familiar.  The chapter concludes  (Isaiah 2:22):

NET

 NETS

Tanakh
Stop trusting in human beings, whose life’s breath (neshâmâh, נשמה) is in their nostrils.  For why should they be given special consideration? [No verse 22 in the Septuagint.  Was it omitted or added later?] Cease ye from man, whose breath is in his nostrils: for wherein is he to be accounted of?

This, in a nutshell, is the imperative wicked sinners refuse to believe (πιστεύω) or obey (ὑπακούω).  The religious mind trusts religious authorities, human authorities.  What they are about to get from yehôvâh continued (Isaiah 3:4-7):

NET

 NETS

Tanakh
The Lord says, “I will make youths their officials; malicious young men will rule over them. And I will set up youths as their rulers, and mockers shall be lords of them. And I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them.
The people will treat each other harshly; men will oppose each other; neighbors will fight.  Youths will proudly defy the elderly and riffraff will challenge those who were once respected. And the people will fall together, man against man, and a man against his neighbor; the child will stumble against the elder, the dishonored against the honorable. And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour: the child shall behave himself proudly against the ancient, and the base against the honourable.
Indeed, a man will grab his brother right in his father’s house and say, ‘You own a coat – you be our leader!  This heap of ruins will be under your control.’ Because a man will seize his brother or his father’s kinsman, saying, “You have a cloak; you be our leader, and let my food be under you.” When a man shall take hold of his brother of the house of his father, saying, Thou hast clothing, be thou our ruler, and let this ruin be under thy hand:
At that time the brother will shout, ‘I am no doctor, I have no food or coat in my house; don’t make me a leader of the people!’” But he will answer and say on that day, “I will not be your leader, for in my house there is neither bread nor cloak; I will not be the leader of this people… In that day shall he swear, saying, I will not be an healer; for in my house is neither bread nor clothing: make me not a ruler of the people.

The Hebrew word translated malicious young men or babes is taʽălûl (ותעלולים) in verse 4.  The Greek word translated mockers in the Septuagint is ἐμπαῖκται (a form of ἐμπαίκτης).  Above all, understand this: In the last days blatant scoffers (ἐμπαῖκται, a form of ἐμπαίκτης) will come, being propelled by their own evil urges (ἐπιθυμίας, a form of ἐπιθυμία)…[2]  And, In the end time there will come scoffers (ἐμπαῖκται, a form of ἐμπαίκτης), propelled by their own ungodly (ἀσεβειῶν, a form of ἀσέβεια) desires (ἐπιθυμίας, a form of ἐπιθυμία).[3]

Isaiah continued to clarify why wicked sinners were about to get exactly what they deserve (Isaiah 3:8-11):

NET NETS

Tanakh
Jerusalem certainly stumbles, Judah falls, for their words and their actions offend the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה); they rebel against his royal authority. because Ierousalem has been abandoned and Judea has fallen and their tongues are joined with lawlessness, being disobedient toward the things of the Lord; now therefore their glory has been brought low. For Jerusalem is ruined, and Judah is fallen: because their tongue and their doings are against the LORD, to provoke the eyes of his glory.
The look on their faces testifies to their guilt; like the people of Sodom they openly boast of their sin.  Too bad for them!  For they bring disaster on themselves. And the shame of their face has risen up against them; they have proclaimed their sin like that of Sodoma, and they have made it plain.  Woe to their soul!  Because they have given evil counsel against themselves, The shew of their countenance doth witness against them; and they declare their sin as Sodom, they hide it not. Woe unto their soul! for they have rewarded evil unto themselves.
Tell the innocent (tsaddı̂yq, צדיק) it will go well with them, for they will be rewarded for what they have done. saying, “Let us bind the just, for he is a nuisance to us.”  Therefore they shall eat the fruit of their works. Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings.
Too bad for the wicked sinners!  For they will get exactly what they deserve. Woe to the lawless one! Evil things will happen to him according to the works of his hands. Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him.

In verse 8 the Hebrew word translated certainly and for is kı̂y (כי), stumbles and ruined is kâshal (כשלה).  In the Septuagint in Greek the word translated because is ὅτι and has been abandoned is ἀνεῖται, which is harder to pin down.  It comes up as a form of ἀνίημι (send up) and ἀνέω (definition unavailable).  I don’t think it means “send up,” and guessed that it might be a word negated by ἀ, so I tried νεῖται.  Here νέω3 is most promising, so ἀνέω might be the negation of “heap, pile up.”

The final two clauses (three in the NETS) of verse 8 are intriguing and frustrating.  I don’t know Hebrew but I don’t see two clauses.  The word offend (NET) is definitely not in the text; against (Tanakh) may be a way to translate ʼel (אל).  It looks to me as if it says, “because their words (tongue) and their actions toward yehôvâh” whatever follows next.  Three words, mârâh (למרות) ʽayin (עני) kâbôd (כבודו), “rebellious eyes glory,” follow next in the Hebrew text.  I understand why the rabbis wanted to insert lawless (ἀνομίας, a form of ἀνομία) into the mix in the Septuagint.  But this isn’t Jesse James or the Wild West.  It’s a relatively stable, prosperous and religious nation that yehôvâh is about to turn on its head.  They had laws but not yehôvâh’s laws.

