Category Archives: Section Three

Fear – Numbers, Part 5

Posted on by

The Hebrew word yârê does not occur in the story of the waters of Meribah (either time).  Still, it seemed important to me to study the story I alluded to earlier.  I want to compare and contrast the two stories.  The first in Exodus involves Moses and the parents who left Egypt while the second in Numbers involves Moses with their children, some of whom were not yet born at the time of the first incident forty years earlier.

Exodus

Numbers
The whole community of the Israelites traveled on their journey from the Desert of Sin according to the Lord’s instruction, and they pitched camp in Rephidim.

Exodus 17:1a (NET)

 Then the entire community of Israel entered the wilderness of Zin in the first month, and the people stayed in Kadesh.

Numbers 20:1a (NET)
Miriam died and was buried there.

Numbers 20:1b (NET)
Now there was no water for the people to drink.  So the people contended with Moses, and they said…

Exodus 17:1b, 2a (NET)

 And there was no water for the community, and so they gathered themselves together against Moses and Aaron.  The people contended with Moses, saying…

Numbers 20:2, 3a (NET)

So far the stories are quite similar, except that Moses’ sister Miriam died in the later story.

Exodus

Numbers
“Give us water to drink!”  Moses said to them, “Why do you contend with me?  Why do you test the Lord?”

Exodus 17:2b (NET)
But the people were very thirsty there for water, and they murmured against Moses and said, “Why in the world did you bring us up out of Egypt – to kill us and our children and our cattle with thirst?”

Exodus 17:3 (NET)

 “If only we had died when our brothers died before the Lord!  Why have you brought up the Lord’s community into this wilderness?  So that we and our cattle should die here?  Why have you brought us up from Egypt only to bring us to this dreadful place?  It is no place for grain, or figs, or vines, or pomegranates; nor is there any water to drink!”

Numbers 20:3b-5 (NET)

In the later story Moses had learned apparently not to argue with a mob.  I think it’s also worth noting that the parents in the former story murmured against Moses.  They had some respect for him, maybe even some fear of the Lord, though I can see it is clearly arguable whether that fear entailed any reverence: How long must I bear with this evil congregation, the Lord said to Moses and Aaron, that murmurs against me?  I have heard the complaints of the Israelites that they murmured against me.[1]

The children, however, grew up hearing their parents’ complaints more openly.  To them these complaints were simply facts.  They saw no reason to murmur facts.  They declared them openly: If only we had died when our brothers died before the Lord!  Why have you brought up the Lord’s community into this wilderness?  So that we and our cattle should die here? 

Apparently, the fact that the Lord gave them water from the rock through Moses did not get as much play in the tents of the Exodus as did the complaints against Moses (or against the Lord, as He clearly took it).  At least that fact did not make as indelible an impression on the children.  And Egypt, a place of slavery most had never seen or known, had become a fairy land of myth by comparison: Why have you brought us up from Egypt only to bring us to this dreadful place?  It is no place for grain, or figs, or vines, or pomegranates; nor is there any water to drink!

Exodus

Numbers
Then Moses cried out to the Lord, “What will I do with this people? – a little more and they will stone me!”

Exodus 17:4 (NET)

 So Moses and Aaron went from the presence of the assembly to the entrance to the tent of meeting.  They then threw themselves down with their faces to the ground, and the glory of the Lord appeared to them.

Numbers 20:6 (NET)

In the first story Moses sounded distressed, fearful even for his own life.  Forty years later both Moses and Aaron have been here and done this before.

Exodus

Numbers
The Lord said to Moses, “Go over before the people; take with you some of the elders of Israel and take in your hand your staff with which you struck the Nile and go.  I will be standing before you there on the rock in Horeb, and you will strike the rock, and water will come out of it so that the people may drink.”

Exodus 17:5, 6a (NET)

 Then the Lord spoke to Moses: “Take the staff and assemble the community, you and Aaron your brother, and then speak to the rock before their eyes.  It will pour forth its water, and you will bring water out of the rock for them, and so you will give the community and their beasts water to drink.”

Numbers 20:7, 8 (NET)

In the earlier story the Lord gave Moses a bit of theater to perform.  It was reminiscent of the first plague in Egypt (Exodus 7:15-18 NET):

“Go to Pharaoh in the morning [the Lord said to Moses] when he goes out to the water.  Position yourself to meet him by the edge of the Nile, and take in your hand the staff that was turned into a snake.  Tell him, ‘The Lord, the God of the Hebrews, has sent me to you to say, “Release my people, that they may serve me in the desert!”  But until now you have not listened.  Thus says the Lord: “By this you will know that I am the Lord: I am going to strike the water of the Nile with the staff that is in my hand, and it will be turned into blood.  Fish in the Nile will die, the Nile will stink, and the Egyptians will be unable to drink water from the Nile.”’”

He instructed Moses to take the same staff, strike the rock as he struck the Nile, and potable water rather than blood would pour forth from it.

In the later story the Lord gave Moses a different bit of theater to perform.  This time he should speak to the rock rather than strike it with his staff.  The children believed the harsh words they learned from their parents.  Speaking to a rock is a futile enterprise ordinarily, but God would intervene here and water would pour forth from the rock as Moses spoke to it.

Exodus

Numbers
And Moses did so in plain view of the elders of Israel.

Exodus 17:6b (NET)

 So Moses took the staff from before the Lord, just as he commanded him.  Then Moses and Aaron gathered the community together in front of the rock, and he said to them, “Listen, you rebels, must we bring water out of this rock for you?”  Then Moses raised his hand, and struck the rock twice with his staff.  And water came out abundantly. So the community drank, and their beasts drank too.

Numbers 20:9-11 (NET)

The earlier story ends much like the incident at the Nile: Moses…did so, just as the Lord had commanded.[2]  The later story is more nuanced.  Moses took the staff just as he commanded him.  He and Aaron gathered the people as the Lord commanded them.  But instead of speaking to the rock they spoke to the people (Numbers 20:10b NET):

Listen, you rebels, must we bring water out of this rock for you?

Moses’ words conveyed an attitude toward the people’s thirst.  I’m leaving aside for the moment any conjecture whether he actually believed it was the Lord’s attitude or simply went rogue.  But the Lord demonstrated that it was not an attitude He wanted conveyed.

Exodus

Numbers
Then the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron, “Because you did not trust me enough to show me as holy before the Israelites, therefore you will not bring this community into the land I have given them.”

Numbers 20:12 (NET)

Aaron’s inclusion here makes me suspect that he was still speaking on Moses’ behalf.[3]  Both stories conclude in a similar manner.

Exodus

Numbers
He called the name of the place Massah and Meribah, because of the contending of the Israelites and because of their testing the Lord, saying, “Is the Lord among us or not?”

Exodus 17:7 (NET)

 These are the waters of Meribah, because the Israelites contended with the Lord, and his holiness was maintained among them.

Numbers 20:13 (NET)

What holiness was maintained by the Lord’s promise to remove Moses and Aaron from their places of leadership before the people entered the promised land?  Jesus stated it explicitly (Matthew 6:31, 32 NET):

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.

With all of this laid out for me so plainly and beautifully, I still find myself murmuring and wondering, who can possibly please this God?  But the point is well-taken, my bad attitude notwithstanding (Romans 8:8, 9a NET):

Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.  You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you.

Only God can please God.  I have been crucified with Christ, Paul wrote, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.  So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.  I do not set aside God’s grace, because if righteousness could come through the law, then Christ died for nothing![4]

The final occurrence of yârêʼ in Numbers is: And the Lord said to Moses, “Do not fear (yârêʼ) him [King Og of Bashan], for I have delivered him and all his people and his land into your hand.  You will do to him what you did to King Sihon of the Amorites, who lived in Heshbon.”[5]

I have no idea why Moses might have feared King Og of Bashan who marched out with all his forces to face Israel.[6]  I find it hard to believe that Og’s stature[7] alarmed Moses at this late date.  Aaron had died (or was executed) on Mount Hor.  Moses would die (or be executed) soon.  He seems to me like a man with absolute freedom, with nothing left to lose.  And I don’t know why God thought Moses feared Og.

The rabbis who translated the Septuagint chose φοβηθῇς here.  The only occurrence of φοβηθῇς in this form in the New Testament is (Matthew 1:19, 20 NET):

Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous man, and because he did not want to disgrace her, he intended to divorce her privately.  When he had contemplated this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid (φοβηθῇς) to take Mary as your wife, because the child conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit” [Table].

Joseph’s fear here was a moral scruple.  I would certainly like to think that Moses’ fear was of the same kind.  So they defeated Og, his sons, and all his people, until there were no survivors, and they possessed his land.[8]

Fear – Deuteronomy, Part 1

[1] Numbers 14:27 (NET)

[2] Exodus 7:20a (NET)

[3] Exodus 4:14-16 (NET)

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

[5] Numbers 21:34 (NET)

[6] Numbers 21:33b (NET)

[7] Deuteronomy 3:11 (NET) – Only King Og of Bashan was left of the remaining Rephaites. (It is noteworthy that his sarcophagus was made of iron.  Does it not, indeed, still remain in Rabbath of the Ammonites?  It is thirteen and a half feet long and six feet wide according to standard measure.)

[8] Numbers 21:35 (NET)

Romans, Part 54

Posted on by

To continue 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, I’ll turn to the next item on the table I constructed: Love is…not self-serving[2] (οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ ἑαυτῆς; literally, “not seek itself”).

If someone owns a hundred sheep, Jesus said, and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go look for (ζητεῖ, a form of ζητέω) the one that went astray?[3] He made it clear He was not talking only about sheep and shepherds.  Looking at children, He added, In the same way, your Father in heaven is not (οὐκ, a form of οὐ; the absolute negation[4]) willing (θέλημα) that one of these little ones be lost[5] (ἀπόληται, a form of ἀπόλλυμι).  This is Jesus’ expression of David’s confidence, Surely your goodness and faithfulness will pursue me all my days…[6]

Still, I began to wonder in what sense the Father seeking his own was not self-serving or love seeking itself. I found a satisfying distinction in the story of Jesus feeding the five thousand men plus women and children.

Matthew

 Mark Luke

John
Now when Jesus heard [about John the Baptist’s death] 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.[7]

Luke 9:10 (NET)

 After this Jesus went away to the other side of the Sea of Galilee[8] (also called the Sea of Tiberias).

John 6:1 (NET)

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John took pains to place the story in space and time. In Matthew’s Gospel narrative Jesus went to an isolated place after He heard of John the Baptist’s death.[9] John’s disciples came and took the body and buried it and went and told Jesus.[10]  Mark pointed out that this coincided with the return of the twelve,[11] the apostles Jesus had sent out two by two.  The purpose of this trip was rest and relaxation for the twelve and perhaps a moment for Jesus to grieve over the beheading of his cousin.  Luke added the destination, Bethsaida, and John added the body of water traversed, the Sea of Galilee (also called the Sea of Tiberias).

John didn’t mention the apostles’ return (or that they were sent out for that matter). John didn’t make much of John the Baptist’s death.  He was still alive in chapter three[12] and spoken of in the past tense in chapter five.[13]  John set the story conceptually, if you will.

The fifth chapter of John’s Gospel account begins with a curious healing. A man lay by a pool in Jerusalem, believing apparently that if he were first to enter its waters after they were stirred up[14] (ταραχθῇ, a form of ταράσσω) he would be healed.  At least, that’s how his answer to Jesus question— Do you want to become well?[15]—sounds to me.[16]  Jesus healed him apparently by simple command (John 5:8, 9 NET):

Jesus said to him, “Stand up!  Pick up your mat and walk” [Table].  Immediately the man was healed, and he picked up his mat and started walking.  (Now that day was a Sabbath.)

