Category Archives: Torture

Torture, Part 5

Posted on by

I don’t want to leave the impression that I am so perfected in love that I never fear punishment.[1]  I’m a creature of habit.  The possibility that God is punishing me for something is the first thing that comes to mind whenever it seems that things aren’t going my way.  What I’m saying is, I think that is a bad habit.  If I trust Him instead of reacting in fear I find that, though things aren’t going my way, the way they are going is just as good if not better than my way (though comparing and contrasting actual events with my imagination or fears is a dubious occupation at best).

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life,[2] the 23rd Psalm ends.  That translation sounded like what I thought I “knew.”  God’s goodness and mercy would follow in the train of my glory, confirming my virtue, if and only if I kept the law.  I didn’t, not so much.  So I didn’t expect (though I sometimes still hoped for) God’s goodness and mercy.  It was only later after his goodness and mercy hunted me down, tackled me to the ground and held me there that I began to see it and Him for who He is.  Later I learned that the verse was badly translated.  Surely your goodness and faithfulness will pursue me all my days,[3] is much more to the point.[4]  The rabbis who translated the Septuagint chose καταδιώξεταί,[5] follow hard upon, pursue closely.

The desktop image on the computer I use most often to study the Bible is a frame from Lars Von Trier’s “Antichrist.”  She is on her side, facing away from us, recovering from the trauma of snipping off her clitoris.  Her “familiars,” the three beggars, wait patiently beside her.  She had an oracle that someone would die when they arrived.  In a few moments her husband will fulfill that oracle, crushing her larynx to silence the voice that spoke of an evil he rejected as implausible, and finally choking the life out of the woman he claimed to love.  This image by contrast reminds me of the Sunday I didn’t cut off my penis, and the different way I heard two passages of Scripture before and after that intervention.

Matthew 18:8, 9 (NET)

Romans 6:3-6 (NET)
If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.  It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.  And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.  It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into fiery hell. 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.  For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we will certainly also be united in the likeness of his resurrection.  We know that our old man was crucified with him so that the body of sin would no longer dominate us, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.

Before that Sunday, though they may have seemed harsh, Jesus’ words recorded by Matthew (and Mark,[6]) didn’t seem out of line when compared to a hero of the faith[7] like Jephthah who sacrificed his daughter to keep his oath.  And surely Paul’s words were metaphorical, a figure of speech, not to be taken literally.  After that Sunday I began to perceive cutting off my penis, or a hand or a foot as hyperbole, but being buried with [Christ] through baptism into death as the literal truth.  And to this day I’m not sure how to justify that opinion from the texts themselves apart from the (now obvious) fact that my hand or my foot, or even my penis, never causes (σκανδαλίζει, a form of σκανδαλίζω; or, entices) me to sin.

I introduce the story of the rich man and Lazarus[8] this way despite my sense that its context indicates reasonably clearly that it is not to be taken too literally.  Jesus’ illustration which precedes it of an unrighteous manager cheating his master/employer was certainly not a recommendation of good business practice.  His points were two: 1) the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their contemporaries than the people of light;[9] and 2) make friends for yourselves by how you use worldly wealth [one’s own presumably[10] rather than someone else’s], so that when it runs out you will be welcomed into the eternal homes.[11]

In Mark’s Gospel account Jesus’ was quoted, saying, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!”  The disciples were astonished at these words.  But again Jesus said to them, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God![12]  Jesus’ disciples were not contemporary socialists who assumed that the rich were swindlers and thieves who took whatever they had from the poor and working classes.  Their astonished question, “Then who can be saved?”[13] indicates to me they believed that the rich were blessed by God, that their wealth was a sign of his approval and favor.  And I assume they believed this because their religious teachers believed and taught it.  Jesus said (Luke 16:13, 14 NET):

“No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  You cannot serve God and money.”  The Pharisees (who loved money) heard all this and ridiculed him.

This is the audience for, and the immediate context of, the story of a rich man who dressed in purple and fine linen…who feasted sumptuously every day.  But at his gate lay a poor man named Lazarus whose body was covered with sores, who longed to eat what fell from the rich man’s table.  In addition, the dogs came and licked his sores.[14]  In other words, Lazarus was “cursed” by God.

Both men died.  The rich man in hell (ᾅδῃ, a form of ᾅδης), as he was in torment (βασάνοις, a form of βάσανος),…looked up and saw Abraham far off with Lazarus at his side.[17]  Hell is not γέεννα here but ᾅδῃ, Hades.  Peter quoted a Psalm in his first sermon after receiving the Holy Spirit: Therefore my heart was glad and my tongue rejoiced; my body also will live in hope, because you will not leave my soul in Hades (ᾅδην, another form of ᾅδης), nor permit your Holy One to experience decay.[18]  The rabbis who translated the Septuagint chose ᾅδην for Sheol (sheʼôl).

Peter (NET)

Blue Letter Bible (Septuagint)

Parallel Greek Text (NET)
…because you will not leave my soul in Hades, nor permit your Holy One to experience decay.

Acts 2:27 (NET)

 ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδην οὐδὲ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιόν σου ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν

Psalm 16:10

 ὅτι οὐκ ἐγκαταλείψεις τὴν ψυχήν μου εἰς ᾅδην οὐδὲ δώσεις τὸν ὅσιον σου ἰδεῖν διαφθοράν.

Acts 2:27

David by foreseeing this, Peter explained, spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was neither abandoned to Hades (ᾅδην, another form of ᾅδης), nor did his body experience decay.[19]  Jesus said: And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven?  No, you will be thrown down to Hades (ᾅδου, another form of ᾅδης)![20]  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades (ᾅδου, another form of ᾅδης) will not overpower it.[21] Do not be afraid!  I am the first and the last, and the one who lives!  I was dead, but look, now I am alive – forever and ever – and I hold the keys of death and of Hades (ᾅδου, another form of ᾅδης)![22]  Three more times in Revelation (6:8; 20:13, 14) Hades was personified (ὁ  ᾅδης).  The NET translators only translated Hades as hell in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, which is progress.[23]

Of course, they also translated βασάνοις torment.  It was translated afflictions the only other place it occurs outside of the story of the rich man and Lazarus:  Jesus went throughout all of Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all kinds of disease and sickness among the people.  So a report about him spread throughout Syria.  People brought to him all who suffered with various illnesses and afflictions (βασάνοις, a form of βάσανος), those who had seizures, paralytics, and those possessed by demons, and he healed them.[24]  Perhaps they had good reason, for the rich man called out, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in anguish (ὀδυνῶμαι, a form of ὀδυνάω) in this fire (φλογὶ, a form of φλόξ).[26]

The rich man was clearly thirsty, but was he in anguish in hell?  After the twelve-year-old Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem for three days, listening to [the teachers] and asking them questions,[27] His mother said to him, “Child, why have you treated us like this?  Look, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously (ὀδυνώμενοι, a form of ὀδυνάω).”[28]  And the Ephesian elders were especially saddened (ὀδυνώμενοι, a form of ὀδυνάω) by what [Paul] had said, that they were not going to see him again.[29]  But the rich man was in this fire (φλογὶ, a form of φλόξ), surely that must mean he was being tortured in hell.