The Septuagint in verse 10 doesn’t have what I called the couplet near the beginning of this essay.  Rather the indictment of the ἀνόμῳ πονηρὰ (lawless one, NETS) continued.  The NET and Tanakh do share the couplet (Isaiah 3:10, 11):

NET
The Innocent

The Wicked Sinners
Tell the innocent (tsaddı̂yq, צדיק) it will go well with them, for they will be rewarded for what they have done. Too bad for the wicked sinners!  For they will get exactly what they deserve.

Tanakh

The Righteous

The Wicked
Say ye to the righteous, that it shall be well with him: for they shall eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked! it shall be ill with him: for the reward of his hands shall be given him.

Though both the innocent, if there were any, and the wicked sinners live under the same consequences—the sovereign Lord who commands armies is about to remove from Jerusalem and Judah every source of security—the innocent will be protected in the midst of it, for they will be rewarded for what they have done, or, they shall eat the fruit of their doings.

This makes perfect sense if we allow that the wicked sinners trusted in human beings, whose life’s breath is in their nostrils.[4]  They worship [and rely on] the product of their own hands, what their own fingers have fashioned.[5]  They are helpless when these things—the stay and the staff—are removed.  The innocent by contrast trust yehôvâh and continue to trust Him through major social upheaval (1 Corinthians 1:4-9 NET).

I always thank my God [e.g., ʼĕlôhı̂ym in Hebrew; translated θεὸς in Greek] for you because of the grace of God that was given to you in Christ Jesus.  For you were made rich in every way in him, in all your speech and in every kind of knowledge – just as the testimony about Christ has been confirmed among you – so that you do not lack any spiritual gift as you wait for the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ.  He will also strengthen you to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.  God is faithful (πιστὸς), by whom you were called into fellowship (κοινωνίαν, a form of κοινωνία) with his son, Jesus Christ our Lord [e.g., yehôvâh in Hebrew; translated κύριος in Greek].[6]

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 11

[1] Isaiah 3:11 (NET)

[2] 2 Peter 3:3 (NET)

[3] Jude 1:18 (NET)

[4] Isaiah 2:22a (NET)

[5] Isaiah 2:8b (NET)

[6] In Genesis 2:4 yehôvâh ʼĕlôhı̂ym (יהוה אלהים) is also translated simply θεὸς in the Septuagint.

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 9

Posted on by

I fell for the September 2015 prophecies on YouTube that Jesus would return or the great tribulation would begin.  So I interrupted my regular study cycle and focused exclusively on my Romans study for a time.  Be that as it may I never thought I would return to continue this study.  But as I read, especially the New York Times article, about the capital of the Islamic State I was reminded of my own thoughts about the thousand years.

About forty years ago I expected the millennial reign of Jesus Christ to look a lot like Raqa, Syria looks today—all over the planet.  I thought justice was punishment.  I thought Jesus would return to earth as a righteous, omniscient Judge who regarded anger and lust as murder and adultery, both capital offenses.  I had heard of Jimmy Carter’s Playboy confession:

“I try not to commit a deliberate sin. I recognize that I’m going to do it anyhow, because I’m human and I’m tempted. And Christ set some almost impossible standards for us. Christ said, ‘I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.’

“I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes I will do–and I have done it–and God forgives me for it.”

And I heard the scandalized reactions of my people to his confession.  It is a major reason I pursued the woman who became my first wife.  I’m better when I can focus my sexual energies on one woman.

President Carter had much more confidence in Jesus’ forgiveness than I did (Hebrews 10:26, 27 NASB):

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries.

I reasoned that mass executions would be a daily ritual in the millennium, at least until all of the people like me were exterminated (or raptured?).  Confronted by that memory I looked up “reign of Christ” online and found an article by John F. Walvoord.

John in his vision in Revelation does not occupy himself with the details of the millennial kingdom but only with the fact and duration of it. The character of Christ’s reign on earth is fully described in many Old Testament passages such as Isaiah 2:2-4; 11:4-9; Psalm 72, and many others.

Here is the message about Judah and Jerusalem that was revealed to Isaiah son of Amoz.  In the future the mountain of the Lord’s (yehôvâh, יהוה) temple will endure as the most important of mountains, and will be the most prominent of hills.[1]  The words translated future are ʼachărı̂yth (באחרית) yôm (הימים) in Hebrew or ἐσχάταις (a form of ἔσχατος) ἡμέραις (a form of ἡμέρα) in the Septuagint in Greek.  At present Mount Zion is 2,510 feet high and Mount Everest is 29, 029 feet tall.

