Category Archives: Section Two

Son of God – John, Part 2

Posted on by

The next occurrence of Son of God (υἱοῦ τοῦ θεοῦ) in John’s Gospel is found in verse 18 of the third chapter.

KJV

NAS

NET
3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. The one who believes in him is not condemned.  The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.

The first thing I noticed here is that the KJV has believeth on the Son of God where the NAS and NET have believes in the Son of God.  The Greek word is εἰς[1] which is to or into.  Believe into the Son of God is an interesting image of entering in to the Son of God or the life of the Son of God, everyone who believes in (εἰς) him will…have eternal life.[2]  In Romans 10:11 below the Greek word is ἐπ᾿ (a form of ἐπί)[3] which is on or upon, but the NAS and NET translators still rendered it in.

KJV

NAS

NET
10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For the Scripture says, “WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED.” For the scripture says, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”

This is also an interesting image of resting upon the Son of God: He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep, and laid the foundation on (ἐπὶ) bedrock.[4]  Apparently the translators picked one of these two images and stuck with it.

Again, in John 3:18 κρίνεται (another form of κρίνω[5]) was translated condemned in the KJV and NET and judged in the NAS.  Whatever God did not send his Son into (εἰς) the world to do in verse 17 was not done to the one who believes in (εἰς) Him.  The one who does not believe has been condemned already.[6]  The Greek word translated condemned in the KJV and NET and judged in the NAS is κέκριται (another form of κρίνω).  So whatever God did not send his Son into (εἰς) the world to do is done already to the one who does not believe…because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.[7]  So what is it that God did not send his Son into the world to do, that was not done to those who believe in the Son of God, but done already to those who do not believe?  Here is where the three translations diverge.

KJV

NAS

NET
3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. Now this is the basis for judging: that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil.

In the KJV and NAS the condemnation or judgment that God did not send his Son into the world to do, that was not done to those who believe in the Son of God, but was done already to those who do not believe was that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light (KJV), and that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light (NAS) respectively.  In the NET the condemnation is not clearly defined, only that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light is the basis for making an unspecified condemnation (or, judgment, as the case may be).

Here the Greek word is κρίσις.[8]  The translators of the KJV and NAS treated κρίσις as if it were the noun of the verb κρίνω.  The translators of the NET did not.  The translators of the NET are probably about my age.  I assume they were socialized into a gospel similar to mine: believe in the Lord Jesus Christ or burn in hell for all eternity.  Their translation of John 3:16-19 certainly supports that gospel.  The unspecified condemnation, then, would be to burn in hell for all eternity.  It is just; it is justice because light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light.  In other words, Jesus has been here and gone and people prefer their sins to Jesus’ righteousness.  Why are people like this? Because their deeds [are] evil.  So people loving darkness rather than light when light has come into the world is a basis for judging them.  It makes perfect sense relative to the gospel I was socialized into, but is it what the Scripture says?

I was surprised to discover that John 3:1-15 didn’t necessarily support[9] “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ or burn in hell for all eternity.”  But I could let it go because I was confident that John 3:16-21 was completely clear on the matter.  Now that confidence is shaken and it is that much more difficult for me to let go.  Every thought, every word comes slowly.  But I will consider the alternative implications of κρίσις being the noun that is equivalent to the verb κρίνω.

“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge (κρίνῃ, another form of κρίνω; NET condemn) the world…”

John 3:17a (NAS)

 “Do not judge (κρίνετε, another form of κρίνω) so that you will not be judged (κριθῆτε, another form of κρίνω).  For by the standard you judge (κρίνετε, another form of κρίνω) you will be judged (κριθήσεσθε, another form of κρίνω), and the measure you use will be the measure you receive.”

Matthew 7:1, 2 (NET)
Now this is the basis for judging (κρίσις): that the light has come into the world and people loved the darkness rather than the light, because their deeds were evil.

John 3:19 (NET)

 Speak and act as those who will be judged (κρίνεσθαι, another form of κρίνω) by a law that gives freedom.  For judgment (κρίσις) is merciless for the one who has shown no mercy.  But mercy triumphs over judgment (κρίσεως, a form of κρίσις).

James 2:12, 13 (NET)

In this round I began with the NAS translation, “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge (κρίνῃ; NET condemn) the world…”[10]  The word κρίνῃ (a form of κρίνω) was only used once in the New Testament.  I can’t say that judge is a better translation than condemn.  I can only observe the symmetries if judge were accepted as the better translation.  If the Father did not send his Son into the world to judge the world, then it makes perfect sense that Jesus taught his disciples not to judge: “Do not judge (κρίνετε, another form of κρίνω) so that you will not be judged (κριθῆτε, another form of κρίνω).  For by the standard you judge (κρίνετε, another form of κρίνω) you will be judged (κριθήσεσθε, another form of κρίνω), and the measure you use will be the measure you receive.”[11]

The Greek words κρίνετε, κριθῆτε and κριθήσεσθε are also forms of κρίνω and are translated do judge and you judge, and you will be judged in the NET.  The negation comes from Μὴ[12] in the first instance of κρίνετε (Μὴ κρίνετε, Do not judge) and μὴ κριθῆτε (you will not be judged [‘Μ’ is the uppercase and ‘μ’ the lowercase of the letter ‘mu’ in the Greek alphabet]).  And this is a “qualified negation” according to Strong’s Concordance as compared to the “absolute denial” of οὐ,[13] the negation used in God did not (οὐ) send his Son into the world to condemn (or, judge) the world,[14] and, The one who believes in him is not (οὐ) condemned (or, judged).[15]

It also makes sense to me that Jesus’ half-brother James would have a handle on judging, judgment and mercy from growing up in the home with his elder brother, while Paul the former Pharisee had to learn that lesson sometime after he wrote 1 Corinthians 5 and before Galatians 6:1-5.  Another thing worth noting is that the NET translators treated κρίσις as if it were the noun for the verb κρίνεσθαι (another form of κρίνω): Speak and act as those who will be judged (κρίνεσθαι) by a law that gives freedom.  For judgment (κρίσις) is merciless for the one who has shown no mercy.  But mercy triumphs over judgment (κρίσεως).[16]  And finally, κρίσις was translated simply judgment.  There is nothing intrinsic to the word ending that justifies translating it the basis for judging in John 3:19 (NET).

[2] John 3:16b (NET)

[4] Luke 6:48 (NET)

[6] John 3:18b (NET)

[7] John 3:18b (NET)

[9] I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter (εἰσελθεῖν) the kingdom of God (John 3:5 NET), may provide support for “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ or burn in hell for all eternity.”  On the other hand it may have been Jesus’ way of turning a phrase when Nicodemus said, He cannot enter (εἰσελθεῖν) his mother’s womb and be born a second time (John 3:4 NET).

[10] John 3:17a (NAS)

[11] Matthew 7:1, 2 (NET) Table

[14] John 3:17a (NET)

[15] John 3:18a (NET)

[16] James 2:12, 13 (NET)

Romans, Part 39

Posted on by

Paul wrote that the Lord richly blesses all who call (ἐπικαλουμένους, a form of ἐπικαλέομαι)[1] on him.[2]  When he was sent by the Lord to Paul (then called Saul) Ananias said, Lord, I have heard from many people about this man, how much harm he has done to your saints in Jerusalem, and here he has authority from the chief priests to imprison all who call on (ἐπικαλουμένους, a form of ἐπικαλέομαι) your name![3]  As Paul [Saul] began to proclaim Jesus in the synagogues, saying, “This man is the Son of God (υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ).”  All who heard him were amazed and were saying, “Is this not the man who in Jerusalem was ravaging those who call on (ἐπικαλουμένους, a form of ἐπικαλέομαι) this name, and who had come here to bring them as prisoners to the chief priests?”[4]

For everyone who calls (ἐπικαλέσηται, another form of ἐπικαλέομαι) on the name of the Lord will be saved,[5] Paul continued in Romans, quoting the same verse from the prophet Joel that Peter quoted in his first sermon on Pentecost.[6]  Then he asked a series of rhetorical questions:  How are they to call on (ἐπικαλέσωνται, another form of ἐπικαλέομαι) one they have not believed in (ἐπίστευσαν, a form of πιστεύω)?[7]  And how are they to believe (πιστεύσωσιν, another form of πιστεύω) in one they have not heard of (ἤκουσαν, a form of ἀκούω)?[8]  And how are they to hear (ἀκούσωσιν, another form of ἀκούω) without someone preaching (κηρύσσοντος, a form of κηρύσσω)[9] to them?  And how are they to preach (κηρύξωσιν, another form of κηρύσσω) unless they are sent (ἀποσταλῶσιν, a form of ἀποστέλλω)?[10]

To put this back into temporal order: 1) The Lord sent Apostles to preach.  2) The Apostles preached to those who heard.  3) Those who heard believed.  4) Those who believed called on the name of the Lord.  5) [E]veryone who calls (ἐπικαλέσηται, another form of ἐπικαλέομαι) on the name of the Lord will be saved.  Then Paul capped off this section with what has always sounded to me like a eulogy of the Apostles’ feet, but the NET translators cracked the idiom and present it as a eulogy of God’s timing: How timely is the arrival of those who proclaim the good news.[11]   But I think to really grasp what Paul was wrestling with I have to add another step, his assumption that 6) all Israel will be saved, as it is written…[12]