After forty years had passed, Luke recounted Stephen’s history lesson, an angel appeared to him in the desert of Mount Sinai, in the flame (φλογὶ, a form of φλόξ) of a burning (πυρὸς, a form of πῦρ) bush.[30]  Other writers used forms of φλόξ as follows.  The writer of Hebrews quoted, He makes his angels spirits and his ministers (λειτουργοὺς, a form of λειτουργός) a flame (φλόγα, another form of φλόξ) of fire[31] (πυρὸς, a form of πῦρ).  Another form of λειτουργός was translated authorities in, For this reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities (λειτουργοὶ) are God’s servants devoted to governing.[32]  Paul was a minister (λειτουργὸν, another form of λειτουργός) of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles who served the gospel of God like a priest.[33]  Epaphroditus was my brother, coworker and fellow soldier, and your messenger and minister (λειτουργὸν) to me in my need,[34] Paul wrote the Philippians.

Jesus’ head and hair were as white as wool, in John’s vision on Patmos, even as white as snow, and his eyes were like a fiery (πυρὸς, a form of πῦρ) flame (φλὸξ),[35] and, His eyes are like a fiery (πυρός, a form of πῦρ) flame (φλὸξ).[36]  Jesus described Himself as the Son of God, the one who has eyes like a fiery (πυρός, a form of πῦρ) flame (φλόγα, another form of φλόξ) and whose feet are like polished bronze.[37]  Paul wrote however, With flaming (φλογός, another form of φλόξ) fire (πυρὶ, another form of πῦρ) he will mete out punishment (ἐκδίκησιν, a form of ἐκδίκησις) on those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.[38]  Perhaps that was why the rich man was in anguish in this fire.

But Abraham said, “Child, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things and Lazarus likewise bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in anguish (ὀδυνᾶσαι, another form of ὀδυνάω).”[39]  So was the rich man simply thirsty and anxious or saddened because he and Lazarus and the Pharisees and Jesus’ disciples expected him to be blessed and favored by God?  If he had been hardened as one of the objects of wrath prepared for destruction[40] why didn’t he blaspheme the name of God like those who were tossed…into the great winepress of the wrath of God?[41]

Thus people were scorched by the terrible heat, yet they blasphemed the name of God, who has ruling authority over these plagues, and they would not repent and give him glory.[42]  They blasphemed the God of heaven because of their sufferings and because of their sores, but nevertheless they still refused to repent of their deeds.[43]  And gigantic hailstones, weighing about a hundred pounds each, fell from heaven on people, but they blasphemed God because of the plague of hail, since it was so horrendous.[44]

Granted, the rich man didn’t exactly repent either, though I’m not entirely clear how he might have repented of receiving good things in his lifetime, the stated reason why he was in anguish, anxious or saddened in a flame like the burning bush, one of God’s ministers or the fiery eyes of Jesus.  But when he couldn’t get any water from Abraham or Lazarus because a great chasm had been fixed between[45] them, he still didn’t blaspheme God.  “Then I beg you, father”, he said, “send Lazarus to my father’s house (for I have five brothers) to warn them so that they don’t come into this place of torment (βασάνου, a form of βάσανος; or affliction).”[46]  And here Abraham delivered the first of Jesus’ two points to this illustration: 1) They have Moses and the prophets; they must respond to them.[47]

In other words Moses and the prophets delivered the same message as Jesus, according to Jesus.  Then the rich man said, “No, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.”[48]  Again, Abraham spoke Jesus’ second point to this illustration: 2) If they do not respond to Moses and the prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead”[49]   And these two points serve his major point that what is highly prized among men is utterly detestable in God’s sight.[50]  In other words, while the rich man’s appearance (dressed in purple and fine linen…[feasting] sumptuously every day) may have impressed other people (You are the ones who justify yourselves in men’s eyes, Jesus told the Pharisees), God was not so impressed (but God knows your hearts).[51]

And in that flame like the burning bush, one of the ministers of God or Jesus’ fiery eyes the rich man reconsidered his wasted life (Psalm 139:7, 8 NET).

Where can I go to escape your spirit?  Where can I flee to escape your presence?  If I were to ascend to heaven, you would be there.  If I were to sprawl out in Sheol [Septuagint: ᾅδην, another form of ᾅδης] there you would be.

Who knows?  Perhaps I’m meant to take the rich man’s thirst in the psalmist’s sense (Psalm 42:1-5 NET):

As a deer longs for streams of water, so I long for you, O God!  I thirst for God, for the living God.  I say, “When will I be able to go and appear in God’s presence?”  I cannot eat, I weep day and night; all day long they say to me, “Where is your God?”  I will remember and weep!  For I was once walking along with the great throng to the temple of God, shouting and giving thanks along with the crowd as we celebrated the holy festival.  Why are you depressed, O my soul?  Why are you upset?  Wait for God!  For I will again give thanks to my God for his saving intervention.

[2] Psalm 23:6a (KJV)

[3] Psalm 23:6a (NET)

[4] The note in the NET reads: “The use of רָדַף (radaf, ‘pursue, chase’) with טוֹב וָחֶסֶד (tov vakhesed, ‘goodness and faithfulness’) as subject is ironic. This is the only place in the entire OT where either of these nouns appears as the subject of this verb רָדַף (radaf, ‘pursue’). This verb is often used to describe the hostile actions of enemies. One might expect the psalmist’s enemies (see v 5) to chase him, but ironically God’s ‘goodness and faithfulness’ (which are personified and stand by metonymy for God himself) pursue him instead. The word ‘pursue’ is used outside of its normal context in an ironic manner and creates a unique, but pleasant word picture of God’s favor (or a kind God) ‘chasing down’ the one whom he loves.”

[7] Hebrews 11:32-34 (NET)

[9] Luke 16:8b (NET)

[11] Luke 16:9 (NET)

[12] Mark 10:23, 24 (NET)

[13] Mark 10:26b (NET)

[14] Luke 16:19-21 (NET)

[17] Luke 16:23 (NET)

[18] Acts 2:26, 27 (NET) Table

[19] Acts 2:31 (NET) Table

[20] Matthew 11:23; Luke 10:15 (NET)

[21] Matthew 16:18 (NET)

[22] Revelation 1:17b, 18 (NET)

[23] The King James translators chose hell for every instance of ᾅδης. Addendum 2/11/2022: The current version of the NET has Hades rather than hell in Luke 16:23.

[24] Matthew 4:23, 24 (NET)

[26] Luke 16:24 (NET)

[27] Luke 2:46 (NET)

[28] Luke 2:48b (NET)

[29] Acts 20:38 (NET)

[30] Acts 7:30 (NET)

[31] Hebrews 1:7 (NET)

[32] Romans 13:6 (NET)

[33] Romans 15:16 (NET)

[34] Philippians 2:25 (NET)

[35] Revelation 1:14 (NET)

[36] Revelation 19:12 (NET)

[37] Revelation 2:18 (NET)

[38] 2 Thessalonians 1:8 (NET)

[39] Luke 16:25 (NET)

[40] Romans 9:22 (NET)

[41] Revelation 14:19 (NET)

[42] Revelation 16:9 (NET)

[43] Revelation 16:11 (NET)

[44] Revelation 16:21 (NET)

[45] Luke 16:26 (NET) Table

[46] Luke 16:27, 28 (NET)

[47] Luke 16:29 (NET)

[48] Luke 16:30 (NET)

[49] Luke 16:31 (NET)

[50] Luke 16:15b (NET)

[51] Luke 16:15a (NET)

Torture, Part 4

Posted on by

Suspecting that my antipathy (and objections) to Jonathan Edwards’ contention that God is the Superlative Torturer are rooted in my personal history, I need to revisit the long name of God for perspective.

