My Reasons and My Reason, Part 2

Posted on by

I took my mother to see “Saving Mr. Banks” after Christmas.  We enjoyed it.  It was a well-done adult Disney movie.  (I wouldn’t recommend it for children.)  We’re both interested in the creative process so a movie about making a movie didn’t seem too masturbatory.  It was interesting to consider how P.L. Travers’ reservations about Walt Disney making “Mary Poppins” impacted the final project.  And it was enlightening to me that the “Let’s Go Fly a Kite” ending was born not of an idyllic childhood but of a troubled and conflicted relationship with fathers, both Disney’s and Travers’.

My mother and I hadn’t seen a movie together in a theater since “The Sound of Music.”  We almost didn’t see that.  She read a blurb in the paper that indicated it was about a “young prostitute.”  Later she read another that described Maria as a “young postulant” and chided herself for misreading the word.  Knowing my mother and her voracious reading habits, I doubt she mistook “postulant” for “prostitute.”  I suspect a typo in the first blurb.

We recalled how we had seen “Mary Poppins” at a matinee together with my younger brother and sister in the summer of 1965.  We liked it so much we stayed to watch it again.  We forgot about (and I missed) my ballgame that evening.  That was not easy to live down with my teammates.  Missing a game for “Goldfinger,” maybe, but “Mary Poppins” was definitely not cool.  I wasn’t permitted to see movies like “Goldfinger.”  I didn’t tell my teammates how I spent my time viewing the movie the second time.  Almost fifty years later I didn’t tell my mother either.

I was young enough that I still couldn’t predict a storyline.  The first time through I thought the movie was ending when Bert and Mary and Jane and Michael looked out over the city after climbing the stairs made of smoke.  All movies ended too soon to my childish mind.  I did feel the pathos of Mr. Banks’ situation and rejoice at his redemption once I saw it.  I just had no idea that it was coming.  Of course, “Saving Mr. Banks” informed me that his redemption was a late idea anyway.

What troubled me the second time through the film was Mary Poppins’ righteous indignation over the children’s concern that she had been “sacked.”  I didn’t know what “sacked” meant, but could glean from the context that it had something to do with losing her job.  But her reaction seemed too over-the-top for something so trifling.  (I was eleven.)  Before the movie ended the second time, I had satisfied myself with a definition for “sacked” that included Mary Poppins, naked, tied spread-eagle between the pillars in the entry foyer of the Banks’ home, and soundly whipped by Mr. Banks with a buggy whip.  That seemed sufficient to justify her reaction.

I laughed rather inappropriately a decade or so later watching the “The Story of O,” when the door at the top of the stairs opened to reveal the scene I had imagined as a child.  O had recreated it with the maid to educate a young man who wanted to rescue her from her slavery.  He gazed from her sweaty beaten body to the inexplicable look of her face.  The disheveled maid regarded him as an unwelcome intruder.  Obviously, she would resume beating O the moment he left.  This “harsh reality” was just too much for O’s would-be rescuer, so he fled.

I thought I might be dragged off in handcuffs from the Fine Arts Theater for watching “The Story of O.”  I thought maybe I deserved to be arrested and charged with something for enjoying it so much.  And I felt like that every time I saw it.  I saw it three different times with three different male friends.  But I was the only one who got it.  I knew something at twenty-two I didn’t know at eleven.  I didn’t want to beat O, necessarily, I wanted to be her.  We shared an intimate secret by then courtesy of my highschool girlfriend; namely, that we could be whipped into a euphoric state of submission.

O was the fictional creation of French author Anne Desclos, a.k.a. Dominique Aury, a.k.a. Pauline Réage.  She wrote it for her married lover, twenty-three years her senior.  “I wrote it alone, for him, to interest him, to please him, to occupy him….I wasn’t young, I wasn’t pretty, it was necessary to find other weapons…The physical side wasn’t enough.  The weapons, alas, were in the head….You’re always looking for ways to make it go on….The story of Scheherazade,[1] more or less.”[2]  Histoire d’O, its title in French, was first published in 1954.[3]

“The author said later,” according to Carmela Ciuraru,[4] “that Story of O, written when she was forty-seven, was based on her own fantasies…Some twenty years after the book came out, she admitted that her own joys and sorrows had informed it, but she had no idea just how much, and did not care to analyze anything.  ‘Story of O is a fairy tale for another world,’ she said, ‘a world where some part of me lived for a long time, a world that no longer exists except between the covers of a book.’”  Earlier, she had quoted the author, “‘By my makeup and temperament I wasn’t really prey to physical desires…Everything happened in my head.’”[5]

Ms. Ciuraru also quoted Susan Sontag, “the first major writer to recognize the novel’s merit and to defend it as a significant literary work….In her 1969 essay ‘The Pornographic Imagination,’ Sontag…compared sexual obsession (as expressed by Réage) with religious obsession: two sides of the same coin.  ‘Religion is probably, after sex, the second oldest resource which human beings have available to them for blowing their minds,’ she wrote.”

I can’t help but see the relationship to πορνεία[6] here as Ms. Ciuraru continued to highlight Sontag’s contribution:  “In her disciplined effort toward transcendence, O is not unlike a zealot giving herself to God.  O’s devotion to the task at hand takes the form of what might be described as spiritual fervor.  She loses herself entirely…”[7]  Then she connected this kind of πορνεία to death.

