Category Archives: Section Three

Jesus the Leg-breaker, Part 1

Posted on by

“Jesus the leg-breaker” is a more persistent tale than I expected.  I decided not to give it short shrift.

I am the beautiful shepherd,[1] Jesus said.  Did He mean to turn my attention to Him or to human shepherds?  Do I know Him through the Bible?  Or should I study shepherd lore and apply it to Him?  In a blog titled “The Good Shepherd Breaks Their Legs,” Pastor Robin Weinstein quoted the following story from another blog:

According to the story, if a lamb has a tendency to wander off, the shepherd will actually break one of its legs. He then tends the broken leg – puts a splint on it and binds it up. Then while the leg is mending, he carries it on his shoulder. According to the anecdote, once the sheep heals, it will follow the shepherd, close at his side, the rest of its life. Never again go astray [because now it knows the voice and guidance of its shepherd].

“But, this story is not in the Bible, you say,” was the apparently grudging admission, followed by a Bible verse “that runs parallel” to the story.

How enviable is the man whom God corrects. Oh, do not despise the chastening of the Lord when you sin. For though he wounds, he binds and heals once again. Job 5:17,18

The reasoning here goes something like this: The word of God is true.  The Bible is the word of God.  Job 5:17 and 18 are in the Bible, so they are true and the word of God.  It is a compelling argument and does seem to correspond to the shepherd story.  But in the book of Job in the Bible these words are not the word of yehôvâh:  “How enviable is the man whom God corrects.  Oh, do not despise the chastening of the Lord when you sin.  For though he wounds, he binds and heals once again,” are the words of Eliphaz the Temanite.  In the book of Job yehôvâh spoke the following to Eliphaz the Temanite about Eliphaz’s words (Job 42:7 NET).

After the Lord (yehôvâh) had spoken (dâbar, דבר; Septuagint: λαλῆσαι) these things to Job, he (yehôvâh [added again for emphasis, I assume]) said to Eliphaz the Temanite, “My anger is stirred up against you and your two friends, because you have not spoken (dâbar,  דברתם; Septuagint: ἐλαλήσατε) about me what is right, as my servant Job has.”

On my way back from atheism, as I essentially rejected the Gospel thinking of it as a second chance to do righteousness by obeying the Bible as rules, I met a man who wanted to produce the book of Job as a play.  I don’t remember now if he asked me to set it to music or if I had the competing idea to write it as an opera.  As I studied, intending to make the book of Job the libretto for an opera, I was perplexed by what fault God found with the words of Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite.

I could see that their empathy for Job might have been off a bit, but their words seemed more or less like the religious teaching I had heard my whole life.  Wishing that yehôvâh had been more specific, I abandoned the project.  Even now, given this lack of specificity, I am not wise enough to quote anything Eliphaz said as proof of anything in the light of yehôvâh’s anger (Job 42:8 NET):

So now take seven bulls and seven rams [yehôvâh, speaking to Eliphaz, continued] and go to my servant Job and offer a burnt offering for yourselves.  And my servant Job will intercede for you, and I will respect him, so that I do not deal with you according to your folly, because you have not spoken (dâbar,  דברתם; Septuagint: ἐλαλήσατε) about me what is right, as my servant Job has.

“God will chasten and correct us,” the writer of the original blog continued.  So far, so good: For whom the Lord loves He chastens (παιδεύει, a form of παιδεύω), And scourges (μαστιγοῖ, a form of μαστιγόω) every son whom He receives.[2]  But the writer of the original blog added, “if we stray.”  And that is probably the reason he quoted Eliphaz the Temanite from the book of Job rather than the writer of the book of Hebrews.  The writer of the book of Hebrews wasn’t writing to those who strayed but to those who were tempted to stray because of the opposition or contradiction, the ἀντιλογίαν (a form of ἀντιλογία; literally, “to speak against”) of sinners that they encountered while trusting Christ (Hebrews 12:5-7a NET):

And have you forgotten the exhortation addressed to you as sons?  “My son, do not scorn the Lord’s discipline (παιδείας, a form of παιδεία) or give up when he corrects you.  “For the Lord disciplines the one he loves and chastises every son he accepts.”  Endure your suffering as discipline (παιδείαν, a form of παιδεία) …

The faithful, as opposed to those who stray, are called to endure the ἀντιλογίαν of sinners as God’s παιδείαν (a form of παιδεία).  Currently in the U.S. this ἀντιλογίαν is mostly ridicule and rarely μαστιγόω as was common in the first century (and beyond).  But it is fairly clear that the faithful should perceive and receive the ἀντιλογίαν of sinners in whatever form as παιδείαν from God (Hebrews 12:7b, 8 NET):

God is treating you as sons.  For what son is there that a father does not discipline (παιδεύει, a form of παιδεύω)?  But if you do not experience discipline (παιδείας, another form of παιδεία), something all sons have shared in, then you are illegitimate and are not sons.

A comparison and contrast follow between earthly fathers and the Father of spirits which might be confusing if not treated carefully:

Comparison

Contrast
Besides, we have experienced discipline (παιδευτὰς, a form of παιδευτής) from our earthly fathers and we respected them; shall we not submit ourselves all the more to the Father of spirits and receive life?

Hebrews 12:9 (NET)

 For they [earthly fathers] disciplined (ἐπαίδευον, another form of παιδεύω) us for a little while as seemed good to them, but he [the Father of spirits] does so for our benefit, that we may share his holiness.

Hebrews 12:10 (NET)

If the παιδεία of one’s father consisted mostly of punishment for doing wrong it is easy to mistake punishment for the Father of spirits’ παιδεία.  But the παιδεία of the Father of spirits comes at the mouth (and possibly at the hands) of sinners for doing right rather than wrong.  The writer of the book of Hebrews continued (Hebrews 12:11-13 NET):

Now all discipline (παιδεία) [whether for doing wrong or for doing right] seems painful at the time, not joyful. But later it [the παιδεία from the Father of spirits for doing right] produces the fruit of peace and righteousness for those trained by it.  Therefore, strengthen your listless hands and your weak knees, and make straight paths for your feet, so that what is lame may not be put out of joint but be healed.

This is the experience of the faithful, not the unfaithful, and not a word about breaking legs.  But Deacon Del Gibbs, the original blogger, wrote:

God will chasten and correct us if we stray. You say yep, I could write the book? Been there, done that?  But it is for our good. And trust me, the pain is better than the alternative – becoming lamb chops on Satan’s dinner table. 

Is this his personal experience of Jesus?

No.  He never strayed.  “You see,” he wrote, “I had not been saved out of sin but God saved me from going into it.”  In Romans 1 people who did not glorify…God or give him thanks, who exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles, were given over by God in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.[3]  The implication here is that apart from this God would keep them from this sin.

People who exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, were given over by God to dishonorable passions.[4]  Again the implication is that apart from this God would keep them from this sin.  Likewise people who did not see fit to acknowledge God, were given over by God to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done.[5]  Once again the implication is that apart from this God would keep them from these sins.  Mr. Gibbs continued:

I can testify of God’s strength that helps me live victoriously.  Of his patience and forgiveness for the times I’m slow to catch on.  And when I stub my toe and fall on my face, I can tell how He reaches out and helps me to my feet once again.

That sounds so much better to me as something to say to one who has strayed than threats about Jesus the leg-breaker.  You see, I have strayed.  You might say I went looking for the smiting, leg-breaking Jesus I was taught about, at least I dared Him to act.  And I became an atheist when He refused to live up to his bad press.

The good thing about becoming an atheist, however, is that I couldn’t blame God for my problems any more.  They were definitely my problems, brought about by the sins that I thought were my freedom, even my right, the very things Paul called the wrath of God…revealed from heaven,[6] the things I couldn’t quit even after I began to want to quit them.

The kicker here is that Mr. Gibbs’ father, raised on a sheep ranch in Montana, couldn’t even confirm the alleged shepherd lore: “My Dad says he didn’t do it,” his blog post began.  “He just got out the 22, and that night they had mutton stew.”  The reasoning here goes something like this: Jesus the leg-breaker would be better than Del’s father the killer and eater.

But that unmasks the whole thing, doesn’t it?  Why does a human shepherd care for the flock at all?  Is it not so the flock is available to be fleeced, milked and eaten?  Is that what Jesus meant when He called Himself the beautiful shepherd?  Is this, too, part of the shepherd lore I should apply to Him?  Jesus said:

Matthew

Luke
What do you think?  If someone owns a hundred sheep and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go look for the one that went astray?

Matthew 18:12 (NET)

 So Jesus told them this parable: “Which one of you, if he has a hundred sheep and loses one of them, would not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go look for the one that is lost until he finds it?

Luke 15:3, 4 (NET)

Frankly, I think I might write-off the one who strayed rather than risk the others.  But then, I’m not a shepherd.  I don’t really know the value of a sheep.  (And  I’m not omnipresent.)  So I must take Jesus at his word here.

Matthew

Luke
And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he will rejoice more over it than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray.

 Matthew 18:13 (NET)

 “Then when he has found it, he places it on his shoulders, rejoicing.  Returning home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, telling them, ‘Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost.’

Luke 15:5, 6 (NET)

Again, I have no direct way to corroborate this, but must take Jesus at his word.

Matthew

Luke
In the same way, your Father in heaven is not willing that one of these little ones be lost.

 Matthew 18:14 (NET)

 “I tell you, in the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need to repent.”

Luke 15:7 (NET)

This is clearly beyond my experience.   I haven’t amounted to much, nothing that would cause anyone to say, “Ah, I understand why Jesus went out of his way to save him.”  But He did.  As far as I’m concerned, the only plausible explanation is to take Jesus at his word: your Father in heaven is not willing (θέλημα) that one of these little ones be lost.

[1] John 10:11 (NET)

[2] Hebrews 12:6 (KJV, DNT)

[3] Romans 1:21-24 (NET)

[4] Romans 1:25, 26a (NET)

[5] Romans 1:28 (NET)

[6] Romans 1:18a (NET)

My Reasons and My Reason, Part 7

Posted on by

I am persuaded that the primary meaning of πορνεία in the New Testament refers to ancient idolatrous worship practices.  It can be stretched to mean adultery in general (1 Thessalonians 4:3-7 NET Table):

For this is God’s will: that you become holy, that you keep away from πορνείας (a form of πορνεία), that each of you know how to possess his own body in holiness and honor, not in lustful passion like the Gentiles who do not know God.  In this matter no one should violate the rights of his brother or take advantage of him, because the Lord is the avenger in all these cases, as we also told you earlier and warned you solemnly.  For God did not call us to impurity (ἀκαθαρσία) but in holiness.

At least I hope Paul meant that one should not violate the rights of his brother by committing adultery with his wife, rather than that he should simply pass by her at a cultic festival (though I admit that ἀκαθαρσία sounds a lot like demonic worship here).  Paul may have used πορνεία to mean the list of sins found in Leviticus 18:6-23 (1 Corinthians 5:1 NET):

It is actually reported that πορνεία exists among you, the kind of πορνεία that is not permitted even among the Gentiles, so that someone is cohabiting with (ἔχειν, a form of ἔχω) his father’s wife.

If the man’s father was alive this is simply another instance where Paul used πορνεία for adultery.  (Remember πορνεία was almost the only word Paul had for sin as long as he accepted the gutting of the law at the Jerusalem Council.)  If the man’s father was dead πορνεία meant: You must not have sexual intercourse with your father’s wife; she is your father’s nakedness[1] or, A man may not marry his father’s former wife and in this way dishonor his father.[2]

In contemporary Greek πορνεία translates as prostitution in the headline Παιδική πορνεία.  If I select “Translate this Page” Παιδική πορνεία is rendered “Child prostitution.”

The one thing I am persuaded now that πορνεία does not mean in the New Testament is what two teenagers might do in the backseat of a Chevy on a Friday night.  They are not committing πορνεία but marriage by performing the only wedding ceremony yehôvâh ʼĕlôhı̂ym ever created, authorized or honored: If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged and has sexual relations with her, he must surely endow her to be his wife.  If her father refuses to give her to him, he must pay money for the bride price of virgins.[3]

When I was young it angered me that God gave such undue authority to an autocratic father.  Now that I know Him better and have lived with, and loved, a daughter, though the autocratic father may always be a possible type, I think the point was to give that authority to the one most attuned to his daughter’s heart on the matter in an uncomfortable social situation.  One reason for rejecting this law is the embarrassment a contemporary person feels over its companion legislation (Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 NET):

Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered [Table].  The man who has raped her must pay her father fifty shekels of silver and she must become his wife because he has violated her; he may never divorce her as long as he lives [Table].

A scene in the movie “Fury” cast this legislation in a different light.  In April 1945, days from the end of the war in Europe, First Sergeant Collier—Wardaddy—an American tank commander, spies a woman peeking down at them from an upstairs window in the German town they have just conquered.  Wardaddy calls to Norman, Private Ellison, and the two men, armed with machine guns, head inside and up the stairs.  I have every reason to assume that Wardaddy is continuing Norman’s indoctrination into the ways of war.

Norman, a clerk trained to type 60 words per minute, was assigned to Wardaddy’s tank crew as a replacement assistant driver.  His failure and refusal to pull the trigger endangers the rest of his crew and everyone around him.  Wardaddy has already forced him to kill a German prisoner in a macabre hand-over-hand imitation of a mother teaching a child to form letters with a crayon.  I can only imagine what new lesson Wardaddy has in store for him, though the two German women have no illusions that they are anything to their armed invaders but spoils of war.

Wardaddy puts down his weapon, and tells Norman to do likewise, once he has determined that the two women are the only occupants of the apartment.  It’s a clear sign to the women, beautiful young Emma and her older cousin, that they may survive their ordeal if they comply with Wardaddy’s wishes.

Wardaddy wishes to wash with hot water, shave and eat a fried egg.  Norman plays a piece of sheet music at the piano.  Emma, delighted, sings the song and turns the page for him.  She stops when she notices the scars on Wardaddy’s back.

“She’s a good clean girl,” Wardaddy says to Norman.  “If you don’t take her in that bedroom, I will.”

Emma doesn’t need a translator to know what’s expected of her.  Given the opportunity to choose her rapist, she leads her young accompanist into the bedroom.  Norman retrieves his machine gun on the way.  Emma’s older cousin attempts to follow them, whether to intervene or to serve as a substitute is unclear.  Wardaddy stops her with a gesture and a word in German:

“No.  They’re young and they’re alive.”

As a rapist Norman is patient and gentle as a lover.  He and Emma, representing the human beings least degraded by war, exit that bedroom as husband and wife.  They know it.  Wardaddy knows it.  And so does Emma’s older cousin.  As they sit down to a wedding feast of fried eggs the rest of his tank crew—Coon-Ass, Gordo and Bible—knock at the door, calling for Norman.

Coon-Ass and Gordo have cajoled or coerced a “whore” to “entertain” them, and others, one at a time in the tank downstairs.  They have come to share her with Norman.  I get the impression that if Norman were not already married to Emma, Coon-Ass and Gordo would make it very difficult for him to refuse his share.  But seeing Emma, Coon-Ass in particular, representing the man most degraded by war, wants his share of her.  Now, however, even Coon-Ass isn’t likely to take her without Norman’s acquiescence.

“Don’t touch her!” Norman says with the all the force of a petulant child.

“Anyone touches the girl,” Wardaddy says, putting not only his rank but his personal power and authority on the line, “they get their teeth kicked in.”

Coon-Ass and Gordo are deeply hurt.  Even Bible, though apparently powerful enough in the pecking order to abstain from the women without suffering personal repercussions, is hurt to have been excluded from the wedding feast.  They remind Wardaddy that they have been together, brothers in arms, since the Normandy invasion.  Norman has not.

I suspect that Wardaddy would not have denied his brothers, Coon-Ass and Gordo, if they had gotten to Emma first.  He, as degraded by war as any of them, could not risk his rank, personal power or authority except for Norman’s or, if necessary, his own new bride.

And for those who think it might have been a better film, or Emma might have been a better woman, if she had fought to the death to defend her honor, a stray shell kills her in the next scene.  Norman grieves like a widower, though duty calls and limits his opportunity to do her justice.

If one or both of the teenagers in the Chevy come back Saturday night to perform the same ceremony with different partners, they would be guilty of adultery as long as the other lives.  The point was never to make adultery—or divorce, for that matter—the unpardonable sin.  The point was to get religious people to acknowledge that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  But they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.[4]

Other reasons for rejecting the view of marriage described in the law are 1) that a daughter who acted so precipitously may have robbed her father of a better bride price.  Or, 2) in more contemporary terms she may rob herself of a more lucrative match.  And 3) governing bodies, both secular and religious, want to regulate marriage.

Do they have that right (Matthew 16:19; 18:18 NKJV)?