Perhaps I should see this as a living expression of God’s grace as totally unmerited favor, but I can’t help but see Jesus as provocateur here, since the most important part of this story is the parenthetical—Now that day was a Sabbath.

When the religious leaders saw the man walking carrying his mat on the Sabbath, they said, “It is the Sabbath, and you are not permitted (οὐκ ἔξεστιν) to carry your mat.”[17]

“The man who made me well said to me, ‘Pick up your mat and walk.’”[18]

“Who is the man who said to you, ‘Pick up your mat and walk’?”[19]

The man didn’t know Jesus, nor could he point Him out, since He had slipped out[20] among the crowd gathered in Jerusalem for a Jewish feast.[21]  After this Jesus found him at the temple and said to him, “Look, you have become well. Don’t sin any more, lest anything worse happen to you.”  The man went away and informed the Jewish leaders that Jesus was the one who had made him well. Now because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began persecuting him [Table].[22]

John had a long lifetime to consider with the Holy Spirit what Jesus had said and done before he wrote his Gospel narrative. He related this story of the healing of a man by a command to break the Sabbath (as the religious authorities interpreted the Law) a man so ignorant of Jesus he could not even implicate Him when the religious authorities questioned him.  So Jesus met him again in the temple, all to orchestrate an opportunity for Jesus to say to the religious authorities, My Father is working until now, and I too am working.[23]

The religious authorities reacted exactly as one would expect religious authorities to react when confronted with a knowledge of God superior to their own, if the religious authorities in question were self-serving rather than God-serving: For this reason the Jewish leaders were trying even harder to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was also calling God his own Father, thus making himself equal with God.[24]

Jesus had a lot more to say to these religious authorities (John 5:19-23 NET):

I tell you the solemn truth, the Son can do nothing on his own initiative, but only what he sees the Father doing.  For whatever the Father does, the Son does likewise.  For the Father loves the Son and shows him everything he does, and will show him greater deeds than these, so that you will be amazed.  For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whomever he wishes.  Furthermore, the Father does not judge (κρίνει, a form of κρίνω) anyone, but has assigned all judgment (κρίσιν, a form of κρίσις) to the Son, so that all people will honor the Son just as they honor the Father.  The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.

I can do nothing more than listen to Yahweh come in human flesh speaking to religious authorities, THE religious authorities of the only religion ever authorized by the One living and true God (John 5:24-30 NET):

I tell you the solemn truth, the one who hears my message and believes the one who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned (εἰς κρίσιν οὐκ ἔρχεται; literally, “into judgment is not coming”), but has crossed over from death to life.  I tell you the solemn truth, a time is coming (ἔρχεται) – and is now here – when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live.  For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself, and he has granted the Son authority to execute judgment (κρίσιν, a form of κρίσις), because he is the Son of Man.

Do not be amazed at this, because a time is coming (ἔρχεται) when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and will come out – the ones who have done what is good to the resurrection resulting in life, and the ones who have done what is evil to the resurrection resulting in condemnation (κρίσεως, a form of κρίσις, or, judgment).  I can do nothing on my own initiative.  Just as I hear, I judge (κρίνω), and my judgment (κρίσις) is just, because I do not seek my own will, but the will of the one who sent me.

Here is a powerful clue to the meaning of a love that is not self-seeking: I do not seek (ζητῶ, another form of ζητέω) my own will (θέλημα), but the will (θέλημα) of the one who sent me.  Jesus continued speaking to the religious authorities (John 5:31-40 NET):

If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true.  There is another who testifies about me [the Father, I assume], and I know the testimony he testifies about me is true.  You have sent to John [the Baptist], and he has testified to the truth [John 1:19-37].  (I do not accept human testimony, but I say this so that you may be saved.)  He was a lamp that was burning and shining, and you wanted to rejoice greatly for a short time in his light.

But I have a testimony greater than that from John.  For the deeds that the Father has assigned me to complete – the deeds I am now doing – testify about me that the Father has sent me.  And the Father who sent me has himself testified about me.  You people have never heard his voice[25] 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.  You study the scriptures thoroughly because you think in them you possess eternal life, and it is these same scriptures that testify about me, but you are not willing to come to me so that you may have life.

I’ll take a moment to highlight what Jesus said about the authorities of the only God-ordained religion on the planet:

1) You people have never heard his 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.  Contrast this to his words to Philip, John 14:8-14.

2) You study the scriptures thoroughly…it is these same scriptures that testify about me, but you are not (οὐ, the absolute negation) willing (θέλετε, a form of θέλω) to come to me so that you may have life.  This is utterly self-serving. For ignoring the righteousness that comes from God, Paul wrote, and seeking instead to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.[26]

Jesus concluded his discourse with the religious authorities (John 5:41-47 NET):

I do not accept praise from people, but I know you, that you do not have the love of God within you.  I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me.  If someone else comes in his own name, you will accept him.  How can you believe, if you accept praise from one another and don’t seek the praise that comes from the only God?

Do not suppose that I will accuse you before the Father.  The one who accuses you is Moses, in whom you have placed your hope.  If you believed Moses, you would believe me, because he wrote about me.  But if you do not believe what Moses wrote, how will you believe my words?

Here I’ll add a third item to the list:

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

In this light I’ll continue to look into the feeding of the five thousand men plus women and children in the next essay.

[1] Romans 12:11 (NET) Table

[2] 1 Corinthians 13:5 (NET)

[3] Matthew 18:12b (NET)

[4] I will leave it to others to debate whether the Father’s unwillingness was limited only to the children present at the time and place Jesus spoke.

[5] Matthew 18:14 (NET)

[6] Psalm 23:6a (NET)

[7] http://bibleatlas.org/bethsaida.htm

[8] http://www.bible-history.com/geography/ancient-israel/sea-of-galilee.html

[9] John 14:10, 11 (NET)

[10] Matthew 14:12 (NET)

[11] Mark 6:7-13 (NET)

[12] John 3:22-36 (NET)

[13] John 5:31-36 (NET)

[14] John 5:7 (NET)

[15] John 5:6 (NET)

[16] The explanation given in the KJV (John 5:4)—For an angel went down at a certain time into the pool and stirred up the water; then whoever stepped in first, after the stirring of the water, was made well of whatever disease he had—has been rejected as not original to the text by most contemporary Bible scholars.

[17] John 5:10 (NET) Table

[18] John 5:11 (NET) Table

[19] John 5:12 (NET) Table

[20] John 5:13 (NET)

[21] John 5:1 (NET)

[22] John 5:14-16 (NET)

[23] John 5:17 (NET) Table

[24] John 5:18 (NET)

[25] The Father’s voice, that is: Exodus 20:1, 19; Deuteronomy 4:12; 5:24.  I assume the voice they heard was Yahweh’s, the Son.

[26] Romans 10:3 (NET)

My Reasons and My Reason, Part 5

Posted on by

Late that summer before we began our senior years of high school, I asked B if she wanted to have sex for real.  “I think you already know the answer to that,” she said.  Actually, I didn’t.  That’s why I asked.  But I took her evasion for a negative answer.  When I asked C to the first football game of the season, I imagine that B felt rejected for her refusal.  But I had been biding my time all summer, waiting for the seniors who buzzed around C to leave for college.  I didn’t have the connection with B, that sense of loyalty and commitment, I had experienced with A.

A week or so after that football game C and I had sex for real for the first time, for both of us.  Everything began to change for me.  I didn’t think so concretely at the time, but if someone had tried to communicate the fruit of the Spirit to me then, I would have argued that sex with C was my source of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and, after I failed to inaugurate my water brothers scheme, faithfulness and self-control.  I had my parents’ example.

They could barely tolerate one another. I might have suspected, since I existed, that sex lacked the staying power I thought, and hoped for, at the time.  I reasoned instead that my parents didn’t do it right, and suspected that their religion inhibited and prohibited them from doing it right.  Now, I believe that the forbidden fruit was a forbidden fruit, that Adam enjoyed a blessed wedding night and a wonderful afterglow that first Sabbath with his beautiful naked wife (Proverbs 5:18, 19 NET).

May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in your young wife –a loving doe, a graceful deer; may her breasts satisfy you at all times, may you be captivated by her love always.

But at seventeen it was all too easy to assume that forbidden fruit was a religious euphemism for sex.  I didn’t recognize that new-found faithfulness and self-control as something alien to me, as something quite contrary to my own will in fact.  I assumed that I had changed my mind.  It was My love for C, after all, that filled me with joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, even faithfulness and self-control.  Isn’t that what we mean and expect of someone who loves us?  He/She is filled with joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness, faithfulness and even self-control (as it pertains to another) in our presence?  And aches for the want of these things in our absence?

It wasn’t long before C and I discovered a mutual attraction for spanking and whipping (though I had  more affinity for dominant-submissive role-play than she did).  It became a routine part of our foreplay.  Yes, I was spanked as a child.  No, she was not.  But I’m not interested in psychological explanations.  What interests me is the wrath of God…revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness.[1]

Clearly, I did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but [I] became futile in [my] thoughts and [my] senseless [heart was] darkened.  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 didn’t know that Jesus 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.[3]  I didn’t know that Jesus was fully God.[4]  I had wondered about John’s mysterious Word, thrilled to the sound of the words that sang its praises, but hadn’t connected that Word with Jesus.

Jesus was the Son of God, less than God by definition, I thought. I believed in Jesus as a child but later (about twelve or thirteen) I put childish things away and prayed to God the Father, the true God, instead.  Jesus was the bait; God the Father was the switch.[5] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life,[6] sounded wonderful in the sales pitch.  When I learned that faith wasn’t enough, that I had to live as a child of God, the deal changed dramatically: For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.[7]  And Jesus being found in fashion as a man, was the image of the good son: he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.[8]  But at the critical moment when Jesus was most obedient to God the Father’s will, God the Father abandoned Him because, Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity…[9]  Or, as another story goes, rather than abandoning Jesus on the cross God the Father hurled even more secret punishments at Him, because his death alone was not sufficient to atone for sins.

I feel bad about the previous paragraph, and can’t continue without correcting it. Though the Scriptures are true, my tone was all off.  The surprise when Jesus appeared on earth as a man born of a virgin was not that Yahweh had a Son, but that He had a Father: Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am!”[10] For this is the way God [the Father] loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.[11]  He gave Him in the garden of Eden, and in the burning bush, and on Mount Sinai, and at Bethlehem and on Golgotha. No one [not Adam, not Eve, not Moses] has ever seen God [the Father]. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God [the Father] known.[12]

When Philip said to Jesus, Lord, show us the Father, and we will be content,[13] Jesus said: Have I been with you for so long, and you have not known me, Philip? The person who has seen me has seen the Father!  How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?  Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me?  The words that I say to you, I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father residing in me performs his miraculous deeds.[14]  To imagine secret punishments (and one must imagine them since they are not revealed in Scripture) which God the Father hurled at Jesus on the cross, is to misunderstand his salvation (Colossians 1:13-20 NET):

He [God the Father] delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of the Son he loves, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.  He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation, for all things in heaven and on earth were created by him – all things, whether visible or invisible, whether thrones or dominions, whether principalities or powers – all things were created through him and for him.  He himself is before all things and all things are held together in him.  He is the head of the body, the church, as well as the beginning, the firstborn from among the dead, so that he himself may become first in all things.  For God [the Father] was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in the Son and through him to reconcile all things to himself by making peace through the blood of his cross – through him, whether things on earth or things in heaven.

The reason Jesus’ death on a cross makes any peace or atonement is that God the Father is pleased to accept it as such. Human attempts to rationalize his salvation are rationalizations by definition. And in context Habakkuk had whined that Yahweh/Son/Jesus was too longsuffering (Habakkuk 1:13 NET):

You are too just to tolerate evil; you are unable to condone wrongdoing.  So why do you put up with such treacherous people?  Why do you say nothing when the wicked devour those more righteous than they are?