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)

Intellectually, I can see that the things I’ve been looking into in Revelation fall under the heading of not leaving the guilty unpunished.  Rationally, I can see that this long name is an accurate description of who God is, one unified God.  But I don’t know the One who 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, not experientially.  I deserve to know Him that way.  I’ve earned the right, so to speak.  But I don’t know Him like that.  I know 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.

Asaph[1] apparently knew God as the One who by no means leaves the guilty unpunished.  I suffer all day long, he wrote, and am punished every morning.[2]  Of course he acknowledged that he felt that way when: my feet almost slipped; my feet almost slid out from under me (Table).  For I envied those who are proud, as I observed the prosperity of the wicked (Table).[3]  And I most felt like Asaph as “a philosophical and legalistic young man fighting my way back from atheism,”[4] obsessed with disputes and arguments over words, from which come envy, strife, reviling, evil suspicions, useless wranglings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth, who suppose that godliness is a means of gain.[5]

I don’t think I was particularly obsessed with money.  I was giving money and continually amazed that I always had enough.  I wanted some fame or power or prestige or position, and thought that “obeying” God by striving to keep the law, or the love that is the fulfillment of the law[6] as if Paul’s definition were a list of laws, was a means to that end.  I was “punished” constantly then.  But all I really meant by God’s “punishment,” or his “blessing” for that matter, was how things worked out according to my hopes, my dreams, my plans or my schemes.  When things went my way I was “blessed,” and I was “punished” when they didn’t.

This wasn’t always the case, however.  Though I didn’t think in these terms then, at seventeen He who 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 was the One I worshiped and loved as much as it is possible to love such a One.  Punishment is the currency of childhood.  It’s how one pays for what he wants.  I didn’t actually know this God in any experiential way.  I believed in Him.  He made sense to me.  I claimed to believe in Jesus’ salvation.  And I suppose I did to some degree, but that was heaven.  Heaven was as far away as Disneyland.  And my family couldn’t afford Disneyland either.

I don’t recall knowing the long name of God, but I knew the Ten Commandments: I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me [Table], but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments [Table].[7]  I had no clue that the ones who loved Him and kept his commandments were the ones He had shown mercy.  If you had told me it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy,[8] I wouldn’t have believed you, not by seventeen.  I “knew” I didn’t love God enough or keep his commandments enough to “earn” his mercy.  That’s why I trusted Jesus for a place in heaven rather than in hell.  But as for the rest of it, I “knew” I would pay in punishment.

At seventeen I don’t think I knew the law that reads, 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.[9]  I would be hard-pressed to confirm that anyone I knew had ever heard of this law.  We believed in the sin of premarital sex.  I knew the law about rape (Deuteronomy 22:28, 29 NKJV).

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].

This law was impossible to avoid.  I read it on different occasions in anti-God and antinomian polemics.  I even checked the reference in the Bible to see if it was true; that is, that it was actually in the Bible as the polemicists claimed.  One might argue that I should have inferred the former law from the latter.  I can’t disagree.  I wrote[10] that I had a “philosophical bent of mind.”  While true, it doesn’t mean that I was any good necessarily at doing philosophy.  I was embarrassed and frustrated by this law.  Why did God force women to marry their rapists?!  But neither my embarrassment nor my frustration raised a single question in my mind regarding the validity of the sin of premarital sex.  I believed in the sin of premarital sex with all my heart, the laws of God notwithstanding.

Such was the state of my “faith” when my highschool girlfriend and I fucked[11] for the first time.  I don’t use the term fucked to be insulting, demeaning or derogatory but in the hope of finding a word in English that will carry the weight of eros in Greek.  Sexual intercourse is about inserting an erect penis into a vagina and thrusting and relaxing to stimulate the nerves in the head of the penis and the clitoris until an explosive pleasure sensation called an orgasm is achieved.  What I mean by fuck, fucked or fucking has everything to do with sexual intercourse, and nothing to do with it except as an entry portal or an ongoing celebration of a wondrous and unimaginable relationship with another person of the opposite sex, a relationship that artists have spent their lifetimes attempting to capture, celebrate or recreate in music, dance, art, sculpture, poetry and drama.

Before we fucked, my girlfriend and I were two teenagers too shy to remove our underwear as we crawled under the covers.  Afterward in the bath together a Bible verse came to mind, And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.[12]  I felt like I understood that verse for the first time.  But it didn’t dissuade me that I would be punished for the sin of premarital sex.

I had some very specific punishments in mind.  Pregnancy was top of that list.  Obviously children were God’s primary punishment for fucking.  My Dad had warned me to watch out for women who would trick me into caring for their children.[13]  Protestants were a little wishy-washy on the sin of birth control as a way to avoid God’s punishment for fucking, but Catholics were strong and on target on this issue.  My girlfriend and I were well-versed in the “Brave New World”[14] and had our Malthusian drill[15] down pat.  We never fucked without at least one method of contraception, and often two.  The idea that a couple might become so impassioned they forgot their Malthusian drill was inconceivable to us.

Venereal disease was number two on God’s list of punishments for fucking.  But we were both virgins when we started fucking.  I had the desire to expand this fucking relationship to others, until I actually tried to initiate it.  Though I didn’t know the law about seducing virgins intellectually, I felt that law written in my heart when I attempted to fuck another virgin.  “I returned to [my girlfriend] quite contrite actually, confessed my sin and asked for her hand in a much more traditional marriage.”[16]  But even that didn’t alert me that I might not be punished for the sin of premarital sex.  I really don’t think I recognized my aversion to committing adultery as God’s law written in my heart anyway.  I probably just thought it was my idea, or that I “loved” my first girlfriend more.

Finally, death was the punishment I thought most likely for the sin of premarital sex, given that we had outsmarted God twice before.  I didn’t think God would, or maybe could, kill me outright.  Miracles, God breaking the laws of science, were kind of a sketchy issue in my thinking at the time.  But Vietnam was a very real possibility.  And it would be quite easy for Him to kill me there.  When the draft lottery all but guaranteed that I would never be drafted, I still didn’t suspect that God had no intention of punishing me for the sin of premarital sex.

One more opportunity comes to mind.  Every time we fucked in my girlfriend’s bedroom she put three albums on the stereo: Every Picture Tells a Story,[17] Rod Stewart; Who’s Next,[18] The Who; and Aqualung,[19] Jethro Tull.  I tolerated Rod Stewart because I loved her.  Secretly, I called the album “Every Picture Tells a Story Donut,” after the repeated line in the title track.  Who’s Next became more important after she left me for someone else.  Aqualung made a deep and immediate impression.

The song “Wind-Up” spoke particularly to me.  I learned years later that the only required subject in English public schools was the Bible.  That explained why British progressive rock was obsessed with biblical themes.  It also made more sense to me why Ian Anderson[20] left school with “their God tucked underneath my arm.”[21]

So I left there in the morning
with their God tucked underneath my arm —
their half-assed smiles and the book of rules.
So I asked this God a question
and by way of firm reply,
He said — I’m not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.
So to my old headmaster (and to anyone who cares):
before I’m through I’d like to say my prayers —
I don’t believe you:
you had the whole damn thing all wrong —
He’s not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays.

Looking back now, I clearly had everything “all wrong.”  I remember entertaining the notion that God was trying to communicate to me through the words of this song.  I even went back to the Bible to see if I could find what I had gotten “all wrong.”  But the Bible said the same thing to me it always said: “God’ll getcha if you don’t watch out!”  I decided that there was no way anyone who looked like Ian Anderson could possibly know anything that could stand up to two thousand years of Christian theology (no matter how catchy the tune).  And there was no way I was going to get out of being punished for the sin of premarital sex.