And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

This certainly sounds like Peter and James had the authority to gut the law.  Were they the only ones?  In the United States of America a woman is free to couple or uncouple as she pleases because she is “endowed by [her] Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…”[5]  I often wonder why the lawyers, legal historians, philosophers and ministers who signed the Declaration of Independence didn’t forsee that the pursuit of personal happiness would come to dominate and define both life and liberty.

I’ve been taught to think like John Miller in his March 7, 2015 response to comments and an essay on happiness on blog.dictionary.com:

Everyone here really doesn’t understand the colonial meaning of the phrase.  Pursuit of happiness referred to the pursuit of holiness or godliness.  It had nothing to do with personal pleasures.  Our founders understood that morality and religion were required for a republic to succeed and in those times when someone pursued happiness it was a pursuit of that which is godly.  Sadly, that’s something very few Americans do these days and will be the source of our nation’s demise.

But the Declaration of Independence did not say “that all men are…endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are” the pursuit of Christ and his righteousness.  It said, “pursuit of Happiness.”  And I think I can say on the authority of Scripture and a bare knowledge of American history that “the pursuit of Christ and his righteousness” would never have gained consensus.

That, I think, is what I witness in both the Jerusalem Council and the Declaration of Independence.  They are prime examples of the achievements of committee work and consensus building.  They happened.  They are there for all to see.  I don’t believe these particular results of either exercise.  They are not my faith.  I think what Jesus meant was that those who trust Him would be led by his Holy Spirit (Matthew 16:19; 18:18 NET):

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.

I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.

One of the ways to know what has been bound and released in heaven is to know God’s law, not because one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law but because the law discloses what displeases Him: through the law comes the knowledge of sin.[6]

I should clarify my thoughts on happiness: I had my ticket home.  I was ready to go.  I would have been happy to sit and watch my daughter’s graduation ceremony from college.  But my twenty-three-year-old daughter had a stroke before I arrived.  Then I was happy to sit and watch as she chewed food and swallowed without choking on it.

I am grateful for happiness.  I think it is essential to the ongoing occupation of living here and now.  But I don’t have a clue how to pursue it.  When I’ve tried, the people, achievements, occupations and possessions I thought would make me happy, did not, not any more or any less than the normal ebb and flow of when I had not pursued happiness.  I will pursue Christ and his righteousness instead.

And to the wag who may say I only do that because it makes me happy, I can honestly answer, not always, my friend, at times it is a sad or a painful thing to do.  Still, it has its moments.

[1] Leviticus 18:8 (NET) Table

[2] Deuteronomy 22:30 (NET)

[3] Exodus 22:16, 17 (NET)

[4] Romans 3:23, 24 (NET)

[5] Declaration of Independence

[6] Romans 3:20 (NET)

Forgiven or Passed Over? Part 2

Posted on by

I studied ʽâbar through Genesis.  Nothing so far justifies translating it forgiven in Nathan’s response to David’s confession—Yes, and the Lord has forgiven (ʽâbar, העביר; Septuagint: παρεβίβασεν) your sin.[1]  But ʽâbar kept some evocative company for anyone studying the Torah in Hebrew (Genesis 6:5-7, 11-13 NET).

But the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) 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 (yehôvâh, יהוה) regretted that he had made humankind on the earth, and he was highly offended.  So the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) 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.”

The earth was ruined in the sight of God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, האלהים); the earth was filled with violence.  God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהים) saw the earth, and indeed it was ruined, for all living creatures on the earth were sinful.  So God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהים) said to Noah, “I have decided that all living creatures must die, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.  Now I am about to destroy them and the earth.

His chosen method of destruction was water: I am about to bring floodwaters on the earth to destroy from under the sky all the living creatures that have the breath of life in them.  Everything that is on the earth will die…[2]  The waters completely overwhelmed the earth, and the ark floated on the surface of the waters.[3]  So [He] destroyed every living thing that was on the surface of the ground, including people, animals, creatures that creep along the ground, and birds of the sky.  They were wiped off the earth.  Only Noah and those who were with him in the ark survived.  The waters prevailed over the earth for 150 days.[4]

Then ʽâbar was the action of the wind that proceeded (if not caused) the recession of the waters of this destruction: But God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהים) remembered Noah and all the wild animals and domestic animals that were with him in the ark.  God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהים) caused a wind to blow (ʽâbar, ויעבר; Septuagint: ἐπήγαγεν) over the earth and the waters receded.[5]

The next occurrences of ʽâbar are found in the story of Abram/Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3 NET):

Now the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) said to Abram, “Go out from your country, your relatives, and your father’s household to the land that I will show you [Table].  Then I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you, and I will make your name great, so that you will exemplify divine blessing [Table].  I will bless those who bless you, but the one who treats you lightly I must curse, and all the families of the earth will bless one another by your name” [Table].

So Abram left, just as the Lord had told him to do,[6] and ʽâbar was what Abram did as he obeyed yehôvâh.  Abram traveled (ʽâbar, ויעבר; Septuagint: διώδευσεν[7]) through the land as far as the oak tree of Moreh at Shechem.[8]

I am the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה), He said to Abram still clearly within the word of the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) that came to Abram in a vision,[9] who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.[10]  O sovereign (ʼădônây, אדני) Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה), by what can I know that I am to possess it?[11] Take for me a heifer, He answered, a goat, and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.[12]

I suppose it is possible that Abram took all these for him and then cut them in two and placed each half opposite the other[13] outside of the vision of verses 1-9.  Perhaps I am meant to take—When birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away[14]—in precisely that mundane way.  Then when the sun went down, Abram fell sound asleep, and great terror overwhelmed him[15] and Abram had a second vision.

My problem with this interpretation is that as Abram slept nocturnal birds of prey came to feast upon the carcasses of the heifer, the goat, the ram, the dove and the pigeon he had protected all day for yehôvâh in the real world, even as Abram heard and saw something completely different in a dream.  I am more inclined to take the text at face value and assume that Abram acted within the vision of Genesis 15:1 and that he was a dream within a vision deep in Genesis 15:13-16 (NET):

Know for certain that your descendants will be strangers in a foreign country.  They will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years [Table].  But I will execute judgment on the nation that they will serve.  Afterward they will come out with many possessions [Table].  But as for you, you will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age [Table].  In the fourth generation your descendants will return here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its limit [Table].

Then ʽâbar was the action of a smoking firepot with a flaming torch in a vision designed to overcome the doubts of Abram the believer:[16] When the sun had gone down and it was dark, a smoking firepot with a flaming torch passed (ʽâbar, עבר; Septuagint: διῆλθον) between the animal parts.[17]  It would have been disconcerting, to say the least, if Abram woke up the next morning to find the bones picked clean by nocturnal birds and other scavengers.

That day, the vision concluded, the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) made a covenant with Abram: “To your descendants I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River [Table]– the land of the Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, [Table] Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaites, [Table] Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites, and Jebusites [Table].”[18]

This brings me to the beginning of the Parashat Vayera (פרשת וירא), Genesis 18:1-22:24.  Ben Zion Katz, a pediatrician and self-proclaimed recreational Bible scholar, in an essay—“God’s Appearance to Abraham: Vision or Visit?”—posted on TheTorah.com contrasted “The Traditional Approach” to “A Peshat Reading” of Genesis 18.  In the traditional approach Abraham interrupted a vision of God to entertain three guests.  “This reading thus exemplifies the performance of two mitzvot – visiting the sick and welcoming guests.”

Even when I searched the Bible for mitzvot I was never quite this clever.  I certainly recognized Abraham’s hospitality but had serious doubts and questions about Lot’s practice of the same with two of the same men.  And I didn’t see “visiting the sick” here until I read Dr. Katz article: “God is ‘visiting’ Abraham (in a vision) because Abraham was recuperating from his circumcision.”  As long as I searched the Bible for rules to obey I, like Nicodemus, didn’t see—I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born from above, he cannot see the kingdom of God[19]—as the take away message of the Old Testament.

I was taught that I must be born again.  I was taught to mock Nicodemus’ dull-wittedness: How can a man be born when he is old?  He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?[20] And, How can these things be?[21] But I didn’t understand Jesus’ retort either (John 3:10-12 NET):

Are you the teacher of Israel and yet you don’t understand these things?  I tell you the solemn truth, we speak about what we know and testify about what we have seen, but you people do not accept our testimony.  If I have told you people about earthly things and you don’t believe, how will you believe if I tell you about heavenly things?

I was George McFly in the diner in “Back to the Future.”  I felt as bullied by Jesus as he did by Biff Tannen.  When Jesus turned his attention to Nicodemus, like Biff’s followers turned on Marty, I could feel like a winner for a moment, piling on Nicodemus.  But only for a moment, for Jesus was soon back to bullying me as his words seemed at the time.  God come to earth, mocking everyone who was not God.

The revolution came when I began to see Jesus as a baby and a child learning everything anew.  He studied the Hebrew Bible, what I call the Old Testament, and from it through the Holy Spirit learned the solemn truth (John 3:5-8 NET):

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.’  The wind blows wherever it will, and you hear the sound it makes, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going.  So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.

You must all be born from above, because no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.[22]  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.[23]

Dr. Katz continued:

Although clever and ethically uplifting, the traditional reading is not the peshat, the plain meaning of the text. The peshat reading, which is in consonance with modern literary analysis, is rather straightforward.  In verse 1, we are given an introduction that God appeared to Abraham.  That appearance then begins in verse 2, and of the 3 “people” Abraham sees, one is God personified while the other 2 are angels or messengers of God.

My lord (ʼâdôn, אדני), Abraham said, if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass (ʽâbar, תעבר; Septuagint: παρέλθῃς[24]) by and leave your servant.[25]  Here ʽâbar became the action that yehôvâh would take if He did not favor Abraham.  Let a little water be brought so that you may all wash your feet and rest under the tree,[26] Abraham continued.  It sounds to me as if Abraham wished to honor his guests in a manner in keeping with the favor their consenting to be his guests implied.  But in the “traditional” commentary Abraham was seen as a strict adherent 430 years before the law:

and bathe your feet: He thought that they were Arabs, who prostrate themselves to the dust of their feet, and he was strict not to allow any idolatry into his house.  But Lot, who was not strict, mentioned lodging before washing, as it is said (below 19:2): “and lodge and bathe your feet.” – [from Gen. Rabbah 54:4]

And let me get a bit of food, Abraham continued, so that you may refresh yourselves since you have passed (ʽâbar, עברתם; Septuagint: ἐξεκλίνατε[27]) by your servant’s home.  After that you may (ʽâbar, תעברו; Septuagint: παρελεύσεσθε[28]) be on your way.[29]  Here even the “traditional” commentary recognized the honor Abraham perceived:

because you have passed by: For I request this from you [i.e., to sustain your hearts] because you have passed by me [i.e., have stopped in my home] to honor me.

If yehôvâh consented not to ʽâbar by Abraham, Abraham’s hospitality would become the reason that yehôvâh ʽâbar Abraham’s tent.  All right, yehôvâh and his two companions replied, you may do as you say.[30]

After Sarah died Abraham negotiated with Ephron for a field with a cave to bury her body.  It was a curious negotiation.  As a wanderer in the promised land Abraham owned no property.  As a respected prince Ephron was willing to give him the property, but Abraham insisted that he would pay full price.  Here ʽâbar was according to the standard of that price: So Abraham agreed to Ephron’s price and weighed out for him the price that Ephron had quoted in the hearing of the sons of Heth – 400 pieces of silver, according to the standard (ʽâbar, עבר; Septuagint: δοκίμου) measurement at the time.[31]  The note in the NET reads: “Heb ‘passing for the merchant.’  The final clause affirms that the measurement of silver was according to the standards used by the merchants of the time.”

I’ll continue in the next essay.

[1] 2 Samuel 12:13b (NET) Table

[2] Genesis 6:17 (NET)

[3] Genesis 7:18 (NET)

[4] Genesis 7:23, 24 (NET)

[5] Genesis 8:1 (NET)

[6] Genesis 12:4a (NET)

[7] διώδευσεν, a form of διοδεύω

[8] Genesis 12:6a (NET)

[9] Genesis 15:1 (NET)

[10] Genesis 15:7 (NET)

[11] Genesis 15:8 (NET)

[12] Genesis 15:9 (NET) Table

[13] Genesis 15:10 (NET) Table

[14] Genesis 15:11 (NET) Table

[15] Genesis 15:12 (NET) Table

[16] For what does the scripture say? “Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:3 NET, quoting Genesis 15:6 NKJV)

[17] Genesis 15:17 (NET) Table

[18] Genesis 15:18-21 (NET)

[19] John 3:3 (NET) Table

[20] John 3:4 (NET)

[21] John 3:9 (NET)

[22] Romans 3:20 (NET)

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

[24] παρέλθῃς, a form of παρέρχομαι

[25] Genesis 18:3 (NET)

[26] Genesis 18:4 (NET)

[27] ἐξεκλίνατε, a form of ἐκκλίνω

[28] παρελεύσεσθε, another form of παρέρχομαι

[29] Genesis 18:5a (NET)

[30] Genesis 18:5b (NET)

[31] Genesis 23:16 (NET)