The point here is that He was putting up with such treacherous people.  It is not particularly prudent then to turn it around and use poetic language—Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity—to make a rule forbidding God the Father from drawing near to, or compelling Him to turn away from, God the Son at the moment He made the one who did not know sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God,[15] when Scripture states otherwise (Psalm 22:21b-24 NET):

You have answered me!  I will declare your name to my countrymen!  In the middle of the assembly I will praise you!  You loyal followers of the Lord, praise him!  All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!  All you descendants of Israel, stand in awe of him!  For he did not despise or detest the suffering of the oppressed; he did not ignore him; when he cried out to him, he responded.

This is the very Psalm Jesus quoted from the cross, when he cried out in Aramaic, “Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachthani?” which means, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”[16]  Psalm 22 is a heartrendingly accurate prophecy of the death of Yahweh the Son of God from his own point of view. Whether one believes that it was a psalm of David or not, it was clearly part of the Scripture translated into Greek in the Septuagint a couple of centuries before Jesus died in Jerusalem.  It is fitting that He, who lived by every word that comes from the mouth of God,[17] died with that word in his heart and mind as well.

But even years later after I returned to faith, I strove with every Zen particle of my being to let patience have her perfect work, that [I] may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing.[18]  When I read my sister’s annotated Shakespeare and realized for the first time that, “Wherefore art thou Romeo,” means, “why is your name Montague,” I got my first Bible translated in my own tongue.  I was shocked to learn that wanting nothing meant lacking in nothing (James 1:4 NASB):

And let endurance have its perfect result, so that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

The King James translation had made sense to me. Nothing angered my father more than my wanting something from him.  I assumed that God the Father was the same. Wanting nothing was difficult but possible to achieve, I thought.  But lacking in nothing?  How could I achieve that through some form of meditation or patience or endurance?  It was crazy stuff.

I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I devastate Ephraim again. For I am God, and not a man—the Holy One among you.[19]  I didn’t believe it at first.  I thought it was some evil introduced into a modern translation.  So I checked the Bible, you know, the King James version: I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God, and not man; the Holy One in the midst of thee:[20]

In my mind to carry out fierce anger was the essence of God the Father, the Lord Jehovah.  How could He turn it around and blame it on man?  How did He dare try to distinguish God, the Holy One among you, from man with a statement like, I will not carry out my fierce anger, nor will I devastate Ephraim again? It was nuts.

So, I was guilty. I had a man-made image of God in my mind, one much more like a man—my father[21]—than like God revealed in Scripture.  And I endeavored to worship that image, even after I prayed, if You are there I want to know You. Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.[22]  I have connected this to, Flee sexual immorality! “Every sin a person commits is outside of the body” – but the immoral person sins against his own body.[23]  So, I have considered unfaithfulness to a spouse to be the impurity to which God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to dishonor their bodies among themselves.

In an absolute sense taking up with C may have been a matter of infidelity to B or A, but in dynamic terms I was returning to a belief in faithfulness to one woman.  Now, I credit that to the Holy Spirit trying mightily to get through to me.  At the time I thought it was my doing.  After C and before my first wife (or, second, depending on your willingness to receive the law) there were other women, not enough to brag about, just enough to be ashamed of.  Two of those women were married.  The first was separated from her husband.  The second was living with her husband, but I was beyond caring.  If this was God’s wrath revealed from heaven I can easily attest to its justice, for I recall it as a time of profound loneliness, a loneliness I have not experienced since though I have mostly been alone (without a wife).

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

[1] Romans 1:18 (NET)

[2] Romans 1:21-23 (NET)

[3] John 1:2, 3 (NET)

[4] John 1:1 (NET)

[5] bait-and-switch

[6] John 3:16 (KJV)

[7] Hebrews 12:6 (KJV)

[8] Philippians 2:8 (KJV)

[9] Habakkuk 1:13a (KJV)

[10] John 8:58 (NET)

[11] John 3:16 (NET)

[12] John 1:18 (NET)

[13] John 14:8 (NET)

[14] John 14:9, 10 (NET)

[15] 2 Corinthians 5:21 (NET)

[16] Mark 15:34; Psalm 22:1 (NET)

[17] Matthew 4:4; Deuteronomy 8:3 (NET)

[18] James 1:4 (KJV)

[19] Hosea 11:9 (NIV)

[20] Hosea 11:9 (KJV)

[21] Though to be fair, my father had serious reservations about, and had stopped attending, the church where I became an atheist, and to which I returned after I returned to faith.

[22] Romans 1:24 (NET) Table

[23] 1 Corinthians 6:18 (NET)

Apostles and Prophets, Part 1

Posted on by

As I considered the relationship of Moses the prophet and Aaron the priest in Numbers 16 it occurred to me that my religion all but outlaws apostles and prophets. I even wrote that in the essay.  But as I turned to Jesus’ response to the argument he walked down the mount of transfiguration into I thought better of taking on an argument over apostles and prophets in that essay.  Still, the urge to do so persisted.

I suppose that everyone who is called by God, born from above[1] and receives the gift of the Holy Spirit walks down from that experience into 2,000 years of theological arguments with the implicit task of choosing sides or adjudicating between them.  Generally, I try to avoid theological arguments.  Time to study the Bible is precious.  If I spend it on arguments, I am not led by the Holy Spirit but by the people who started the arguments.

But since I have quipped to friends that one way of viewing Evangelicalism is as a mutiny of pastors and teachers against apostles and prophets I have apparently chosen a side without serious thought or consideration. I’m obligated now to be led around by the nose for a time by those who defend the assertion that apostles and prophets are no longer necessary or authorized by God.

My starting position was: why would anyone hope to be church in a hostile environment without such marvelously gifted people? As usual, once I took the time to formulate a coherent question the Holy Spirit was ready with an answer (Jeremiah 31:33, 34 NET):

“But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the Lord.  “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds.  I will be their God and they will be my people.  People will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me.  For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me,” says the Lord.  “For I will forgive their sin and will no longer call to mind the wrong they have done” [Table].

I asked an older friend if these verses were the goal, aim, purpose, end (τέλος) of the church, the body of Christ. (My friend doesn’t care much for church as a translation of ἐκκλησία.)  The initial response was a qualified, “No, this is for the nation of Israel.”  But that position softened as Paul’s words came to mind: Now if some of the branches were broken off, and you, a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among them and participated in the richness of the olive root…[2]  My own impression that these verses do serve as τέλος for the ἐκκλησία began to harden as I recalled Paul’s letter to the Ephesians (Ephesians 4:7, 11-13 NET):

But to each one of us grace was given according to the measure of the gift of Christ….It was he who gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, to equip the saints for the work of ministry, that is, to build up the body of Christ, until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God – a mature person, attaining to the measure of Christ’s full stature.

Prior to this approach I would have lined up the above verses right beside Paul’s mention of the same in his letter to the Corinthians as evidence of an ongoing role for both apostles and prophets (1 Corinthians 12:27, 28 NET):

Now you are Christ’s body, and each of you is a member of it.  And God has placed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, gifts of healing, helps, gifts of leadership, different kinds of tongues.

When I quipped about mutiny I had assumed that first, second and third were meant as a ranking of authority.  This time I could hear the possibility of a temporal ordering of arrival (and departure?) on the scene.  The net effect for me is not unlike voir dire.[3]

Many years ago I was impaneled for jury selection on a criminal case. As I sat across from the defendants in the courtroom there wasn’t a single doubt in my mind that they were guilty.  How else could they have gotten so far through the system?  After the defense attorneys in particular had a go at me during voir dire I didn’t have a clue whether the defendants were guilty or not.  I can only assume that the prosecutors had a similar impact on any who walked in assuming the defendants were innocent because the police and courts only exist to oppress and victimize black people. Voir dire is a very clever procedure for detecting and highlighting bias.

So I began this investigation with my biases exposed and confused. I typed “apostles no longer necessary” into Google and “No Prophets or Apostles Today”[4] by Lori Eldridge appeared at the top of the list.  The first step in her argument was to distinguish between gift and office.

Gift

Office
…the “gift” of prophecy (defending and speaking forth the ESTABLISHED Word of God)… …the “Office” of Prophet (speaking forth NEW revelations from God and establishing scripture).
The gift of prophecy is still in effect… …but not the office of Prophet…

The same can be said for the gift vs the office of Apostle…
…and the former to build new churches on that foundation already established. …the latter being for the purpose to lay the foundation for the Church…

The gift of apostle and prophet is fairly easy to find in the Bible. But to each one of us grace (χάρις) was given (ἐδόθη, a form of δίδωμι) according to the measure of the gift (δωρεᾶς, a form of δωρεά) of Christ.[5] It was he who gave (ἔδωκεν, another form of δίδωμι) some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers…[6]  The office of apostle and prophet is a bit more elusive.  But to say that there is no office of apostle and prophet in the Bible is not quite the same as saying that there was an office of apostle and prophet but it exists no longer.  So I’ll spend some time trying to track down the meaning of office of apostle or prophet.

And it came to pass, that while [a priest (ἱερεύς) named Zacharias[7]] executed the priest’s office (ἱερατεύειν, a form of ἱερατεύω) before God in the order of his course, According to the custom of the priest’s office (ἱερατείας, a form of ἱερατεία), his lot was to burn incense when he went into the temple of the Lord.[8]  The concept priest’s office is not two words in Greek but one: ἱερατεύειν in the first instance and ἱερατείας in the second.  I should point out that ἱερατεύειν was translated serving as priest in NKJV and ἱερατείας as of the priesthood.  There is a trend toward eliminating the word office over time.  Be that as it may the priest’s office helps clarify the meaning of office.

The requirements, duties, rights and privileges of priests were spelled out in great detail in the law. The law makes the office – official. And those of the sons of Levi who receive the priestly office (ἱερατείαν, another form of ἱερατεία) have authorization (ἐντολὴν, a form of ἐντολή) according to the law to collect a tithe from the people, that is, from their fellow countrymen, although they too are descendants of Abraham.[9] In the New Testament in Modern Speech (MSNT) Hebrews 5:1-4 is translated as follows:

For every High Priest is chosen from among men, and is appointed to act on behalf of men in matters relating to God, in order to offer both gifts and sin-offerings, and must be one who is able to bear patiently with the ignorant and erring, because he himself also is beset with infirmity.  And for this reason he is required to offer sin-offerings not only for the people but also for himself.  And no one takes this honorable office (τιμὴν, a form of τιμή) upon himself, but only accepts it when called to it by God, as Aaron was.

The KJV translated τιμὴν as honour.  The translators of the more recent translation added the concept office to that honour.  But I find no fault with the concept of a priestly office carefully delineated in law.  So the question comes to mind, what law authorizes the office of apostle?

Lori Eldridge began as follows:

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.”

This quotation is from the NIV. It is preceded by: For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office (ἐπισκοπὴν, a form of ἐπισκοπή) let another take.[10]  At least that’s how ἐπισκοπὴν was translated in the ASV and the NKJV.  The KJV translated it bishopric, and the NIV place of leadership.  But if I am going to find a law authorizing an office of apostle, the word of an apostle seems a likely place to start—on the surface of it.  But watch what happens if I expand the context.

Jesus had told Peter, Do not leave Jerusalem, but wait there for what my Father promised, which you heard about from me.  For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.[11]  Instead, prior to receiving the Holy Spirit, Peter took it upon himself to replace one of the Apostles Jesus had chosen[12] (Luke 6:12-16 NET).