But not all have obeyed (ὑπήκουσαν, a form of ὑπακούω)[13] the good news,[14] Paul continued.    To translate ὑπήκουσαν obeyed here, disrupts the obvious flow of Paul’s thought.  Paul referred back to step 3) above, And how are they to believe (πιστεύσωσιν, another form of πιστεύω) in one they have not heard of (ἤκουσαν, a form of ἀκούω)?  Here are the possible definitions of ὑπήκουσαν in the NET online Bible: “1) to listen, to harken 1a) of one who on the knock at the door comes to listen who it is, (the duty of a porter) 2) to harken to a command 2a) to obey, be obedient to, submit to.”  I think Paul deliberately equated ὑπήκουσαν with ἤκουσαν.  But not all have [listened to] the good news, for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed (ἐπίστευσεν, another form of πιστεύω) our report (ἀκοῇ, a form of ἀκοή)?”[15]

Consequently faith (πίστις)[16] comes from what is heard (ἀκοῆς, another form of ἀκοὴ), Paul continued, and what is heard (ἀκοὴ) comes through the…word (ρήματος, a form of ῥῆμα)[17] of Christ.[18]  I deliberately left out the word preached (preached word of Christ) because as I said elsewhere I believe that Paul meant something like what is heard comes through the word (or, utterance) of Christ (or, God).  The note in the NET reads: “The genitive could be understood as either subjective (‘Christ does the speaking’) or objective (‘Christ is spoken about’), but the latter is more likely here.”  And I am contending, more likely to whom? to Paul?

Two men heard the same Gospel preached by the same Apostle.  The πόρνος[19] believed.  The Pharisee did not.  It is common to assume that the difference was something intrinsic to the believer, some wisdom, some virtue.  After all we call the believer good and the unbeliever evil.  The good believe and are saved.  The evil do not believe and are not saved.  But Paul knew that he was not looking for Christ when he was arrested on the road to Damascus.  Christ’s salvation was what happened to him while he was busy making other plans.[20]

I don’t think Paul was looking to the human individual for a reason why some believe and some do not, but to God.  I think Paul wrote that faith comes from what is heard, the Gospel he preached, and what is heard comes through the…word of Christ, that is Christ (or God) saying something like, “hear…now.”  Perhaps this becomes clearer in the negative in the next chapter when Paul wrote about a remnant chosen by grace:[21]  The rest were hardened, as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, to this very day.”[22]

The first thing that came to my mind when I began to hear Paul that way was, “Why does [God] still find fault?  For who has ever resisted his will?”[23]  Of course, Paul already knew my objection and countered it in the previous chapter (Romans 9:20-23 NET):

But who indeed are you – a mere human being – to talk back to God?  Does what is molded say to the molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use?  But what if God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath prepared for destruction?  And what if he is willing to make known the wealth of his glory on the objects of mercy that he has prepared beforehand for glory…

But I ask, have they not heard (ἤκουσαν, a form of ἀκούω)?[24] Paul continued.  And his answer was, Yes, they have (μενοῦνγε),[25] in the sense that the message has gone out and they were “endowed with the faculty of hearing;” they were “not deaf.”  Their voice has gone out to all the earth, and their words to the ends of the world.[26]  But there are other meanings listed in the NET online Bible for ἤκουσαν:  “1) to be endowed with the faculty of hearing, not deaf 2) to hear 2b) to attend to, consider what is or has been said 2c) to understand, perceive the sense of what is said 3) to hear something 3a) to perceive by the ear what is announced in one’s presence 3b) to get by hearing learn 3c) a thing comes to one’s ears, to find out, learn 3d) to give ear to a teaching or a teacher 3e) to comprehend, to understand.”  I doubt that Paul meant definitions 2b) through 3e), with the possible exception of 3) and 3a).  What they lacked was that ρήματος Χριστοῦ (word of Christ)

But again I ask, didn’t Israel understand (ἔγνω, a form of γινώσκω)?[27]  First Moses says, “I will make you jealous by those who are not a nation; with a senseless nation I will provoke you to anger.”  And Isaiah is even bold enough to say, “I was found by those who did not seek me; I became well known to those who did not ask for me.”[28]  Here Paul allowed the expected negative response to his question to stand, and reinforced his first question:  Yes, they were told what to expect by Moses and Isaiah, but no, they did not understand the message.  For ignoring (ἀγνοοῦντες, a form of ἀγνοέω;[29] literally, being ignorant of) the righteousness that comes from God, and seeking instead to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.[30]

But about Israel [Isaiah] says, Paul concluded, “All day long I held out my hands to this disobedient (ἀπειθοῦντα, a form of ἀπειθέω)[31] and stubborn (ἀντιλέγοντα, a form of ἀντίλεγω)[32] people!”[33]  I’ll conclude this essay with the definitions from the NET online Bible.

ἀπειθοῦντα: “1) not to allow one’s self to be persuaded 1a) to refuse or withhold belief 1b) to refuse belief and obedience 2) not to comply with.”

ἀντιλέγοντα: “1) to speak against, gainsay, contradict 2) to oppose one’s self to one, decline to obey him, declare one’s self against him, refuse to have anything to do with him.”

 

[2] Romans 10:12b (NET)

[3] Acts 9:13, 14 (NET) Table

[4] Acts 9:20, 21 (NET)

[5] Romans 10:13 (NET)

[10] Romans 10:14, 15a (NET)

[11] Romans 10:15b (NET)

[12] Romans 11:26a (NET)

[14] Romans 10:16a (NET)

[15] Romans 10:16 (NET)

[18] Romans 10:17 (NET)

[22] Romans 11:7b, 8 (NET)

[23] Romans 9:19 (NET)

[24] Romans 10:18a (NET)

[25] NET Note: “Here the particle μενοῦνγε (menounge) is correcting the negative response expected by the particle μή (mh) in the preceding question. Since the question has been translated positively, the translation was changed here to reflect that rendering.”

[26] Romans 10:18b (NET)

[28] Romans 10:19, 20 (NET) Table

[30] Romans 10:3 (NET)

[33] Romans 10:21 (NET)

Fear – Genesis, Part 7

Posted on by

The grain Joseph’s brothers brought back from Egypt didn’t outlast the famine.  “Return, buy us a little more food,” their father said.  But Judah said to him, “The man solemnly warned us, ‘You will not see my face unless your brother is with you.’  If you send our brother [Joseph’s younger brother Benjamin] with us, we’ll go down and buy food for you.  But if you will not send him, we won’t go down there because the man said to us, ‘You will not see my face unless your brother is with you.’”[1]

At first Jacob (also called Israel by God) remained reluctant.  When Judah reminded him how the Egyptian [their brother Joseph] had questioned them, and promised to be surety for Benjamin, their father Israel said to them, “If it must be so, then do this: Take some of the best products of the land in your bags, and take a gift down to the man – a little balm and a little honey, spices and myrrh, pistachios and almonds.  Take double the money with you; you must take back the money that was returned in the mouths of your sacks – perhaps it was an oversight.”[2]  This reminds me of the strategy Jacob employed when he returned home and met his estranged brother Esau.[3]

But Israel continued, “Take your brother too, and go right away to the man.  May the sovereign God grant you mercy before the man so that he may release your other brother and Benjamin!  As for me, if I lose my children I lose them.”[4]

You are making me childless!  Jacob had complained to his sons.  Joseph is gone.  Simeon is gone.  And now you want to take Benjamin!  Everything is against me.[5]  But Israel was willing to trust the sovereign God with the outcome.  Yes, they are the same man, but it reminds me of those born of the flesh of Adam and born from above of the Spirit of God.  For the flesh has desires that are opposed to the Spirit, and the Spirit has desires that are opposed to the flesh, Paul wrote the Galatians, for these are in opposition to each other, so that you cannot do what you want.[6]

Joseph’s brothers returned with Benjamin to Egypt.  When Joseph saw Benjamin with them, he said to the servant who was over his household, “Bring the men to the house.  Slaughter an animal and prepare it, for the men will eat with me at noon.”  The man did just as Joseph said; he brought the men into Joseph’s house.[7]  Joseph invited his brothers to a meal, but the men were afraid (yârêʼ)[8] when they were brought to Joseph’s house.  They said, “We are being brought in because of the money that was returned in our sacks last time.  He wants to capture us, make us slaves, and take our donkeys!”[9] As far as I can tell the rabbis who translated the Septuagint left this particular fear out of their Greek translation.