Appendix 1

Posted on by

pânı̂ym – Genesis
Reference Hebrew NET NKJV Septuagint
Genesis 1:2 פני surface of the watery deep face of the deep ἐπάνω (above)
Genesis 1:2 פני surface of the water face of the waters ἐπάνω (above)
Genesis 1:20 פני across the expanse of the sky face of the firmament of the heavens κατὰ (following)
Genesis 1:29 פני face of the entire earth face of all the earth ἐπάνω (above)
Genesis 2:6 פני surface of the ground face of the ground πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 3:8 מפני _ from the Lord God presence of the Lord God προσώπου (face)
Genesis 4:5 פניו expression was downcast countenance fell προσώπῳ (face)
Genesis 4:6 פניו expression downcast countenance fallen πρόσωπόν (face)
Genesis 4:14 פני _ the land face of the ground προσώπου (face)
Genesis 4:14 ומפניך your presence Your face προσώπου (face)
Genesis 4:16 מלפני presence of the Lord presence of the Lord προσώπου (face)
Genesis 6:1 פני face of the earth face of the earth ἐπὶ (upon)
Genesis 6:7 פני face of the earth face of the earth προσώπου (face)
Genesis 6:11 פני in the sight of God before God ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 6:13 לפני ? before Me ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 6:13 מפניהם because of them through them ἀπ᾽ (distant)
Genesis 7:1 לפני among this generation before Me ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 7:3 פני face of the earth face of all the earth ἐπὶ (upon)
Genesis 7:4 פני face of the ground face of the earth προσώπου(face)
Genesis 7:7 מפני because of the floodwaters because of the waters of the flood διὰ (through)
Genesis 7:18 פני surface of the waters surface of the waters ἐπάνω (above)
Genesis 7:23 פני surface of the ground face of the ground προσώπου (face)
Genesis 8:8 פני surface of the ground face of the ground προσώπου (face)
Genesis 8:9 פני surface of the entire earth face of the whole earth προσώπῳ (face)
Genesis 8:13 פני surface of the ground surface of the ground προσώπου (face)
Genesis 9:23 ופניהם their faces their faces  πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 10:9 לפני before the Lord before the Lord ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 10:9 לפני before the Lord before the Lord ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 11:4 פני face of the entire earth face of the whole earth προσώπου (face)
Genesis 11:8 פני face of the entire earth face of all the earth πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 11:9 פני face of the entire earth face of all the earth πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 11:28 פני while his father…was still alive before his father ἐνώπιον (facing)
Genesis 13:9 לפניך before you before you ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 13:10 לפני before the Lord obliterated Sodom and Gomorrah before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah πρὸ (before)
Genesis 16:6 מפניה from Sarai from her presence προσώπου (face)
Genesis 16:8 מפני _ my mistress, Sarai presence of my mistress Sarai προσώπου (face)
Genesis 16:12 פני away from his brothers presence of all his brethren πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 17:1 לפני before me before Me ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 17:3 פניו his face his face πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 17:17 פניו his face his face πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 17:18 לפניך before you before You ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 18:8 לפניהם before them before them παρέθηκεν (place beside)
Genesis 18:16 פני out over Sodom toward Sodom πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 18:22 לפני before the Lord before the Lord ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 19:13 פני before the Lord face of the Lord ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 19:27 פני before the Lord before the Lord ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 19:28 פני out toward Sodom toward Sodom πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 19:28 פני _ all the land toward all the land πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 20:15 לפניך before you before you ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 23:3 פני mourning his dead before his dead ἀπὸ (from)
Genesis 23:4 מלפני _ out of my sight ἀπ᾽ (distant)
Genesis 23:8 מלפני _ out of my sight προσώπου (face)
Genesis 23:12 לפני before the local people before the people ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 23:17 לפני next to Mamre before Mamre πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 23:19 פני next to Mamre before Mamre ἀπέναντι (opposite)
Genesis 24:7 לפניך before you before you ἔμπροσθέν (before)
Genesis 24:33 לפניו food was served set before him παρέθηκεν (place beside)
Genesis 24:40 לפניו before whom before whom ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 24:51 לפניך before you before you ἐνώπιόν (facing)
Genesis 25:9 פני near Mamre before Mamre ἀπέναντι (opposite)
Genesis 25:18 פני runs next to Egypt east of Egypt πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 25:18 פני away from all their relatives presence of all his brethren πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 27:7 לפני presence of the Lord presence of the Lord ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 27:7 לפני before I die before my death πρὸ (before)
Genesis 27:10 לפני before he dies before his death πρὸ (before)
Genesis 27:30 פני his father’s presence presence of Isaac προσώπου (face)
Genesis 27:46 מפני because of these daughters because of the daughters διὰ (through)
Genesis 29:26 לפני before the firstborn before the firstborn πρὶν (before, until)
Genesis 30:30 לפני before I arrived before I came ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 30:33 לפניך you come to verify before you ἐνώπιόν (facing)
Genesis 30:40 פני face the streaked face toward the streaked ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 31:2 פני Laban’s face countenance of Laban πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 31:5 פני father’s attitude father’s countenance πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 31:21 פניו headed for headed toward ὥρμησεν (set in motion)
Genesis 31:35 פניו your presence before you ἐνώπιόν (facing)
Genesis 32:3 לפניו on ahead before him ἔμπροσθεν (before)
Genesis 32:16 לפני before me before me ἔμπροσθεν (before)
Genesis 32:17 לפניך Whose herds are you driving? in front of you προπορευόμενά (going before)
Genesis 32:20 פניו appease him appease him πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 32:20 לפני ahead of me before me προπορευομένοις[1] (lead)
Genesis 32:20 פניו meet him see his face πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 32:20 פני accept me accept me πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 32:21 פניו ahead of him before him πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 32:30 פנים face to face face to face πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον
Genesis 33:3 לפניהם on ahead before them ἔμπροσθεν (before)
Genesis 33:10 פניך your face your face πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 33:10 פני the face of God the face of God πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 33:14 לפני ahead before his servant ἔμπροσθεν (before)
Genesis 33:14 לפני _ before me ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 33:18 פני near the city before the city πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 34:10 לפניכם open to you before you ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 35:1 מפני your brother Esau face of Esau προσώπου (face)
Genesis 35:7 מפני his brother face of his brother προσώπου (face)
Genesis 36:6 מפני distance away from Jacob presence of his brother προσώπου (face)
Genesis 36:7 מפני because of their livestock because of their livestock ἀπὸ (from)
Genesis 36:31 לפני before any king ruled before any king reigned πρὸ (before)
Genesis 38:15 פניה her face her face πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 40:7 פניכם look so sad saw that they were sad πρόσωπα (face)
Genesis 40:9 לפני in front of me before me ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 41:31 מפני because of because of ἐσομένου (sum)
Genesis 41:43 לפניו before him before him ἔμπροσθεν (before)
Genesis 41:46 לפני serving Pharaoh stood before Pharaoh ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 41:46 מלפני commissioned by Pharaoh went out from the presence προσώπου (face)
Genesis 41:56 פני over all the earth face of the earth προσώπου (face)
Genesis 43:3 פני my face my face πρόσωπόν (face)
Genesis 43:5 פני my face my face πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 43:9 לפניך before you before you ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 43:14 לפני before the man before the man ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 43:15 לפני before Joseph before Joseph ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 43:31 פניו his face his face πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 43:33 לפניו before him before him ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 43:34 פניו before him before him πα (somewhere, anywhere)
Genesis 44:14 לפניו before him before him ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 44:23 פני my face my face πρόσωπόν (face)
Genesis 44:26 פני the man’s face the man’s face πρόσωπόν (face)
Genesis 45:3 מפניו before him in his presence ἀποκριθῆναι (set apart)
Genesis 45:5 לפניכם ahead of you before you ἔμπροσθεν (before)
Genesis 45:7 לפניכם ahead of you before you ἔμπροσθεν (before)
Genesis 46:28 לפניו before him before him ἔμπροσθεν (before)
Genesis 46:28 לפניו to accompany him before him συναντῆσαι (to meet with)
Genesis 46:30 פניך your face your face πρόσωπόν (face)
Genesis 47:2 לפני introduced them to Pharaoh presented them to Pharaoh ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 47:6 לפניך before you before you ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 47:7 לפני before Pharaoh before Pharaoh ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 47:10 מלפני his presence before Pharaoh ἀπ᾽ (distant)
Genesis 47:13 מפני because of the famine because of the famine ἀπὸ (from)
Genesis 47:18 לפני before our lord sight of my lord ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 48:11 פניך see you again see your face προσώπου (face)
Genesis 48:15 לפניו God before whom God, before whom ἐναντίον (opposite)
Genesis 48:20 לפני he put Ephraim before Manasseh he set Ephraim before Manasseh ἔμπροσθεν (before)
Genesis 49:30 פני near Mamre before Mamre ἀπέναντι (opposite)
Genesis 50:1 פני father’s face father’s face πρόσωπον (face)
Genesis 50:13 פני near Mamre before Mamre κατέναντι (over against)
Genesis 50:16 לפני before he died Before your father died πρὸ (before)
Genesis 50:18 לפניו before him before his face πρὸς (on the side of)

Back to Deuteronomy, Part 1

[1] http://www.ericlevy.com/lxx/?Book=Gen&Chapter=32 (Verse 21)

Deuteronomy, Part 1

Posted on by

I intend to do a detailed study of Deuteronomy.  It coincided with my reading of an article in Newsweek, but I don’t know yet if that is anything more than a coincidence.  This is what Moses said to the assembly of Israel in the Transjordanian wastelands,[1] the book of Deuteronomy begins.  It struck me this time as an open invitation to compare Deuteronomy with what the Lord told Moses to say—Speak to the Israelites and tell them[2]—in Numbers 33:50-36:13 (NET).  I noticed immediately that what Moses said in Deuteronomy is considerably longer than what the Lord told him to say in Numbers.

Moses addressed the Israelites just as the Lord had instructed him to do.[3]  The note in the NET reads: “Heb ‘according to all which.’”  The Septuagint reads, κατὰ πάντα ὅσα ἐνετείλατο κύριος αὐτῷ πρὸς αὐτούς (literally, “following all as great as the Lord commanded him toward them”)

While I am willing to accept that God said more to Moses than is recorded in Numbers if Moses addressed the Israelites [according to all which] the Lord had instructed him to do, I notice that this same word ʼăsher was translated what in verse 1, whose twice in verse 4, that in verse 8 and just as in verse 11.  The problem is that verse 11 has a slightly different form of ʼăsher (כאשר) from all the other occurrences (אשר).  If Moses addressed the Israelites [, what] the Lord had instructed him to do, I think it only prudent to compare what Moses said to other passages with an open mind to potential differences between what Moses said and what the Lord told Moses to Speak to the Israelites and tell them.

Deuteronomy

Exodus, Numbers
The Lord our God spoke to us at Horeb and said, “You have stayed in the area of this mountain long enough.  Get up now, resume your journey…

Deuteronomy 1:6, 7a (NET)

 The Lord said to Moses, “Go up from here, you and the people whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt…

Exodus 33:1a (NET)
…heading for the Amorite hill country, to all its areas including the arid country, the highlands, the Shephelah, the Negev, and the coastal plain – all of Canaan and Lebanon as far as the Great River, that is, the Euphrates.

Deuteronomy 1:7b (NET)

 “Give these instructions to the Israelites, and tell them: ‘When you enter Canaan, the land that has been assigned to you as an inheritance, the land of Canaan with its borders,  your southern border will extend from the wilderness of Zin along the Edomite border, and your southern border will run eastward to the extremity of the Salt Sea, and then the border will turn from the south to the Scorpion Ascent, continue to Zin, and then its direction will be from the south to Kadesh Barnea.  Then it will go to Hazar Addar and pass over to Azmon.  There the border will turn from Azmon to the Brook of Egypt, and then its direction is to the sea.  And for a western border you will have the Great Sea.  This will be your western border.  And this will be your northern border: From the Great Sea you will draw a line to Mount Hor; from Mount Hor you will draw a line to Lebo Hamath, and the direction of the border will be to Zedad.  The border will continue to Ziphron, and its direction will be to Hazar Enan.  This will be your northern border.  For your eastern border you will draw a line from Hazar Enan to Shepham.  The border will run down from Shepham to Riblah, on the east side of Ain, and the border will descend and reach the eastern side of the Sea of Chinnereth.  Then the border will continue down the Jordan River and its direction will be to the Salt Sea.  This will be your land by its borders that surround it.’”

Numbers 34:2-12 (NET)
Look! I have already given the land to you.  Go, occupy the territory that I, the Lord, promised to give to your ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and to their descendants.”

Deuteronomy 1:8 (NET)

 …to the land I promised on oath to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, saying, ‘I will give it to your descendants.’

Exodus 33:1b (NET)
I will send an angel before you, and I will drive out the Canaanite, the Amorite, the Hittite, the Perizzite, the Hivite, and the Jebusite.  Go up to a land flowing with milk and honey.  But I will not go up among you, for you are a stiff-necked people, and I might destroy you on the way.”

Exodus 33:2, 3 (NET)

The borders of the land of Israel were part of the instructions the Lord gave to Moses.  I won’t try to compare the geography of ancient place names.  The Lord’s statement—I will not go up among you, for you are a stiff-necked people, and I might destroy you on the way—was not repeated here in Deuteronomy.  When the people heard this troubling word they mourned.[4]  I think this troubling word is part of a covenant of law, the ministry that produced death and condemnation[5] as Paul called it.

I almost missed how momentous this insight is for me.  There were days between those sentences, days of data-gathering and meditation on pânı̂ym (פני) before I recognized something about me: I will not go up among you, for you are a stiff-necked people, and I might destroy you on the way, was the essential feature of God’s holiness as that holiness pertained to me.  I can’t trace its origin.  It’s so deep inside me it seems self-evident.  It’s the reason I thought salvation was essentially a way for God to overcome his holiness.

But prior to the law the Lord didn’t speak this way to Cain[6] after Cain murdered his brother.  Cain was banished, however, from the Lord’s presence or face.  Surely You have driven me out this day from the face (pânı̂ym, פני; Septuagint: προσώπου) of the ground; I shall be hidden from Your face (pânı̂ym, ומפניך; Septuagint: προσώπου).[7]  So Cain went out from the presence (pânı̂ym, מלפני; Septuagint: προσώπου) of the Lord and lived in the land of Nod, east of Eden.[8]

God’s covenant with Abraham had one human requirement, one law, if you will—circumcision (Genesis 17:9-13 (NET):

Then God said to Abraham, “As for you, you must keep the covenantal requirement I am imposing on you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.  This is my requirement that you and your descendants after you must keep: Every male among you must be circumcised.  You must circumcise the flesh of your foreskins.  This will be a reminder of the covenant between me and you.  Throughout your generations every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, whether born in your house or bought with money from any foreigner who is not one of your descendants.  They must indeed be circumcised, whether born in your house or bought with money.  The sign of my covenant will be visible in your flesh as a permanent reminder.”

Moses, as a resident foreigner in a foreign land,[9] had not kept that one requirement with his own son.  Apparently, even after the Lord sent him back to Egypt to free Israel, Moses didn’t honor the covenant with God.  Now on the way, at a place where they stopped for the night, the Lord met Moses and sought to kill him.  But Zipporah took a flint knife, cut off the foreskin of her son and touched it to Moses’ feet, and said, “Surely you are a bridegroom of blood to me.”  So the Lord let him alone.  (At that time she said, “A bridegroom of blood,” referring to the circumcision.)[10]

This “Lord” who met Moses and sought to kill him was not some generic lord.  The Hebrew word is yehôvâh (יהוה) disguised in translation, I assume, as a religious attempt to obey the commandment: You shall not take the name of the Lord (yehôvâh,  יהוה) your God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהיך) in vain, for the Lord (yehôvâh,  יהוה) will not hold guiltless anyone who takes his name in vain.[11]  The story of yehôvâh, Moses and Zipporah leads me to consider that Moses’ slowness to honor the covenant was out of consideration for his foreign wife’s sensibilities.  They had discussed it.  She knew exactly what to do when yehôvâh (יהוה) sought to kill her husband.  But as I begin to study the face or presence of yehôvâh (יהוה) I will refrain from speculating how Zipporah knew that it was He who sought to kill him.

Even so Moses was deeply troubled, though perhaps not surprised, by the Lord’s declaration, I will not go up among you, for you are a stiff-necked people, and I might destroy you on the way.  But yehôvâh[12] (יהוה) reassured him: My presence (pânı̂ym, פני; Septuagint: αὐτὸς, self) will go with you, and I will give you rest.[13]  And Moses expressed for me what is the heart of the issue, If your presence (pânı̂ym; פניך; Septuagint: αὐτὸς σὺ, yourself) does not go with us, do not take us up from here.  For how will it be known then that I have found favor in your sight, I and your people?  Is it not by your going with us, so that we will be distinguished, I and your people, from all the people who are on the face (pânı̂ym;[14] פני) of the earth?[15]

In the Septuagint pânı̂ym (פני) was translated αὐτὸς (self) here rather than προσώπου (face).  It seemed to discount the efficacy of I will not go up among you, while it challenged my attempt to hold both statements true by casting pânı̂ym as another entity.  Yet αὐτὸς may well be another attempt to deal with this conundrum.  It implies something related but other than the I which would be understood from the Greek verb alone.  And the verbs were different.  I will not go up among you was μὴ συναναβῶ μετὰ σοῦ.[16]  My presence will go with you was αὐτὸς προπορεύσομαί σου.[17]  The verb προπορεύσομαί (a form of προπορεύομαι) means to precede, go before.  It’s a subtle distinction, but it still implied some distance to spare Israel from destruction.

The rabbis who translated the Septuagint were, and I am, seeking to no One we don’t entirely comprehend.  Our reference frames are different as well.  The rabbis believed yehôvâh ʼĕlôhı̂ym (אלהים יהוה) in a culture in which there were other ʼĕlôhı̂ym (אלהים) to choose.  Now, in my culture I will trust yehôvâh ʼĕlôhı̂ym (אלהים יהוה) or I will depend on myself.  I don’t see any other options.  So I decided to look deeply into pânı̂ym (פני).  I made it through Genesis thus far and some preliminary observations follow.

In the beginning the face or presence of the Lord had a location in space and time.  There were times when his face or presence was present in a location and times and locations when and where his face or presence was not.  Adam and Eve hid themselves from the presence (pânı̂ym, מפני; Septuagint: προσώπου) of the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהים) among the trees of the garden. [18]  And I assume that Adam and Eve did not eat the forbidden fruit nor did Cain murder Abel in the presence of yehôvâh ʼĕlôhı̂ym.  Of course, I had to quote from the NKJV here because the NET blurred any potential distinction between the presence of the Lord God and the Lord God: and they hid from the Lord God among the trees of the orchard.[19]

These spatial/temporal limitations were so much a part of the word pânı̂ym that it could mean prior to something occurring in time: Lot looked up and saw that the Jordan River valley was well-watered (before [pânı̂ym, לפני; Septuagint: πρὸ] the Lord [yehôvâh, יהוה] obliterated Sodom and Gomorrah) like the garden of the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה), like the land of Egypt, all the way to Zoar.[20]  Bring me some wild game and prepare for me some tasty food, Rebekah overheard Isaac say to Esau; Then I will eat it and bless you in the presence (pânı̂ym, לפני; Septuagint: ἐναντίον) of the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) before (pânı̂ym, לפני; Septuagint: πρὸ) I die.[21]

(It may be worth noting that Isaac didn’t mention the presence of the Lord to Esau.  Rebekah said it to Jacob.  Rebekah was the sister of Laban.  A generation later, Jacob’s wife Rachel thought it expedient to steal Laban’s household idols.  In a guilt by association sort of way it may be necessary to consider that all Rebekah meant by the presence of the Lord was in proximity to a household idol designated yehôvâh.)

It is not our custom here, Laban explained after he put Leah into Jacob’s wedding bed rather than Rachel, to give the younger daughter in marriage before (pânı̂ym, לפני; Septuagint: πρὶν) the firstborn.[22]  These were the kings, Moses began a king list, who reigned in the land of Edom before (pânı̂ym, לפני; Septuagint: πρὸ) any king ruled over the Israelites.[23]  And finally, Your father gave these instructions before (pânı̂ym, לפני; Septuagint: πρὸ) he died,[24] Joseph’s brothers lied by a messenger they sent to Joseph.

The Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) appeared…by the oaks of Mamre.[25]  Abraham looked up and saw three men (ʼı̂ysh, אנשים; Septuagint: ἄνδρες) standing across from him.[26]  The word ʼı̂ysh occurred first from the mouth of Adam: this one will be called ‘woman,’ (ʼishshâh,  אשה) for she was taken out of man (ʼı̂ysh, מאיש; Septuagint: ἀνδρὸς).[27]  Abraham took some curds and milk, along with the calf that had been prepared, and placed the food before (pânı̂ym, לפניהם; Septuagint: παρέθηκεν) them.[28]  Another Hebrew word was also used for the three men Abraham saw when yehôvâh appeared, according to the NET website:  When the men (ʼĕnôsh, האנשים; Septuagint: ἄνδρες) got up to leave, they looked out over Sodom.[29]  (A note in the NET acknowledged that the Hebrew was actually “toward the face [pânı̂ym, פני; Septuagint: πρόσωπον] of” Sodom.)  One of the three men was yehôvâh:  The…men (ʼı̂ysh,[30] האנשים; Septuagint: ἄνδρες) turned and headed toward Sodom, but Abraham was still standing before (pânı̂ym, לפני; Septuagint: ἐναντίον) the Lord[31] (yehôvâh, יהוה).

In the next chapter the two men who left for Sodom were called angels, essentially a transliteration of the Greek or Latin words for messenger or envoy: The two angels (malʼâk,  המלאכים; Septuagint: ἄγγελοι) came to Sodom in the evening.[32]  Later they were called men again: Only don’t do anything to these men (ʼı̂ysh, לאנשים; Septuagint: ἄνδρας), for they have come under the protection of my roof,[33] Lot said.  So the men (ʼı̂ysh, האנשים; Septuagint: ἄνδρες) inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house as they shut the door,[34] Moses wrote.  Then the two men inside struck the men (ʼı̂ysh, האנשים; Septuagint: ἄνδρας) who were at the door of the house, from the youngest to the oldest, with blindness.[35]  After that demonstration the men inside the house were called visitors (ʼı̂ysh, האנשים; Septuagint: ἄνδρες) in the NET.[36]  But later, even the NET called them men again: When Lot hesitated, the men (ʼı̂ysh, האנשים; Septuagint: ἄγγελοι[37]) grabbed his hand and the hands of his wife and two daughters because the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) had compassion on them.[38]

I have belabored this point because, though the ancient word may not be species specific[39] in a scientific sense, there is enough here, that if one believed Moses[40] about yehôvâh as a man visiting Abraham, he would not dismiss Jesus so easily as a blasphemer: The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy, because you, a man (ἄνθρωπος), are claiming to be God.”[41]

I’ll pick this up again in the next essay.

Back to Fear – Deuteronomy, Part 4

[1] Deuteronomy 1:1a (NET)

[2] Numbers 33:51a (NET)

[3] Deuteronomy 1:3b (NET)

[4] Exodus 33:4a (NET)

[5] 2 Corinthians 3:7-10 (NET)

[6] Genesis 4:8-16 (NET)

[7] Genesis 4:14a (NKJV)

[8] Genesis 4:16 (NET)

[9] Exodus 2:22 (NET)

[10] Exodus 4:24-26 (NET)

[11] Exodus 20:7 (NET) Table

[12] Moses spoke to yehôvâh (יהוה) in Exodus 33:12, 13 (NET)

[13] Exodus 33:14 (NET)

[14] Face wasn’t exactly translated in the Septuagint: ὅσα ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐστιν (“as great as upon the earth is”) much as face of the ground wasn’t exactly translated in Genesis 4:14 (NET).

[15] Exodus 33:15, 16 (NET)

[16] http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exo&c=33&t=LXX#s=t_bibles_83003

[17] http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Exo&c=33&t=LXX#s=83014

[18] Genesis 3:8b (NKJV)

[19] Genesis 3:8b (NET)

[20] Genesis 13:10 (NET)

[21] Genesis 27:7 (NET)

[22] Genesis 29:26 (NET)

[23] Genesis 36:31 (NET)

[24] Genesis 50:16b (NET)

[25] Genesis 18:1 (NET)

[26] Genesis 18:2a (NET)

[27] Genesis 2:23b (NET)

[28] Genesis 18:8 (NET)

[29] Genesis 18:16a (NET)

[30] I’m not sure why האנשים highlights as ʼĕnôsh in Genesis 18:16 (NET) and ʼı̂ysh in Genesis 18:22 (NET), whether it is a subtlety of the Hebrew language or a mistake on the NET website (though Strong’s Concordance concurs).  See also: Genesis 19:10, 11, 12, 16 (NET)

[31] Genesis 18:22 (NET)

[32] Genesis 19:1 (NET)

[33] Genesis 19:8 (NET)

[34] Genesis 19:10 (NET)

[35] Genesis 19:11a (NET)

[36] Genesis 19:12 (NET)

[37] The rabbis who translated the Septuagint switched back to ἄγγελοι as the men functioned as envoys of the compassion of yehôvâh)

[38] Genesis 19:16 (NET)

[39] You must take with you seven of every kind of clean animal, the male (ʼı̂ysh, איש; Septuagint: ἄρσεν) and its mate, two of every kind of unclean animal, the male (ʼı̂ysh, איש; Septuagint: ἄρσεν) and its mate… (Genesis 7:2 NET)

[40] John 5:46 (NET)

[41] John 10:33 (NET)

Romans, Part 55

Posted on by

I am continuing my attempt to view—Do not lag in zeal, be enthusiastic in spirit, serve the Lord[1]—as a definition of love (ἀγάπη) rather than as rules.  This particular essay is focused on the story of Jesus feeding five thousand plus people in the light of his assessment of the Jewish authorities (Ἰουδαῖοι) as an answer to how the Father seeking his own is not self-seeking.  I don’t know the official status of the “Jewish authorities.”

The  Ἰουδαῖοι (translated, Jewish leaders) sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask [John the Baptist], “Who are you?”[2]  I’ve assumed that the Ἰουδαῖοι called out the big guns (though they may have sent their servants to do their bidding).  In the story of Jesus and the Samaritan woman John explained, For Jews ( Ἰουδαῖοι) use nothing in common with Samaritans.[3]  This sounds like a description of “Jewishness.”  The  Ἰουδαῖοι (translated, Jewish leaders) said to the man who had been healed, “It is the Sabbath, and you are not permitted to carry your mat.”[4]  The healed man didn’t immediately drop his mat, but he didn’t blow off the Ἰουδαῖοι completely either.  He felt obliged to answer their charges in some fashion, at least to turn their gaze (and wrath) toward Jesus.

I certainly think of the Jewishness of the moment as the true adversary in this story (and perhaps all of John’s gospel narrative).  I might be more accurate to call these “authorities” accepted exemplars of then current Jewishness, but I’ll probably stick with  Ἰουδαῖοι for now.

It’s getting pretty deep here.  I need to remind myself what is at stake just to follow through with this level of detail.  First is my own issue:  Rules leap off the page and dance lewdly before my eyes.  Love and grace have always been more difficult for me to see in the Bible.  I’ve already written about how 1 Corinthians served to undo almost everything I thought I had learned in Romans.  Perceiving Romans 12:9-21 as rules to be obeyed clearly began that process.

My reason these days almost shouts, “Of course these are definitions of love.  How could the one who said of God’s law—no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law[5]—turn back, institute his own rules and expect any sane person to take him seriously?”  My experience of human nature, however, argues that we perceive that fault in others of which we are most guilty.  It makes perfect sense then that one who accused others of ignoring the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking instead to establish their own righteousness[6] would deny the efficacy of God’s law vis-a-vis righteousness only to establish his own rules of righteousness.  These arguments are mutually canceling.  I need to do the work studying the words to find the love and grace embedded in these apparent rules.

Here I want to recount what Jesus said about the Ἰουδαῖοι of the only God-ordained religion on the planet[7]:

1) You people have never heard [the Father’s] voice nor seen his form at any time, nor do you have his word residing in you, because you do not believe the one whom he sent.[8]

2) You study the scriptures thoroughly…it is these same scriptures that testify about me, but you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life.[9]

3) If you believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me.[10]

On point number 3 I want to clarify my own thinking.  The Bible begins: In the beginning ʼĕlôhı̂ym created the heavens and the earth.[11]  Then in chapter 2 one [Addendum (April 26, 2023): Father, Son and Holy Spirit, Part 7] of the ʼĕlôhı̂ym is specified: This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created – when the yehôvâh ʼĕlôhı̂ym made the earth and heavens.[12]  From this point on the Bible becomes his story.  If you believe (as I did) that yehôvâh ʼĕlôhı̂ym corresponds to the Father in the New Testament, Eric Chabot has an article online detailing the few times Moses wrote about Jesus.

These days I am thinking that yehôvâh ʼĕlôhı̂ym corresponds to the Son in the New Testament.  I think that was Jesus’ point when He said, I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am![13]  God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym) said to Moses, “I am (hâyâh) that I am.”  And he said, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘I am (hâyâh) has sent me to you.’”  God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym) also said to Moses, “You must say this to the Israelites, ‘The Lord (yehôvâh)– the God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym) of your fathers, the God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym) of Abraham, the God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym) of Isaac, and the God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym) of Jacob – has sent me to you.  This is my name forever, and this is my memorial from generation to generation.’”[14]

I think this was John’s point when he penned: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was fully God.  The Word was with God in the beginning.  All things were created by him, and apart from him not one thing was created that has been created.[15]  Now the Word became flesh and took up residence among us.  We saw his glory – the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father.[16]

And I think this was Paul’s point when he prophesied of Jesus: who though he existed in the form of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, but emptied himself by taking on the form of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature.  He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross!  As a result God exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee will bow – in heaven and on earth and under the earth – and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.[17]

What this means to me here is that I take Eric Chabot’s list and add virtually everything else Moses wrote to it.  In this light I’ll continue to look into the feeding of the five thousand men plus women and children.

Jesus and his disciples left by boat for an isolated place outside of Bethsaida.  But when the crowd heard about it, they followed him on foot from the towns, and arrived there ahead of them.  John added the reason they followed Him: they were observing (ἐθεώρουν, a form of θεωρέω) the miraculous signs (σημεῖα, a form of σημεῖον) he was performing on the sick.

Matthew Mark Luke

John

Now when Jesus heard this he went away from there privately in a boat to an isolated place.

Matthew 14:13a (NET)

 Then the apostles gathered around Jesus and told him everything they had done and taught.  He said to them, “Come with me privately to an isolated place and rest a while” (for many were coming and going, and there was no time to eat).  So they went away by themselves in a boat to some remote place.

Mark 6:30-32 (NET)

 When the apostles returned, they told Jesus everything they had done.  Then he took them with him and they withdrew privately to a town called Bethsaida.

Luke 9:10 (NET)

 After this Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee (also called the Sea of Tiberias).

John 6:1 (NET)
But when the crowd heard about it, they followed him on foot from the towns.

 Matthew 14:13b (NET)

 But many saw them leaving and recognized them, and they hurried on foot from all the towns and arrived there ahead of them.

Mark 6:33 (NET)

 But when the crowds found out, they followed him.

Luke 9:11a (NET) Table

 A large crowd was following him because they were observing the miraculous signs he was performing on the sick.

John 6:2 (NET)

Though Jesus had gone away with his disciples for rest and perhaps an opportunity to grieve,[18] when He got out of the boat he saw the large crowd, and he had compassion on them.  He welcomed them, spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and cured those who needed healing.  He had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd (ποιμένα, a form of ποιμήν).

Matthew

 Mark

Luke
As he got out he saw the large crowd, and he had compassion on them and healed their sick.

Matthew 14:14 (NET)

 As Jesus came ashore he saw the large crowd and he had compassion on them, because they were like sheep without a shepherd.  So he taught them many things.

Mark 6:34 (NET)

 He welcomed them, spoke to them about the kingdom of God, and cured those who needed healing.

Luke 9:11b (NET) Table

The people had many  Ἰουδαῖοι who did not have God’s word residing in them,  though the  Ἰουδαῖοι studied the Old Testament scriptures thoroughly, because they thought in them they possessed eternal life.  The  Ἰουδαῖοι functioned as thought police not as shepherds of the people.  Thought police exert their influence from the outside.  Shepherds feed the sheep.

I didn’t always recognize this distinction.  I remembered that the good shepherd breaks the legs of lambs that wander away from the flock.  I had to decide whether I would believe the shepherd lore I was taught as a child or the Word of God, as shepherds must decide whether they will feed the lambs shepherd lore or the Word of God (John 21:15-17 NET). Table

Then when they had finished breakfast [that Jesus had prepared for them], Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love (ἀγαπᾷς, a form of ἀγαπάω) me more than these do?”  He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love (φιλῶ, a form of φιλέω) you.”  Jesus told him, “Feed (βόσκε, a form of βόσκω) my lambs.”  Jesus said a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love (ἀγαπᾷς, a form of ἀγαπάω) me?”  He replied, “Yes, Lord, you know I love (φιλῶ, a form of φιλέω) you.”  Jesus told him, “Shepherd (ποίμαινε, a form of ποιμαίνω) my sheep.”  Jesus said a third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love (φιλεῖς, another form of φιλέω) me?”  Peter was distressed that Jesus asked him a third time, “Do you love (φιλεῖς, another form of φιλέω) me?” and said, “Lord, you know everything.  You know that I love (φιλῶ, a form of φιλέω) you.”  Jesus replied, “Feed (βόσκε, a form of βόσκω) my sheep.

The Word of God does its work from the inside, unleashing the power of God (Hebrews 13:20, 21 NET):

Now may the God of peace who by the blood of the eternal covenant brought back from the dead the great shepherd (ποιμένα, a form of ποιμήν) of the sheep, our Lord Jesus Christ, equip (καταρτίσαι, a form of καταρτίζω) you with every good thing (ἀγαθῷ, a form of ἀγαθός) to do (ποιῆσαι, a form of ποιέω) his will, working (ποιῶν, another form of ποιέω; in other words doing) in us what is pleasing before him through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory forever.  Amen.

And, of course, every shepherd must decide for himself whether he trusts God’s power enough to forego leg-breaking and thought police (Hebrews 13:20, 21 CEV).

God gives peace, and he raised our Lord Jesus Christ from death.  Now Jesus is like a Great Shepherd whose blood was used to make God’s eternal agreement with his flock.  I pray that God will make you ready to obey him and that you will always be eager to do right.  May Jesus help you do what pleases God.  To Jesus Christ be glory forever and ever!  Amen.

Here, I think, is a prime example of Bible translation as interpretation tailored to fit a lesser[19] confidence in God’s power.  My obedience is the real key.  And I think it entirely fair to ask why Jesus, who only may…help, should rob me of my glory for my obedience.  This is the second-chance-gospel I grew up believing, a second chance to keep the law.  It is not God Himself doing in us what is pleasing before Him.

When evening arrived, [Jesus’] disciples came to him saying, “This is an isolated place and the hour is already late.  Send the crowds away so that they can go into the villages and buy food for themselves.”  But he replied, “They don’t need to go.  You give them something to eat.”  On this Matthew, Mark and Luke agree.

Matthew Mark

Luke
When evening arrived, his disciples came to him saying, “This is an isolated place and the hour is already late.  Send the crowds away so that they can go into the villages and buy food for themselves.”  But he replied, “They don’t need to go.  You give them something to eat.”

Matthew 14:15, 16 (NET)

 When it was already late, his disciples came to him and said, “This is an isolated place and it is already very late.  Send them away so that they can go into the surrounding countryside and villages and buy something for themselves to eat.”  But he answered them, “You give them something to eat.”

Mark 6:35-37a (NET)

 Now the day began to draw to a close, so the twelve came and said to Jesus, “Send the crowd away, so they can go into the surrounding villages and countryside and find lodging and food, because we are in an isolated place.”  But he said to them, “You give them something to eat.”

Luke 9:12, 13a (NET)

It left me with the impression that after Jesus spent a long day doing the will of the one who sent[20] Him, having food to eat that they knew nothing about,[21] it fell to his disciples to consider the practical matter of feeding so many hungry people.  But as I turn to John’s Gospel narrative I think this is precisely the false impression he wrote to correct.