Nothing could persuade me otherwise.  Even when I wasn’t punished for the sin of premarital sex, nothing clicked, no light bulbs went off.  Instead, I felt rationally obligated to become an atheist because God would have punished me for the sin of premarital sex.

[2] Psalm 73:14 (NET) Table

[3] Psalm 73:2, 3 (NET)

[5] 1 Timothy 6:4b, 5 (NKJV)

[6] Romans 13:10b (NET)

[7] Exodus 20:5b, 6 (NKJV)

[8] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[9] Exodus 22:16, 17 (NKJV)

[12] Genesis 2:25 (NKJV)

Torture, Part 3

Posted on by

Then a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and with the moon under her feet, and on her head was a crown of twelve stars.  She was pregnant and was screaming in labor pains, struggling (βασανιζομένη, a form of βασανίζω)[1] to give birth.[2]  A note in the NET acknowledged that the word translated struggling means being tortured: “Grk ‘and being tortured,’ though βασανίζω in this context refers to birth pangs.”  If this is what Jonathan Edwards had in mind when he declared God the Superlative Torturer I must concede the point.  Edwards preached:

“The wrath of kings is very much dreaded, especially of absolute monarchs, that have the possessions and lives of their subjects wholly in their power, to be disposed of at their meer will….The subject that very much enrages an arbitrary prince, is liable to suffer the most extreme torments, that human art can invent or human power can inflict.  But the greatest earthly potentates, in their greatest majesty and strength, and when clothed in their greatest terrors, are but feeble despicable worms of the dust, in comparison of the great and almighty creator and king of heaven and earth…”[3] 

I will greatly increase your labor pains, the Lord cursed Eve after the incident with the forbidden fruit, with pain you will give birth to children.[4]  No absolute monarch or arbitrary prince could inflict this torment on all women if and only if they have children.  God is uniquely qualified to administer this βασανίζω so thoroughly and yet so selectively.  (As I began to study this I called my mother and thanked her.)

And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet are too, and they will be tormented (βασανισθήσονται, a form of βασανίζω) there day and night forever and ever.[5]  The beast and the false prophet were thrown alive into the lake of fire burning with sulfur in Revelation 19:20 (NET):

Now the beast was seized, and along with him the false prophet who had performed the signs on his behalf – signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image.  Both of them were thrown alive into the lake of fire burning with sulfur.

So I have a measure now of that torment, like the pains of childbirth.  However, When a woman gives birth, she has distress (λύπην, a form of λύπη)[6] because her time has come, but when her child is born, she no longer remembers the suffering because of her joy (χαρὰν, a form of χαρά)[7] that a human being has been born into the world.[8]  The torture of the devil, the beast and the false prophet is like the pains of childbirth day and night forever and ever.

The two witnesses with authority to prophesy for 1,260 days, dressed in sackcloth[9] have the power to close up the sky so that it does not rain during the time they are prophesying.  They have power to turn the waters to blood and to strike the earth with every kind of plague whenever they want.[10]

When they have completed their testimony, the beast that comes up from the abyss will make war on them and conquer them and kill them.  Their corpses will lie in the street of the great city that is symbolically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was also crucified.  For three and a half days those from every people, tribe, nation, and language will look at their corpses, because they will not permit them to be placed in a tomb.[11]

In response to the death of the two witnesses those who live on the earth will rejoice over them and celebrate, even sending gifts to each other, because these two prophets had tormented (ἐβασάνισαν, a form of βασανίζω) those who live on the earth.[12]  I am inclined to regard this torment as something more like the battering of waves—the boat…was taking a beating (βασανιζόμενον, a form of βασανίζω) from the waves because the wind was against it[13]—or straining at the oars in contrary winds—He saw them straining (βασανιζομένους, a form of βασανίζω) at the oars, because the wind was against them.[14]  (The two witnesses also have a defense against anyone who wants to harm them, fire comes out of their mouths and completely consumes their enemies.[15]  But I am assuming that lethal force defeats the purpose of, and is thereby distinguished from, torture.)

After the celebration, a breath of life from God entered [the two witnesses], and they stood on their feet, and tremendous (μέγας)[16] fear (φόβος)[17] seized those who were watching them.  Then they heard a loud voice from heaven saying to them: “Come up here!” So the two prophets went up to heaven in a cloud while their enemies stared at them.  Just then a major earthquake took place and a tenth of the city collapsed; seven thousand people were killed in the earthquake, and the rest were terrified (ἔμφοβοι, a form of ἔμφοβος)[18] and gave glory to the God of heaven.[19]

This is rare in John’s vision on Patmos.  Perhaps it was the result of the torment, the miraculous resurrection and ascension, the deadly earthquake or the character of the people who witnessed all of this in Jerusalem, where their Lord was also crucified.  But I am inclined to believe that the two witnesses prophesying the word of God in the authority of God causes people to repent of their celebration and glorify God when they see his word confirmed by miraculous signs and wonders (if and only if God has mercy on them).

When the fifth angel blew his trumpet, a star fell from the sky, and opened the shaft of the abyss.[20] Smoke and locusts billowed out.  The locusts were given power like that of the scorpions of the earth.  They were told not to damage the grass of the earth, or any green plant or tree, but only those people who did not have the seal of God on their forehead.  The locusts were not given permission to kill them, but only to torture (βασανισθήσονται, a form of βασανίζω) them for five months, and their torture (βασανισμὸς, a form of βασανισμός)[21] was like that (βασανισμὸς, a form of βασανισμός) of a scorpion when it stings a person.  In those days people will seek death, but will not be able to find it; they will long to die, but death will flee from them.[22]

Again, if this is what Jonathan Edwards had in mind about God as the Superlative Torturer, I must concede the point.  I don’t see how an absolute monarch or arbitrary prince could either create locusts that sting like scorpions, or direct them to select only those who do not have the seal of God on their foreheads for torture.

If anyone worships the beast and his image, an angel declared, and takes the mark on his forehead or his hand, that person will also drink of the wine of God’s anger that has been mixed undiluted in the cup of his wrath, and he will be tortured (βασανισθήσεται, a form of βασανίζω) with fire and sulfur in front of the holy angels and in front of the Lamb.  And the smoke from their torture (βασανισμοῦ, a form of βασανισμός) will go up forever and ever, and those who worship the beast and his image will have no rest day or night, along with anyone who receives the mark of his name.[23]

Here the Lamb officiates at the eternal torture of those who worship the beast and take the mark.  And here again, if this is what Jonathan Edwards had in mind I must concede the point.  My objections to considering God the Superlative Torturer may not be entirely rational.  Quite aside from even Edwards’ point that I repent and trust this Superlative Torturer for eternal life, is my instinct that the image of the Lamb officiating at this scene of torture is hyperbole to highlight how evil worshipping the beast and his image, and taking his mark actually are.  The “Superlative Torturer” who tortures all sinners dulls that distinction some.  I’ll look for these objections in my own personal history in the next essay.