Now it was during this time that Jesus went out to the mountain to pray, and he spent all night in prayer to God.  When morning came, he called his disciples and chose twelve of them, whom he also named apostles:  Simon (whom he named Peter), and his brother Andrew; and James, John, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, Simon who was called the Zealot, Judas the son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

So what did Jesus do? He made a personal appearance on the road to Damascus and chose Saul, a Pharisee who persecuted the early believers.  I can’t say that Jesus deliberately confounded Peter’s rule for apostle selection, because I believe that God’s prerogative—I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion[13]—trumps all law.  I can say that Saul was not 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, Peter’s stated prerequisite that Ms. Eldridge quoted but did not emphasize in all capital letters: For one of these (ἕνα τούτων) must become (γενέσθαι,a form of γίνομαι) A WITNESS WITH US OF HIS RESURRECTION.

In John’s vision on Patmos the wall of the holy city, Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God[14] was described as having twelve foundations, and on them are the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.[15]  I wonder if those who believe that Peter created (and limited) the office of Apostle as stated in Acts 1:21-26 also believe that Matthias will be the twelfth name on those foundations.  If it seems like I’m lobbying for Paul, I am not.

In the past I have lobbied for Paul. But now that I know him better and Jesus through his writing I hope that the twelfth name is Judas Iscariot.  I can’t imagine a more beautiful memorial to the grace and mercy of God in Jesus Christ.  And I think Paul would agree with me: so that God’s purpose in election would stand, not by works but by his calling…[16] So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.[17] For the gifts (χαρίσματα, a form of χάρισμα) and the call of God are irrevocable.[18]

And so all Israel will be saved, as it is written: “The Deliverer will come out of Zion; he will remove ungodliness from Jacob. And this is my covenant with them, when I take away their sins.”[19]

But perhaps the office of Apostle precedes Peter’s questionable rule as ἐπισκοπὴν (translated office in the ASV) precedes it.  I’ll look into that in the next essay.  For now I want to wrap-up by saying that this is not an enjoyable pastime for me.

Lori Eldridge was “raised in a cult as a child,” and “saved through Hal Lindsey’s Late Great Planet Earth.”[20]  It seems that she hears or reads sermons or religious writings and the Holy Spirit brings Scripture to mind that contradicts what the preacher preached or wrote.  Though her faith allows her to declare those the Holy Spirit contradicts false prophets and teachers[21] and mine does not, I might still be better served by trying to befriend her rather than by disputing with her.

People will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me.  For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me, the Lord promised through Jeremiah.  It seems fitting here to highlight the equalizing power of the Bible.  With it, led by the Holy Spirit, Lori Eldridge challenges prophets and teachers and declares them false.  With the Bible, led by the Holy Spirit, I can question the wisdom of Peter’s actions and whether his word established a rule for an office of apostle.  None of that changes if apostles and prophets are still active (and necessary) in the ἐκκλησία.

Apostles and Prophets, Part 2

[1] John 3:3 (NET)

[2] Romans 11:17 (NET)

[3] http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=2229

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

[5] Ephesians 4:7 (NET)

[6] Ephesians 4:11 (NET)

[7] Luke 1:5 (KJV)

[8] Luke 1:8, 9 (KJV)

[9] Hebrews 7:5 (NET)

[10] Acts 1:20 (ASV)

[11] Acts 1:4, 5 (NET)

[12] John 6:70, 71 (NET)

[13] Romans 9:15 (NET)

[14] Revelation 21:10 (NET)

[15] Revelation 21:14 (NET)

[16] Romans 9:11 (NET)

[17] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[18] Romans 11:29 (NET)

[19] Romans 11:26, 27 (NET)

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

[21] http://www.endtime-prophets.com/

Fear – Numbers, Part 4

Posted on by

To Korah the Levite, the Reubenites Dathan, Abiram and On, and the 250 leaders of the community[1] who accused Moses and Aaron of exalting themselves above the community of the Lord,[2] Moses said (Numbers 16:16, 17 NET):

You and all your company present yourselves before the Lord – you and they, and Aaron – tomorrow.  And each of you take his censer, put incense in it, and then each of you present his censer before the Lord: 250 censers, along with you, and Aaron – each of you with his censer.

The first time Moses said this[3] I wrote it off as sarcasm.  Here it sounds more like a princely summons to appear at their own executions, considering what happened to Nadab and Abihu, authorized priests who presented unauthorized fire before the Lord.  They appeared as commanded, and not only those who were summoned.  When Korah assembled the whole community against them at the entrance of the tent of meeting, then the glory of the Lord appeared to the whole community.[4]

In the Septuagint the whole community assembled was τὴν πᾶσαν αὐτοῦ συναγωγὴν (literally, “the all here synagogue”).  And the glory of the Lord appeared to πάσῃ τῇ συναγωγῇ (literally, “all the synagogue”).  The Lord said to Moses and Aaron, Separate yourselves from among this community (Septuagint, τῆς συναγωγῆς), that I may consume them in an instant.[5]  It’s probably worth mentioning that this story recounts yehôvâh’s frustration, patience and mercy with condemned Israel rather than redeemed Israel (Numbers 14:28-30a):

As I live, says the Lord, I will surely do to you just what you have spoken in my hearing.  Your dead bodies will fall in this wilderness – all those of you who were numbered, according to your full number, from twenty years old and upward, who have murmured against me.  You will by no means enter into the land where I swore to settle you.

A note in the NET suggests that this community meant only “people siding with Korah… an assembly of rebels.”  Moses and Aaron, however, didn’t take it that way: they threw themselves down with their faces to the ground and said, “O God, the God of the spirits of all people (Septuagint, τῶν πνευμάτων καὶ πάσης σαρκός; literally, “the spirits and all flesh”), will you be angry with the whole community (Septuagint, πᾶσαν τὴν συναγωγὴν) when only one man sins?”[6]

I find it particularly affecting that Aaron, who was once on the side of his rebellious people and in need of Moses’ intercession, joined Moses here in intercession. And despite Aaron’s former rebelliousness, the Lord answered them favorably. “Tell the community (Septuagint, τῇ συναγωγῇ): ‘Get away from around the homes of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (Septuagint, τῆς συναγωγῆς Κορε; literally, “the synagogue of Korah”).’”[7]  Moses did as the Lord commanded him (Numbers 16:25-27 NET):

Then Moses got up and went to Dathan and Abiram; and the elders of Israel went after him.  And he said to the community (Septuagint, τὴν συναγωγὴν), “Move away from the tents of these wicked men, and do not touch anything they have, lest you be destroyed because of all their sins.”  So they got away from the homes of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram on every side, and Dathan and Abiram came out and stationed themselves in the entrances of their tents with their wives, their children, and their toddlers.

In my estimation Moses tried diligently to make what transpired next explicitly clear to all the community (Numbers 16:28-30 NET).

“This is how you will know that the Lord has sent me to do all these works, for I have not done them of my own will (Septuagint, ἐμαυτοῦ; literally, “myself”).  If these men die a natural death, or if they share the fate of all men, then the Lord has not sent me.  But if the Lord does something entirely new, and the earth opens its mouth and swallows them up along with all that they have, and they go down alive to the grave (Hebrew, sheʼôl; Septuagint, ᾅδου; literally, “to Hades”), then you will know that these men have despised the Lord!”

On cue, the earth split open. They and all that they had went down alive into the pit (Hebrew, sheʼôl; Septuagint, ᾅδου), and the earth closed over them. So they perished from among the community[8] (Septuagint, ἀπώλοντο ἐκ μέσου τῆς συναγωγῆς; literally, “they perished out of the midst of the synagogue”).  The rest of the community didn’t feel particularly pious.  They ran, saying, “What if the earth swallows us too?”[9]  With a surgical precision that honored the intercession of Moses and Aaron, a fire went out from the Lord and devoured the 250 men who offered incense.[10]

In their reaction the next day the whole community of Israelites offers the most valid and poignant measure of the sanctifying power of scary stuff.  I call it scary stuff because yârêʼ, the Hebrew word translated fear, which seems to entail reverence for God and appears to stand as the Old Testament equivalent of New Testament faith, makes no appearance in the telling of this story.  The rest of the community either misunderstood or ignored Moses’ explanation of the previous day’s events.  They thought he did a magic trick, black magic at that: on the next day the whole community of Israelites (Septuagint, υἱοὶ Ισραηλ; literally, “sons of Israel”) murmured against Moses and Aaron, saying, “You have killed the Lord’s people (Septuagint, τὸν λαὸν κυρίου)!”[11]

Scary stuff doesn’t produce fear, not the fear of the Lord.  That fear, it seems, like faith only comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.[12]  And the Lord, it seems, was prescient when He wanted to destroy the whole community the day before.

Again, He said to Moses and Aaron, Get away from this community (Septuagint, τῆς συναγωγῆς), so that I can consume them in an instant![13]  Again, Moses and Aaron threw themselves down with their faces to the ground[14] but made no insinuation that the Lord might be destroying the innocent along with the guilty.

Then Moses [the prophet] said to Aaron [the priest], “Take the censer, put burning coals from the altar in it, place incense on it, and go quickly into the assembly and make atonement for them, for wrath has gone out from the Lord – the plague has begun!”  So Aaron [the priest] did as Moses [the prophet] commanded and ran into the middle of the assembly, where the plague was just beginning among the people. So he placed incense on the coals and made atonement for the people.  He stood between the dead and the living, and the plague was stopped.  Now 14,700 people died in the plague, in addition to those who died in the event with Korah.[15]

Again, the Lord responded favorably to Moses’ intercession. Through the very same act that fried 250 others He spared the vast majority of the people when Aaron the authorized priest responded obediently to the word of the authorized prophet.  Contrast this to a more “successful” rebellion in the time of Jeremiah, just prior to the Babylonian captivity of Judah, the southern part of the divided kingdom of Israel (Jeremiah 2:12, 13, 29, 30; 4:21, 22; 5:30, 31 NET).

Be amazed at this, O heavens!  Be shocked and utterly dumbfounded,” says the Lord.  “Do so because my people have committed a double wrong: they have rejected me, the fountain of life-giving water, and they have dug cisterns for themselves, cracked cisterns which cannot even hold water.”

“Why do you try to refute me?  All of you have rebelled against me,” says the Lord.  “It did no good for me to punish your people.  They did not respond to such correction.  You slaughtered your prophets like a voracious lion.”

“How long must I see the enemy’s battle flags and hear the military signals of their bugles?”  The Lord answered, “This will happen because my people are foolish.  They do not know me.  They are like children who have no sense.  They have no understanding.  They are skilled at doing evil.  They do not know how to do good.”

“Something horrible and shocking is going on in the land of Judah: The prophets prophesy lies.  The priests exercise power by their own authority.  And my people love (Septuagint, ἠγάπησεν, a form of ἀγαπάω) to have it this way.  But they will not be able to help you when the time of judgment comes!

You unbelieving (ἄπιστος) generation! How much longer must I be with you?  How much longer must I endure you?[16] This was Jesus’ response to an argument He walked into after his transfiguration.  Actually this is Mark’s version of his response.  Matthew’s and Luke’s are quite similar except for διεστραμμένη (a form of διαστρέφω). You unbelieving (ἄπιστος) and perverse (διεστραμμένη, a form of διαστρέφω) generation! How much longer must I be with you?  How much longer must I endure you?[17]  They were not merely unbelieving but were distorting, turning aside from, opposing and plotting “against the saving purposes and plans of God,” according to the definition in the NET.

On the surface of it this doesn’t sound like a promising prelude to the healing of the boy at the center of the story. Jesus didn’t do many miracles in his hometown of Nazareth because of their unbelief (ἀπιστίαν, a form of ἀπιστία).[18]  Yet all three Gospel writers record essentially the same thing, Bring him here to me,[19] Jesus continued.

Matthew Mark Luke
I brought him to your disciples, but they were not able to heal him.”  Jesus answered, “You unbelieving (ἄπιστος) and perverse (διεστραμμένη, a form of διαστρέφω) generation!  How much longer must I be with you?  How much longer must I endure you?