Perhaps Zion’s prominence is more spiritual than literal: All the nations will stream to [the mountain of the Lord’s (yehôvâh, יהוה) temple], many peoples will come and say, “Come, let us go up to the Lord’s (yehôvih, יהוה) mountain, to the temple of the God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהי) of Jacob, so he can teach us his requirements, and we can follow his standards.”  For Zion will be the center for moral instruction; the Lord (yehôvih, יהוה) will issue edicts from Jerusalem.[2]  Or perhaps the ʼachărı̂yth yôm or ἐσχάταις  ἡμέραις comes to pass after another prophesied event (Revelation 16:17-20 NET):

Finally the seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air and a loud voice came out of the temple from the throne, saying: “It is done!”  Then there were flashes of lightning, roaring, and crashes of thunder, and there was a tremendous earthquake – an earthquake unequaled since humanity has been on the earth, so tremendous was that earthquake.  The great city was split into three parts and the cities of the nations collapsed…Every island fled away and no mountains could be found.

He [yehôvih] will judge disputes between nations, Isaiah’s prophecy continued, he will settle cases for many peoples.  They will beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks.  Nations will not take up the sword against other nations, and they will no longer train for war.  O descendants of Jacob, come, let us walk in the Lord’s (yehôvâh, יהוה) guiding light.[3]

A shoot will grow out of Jesse’s root stock, Isaiah prophesied, a bud will sprout from his roots.  The Lord’s spirit (rûach yehôvâh, רוח יהוה) will rest on him – a spirit (rûach, רוח) that gives extraordinary wisdom, a spirit (rûach, רוח) that provides the ability to execute plans, a spirit (rûach, רוח) that produces absolute loyalty to the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה).  He will take delight in obeying the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה).  He will not judge by mere appearances, or make decisions on the basis of hearsay.  He will treat the poor fairly, and make right decisions for the downtrodden of the earth.[4]

I’m being a bit subversive quoting the first three verses of this chapter.  My people believe they apply to Jesus’ first appearance on earth.  Only verses 4-9 apply to the thousand years.  My only point is that it is difficult to make that distinction in this passage alone, except perhaps for the next part of verse 4:  He will strike the earth with the rod (shêbeṭ, בשבט) of his mouth, and order the wicked to be executed.[5]  And that brings me back to Raqa, Syria:

It’s called Heaven Square, but after the Islamic State group started using the roundabout in Raqa for gruesome public executions it earned a new name: Hell Square.
In the year since the jihadist group announced its “caliphate” last June, its de facto Syrian capital of Raqa has been transformed into a macabre metropolis.
Human heads are displayed on spikes at the central roundabout and crucified bodies hang for days to terrorise local residents, said Abu Ibrahim Raqqawi, a Raqa resident and anti-IS activist.

“From the first moment of its control over Raqa, IS adopted a policy of horror and terror, resorting to executions, beheadings, cutting off hands and legs, and crucifixion,” said Raqqawi, who uses a pseudonym…

It touts the implementation of its version of Islam, with life coming to a halt five times every day for prayers and all residents required to declare their assets and pay “zakat”, Islamic alms.
It also revels in meting out punishments for crimes ranging from collaboration with Syria’s regime and theft to “witchcraft” and homosexuality.
The group regularly carries out beheadings, but also stones victims to death or throws them from building tops.

I’m not particularly concerned with cosmetics here.  Whether Jesus orders the wicked to be executed in “gruesome public executions,” or secretly in concentration camps or antiseptic hospitals, is immaterial.  What concerns me is whether this is the Justice [that] will be like a belt around his waist, the integrity [that] will be like a belt around his hips.[6]  Consider by contrast the impact of his presence on animals (Isaiah 11:6-9a NET):

A wolf will reside with a lamb, and a leopard will lie down with a young goat; an ox and a young lion will graze together, as a small child leads them along.  A cow and a bear will graze together, their young will lie down together.  A lion, like an ox, will eat straw.  A baby will play over the hole of a snake; over the nest of a serpent an infant will put his hand.  They will no longer injure or destroy on my entire royal mountain.

Why?  For there will be universal submission to the Lord’s (yehôvih, יהוה) sovereignty, just as the waters completely cover the sea.[7]  To order the wicked to be executed sounds strangely incongruous to me.  But I’m biased.  I’m not an ancient widow descended from Israel, plagued by an adversary and an unrighteous judge.  I’m an old white American male, one of the most privileged people on the planet.

So, “my persistent prayer for justice is for the mercy on which everything depends, for it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on [You] who shows mercy (ἐλεῶντος, a form of ἐλεέω),[8] and, [You have] consigned all people to disobedience (ἀπείθειαν, a form of ἀπείθεια) so that [You] may show mercy (ἐλεήσῃ, another form of ἐλεέω) to them all.”[9]

I don’t believe I am, or have been, free to disregard his mercy.  I can see how those who believe they are free to disregard it, but have not, could distinguish themselves from those who do not yet rely on his mercy, and approve of their deaths.  I did, too, when I believed in that freedom.  Now when I realize that the words translated order are rûach śâphâh (וברוח שׁפתיו; “wind” or “breath of the lip,” or “spirit of the language” or “speech”) I wonder if Jesus is returning to order the wicked to be executed or to preach the Gospel to them—very effectively.  Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?[10]