Joseph’s brothers approached the man who was in charge of Joseph’s household and spoke to him at the entrance to the house.  They said, “My lord, we did indeed come down the first time to buy food.  But when we came to the place where we spent the night, we opened our sacks and each of us found his money – the full amount – in the mouth of his sack.  So we have returned it.  We have brought additional money with us to buy food.  We do not know who put the money in our sacks!”[10]

“Everything is fine,” the man in charge of Joseph’s household told them.  “Don’t be afraid (yârêʼ).  Your God and the God of your father has given you treasure in your sacks.  I had your money.”  Then he brought Simeon out to them.[11]  In Greek in the Septuagint afraid was φοβεῖσθε (a form of φοβέω).[12]  Do not be afraid (φοβεῖσθε) of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul, Jesus told his disciples.  Instead, fear (φοβεῖσθε) the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[13]  Jesus was sending them to their deaths.  That sounds ominous, but Jesus is sending all of us to our deaths whether we believe Him or not.  One may die a martyr serving the Savior, another may choke out his last breath from advanced emphysema or heart failure or a brain tumor, but (with the possible exception of those alive and trusting Christ at the time of His return) we are all going to die, or sleep as the New Testament writers seemed to prefer to call it.

The one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell is either God the Father, or the Lord Jesus Himself if I take his teaching literally:  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 anyone, but has assigned all judgment 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.[14] All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, Jesus said.  Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you.  And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age.[15]

So Matthew 10:28 contains a New Testament occurrence of the fear of the Lord.  It’s also a no-win scenario for Bible translators.  The first part of Jesus’ statement is fairly clear:  Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.  Jesus doesn’t want his followers to be terrified into fleeing from, or struck with fear by, those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.  He doesn’t want that fear to stop one from believing or even professing faith in Him.

Still there are other definitions of φοβεῖσθε listed in the NET online Bible.  There may be plenty of good reason to be “startled by strange sights or occurrences,” “struck with amazement,” even “to fear” or “be afraid of one” posing some irrational threat of violence.  It is wise at times “to fear (i.e. hesitate) to do something (for fear of harm).”  It is necessary for conscience’ sake “to reverence, venerate, to treat with deference or reverential obedience” those in authority, even those who would kill the body for professing faith in Jesus Christ.  And the negation in this quotation is μὴ,[16] the qualified as opposed to the absolute negation according to Strong’s Concordance.

Instead, fear the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell,[17] Jesus continued.  It is fairly obvious that Jesus was not telling his disciples to flee in terror from Him, but to “reverence, venerate, to treat [Him] with deference or reverential obedience.”  Of course if the translators had translated φοβεῖσθε reverence here, I might have complained that they were obscuring the fact that both words were φοβεῖσθε.  Jesus made his point perfectly clear as He continued, Aren’t two sparrows sold for a penny?  Yet not one of them falls to the ground apart from your Father’s will.  Even all the hairs on your head are numbered.  So do not be afraid (φοβεῖσθε); you are more valuable than many sparrows.[18]  And again, the negation is μὴ, the qualified as opposed to the absolute negation so as not to conflict with the command to fear or reverence Him.

Up to this point in the story Joseph’s brothers feared God’s punishment:  Surely we’re being punished because of our brother, they had said to one another, because we saw how distressed he was when he cried to us for mercy, but we refused to listen.  That is why this distress has come on us![19]  But I think something changed in them after everything they’d been through, when Joseph’s steward said:  Don’t be afraid.  Your God and the God of your father has given you treasure in your sacks.[20]

So that day they ate and drank with Joseph until they all became drunk.[21]  But Joseph still didn’t reveal his identity.  In fact, he tormented them again.  He had his servant return all their money in their sacks, and hide the cup he used for divination in Benjamin’s sack.  They had not gone very far from the city when Joseph said to the servant who was over his household, “Pursue the men at once!  When you overtake them, say to them, ‘Why have you repaid good with evil?’”[22]  This time, however, the brothers were indignant rather than fearful.

“Why does my lord say such things?  Far be it from your servants to do such a thing!  Look, the money that we found in the mouths of our sacks we brought back to you from the land of Canaan.  Why then would we steal silver or gold from your master’s house?  If one of us has it, he will die, and the rest of us will become my lord’s slaves!”[23]

“You have suggested your own punishment!” Joseph’s servant replied.  “The one who has it will become my slave, but the rest of you will go free.”[24]  This, I think, is the tipoff to Joseph’s plan.  His servant knew Joseph wanted Benjamin alive even though he had no suspicion why.  Joseph, after seeing Benjamin, had to leave the room again, for he was overcome by affection for his brother and was at the point of tears.[25]  And Joseph knew the famine would continue, for five more years there will be neither plowing nor harvesting,[26] he said.  By arresting Benjamin Joseph could both spend time with him and guarantee his brothers’ return for more grain.  But his brothers upended his scheme.

When Joseph’s servant found the divination cup exactly where he had placed it in Benjamin’s sack, his brothers did not abandon their younger sibling to his fate.  They all tore their clothes!  [a sign of mourning or repentance]  Then each man loaded his donkey, and they returned to the city.[27]

Fear – Genesis, Part 8

Back to Son of God – John, Part 3

Back to Fear – Numbers, Part 4

[1] Genesis 43:2b-5 (NET)

[2] Genesis 43:11, 12 (NET)

[4] Genesis 43:13, 14 (NET)

[5] Genesis 42:36 (NET)

[6] Galatians 5:17 (NET)

[7] Genesis 43:16, 17 (NET)

[9] Genesis 43:18 (NET)

[10] Genesis 43:19-22 (NET)

[11] Genesis 43:23 (NET)

[13] Matthew 10:28 (NET)

[14] John 5:20-23 (NET)

[15] Matthew 28:18-20 (NET)

[17] Matthew 10:28b (NET)

[18] Matthew 10:29-31 (NET)

[19] Genesis 42:21 (NET)

[20] Genesis 43:23a (NET)

[21] Genesis 43:34b (NET)

[22] Genesis 44:4 (NET)

[23] Genesis 44:7-9 (NET)

[24] Genesis 44:10 (NET)

[25] Genesis 43:30 (NET)

[26] Genesis 45:6 (NET)

[27] Genesis 44:13 (NET)

Son of God – John, Part 1

Posted on by

The first time the phrase Son of God (υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ) occurs in John’s Gospel account is in the story when Nathaniel first met Jesus (John 1:47-49 NET).

Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and exclaimed, “Look, a true Israelite in whom there is no deceit!”  Nathanael asked him, “How do you know me?”  Jesus replied, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.”  Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the king of Israel!”

Earlier Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one Moses wrote about in the law, and the prophets also wrote about – Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.”  Nathanael replied, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?”  Philip replied, “Come and see.”[1]  Nathaniel put his prejudice aside and did exactly that.  But it says to me that he already had a preconceived notion that the one Moses and the prophets wrote about, the king of Israel, was also the Son of God.  Even Jesus seemed a bit surprised at how easily Nathaniel believed: Because I told you that I saw you under the fig tree, do you believe?  You will see greater things than these.[2]

For this is the way God loved the world, the next time there is mention of God’s Son in John’s Gospel began, He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.[3]  I want to compare the King James Version (KJV), and the New American Standard Bible (NAS) with the New English Translation (NET).

KJV

NAS

NET
3:16 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. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life.

The first thing I noticed was that the KJV and NAS share the phrase only begotten Son (τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μονογενῆ[4]) where the NET has one and only Son.  The note in the NET explains: “Although this word is often translated ‘only begotten,’ such a translation is misleading, since in English it appears to express a metaphysical relationship. The word in Greek was used of an only child (a son [Luke 7:12, 9:38] or a daughter [Luke 8:42]). It was also used of something unique (only one of its kind) such as the mythological Phoenix (1 Clement 25:2). From here it passes easily to a description of Isaac (Heb 11:17 and Josephus, Ant. 1.13.1 [1.222]) who was not Abraham’s only son, but was one-of-a-kind because he was the child of the promise. Thus the word means ‘one-of-a-kind’ and is reserved for Jesus in the Johannine literature of the NT. While all Christians are children of God (τέκνα θεοῦ, tekna theou), Jesus is God’s Son in a unique, one-of-a-kind sense. The word is used in this way in all its uses in the Gospel of John (1:14, 1:18, 3:16, and 3:18).”

I am unclear what the term “metaphysical relationship” meant, so I want to repeat what Luke’s Gospel said about Jesus’ ‘one-of-a-kind’ relationship to his Father.  When Mary Jesus’ mother was visited by the angel Gabriel and told of his birth, she asked, “How will this be, since I have not had sexual relations with a man?”  The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon (ἐπελεύσεται, a form of ἐπέρχομαι)[5] you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow (ἐπισκιάσει, a form of ἐπισκιάζω)[6] you.  Therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God (υἱὸς θεοῦ).[7]

While his mother Mary was engaged to Joseph, Matthew wrote, but before they came together (συνελθεῖν, a form of συνέρχομαι),[8] 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.  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 to take Mary as your wife, because the child conceived (γεννηθὲν, a form of γεννάω)[9] in her is from the Holy Spirit.”[10]

The next thing I noticed was that the KJV has no quotation marks.  The translators proposed no theory of who was speaking in John 3:16-21.  The NAS translators on the other hand used quotation marks to indicate their belief that Jesus was still speaking to Nicodemus.  The NET translators ended Jesus’ quotation marks at verse 15, indicating their belief that John was speaking.