Matthew 17:16, 17a (NET)

 I asked your disciples to cast it out, but they were not able to do so.”  He answered them, “You unbelieving (ἄπιστος) generation!  How much longer must I be with you?  How much longer must I endure you?

Mark 9:18b, 19a (NET)

 I begged your disciples to cast it out, but they could not do so.”  Jesus answered, “You unbelieving (ἄπιστος) and perverse (διεστραμμένη, a form of διαστρέφω) generation!  How much longer must I be with you and endure you?

Luke 9:40, 41a (NET)
Bring him here to me.”

Matthew 17:17b (NET)

 Bring him to me.”

Mark 9:19b (NET)

 Bring your son here.”

Luke 9:41b (NET)

In Matthew’s most abbreviated account, Jesus rebuked the demon and it came out of him, and the boy was healed from that moment.[20]  While this is true to the other accounts, Matthew left out some of the detail and some of the nuance of the story. As the boy was approaching, Luke wrote, the demon threw him to the ground and shook him with convulsions. But Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, healed the boy, and gave him back to his father.[21]  Luke captured a bit more of the drama of the story but still left out some of the details.

So they brought the boy to him, Mark wrote.  When the spirit saw him, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell on the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth.[22]  Though the sight of Jesus set the spirit off, Jesus didn’t immediately rebuke the spirit and heal the boy.  He paused to take what sounds to a modern ear like a medical history: Jesus asked his father, “How long has this been happening to him?” And he said, “From childhood.  It has often thrown him into fire or water to destroy him.”[23]  It becomes obvious later that Jesus arrived at a diagnosis based on this one question, but it elicited something else as well.

But if you are able to do anything, the boy’s father continued, have compassion on us and help us.[24]  Here is the dilemma for Jesus.  The father’s words were not an expression of faith but something more like putting the Lord to the test (Matthew 4:5-7 NET).

Then the devil took him to the holy city, had him stand on the highest point of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down.  For it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you’ and ‘with their hands they will lift you up, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”  Jesus said to him, “Once again it is written: ‘You are not to put the Lord your God to the test.’”

This becomes clearer if I contrast the father’s words to the faith of the Roman centurion.

The Boy’s Father

The Roman Centurion
But if you are able to do anything, have compassion on us and help us.

Mark 9:22b (NET)

 But the centurion replied, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof.  Instead, just say the word and my servant will be healed.  For I too am a man under authority, with soldiers under me.  I say to this one, ‘Go’ and he goes, and to another ‘Come’ and he comes, and to my slave ‘Do this’ and he does it.”

Matthew 8:8, 9 (NET) Table

If Jesus had required this kind of faith as a prerequisite to healing someone, He would have healed no one in Israel at all: When Jesus heard [the centurion’s faith] he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “I tell you the truth, I have not found such faith in anyone in Israel!”[25]  And as a rule He didn’t require those possessed by evil spirits to exhibit any faith at all.  On the contrary, He seemed to want to silence the evil spirits.  Still, the boy’s father (inadvertently, I assume) had challenged Jesus’ authority.  So Jesus fed him the correct answer: Then Jesus said to him, “‘If you are able?’ All things are possible for the one who believes (πιστεύοντι, a form of πιστεύω).”[26]

Concerned for his son’s welfare this father didn’t look a gift horse in the mouth: Immediately the father of the boy cried out and said, “I believe (πιστεύω); help (βοήθει, a form of βοηθέω) my unbelief (ἀπιστίᾳ, a form of ἀπιστία)!”[27]  Medical science has begun to grasp the importance of faith in the context of the natural healing process.  But I don’t think Jesus was interested in the placebo effect here.  I think He would have questioned and instructed this father more on the subject of faith in God and miraculous healing if the boy’s antics hadn’t drawn a crowd (Mark 9:25-27 NET).

Now when Jesus saw that a crowd was quickly gathering, he rebuked the unclean spirit, saying to it, “Mute and deaf spirit, I command you, come out of him and never enter him again.”  It shrieked, threw him into terrible convulsions, and came out.  The boy looked so much like a corpse that many said, “He is dead!”  But Jesus gently took his hand and raised him to his feet, and he stood up.

Two different versions of Jesus’ disciples asking Him privately (κατ᾿ ἰδίαν) what they did wrong follow (Matthew 17:19, 20 NET).

Then the disciples came to Jesus privately (κατ᾿ ἰδίαν) and said, “Why couldn’t we cast it out?”  He told them, “It was because of your little faith (ὀλιγοπιστίαν, a form of ὀλιγόπιστος).  I tell you the truth, if you have faith (πίστιν, a form of πίστις) the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, ‘Move from here to there,’ and it will move; nothing will be impossible for you.”

This was the more public privately.  Jesus was clearly concerned that bystanders grasped the importance of faith even as He healed a man’s son who had challenged (tested, or tempted) Him more than he had trusted Him.  The key here is ὀλιγοπιστίαν (a form of ὀλιγόπιστος).

In a world where “faith” is the work we do to merit heaven and distinguish ourselves from those sinners condemned to hell, the translation of ὀλιγόπιστοι (another form of ὀλιγόπιστος) as you people of little faith[28] sounds like the harshest slander and condemnation.  But the disciples saw Jesus’ face and heard the tone in his voice when He said it, and knew that ὀλιγόπιστοι was one word in the Greek language, and that He used that word like a pet name[29] for them.  Because they knew this they were not afraid to ask Him the very same question again, a more private privately (Mark 9:28, 29 NET).

Then, after he went into the house, his disciples asked him privately (κατ᾿ ἰδίαν), “Why couldn’t we cast it out?”  He told them, “This kind can come out only by prayer.”

And here I have Jesus’ diagnosis derived during that brief medical history.

 

As an aside, I read something online about Amen.  The writer was concerned that we who used it at the end of our prayers were invoking an ancient Egyptian deity, a demon in other words.  I thought that was silly even as I read it, but I couldn’t come up with any compelling reason to end my prayers in tongues, a foreign language.  So I began to end them with “I believe,” the translation of Amen as I understood it.  Though I hadn’t really considered it when I prayed Amen, praying “I believe” seemed quite disingenuous at times.  So I amended my prayers then to “I believe; please help my unbelief.”  This is, of course, exactly what Jesus does through his Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22, 23 NET).

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness (πίστις), gentleness, and self-control.  Against such things there is no law.

 

[1] Numbers 16:2 (NET)

[2] Numbers 16:3 (NET)

[3] Numbers 16:6, 7 (NET)

[4] Numbers 16:19 (NET)

[5] Numbers 16:21 (NET)

[6] Numbers 16:22 (NET)

[7] Numbers 16:24 (NET)

[8] Numbers 16:33 (NET)

[9] Numbers 16:34 (NET)

[10] Numbers 16:35 (NET)

[11] Numbers 16:41 (NET)

[12] Romans 10:17 (NKJV)

[13] Numbers 16:45a (NET)

[14] Numbers 16:45b (NET)

[15] Numbers 16:46-49 (NET)

[16] Mark 9:19a (NET)

[17] Matthew 17:17a (NET)

[18] Matthew 13:58 (NET)

[19] Matthew 17:17b (NET)

[20] Matthew 17:18 (NET)

[21] Luke 9:42 (NET)

[22] Mark 9:20 (NET) Table

[23] Mark 9:21, 22a (NET)

[24] Mark 9:22b (NET) Table

[25] Matthew 8:10 (NET) Table

[26] Mark 9:23 (NET) Table

[27] Mark 9:24 (NET) Table

[28] Matthew 6:30 (NET)

[29] Matthew 8:26; 14:31 (ὀλιγόπιστε, another form of ὀλιγόπιστος); 16:8 (NET)

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 8

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Whosoever will may come”

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

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

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

James 2:6 (NET)

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

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

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

The Long Name of God
The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness, keeping loyal love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.

Exodus 34:6, 7a (NET)

 But he by no means leaves the guilty unpunished, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children and children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.

Exodus 34:7b (NET)

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

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

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

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

[1] Who Am I? Part 1

[2] Doctrine Grid

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

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

[5] Theological Liberalism

[6] Romans 9:18 (NET)

[7] Can a Christian be a universalist?

[8] Exodus 15:4 (NET)

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

[10] Romans 1:7 (NET)

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

[12] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[13] John 6:44 (NET)

[14] Softly and Tenderly

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

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

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

[18] John 21:6 (NET)

[19] John 21:11a (NET)

[20] John 21:6 (NKJV)

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

[22] Romans 9:16 (NET)

[23] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[24] 1 Timothy 4:10 (NET)

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

Romans, Part 53

Posted on by

So, how can I view—Do not lag in zeal, be enthusiastic in spirit, serve the Lord[1]—as a definition of love (ἀγάπη) rather than as rules?  Again, I’ve constructed the following table to help.

The Fruit of the Spirit

Galatians 5:22, 23 (NET)

love (ἀγάπη)
Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in the hope of God’s glory.  Not only this, but we also rejoice in sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance, character, and character, hope.  And hope does not disappoint, because the love (ἀγάπη) of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.[2] Love (ἀγάπη) does no wrong (κακὸν, a form of κακός) to a neighbor. Therefore love (ἀγάπη) is the fulfillment of the law.[3] Knowledge puffs up, but love (ἀγάπη) builds up.[4]
Love (ἀγάπη) is…

1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NET)

 …not self-serving (οὐ ζητεῖ τὰ ἑαυτῆς; literally, “not seek itself”)…

1 Corinthians 13:5 (NET)
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 (ζητεῖ, a form of ζητέω) the one that went astray?[5]  But above all pursue (ζητεῖτε, another form of ζητέω) his kingdom and righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.[6]
This Love Without Hypocrisy…

Romans 12:9-21 (NET)

 Do not lag in zeal (σπουδῇ, a form of σπουδή), be enthusiastic (ζέοντες, a form of ζέω) in spirit…

Romans 12:11a (NET)

 …serve (δουλεύοντες, a form of δουλεύω) the Lord.

Romans 12:11b (NET)
But as you excel in everything – in faith, in speech, in knowledge, and in all eagerness (σπουδῇ) and in the love from us that is in you – make sure that you excel in this act of kindness too.[7] Now a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria, arrived in Ephesus.  He was an eloquent speaker, well-versed in the scriptures.  He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and with great enthusiasm (ζέων, another form of ζέω) he spoke and taught accurately the facts about Jesus (KJV: the Lord), although he knew only the baptism of John.[8] Slaves, obey your human masters with fear and trembling, in the sincerity of your heart as to Christ, not like those who do their work only when someone is watching – as people-pleasers – but as slaves of Christ doing the will of God from the heart.  Obey with enthusiasm (εὐνοίας, a form of εὔνοια), as though serving (δουλεύοντες) the Lord and not people, because you know that each person, whether slave or free, if he does something good (ἀγαθόν, a form of ἀγαθός), this will be rewarded by the Lord.[9]

In the previous essay it seemed to make intuitive sense to place cling to what is good[10]under that aspect of the fruit of the Spirit translated goodness.  Here it may seem like begging the question[11] to simply place—Do not lag in zeal, be enthusiastic in spirit, serve the Lord—under love.  In one sense love (ἀγάπη) is the master key that can stand for all aspects of the fruit of the Spirit.  I think John used ἀγάπη that way often, but I want to follow Paul’s thinking here.