The Septuagint reads: καὶ πατάξει γῆν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ στόματος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐν πνεύματι διὰ χειλέων ἀνελεῖ ἀσεβῆ; “and he shall strike the earth with the word of his mouth, and with the breath through his lips he shall do away with the impious.”[11]  To realize that the rabbis translated the wicked (râshâʽ, רשע) ἀσεβῆ (a form of ἀσεβής) led me inexorably to, But to the one who does not work, but believes (πιστεύοντι, a form of πιστεύω) in the one who declares the ungodly (ἀσεβῆ) righteous, his faith (πίστις) is credited as righteousness.[12]

I believe in the one who declares the ungodly (ἀσεβῆ) righteous; again, my bias.  I don’t know when to believe He ceases to be the one who declares the ungodly (ἀσεβῆ) righteous.  I don’t know how to stop believing He is the one who declares the ungodly (ἀσεβῆ) righteous, as long as He fills me with the faithfulness (πίστις) of the fruit of his Spirit.  If we live by the Spirit (πνεύματι, a form of πνεῦμα), let us also behave in accordance (στοιχῶμεν, a form of στοιχέω) with the Spirit (πνεύματι, a form of πνεῦμα).[13]

Given my bias I’ll look into the meaning of râshâʽ next, just who the wicked are.

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 10

Back to Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 11

Back to Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 12

Back to Romans, Part 89

[1] Isaiah 2:1, 2a (NET)

[2] Isaiah 2:2b, 3 (NET)

[3] Isaiah 2:4, 5 (NET)

[4] Isaiah 11:1-4a (NET)

[5] Isaiah 11:4b (NET)

[6] Isaiah 11:5 (NET)

[7] Isaiah 11:9b (NET)

[8] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[9] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[10] Romans 6:3 (NET)

[11] http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/nets/edition/33-esaias-nets.pdf

[12] Romans 4:5 (NET)

[13] Galatians 5:25 (NET)

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 8

Posted on by

To reveal my own position and velocity[1] it is probably past time that I at least outline my own religious background.  And here, I’ll take the lazy way out.  Matt Slick has done it for me in his “Doctrine Grid”[2] online.  He acknowledged that “some of these are debatable…I do not claim absolute correctness on all points–only the essentials.”  I’m not going to debate his points beyond pointing out that Mr. Slick offers them as “a layout of biblical orthodoxy” and I offer them only as an outline of my religious background, both its content and tone.

Though I live among them I don’t understand my people, those of my religious background, as it pertains to the hope and promise of universal salvation in the Scriptures.  I think I understand what might motivate someone like Richard Wayne Garganta to eliminate “hell talk” from the Bible.  But I can’t get a handle on what might motivate someone to eliminate the hope and promise of universal salvation from the Bible.  “It’s not there!” is a form of blindness.

A puff piece[3] about Matt Chandler in the May 2014 issue of Christianity Today caught my attention as I considered these things:

For a long time, Chandler had prayed for his dad to know Christ.  “I remember being confused with the idea of [Dad having] free will, but then me asking God to save him. To me those two things were incompatible.”
He found the answer in classically reformed teachings, especially those of John Piper. Chandler embraces the view that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell.[4]

I’m not going to say much about free will except to offer my opinion that it represents the contingent choices we make—contingent choices with a really good press agent.  I will look deeper into “the view that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell.”  We certainly knew of that view in my religion.  Our essentially fundamentalist church had separated from the Congregationalists as they embraced “modernism.”[5]  It was joined later by others separating from the Presbyterians for similar reasons, a group who held views similar to Matt Chandler’s.   My family shared a more “whosoever will may come” view.

It seemed fairer somehow.  Could God be other than fair?  He has given everyone on the planet an equal opportunity to choose to trust Him.  Salvation, therefore, is left ultimately up to an individual’s choice.  That seemed consistent enough with the Old Testament, and except for Paul’s writings and Jesus’ sayings more or less consistent with the New Testament as I understood it at the time.

So, is “God predestines some to heaven and others to hell” a fair inference from God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden[6]?  I still don’t think so.  It requires me to reject the hope and promise of universal salvation revealed in Scripture (a Christian heresy[7] according to Matt Slick and a host of others, my people all).  Consider the context (Romans 9:17, 18 NET):

For the scripture says to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may demonstrate my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.”  So then, God has mercy (ἐλεεῖ, a form of ἐλεέω) on whom he chooses (θέλει, a form of θέλω) to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses (θέλει, a form of θέλω) to harden.

I can say with full conviction on the authority of Scripture that the chariots of Pharaoh and his army [yehôvâh] has thrown into the sea, and his chosen officers were drowned in the Red Sea.[8]  I can’t say with the same confidence that Pharaoh or his army will spend eternity in hell.   Yehôvâh, as revealed by Paul, thinks differently than Matt Chandler or Matt Slick on this subject (Romans 11:30, 31 NET).

Just as you were formerly disobedient (ἠπειθήσατε, a form of ἀπείθεια), so they too have now been disobedient (ἠπείθησαν, another form of ἀπειθέω) in order that, by the mercy (ἐλέει, a form of ἔλεος) shown to you, they too may now receive mercy (ἐλεηθῶσιν, another form of ἐλεέω).