KJV

NAS

NET
3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved. “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.” For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world should be saved through him.

Here I noticed that the KJV and NET have condemn where the NAS has judge for the Greek word κρίνῃ.[11]  For clarity I’ll work through the NET definitions of κρίνῃ.  God did not send his Son into the world 1) to separate, put asunder, to pick out, select, or choose the world; God did not send his Son into the world 2) to approve, esteem, or to prefer the world; God did not send his Son into the world 3) to be of the world’s opinion, or to deem, or think like the world; God did not send his Son into the world 4) to determine, resolve, or decree the world; God did not send his Son into the world 5) to judge the world or 5a) to pronounce an opinion concerning right and wrong 5a1) or to summon the world to trial or 5b) to pronounce judgment upon, or to subject the world to censure or 5b1) to act the part of judge or arbiter in matters of common life, or pass judgment on the deeds and words of others; God did not send his Son into the world 6) to rule, or govern the world or 6a) to preside over it with the power of giving judicial decisions; God did not send his Son into the world 7) to contend together, as a warrior or combatant with the world; or 7a) to dispute with it or 7b1) have suit at law with the world.

Ordinarily I soar over this rugged terrain at about 30,000 feet.  I already know what it means.  I know most people die and go to hell.  This was Jesus, or John, certainly the Holy Spirit, vindicating God of the destruction of so many souls:  God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world.  Let God be proven true, Paul wrote, 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.”[12]  But as I sit here now, a relativist, gazing up at this majestic rocky cliff face of absolute negation, I begin to wonder, “Is that all it means?  Is it really just God saving face?  What did God send his Son into the world to do?”

God sent his Son into the world that the world should be saved through him.  Here I noticed that the KJV and NAS have might be where the NET had should be saved.  The Greek is ἀλλ᾿ ἵνα σωθῇ ὁ κόσμος δι᾿ αὐτοῦ: ἀλλ᾿ (but) ἵνα (that) σωθῇ (to save) ὁ (the) κόσμος (world) δι᾿ (through) αὐτοῦ (him).  I know I’m no Greek scholar, but I don’t find any might be or should be in this text.  Is one or the other of them really contained within the word ending?  Is it a theological interpretation?  Is it just to make the English flow better?  I admit I don’t know, but I’m willing to keep on searching.

[Addendum: July 20, 2019] The Greek verb σωθῇ (should be saved) is in the subjunctive mood.  According to the “Greek Verbs (Shorter Definitions)” at ntgreek.org: “The subjunctive mood indicates probability or objective possibility. The action of the verb will possibly happen, depending on certain objective factors or circumstances.  It is oftentimes used in conditional statements (i.e. ‘If…then…’ clauses) or in purpose clauses.  However if the subjunctive mood is used in a purpose or result clause, then the action should not be thought of as a possible result, but should be viewed as a definite outcome that will happen as a result of another stated action.”  How one translates σωθῇ here depends then on whether one considers it to be in a “result clause” or not.

[1] John 1:45, 46 (NET)

[2] John 1:50 (NET)

[3] John 3:16 (NET)

[7] Luke 1:34, 35 (NET)

[10] Matthew 1:18b-20 (NET) Table

[12] Romans 3:4 (NET)

You Must Be Gentle, Part 3

Posted on by

I watched an interview with Ingmar Bergman on the DVD version of “Persona” called “A Poem in Images.”  He spoke in English, not his native language, but I left the quote below verbatim because I liked the ideas expressed as they were.

“I was ill and they had to make some sort of operation.  And I got in my arm an injection…I had been unconscious six hours.  You know I had no feeling about time, of hour.  From existing, I have being in the situation of nonexisting.  And that makes me very happy….I am conscious about myself and everything and then suddenly, or slowly, my consciousness fades out, switches off.  And it is a not existing.  That is a marvelous feeling.  From existing I am not existing.  And at that moment nothing can happen to me.  I think it would be terrible if somebody came after this marvelous not existing and wake me up, and said, ‘You are a returned soul Mr. Bergman,’ or something like that, ‘and you have to go here or there; you are guilty for that, not guilty for that.’  I think it’s just crazy.”

I was about five years old when I accepted what I thought was the gospel: believe in the Lord Jesus Christ or burn in hell for all eternity.  It seemed like a no brainer.  I was surprised that everyone in children’s church didn’t choose Jesus right there and then.  (I can’t say for certain that I was taught this until an evangelism course I took as an adult, but the first time I seriously questioned whether this ultimatum was the Gospel was during that course.)  I was saved, saved from hell, because I confessed that I was a sinner and believed in Jesus.  And it worked in the sense that I grew up among fundamentalist Christians and can’t recall ever having any fear that I would go to hell, not as a child, anyway.

Hell was never taught as something I should fear.  It was taught as motivation to invite my friends to Sunday school, friends who would go to hell if they didn’t confess that they were sinners and ask Jesus into their hearts.  I tried to invite my next door neighbor once.  In fact, I probably tried to save him myself right there and then.  But my Catholic friend knew as much (or more) about trusting Jesus as I did.  So I decided that my Sunday school teachers didn’t know much about my friends.

“So this feeling of not existence made me very happy,” Bergman continued, “because it was a feeling of relief, because this feeling of a god, this idea about a god, was very unhealthy.  It was a feeling of something that was perfect, extremely perfect, the most extreme perfect that exists.  In comparison to that I always must feel like a snake, like a dirty snake.  For a human being to feel like a dirty snake is not good.”

In Junior High I pretended to be ill one morning so I could stay home and finish reading “Phaedo” by Plato, the death of Socrates.  Socrates concluded, “if while in company with the body the soul cannot have pure knowledge, one of two things seems to follow—either knowledge is not to be attained at all, or, if at all, after death.”[1]  This has had a lifelong impact on me.  Perhaps the main reason I have believed that each of us will give an account of himself to God[2] (when I believed little else) is the hope that some clarity will come in his response to my account.  The primary torment of Sartre’s hell in his play “No Exit” is not knowing for certain why, or if, one is there.  Knowledge was the hardest thing to give up when I flirted with atheism.  To accept that knowledge is either unattainable, or that the verdict of a jury of my peers (or even a cadre of knowledge elites) is the highest form of truth and justice, is a camel I can’t swallow.

So though I have experienced anesthesia and even wondered if that was what death was like, it was never comforting to me.  Still, I could relate because I had been enamored with the fantasy of having never been bothered with existence in the first place.

As a child I prayed for two things: that my parents would get along and that I could hit a fast pitch baseball.  Sure, I probably prayed for other things, too, but these are the prayers I remember.  I certainly prayed them the most.  My parents never did get along any better.  They separated in my early twenties.  And I hit the ball once, until my neighbor friend shared a record with me, a recording of Stan Musial talking about hitting.

I was hit by a pitch at practice early in my first season.  It broke my finger and I had to sit the season out.  Stan Musial seemed to understand my fear.  I don’t even remember now what he said.  I only remember that I began to stand in without shying away, watch the ball all the way to the bat and make contact.  I’m sure coaches had yelled things like that at me many times before.  But I had stood at Sportsmen’s Park banging my wooden seat on its hinges when Stan the Man came up to bat.  Sometimes he struck out.  But the next time we stood and banged our seats again, and more often than not, often enough to satisfy us all, Stan the Man hit it out of the park.  When Stan Musial said it, I listened.  And I decided that he was a much better hitter than God.

In my late twenties I spent several years studying the Bible, history and philosophy.  I prayed for answers to the questions my studies posed, then I trusted that those answers would be forthcoming, and kept on studying.  By contrast I hated the Bible as a child.  When I was forced to read it I didn’t hear anything because I thought I already knew what it said from Sunday school classes.  I didn’t particularly like Sunday school classes either.  The few times I did pick it up on my own I found some things that didn’t sound like my Sunday school and I assumed I didn’t understand the Bible, or that my understanding couldn’t possibly be right because so many people before me had understood it like my Sunday school classes.  In my late twenties I probably still thought I already knew what the Bible said, but I was driven to read it, insatiably driven.  Answers came, sometimes amazingly.

One was in a book from the British Museum.  A friend gave it to me after a trip to London.  He didn’t know the question I was asking and he didn’t know the answer was in the book he purchased for me.  He simply thought I would like the book.  And he was wrong!  Apart from the question I was asking, I would have had no interest in this book at all.

Nietzsche: Friedrich Nietzsche was much smarter than I am.  He would have convinced me of atheism apart from the Lord’s answers to his questions, or the questions he fostered in me.  I will be forever grateful to Nietzsche for those questions.  The Lord’s answers changed the way I read and understand the Bible.

Yet after that amazing time I was still disgruntled.  Writing this has forced me to ask myself why.  The answer that comes to me is that I was not actually as open-minded as I like to remember the story.  I was trying to find a rational alternative to faith (i.e., that arrived at the same conclusions but required no faith).  My best effort was indistinguishable from faith.  In other words, I had failed.  So as the Lord and I did our postmortem on those years, I said the time was better than I had expected (recalling my parents and hitting a baseball), but that I was still inclined to wish for never having been born.