John didn’t reiterate that Jesus healed the sick or taught the people many things about the kingdom of God.  That had been written already.  He wrote that Jesus went on up the mountainside and sat down there with his disciples.[22]  Then Jesus, when he looked up and saw that a large crowd was coming to him, said to Philip, “Where can we buy bread so that these people may eat?”  (Now Jesus said this to test him, for he knew what he was going to do.)[23]

Jesus was concerned about feeding the people from the very moment he saw them following him because they were observing the miraculous signs he was performing on the sick.  It is exactly what He had promised them in the name of his Father (Matthew 6:25-33 NET):

“Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or drink, or about your body, what you will wear.  Isn’t there more to life than food and more to the body than clothing?  Look at the birds in the sky: They do not sow, or reap, or gather into barns, yet your heavenly Father feeds them.  Aren’t you more valuable than they are?  And which of you by worrying can add even one hour to his life?  Why do you worry about clothing?  Think about how the flowers of the field grow; they do not work or spin.  Yet I tell you that not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these!  And if this is how God clothes the wild grass, which is here today and tomorrow is tossed into the fire to heat the oven, won’t he clothe you even more, you people of little faith (ὀλιγόπιστοι, a form of ὀλιγόπιστος)?  So then, don’t worry saying, ‘What will we eat?’ or ‘What will we drink?’ or ‘What will we wear?’  For the unconverted pursue these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them.  But above all pursue his kingdom and righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.

I’ll take this up again in the next essay.

[1] Romans 12:11 (NET) Table

[2] John 1:19 (NET)

[3] John 4:9b (NET) Table

[4] John 5:10  (NET) Table

[5] Romans 3:20a (NET)

[6] Romans 10:3a (NET)

[7] I am beginning to think that might be overstated.  Don Richardson, for instance, might argue that with me.  I would listen to him, but for now I will stick with this understanding of the Old Testament.

[8] John 5:37b, 38 (NET)

[9] John 5:39, 40 (NET)

[10] John 5:46 (NET)

[11] Genesis 1:1 (NET)

[12] Genesis 2:4 (NET)

[13] John 8:58 (NET) Table

[14] Exodus 3:14, 15 (NET)

[15] John 1:1-3 (NET)

[16] John 1:14 (NET)

[17] Philippians 2:6-11 (NET)

[18] John 14:10-13 (NET)

[19] 2 Timothy 3:5 (NET)

[20] John 4:34 (NET) Table

[21] John 4:32 (NET)

[22] John 6:3 (NET)

[23] John 6:5, 6 (NET)

Apostles and Prophets, Part 3

Posted on by

Lori Eldridge’s[1] argument “Why there are no Apostles today”[2] continued:

The apostles claimed to be eyewitnesses:    

Acts 5:32, Peter and the other apostles stated, “We are witnesses of these things, and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey him.”

Therefore, ALLLLLLL the apostles were eye witnesses to Christ and his Resurrection.

On the surface of it the structure of the sentence in Acts 5:32—we are…and so is—doesn’t sound like the kind of exclusive claim Ms. Eldridge wants to make of it.  But I want to address something else first; namely, the Holy Spirit whom God has given (ἔδωκεν, a form of δίδωμι) to those who obey him.”[3]  The note in the NET reads:  “Those who obey.  The implication, of course, is that the leadership is disobeying God.”  What I object to is the implication that the Holy Spirit has been given as a result of human “obedience.”  And I don’t think Peter was at fault here.

The Greek word translated obey (πειθαρχοῦσιν, a form of πειθαρχέω) is a combination of πείθω:

A primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty)

NET: 1) persuade 1a) to persuade, i.e. to induce one by words to believe 1b) to make friends of, to win one’s favour, gain one’s good will, or to seek to win one, strive to please one 1c) to tranquillise 1d) to persuade unto i.e. move or induce one to persuasion to do something 2) be persuaded 2a) to be persuaded, to suffer one’s self to be persuaded; to be induced to believe: to have faith: in a thing 2a1) to believe 2a2) to be persuaded of a thing concerning a person 2b) to listen to, obey, yield to, comply with 3) to trust, have confidence, be confident

and ἄρχω:

A primary verb; to be first (in political rank or power)

NET: 1) to be chief, to lead, to rule.

It is a reference back to Peter’s response to the council and the high priest[4]: We must obey (πειθαρχεῖν, another form of πειθαρχέω) God rather than people.[5]  And he said this as he refused to heed or be persuaded by the highest religious authority in Israel: We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name.[6]  Had πειθαρχεῖν δεῖ θεῷ been translated “we must trust God as leader” and πειθαρχοῦσιν αὐτῷ as “trust him as leader” we would have a better translation of Peter’s point without inducing him to propound a false concept.  And the Holy Spirit would be seen as the cause of human obedience rather than a reward for good behavior.

The structure of Ms. Eldridge’s argument is: The apostles claimed to be eyewitnesses in Acts 5:32, therefore all the apostles were eye witnesses to Christ and his Resurrection (and none other than eye witnesses can be apostles).  This argument depends on equating eyewitnesses (αὐτόπται, a form of αὐτόπτης) with witnesses (μάρτυρες, a form of μάρτυς) of these things (ρημάτων, a form of ῥῆμα; NET events).  These things (NIV) or events (NET) are specified: The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, whom you seized and killed by hanging him on a tree.  God exalted him to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.[7]

Admittedly, translating ρημάτων as things or events makes the relationship to αὐτόπται seem strong, and makes μάρτυρες seem exclusive to that generation.  You killed the Originator (ἀρχηγὸν, a form of ἀρχηγός) of life, Peter said elsewhere, whom God raised (ἤγειρεν, a form of ἐγείρω) from the dead.  To this fact (οὗ, a form of ὅς) we are witnesses (μάρτυρες, a form of μάρτυς)![8]  The apostles saw Jesus seized and killed by hanging him on a tree.  If Peter meant raised from the dead by The God of our forefathers raised up Jesus, the apostles certainly saw Jesus after his resurrection.    But if he meant God exalted him to his right hand as Leader  and Savior, was that something they saw with their eyes (Hebrews 2:6b-9 NET)?

“What is man that you think of him or the son of man that you care for him?  You made him lower than the angels for a little while.  You crowned him with glory and honor.  You put all things under his control.”  For when he put all things under his control, he left nothing outside of his control.  At present we do not yet see (ὁρῶμεν, a form of ὁράω) all things under his control, but we see (βλέπομεν, a form of βλέπω) Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by God’s grace he would experience death on behalf of everyone.

I don’t think we are meant to take we see Jesus as proof that the letter to the Hebrews was penned before Jesus’ ascension.  The apostles did see Jesus taken up[9] (ἀνελήμφθη, a form of ἀναλαμβάνω) into the sky: while they were watching (βλεπόντων, another form of βλέπω), he was lifted up (ἐπήρθη, a form of ἐπαίρω) and a cloud hid him from their sight[10] (ὀφθαλμῶν, a form of ὀφθαλμός) But only Stephen, as he was stoned to death, full of the Holy Spirit, looked intently (ἀτενίσας, a form of ἀτενίζω) toward heaven (οὐρανὸν, a form of οὐρανός) and saw (εἶδεν, a form of εἴδω) the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.[11]  The others must have “seen” this in some other way, similar perhaps to the way they “saw” Jesus give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

Actually, the word (ρημάτων, a form of ῥῆμα) translated things or events in Acts 5:32 was translated words in: Then the women remembered his words[12] (ρημάτων), and If anyone hears my words (ρημάτων) and does not obey them, I do not judge him.[13]  Had Acts 5:32 been translated—And we are witnesses of these words—it would have been more obvious that the apostles became witnesses by believing what they heard rather than seeing with their eyes.  I could quote many instances of forms of ῥῆμα translated as word or words.  It will be more efficient to look into those which were translated differently.

But if he does not listen, take one or two others with you, so that at the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter (ρῆμα, another form of ῥῆμα) may be established.[14]  (This is the third time I am coming to visit you.  By the testimony of two or three witnesses every matter (ρῆμα, another form of ῥῆμα) will be established.[15])  The differences in the various translations prompts the question: What is being established (NET, DNT, NIV, ASV, KJV, NKJV, YLT, NAB), stood upon (DNT, YLT), clarified (TMSG), confirmed (ISVNT), verified (ISVNT, GWT), attested (MSNT), sustained (MSNT), proved true (CEV), upheld (TEV)?  Is it the word (ρῆμα) of the witnesses (μαρτύρων)?  Or is it the brother’s sin?[16]  Or is it both?

A single witness (Septuagint: μάρτυς) may not testify (Septuagint: μαρτυρῆσαι[17]) against another person for any trespass or sin that he commits.  A matter (Hebrew: dâbâr; Septuagint: ῥῆμα) may be legally established only on the testimony of two or three witnesses.[18]  In the context of the original verse Jesus’ quoted, it is fairly clear that the word of the witnesses was being legally established.  The words dâbâr or ῥῆμα might have been translated accusation, but I see no credible reason to translate them matter until I look at the larger context and its implications (Deuteronomy 19:16-19a NET).

If a false witness testifies against another person and accuses him of a crime [Table], then both parties to the controversy must stand before the Lord, that is, before the priests and judges who will be in office in those days [Table].  The judges will thoroughly investigate the matter, and if the witness should prove to be false and to have given false testimony against the accused [Table], you must do to him what he had intended to do to the accused [Table].

Those who malign the Lord (as I have done) for the law’s death penalty for very human offenses never mention this little gem.  The gossip who sees a man sneaking out of the widow’s house in the middle of the night must consider her own jeopardy before accusing them of a capital offense.  And as I begin to argue in my own mind that gossips would never be punished as severely as adulterers, I hear the law addressed directly to judges who would practice such injustice (Deuteronomy 19:19b-21 NET).

In this way you will purge evil from among you [Table].  The rest of the people will hear and become afraid to keep doing such evil [i.e., gossiping, becoming a false witness] among you [Table].  You must not show pity; the principle will be a life for a life, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, and a foot for a foot [Table].

The judges had no discretion regarding the sentencing of false witnesses.  It truly is a beautiful law.  Deuteronomy 19:15-21 all but guarantees (as much as any law weakened through the flesh[19] can “guarantee” anything pertaining to human behavior) that only the most flagrant and egregious sins would ever come up for adjudication.  But none of this justifies the translation of dâbâr/ῥῆμα as matter in my mind until I ask, what triggers the investigation of the false witness?

I assume it is the same thing that triggers the procedural acceleration in Mathew 18:16, But if he does not listen (ἀκούσῃ, a form of ἀκούω).  If the accused hears the word of the witnesses, does not accuse them of lying, the matter is legally established…on the testimony of two or three witnesses as a matter of procedure.  The procedure is at its end.  In this sense I can barely justify translating dâbâr/ῥῆμα as matter, with the proviso that it hides the fact from the non-Hebrew-non-Greek-studying English-speaking world that the word of the witnesses was the primary focus and concern of the Word of God.

Given the time and place I came of age I can’t help but wonder if yehôvâh/Jesus, both in the law and in the Gospel of Matthew, hasn’t instituted the most virulent form of thought police ever conceived.  But let me take some of the things, events or words (ρημάτων, a form of ῥῆμα) the apostles “saw” (or heard and believed) seriously (Acts 5:31 NET):

God exalted [Jesus] to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness (ἄφεσιν, a form of ἄφεσις) of sins.

The words do not say, God exalted [Jesus] to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to institute the most virulent form of thought police ever conceived.  Through hearing with faith I can stand up to the socially constructed reality of my upbringing and accept that what I may think was instituted as thought police was actually instituted to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.  It transforms my outlook.

What if an avid student of the law had heard Jephthah’s thoughtless oath?[20]  If you really do hand the Ammonites over to me [Table], then whoever is the first to come through the doors of my house to meet me when I return safely from fighting the Ammonites – he will belong to the Lord and I will offer him up as a burnt sacrifice [Table].[21]  Maybe the avid law student didn’t recognize it as a thoughtless oath until Jephthah came home to Mizpah, there was his daughter hurrying out to meet him, dancing to the rhythm of tambourines.[22]

Or perhaps the law didn’t come to his mind until Jephthah ripped his clothes and said, “Oh no!  My daughter!  You have completely ruined me!  You have brought me disaster!  I made an oath to the Lord, and I cannot break it.”[23]  Or if that didn’t do it maybe her answer jogged his memory, My father, since you made an oath to the Lord, do to me as you promised.  After all, the Lord vindicated you before your enemies, the Ammonites.[24]  Or if that fell on deaf ears, what if the law came to him any time during the two months Jephthah’s daughter wandered the hills with her friends to mourn her virginity?[25]

What if the avid law student came to Jephthah with two comrades who heard his oath? and said, “Jephthah, you have made a thoughtless oath in our hearing.  Now hear the word of the Lord (Leviticus 5:4-6 NET):

[W]hen a person swears an oath, speaking thoughtlessly with his lips, whether to do evil or to do good, with regard to anything which the individual might speak thoughtlessly in an oath, even if he did not realize it, but he himself has later come to know it and is guilty with regard to one of these oaths [Table]…he must confess how he has sinned [Table], and he must bring his penalty for guilt to the Lord for his sin that he has committed, a female from the flock, whether a female sheep or a female goat, for a sin offering.  So the priest will make atonement on his behalf for his sin [Table].

The risk for the witnesses, the avid law student and his two comrades, was a female sheep or a female goat (a piece, I assume, less if they were poor[26]).  The benefit for Jephthah was his daughter’s life.  It is in keeping with the beautiful law, and the intent of God the Father and Jesus the Leader and Savior to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.

Jephthah may have rejected the word of the witnesses anyway.  The religious mind is capable of atrocities ordinary sinners shrink from committing.  But if he had rejected the word of the witnesses Jephthah would have been a rebellious son of Israel rather than the tragic victim of a pious good: After two months she returned to her father, and [Jephthah] did to her as he had vowed.[27]

Standing up to the religious mind, one’s own as well as those of others, is part and parcel of following Christ.  For some of us it is the cross[28] we bear.  I’ll return to Ms. Eldridge’s argument and more instances of ῥῆμα in the next essay.  A table of the translation in various Bibles of dâbâr/ῥῆμα from the three verses considered above follows.

Translation of ρῆμα[29] Matthew 18:16 2 Corinthians 13:1 Deuteronomy 19:15
matter NET, DNT, NIV NET, DNT, TMSG,[30] NIV NET, DNT, NIV, ASV, KJV, NKJV
word ASV, ISVNT, KJV, MSNT, NKJV, YLT ASV, KJV, NKJV
charges CEV
charge MSNT NAB
complaint CEV
accusation GWT, TEV GWT, ISVNT, TEV
saying YLT
fact NAB NAB
a case TMSG

Back to Romans, Part 55

[1] http://www.endtime-prophets.com/statement.html

[2] http://www.endtime-prophets.com/noproph.html

[3] Acts 5:32b (NET)

[4] Acts 5:27 (NET)

[5] Acts 5:29 (NET)

[6] Acts 5:28a (NET)

[7] Acts 5:30, 31 (NET)

[8] Acts 3:15 (NET)

[9] Acts 1:2 (NET)  The note in the NET reads: “The words ‘to heaven’ are not in the Greek text, but are supplied from v. 11.”  As they were still staring into the sky (οὐρανὸν, a form of οὐρανός) while he was going, suddenly two men in white clothing stood near them and said, “Men of Galilee, why do you stand here looking up into the sky (οὐρανὸν, a form of οὐρανός)?  This same Jesus who has been taken up from you into heaven (οὐρανὸν, a form of οὐρανός) will come back in the same way you saw him go into heaven (οὐρανὸν, a form of οὐρανός).” (Acts 1:10, 11 NET)

[10] Acts 1:9 (NET)

[11] Acts 7:55 (NET)

[12] Luke 24:8 (NET)

[13] John 12:47a (NET)

[14] Matthew 18:16 (NET)

[15] 2 Corinthians 13:1 (NET)

[16] Matthew 18:15 (NET)

[17] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=marturh%3Dsai&la=greek&prior=moi (a form of μαρτυρέω)

[18] Deuteronomy 19:15 (NET) Table

[19] Romans 8:3-4 (NET)

[20] Leviticus 5:4 (NET)

[21] Judges 11:30b, 31 (NET)

[22] Judges 11:34a (NET) Table

[23] Judges 11:35 (NET) Table

[24] Judges 11:36 (NET) Table

[25] Judges 11:37, 38 (NET)

[26] Leviticus 5:7-13 (NET)

[27] Judges 11:39a (NET) Table

[28] Matthew 10:38, 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23, 14:27

[29] In Deuteronomy the word is dâbâr though ῥῆμα was used in the Septuagint.  The ISVNT and MSNT are New Testament only.  The CEV, GWT, and TEV are too paraphrased for me to tell which word is a translation of what.

[30] If he won’t listen, take one or two others along so that the presence of witnesses will keep things honest, and try again (Matthew 18:16 TMSG).  I have no idea how ρῆμα was translated here.

Forgiven or Passed Over? Part 1

Posted on by

Revisiting an essay—David’s Forgiveness, Part 1—I realized I had put an inordinate emphasis on the word forgiven without looking into the meaning of the original Hebrew word.  My suspicion of Bible translators feels at times like a paranoid schizophrenic’s fear of the CIA.  Lapses like this one renew my appreciation for the maxim, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they aren’t after you.”[1]

This essay could be very short.  I could simply say that Nathan actually responded to David’s confession with the words, Yes, and the Lord has passed over[2] (ʽâbar) your sin.  You are not going to die.[3]  Such a translation would agree with Paul’s assessment of God’s past actions: God in his forbearance had passed over (πάρεσιν, a form of πάρεσις) the sins previously committed.[4]  I could simply accept the text at face value, that ʽâbar is not forgiveness and God is free to exact whatever penalty He chooses.