Paul referred specifically here to his own people, my fellow countrymen, who are Israelites,[9] and all those loved by God in Rome, called to be saints.[10]  But I can’t find any compelling reason to discriminate against an ancient Pharaoh and his army: For God has consigned all people to disobedience (ἀπείθειαν, another form of ἀπείθεια) so that he may show mercy (ἐλεήσῃ, another form of ἐλεέω) to…all.[11]  So while—it does not depend on human desire (θέλοντος, another form of θέλω)or exertion, but on God who shows mercy (ἐλεῶντος, another form of ἐλεέω )[12]—is a potent antidote to the “whosoever will may come” religious view of my youth, it is clearly coupled with the hope of universal salvation: God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to…all.

Jesus’ saying—No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws (ἑλκύσῃ, a form of ἑλκύω) him, and I will raise him up at the last day[13]—is a stronger refutation of “whosoever will may come” unless one takes ἑλκύσῃ to mean “Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling.”[14]  In that case, Jesus’ promise of universal salvation—And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (ἑλκύσω, another form of ἑλκύω) all…to myself[15]—becomes little more than a promise of equal opportunity:  And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will softly and tenderly call all people to myself.  But I’m not convinced that ἑλκύσῃ and ἑλκύσω will dance to that tune.

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, called to it softly and tenderly, and it rose up out of its scabbard and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear.  The Scripture says, Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, pulled it out (εἵλκυσεν, another form of ἑλκύω) and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear.[16]  The King James translators chose drew for εἵλκυσεν, making the connection to Jesus’ sayings clear even in English: Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear.[17]  Here any English speaking person might consider how much say the sword had regarding when, how or for what purpose it was drawn.

“Throw your net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some [fish],” Jesus told his disciples.  So they threw the net, and were not able to pull (ἑλκύσαι, another form of ἑλκύω) it in because of the large number of fish.[18]  Here the net resisted, because it was too heavy for the disciples to pull up out of the water and into their boat.  But it was no match for Peter dragging it ashore: So Simon Peter went aboard and pulled (εἵλκυσεν, another form of ἑλκύω) the net to shore.[19]  And again, the King James translators made the comparison to Jesus’ sayings obvious:  they were not able to draw it in.[20]

Here are a few more examples of forms of ἑλκύω from Luke and James:

“Whosoever will may come”

Bible
But when her owners saw their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and softly and tenderly called them into the marketplace before the authorities. But when her owners saw their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged (εἵλκυσαν, another form of ἑλκύω) them into the marketplace before the authorities.

Acts 16:19 (NET)
The whole city was stirred up, and the people rushed together.  They seized Paul and softly and tenderly called him out of the temple courts, and immediately the doors were shut. The whole city was stirred up, and the people rushed together.  They seized Paul and dragged (εἷλκον, another form of ἑλκύω) him out of the temple courts, and immediately the doors were shut.

Acts 21:30 (NET)
But you have dishonored the poor!  Are not the rich oppressing you and softly and tenderly calling you into the courts? But you have dishonored the poor!  Are not the rich oppressing you and dragging (ἕλκουσιν, another form of ἑλκύω) you into the courts?

James 2:6 (NET)

It does not behoove the God-predestines-some-to-heaven-and-others-to-hell folk to call out the whosoever-will-may-come folk on this point.  The former are as opposed to universal salvation as the latter.  Still, it seems to me if I understand Jesus’ sayings correctly—No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me [drags] him and, And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will [drag] all…to myself—I get a clearer picture of the human condition and the hope and promise of God in Christ.

The only person I want to condemn to hell is my old man, not my father, but the sin in my flesh.  I have had a remarkably blessed life.  No one raped and murdered my mother, my sister, my daughter or my wives.  Divorce is the most difficult sin I’ve been called upon to forgive.  And I love the women who divorced me.  I certainly wouldn’t want to see them condemned to an eternity in hell because they found living with me unendurable.  But by wishing my old man condemned to hell I have condemned the whole world.

Gentle Heart suggested that final judgment could be like the judgment of wheat and chaff: “So maybe John 5:28 and 29 can be talking about all us dead being raised and our ‘old selves’ get condemned and our ‘new selves’ live eternally with the Lord.”  It’s an intriguing idea that seems to satisfy the long name of God.

The Long Name of God
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.

Exodus 34:6, 7a (NET)

 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.

Exodus 34:7b (NET)

The main objection would be the apparent need for postmortem salvation in some (or, many) cases.  But that is really only an objection from the human perspective, the impossibility of believing in Jesus for salvation when one faces Him in judgment.  But from the divine perspective there is no law or rule, no circumstance of life or death that prohibits God from showing mercy: I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.[21]  Salvation does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.[22]  And, God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[23]  In fact this is why we work hard and struggle, Paul encouraged Timothy, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of believers.[24]

There is a satisfying symmetry to the idea that universal salvation entails universal condemnation.  But I’ve had a lifetime to identify with the new man.[25]  If God condemned the sin in my flesh to an eternity in hell, I think I could bid the old man Godspeed and good riddance.  But consider one born from above by the calling of God at, or after, the final judgment.

I know how often I have oscillated between the old and new man when they were in the same geographical and space/time location.  Imagine the trauma of oscillating between the more familiar old man and the relatively strange new man when one is in hell and the other is face to face with God.  Still, the Holy Spirit has seen, and sees, me through my conflict and confusion.  I don’t doubt that He could comfort one in the throes of that terror.