Therefore, since we have been declared righteous by faith (πίστεως, a form of πίστις), he wrote.  By our own faith?  I think not, for πίστις[12] is an aspect of the fruit of the Spirit.  Since we have been declared righteous by faith we have peace (εἰρήνην, a form of εἰρήνη) with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.[13]  Again, peace (εἰρήνη) is an aspect of the fruit of his Spirit.  Through our Lord Jesus Christ we have also obtained access by faith (πίστει, another form of πίστις) into this grace (χάριν, a form of χάρις) in which we stand.  And by grace, though Paul may mean more, I think he cannot mean less than the credited righteousness of God, this very fruit of God’s Holy Spirit.  And we rejoice in the hope of our glory!  But that’s not what Paul wrote.  And we rejoice (καυχώμεθα, a form of καυχάομαι) in the hope of God’s glory.[14]

Though the NET translators chose rejoice for καυχώμεθα here and in the next verse, boast is a more obvious meaning.  I say again, let no one think that I am a fool.  But if you do, then at least accept me as a fool, so that I too may boast (καυχήσωμαι, another form of καυχάομαι) a little.  What I am saying with this boastful (καυχήσεως, a form of καύχησις) confidence I do not say the way the Lord would.  Instead it is, as it were, foolishness.  Since many are boasting (καυχῶνται, another form of καυχάομαι) according to human standards, I too will boast (καυχήσομαι, another form of καυχάομαι).[15]  By the way, according to human standards is κατὰ σάρκα in Greek, according to the flesh (NKJV).

It gives me the sense that Paul meant we boast in the hope of God’s glory.  We boast in the hope that God will be glorified by the lives we live in the flesh (not according to the flesh), crucified with Christ (it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me),[16] living by the Spirit,[17] not by the works of the flesh.[18]  Translated that way we might be less likely to gloss over it and boast in the hope of our own glory.  Not only this, Paul continued, but we also rejoice (καυχώμεθα, a form of καυχάομαι; or, boast) in sufferings.[19]  So where does Paul get off writing this wacko stuff?

If I must boast (καυχᾶσθαι, another form of καυχάομαι), I will boast (καυχήσομαι, another form of καυχάομαι) about the things that show my weakness (ἀσθενείας, a form of ἀσθένεια).[20]  There was method to Paul’s madness.  For the Lord said to him, “My grace is enough for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness (ἀσθενείᾳ).” So then, Paul concluded, I will boast (καυχήσομαι) most gladly about my weaknesses (ἀσθενείαις), so that the power of Christ may reside in me.[21]  And in Romans we find a similar method to his madness: we also rejoice (or, boast) in sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance, character, and character, hope.[22]  And here I get a beautiful glimmer of an understanding why the NET translators chose rejoice over boast.

We don’t rejoice or boast in our own suffering because of a rational understanding: knowing that suffering produces endurance, and endurance, character, and character, hope.  We can only rejoice or boast in our own suffering because we are filled with the joy (χαρὰ) of God, another aspect of the fruit of his Spirit.  And rejoice hearkens back to that fact better than boast ever could.  I am confident they chose rejoice for this reason because of a note on the next verse.

And hope does not disappoint, Paul concluded, because the love (ἀγάπη) of God has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us.[23]  The note in the NET reads: “The phrase ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ (…‘the love of God’) could be interpreted as either an objective genitive (‘our love for God’), subjective genitive (‘God’s love for us’), or both (M. Zerwick’s ‘general’ genitive [Biblical Greek,§§36-39]; D. B. Wallace’s ‘plenary’ genitive [ExSyn 119-21]). The immediate context, which discusses what God has done for believers, favors a subjective genitive, but the fact that this love is poured out within the hearts of believers implies that it may be the source for believers’ love for God; consequently an objective genitive cannot be ruled out. It is possible that both these ideas are meant in the text and that this is a plenary genitive: ‘The love that comes from God and that produces our love for God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us’ (ExSyn 121).”

Here is one place I can say with confidence the NET translators really got what Paul was saying.  This love (ἀγάπη), which has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us, does no wrong (κακὸν) to a neighbor.  Therefore love (ἀγάπη) is the fulfillment (πλήρωμα) of the law.[24]  Pouring this love out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us is what Jesus meant when He said: Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets.  I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill (πληρῶσαι, a form of πληρόω, the verb from which the noun πλήρωμα is derived) them.[25]

I want to spend some time with κακὸν (a form of κακός) since this ἀγάπη does (or, works) no wrong (or, harm) to a neighbor.  The first time κακὸν occurs in the New Testament was from the mouth of the Roman governor.  Pilate said to them, “Then what should I do with Jesus who is called the Christ?”  They all said, “Crucify him!”  He asked, “Why? What wrong (κακὸν) has he done?” But they shouted more insistently, “Crucify him!”[26]  Though Pilate found no κακὸν in Him under Roman law the chief priests and elders of Israel had accused Him of many things: “Don’t you hear how many charges they are bringing against you?”[27] Pilate asked.  When Jesus was accused by the chief priests and the elders, he did not respond.[28]

Now, with 20-20 hindsight I can see Jesus consciously fulfilling Scripture: He was treated harshly and afflicted, but he did not even open his mouth.  Like a lamb led to the slaughtering block, like a sheep silent before her shearers, he did not even open his mouth.[29]  At the time in the moment, however, He appeared obstinate, belligerent and disdainful of authority.  Consider his teaching (Matthew 23:1-12 NET).

Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, “The experts in the law and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat.  Therefore pay attention to what they tell you and do it.  But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they teach.  They tie up heavy loads, hard to carry, and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing even to lift a finger to move them.  They do all their deeds to be seen by people, for they make their phylacteries wide and their tassels long.  They love the place of honor at banquets and the best seats in the synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, and to have people call them ‘Rabbi.’  But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher and you are all brothers.  And call no one your ‘father’ on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.  Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one teacher, the Christ.  The greatest among you will be your servant.  And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Even here there is a very rough edge that is disdainful of human authority.  More to the point, perhaps, Jesus did nothing that would inhibit his progress toward the cross.  My commandment (ἐντολὴ, a form of ἐντολή) is this, He also said, to love (ἀγαπᾶτε, a form of ἀγαπάω) one another just as I have loved (ἠγάπησα, another form of ἀγαπάω) you.  No one has greater love (ἀγάπην, a form of ἀγάπη) than this – that one lays down his life for his friends.  You are my friends if you do what I command (ἐντέλλομαι) you.[30]  Hanging on the cross, after thirty plus years of human experience, eating it, drinking it, pissing and shitting it, Jesus prayed what I consider the real prayer of salvation: Father, forgive them, for they don’t know what they are doing.[31]

My point here, I suppose, is that the love that does (or, works) no wrong (or, harm) to a neighbor may not always appear to all the people all the time to be doing or working no wrong or harm to a neighbor.  By his own admission Jesus’ death on a cross was not his will but his Father’s.[32]  Like most human beings Jesus wanted to live; whoever is among the living has hope; a live dog is better than a dead lion.[33]  Perhaps I’ve overstated the case.  Jesus was not suicidal as He hung on the cross.

I want to follow this just a bit farther (Luke 16:25 NET).

Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things (ἀγαθά, another form of ἀγαθός) and Lazarus likewise bad things (κακά, another form of κακός), but now he is comforted here and you are in anguish.’

When I considered this in the light of the gospel I gleaned from my religion,[34] Abraham’s words seemed like karmic nonsense.  But in the light of the knowledge of God I’m compelled to reconsider.  God is love (ἀγάπη).[35]  Love (ἀγάπη) does no wrong (κακὸν, a form of κακός) to a neighbor.[36]  (And this is οὐκ the absolute negation, modifying ἐργάζεται [a form of ἐργάζομαι] apparently not κακὸν.)  So while I might be intellectually stimulated to wonder what role God’s love played in Lazarus’ life, the Holy Spirit reminds me that Knowledge puffs up, but love (ἀγάπη) builds up.[37]  All in all it is simpler then to assume that God’s love was revealed after Lazarus’ death.  This is in accord with Jesus’ knowledge of God: he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live before him.[38]  And it is prudent to accept that I do not dictate when God reveals his love to anyone (or, in anyone for that matter).

I’ll continue looking into—Do not lag in zeal, be enthusiastic in spirit, serve the Lord—as a definition of love rather than as rules in the next essay.

[1] Romans 12:11 (NET) Table

[2] Romans 5:1-5 (NET)

[3] Romans 13:10 (NET)

[4] 1 Corinthians 8:1b (NET)

[5] Matthew 18:12b (NET)

[6] Matthew 6:33 (NET)

[7] 2 Corinthians 8:7 (NET)

[8] Acts 18:24, 25 (NET) Table

[9] Ephesians 6:5-8 (NET)

[10] Romans 12:9b (NET)

[11] Fallacy: Begging the Question

[12] Galatians 5:22 (NET) translated faithfulness

[13] Romans 5:1 (NET)

[14] Romans 5:2 (NET)

[15] 2 Corinthians 11:16-18 (NET)

[16] Galatians 2:20 (NET)

[17] Galatians 5:16 (NET)

[18] Galatians 5:19 (NET)

[19] Romans 5:3a (NET)

[20] 2 Corinthians 11:30 (NET)

[21] 2 Corinthians 12:9 (NET)

[22] Romans 5:3, 4 (NET)

[23] Romans 5:5 (NET)

[24] Romans 13:10 (NET)

[25] Matthew 5:17 (NET)

[26] Matthew 27:22, 23 (NET)

[27] Matthew 27:13 (NET)

[28] Matthew 27:12 (NET)

[29] Isaiah 53:7 (NET)

[30] John 15:12-14 (NET)

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

[32] Luke 22:42 (NET)

[33] Ecclesiastes 9:4 (NET)

[34] “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ before you die or burn in hell for all eternity.”

[35] 1 John 4:8, 16 (NET) Table

[36] Romans 13:10a (NET)

[37] 1 Corinthians 8:1b (NET)

[38] Luke 20:38 (NET)

Prayer

Posted on by

Twice in the New Testament Jesus told us what to say when we pray: So pray this way[1] (οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς; literally, “in this manner then pray you”) and When you pray, say[2] (ὅταν προσεύχησθε λέγετε).  I compared them this morning thinking about the rationale for removing For yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen[3] from Matthew 6:13 in the NET and other translations.

Matthew (NET) Greek Text Luke (NET) Greek Text
When you pray, do not babble repetitiously like the Gentiles, because they think that by their many words they will be heard [Table].  Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.  So pray this way:

Matthew 6:7-9a (NET)

 Προσευχόμενοι δὲ μὴ βατταλογήσητε ὥσπερ οἱ ἐθνικοί, δοκοῦσιν γὰρ ὅτι ἐν τῇ πολυλογίᾳ αὐτῶν εἰσακουσθήσονται.  μὴ οὖν ὁμοιωθῆτε αὐτοῖς· οἶδεν γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ ὑμῶν ὧν χρείαν ἔχετε πρὸ τοῦ ὑμᾶς αἰτῆσαι αὐτόν.  οὕτως οὖν προσεύχεσθε ὑμεῖς·

Matthew 6:7-9a

 Now Jesus was praying in a certain place. When he stopped, one of his disciples said to him, “Lord, teach us to pray, just as John taught his disciples.”  So he said to them, “When you pray, say:

Luke 11:1, 2a (NET)

 Καὶ ἐγένετο ἐν τῷ εἶναι αὐτὸν ἐν τόπῳ τινὶ προσευχόμενον, ὡς ἐπαύσατο, εἶπεν τις τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ πρὸς αὐτόν· κύριε, δίδαξον ἡμᾶς προσεύχεσθαι, καθὼς καὶ Ἰωάννης ἐδίδαξεν τοὺς μαθητὰς αὐτοῦ.  εἶπεν δὲ αὐτοῖς· ὅταν προσεύχησθε λέγετε·

Luke 11:1, 2a

The wording here (especially in Greek) persuaded me that I was dealing with two different instances of instruction, not just one teaching recalled two different ways.  In the sermon on the mount recorded by Matthew Jesus, unbidden, taught his listeners how to pray in distinction to how Gentiles (ἐθνικοί, a form of ἐθνικός) prayed.  On another occasion recorded by Luke a disciple asked Jesus to teach them to pray just as (καθὼς) John the Baptist taught his disciples to pray.  And I assume that means John the Baptist taught his disciples how to pray, not that Jesus’ disciple wanted to learn the words that John taught his disciples to pray from Jesus.