Torture, Part 4

Back to Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 5

[2] Revelation 12:1, 2 (NET)

[4] Genesis 3:16a (NET)

[5] Revelation 20:10 (NET)

[8] John 16:21 (NET)

[9] Revelation 11:3 (NET)

[10] Revelation 11:6 (NET)

[11] Revelation 11:7-9 (NET)

[12] Revelation 11:10 (NET)

[13] Matthew 14:24 (NET)

[14] Mark 6:48a (NET)

[15] Revelation 11:5a (NET)

[19] Revelation 11:11-13 (NET)

[20] Revelation 9:1, 2a (NET)

[22] Revelation 9:3-6 (NET)

[23] Revelation 14:9-12 (NET)

Torture, Part 2

Posted on by

And in anger his lord turned him over to the prison guards to torture (βασανισταῖς, a form of βασανιστής)[1] him until he repaid all he owed.  So also my heavenly Father will do to you, if each of you does not forgive (ἀφῆτε, a form of ἀφίημι)[2] your brother from your heart.[3]  It seems here that Jesus stated rather matter-of-factly that his Father would turn the unforgiving over to torturers.  He did not say that God would torture them Himself but implied that others would do it for Him.  Perhaps I was too hasty dismissing Jonathan Edward’s claim that God is the superlative torturer.

This metaphor—the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts (λόγον, a form of λόγος)[4] with his slaves[5]—was given in answer to Peter’s question, Lord, how many times must I forgive (ἀφήσω, a form of ἀφίημι) my brother who sins against me?[6]  The settling of these accounts is very reminiscent of, I tell you, Jesus said, that on the day of judgment, people will give an account (λόγον) for every worthless word (πᾶν[7] ρῆμα[8] ἀργὸν[9]) they speak (λαλήσουσιν, a form of λαλέω).[10]

A man who owed ten thousand talents was brought to the king.[11]  When he was not able to repay it, the lord ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, children, and whatever he possessed, and repayment to be made.[12]  I suggested that the only account that matters at a moment like this is, God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am![13]  That is essentially the account this slave gave.  He did not try to dispute the debt.  He threw himself to the ground before him, saying, “Be patient (μακροθύμησον, a form of μακροθυμέω)[14] with me, and I will repay you everything.”[15]

Love is patient (μακροθυμεῖ, another form of μακροθυμέω),[16] so, The lord had compassion on that slave and released (ἀπέλυσεν, a form of ἀπολύω)[17] him, and forgave (ἀφῆκεν, a form of ἀφίημι) him the debt.[18]  I can’t help but connect ἀπέλυσεν (a form of ἀπολύω) here with λύω[19] in, I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release (λύσητε, a form of λύω) on earth will have been released (λελυμένα, a form of λύω) in heaven.[20]  It causes me to suspect that Jesus has his thumb on the scale of binding and releasing in favor of releasing, and that this metaphor is also aimed back at that statement.

After he went out, the metaphor about the kingdom of heaven continued, that same slave found one of his fellow slaves who owed him one hundred silver coins.[21]  The fellow slave asked for the same patience, but the first slave threw him in prison until he repaid the debt.[22]  Then his lord called the first slave and said to him, “Evil slave! I forgave (ἀφῆκα, a form of ἀφίημι) you all that debt because you begged me!  Should you not have shown mercy (ἐλεῆσαι, a form of ἐλεέω)[23] to your fellow slave, just as I showed it (ἠλέησα, a form of ἐλεέω) to you?”[24]

That brings me back to the beginning of this essay: And in anger his lord turned him over to the prison guards to torture (βασανισταῖς, a form of βασανιστής) him until he repaid all he owed.  So also my heavenly Father will do to you, if each of you does not forgive (ἀφῆτε, a form of ἀφίημι) your brother from your heart.[25]  So it seems that debt in the metaphor is equivalent to sins in the kingdom of heaven.

If I accept Edward’s contention that Jesus’ heavenly Father is the superlative torturer, then this metaphor seems to describe how one might expiate his own sins by becoming God’s victim, by satisfying some portion of the Father’s desire to torture someone for some unspecified period of time.  That interpretation would make this a unique passage in all the New Testament to say the least.  And it doesn’t offer much guidance why this “Torturer” would let some off easy.  Why should any escape the torture he so desired to give them by forgiving sins, the very currency that justified the “Torturer’s” torture?  In fact, why would this “Torturer” ever forgive anyone’s sins at all, or encourage such forgiveness?

On the other hand, if I consider that a man who could not pay a debt before being handed over to daily torture is unlikely to raise the funds after he is so preoccupied, then I might consider that—So also my heavenly Father will do to you—means that the unforgiving will never get out of the prison into which He confines them.  That sounds like Christians, the forgiven, who do not forgive others will go to hell.

Most Christians I know have rules against that.  In fact, I suspect that most Christians I know would not consider themselves to be great sinners who were forgiven much and were called by God to forgive lesser sinners than themselves.  I think most would consider themselves to be more like the second slave, relatively good people who deserve to be forgiven for their relatively few sins but are not forgiven, rather they are persecuted by greater sinners than they are and long for the day when God will rise up and send their persecutors to hell.

This is one of the first times I’ve used the term Christian in these essays.  I’m not sure if the Christians I know would be willing to accept me as a Christian if they read these essays.  Frankly, if Christian has come to mean something other than little Christ, a repentant sinner following Jesus into the righteousness of love, I’m not sure I would fight very hard over the word.  It can go the way of charity and temperance for all I care.  For all I know more people would repent of their sinfulness and follow Jesus into the righteousness of love if they didn’t have to become Christians to do it.  But fundamentalist Christians are my people by birth.

I still feel embarrassment and shame that the word Christian is practically synonymous with unforgiving.  Still, I can’t say that the Holy Spirit has brought this metaphor to my mind to remind me to forgive others.  My daily prayer asking the Lord to forgive us as we ourselves have forgiven[26] others has been sufficient for that.  The only time this metaphor comes to mind is when my Christian friends use their rules or reasons to attempt to persuade me that I am too forgiving.

I don’t think I respond to this metaphor in fear of hell or torture.  I think I recognize that I am not an Apostle.  I don’t present the Gospel with the signs of an apostle…by signs and wonders and powerful deeds.[27]  Except for the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, and the willingness to forgive others that the Lord can force into, and wrench out of, this repentant sinner my Gospel presentation is idle talk; and the kingdom of God is demonstrated not in idle talk but with power.[28]

Still, this metaphor includes a category of lesser sinners.  Is this my error?  I have assumed that—I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh[29]—applied to Paul.  Not all Christians do.  For I want to do the good, Paul continued, but I cannot do it.[30]  That certainly applied to me, and I reasoned backward that—nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh—also applied to me.  But beyond that I have assumed that it applied to all sinners.  I am completely dependent on God’s mercy and grace, no question about it.  But are there others who are not so dependent?

Are there Christians who are lesser sinners?  Christians who are mostly righteous by their own innate goodness and/or their own obedience to the law?  Christians who require less forgiveness, less of the fruit of God’s Spirit, less grace and less mercy than I require because of their own righteousness?  I don’t see that in Scripture, but does that mean it isn’t there?  Or is it due to my own blindness because I am such a great sinner?  Are the things that concern me in these essays just nitpicking persecution of the good Christians who are more righteous than I am?  Or are the good Christians in error when they assume that—nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh—could not have applied to Saul after he was called by Jesus as the Apostle Paul?  Do they overestimate their own righteousness when they assume that—nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh—could not possibly apply to them as the redeemed of the Lord?

As a repentant great sinner I have no objective place to stand to answer those questions.  I need to approach it differently.

In Matthew’s Gospel account I read, Meanwhile the boat, already far from land, was taking a beating (βασανιζόμενον, a form of βασανίζω)[31] from the waves because the wind was against it.[32]  Here, βασανιζόμενον, a form of βασανίζω, the root word of βασανιστής (βασανισταῖς, torture, is a form of βασανιστής), expressed the conflict of a contrary wind.  And in Mark’s Gospel account Jesus saw his disciples straining (βασανιζομένους, a form of βασανίζω) at the oars, because the wind was against them.[33]  Here “torture” is the strain of rowing against a contrary wind.