He was angry.  But I didn’t respond in what I consider a typical male response to anger, matching anger for anger, blow for blow.  To repeat what He said wouldn’t mean much.  It was completely in tune with the years we had spent analyzing statements and their negations.  The thrust of it was, “I don’t care what you want, I called you into existence to love you.”  My uncharacteristic response—one I have noticed in women responding to men’s anger, especially their jealousy—was, “He loves me.”

So while Bergman’s musings about anesthesia and death form a bond of recognition in me, and his taking comfort in nonexistence is endearing, I can’t follow Ingmar Bergman.  Clearly I am inferior to God.  But He has gone so out of his way to demonstrate his love and mercy to me that I can’t help but feel like a beloved child rather than a dirty snake.  For you did not receive the spirit of slavery leading again to fear, Paul wrote the Romans, but you received the Spirit of adoption, by whom we cry, “Abba, Father.”[3]

[3] Romans 8:15 (NET)

Romans, Part 38

Posted on by

For Moses writes about the righteousness that is by the law, Paul continued.  “The one who does these things will live by them” [Table].  But the righteousness that is by faith says: “Do not say in your heart, ‘Who will ascend into heaven?’” (that is, to bring Christ down) or “Who will descend into the abyss?” (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).  But what does it say?  “The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart” (that is, the word of faith that we preach)…[1]

I have already gone into this in some detail elsewhere, when it seemed appropriate to understand Paul’s rhetorical question: If some did not believe, does their unbelief nullify the faithfulness of God?[2]  Here I will simply point out the recurring pattern.  The righteousness that is by the law is an external code of conduct forced upon the sinful flesh of Adam.  There are rewards for compliance, and threats of violence and death for noncompliance.  The righteousness that is by faith wells up from the Holy Spirit and communes intimately with the spirit born from above, so intimately that this righteousness seems like that spirit’s own idea and longing.

Paul continued, because if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord…[3]  There is a note in the NET here: “Or ‘the Lord.’  The Greek construction, along with the quotation from Joel 2:32 in v. 13 (in which the same ‘Lord’ seems to be in view) suggests that κύριον (kurion) is to be taken as ‘the Lord,’ that is, Yahweh…”  Jesus was quite clear on the subject, saying, I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I am![4]

Paul continued, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved (σωθήσῃ, a form of σώζω).[5]  What this salvation is substantively is the righteousness that is by faith, a righteousness that comes from God through his Holy Spirit.  When Peter defended his actions with Cornelius, he said, He informed us how he had seen an angel standing in his house and saying, “Send to Joppa and summon Simon, who is called Peter, who will speak a message (ρήματα, a form of ῥῆμα)[6] to you by which you and your entire household will be saved (σωθήσῃ, a form of σώζω).”  Then as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell on them just as he did on us at the beginning.  And I remembered the word (ρήματος, another form of ῥῆμα) of the Lord, as he used to say, “John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.”[7]

For with the heart one believes and thus has righteousness, Paul continued, and with the mouth one confesses and thus has salvation.[8]  This translation is a little confusing.  It sounds like one possesses two different things by two different means:  1) my heart believes and thus has righteousness and 2) my mouth confesses and thus has salvation.  But the Greek word ἔχω[9] (to have, to hold) is not found in the text.  The actual word is εἰς[10] (into, unto): For with the heart one believes unto (εἰς) righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made unto (εἰς) salvation.[11]

I did not believe once upon a time and thus possess righteousness.  I did not confess once upon a time and thus possess salvation.  I believe and confess daily that I am utterly dependent on Christ’s righteousness and faithfulness.  Give us today our daily bread[12] of this new life, the fruit of your Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.  Against such things there is no law.[13]  What is our belief and confession (Titus 3:3-6 NET)?

For we too were once foolish, disobedient, misled, enslaved to various passions and desires, spending our lives in evil and envy, hateful and hating one another.  But “when the kindness of God our Savior and his love for mankind appeared, he saved (ἔσωσεν, another form of σώζω) us not by works of righteousness that we have done but on the basis of his mercy, through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us in full measure through Jesus Christ our Savior.”

“And so, since we have been justified by his grace, since we are experiencing this salvation, this righteousness by faith (through the washing of the new birth and the renewing of the Holy Spirit),[14] we become heirs with the confident expectation of eternal life.”[15]  Now having written that “we are experiencing this salvation, this righteousness by faith,” I certainly don’t mean that “our experience” is a 100% accurate translation of Christ’s righteousness.  When it came to his bout with coveting Paul wrote, For I want (θέλειν, a form of θέλω)[16] to do the good, but I cannot do it (literally, For to wish is present in/with me, but not to do it).[17]  Still, he recognized that this desire was from God and not from himself or his own righteousness by the law, for the one bringing forth in you both the desire (θέλειν, a form of θέλω) and the effort – for the sake of his good pleasure – is God.[18]

For the scripture says, Paul continued in Romans, “Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.”  For there is no distinction between the Jew and the Greek, for the same Lord is Lord of all, who richly blesses all who call on him.  For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (σωθήσεται, another form of σώζω).[19]

[1] Romans 10:5-8 (NET)

[2] Romans 3:3 (NET)

[3] Romans 10:9a (NET)

[5] Romans 10:9b (NET)

[7] Acts 11:13-16 (NET)

[8] Romans 10:10 (NET)

[11] Romans 10:10 (NKJV)

[13] Galatians 2:22, 23 (NET)

[14] Titus 3:5b (NET)

[15] Titus 3:7 (NET)

[17] Romans 7:18b (NET)

[18] Philippians 2:13 (NET)

[19] Romans 10:11-13 (NET)

Fear – Genesis, Part 6

Posted on by

After Jacob and his family spent some time in Bethel they moved on to Ephrath (Bethlehem).  On the way Rachel went into labor – and her labor was hard.  When her labor was at its hardest, the midwife said to her, “Don’t be afraid (yârêʼ), for you are having another son.”[1]  The rabbis who translated the Septuagint changed the word to θάρσει[2] in Greek.  “Have courage (θάρσει), son!  Jesus said to the paralytic lying on a mat.  Your sins are forgiven.”[3]  With her dying breath, Rachel named him Ben-Oni [“son of my suffering”].  But his father called him Benjamin [“son of the (or “my”) right hand”] instead.[4]

Rachel was Jacob’s favorite wife.  Her father had tricked him into marrying her sister Leah as well.  Bilhah and Zilpah, Rachel’s and Leah’s servant girls, were given to Jacob when the sisters vied with each other for their husband’s affection.  Joseph, Rachel’s firstborn, was Jacob’s favorite son.  Joseph’s elder brothers hated him.  On top of that Joseph had a couple of dreams which indicated to his brothers and Jacob that Joseph thought he would rule over them.

Joseph’s brothers decided to kill him.  Reuben, Jacob’s firstborn, talked his younger siblings down from murder.  They put Joseph in a dry cistern.  Reuben hoped to return later to rescue him.  Judah—Leah’s fourth born son after Reuben, Simeon and Levi—said to his brothers, “What profit is there if we kill our brother and cover up his blood?  Come, let’s sell him to the Ishmaelites, but let’s not lay a hand on him, for after all, he is our brother, our own flesh.”  His brothers agreed.[5]  The Ishmaelites sold Joseph to Potiphar the Egyptian, and eventually Joseph became a ruler in Egypt because of his ability to interpret prophetic dreams.

There was a famine in the land and Jacob sent ten of Joseph’s brothers to Egypt to buy grain.  Now Joseph was the ruler of the country, the one who sold grain to all the people of the country.  Joseph’s brothers came and bowed down before him with their faces to the ground.[6]  Joseph recognized his brothers, but they did not recognize him.  Then Joseph remembered the dreams he had dreamed about them, and he said to them, “You are spies; you have come to see if our land is vulnerable!”[7]

Though I have heard it many times I am not persuaded that Joseph had some wise master plan to test his brothers’ repentance.  I think he was the outcast little brother who had his elder brothers right where he wanted them, and he wanted to make them squirm.  Beyond that he wanted to see his younger brother Benjamin.  But when he heard his brothers’ fears, he was moved, perhaps even to a repentance of his own:  They said to one other, “Surely we’re being punished because of our brother, because we saw how distressed he was when he cried to us for mercy, but we refused to listen.  That is why this distress has come on us!”  Reuben said to them, “Didn’t I say to you, ‘Don’t sin against the boy,’ but you wouldn’t listen?  So now we must pay for shedding his blood!”[8]

Joseph spoke to them through an interpreter, but understood their language as they whispered among themselves.  He turned away from them and wept.[9]  Here, I can be persuaded that Joseph began to formulate a plan to both save face as a ruler of Egypt who had embarked on a path of revenge, and to share with his brothers some of the mercy the Lord had shown him.  When he turned around and spoke to them again, he had Simeon taken from them and tied up before their eyes.  Then Joseph gave orders to fill their bags with grain, to return each man’s money to his sack, and to give them provisions for the journey.  His orders were carried out.[10]

On their return journey one of the brothers discovered the money in his sack.  They were dismayed; they turned trembling one to another and said, “What in the world has God done to us?”[11]  The brothers were so sure that God was punishing them they misunderstood his mercy.  The man, the lord of the land, spoke harshly to us and treated us as if we were spying on the land,[12] they told Jacob their father.  Then the man, the lord of the land, said to us, “This is how I will find out if you are honest men.  Leave one of your brothers with me, and take grain for your hungry households and go.  But bring your youngest brother back to me so I will know that you are honest men and not spies.  Then I will give your brother back to you and you may move about freely in the land.”[13]

When they were emptying their sacks, there was each man’s bag of money in his sack!  When they and their father saw the bags of money, they were afraid (yârêʼ).[14]  In the Septuagint this was translated ἐφοβήθησαν.  Jesus took Peter, James, and John up a mountain.  And he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became white as light.  Then Moses and Elijah also appeared before them, talking with him.[15]  Peter, James and John took all this in stride.  They had been with Jesus awhile by then and were becoming somewhat accustomed to the spectacular and miraculous events that accompanied Him.