Matthew (NET) Greek Text Luke (NET) Greek Text
Our Father in heaven, may your name be honored, may your kingdom come,

Matthew 6:9b, 10a (NET)

 Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομα σου·  ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·

Matthew 6:9b, 10a

 Father, may your name be honored; may your kingdom come.

Luke 11:2b (NET)

 Πάτερ, ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομα σου· ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·

Luke 11:2b

May your name be honored;may your kingdom come (ἁγιασθήτω τὸ ὄνομα σου· ἐλθέτω ἡ βασιλεία σου·)—is identical in both Gospel accounts in Greek.  The difference is Our Father in heaven (Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς) recorded by Matthew and Father (Πάτερ) recorded by Luke.  I don’t assume that Jesus told the larger congregation on the mount to pray to Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς and then turned around and informed the more intimate group of his disciples to pray each to his own biological Πάτερ.  Rather, I assume that Jesus expected the intimate group of his disciples to understand Πάτερ as Πάτερ ἡμῶν ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Matthew (NET) Greek Text Luke (NET) Greek Text
may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Matthew 6:10b (NET) Table

 γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημα σου,ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς·

Matthew 6:10b

Here Matthew recorded something—may your will be done on earth as it is in heaven—that Luke did not.  I don’t assume that Luke was so opposed to God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven that he discarded it from the text.  Nor do I assume that Matthew made it up.  Rather, I assume again that Jesus expected the intimate group of his disciples to understand the coming of the kingdom of God as God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven.

Matthew (NET) Greek Text Luke (NET) Greek Text
Give us today our daily bread,

Matthew 6:11 (NET)

 τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον·

Matthew 6:11

 Give us each day our daily bread,

Luke 11:3 (NET)

 τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δίδου ἡμῖν τὸκαθ᾿ ἡμέραν·

Luke 11:3

Here, what is being given—τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον—is identical (“our bread sufficient for the coming” in classical Greek[4]).  I assume Jesus means the bread of life,[5] that portion of Christ who lives in me,[6] the fruit of the Spirit,[7] the credited righteousness of God,[8] sufficient as far as it depends on me to do the will of God on earth as it is done in heaven to bring forth the kingdom of God to honor his name.  And though I used myself as an example—“as far as it depends on me”—the prayer He taught us to pray is not for me alone, but for all who call or have called or will call on our Father in heaven.

The differences—δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον, and δίδου ἡμῖν τὸ καθ᾿ ἡμέραν—seem inconsequential.  The Greek words δὸς and δίδου are different forms of δίδωμι, to give.  The Greek σήμερον means today, this day; καθ᾿ (a form of κατά) is defined: “1) down from, through out 2) according to, toward, along,” and was translated each, while ἡμέραν (a form of ἡμέρα) means day.  If any difference is worth mentioning it is simply that Jesus counseled the intimate group of his disciples to expect this gift of righteousness each day, every day, all day.

Matthew (NET) Greek Text Luke (NET) Greek Text
and forgive us our debts,

Matthew 6:12a (NET)

 καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰ ὀφειλήματα ἡμῶν,

Matthew 6:12a

 and forgive us our sins,

Luke 11:4a (NET)

 καὶ ἄφες ἡμῖν τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν,

Luke 11:4a

In Matthew’s Gospel account Jesus spoke euphemistically of ὀφειλήματα (a form of ὀφείλημα, debts), but with the more intimate group of his disciples He said ἁμαρτίας (a form of ἁμαρτία, sins).  But after the prayer He taught in Matthew’s Gospel account, Jesus said, For if you forgive others their sins (παραπτώματα, a form of παράπτωμα), your heavenly Father will also forgive you.  But if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive you your sins (παραπτώματα).[9]  I’ve written elsewhere about the interchangeability of παράπτωμα with ἁμαρτία.  And I think this difference becomes clearer in the comparison of the next statement.

Matthew (NET) Greek Text Luke (NET) Greek Text
as we ourselves have forgiven our debtors.

Matthew 6:12b (NET)

 ὡς καὶ ἡμεῖς ἀφήκαμεν τοῖς ὀφειλέταις ἡμῶν·

Matthew 6:12b

 for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.

Luke 11:4b (NET)

 καὶ γὰρ αὐτοὶ ἀφίομεν παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν·

Luke 11:4b

Here, in Mathew’s Gospel account Jesus continued with the euphemistic ὀφειλέταις (a form of ὀφειλέτης) ἡμῶν (our debtors).  Though the NET translators chose everyone who sins against us for παντὶ ὀφείλοντι ἡμῖν in Luke’s Gospel account, ὀφείλοντι is a form of ὀφείλω (to owe).  We don’t actually stand in relation to others like God with a law that they might sin against; “for we also forgive everyone who is indebted to us” is probably a better translation.  And the more positive for we also forgive makes sense since Jesus did not go on to elaborate—For if you forgive others their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.  But if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive you your sins—when teaching the intimate group of his disciples.

Matthew (NET) Greek Text Luke (NET) Greek Text
And do not lead us into temptation,

Matthew 6:13a (NET)

 καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν,

Matthew 6:13a

 And do not lead us into temptation.”

Luke 11:4c (NET)

 καὶ μὴ εἰσενέγκῃς ἡμᾶς εἰς πειρασμόν.

Luke 11:4c
but deliver us from the evil one.

Matthew 6:13b (NET)

 ἀλλὰ ρῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ.

Matthew 6:13b

Here, I don’t assume that Luke was partial to evil and rejected being delivered from it.  Neither do I assume that Mathew was so prone to evil he added it to Jesus’ teaching.  I assume again that Jesus expected the intimate group of his disciples to understand that the leading not into temptation (KJV) is deliverance from evil.  I’ve written elsewhere how I am not fond of limiting τοῦ πονηροῦ to the evil one.  In this case it is because I am so prone to evil that I long to be delivered from it in all its forms.

When I come to ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοῦς αἰῶνας ἀμήν (“because yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen”) what am I to assume?  The note in the NET reads:

Most mss (L W Θ 0233 Ë13 33 Ï sy sa Didache) read (though some with slight variation) ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν (“for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen”) here. The reading without this sentence, though, is attested by generally better witnesses (א B D Z 0170 Ë1 pc lat mae Or). The phrase was probably composed for the liturgy of the early church and most likely was based on 1 Chr 29:11-13; a scribe probably added the phrase at this point in the text for use in public scripture reading (see TCGNT 13-14). Both external and internal evidence argue for the shorter reading.

So, in other words some scribe got hyper-religious one day and decided to make Jesus’ words more holy by adding David’s words to them.  As scenarios go, it’s a possible scenario, probably worth a footnote.  But is it a good enough scenario to stand before God and say, “Oh, yeah, we threw those words right out of the Bible because of this scenario we imagined”?

Here is David’s prayer (1 Chronicles 29:10-19 NET):

David praised the Lord before the entire assembly:

“O Lord God of our father Israel, you deserve praise forevermore!  O Lord, you are great, mighty, majestic, magnificent, glorious, and sovereign over all the sky and earth!  You have dominion and exalt yourself as the ruler of all.  You are the source of wealth and honor; you rule over all.  You possess strength and might to magnify and give strength to all.  Now, our God, we give thanks to you and praise your majestic name!

“But who am I and who are my people, that we should be in a position to contribute this much?  Indeed, everything comes from you, and we have simply given back to you what is yours.  For we are resident foreigners and nomads in your presence, like all our ancestors; our days are like a shadow on the earth, without security.  O Lord our God, all this wealth, which we have collected to build a temple for you to honor your holy name, comes from you; it all belongs to you.  I know, my God, that you examine thoughts and are pleased with integrity.  With pure motives I contribute all this; and now I look with joy as your people who have gathered here contribute to you.  O Lord God of our ancestors Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, maintain the motives of your people and keep them devoted to you.  Make my son Solomon willing to obey your commands, rules, and regulations, and to complete building the palace for which I have made preparations.”

No doubt at all that David’s prayer was in the same Spirit as Jesus’ teaching on prayer:  For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.  It is consistent with other teachings:  Why do you call me good?  No one is good except God alone.[10]  “Would any one of you say to your slave who comes in from the field after plowing or shepherding sheep, ‘Come at once and sit down for a meal’?  Won’t the master instead say to him, ‘Get my dinner ready, and make yourself ready to serve me while I eat and drink.  Then you may eat and drink’?  He won’t thank the slave because he did what he was told, will he?  So you too, when you have done everything you were commanded to do, should say, ‘We are slaves undeserving of special praise; we have only done what was our duty.’”[11]

The word translated undeserving of special praise is ἀχρεῖοι (a form of ἀχρεῖος).  The note in the NET reads: “Some translations describe the slaves as ‘worthless’ (NRSV) or ‘unworthy’ (NASB, NIV) but that is not Jesus’ point. These disciples have not done anything deserving special commendation or praise (L&N 33.361), but only what would normally be expected of a slave in such a situation (thus the translation ‘we have only done what was our duty’).”  But they did translate ἀχρεῖον (another form of ἀχρεῖος) worthless in “The Parable of the Talents.”

The worthless slave was given a talent, equivalent to 6,000 denarii according to a footnote.  In Matthew 20:2 day laborers agreed to work a day in the field for a denarius.  If I assume a six day work week there are 312 working days in a year, and so 6,000 divided by 312 equals 19.23 years, almost 19 years and three months of a day laborers pay.

The worthless slave did no business with his master’s money, nor did he invest it with others who might have done so.  I was afraid, he said, and I went and hid your talent in the ground.  See, you have what is yours.[12]  So he was fired, as any of us might fire a worthless employee.  But when we have done everything [we] were commanded to do, why should we still consider ourselves worthless slaves?

I think it is because everything we have done has been done in God,[13] for the one bringing forth in you both the desire and the effort – for the sake of his good pleasure – is God.[14]  As David prayed, who am I and who are my people, that we should be in a position to contribute this much?  Indeed, everything comes from you, and we have simply given back to you what is yours.[15]  God has granted us our daily bread of life, because the kingdom and the power and the glory belong to Him forever.  Amen.

And I will do well to be reminded of that daily, as long as it is called today.[16]

 

[1] Matthew 6:9a (NET)

[2] Luke 11:2a (NET)

[3] Matthew 6:13b (NET)

[4] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=epiousion&la=greek

[5] John 6:35, 48-51 (NET)

[6] Galatians 2:20 (NET)

[7] Galatians 5:16-18, 22, 23 (NET)

[8] Romans 4 (NET)

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

[10] Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19 (NET)

[11] Luke 17:7-10 (NET)

[12] Matthew 25:25 (NET)

[13] John 3:21 (NET)

[14] Philippians 2:13 (NET)

[15] 1 Chronicles 29:14 (NET)

[16] Hebrews 3:13 (NET)

My Reasons and My Reason, Part 4

Posted on by

My first dates were all about driving—driving and not killing us, and talking to a girl when I wasn’t driving (and while I was for that matter). Then I met A. I’ll call her A. Girlfriend has a meaning I don’t want to imply, more like wife, or concubine I suppose. (In most States a girlfriend can’t take half of everything a man owns when she leaves him or is sent packing.) My mother had warned me about A, how she would seek male affection. A had grown up without a father.