It seems like an ironclad argument.  But five of the twelve Bibles I checked translate ʽâbar in 2 Samuel 12:13 forgiven or forgives.  Of the remaining seven four have it put away, two are taken away, and one, Jehovah hath caused thy sin to pass away.  How different is that from forgiven really?

ʽâbar 2 Samuel 12:13

Bible Versions
forgiven NET, CEV, NAB
put away ASV, DNT, KJV, NKJV
taken away GWT, NIV
forgives TEV, TMSG
pass away YLT

Do the translators believe that this is all I should expect from the forgiveness God exalted Jesus to give to Israel?  God exalted him to his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness (ἄφεσιν, a form of ἄφεσις) of sins.[5]  Apparently a primary verb to forgive is as absent from holy Hebrew as it is from pagan Greek.  The concept to forgive is either shoehorned into, or extrapolated from, other verbs in both languages.  [Addendum 2/14/2018: This is wrong regarding Hebrew: sâlach (סלח).]  That gives me cause to study ʽâbar in more detail to get a feel for its capacity to carry forgiveness.

I had the opportunity to go home for a month at Christmas.  Home is a relative concept.  I alternated between my mother’s house visiting her, my sister and her husband, and my ex-mother-in-law’s house about a hundred miles north visiting her, my kids, my ex-wife and her husband.  The day after I arrived I attended my son’s wedding.

We all sat in the front row.  I offered the seat next to our ex-wife to my son’s biological father.  He declined the offer and sat next to me.  (Her current husband sat on her other side.)  He is about two years from a painful break-up with his significant other.  He leaned over and whispered to me, “I don’t know how you do it.  I don’t think I could sit next to my ex, smiling, at her son’s wedding.”  He gave me the opportunity to say that I couldn’t take the credit, that it is not my doing so much as my getting out of the way of the Lord’s doing: his love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and firm control.  He received it well and acknowledged that he was seeking a similar peace.

Later, in a phone conversation with another friend who questioned me more specifically about the fruit of the Spirit, I acknowledged that sadly the Lord’s love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, and gentleness aren’t always my first impulse.  Sometimes letting the fruit of his Spirit shine through me is a matter of waiting in that firm control until the second, third or fourth impulse holds sway.  But as I think of it now there is something else that makes friendship with my ex-wife possible.

I forgave her for divorcing me.  I forgive her every night I go to bed alone and every morning I wake up.  And I will forgive her for as long as we both shall live.  “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel…[6]  I don’t forgive her because I am so righteous.

Jesus taught us to pray, forgive (ἄφες, a form of ἀφίημι) us our debts, as we ourselves have forgiven (ἀφήκαμεν, another form of ἀφίημι) our debtors.[7]  I, a sinful man in need of the Father’s forgiveness, pray this daily, and I believe Jesus’ saying: For if you forgive (ἀφῆτε, another form of ἀφίημι) others their sins (παραπτώματα, a form of παράπτωμα), your heavenly Father will also forgive (ἀφήσει, another form of ἀφίημι) you.  But if you do not forgive (ἀφῆτε, another form of ἀφίημι) others, your Father will not forgive (ἀφήσει, another form of ἀφίημι) you your sins (παραπτώματα, a form of παράπτωμα).[8]

And here I probably give myself too much credit for rational consistency.  I forgive because I am schooled in this teaching by the Holy Spirit and filled continuously with his love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and firm control.  It occurs to me, however, that one who feels more righteous than I, might feel less need of the Father’s forgiveness and less compulsion to forgive others.  The fault in this logic is that the most righteous man of all prayed, Father, forgive (ἄφες, a form of ἀφίημι) them, for they don’t know what they are doing[9] as He surrendered[10] to his Father’s will.

The Father’s answer to his beloved Son’s request is the hope of all us sinners if it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy[11] (ἐλεῶντος, a form of ἐλεέω).  For God has consigned all people to disobedience (ἀπείθειαν, a form of ἀπείθεια) so that he may show mercy (ἐλεήσῃ, another form of ἐλεέω) to them all.[12]  What shall we say then?  Is there injustice with God?  Absolutely not!  For he says to Moses: “I will have mercy (ἐλεήσω, another form of ἐλεέω) on whom I have mercy (ἐλεῶ, another form of ἐλεέω), and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”[13]

The Greek word ὡς persuades me that forgiveness is, and will be perceived as, a relative as opposed to an absolute concept.  So then, be perfect, as (ὡς) your heavenly Father is perfect.[14]  Whenever you pray, do not be like (ὡς) the hypocrites…[15]  …may your will be done on earth as (ὡς) it is in heaven.[16]  …and forgive us our debts, as (ὡς) we ourselves have forgiven our debtors.[17]  The absolute on/off positions are clear.[18]  But some form of continuum from none to full pardon seems to be indicated by ὡς, contingent upon that quality of forgiveness we extend to others.

Still, I would suggest that we will be inclined to extend the same forgiveness to others that we believe we receive from God.  If that forgiveness seems to include punishment we are more likely to believe that some form of punishment should be meted out with our forgiveness as well.  Or if the one extending such forgiveness has no authority to punish, conditions may be attached, making forgiveness something that must be earned as opposed to something graciously given and received.  I take the interaction between David and Shimei as a case in point.

As David fled from Jerusalem during the events that fulfilled the Lord’s promise to bring disaster (raʽ ) on you from inside your own household,[19] Shimei threw stones and yelled, “Leave!  Leave!  You man of bloodshed, you wicked man!  The Lord has punished (shûb) you for all the spilled blood of the house of Saul, in whose place you rule.  Now the Lord has given the kingdom into the hand of your son Absalom.  Disaster (raʽ ) has overtaken you, for you are a man of bloodshed [Table]!”[20]  Clearly, Shimei’s assessment does not agree with Nathan the prophet’s assessment.

Nathan the Prophet’s Assessment

This is what the Lord God of Israel says:

2 Samuel 12:7b (NET) Table

Why have you shown contempt for the word of the Lord by doing evil in my sight?

2 Samuel 12:9a (NET) Table
You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword…

2 Samuel 12:9b (NET)

 …and you have taken his wife as your own!

2 Samuel 2:9c (NET)
You have killed him with the sword of the Ammonites.  So now the sword will never depart from your house.

2 Samuel 12:9d, 10a (NET)

 For you have despised me by taking the wife of Uriah the Hittite as your own!

2 Samuel 12:10b (NET) Table
I am about to bring disaster on you from inside your own household!  Right before your eyes I will take your wives and hand them over to your companion.  He will have sexual relations with your wives in broad daylight!  Although you have acted in secret, I will do this thing before all Israel, and in broad daylight.

2 Samuel 12:11, 12 (NET) Table1 Table2
Then David exclaimed to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord!”  Nathan replied to David, “Yes, and the Lord has ʽâbar your sin.  You are not going to die.

2 Samuel 12:13 (NET) Table
Nonetheless, because you have treated the Lord with such contempt in this matter, the son who has been born to you will certainly die.

2 Samuel 12:14 (NET) Table

The Hebrew word translated punished (shûb) is not found among the words the Lord God of Israel spoke through Nathan,[21] though I have certainly interpreted them as if they described recompense.  As a child I assumed that “forgiveness” only pertained to hell.  I believed that God would still punish me for my sins some other way.  He couldn’t help Himself, I thought, it’s who He is.

Abishai couldn’t tolerate hearing his king and commander spoken to as Shimei had spoken to him: Why should this dead dog curse my lord the king?  Let me go over (ʽâbar) and cut off his head![22]  Abishai’s use of ʽâbar doesn’t sound much like forgiveness, but David said, “What do we have in common, you sons of Zeruiah?  If he curses because the Lord has said to him, ‘Curse David!’, who can say to him, ‘Why have you done this [Table]?’”[23]  David exercised what I have come to call an experimental faith (2 Samuel 16:11, 12 NKJV):

And David said to Abishai and all his servants, “See how my son who came from my own body seeks my life.  How much more now may this Benjamite?  Let him alone, and let him curse; for so the Lord has ordered him [Table].  It may be that the Lord will look on my affliction, and that the Lord will repay (shûb) me with good for his cursing this day [Table].”

As David returned, lamenting his Pyrrhic victory[24] over his son Absalom, Shimei was one of the first[25] to greet him.  Don’t think badly of me, my lord, he said, and don’t recall the sin of your servant on the day when you, my lord the king, left Jerusalem!  Please don’t call it to mind!  For I, your servant, know that I sinned, and I have come today as the first of all the house of Joseph to come down to meet my lord the king.[26]  These are reminiscent of David’s words after Nathan confronted him (Psalm 51:1-3 NET):

Have mercy on me, O God, because of your loyal love!  Because of your great compassion, wipe away my rebellious acts! [Table]  Wash away my wrongdoing!  Cleanse me of my sin! [Table]  For I am aware of my rebellious acts; I am forever conscious of my sin [Table].

Abishai, who may have been hiding with David in the cave when Saul entered to relieve himself,[27] pursued a pious good (possibly expecting David’s approval): For this should not Shimei be put to death?  After all, he cursed the Lord’s anointed (mâshı̂yach)![28]  But David seemed to pursue something more like a beautiful good: What do we have in common, you sons of Zeruiah?  You are like my enemy today!  Should anyone be put to death in Israel today?  Don’t you realize that today I am king over Israel?[29]

David said to Shimei, “You won’t die.”  The king vowed an oath concerning this.[30]  Here it sounds like he forgave Shimei.  But apparently that wasn’t the case.  He held onto his grudge against Shimei for the rest of his life.  With his dying breath[31] he instructed Solomon, another son by Bathsheba (1 Kings 2:8, 9 NET):

Note well, you still have to contend with Shimei son of Gera, the Benjaminite from Bahurim, who tried to call down upon me a horrible judgment when I went to Mahanaim.  He came down and met me at the Jordan, and I solemnly promised him by the Lord, ‘I will not strike you down with the sword.’  But now don’t treat him as if he were innocent.  You are a wise man and you know how to handle him; make sure he has a bloody death.

The Lord however didn’t treat David that way.  He didn’t recall David’s sin when He spoke to Jeroboams’s wife by Ahijah the prophet (1 Kings 14:7, 8 NET Table1 Table2):

“Go, tell Jeroboam, ‘This is what the Lord God of Israel says: “I raised you up from among the people and made you ruler over my people Israel.  I tore the kingdom away from the Davidic dynasty and gave it to you. But you are not like my servant David, who kept my commandments and followed me wholeheartedly by doing only (raq) what I approve.”’”

This is another reason I wish to look deeper into ʽâbar.  Whatever it means, it altered reality for the God, who does not lie[32] when He extended it to David.

[1] http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/98153-just-because-you-re-paranoid-doesn-t-mean-they-aren-t-after-you

[2] The first occurrence in the Bible is Genesis 8:1b (NKJV), And God made a wind to pass (ʽâbar) over the earth, and the waters subsided.

[3] 2 Samuel 12:13b (NET) Table

[4] Romans 3:25b (NET)

[5] Acts 5:31 (NET)

[6] Malachi 2:16a (NET) Table

[7] Matthew 6:12 (NET) Table

[8] Matthew 6:14, 15 (NET) Table

[9] Luke 23:34a (NET) Table

[10] Or do you think that I cannot call on my Father, and that he would send me more than twelve legions of angels right now?  How then would the scriptures that say it must happen this way be fulfilled (πληρωθῶσιν, a form of πληρόω)? (Matthew 26:53, 54 NET) Table

[11] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[12] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[13] Romans 9:14, 15 (NET)

[14] Matthew 5:48 (NET)

[15] Matthew 6:5a (NET) Table

[16] Matthew 6:10b (NET)

[17] Matthew 6:12 (NET)

[18] Matthew 6:14, 15 (NET)

[19] 2 Samuel 12:11 (NET) Table

[20] 2 Samuel 16:7, 8 (NET)

[21] It does occur in the description of events leading up to and following those words (2 Samuel 11:4, 15; 12:23) but seems to be used in its more literal sense, to return.

[22] 2 Samuel 16:9 (NET)

[23] 2 Samuel 16:10 (NET)

[24] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory See: 2 Samuel 18:33 (NET)

[25] 2 Samuel 19:16 (NET)

[26] 2 Samuel 19:19, 20 (NET)

[27] 1 Samuel 24:3 (NET)

[28] 2 Samuel 19:21 (NET)  See also: 1 Samuel 24:6 (NET)

[29] 2 Samuel 19:22 (NET)

[30] 2 Samuel 19:23 (NET)

[31] 1 Kings 2:10 (NET)

[32] Titus 1:2 (NET)

Apostles and Prophets, Part 2

Posted on by

I want to see if ἐπισκοπὴν (translated office in the ASV) can signify an office of apostle established prior to (or, apart from) Peter’s questionable rule in Acts 1:21, 22 (NET).  The Hebrew word is peqûddâh in his quotation from Psalm 109:8b (ASV): And let another take his office (NIV: place of leadership; NET: job).  The first occurrence of peqûddâh is in Numbers: Now the head of all the Levitical leaders was Eleazar son of Aaron the priest.  He was appointed over (peqûddâh) those who were responsible for the sanctuary[1] (Septuagint: καθεσταμένος φυλάσσειν τὰς φυλακὰς τῶν ἁγίων; literally, “set down to keep watch [or, form into tribes] the watchers [or, those watching] of the holy [Acts 26:10 (NET) of the saints]).

The peqûddâh of Eleazer in Hebrew clearly referenced those who carried around, set up and tore down the items that made up the Tabernacle: The appointed (peqûddâh; Septuagint, ἡ ἐπίσκεψις ἡ φυλακὴ) responsibilities of the Merarites included the frames of the tabernacle, its crossbars, its posts, its sockets, its utensils, plus all the service connected with these things, and the pillars of the courtyard all around, with their sockets, their pegs, and their ropes.[2]  The appointed responsibility (peqûddâh; Septuagint, ἐπίσκοπος) of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest is for the oil for the light, and the spiced incense, and the daily grain offering, and the anointing oil; he also has the appointed responsibility (peqûddâh; Septuagint, ἐπισκοπὴ) over all the tabernacle with all that is in it, over the sanctuary and over all its furnishings.[3]

Though the word ἐπισκοπὴν doesn’t occur in the Greek translation of Numbers 3:32 in the Septuagint, “a watcher of the watchers of the holy (or, saints)” sounds very much like what Ms. Eldridge feared a contemporary apostle would do.  This is especially true if I consider that in the New Testament φυλακὰς had a dual meaning.  There was the benign meaning: Now there were shepherds nearby living out in the field, keeping guard (φυλάσσοντες φυλακὰς) over their flock at night.[4]  And there was a less benign meaning: they will seize you and persecute you, handing you over to the synagogues and prisons[5] (φυλακάς).  I persecuted this Way, Paul confessed, even to the point of death, tying up both men and women and putting them in prison[6] (φυλακὰς).

In 1 Timothy ἐπισκοπῆς was translated to the office of overseer (NET, but a footnote acknowledged that the Greek is “to oversight”).  This saying is trustworthy: “If someone aspires to the office of overseer (ἐπισκοπῆς, another form of ἐπισκοπή), he desires a good work.”[7]  The word translated aspires is ὀρέγεται (a form of ὀρέγομαι) and desires is ἐπιθυμεῖ (a form of ἐπιθυμέω), but good is καλοῦ (a form of καλός).  It is a beautiful good work as opposed to a pious good work, the φυλακὰς of the beautiful shepherd as opposed to that of the prison guard.  What follows then is the legislation that creates the office of overseer (or, oversight), the qualifications of the ἐπίσκοπον (1 Timothy 3:2-7 NET).

The overseer (ἐπίσκοπον, a form of ἐπίσκοπος) then must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, an able teacher, not a drunkard, not violent, but gentle, not contentious, free from the love of money.  He must manage his own household well and keep his children in control without losing his dignity.  But if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for the church of God?  He must not be a recent convert or he may become arrogant and fall into the punishment that the devil will exact.  And he must be well thought of by those outside the faith, so that he may not fall into disgrace and be caught by the devil’s trap.