Peter offered to build three shelters (or, shrines) to honor Jesus, Moses and Elijah.  While he was still speaking, a bright cloud overshadowed them, and a voice from the cloud said, “This is my one dear Son, in whom I take great delight.  Listen to him!”  When the disciples heard this, they were overwhelmed with fear (ἐφοβήθησαν, a form of φοβέω) and threw themselves down with their faces to the ground.[16]  I don’t know how to write about the relationship of these two passages without first considering the Son of God.

I can’t help but feel a great sympathy for those who pursued a law of righteousness.[17]  About the time they got a really firm grasp on the fact that Yahweh was not like the gods of the nations, He visited them as a pagan myth, a Son of God.  Growing up I would have interpreted the statement, God has sent his one and only Son into the world so that we may live through him,[18] this way: “Yahweh has sent Jesus into the world so that we may live through Him.”  But the more seriously I take Jesus’ words, before Abraham came into existence, I am![19] the more I am compelled to acknowledge that it was Yahweh (He is; I am was literally the unspeakable name of God) who was sent into the world to be born as a human being named Jesus (the Greek translation of Yahweh saves in Hebrew) so that we may live through Him.  Then Yahweh/Jesus began to speak of another God, his Father, whom no one had known: no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son decides to reveal him.[20]

The voice that frightened Peter, James and John also spoke after Jesus’ baptism, This is my one dear Son; in him I take great delight.[21]  After Jesus walked on the water and calmed the storm, those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”[22]  Peter testified, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”  And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven!”[23]  Then he instructed his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.[24]  And as they came down the mountain after his transfiguration Jesus commanded them, “Do not tell anyone about the vision until the Son of Man is raised from the dead.”[25]  The reason for this gag order was fairly obvious (Matthew 26:63-66 NET):

The high priest said to [Jesus], “I charge you under oath by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God.”  Jesus said to him, “You have said it yourself.  But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”  Then the high priest tore his clothes and declared, “He has blasphemed!  Why do we still need witnesses?  Now you have heard the blasphemy!  What is your verdict?”  They answered, “He is guilty and deserves death.”

I was curious how the three carried out the Lord’s command to tell about the vision after Jesus’ resurrection.  James, John’s brother, didn’t write any of the New Testament and Herod had him executed with a sword[26] early in the first century.  Peter described Jesus as both Lord and Christ but did not mention the offensive Son of God in any of his recorded sermons in Acts.  In fact, in one sermon it seemed that Peter was still making Jesus equal to Moses: “Moses said, ‘The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your brothers.’”[27]  Did Peter not know that Moses was faithful in all God’s house as a servant…But Christ is faithful as a son over God’s house?[28]  Or am I in error when I assume that he was ascribing this prophecy to Christ, the Son of God?  Peter did however recount the story of the transfiguration in his second letter (2 Peter 1:16-18 NET):

For we did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we made known to you the power and return of our Lord Jesus Christ; no, we were eyewitnesses of his grandeur.  For he received honor and glory from God the Father, when that voice was conveyed to him by the Majestic Glory: “This is my dear Son, in whom I am delighted.”  When this voice was conveyed from heaven, we ourselves heard it, for we were with him on the holy mountain.

John was the one who wrote most forthrightly about Jesus as the Son of God.  In all fairness to Peter, John probably didn’t write any of these things until after 70 A.D. when the ecclesiastical power of those who pursued a law of righteousness was destroyed.  And this is where I began to see the relationship of the two fears (ἐφοβήθησαν).  Both groups of men were eyewitnesses to the mercy of God and both groups feared punishment because God’s mercy did not match their preconceptions (or their rulers’ preconceptions) of “what is,” or “how things should be.”  Despite all of God’s mercy toward him Jacob was most eloquent in his fear when he complained to his sons, You are making me childless!  Joseph is gone.  Simeon is gone.  And now you want to take Benjamin!  Everything is against me.[29]

[1] Genesis 35:16, 17 (NET)

[3] Matthew 9:2 (NET) Table

[4] Genesis 35:18 (NET)

[5] Genesis 37:26, 27 (NET)

[6] Genesis 42:6 (NET)

[7] Genesis 42:8, 9 (NET)

[8] Genesis 42:21, 22 (NET)

[9] Genesis 42:24a (NET)

[10] Genesis 42:24b, 25 (NET)

[11] Genesis 42:28b (NET)

[12] Genesis 42:30 (NET)

[13] Genesis 42:33, 34 (NET)

[14] Genesis 42:35 (NET)

[15] Matthew 17:2, 3 (NET)

[16] Matthew 17:5, 6 (NET)

[17] Romans 9:31 (NET)

[18] 1 John 4:9 (NET)

[19] John 8:58 (NET) Table

[20] Matthew 11:27b (NET)

[21] Matthew 3:17 (NET)

[22] Matthew 14:33 (NET)

[23] Matthew 16:16, 17 (NET)

[24] Matthew 16:20 (NET)

[25] Matthew 17:9 (NET)

[26] Acts 12:2 (NET)

[27] Acts 3:22a (NET)

[28] Hebrews 3:5, 6a (NET)

[29] Genesis 42:36 (NET)

Justice and Mercy

Posted on by

When I focused on God’s law as the primary revelation of his will, justice and mercy seemed like oppositional concepts.  Justice meant the uniform application of law (punishment mainly) and mercy was an exception to that uniform application.  As justice increased mercy decreased.  As mercy increased justice decreased (Fig. 1).

Slide 1

Fig. 1

Justice served as a limit on mercy as mercy limited justice.  So the righteousness of justice and mercy was a mean between these extremes, because justice was by definition unmerciful, at least in part, and mercy was by definition unjust, at least in part.  This made perfect sense to my religious mind, until I read the Bible.

Woe to you, experts in the law and you Pharisees, hypocrites, Jesus said.  You give a tenth of mint, dill, and cumin, yet you neglect what is more important in the law – justice (κρίσιν, a form of κρίσις), mercy (ἔλεος), and faithfulness (πίστιν, a form of πίστις)!  You should have done these things without neglecting the others.1  Love was added to this list in Luke’s Gospel account: But woe to you Pharisees!  You give a tenth of your mint, rue, and every herb, yet you neglect justice (κρίσιν) and love (ἀγάπην, a form of ἀγάπη) for God!2

How could mercy be both an exception to the uniform application of law and, along with justice and faithfulness, more important in the law than tithing mint, dill and cumin?  Jesus, it seemed, considered mercy part of the justice of the law rather than a limit upon it.  Go and learn what this saying means, He said, quoting Hosea, “I want mercy (ἔλεος) and not sacrifice.”  For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.3

#

Jesus (NET)

Blue Letter Bible (Septuagint)

NET Bible (Greek parallel text)

1

 I want mercy and not sacrifice

Matthew 9:13 (NET)

 ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν

Hosea 6:6

 ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν

Matthew 9:13

Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?4 the Pharisees had asked, revealing their concern over the possibility of defilement.5  When Jesus heard this he said, “Those who are healthy don’t need a physician, but those who are sick do,”6 revealing his concern for the mercy that was an important part of the law.  On another occasion Jesus went even further and told the Pharisees, If you had known what this means: “I want mercy (ἔλεος) and not sacrifice,” you would not have condemned the innocent.7  Jesus’ disciples had been gathering grain and eating the grain they had gathered on the Sabbath day.  It was about as direct a violation8 of the law of the Sabbath as I can imagine, but Jesus declared them innocent, adding that the Pharisees and I would agree with Him if we understood the mercy that was an important part of the law.

Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?9 an expert in religious law asked Jesus (Luke 10:26-28 NET).

He said to him, “What is written in the law?  How do you understand it?”  The expert answered, “Love (ἀγαπήσεις, a form of ἀγαπάω) the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.”  Jesus said to him, “You have answered correctly; do this, and you will live.”