As I considered these things I saw the film “Adore.”  It became a thought experiment in forgiveness.  I will be spoiling the film for anyone who things it spoiled by knowing its plot.

Lil and Roz were best friends since childhood.  They grew up and had sons, Ian and Tom, also best friends.  One day, lying on the beach together, watching their grown sons surf, they marveled, “Did we do that?”

“They’re beautiful,” Roz said while Lil nodded.  “They’re like young gods.”

Ian was first to make a play for Roz.  She tried to restrain herself, but what mortal woman can resist the amorous advances of a young god?  When Tom saw what his mother was up to, he made a spiteful play for Lil.  Lil held out a scene longer than Roz but eventually she, too, fell prey to another young god.  And so far, even as a Christian, I can follow this tale.  Though she may withstand the charms of a thousand mere mortals, the young god will not be denied apart from the ἐγκράτεια of the Holy Spirit

When Tom came home one morning after being out all night, Roz asked, “Hey, where have you been?”

“At Lil’s, doing to her what Ian’s been doing to you,” her impertinent son replied.

Roz slapped him and went off to confront Lil.  I could hear the contrary wind howling and see the storm clouds brewing.  Obviously this film intended to recount the tragic tale of a friendship ripped apart by fateful indiscretions.   But, no.  As lifelong friends and repentant sinners Roz and Lil forgave each other instead.  And I call them repentant sinners because they both acknowledged that they were wrong and that it could never happen again.  While a repentant sinner may find it relatively easy to forgive another for the very same sin she is guilty of, it is a more difficult matter for Christians.

Lil was a widow and Tom was a young single man, but they had sex before they were married.  That is sexual immorality according to most contemporary Christians.  (It was marriage according to some of their ancestors.)  Ian was a young single man but Roz was married.  That is adultery.  A Christian cannot forgive sexual immorality or adultery unless the sinner repents in a more formal way, demonstrates some sorrow over sin, and promises to take appropriate steps not to repeat that sin.  Looking into one another’s eyes and seeing into another’s heart may be good enough for repentant sinners, but Christians have rules to maintain.

Roz and Lil couldn’t stop sinning.  They decided they didn’t have to.  They decided to enjoy the time they had, knowing full well their young gods would get bored with them eventually.  One might say, For the joy set out for them they endured the cross of being rejected for younger, prettier women, disregarding its shame…[34]  So Roz and Lil forgave each other for their lack of ἐγκράτεια (translated, self-control).

This forgiveness is a bit more difficult even for repentant sinners.  Others may question, even the sinners themselves may question, whether they are repentant sinners at all or simply unrepentant sinners.  I’ll continue to accept them as repentant sinners since they were resolved to accept the painful consequence of their sin.  What Roz and Lil discovered was not so much a change in the state of their repentance as an inability to quit their sin.

Forgiving continual, repetitive sin may be the most difficult of all for Christians.  Rules are flouted flagrantly.  Any demonstration of repentance seems dishonest at best.  But continual, repetitive sin is what Peter referred to when he asked, Lord, how many times must I forgive my brother who sins against me?  As many as seven times?[35]  Not seven times, I tell you, Jesus answered, but seventy-seven times![36]  The note in the NET reads: “Or ‘seventy times seven,’ i.e., an unlimited number of times…”  Discovering one’s own inability to quit sin is a watershed moment for Christians.

It is that time when we may understand, and join in with, Paul, saying, Indeed we felt as if the sentence of death had been passed against us, so that we would not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead.[37]  It is that time when we either learn to rely on the credited righteousness of God, the fruit of his Spirit, or we turn from Christ to take cold showers, think about baseball, or whatever other strategy we might come up with to establish our own righteousness, develop our own virtue, and maintain our own pride.

Roz and Lil were oblivious to all of this.  Neither studied Paul’s letters.  No one knowledgeable in the Scriptures came forward to teach them.  But they loved one another and they forgave one another.  Ian and Tom were also best friends.  Their story is not told in as great of detail but apparently they loved one another and forgave one another, too.  All four settled into their new life for a time.

fig. 1

fig. 1

Sunning themselves on the floating dock Roz and Lil swam to as children became the visual metaphor for peace and tranquility in the film (fig.1).  It is a beautiful counter-image to the contrary-wind-straining-at-the-oars image Jesus promised those who refused to forgive one another.

I’m not suggesting that forgiveness alone facilitated this idyllic equilibrium.  The two couples had shared a meal that functioned as a wedding feast in their microcosm.  Ian stood after dinner.  “Where are you going?” Roz asked.

“To your room,” Ian said as he walked away.  It was an awkward moment.  Roz had been publicly summoned to attend to the amorous desires of her young god.  It was an expression of Ian’s desire to be sure, but it was also a command no less than David’s summons of Bathsheba.  Lil knew it was no way for her son to speak to her best friend.  Tom knew it was no way for his best friend to speak to his mother.  But Tom also understood what was at stake.

“See you at yours,” Tom announced to Lil, and left the women alone to decide their next move.  They were free within the constraints of their joy and pleasure to accept or reject the boys’ assertions of rights over them.  Young gods they might be, but they were not kings.  It may seem like blackmail to some, but the women had the same joy and pleasure to offer.  They could have called their sons’ bluffs and waited them out at the dinner table to negotiate more favorable terms.  Apparently they surrendered to their lovers’ demands unconditionally.

From then on it was clear.  Though Roz was Tom’s mother, she was also Ian’s woman.  Though Lil was Ian’s mother, she was also Tom’s woman.  Though Tom was Roz’s son, he was also Lil’s man.  And though Ian was Lil’s son, he was also Roz’s man.  Yet Roz and Lil were still less than wives.  For they were still mothers and grandmothers-in-waiting who fully expected their sons to discard them for younger more fertile women.  The women not only relinquished the honor due them as mothers, but the fidelity due them as wives.  Clearly, they gave the most for these idyllic moments of peace and tranquility.

Tom was first to break the peace.  He journeyed to Sydney to direct a musical.  Lil knew that he was enchanted by Mary, his leading lady, even before he did.  She could hear it in his voice on the phone.  When Tom returned Lil sadly backed away to give way to Mary.  Roz, whether devoted to Lil or conscience-stricken herself, cut Ian off and sent him out to find a young woman of his own.  Both women promised to be good mothers-in-law, pillars of the community and grandmothers.

Roz’s uncharacteristic moral absoluteness seemed like an unjust and foreign law to Ian, like conquest and enslavement by an alien king.  He was content to remain faithful to his lover.  He couldn’t understand why he should be punished for Tom’s sin.  He took up with Hannah at Tom’s wedding to spite Roz.  He returned to Roz later that night.  He banged on her locked door, but she wouldn’t let him in.  Hannah, however, was devoted to him.

“She’s great,” Ian said of Hannah.  “She couldn’t be nicer.  I just…You know.”

“Yeah,” Tom replied.  He not only understood how Ian yearned for Roz, it was apparent he shared that yearning for Lil.

“Pretty soon I’m going to have to give her the elbow,” Ian said of Hannah.  But Hannah was pregnant.

Years passed before the next scene: Roz and Tom and Mary and their daughter scampered down to the beach with Lil and Ian and Hannah and their daughter.  The two little girls seemed to be on their way to becoming best friends.  Apparently Roz and Lil and Ian and Tom had forgiven one another again, and reached a new idyllic equilibrium, that included Hannah and Mary and their daughters.  But it didn’t last.