If these men die the common death of all men, Moses said of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram, or if they be visited (pâqad) after the visitation (peqûddâh) of all men; then the LORD hath not sent me.[8]  The Greek word ἐπισκοπή also carries this idea of visitation.  If you had only known on this day, Jesus wept and prophesied over Jerusalem, even you, the things that make for peace!  But now they are hidden from your eyes.  For the days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment against you and surround you and close in on you from every side.  They will demolish you – you and your children within your walls – and they will not leave within you one stone on top of another, because you did not recognize the time of your visitation (ἐπισκοπῆς, another form of ἐπισκοπή) from God.[9]  I urge you, Peter wrote, as foreigners and exiles to keep away from fleshly desires that do battle against the soul, and maintain good conduct among the non-Christians (ἔθνεσιν, a form of ἔθνος), so that though they now malign you as wrongdoers, they may see your good deeds and glorify God when he appears (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ἐπισκοπῆς, KJV and ASV, in the day of visitation).[10]

Taken together I would say that the itinerant ἀπόστολος is an ἐπίσκοπος, one who fills the ἐπισκοπῆς, the office of overseer clearly authorized by legislation in 1 Timothy 3:2-7.  What is not at all clear is that the ἐπίσκοπος is necessarily an ἀπόστολος.  Watch out for yourselves,  Paul said to the elders (πρεσβυτέρους, a form of πρεσβύτερος) of the church at Ephesus,[11] and for all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers (ἐπισκόπους, another form of ἐπίσκοπος), to shepherd the church of God that he obtained with the blood of his own Son.[12]  Does that sound like Paul was addressing fellow apostles?  Or was he functioning as a watcher of the watchers of the saints?  I’m prepared to say that a πρεσβύτερος is an ἐπίσκοπος, but is he an ἀπόστολος?

By the way, the word Son was added by the translators.  The Greek is διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδίου.  The note in the NET reads: “Or ‘with his own blood’; Grk ‘with the blood of his own.’  The genitive construction could be taken in two ways: (1) as an attributive genitive (second attributive position) meaning ‘his own blood’; or (2) as a possessive genitive, ‘with the blood of his own.’  In this case the referent is the Son, and the referent has been specified in the translation for clarity.  See further C. F. DeVine, ‘The Blood of God,’ CBQ 9 (1947): 381-408.”

A πρεσβύτερος is an ἐπίσκοπος who could be appointed by men like Titus (Titus 1:5-9 NET):

The reason I left you in Crete was to set in order the remaining matters and to appoint elders (πρεσβυτέρους, a form of πρεσβύτερος) in every town, as I directed you.  An elder must be blameless, the husband of one wife, with faithful children who cannot be charged with dissipation or rebellion.  For the overseer[13] (ἐπίσκοπον, a form of ἐπίσκοπος) must be blameless as one entrusted with God’s work, not arrogant, not prone to anger, not a drunkard, not violent, not greedy for gain.  Instead he must be hospitable, devoted to what is good, sensible, upright, devout, and self-controlled (ἐγκρατῆ, a form of ἐγκρατής).  He must hold firmly to the faithful message as it has been taught, so that he will be able to give exhortation in such healthy teaching and correct those who speak against it.

Yet Peter called the glorified Christ an ἐπίσκοπος: For you were going astray like sheep but now you have turned back to the shepherd and guardian (ἐπίσκοπον, a form of ἐπίσκοπος) of your souls.[14]  It would be handy to ignore the circumstances of Peter’s legislation and consider an ἀπόστολος a special class of ἐπίσκοπος as he described him (Acts 1:21, 22 NET):

…one of the men who have accompanied (συνελθόντων, a form of συνέρχομαι) us during all the time the Lord Jesus associated with us, beginning from his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from us…

While I think that an ἀπόστολος is a special class of ἐπίσκοπος, I’m not convinced these words establish the class.  Paul was not one of the men who accompanied the disciples beginning from his baptism by John until the day he was taken up from them, but he clearly claimed to be an ἀπόστολος in his signature at the beginning of the letter to the Romans (Romans 1:1 NET): From Paul, a slave of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle (ἀπόστολος), set apart for the gospel of God.  Yet Paul admitted that his apostleship was questioned by some (1 Corinthians 9:1, 2 NET): Am I not free?  Am I not an apostle (ἀπόστολος)?  Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?  Are you not my work in the Lord?  If I am not an apostle (ἀπόστολος) to others, at least I am to you, for you are the confirming sign of my apostleship (ἀποστολῆς, a form of ἀποστολή) in the Lord.

It seems possible and even likely that Peter’s legislation was accepted as legitimate at the time.  So I’m left with a decision: Is Peter’s legislation in Scripture because it is legitimate?  Or is it there to show the folly of acting apart from the Holy Spirit?  I think it demonstrates the folly of acting apart from the Holy Spirit.  Ms. Eldridge seemed to assume that if it was spoken by an apostle and in the book of Acts it is legitimate.[15]

The following shows us the requirements of the replacement for Judas:
Acts 1:21-26, “Therefore it is necessary to choose one of the men who have been with us the whole time the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from John’s baptism to the time when Jesus was taken up from us. For one of these must become A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION.”

Have I not seen (ἑόρακα, a form of ὁράω) Jesus our Lord? Paul asked rhetorically.  Jesus, after his resurrection, appeared (ὤφθη, another form of ὁράω) to Cephas [Peter], Paul wrote to the Corinthians, then to the twelve [apparently accepting Matthias as one of them].  Then he appeared (ὤφθη, another form of ὁράω) to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep.  Then he appeared (ὤφθη, another form of ὁράω) to James, then to all the apostles.  Last of all, as though to one born at the wrong time, he appeared (ὤφθη, another form of ὁράω) to me also.[16]

Could seeing the resurrected Lord Jesus distinguish an ἀπόστολος as a special class of ἐπίσκοπος?  I think this was Ms. Eldridige’s actual point.  She seemed to ignore the requirements Peter proposed to become a witness of his resurrection together with us, and highlighted A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION instead.  “The apostles claimed to be eyewitnesses,” she continued.  I’ll pick that up in the next essay.

Apostles and Prophets, Part 3

[1] Numbers 3:32 (NET)

[2] Numbers 3:36, 37 (NET)

[3] Numbers 4:16 (NET)

[4] Luke 2:8 (NET)

[5] Luke 21:12a (NET)

[6] Acts 22:4 (NET)

[7] 1 Timothy 3:1 (NET)

[8] Numbers 16:29 (KJV)

[9] Luke 19:42-44 (NET)  The words from God were added by the translators.

[10] 1 Peter 2:11, 12 (NET)

[11] Acts 20:17 (NET)

[12] Acts 20:28 (NET)

[13] KJV and ASV, bishop

[14] 1 Peter 2:25 (NET)

[15] http://www.endtime-prophets.com/noproph.html

[16] 1 Corinthians 15:5-8 (NET)

My Reasons and My Reason, Part 6

Posted on by

There is another way I might view the wrath of God…revealed from heaven against [my] ungodliness and unrighteousness,[1] a way more in keeping with my normal method of Bible study—superficially more in keeping with it.  I confess that, Although [I] claimed to be wise, [I] became [a fool] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings…[2]  I am one of them of which Paul wrote: Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.[3]

The Greek word translated dishonor above is ἀτιμάζεσθαι (a form of ἀτιμάζω).  Jesus told a parable about a man who planted a vineyard and leased it out to tenant farmers (Mark 12:2-5 NET):

At harvest time he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his portion of the crop.  But those tenants seized his slave, beat (ἔδειραν, a form of δέρω) him, and sent him away empty-handed.  So he sent another slave to them again.  This one they struck on the head and treated outrageously (ἠτίμασαν, another form of ἀτιμάζω).  He sent another, and that one they killed.  This happened to many others, some of whom were beaten (δέροντες, another form of δέρω), others killed.

They beat (δείραντες, another form of δέρω) this one too, Luke’s Gospel narrative reads, treated him outrageously (ἀτιμάσαντες, another form of ἀτιμάζω), and sent him away empty-handed.[4]  So the word translated dishonor in Romans 1:24 was associated here with a beating.  This association is explicit in Acts.  The highest legal court in Jerusalem summoned the apostles and had them beaten (δείραντες, another form of δέρω).  Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus and released them.  So they left the council rejoicing because they had been considered worthy to suffer dishonor (ἀτιμασθῆναι, another form of ἀτιμάζω) for the sake of the name.[5]

I’ve considered that my masochism is one of the potential meanings of the wrath of God revealed from heaven.  It is a desire of my heart.  It could be considered impurity.  It isn’t hard to find people online who propose that sexual desire, especially desire the author considers deviant, is demon inspired if not a symptom of demon possession.  But if I plug that interpretation into Paul’s statement—Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to masochism, to beat their bodies among themselves—I am not convinced or convicted of sin.  I am excited—sexually.  The implication then, if this interpretation were true and I so blindly given over to the desire of my heart, is that I remain under the wrath of God.

Such a conclusion, though disheartening, isn’t rationally problematic if I believe that my salvation is partially, if not largely, predicated upon my desire and effort.  I’ve followed this line of reasoning before, and it led inexorably to my taking charge again of my righteousness without altering my natural responses at all.  If I believe however that it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy,[6] this conclusion functions something like a reductio ad absurdum.  It gives me pause to examine the Scriptures in more detail.

Jesus had an interesting exchange with some in the temple courts (John 8:46-49 NET):

Who among you can prove me guilty of any sin?  If I am telling you the truth, why don’t you believe me?  The one who belongs to God listens and responds to God’s words.  You don’t listen and respond, because you don’t belong to God.”

The Judeans replied, “Aren’t we correct in saying that you are a Samaritan (Σαμαρίτης, a form of Σαμαρείτης) and are possessed by a demon?”  Jesus answered, “I am not possessed by a demon, but I honor my Father – and yet you dishonor (ἀτιμάζετε, another form of ἀτιμάζω) me.

Here dishonor (ἀτιμάζετε, another form of ἀτιμάζω) meant name-calling and an accusation that Jesus was possessed by a demon.  Jesus took issue most directly with the latter: I am not possessed by a demon, He said.  As it pertains to impurity then, I have an instance where people with religious minds accused Jesus—for being, doing and speaking the word of God—of being possessed by a demon because they disagreed with Him.  He didn’t comment about being called a “Samaritan” but I think even that is worth some consideration here.

Jesus asked a Samaritan (Σαμαρείας, a form of Σαμάρεια) woman for some water to drink, though that may be difficult to discern in translation: Jesus said to her, “Give me some water to drink.”[7]  Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink (ASV, KJV).  Jesus says to her, Give me to drink (DNT).  Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink of water” (GWT, TEV).  Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink” (NKJV, NAB).  Jesus saith to her, ‘Give me to drink’ (YLT).  Where I hear this as a request is in the woman’s response.

So the Samaritan (Σαμαρῖτις, a form of Σαμαρεῖτις) woman said to him, “How can you – a Jew – ask (αἰτεῖς, a form of αἰτέω) me, a Samaritan (Σαμαρίτιδος, another form of Σαμαρεῖτις) woman, for water to drink?”[8]  The Greek word αἰτεῖς might have been translated beg.  Jesus’ actual tone didn’t convey the gruff and imperious command that many English translations of his request imply.  “Will you give me a drink?” (NIV) and “Would you please give me a drink of water?” (CEV) and “Would you give me a drink of water?” (TMSG) and “Please give me a drink,” (ISVNT) are truer to his tone in this particular case despite the fact that the statement was transmuted into a question or please was added to text.

Jesus asked her to give Him some water (MSNT) strayed even further from a word-for-word translation yet also carries the more accurate tone.  Give me to drink (δός μοι πεῖν) is the same basic construction in Greek as Give us today (δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον) in our plaintive cry for our daily ration of God, the bread of life[9]—Give us today our daily bread[10]—a sinner’s only hope for righteousness.  I don’t think anyone who prays thus with even the slightest understanding thinks it a gruff and imperious command.

Jesus’ request surprised the Samaritan woman.  John, wanting his readers to understand her surprise, added: For Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans;[11] or, For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.[12]  The note in the NET explains: “The background to the statement use nothing in common is the general assumption among Jews that the Samaritans were ritually impure or unclean.  Thus a Jew who used a drinking vessel after a Samaritan had touched it would become ceremonially unclean.”  This sounds as if the Jews were prejudiced against the Samaritans.  And, ultimately, I want to assert that they were.  But I need to take the long way around.

The common assumption, if I say that Jews were prejudiced against the Samaritans, is that they misjudged the Samaritans.  But they were fairly accurate in their judgment of Samaritans according to Scripture (2 Kings 17:6a, 24-29, 32, 33 NET).

In the ninth year of Hoshea’s reign, the king of Assyria captured Samaria and deported the people of Israel to Assyria…The king of Assyria brought foreigners from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim and settled them in the cities of Samaria in place of the Israelites.  They took possession of Samaria and lived in its cities.  When they first moved in, they did not worship the Lord.  So the Lord sent lions among them and the lions were killing them.  The king of Assyria was told, “The nations whom you deported and settled in the cities of Samaria do not know the requirements of the God of the land, so he has sent lions among them.  They are killing the people because they do not know the requirements of the God of the land.”  So the king of Assyria ordered, “Take back one of the priests whom you deported from there.  He must settle there and teach them the requirements of the God of the land.”  So one of the priests whom they had deported from Samaria went back and settled in Bethel.  He taught them how to worship the Lord.

But each of these nations made its own gods and put them in the shrines on the high places that the people of Samaria had made.  Each nation did this in the cities where they lived….At the same time they worshiped the Lord.  They appointed some of their own people to serve as priests in the shrines on the high places.  They were worshiping the Lord and at the same time serving their own gods in accordance with the practices of the nations from which they had been deported.

You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water below [Table], the Lord commanded Israel.  You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God…[Table][13]  The Jews’ judgment qualifies as prejudice, I think, because they misjudged themselves and the righteousness of God.  Jesus addressed their prejudice obliquely yet forcefully.

If you had known the gift of God, He said to a descendant of foreign idolaters, and who it is who said to you, ‘Give me some water to drink,’ you would have asked (ᾔτησας, another form of αἰτέω) him, and he would have given you living water.[14]  So, without reproach, while the Samaritan woman was ignorant of the gift of God and who Jesus is, the implication is fairly clear that this living water was hers for the asking.  And as we’ll discover momentarily the gift of God did not merely belong to God, the gift is God in the person of the Holy Spirit.

This is scandalous to a religious mind.  I feel like I’m back in the garden, but instead of a serpent offering a lying promise to be like God, Jesus offered God Himself—not to Eve the innocent or a pious Jewish woman—to a Samaritan—not as a reward for good behavior but as the only source of goodness:  Now as Jesus was starting out on his way, someone ran up to him, fell on his knees, and said, “Good (ἀγαθέ, a form of ἀγαθός) teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”  Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good (ἀγαθόν, another form of ἀγαθός)?  No one is good (ἀγαθὸς) except God alone.[15].

“Sir,” the woman said to him, “you have no bucket and the well is deep; where then do you get this living water?  Surely you’re not greater than our ancestor Jacob, are you?[16]  At first I thought she was either not particularly clever or deliberately obtuse, not unlike Jesus’ disciples when he told them to beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.[17]

They had forgotten to bring bread on their journey.[18]  So they began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “It is because we brought no bread.”[19]  When Jesus overheard their discussion, He chided them humorously (Matthew 16:8-12 NET).

“You who have such little faith (ὀλιγόπιστοι, a form of ὀλιγόπιστος)!  Why are you arguing among yourselves about having no bread?  Do you still not understand?  Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you took up?  Or the seven loaves for the four thousand and how many baskets you took up?  How could you not understand that I was not speaking to you about bread?  But beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees!”  Then they understood that he had not told them to be on guard against the yeast in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Why didn’t He say teaching in the first place?  I assume He wanted to reinforce his own teaching on the social construction of reality: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of flour until all the dough had risen.”[20]  But Jesus didn’t chide the Samaritan woman.

So I began to consider that she was cagey with this Jew who shouldn’t be drinking from her bucket, probably shouldn’t be speaking with her at all, much less about a gift of God.  Besides, she was educated enough to know that they spoke together at Jacob’s well,[21] and indoctrinated enough to have adopted him as her ancestor (πατρὸς, literally father).  So Jesus continued by contrasting living water (ὕδωρ ζῶν) to the water from Jacob’s well.

Everyone who drinks some of this water will be thirsty again.  But whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain (πηγὴ) of water springing up to eternal life.[22]  My people have committed a double wrong, the Lord spoke through Jeremiah, they have rejected me, the fountain of life-giving water (Septuagint: πηγὴν ὕδατος ζωῆς), and they have dug cisterns for themselves, cracked cisterns which cannot even hold water.[23]  You are the one in whom Israel may find hope, Jeremiah prayed.  All who leave you will suffer shame.  Those who turn away from you will be consigned to the nether world.  For they have rejected you, the Lord (Hebrew: yehôvâh), the fountain of life (Septuagint: πηγὴν ζωῆς).[24]

Sir, give me this water, the Samaritan woman said, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.[25]  Surely this time, I thought, Jesus should have said something to her like, Do not work for the food that disappears, but for the food that remains to eternal life – the food which the Son of Man will give to you.[26]  But Jesus disagreed.  Go call your husband and come back here,[27] He said instead.