The law expert asked for clarification of the term neighbor.  Jesus told a story:  A man…fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him up, and went off, leaving him half dead.10  Two other men passed the robbers’ victim by, but one man felt compassion for him.  He went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them.  Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.  The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, “Take care of him, and whatever else you spend, I will repay you when I come back this way.”11

Jesus asked, “Which of these three do you think became a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?”  The expert in religious law said, “The one who showed mercy (ἔλεος) to him.”  So Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”12  So mercy shown to a stranger defined the term neighbor, and became the justice of the law of loving God and one’s neighbor.  Beyond that this was the Gospel message in answer to the question, what must I do to inherit eternal life?  Clearly my religious mind was in error.

When Matthew quoted Isaiah his primary focus was on Jesus’ fulfillment of the part of the prophecy that read, He will not quarrel or cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets.13  Though, Great crowds followed [Jesus], and he healed them all…he sternly warned them not to make him known.14  I am more interested here in the rest of the prophecy: Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I take great delight.  I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice (κρίσιν) to the nations.15  He will not break a bruised reed or extinguish a smoldering wick, until he brings justice (κρίσιν) to victory.16  As I began to recognize Jesus as the primary revelation of God’s will my understanding of justice and mercy began to change.

Justice and mercy are not in opposition but joined like a category I could only call justice-mercy (Fig. 2).

Slide 2

Fig. 2

Though justice-mercy may not actually be infinite in its capacity to increase, it is virtually infinite relative to my naive understanding.  Probably it should be thought of as justice-mercy-faithfulness-love.  But I’m not clever enough to represent that concept graphically.

 

Addendum (6/24/2015): Jim Searcy has published that the Septuagint is a hoax written by Origen and Eusebius 200 hundred years after Christ.  “In fact, the Septuagint ‘quotes’ from the New Testament and not vice versa…”  His contention is that the “King James Version is the infallible Word of God.”  So, I’ll re-examine the quotations above with the KJV.

#

Jesus (KJV)

KJV

NET Bible (Greek parallel text)

1

 I will have mercy, and not sacrifice

Matthew 9:13 (KJV)

 I desired mercy, and not sacrifice

Hosea 6:6

 ἔλεος θέλω καὶ οὐ θυσίαν

Matthew 9:13

The KJV will have and desired, though different tenses, are admittedly closer than the NET: For I delight in faithfulness, not simply in sacrifice (Hosea 6:6a NET) and, I want mercy and not sacrifice (Matthew 9:13 NET).  If the present tense delight is incorrect relative to the past tense desired in Hebrew, this could be the first evidence I’ve discovered that the Septuagint quoted the New Testament.

The ASV, NKJV and NIV have desire (present), the DNT has delight (present), the GWT and TEV have want (present), TSMG am after (present), and YLT desired (past).  Young’s Literal Translation (YLT) carries some weight with me, but I don’t know any Hebrew to decide this for myself.

1 Matthew 23:23 (NET)

2 Luke 11:42 (NET)

3 Matthew 9:13 (NET)

4 Matthew 9:11 (NET)

6 Matthew 9:12 (NET)

7 Matthew 12:7 (NET)

8 Then the Lord said to Moses, “I am going to rain bread from heaven for you, and the people will go out and gather the amount for each day, so that I may test them.  Will they walk in my law or not?  On the sixth day they will prepare what they bring in, and it will be twice as much as they gather every other day.” (Exodus 16:4, 5 NET)

9 Luke 10:25 (NET)

10 Luke 10:30 (NET)

11 Luke 10:33-35 (NET)

12 Luke 10:36, 37 (NET)

13 Matthew 12:19 (NET)

14 Matthew 12:15b, 16 (NET)

15 Matthew 12:18 (NET)

16 Matthew 12:20 (NET)

Romans, Part 37

Posted on by

Brothers and sisters, Paul continued, my heart’s desire (εὐδοκία)[1] and prayer to God on behalf of my fellow Israelites is for their salvation.[2]  This sounds to me like the justice Paul nagged the Lord about, something he would always pray and not lose heart[3] over.  But the Greek word translated desire leads rather inexorably to Jesus’ strange prayer of praise and the revelation of his Father’s gracious will:  I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and revealed (ἀπεκάλυψας, a form of ἀποκαλύπτω)[4] them to little children.  Yes, Father, for this was your gracious will (εὐδοκία).[5]  I recognize the pattern:

MERCY

WRATH
So then, God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy…

Romans 9:18 (NET)

 …and he hardens whom he chooses to harden.

Romans 9:18 (NET)
[God] is willing to make known the wealth of his glory on the objects of mercy that he has prepared beforehand for glory

Romans 9:23 (NET)

 God, willing to demonstrate his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience the objects of wrath prepared for destruction

Romans 9:22 (NET)
[Those] who did not pursue righteousness obtained it, that is, a righteousness that is by faith

Romans 9:30 (NET)

 [Those] even though pursuing a law of righteousness did not attain it….Because they pursued it not by faith but (as if it were possible) by works

Romans 9:31, 32 (NET)
[The] Lord of heaven and earth…[has] revealed [these things] to little children [KJV, babes]

Matthew 11:25 (NET)

 [The] Lord of heaven and earth…[has] hidden these things from the wise and intelligent

Matthew 11:25 (NET)

So Jesus praised his Father, the Lord of heaven and earth, because his followers were neither wise nor intelligent, but like little children.  And little children might be overstating the case.  The Greek word νηπίοις[6] is a compound of νη (not) and ἔπος[7] (a word), not speaking, an infant.  But with that I begin to understand.  The wise and intelligent believe they know how, and expect, to do it for themselves.  Infants trust and expect someone who loves them to provide for them and, in fact, do it for them.

For I can testify that they are zealous for God, Paul continued, but their zeal is not in line with the truth (ἐπίγνωσιν, a form of ἐπίγνωσις).[8]  The word translated truth here was translated knowledge in, For this reason we also, from the day we heard about you, have not ceased praying for you and asking God to fill you with the knowledge (ἐπίγνωσιν) of his will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding…[9]  This truth or knowledge is the noun form of the verb ἐπιγινώσκω.[10]  All things have been handed over to me by my Father, Jesus continued.  No one knows (ἐπιγινώσκει, a form of ἐπιγινώσκω) the Son except the Father, and no one knows (ἐπιγινώσκει, a form of ἐπιγινώσκω) the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son decides (βούληται, a form of βούλομαι)[11] to reveal (ἀποκαλύψαι, another form of ἀποκαλύπτω) him.[12]

For ignoring (ἀγνοοῦντες, a form of ἀγνοέω;[13] literally being ignorant of, not knowing, misunderstanding) the righteousness that comes from God, Paul continued, and seeking instead to establish their own righteousness, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.[14]  Even after saying that no one knows his Father except those to whom the Son decides to reveal him, Jesus offered to teach the wise and intelligent, the hardened objects of wrath prepared for destruction, saying: Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened (πεφορτισμένοι, a form of φορτίζω),[15] and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke on you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.[16]  

I’m reminded of an old hymn[17] that begins, “Would you be free from the burden of sin?”  But I think in this case Jesus was addressing those who were weary and burdened pursuing a law of righteousness, seeking instead to establish their own righteousness.  They didn’t tend to think of themselves as having a burden of sin.  That was for others who didn’t work as hard as they did pursuing a law of righteousness.  For my yoke is easy to bear, and my load (φορτίον)[18] is not hard to carry,[19] Jesus concluded, relative to the load they were already carrying.

They tie up heavy loads (φορτία, a form of φορτίον), hard to carry, He said of the experts in the law and the Pharisees,[20] and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing even to lift a finger to move (κινῆσαι, a form of κινέω) [or, remove][21]) them.[22]  Woe to you experts in religious law, Jesus said.  You load (φορτίζετε, another form of φορτίζω) people down with burdens (phortion, φορτίον; specifically φορτία) difficult to bear, yet you yourselves refuse to touch the burdens (φορτίοις, another form of φορτίον) with even one of your fingers!”[23]  

For Christ is the end (τέλος)[24] of the law, with the result that there is righteousness for everyone who believes,[25] Paul concluded.  I certainly don’t believe that it is necessary to interpret the word τέλος as a termination here, putting Paul into direct conflict with the Lord Jesus: I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter will pass from the law until everything takes place.[26]  To interpret τέλος in the sense of aim or purpose of the law is much more in keeping with Paul’s own understanding that 1) the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous, and good;[27] 2) he himself would not have known sin except through the law;[28] 3) though no one is declared righteous before [God] by the works of the law, the law has an ongoing usefulness in that through the law comes the knowledge of sin;[29] and 4) we do not nullify the law through faith; Instead we uphold the law.[30]

Romans, Part 38

Back to Romans, Part 39

Back to Fear – Exodus, Part 1

Back to Son of God – John, Part 4

Back to Romans, Part 46

Back to Saving Demons, Part 2

[2] Romans 10:1 (NET) Table

[3] Luke 18:1 (NET)