Ian discovered Tom and Lil that night and realized they had carried on a secret affair.  Though Ian had apparently resigned himself to Roz’s alien law he was clearly not a poet of it, but an actor, a hypocrite.  Angrily, resentfully, he blew the whistle on Tom and Lil in front of Hannah and Mary, and all the details of their pasts came to light.  Hannah was hurt and confused, but seemed to want to understand.  Mary, the actor, the hypocrite who seduced Tom as he attempted to be faithful to Lil, would have none of it.  She woke her daughter and left that night, encouraging Hannah and her daughter to leave with them.

In the end Roz and Ian, Lil and Tom were together again on the floating dock, though it was not so idyllic as before (fig. 2).  Mary and Hannah and their daughters were missing.  It was not hard to imagine angry waves beating against their little ships, as they strained at the oars against a contrary wind.  Mary could blame her circumstances on Tom’s and Lil’s sin.  Hannah could blame Ian and Roz.  But would they ever see that it was their own unforgiving hearts that had abandoned them to torment?

fig. 2

fig. 2

Roz had made room for Hannah and her daughter in her heart (as the filmmakers made room for them on the floating dock).  Ian was clearly a one woman man.  Admittedly, forgiveness might have come harder for Mary.  Lil had no self-control.  Tom gave no evidence that his harem would be complete with only two women.  But even Mary could do worse than to live among such forgiving repentant sinners.  Still, I don’t think the filmmakers intended to produce a treatise on forgiveness.

That was the mood I was in and the subject of my meditation when I saw it.  If “Adore” had some point beyond being an interesting, provocative movie I suppose it was a feminist cautionary tale.  Roz and Lil would have created less havoc in their sons’ lives if they had simply become lesbian lovers rather than expressing their love for each other by proxy, through their sons.  It’s not hard to see why “Adore” wasn’t a fan favorite among Christians.  This is the kind of film that makes Christians feel like Lot, living among the people of Sodom, day after day, that righteous man was tormented (ἐβασάνιζεν, a form of βασανίζω) in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard…[38]

And I don’t mean to suggest that Lot (or Christians for that matter) should unilaterally forgive people to escape such torment.  We forgive repentant sinners because God has forgiven us.  Apparently, there were no repentant sinners in Sodom for Lot to forgive.  The inhabitants of Sodom were descendants of Canaan.  The origin of the Canaanites for better or worse is traced back to Noah’s curse.

Noah drank wine and exposed himself in a drunken stupor.  His son Ham saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers.[39]  Apparently Ham’s attitude was more judgmental and derogatory than mere reportage.  When Noah awoke from his drunken stupor he learned what his youngest son had done to him.[40]  So he cursed Ham’s son, Cursed be Canaan!  The lowest of slaves he will be to his brothers.[41]

I’ve heard it preached that Noah was such a holy prophet God was honor-bound to fulfill even his curse.  This interpretation made some sense when I believed that Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord[42] because Noah was a godly man; he was blameless among his contemporaries.  He walked with God.[43]  As I began to believe that God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden,[44] I began to believe that Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord because the Lord chose to have mercy on him.  It followed naturally that Noah was a godly man, and was blameless among his contemporaries, and walked with God because he found favor in the sight of the Lord, because the Lord chose to have mercy on him.

Even a prophet, a herald of righteousness,[45] like Noah could have a bad hangover one morning, slip the leash, so to speak, of the Holy Spirit’s ἐγκράτεια (translated, self-control) and say something foolish.  Despite the enormity of its impact tracked over many generations I don’t think Noah’s curse had any more or less power than any other grandfather’s hateful words to his grandson.

fig. 3

fig. 3

Though he died about forty-one years before Sodom was destroyed (fig. 3), he lived long enough to see what Canaan’s descendants became.  [Addendum: January 14, 2019 I may have been a bit too uncritical here of the dates in the Masoretic text.  See: Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?]  The Bible doesn’t say whether Noah regretted that curse or spent his last three centuries or so trying to justify it.  But it seems to me, even as a Christian, that it would be better to forgive my son’s offense, even unilaterally, than to curse my grandson for it.

As I consider how difficult it is for Christians to forgive anyone for anything, it becomes easier to understand why Jesus threatened us with torture.  I hope others can forgive me for refusing to see Matthew 18:35 as a proof-text for Jonathan Edward’s claim that God is the superlative torturer.

[3] Matthew 18:34, 35 (NET)

[5] Matthew 18:23 (NET)

[6] Matthew 18:21 (NET)

[10] Matthew 12:36 (NET)

[11] Matthew 18:24b (NET)

[12] Matthew 18:25 (NET) Table

[13] Luke 18:13b (NET)

[15] Matthew 18:26 (NET) Table

[16] 1 Corinthians 13:4a (NET)

[18] Matthew 18:27 (NET)

[20] Matthew 18:18 (NET) Table

[21] Matthew 18:28a (NET) Table

[22] Matthew 18:30 (NET) Table

[24] Matthew 18:32, 33 (NET) Table

[25] Matthew 18:34, 35 (NET) Table

[26] Matthew 6:12 (NET) Table

[27] 2 Corinthians 12:12 (NET)

[28] 1 Corinthians 4:20 (NET)

[29] Romans 7:18a (NET)

[30] Romans 7:18b (NET)

[32] Matthew 14:24 (NET)

[33] Mark 6:48a (NET)

[34] An impertinent paraphrase of Hebrews 12:2 (NET)

[35] Matthew 18:21 (NET)

[36] Matthew 18:22 (NET)

[37] 2 Corinthians 1:9 (NET)

[38] 2 Peter 2:8 (NET)

[39] Genesis 9:22 (NET)

[40] Genesis 9:24 (NET)

[41] Genesis 9:25 (NET)

[42] Genesis 6:8 (NET)

[43] Genesis 6:9 (NET)

[44] Romans 9:18 (NET)

Torture, Part 1

Posted on by

Since I faulted Jonathan Edwards for making a bad argument to support the assertion in his sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” that “the great and almighty creator and king of heaven and earth” is the superlative torturer, I think it best that I look again at the verses that, if taken literally in some cases (in Revelation particularly), support that point of view.  First, I reject the testimony of the Gadarene or Gerasene demoniac(s) on principle: an unclean spirit is speaking.

Matthew

Mark

Luke
They cried out, “Son of God, leave us alone!  Have you come here to torment (βασανίσαι, a form of βασανίζω)[1] us   before the time?”

Matthew 8:29 (NET)

 Then he cried out with a loud voice, “Leave me alone, Jesus, Son of the Most High God!  I implore you by God – do not torment (βασανίσῃς, another form of βασανίζω) me!”

Mark 5:7 (NET)

 …and shouted with a loud voice, “Leave me alone, Jesus, Son of the Most High God!  I beg you, do not torment (βασανίσῃς, another form of βασανίζω) me!”

Luke 8:28b (NET)

This is like the impish boy corrected by his father in a public place who throws himself down on the ground screaming, “Please don’t beat me!”  Mark and Luke recorded the real cause of the demon’s histrionics:

Matthew

Mark

Luke
  (For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of that man, you unclean [ἀκάθαρτον, a form of ἀκάθαρτος][2] spirit!”)

Mark 5:8 (NET)

 For Jesus had started commanding the evil (ἀκαθάρτῳ, a form of ἀκάθαρτος) spirit to come out of the man.