I can’t say this is the way God fulfills his desire to be merciful while He by no means leaves the guilty unpunished.  I can only say, Gentle Heart, in the spirit of Jonathan Edwards’ argument for God as the Superlative Torturer, that if we can imagine this wheat and chaff solution to the dilemma of universal salvation, how many more solutions can the living God conceive and execute to satisfy the desire of his, and your, gentle heart.

[1] Who Am I? Part 1

[2] Doctrine Grid

[3] I call it a puff piece because I have no doubt that the editors will publish a hatchet job about the very same preacher if he slips financially or sexually, or strays doctrinally too far from what the editors feel they can sell as Christianity Today.

[4] “The Joy-Stung Preacher,” Joe Maxwell, Christianity Today, May 2014, p. 39

[5] Theological Liberalism

[6] Romans 9:18 (NET)

[7] Can a Christian be a universalist?

[8] Exodus 15:4 (NET)

[9] Romans 9:3, 4 (NET)

[10] Romans 1:7 (NET)

[11] Romans 11:32 (NET)  A note in the NET acknowledges that “them” was added for stylistic reasons.

[12] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[13] John 6:44 (NET)

[14] Softly and Tenderly

[15] John 12:32 (NET)  NET note: “Grk ‘all.’ The word ‘people’ is not in the Greek text but is supplied for stylistic reasons and for clarity (cf. KJV ‘all men’).”  See: Colossians 1:15-20 (NET)

[16] John 18:10a (NET) Table

[17] John 18:10a (NKJV) Table

[18] John 21:6 (NET)

[19] John 21:11a (NET)

[20] John 21:6 (NKJV)

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

[22] Romans 9:16 (NET)

[23] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[24] 1 Timothy 4:10 (NET)

[25] Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:9, 10 (NET)

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 7

Posted on by

The third assumption I found in Richard Wayne Garganta’s attempt to eliminate “hell talk” from the Bible was: 3) Punishment is not merely consequential but effectual in purging or purifying sin.  I’ve selected a quote from “Bible Threatenings Explained”[1] that led me to consider this assumption as a major precursor of his views on hell:

What God is determined to destroy in the sinner is that which makes him a sinner.  Christ said He came to utterly destroy evil –  the works of the devil.  He said he came to save the world, not to destroy men.  God proceeds towards the wayward as a good parent must, to eradicate the evil by punishment.

While I must agree that God has proceeded “to eradicate the evil by punishment,” I am not convinced that He believes, or the Bible teaches, that punishment is the method that will “destroy in the sinner…that which makes him a sinner” or “utterly destroy evil.”

Before the flood the Lord saw that the wickedness of humankind had become great on the earth.  Every inclination of the thoughts of their minds was only evil all the time.  The Lord regretted that he had made humankind on the earth, and he was highly offended.  So the Lord said, “I will wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth – everything from humankind to animals, including creatures that move on the ground and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them.”[2]  The earth was ruined in the sight of God; the earth was filled with violence.  God saw the earth, and indeed it was ruined, for all living creatures on the earth were sinful.[3]

Death by drowning is a kind of ultimate punishment.  I suppose it was effective for a time at purging wickedness, evil, violence and sinfulness from the earth, until Noah cursed Canaan for Ham’s witness(?)—Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness[4]—gossip(?)—Ham told his two brothers who were outside[5]—mockery, maybe?  Let’s be frank, wasn’t it Ham’s revelation of the frayed dirty edges of Noah’s righteousness that angered Noah?  Hadn’t Noah exposed himself, literally in a drunken stupor and figuratively when he cursed Ham’s son?  I should probably say figuratively in a drunken stupor and literally when he cursed Canaan, to keep the metaphor and reality straight.

My difficulty with Mr. Garganta’s third assumption is more personal and idiosyncratic to the path of righteousness I’m on than the others.  As the Holy Spirit convinced me that the Bible as a book of rules would never satisfy my God-given hunger and thirst for righteousness I needed a new understanding of Paul’s assurance: Every scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the person dedicated to God may be capable and equipped for every good work.[6]  One fruitful way of viewing the Bible is as a narrative of the tidal movement from human responsibility to God’s grace.

The highwater mark of human responsibility The highwater mark of God’s grace
Is it not true, God asked the murderer Cain, that if you do what is right, you will be fine?  But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door.  It desires to dominate you, but you must subdue it.

Genesis 4:7 (NET)

 I have been crucified with Christ, wrote the murderer Saul transformed as Paul the Apostle, 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.