[5] Matthew 11:25, 26 (NET)

[8] Romans 10:2 (NET)

[9] Colossians 1:9 (NET)

[12] Matthew 11:27 (NET)

[14] Romans 10:3 (NET)

[16] Matthew 11:28, 29 (NET)

[17] “There Is Power in the Blood,” by Lewis E. Jones, 1899  http://library.timelesstruths.org/music/There_Is_Power_in_the_Blood/

[19] Matthew 11:30 (NET)

[20] Matthew 23:2 (NET)

[21] Therefore, remember from what high state you have fallen and repent!  Do the deeds you did at the first; if not, I will come to you and remove (κινήσω, another form of κινέω) your lampstand from its place – that is, if you do not repent. (Revelation 2:5 NET)

[22] Matthew 23:4 (NET)

[23] Luke 11:46 (NET)

[25] Romans 10:4 (NET)

[26] Matthew 5:18 (NET)

[27] Romans 7:12 (NET)

[28] Romans 7:7 (NET)

[29] Romans 3:20 (NET)

[30] Romans 3:31 (NET)

Fear – Genesis, Part 5

Posted on by

I think I am safe using the word fear to describe Jacob’s prognostication that Simeon and Levi…had brought ruin on him by making him a foul odor among the inhabitants of the land, that the Canaanites and the Perizzites…would join forces against him and attack him, and both he and his family would be destroyed![1]  It was not a prophecy; it did not come to pass.  It was a rational appraisal of the likely response of men born of Adam (then Noah).  And it was a righteous expectation of the law God gave Noah and his sons after the flood (Genesis 9:5, 6 NET).

For your lifeblood I will surely exact punishment, from every living creature I will exact punishment.  From each person I will exact punishment for the life of the individual since the man was his relative.  Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God’s image God has made humankind.

Simeon and Levi had perpetrated the kind of violence that brought the flood in the first place (Genesis 6:11-13 NET).

The earth was ruined in the sight of God; the earth was filled with violence.[2]  God saw the earth, and indeed it was ruined, for all living creatures on the earth were sinful.  So God said to Noah, “I have decided that all living creatures must die, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.  Now I am about to destroy them and the earth.”

It is a fearful thing to contemplate a God with the power and the will for such destruction (Genesis 6:5-7 NET).

But 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.”

But if I take the Lord’s reasons and offense seriously, his relative tolerance of human evil after the flood is just as fearful a thing if in a different way (Genesis 8:21, 22 NET).

I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, even though the inclination of their minds is evil from childhood on.  I will never again destroy everything that lives, as I have just done.  While the earth continues to exist, planting time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night will not cease.

And thus the law: Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed.[3]

Though Simeon’s and Levi’s die hard antics seem more like justice for Dinah to my religious mind (compared to David’s inaction regarding Tamar, or Jacob’s silence), the most likely outcome for Dinah did not look good.  Both the evil of men and the righteousness of God’s law conspired to catch her up in the violent retribution due Simeon and Levi, or she might have become like one of the slave women her brothers took from Shechem.  But Jacob, Dinah, Simeon, Levi and all of their family found favor (or, grace) in the sight of the Lord.[4]

I have appropriated what the Bible said about Noah to Jacob, Dinah, Simeon, Levi and all of their family.  This would have been unthinkable to my religious mind.  It assumed that Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord because Noah was a godly man; he was blameless among his contemporaries.  He walked with God.[5]  Now I am more and more convinced that my religious mind had the cart before the horse.  Noah was a godly man, blameless among his contemporaries, and walked with God because Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord.  In that light it is not much of a stretch to see the similarity here.

Then God said to Jacob, “Go up at once to Bethel and live there.  Make an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau.”[6]  This was God’s solution despite the fact that Simeon and Levi at least (and perhaps at most) should have died according to his own law.  I am not accusing God of wrongdoing.  He never bound Himself to law when it came to showing favor or mercy.  I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy,[7] He said to Moses.  And when Paul analyzed the Gospel that my religious mind was so intent on converting to a new law, he reiterated that point and added, So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.[8]

So Jacob told his household and all who were with him, “Get rid of the foreign gods you have among you.  Purify yourselves and change your clothes.  Let us go up at once to Bethel.  Then I will make an altar there to God, who responded to me in my time of distress and has been with me wherever I went.”[9]

When I see it in this context the Gospel of Jesus Christ mitigates my fear concerning God’s “tolerance” of human evil after the flood.  The Gospel does not belong, and is perverted and misunderstood, in the world created by religious minds.  Where it belongs, where it becomes the righteousness of God through the faithfulness of Jesus Christ for all who believe[10] is in the real world of human sin.  I was surprised, given my religious prejudices, that Abel Ferrara and Zoë Lund had walked this ground before me in the movie she wrote and he directed “Bad Lieutenant” (1992), starring Harvey Keitel in the title role.

Bad LT was not merely a bad cop, he was a hardcore sinner, without natural affection.  Bad LT’s decadence was so demoralizing I cried out loud, “Why am I watching this?”  About that time one of the ‘B’ stories came to the forefront when Bad LT overheard a nun’s confession.

The nun had been raped on the altar in her church.  She seemed to react like any other woman might react while being raped.  She was a bit less modest in the examination room than I might have expected, but nothing so extreme that I did anything but note the fact.  Her confession, however, was totally unexpected.  A curious thing happens when someone actually believes she has been forgiven by the Sovereign God and that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose.[11]

“Those boys,” she said, “those sad raging boys.  They came to me as the needy do.  And like many of the needy they were rude.  Like all the needy they took.  And like all the needy they needed.  Father, I knew them.  They learn in our school and they play in our school yard and they are good boys….Jesus turned water to wine.  I ought to have turned bitter semen into fertile sperm, hatred to love, and maybe to have saved their souls.  [Bad LT exited then and did not hear the rest of her confession.]  They did not love me, but I ought to have loved them, for Jesus loved those who were vile to Him.  And never again shall I encounter two boys whose prayer was more poignant, more legible, more anguished.”

Later Bad LT came to speak to the nun as she prayed, first prostrate then on her knees, in church.  “Listen to me, Sister,” he said, “listen to me good.  The other cops will just put these guys through the system.  They’re juveniles.  They’ll walk.  But I’ll beat the system and do justice, real justice for you.”

“I have already forgiven them,” she replied.

“Come on, Lady.  These guys put out cigarette butts on your – Get with the program.  How could you—how could you forgive these motherfu—these, these guys?  Excuse me.  How could you?  Deep down inside don’t you want them to pay for what they did to you?  Don’t you want this crime avenged?”

“I’ve forgiven them.”

“But – do you have the right?  You’re not the only woman in the world.  You’re not even the only nun. You’re forgiveness will leave blood in its wake.  What if these guys do this to other nuns?  Other virgins? Old women who’ll die from the shock?  Do you have the right to let these boys go free?  Can you bear the burden, Sister?”

“Talk to Jesus,” she said.  “Pray.  You do believe in God, don’t you? that Jesus Christ died for your sins?”

The nun left Bad LT alone in the church.  He moaned and cried out from the floor.  Then he had a vision of Jesus.  First, he blamed Jesus for His perceived absence in Bad LT’s wretched life.  But eventually he begged for forgiveness and direction.  Suddenly Bad LT became the repentant thief on the cross.  Like the thief he had only hours to live.  Unlike the thief he was free to do one more thing.  His choice, to pass on some of the mercy the Lord and the nun had shown him, was at least as interesting as David’s choices concerning his sons Amnon and Absalom.

Jacob’s household and all who were with him gave Jacob all the foreign gods that were in their possession and the rings that were in their ears.  Jacob buried them under the oak near Shechem and they started on their journey.  The surrounding cities were afraid (chittâh;[12] Septuagint: φόβος[13]) of God, and they did not pursue the sons of Jacob.[14]  The note in the NET reads: “Heb ‘and the fear of God was upon the cities which were round about them.’ The expression ‘fear of God’ apparently refers (1) to a fear of God (objective genitive; God is the object of their fear). (2) But it could mean ‘fear from God,’ that is, fear which God placed in them (cf. NRSV “a terror from God”). Another option (3) is that the divine name is used as a superlative here, referring to ‘tremendous fear’ (cf. NEB ‘were panic-stricken’; NASB ‘a great terror’).”

[1] Genesis 34:30 (NET)

[2] A note in the NET reads: “The Hebrew word translated “violence” refers elsewhere to a broad range of crimes, including unjust treatment (Gen 16:5; Amos 3:10), injurious legal testimony (Deut 19:16), deadly assault (Gen 49:5), murder (Judg 9:24), and rape (Jer 13:22).”

[3] Genesis 9:6 (NET)

[4] A paraphrase of Genesis 6:8 (NET)

[5] Genesis 6:8, 9 (NET)

[6] Genesis 35:1 (NET)

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

[8] Romans 9:16 (NET)

[9] Genesis 35:2, 3 (NET)

[10] Romans 3:22 (NET)

[11] Romans 8:28 (NET)

[14] Genesis 35:4, 5 (NET)