Luke 8:29a (NET)

Mark’s and Luke’s accounts continue but diverge some as well:

Matthew

Mark

Luke
  Jesus asked him, “What is your name?”  And he said, “My name is Legion, for we are many.”  He begged Jesus repeatedly not to send them out of the region.

Mark 5:9, 10 (NET)

 Jesus then asked him,   “What is your name?”  He said, “Legion,” because many demons (δαιμόνια, a form of δαιμόνιον)[3] had entered him.  And they began to beg him not to order them to depart into the abyss.

Luke 8:30, 31 (NET)

I have heard a sermon in which—And they began to beg him not to order them to depart into the abyss—was proof positive that even the demons fear hell.  Apart from taking the word of a liar as proof of anything, I agree, the unclean spirits probably do fear the wrath of God.  I just won’t accept this statement and their plea not to be tormented as proof that God is a torturer.

A form of the word βασανίζω occurred in Mathew’s account of a Roman centurion who came to Jesus asking for help:[4] Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible anguish (δεινῶς βασανιζόμενος, a form of βασανίζω).[5]  This was not just any old torture; it was terrible torture.  And at the risk of being facetious I think it’s important to recognize that Jesus’ first response was not, “Oh, goody!  I can’t wait to see that!”  Nor did He say, “Well, if your servant is suffering terrible anguish I’m sure he did something to deserve it.”  Jesus said to him, “I will come and heal him.”[6]

So, what about Jesus’ apparent unwillingness to send the unclean spirits out of the region or into the abyss before the time?  Did his compassion for them prove that deep down in his heart of hearts Jesus knew what kind of torturer He really is?  Matthew and Luke recorded a curious bit of Jesus’ insight into the travails of unclean spirits:

Matthew

Luke
When an unclean (ἀκάθαρτον, a form of ἀκάθαρτος) spirit goes out of a person, it passes through waterless places looking for rest but does not find it.  Then it says, “I will return to the home I left.”  When it returns, it finds the house empty, swept clean, and put in order.  Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more evil (πονηρότερα, a form of πονηρός)[7] than itself, and they go in and live there, so the last state of that person is worse than the first.  It will be that way for this evil (πονηρᾷ, a form of πονηρός) generation as well!

Matthew 12:43-45 (NET)

 When an unclean (ἀκάθαρτον, a form of ἀκάθαρτος) spirit goes out of a person, it passes through waterless places looking for rest but not finding any.  Then it says, “I will return to the home I left.”  When it returns, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil (πονηρότερα, a form of πονηρός) than itself, and they go in and live there, so the last state of that person is worse than the first.

Luke 11:24-26 (NET)

The point of this little bit of demonology in Matthew’s Gospel account was, It will be that way for this evil generation as well!  But Luke recorded the demonology without its application.  That intrigued me.  Jesus could certainly relate to passing through waterless places looking for rest but not finding any.  It is something that could elicit his compassion apart from some secret knowledge of Himself as a torturer.

So Jesus allowed the unclean spirits to enter a nearby herd of pigs.  Did they thank Him? Or praise Him?

Matthew

Mark

Luke
So they came out and went into the pigs, and the herd rushed down the steep slope into the lake and drowned in the water.  The herdsmen ran off, went into the town, and told everything that had happened to the demon-possessed (δαιμονιζομένων, a form of δαιμονίζομαι)[8] men.  Then the entire town came out to meet Jesus.

Matthew 8:32b-34a (NET)

 

 So the unclean (ἀκάθαρτα, a form of ἀκάθαρτος) spirits came out and went into the pigs.  Then the herd rushed down the steep slope into the lake, and about two thousand were drowned in the lake.  Now the herdsmen ran off and spread the news in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened.

Mark 5:13b, 14 (NET)

 So the demons (δαιμόνια, a form of δαιμόνιον) came out of the man and went into the pigs, and the herd of pigs rushed down the steep slope into the lake and drowned.  When the herdsmen saw what had happened, they ran off and spread the news in the town and countryside.  So the people went out to see what had happened, and they came to Jesus.

Luke 8:33-35a (NET)

No, they drowned the pigs.  And here the unclean spirits’ purpose comes into focus.  This spectacle attracted a buyers’ market of new homes to their location: Now the herdsmen ran off and spread the news in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened.

Matthew

Mark

Luke
And when they saw [Jesus]…

Matthew 8:34b (NET)

 They came to Jesus and saw the demon-possessed (δαιμονιζόμενον, a form of δαιμονίζομαι) man sitting there, clothed and in his right mind – the one who had the “Legion” – and they were afraid (ἐφοβήθησαν, a form of φοβέω).[9]  Those who had seen what had happened to the demon-possessed (δαιμονιζομένῳ, another form of δαιμονίζομαι) man reported it, and they also told about the pigs.

Mark 5:15, 16 (NET)

 They found the man from whom the demons (δαιμόνια, a form of δαιμόνιον) had gone out, sitting at Jesus’ feet, clothed and in his right mind, and they were afraid (ἐφοβήθησαν, a form of φοβέω).  Those who had seen it told them how the man who had been demon-possessed (δαιμονισθείς, another form of δαιμονίζομαι) had been healed.

Luke 8:35b, 36 (NET)

So when the new-homes-for-unclean-spirits saw what had happened they were afraid (ἐφοβήθησαν, a form of φοβέω).  Both Gospel writers used ἐφοβήθησαν, the same word found in the phrase ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον[10] μέγαν[11] in Mark’s gospel that was translated, They were overwhelmed by fear.[12]  This was the very fear Jesus called δειλοί,[13] a form of δειλός.[14]  As δειλοῖς (another form of δειλός) this fear appears first in the list of the damned in Revelation.[15]

Matthew

Mark

Luke
…they begged him to leave their region.

Matthew 8:34c (NET)

 Then they asked Jesus to leave their region.

Mark 5:17 (NET)

 Then all the people of the Gerasenes and the surrounding region asked Jesus to leave them alone, for they were seized with great fear.

Luke 8:37a (NET)

And so the new-homes-for-unclean-spirits proved what path they were on when their ἐφοβήθησαν prompted them to ask the only One standing between them and a Legion of homeless unclean spirits to leave.

Matthew

Mark

Luke
So [Jesus] got into the boat and left.

Luke 8:37b (NET)

So the unclean spirits got what they wanted all along.  Unclean Spirits = 1; Jesus and compassion = 0.  At least that’s the way it seems if I quit here or only read Matthew’s account.

Matthew

Mark

Luke
As he was getting into the boat the man who had been demon-possessed (δαιμονισθεὶς, a form of δαιμονίζομαι) asked if he could go with him.  But Jesus did not permit him to do so.  Instead, he said to him, “Go to your home and to your people and tell them what the Lord has done for you, that he had mercy on you.”  So he went away and began to proclaim in the Decapolis what Jesus had done for him, and all were amazed (ἐθαύμαζον, a form of θαυμάζω).[16]

Mark 5:18-20 (NET)

 The man from whom the demons (δαιμόνια) had gone out begged to go with him, but Jesus sent him away, saying, “Return to your home, and declare what God has done for  you.”  So he went away, proclaiming throughout the whole town what Jesus had done for him.

Luke 8:38, 39 (NET)

Jesus left as they asked.  He might have taught them Himself about eternal life except for their ἐφοβήθησαν.  So they had only the testimony of a cleansed demoniac, and all were amazed.

Torture, Part 2

[4] Matthew 8:5 (NET)

[5] Matthew 8:6 (NET)

[6] Matthew 8:7 (NET) Table

[12] Mark 4:41 (NET)