Galatians 2:20 (NET)
Cain killed his brother in a jealous rage.  If it weren’t so tragic, the image of God telling this murderer to subdue the sin that desires to dominate him is laughable. Saul tried to cover his motives with law and religion, but Paul eventually recognized it as the very same jealous rage.[7]

I don’t get the impression that Cain expected God to bless that jealous rage as righteousness.  Saul did, superficially at least.  Something in Jesus’ words must have rung true somewhere deep within Saul, since we have the writings of Paul the Apostle, and not Saul the blind Inquisitor who withstood the “temptation” of the “demon” disguised as an angel of light on the road to Damascus.  Saul the blind Inquisitor was crucified with Christ there, or later in the desert.[8]  Paul himself related this death to baptism: Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  Therefore we have been buried with him 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.[9]

I will suggest that the most distance covered from human responsibility to the grace of God in the shortest amount of time is most evident in the two covenants[10] separated by forty days[11] and the incident with the golden calf.[12]  But I don’t think I would ever have recognized that movement apart from Paul’s writings and the Holy Spirit’s leading and guidance.  Here I want to consider that movement as revealed in the writings of the prophet Hosea and relate it to the assumption that punishment is/was effective at purging or purifying sin rather than merely a consequence of that sin.

[The people of the northern kingdom of Israel] consult their wooden idols, the Lord spoke through Hosea, and their diviner’s staff answers with an oracle.  The wind of prostitution (zânûn) blows them astray; they commit spiritual (tachath) adultery (zânâh) against their God [Table].  They sacrifice (zâbach) on the mountaintops, and burn offerings on the hills; they sacrifice under (tachath) oak, poplar, and terebinth, because their shade is so pleasant.  As a result, your daughters have become cult prostitutes (zânâh), and your daughters-in-law commit adultery (nâʼaph) [Table].  I will not punish (pâqad) your daughters when they commit prostitution (zânâh), nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery (nâʼaph).  For the men consort with harlots (zânâh), they sacrifice (zâbach) with temple prostitutes (qedêshâh).[13]

Ephraim [another name for the northern kingdom of Israel] has attached himself to idols, the Lord continued.  Do not go near him [Table]!  They consume their alcohol, then engage in cult prostitution (zânâh); they dearly love their shameful (qâlôn) behavior [Table].[14]  I assume that this was πορνεία (that zâbach was used facetiously, they offered sexual intercourse to God under shade trees with qedêshâh).  And I assume that this was essentially what was going on in the church at Pergamum:  But I have a few things against you, Jesus said: You have some people there who follow the teaching of Balaam, who instructed Balak to put a stumbling block before the people of Israel so they would eat food sacrificed to idols and commit sexual immorality (πορνεῦσαι, a form of πορνεύω).[15]  It is clearly what was going on with the Moabite women after Balaam prophesied for, rather than against, Israel (Numbers 25:1-3 NET):

When Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to commit sexual immorality (zânâh) with the daughters of Moab.  These women invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods; then the people ate and bowed down to their gods.  When Israel joined themselves to Baal-peor, the anger of the Lord flared up against Israel.

The “Children of God” called it flirty fishing.[16]

I also assume this kind of πορνεία was practiced in the church at Thyatira:  You tolerate that woman Jezebel, Jesus said, who calls herself a prophetess, and by her teaching deceives my servants to commit sexual immorality (πορνεῦσαι, a form of πορνεύω) and to eat food sacrificed to idols.  I have given her time to repent, but she is not willing to repent of her sexual immorality (πορνείας, a form of πορνεία).  Look!  I am throwing her onto a bed of violent illness, and those who commit adultery (μοιχεύοντας, a form of μοιχεύω) with her into terrible suffering, unless they repent of her deeds.  Furthermore, I will strike her followers with a deadly disease, and then all the churches will know that I am the one who searches minds and hearts.  I will repay each one of you what your deeds deserve.[17]

This is essentially the same punishment He brought upon Israel when they joined themselves to Baal-peor—Those that died in the plague were 24,000[18]—unless plague here is a euphemism for the men arrested and hanged[19] (not to mention skewered[20]).  But to the northern kingdom of Israel, He said, I will be like a lion to Ephraim, like a young lion to the house of Judah.  I myself will tear them to pieces, then I will carry them off, and no one will be able to rescue them!  Then I will return again to my lair until they have suffered their punishment (ʼâsham).[21]  Then they will seek me; in their distress they will earnestly seek me.[22]

He continued to prophesy what Israel would say after they were punished (Hosea 6:1-3 NET):

Come on!  Let’s return to the Lord!  He himself has torn us to pieces, but he will heal us!  He has injured us, but he will bandage our wounds!  He will restore us in a very short time; he will heal us in a little while, so that we may live in his presence.  So let us acknowledge him!  Let us seek to acknowledge the Lord!  He will come to our rescue as certainly as the appearance of the dawn, as certainly as the winter rain comes, as certainly as the spring rain that waters the land.

If I stopped here punishment would appear to be overwhelmingly effective at purging or purifying evil.  The Lord didn’t stop here so neither will I (Hosea 6:4 NET):

What am I going to do with you, O Ephraim?  What am I going to do with you, O Judah?  For your faithfulness is as fleeting as the morning mist; it disappears as quickly as dawn’s dew!