What?  Where did that come from?

I have no husband,[28] the woman said.  The Greek is actually ἀπεκρίθη ἡ γυνὴ καὶ εἶπεν, The woman answered and said (NKJV).  But even that translation isn’t quite sufficient.  As I stare at the Greek I begin to think that John or the Holy Spirit has tried to communicate something of the dynamic of this conversation between a man and a woman.

Reference NET Greek
John 4:7 Jesus said to her… λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς
John 4:9 So the Samaritan woman said to him… λέγει οὖν αὐτῷ ἡ γυνὴ ἡ Σαμαρῖτις
John 4:10 Jesus answered her… ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ
John 4:11 the woman said to him… λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ γυνή
John 4:13 Jesus replied… ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ
John 4:15 The woman said to him… λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ γυνή
John 4:16 He said to her… λέγει αὐτῇ
John 4:17 The woman replied… ἀπεκρίθη ἡ γυνὴ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ

I take λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Jesus said to her) as my point of departure for normal conversation.  The Samaritan woman (ἡ γυνὴ ἡ Σαμαρῖτις) responded in kind, λέγει οὖν αὐτῷ (literally, “said then to him”).  But Jesus opened up to her, ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ (literally, “answered Jesus and said to her”).  I say He “opened up” because εἶπεν (a form of ῥέω), though legitimately translated said, means to pour forth.  The woman however remained guarded, λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ γυνή.  Undeterred, Jesus remained open, ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ.  The woman began to open up, λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ γυνή.  Perhaps I’m reaching here, but πρὸς αὐτὸν rather than simply αὐτῷ seems to accentuate the fact that she spoke to him.  Abruptly, Jesus closed up again, λέγει αὐτῇ, back to normal conversation, and the woman opened up to Him, ἀπεκρίθη ἡ γυνὴ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, and said, I have no husband.

Then Jesus commended her.  Again, this may be difficult to hear in English translations: Thou saidst well, I have no husband (ASV); That’s right (CEV), Thou hast well said, I have not a husband (DNT); You’re right when you say that you don’t have a husband (GWT); You are quite right in saying, ‘I don’t have a husband’ (ISVNT); Thou hast well said, I have no husband (KJV); You rightly say that you have no husband (MSNT); You have well said, ‘I have no husband’ (NKJV); You are right when you say you don’t have a husband (TEV); That’s nicely put: ‘I have no husband’ (TMSG); Well didst thou say—A husband I have not (YLT); You are right when you say you have no husband (NIV); You are right in saying, ‘I do not have a husband’ (NAB); Right you are when you said, ‘I have no husband.’[29]

The Greek is καλῶς εἶπας ὅτι ἄνδρα οὐκ ἔχω (literally, “beautifully you poured forth that husband you not have”).  Traditionally καλῶς is translated as the adverbial form (well) of ἀγαθός (good), even καλός (beautiful) is translated as if it were ἀγαθός (good).  Traditions have origins.  J.A. McGuckin[30] credits Maximos[31] with the insight: “The Beautiful is identical with The Good, for all things seek the beautiful and the good at every opportunity, and there is no being that does not participate in them.”  Maximos lived half a millennium after John and the Holy Spirit chose καλῶς.  I want to experiment with a pre-traditional reading of some Scriptures.

Even now the ax is laid at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce beautiful (καλὸν, a form of καλός) fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.[32]  In the same way, let your light shine before people, so that they can see your beautiful (καλὰ, another form of καλός) deeds and give honor to your Father in heaven.[33]  In the same way, every good (ἀγαθὸν, a form of ἀγαθός) tree bears beautiful (καλοὺς, another form of καλός) fruit, but the bad (σαπρὸν, a form of σαπρός) tree bears bad (πονηροὺς, a form of πονηρός) fruit.  A good (ἀγαθὸν, a form of ἀγαθός) tree is not able to bear bad (πονηροὺς, a form of πονηρός) fruit, nor a bad (σαπρὸν, a form of σαπρός) tree to bear beautiful (καλοὺς, another form of καλός) fruit.  Every tree that does not bear beautiful (καλὸν, a form of καλός) fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.[34]

Rather than a metaphor about bad fruit (καρποὺς πονηροὺς) what follows is a vivid contrast of Jesus’ beautiful good with the Pharisees’ pious good (Matthew 12:10-14 NET):

A man was there [in the Synagogue] who had a withered hand.  And they asked Jesus, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” so that they could accuse him.  He said to them, “Would not any one of you, if he had one sheep that fell into a pit on the Sabbath, take hold of it and lift it out?  How much more valuable is a person than a sheep!  So it is lawful to do beautifully (καλῶς) on the Sabbath.”  Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.”  He stretched it out and it was restored, as healthy as the other.  But the Pharisees went out and plotted against him, as to how they could assassinate him.

Some explanation why I called—the Pharisees went out and plotted (or, counseled) against him, as to how they could assassinate (or, destroy) him—a pious good rather than evil is in order.  Jesus came to make atonement for sin but had not yet accomplished it in this period of transition.  There is nothing beautiful about plotting to kill or destroy a man as there is nothing beautiful about running a man and woman through with a javelin.[35]  But Phinehas was commended for the latter (Numbers 25:11-13 NET):

“Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites, when he manifested such zeal for my sake among them, so that I did not consume the Israelites in my zeal.  Therefore, announce: ‘I am going to give to him my covenant of peace.  So it will be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of a permanent priesthood, because he has been zealous for his God, and has made atonement for the Israelites.’”

The Pharisees had this Scriptural precedent when faced with Jesus’ willful and recalcitrant desecration of the Sabbath (as they perceived it).  I could go on and on about the beautiful good but will entertain only a few more examples here (Luke 6:26-31 NET):

“Woe to you when all people speak (εἴπωσιν, another form of ῥέω) beautifully (καλῶς) of you, for their ancestors did the same things to the false prophets.

“But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do beautifully (καλῶς) to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.  To the person who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the person who takes away your coat, do not withhold your tunic either.  Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away.  Treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you.

I am the beautiful (καλός) shepherd, Jesus said.  The beautiful (καλός) shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.[36]  And Paul’s words make so much more sense if I recognize that he desired Jesus’ beautiful good rather than the Pharisees’ pious good,[37] of which he was already a master (Romans 7:15-21 NET):

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 beautiful (καλός).  But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me.  For I know that nothing good (ἀγαθόν, a form of ἀγαθός) lives in me, that is, in my flesh.  For I want to do the beautiful (καλὸν, a form of καλός), but I cannot do it.  For I do not do the good (ἀγαθόν, a form of ἀγαθός) I want, but I do the very evil (κακὸν, a form of κακός) I do not want!  Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me.  So, I find the law that when I want to do the beautiful (καλὸν, a form of καλός), evil (κακὸν, a form of κακός) is present with me.

I’m not advocating for a new translation of καλός and καλῶς.  As words go beautiful is as slippery as good.  I’m not likely to heal a withered hand in a synagogue or church any Saturday or Sunday soon, something I would wholeheartedly consider a beautiful good.  And it is a fair question how beautiful I feel blessing those who curse me, praying for those who mistreat me, with both cheeks red and stinging, missing my coat and my shirt.  But when the One who commended Phinehas made atonement Himself and told us to live this way instead, I think it is important to see it as a beautiful good.

I had to go this roundabout way to get over my tendency to hear sarcasm and ridicule in Jesus’ voice.  Now I believe He took his roundabout course to find a reason to commend the Samaritan woman: This you said truthfully[38] (τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας).  And then He added that she in her beautiful truthfulness was exactly the kind of worshipper his Father is seeking: a time is coming – and now is here – when the true (ἀληθινοὶ, a form of ἀληθινός) worshipers will worship the Father in spirit (πνεύματι, a form of πνεῦμα) and truth (ἀληθείᾳ, a form of ἀλήθεια), for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers.  God is spirit (πνεῦμα), and the people who worship him must worship in spirit (πνεύματι, a form of πνεῦμα) and truth[39] (ἀληθείᾳ, a form of ἀλήθεια).

Now I can back up and hear Jesus’ other statements for what they are.  “Right you are when you said, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the man you are living with now is not your husband.  This you said truthfully!”[40]  I would have no way of knowing this about the woman if Jesus hadn’t said it.  More to the point, He demonstrated something important for her.

“Sir, I see that you are a prophet,”[41] she said.  Taking Jesus at face value allows me to take this woman at face value as well.  Recognizing a prophet before her, she broached the single most pressing religious issue on her mind: Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you people say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.[42]  I have no idea how she was treated when she climbed the mountain in Samaria to worship God.  I can only imagine how she might have been treated if this Samaritan woman had dared to journey to Jerusalem to worship God.

The priest sent back to teach her ancestors was from the northern kingdom of divided Israel.  From its very beginning Jeroboam, the first king, had changed the Lord’s decrees (1 Kings 12:26-32 NET):

Jeroboam then thought to himself: “Now the Davidic dynasty could regain the kingdom.  If these people go up to offer sacrifices in the Lord’s temple in Jerusalem, their loyalty could shift to their former master, King Rehoboam of Judah.  They might kill me and return to King Rehoboam of Judah.”  After the king had consulted with his advisers, he made two golden calves.  Then he said to the people, “It is too much trouble for you to go up to Jerusalem.  Look, Israel, here are your gods who brought you up from the land of Egypt.”  He put one in Bethel and the other in Dan.  This caused Israel to sin; the people went to Bethel and Dan to worship the calves.

He built temples on the high places and appointed as priests people who were not Levites.  Jeroboam inaugurated a festival on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the festival celebrated in Judah.  On the altar in Bethel he offered sacrifices to the calves he had made.  In Bethel he also appointed priests for the high places he had made.

I could have pummeled this woman with chapter and verse after chapter and verse of Scripture proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jerusalem was the place where people must worship God.  Jesus did not.  All He said on the subject was: Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.  You people worship what (ὃ) you do not know.  We worship what (ὃ) we know, because salvation is from the Jews.[43]

I don’t know why ὃ was translated what rather than who or whom.  I hope it’s a subtlety of the Greek language, for Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship[44] is very near the beginning of the translation of Scripture into English.  I would hate to think that the translators made a conscious decision to turn the eyes of the English-speaking world to doctrine and dogma at the very moment when Jesus turned his away.  You Samaritans don’t really know the one you worship.  But we Jews do know the God we worship… (CEV)  You worship One of whom you know nothing.  We worship One whom we know… (MSNT)  You Samaritans do not really know whom you worship; but we Jews know whom we worship… (TEV)

Crouching furtively in the Samaritan woman’s conundrum was a desire to worship God and a concern to do it as He desired.  Jesus heard that desire and concern, and responded to it: But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers.  God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”[45]

I don’t get the impression that she understood Him.  Then, I’ve spent my adult life trying everything from obeying the law to faith alone.  I suppose my current understanding of worshipping the Father in spirit and truth is living honestly by the Holy Spirit.  The Samaritan woman did reveal a profound and faithful hope: “I know that Messiah is coming” (the one called Christ); “whenever he comes, he will tell us everything.”  Jesus said to her, “I, the one speaking to you, am he.” [46]

Fresh from this knowledge of God I can look at the original Scriptures with fresh eyes.  In Jesus’ parable about the owner of the vineyard ἠτίμασαν and ἀτιμάσαντες (forms of ἀτιμάζω) associated with forms of δέρω described slaves who were beaten up.  I have been beaten up before.  I felt pain, anger and humiliation but no sexual excitement whatsoever.  I can’t dismiss the judicial beating associated with ἀτιμάζω in Acts 5:40 and 41 quite so easily.

I typed “judicial whipping fantasy” into Google and “Maragana Girl, Chapter 12 – The Punishment in the School Auditorium”[47] by caligula97236 came up (second, actually, scanning the titles quickly I mistook “Judicial Spanking in Taiwan” for actual rather than fantasy punishment).  It is a tale about twenty naked male criminals humiliated and switched by female medical students and police officers as an educational spectacle for teenage girls.  It is couched in terms of how wrong this was and in need of reform.

There is no denying that the judicial or punishment whipping fantasy is part of sado-masochistic lore.  It is part of the reason I attempted to distinguish sadism from masochism in the first essay of this series.  I recall my own state of mind whenever I was the dominant masochist, as I call it:

First, and not incidentally, was the sight of a beloved woman’s body laid out for my enjoyment.  I measured each stroke of the whip by the sound it made, the mark it left on her beautiful flesh, how she flinched, and the whimpers or gasps she vocalized as a result.  My goal was to whip her in tempo (both velocity and frequency) with her own growing euphoria, the same euphoria I had known at her hand as a submissive masochist.  But beyond any goal or thought of the future was the sheer pleasure of the moment, sharing that extreme intimacy with her.

I have no access to the mind of the judicial torturer who beat Jesus’ disciples.  I suspect that it was not what I have just described.  As I perceive it a judicial torturer is the business end of an institutional belief that certain actions, words or thoughts deserve, or may be modified for the good through, the application of physical pain and social humiliation (though I suppose the hope is that the fear of physical pain and social humiliation will achieve the latter end more often than not).

Fiery hell seems to be presented in terms of physical pain.  For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable…For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.[48]  The prospect, that so offended Ingmar Bergman, of the dead being raised and given new imperishable, immortal bodies only to suffer for an eternity in hell lends credence in my mind to the deservedness of physical pain.  Though I admit, I tend to abstract fiery hell as a metaphor for knowing, face to face beyond any doubt, that God is Love and then being cast out from his omnipresence forever.  In that sense I can see physical pain as salutary, a welcome distraction from the actual horror of the situation.

The application or the fear of the application of physical pain and social humiliation inspires many to a hypocritical compliance with many kinds of social norms.  It will never produce goodness: No one is good (ἀγαθὸς) except God alone.[49]  The Holy Spirit mocked a faith in physical pain and social humiliation when Jesus’ disciples were beaten to conform their behavior to Jewish social norms.  He filled them with his joy[50] (χαρά) instead so they walked away from their beatings rejoicing (χαίροντες, a form of χαίρω) because they had been considered worthy to suffer dishonor (ἀτιμασθῆναι, another form of ἀτιμάζω) for the sake of the name.[51]  Viewed this way, my concern that my masochism, dominant or submissive, is the wrath of God revealed from heaven seems as absurd as Jesus’ disciples fretting because they had brought no bread.[52]

[1] Romans 1:18 (NET)

[2] Romans 1:22, 23 (NET)

[3] Romans 1:24 (NET) Table

[4] Luke 20:11b (NET)

[5] Acts 5:40, 41 (NET) Table

[6] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[7] John 4:7b (NET)

[8] John 4:9a (NET) Table

[9] John 6:25-71 (NET)

[10] Matthew 6:11 (NET)

[11] John 4:9b (NET) [Table] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had Σαμαρίταις here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had σαμαρειταις.

[12] John 4:9b (NKJV) Table

[13] Exodus 20:4, 5a (NET)

[14] John 4:10 (NET)

[15] Mark 10:17, 18 (NET) also Luke 18:18, 19 (NET)

[16] John 4:11, 12a (NET)

[17] Matthew 16:6 (NET)

[18] Matthew 16:5 (NET)

[19] Matthew 16:7 (NET)

[20] Matthew 13:33 (NET)

[21] John 4:6, 12b

[22] John 4:13, 14 (NET)

[23] Jeremiah 2:13 (NET)

[24] Jeremiah 17:13 (NET)

[25] John 4:15 (NET)

[26] John 6:27a (NET)

[27] John 4:16 (NET)

[28] John 4:17a (NET)

[29] John 4:17b (NET)

[30] http://www.spc.rs/eng/notion_beautiful_ancient_greek_thought_and_its_christian_patristic_transfiguration_ja_mcguckin

[31] http://ww1.antiochian.org/saint_maximos

[32] Matthew 3:10 (NET)

[33] Matthew 5:16 (NET)

[34] Matthew 7:17-20 (NET)

[35] Numbers 25:1-9 (NET)

[36] John 10:11 (NET)

[37] Philippians 3:1-11 (NET)

[38] John 4:18b (NET)

[39] John 4:23, 24 (NET)

[40] John 4:17b, 18 (NET)

[41] John 4:19 (NET)

[42] John 4:20 (NET)

[43] John 4:21, 22 (NET)

[44] John 4:22 (KJV)

[45] John 4:23, 24 (NET)

[46] John 4:25, 26 (NET)

[47] http://www.i.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=464923

[48] 1 Corinthians 15:52, 53 (NET)

[49] Luke 18:19b (NET)

[50] Galatians 5:22 (NET)

[51] Acts 5:41 (NET) Table

[52] Matthew 16:7 (NET)