Her mother was divorced, and could never remarry. Today, Jesus’ saying—everyone who divorces his wife, except for immorality (πορνείας, a form of πορνεία), makes her commit adultery‎[1]—sounds to me as if He assumed she would remarry. But then, I understood it as a prohibition. Besides, whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery,[2] Jesus continued. That pretty much assured her that no one at my church would marry her.  Marrying someone “outside of the faith” (someone who believed that a divorced person could remarry) was frowned upon there.

When I began to squeeze A’s breasts and fondle her nipples, I didn’t realize that God might have something against it. At sixteen I don’t recall knowing the word of the Lord that came to Ezekiel [Table] (Ezekiel 23:1-3 NET):

“Son of man, there were two women who were daughters of the same mother [Table]. They engaged in prostitution (zānâ, ותזנינה) in Egypt; in their youth they engaged in prostitution (zānâ, זנו). Their breasts were squeezed there; lovers fondled their virgin nipples there” [Table see Addendum].

I’m not sure what difference it would have made. I knew that breast squeezing and nipple fondling was frowned upon. I thought that was because it would lead to the sin of premarital sex. As it turned out, A’s nipples weren’t so virgin. She and her former boyfriend, a friend of mine from church, had committed the sin of premarital sex. They only did it once. Then they stopped seeing each other and never did it again.

I enjoyed squeezing A’s breasts and fondling her nipples. I think she enjoyed it, too. I found it very hard to believe that I was just a surrogate for the father she didn’t have. It seemed like she really loved me, as me, not as a symbol of something else. It all felt very real. And I was happy and satisfied squeezing her breasts and fondling her nipples. I had no intention of committing the sin of premarital sex. She didn’t want to do that again either.

At sixteen I didn’t study the Bible. I was flying blind. I read only the minimum that was presented in church services and Sunday school. There were moments when I was in a particularly religious mood that I tried to read more, but then I was in the wrong frame of mind, expecting, hoping that the Bible would confirm and applaud my religiousness. So I didn’t recognize the Lord’s ἐγκράτεια standing between A and me and the sin of premarital sex.

I hadn’t heard the fruit of the Spirit. I’m not saying no one ever talked about it. I’m saying I hadn’t heard it yet. I certainly wasn’t taught that I was strong, and the word of God resides in [me], and [I] have conquered the evil one.[3] That would have stood out amidst all the teaching that any contact with a young female would lead inexorably to the sin of premarital sex.

I didn’t know a thing about ἐγκράτεια. It was literally “all Greek to me.”[4] I didn’t have a Bible that translated ἐγκράτεια self-control, which I might have related to sexual matters. My Bible read temperance. I was sixteen; I didn’t drink. But even if I had considered the fruit of the Spirit I would have considered the works I was required to do to please the Spirit of God.

Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:[5] It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality [KJV, to avoid fornication], let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.[6]

I am fairly sure now that squeezing A’s breasts and fondling her nipples qualifies as sexual immorality (NKJV). I wasn’t so sure then (nor am I now) that it qualified as fornication (KJV). And I sincerely doubt that it qualifies as πορνείας (a form of πορνεία; translated sexual immorality [NKJV] or fornication [KJV]). I don’t say this to justify myself but to know God. There is no way that my understanding of πορνείας at age sixty can justify my behavior at age sixteen.

Children,obey your parents in the Lord for this is right, was Paul’s understanding of the law: “Honor your father and mother,”which is the first commandment accompanied by a promise, namely, “that it may go well with you and that you will live a long time on the earth.”[7] I was clearly disobeying my parents, squeezing A’s breasts and fondling her nipples. For the one who obeys the whole law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it.[8]

God, for better or worse, has entrusted (or abandoned) children to the mercy of parents. And I don’t say abandoned for my sake, but for the many women I know molested as children by their fathers. My childhood was idyllic by comparison. My travails were my struggles to understand biblical words and concepts, my troubles were not understanding them.

At the same time, however, knowing God is not simply a matter of semantics but a uniquely profound intimacy. Did He intend for me to understand that the two women in the allegory He gave Ezekiel engaged in prostitution in Egypt because their breasts were squeezed there; lovers fondled their virgin nipples there? Or was the breast squeezing and nipple fondling incidental to engaging in prostitution (zânâh)? I have a fairly good idea how pre-modern Jews answered that question:

Jews in the pre-modern world lived, with few exceptions, in Jewish communities and under the yoke of Jewish tradition and halakhah. This affected every aspect of their lives, including sexual relations. As stated above, every sexual act between a man and woman outside marital relations was considered as coming within the definition of prostitution (be’ilat zenut), and the rabbis strongly condemned manifestations of sexual license in the Jewish community. Many regulations were issued by the various communities to fight prostitution in all its forms.[9]

If they were correct, then I was guilty of πορνεία when I squeezed A’s breasts and fondled her nipples. I was one of the πόρνοι by definition: Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral (πόρνοι, a form of πόρνος), idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.[10] Today, forgiven by the grace and mercy of God in Jesus Christ, that verdict against me is bearable. What is too hard to bear, then as now, is that this particular understanding of πορνεία makes a πόρνῃ (prostitute) of A by definition. My emotional aversion to that gains some spiritual credence if I plug this behavior into Jesus’ statements regarding divorce and πορνεία:

Matthew 5:32 (NET) Matthew 19:9 (NET)
I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for “her virgin breasts were squeezed and her nipples fondled,” makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for “her virgin breasts were squeezed and her nipples fondled,” and marries another commits adultery.

I don’t think any of the women at my church who considered themselves holier than God would have called A a prostitute because I squeezed her breasts and fondled her nipples, though I am fairly sure they considered it sexual immorality forbidden by Paul in the Bible. Committing the sin of premarital sex was the primary meaning of fornication there.

Matthew 5:32 (NET) Matthew 19:9 (NET)
I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for “the sin of premarital sex,” makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. Now I say to you that whoever divorces his wife, except for “the sin of premarital sex,” and marries another commits adultery.

This interpretation of πορνεία has some precedent in the practice of the righteous in first century Israel (Matthew 1:18, 19 NET).

Now the birth of Jesus Christ happened this way. While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph, her husband to be, was a righteous man, and because he did not want to disgrace her, he intended to divorce her privately [Table].

It seemed plausible that Jesus meant the sin of premarital sex for πορνείας (a form of πορνεία) as recorded by Matthew, until I considered his law.

Exodus 22:16, 17 (NKJV) Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 (NKJV)
If a man entices a virgin who is not betrothed, and lies with her, he shall surely pay the bride-price for her to be his wife.  If her father utterly refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money according to the bride-price of virgins. If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out [Table], then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days [Table].

At sixteen when I believed in the sin of premarital sex I thought that A and my friend did the right thing by breaking off their relationship. In the light of God’s law however I hear Jesus say, Having no regard for the command of God, you hold fast to human tradition…You neatly reject the commandment of God in order to set up your tradition.[11] In others words, to accept the sin of premarital sex as Jesus’ meaning for πορνείας in Matthew 5:32 and 19:9 is to liberate young men from any sense of obligation to the young women they seduce or date-rape. (In fact, they were encouraged to send those young women away, to divorce them, that is.) At the same time it offers men a ready excuse to divorce their wives who have been seduced or date-raped, at any time men choose to play that card. Viewed in the context of God’s law the sin of premarital sex sounds like a man-made religious belief with no relationship to the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

I don’t think the people who enacted this legislation intended any of that any more than Caiaphas intended to condemn Yahweh come in human flesh to death. I assume that my religious forbears were shotgun-wedding-type of folk. Without wasting a lot of time tracking down documentary evidence it’s not too difficult to imagine that their children thought that was too harsh or even hypocritical. After all, people should confess their sins and turn from them. (I’ll ignore the timing with a political need to delay baby boomers’ entrance into the labor force as coincidence only.)

At sixteen I didn’t mistake the Lord’s ἐγκράτεια, keeping A and me from the sin of premarital sex, for my own righteousness. I didn’t feel very righteous. Though it’s probably an exaggeration I felt like I was always at odds with my parents over A. So I simply discounted the credibility of my counselors, those who assured me that “familiarity breeds contempt,”[12] that was “that familiarity leads to the sin of premarital sex.”

I did have a vague sense of an overarching dishonesty to my life. I may have called it hypocrisy at times, but I was destined to go much deeper into that hypocrisy before I recognized what it was. In the spring of my junior year of high school after I had turned seventeen, I made a conscious decision to reinvent myself. I moved away from the “straight” world of my parents, my church, even my friends at school, to turn toward the “hip” world. It seemed more honest somehow. And A was caught up, and discarded, in that self-reinvention. The tension at home was eased.

Over the summer I took up with B. She was not “hip” precisely, but she was an accomplished musician. We enjoyed hours of arty conversations, went to ballets, operas and musicals together. And, fully clothed, we aped all the motions of the missionary position until we both achieved orgasms. We could do it openly in a public park on a Sunday afternoon, surrounded by “hip” people who knew exactly what we were doing and blessed and approved it.

A and I had taken it for granted that we would grow up and get married. We talked about it all the time. I didn’t share that with B. I’m not sure what she thought about it. She knew that she would go away to school to pursue a music degree. I knew that I already had my sights set on C, the young woman who became my high school girlfriend/wife/concubine that fall.

At a party in C’s basement the spring before my junior year ended, I had sat at the bar watching her. She was the queen bee of “hip” at school. I found out later she had dropped acid for the first time that night. She had broken up with her boyfriend, a senior. But a couple of other seniors buzzed around her all night. I was nobody, a “straight,” a “hip” wannabe—and a junior.

“You must be a real head,” the long-haired guy next to me said as he looked up from his cheap wine.

Head had no negative connotations in my mind at the time. It was the exalted appellation reserved for the long-haired Jesus-like bodhisattvas who ran the head shop. I had short hair! I didn’t know what he was talking about, and said so. As it turned out, he was impressed that I wasn’t drinking (part of “straight” culture) but was holding out, apparently, for dope (part of “hip” culture).

Looking back now I wonder what more I needed to perceive that “hip” culture could be as superficial and status conscious, as “dishonest,” as “straight” culture. At the time what I heard was a long-haired disciple of the long-haired Jesus-like bodhisattvas saying, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile[13]—to me! I was grateful that (so long as I kept my mouth shut) I could be accepted into the kingdom of “headom” even before I had my bona fides in order. And later that night, after the cops broke up the party, I shared my first joint. It did absolutely nothing for me, except to make what hair I had and my clothes smell funny.

[1] Matthew 5:32a (NET) Table

[2] Matthew 5:32b (NET) Table

[3] 1 John 2:14b (NET)

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_to_me

[5] The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had μοι (KJV: unto me) here.  The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

[6] 1 Corinthians 7:1, 2 (NKJV) Table

[7] Ephesians 6:1-3 (NET)

[8] James 2:10 (NET) Table

[9] http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/prostitution.html

[10] 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10 (NET) Table

[11] Mark 7:8, 9 (NET)

[12] http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_Familiarity_breeds_contempt; “Familiarity breeds contempt–and children.” http://www.twainquotes.com/Familiarity.html

[13] John 1:47 (KJV)

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 7

Posted on by

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genesis 4:7 (NET)

 I have been crucified with Christ, wrote the murderer Saul transformed as Paul the Apostle, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.  So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

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

[4] Genesis 9:22a (NET)

[5] Genesis 9:22b (NET)

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

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

[8] Galatians 1:17 (NET)

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

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

[11] Exodus 24:18 (NET)

[12] Exodus 32 (NET)

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

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

[15] Revelation 2:14 (NET)

[16] xFamily.org, “Flirty Fishing”

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

[18] Numbers 25:9 (NET)

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

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

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

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

[23] Deuteronomy 13:5 (NET)

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

[25] Deuteronomy 22:22 (NET)

[26] Deuteronomy 22:24 (NET)

[27] Hosea 9:7 (NET)

[28] Romans 3:4 (NET)

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