There is a refrain in Deuteronomy: In this way you must purge (bâʽar) out evil from within.[23]  In this way you will purge (bâʽar) evil from among you.[24]  …in this way you will purge (bâʽar) evil from Israel.[25]  …in this way you will purge (bâʽar) evil from among you.[26]  All refer to capital punishment, stoning primarily.  If that is all that Mr. Garganta meant by his assertion that “God proceeds…to eradicate the evil by punishment,” I concede the point.  But it seems clear that the survivors of punishment of lesser consequence than death, or those who merely fear punishment, are encouraged to hypocrisy by such punishment and fear.  They become actors, not poets or doers of the law.  They are devoid of the love that fulfills the law.  The Lord’s judgment was swift and severe (Hosea 6:5 NET):

Therefore, I will certainly cut you into pieces at the hands of the prophets; I will certainly kill you in fulfillment of my oracles of judgment; for my judgment will come forth like the light of the dawn.

The time of judgment is about to arrive, the Lord promised through Hosea.  The time of retribution is imminent!  Let Israel know!  The prophet is considered a fool – the inspired man is viewed as a madman – because of the multitude of your sins and your intense animosity.[27]  And it happened to them as He promised.  But there is still hope for them (Hosea 11:8, 9 NET):

How can I give you up, O Ephraim?  How can I surrender you, O Israel?  How can I treat you like Admah?  How can I make you like Zeboiim?  I have had a change of heart!  All my tender compassions are aroused [Table]!  I cannot carry out my fierce anger!  I cannot totally destroy Ephraim!  Because I am God, and not man – the Holy One among you – I will not come in wrath!

This sounds like grace, God’s unilateral decision, not something effected in any way by the punishment of death the inhabitants of the northern kingdom of Israel suffered.  It seems to me then that the failure of punishment to purge wickedness, evil, violence and sinfulness in the living is part of the justification for God’s unilateral grace: Let God be proven true, and every human being shown up as a liar, just as it is written: “so that you will be justified in your words and will prevail when you are judged.”[28]

 

 

 

As I worked on this essay my daughter suffered a stroke.  That is definitely things not going my way.  When I had the chance to consider if God was punishing her, me, or us for something, praying that her sins have more to do with me and mine than hers, making no real sense, just a jumble of thoughts…take it out on me not her…the Holy Spirit brought Scripture to my mind:  “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”  Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him.”[29]

I don’t take Him to mean that this man and his parents lived lives of sinless perfection.  I don’t even take Him to mean necessarily that the parents’ sins in this case had no causal relationship to their son’s blindness.  I take Him to mean that He wanted his disciples to concern themselves with the revelation of the works of God rather than establishing blame.

[1] Richard Wayne Garganta, “Bible Threats Explained”

[2] Genesis 6:5-7 (NET)

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

[4] Genesis 9:22a (NET)

[5] Genesis 9:22b (NET)

[6] 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 (NET) Table1

[7] Acts 9:1; 26:9-11; Romans 10:19; 11:11, 14; 1 Timothy 1:13 In the past I was a blasphemer, a persecutor, and a violent man (ISVNT).  The NET translators chose arrogant for ὑβριστήν, but acknowledged in a note that they might have chosen violent or cruel.

[8] Galatians 1:17 (NET)

[9] Romans 6:3, 4 (NET)

[10] The Two Covenants: The second “covenant,” however, is much more like a unilateral declaration, a promise, than a contract between two parties.  Why then was the law given?  It was added because of transgressions, until the arrival of the descendant [Jesus the Son of God] to whom the promise had been made.  It was administered through angels by an intermediary.  Now an intermediary is not for one party alone, but God is one [Father and Son].  Is the law therefore opposed to the promises of God?  Absolutely not!  For if a law had been given that was able to give life, then righteousness would certainly have come by the law.  But the scripture imprisoned everything and everyone under sin so that the promise could be given – because of the faithfulness of Jesus Christ – to those who believe.  Galatians 3:19-22 (NET)

[11] Exodus 24:18 (NET)

[12] Exodus 32 (NET)

[13] Hosea 4:12-14a (NET)

[14] Hosea 4:17, 18 (NET)

[15] Revelation 2:14 (NET)

[16] xFamily.org, “Flirty Fishing”

[17] Revelation 2:20-23 (NET)

[18] Numbers 25:9 (NET)

[19] Numbers 25:4, 5 (NET)

[20] Numbers 25:6-8 (NET)

[21] NET note: “The verb יֶאְשְׁמוּ (ye’shemu, Qal imperfect 3rd person masculine plural from אָשַׁם, ’asham, ‘to be guilty’) means ‘to bear their punishment’ (Ps 34:22-23; Prov 30:10; Isa 24:6; Jer 2:3; Hos 5:15; 10:2; 14:1; Zech 11:5; Ezek 6:6; BDB 79 s.v. אָשַׁם 3). Many English versions translate this as ‘admit their guilt’ (NIV, NLT) or ‘acknowledge their guilt’ (NASB, NRSV), but cf. NAB ‘pay for their guilt’ and TEV ‘have suffered enough for their sins.’”

[22] Hosea 5:14, 15 (NET)

[23] Deuteronomy 13:5 (NET)

[24] Deuteronomy 17:7; 22:21 (NET)

[25] Deuteronomy 22:22 (NET)

[26] Deuteronomy 22:24 (NET)

[27] Hosea 9:7 (NET)

[28] Romans 3:4 (NET)

[29] John 9:2, 3 (NKJV)