“If O is willing to sustain her devotion all the way through to her own destruction, so be it.  She wants to be ‘possessed, utterly possessed, to the point of death,’ to the point that her body and mind are no longer her responsibility.”[8]  I’ve not read the book, and this particular concept of possession was not clear to me from the movie I saw almost forty years ago.  One of the friends who saw it with me had a more filmic eye than mine and recognized the genre as horror, a monster movie.  Then I saw it as a tale of a damsel in distress who became a monster.

As O questioned whether her master could or would endure for her what she had endured for him, she branded him with an ‘O’ from a hot cigarette holder.  (She had been branded for him earlier in the film.)  She was both dominant and submissive, top and bottom, and I would be hard-pressed to decide if she was more masochistic or sadistic by my own understanding of the terms (fig. 4).

fig. 4

fig. 4

But in the above description—“She wants to be ‘possessed, utterly possessed, to the point of death,’ to the point that her body and mind are no longer her responsibility”—I perceive some insight from “The Story of O” into πορνεία as an ancient religion of the flesh, primarily as ironic contrast to being led by the Spirit.

Writing to the Corinthians about ancient Israel at Sinai, Paul said, God was not pleased with most of them, for they were cut down in the wilderness.  These things happened as examples for us, so that we will not crave evil things as they did.  So do not be idolaters, as some of them were.  As it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink and rose up to play.”  And let us not be immoral (πορνεύωμεν, a form of πορνεύω),[9] as some of them were (ἐπόρνευσαν, a form of πορνεύω), and twenty-three thousand died in a single day.[10]  Paul was fairly explicit here that the Israelites’ play to celebrate the golden calf was πορνεία, the noun which signifies what those who engage in πορνεύω do.

In college, the second time after I gave up writing “The Tripartite Rationality Index,” I read “The Sacred Fire, the story of sex in religion”, by B.Z. Goldberg[11] (the pen name of Benjamin Waife).  Goldberg, a journalist and managing editor of the Yiddish “the Day…found time to research in the field of psychology of religion” as he wrote a daily column on foreign affairs.  Of Baal, he wrote:

Baal was the one great abstract god of antiquity.[12] 

On the summit of every hill and under every green tree Baal is worshipped—the god whom people knew long before they had heard of Jehovah, the divinity whom they loved long after they had learned of the one and true God.[13] 

Baal was the greatest god of all, but what was Baal? How could one fathom this infinite mystery? Primitive man, limited in his thinking and circumscribed in his imagery, sought a concrete form for the mightiest of the gods. So he looked into the mirror of life and in the image of what he saw therein he created his Baal.[14]

The consummation, if you will, of this man-made religion, according to Goldberg, is “in the union of the sexes.”[15]

The songs grow wilder, the contortions of the bodies more frenzied, while the drum and the flute fill the air with passionate tones that steal into the hungry hearts of dancer and worshipper. The dances break up in chaotic revelry. Priestess and worshipper join in the merry-making. Tired, drunk, half-swooning, the dancer is still conscious of one thing: somebody will touch her navel—she must follow—but the coin; he must first give her a coin, the coin that is sacred to Baal. As she is trying to seat herself, hardly able to stand upon her feet, a worshipper touches her. She rises as if awakened from sleep. She follows him blindly into a tent, where both priestess and worshipper consummate the final crying prayer to Baal, the prayer of love.[16]

The instructor who employed me as a TA was a neo-pagan, a witch in his own words, who worshipped Celtic Baal.  The ligature marks on his wrists after a Samhain[17] celebration alerted me that πορνεία might be kinkier than Goldberg let on.  I didn’t call it πορνεία yet.  I only saw the relationship to ancient Israelite religion in the Old Testament.

O as a slave was naked.  When worshippers “entered the most sacred chamber and faced the statue of Baal, they would have to present themselves naked before their god.”[18]  (“Only a few laymen ever entered this vestibule, the holy of holies of the great god.”)[19]  Though the translations are disputed by the translators of the NET, the sight Moses witnessed according to the King James translators was that the people were naked; (for Aaron had made them naked unto their shame among their enemies).[20]  Or as John Nelson Darby (known as the father of Dispensationalism[21]) translated the verse: And Moses saw the people how they were stripped; for Aaron had stripped them to [their] shame before their adversaries.[22]

So in contradistinction to the nakedness of πορνεία as a religion of the flesh, God said, And you must not go up by steps to my altar, so that your nakedness is not exposed.[23]  Beyond that He told Moses to make undergarments for the priests to cover their naked bodies; they must cover from the waist to the thighs.[24]  Consider Leviticus 18:6-18 (NKJV) in this context:

None of you shall approach anyone who is near of kin to him, to uncover his nakedness: I am the Lord [Table].
The nakedness of your father or the nakedness of your mother you shall not uncover. She is your mother; you shall not uncover her nakedness [Table].
The nakedness of your father’s wife you shall not uncover; it is your father’s nakedness. [Table]
The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father, or the daughter of your mother, whether born at home or elsewhere, their nakedness you shall not uncover [Table].
The nakedness of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter, their nakedness you shall not uncover; for theirs is your own nakedness [Table].
The nakedness of your father’s wife’s daughter, begotten by your father—she is your sister—you shall not uncover her nakedness [Table].
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is near of kin to your father [Table].
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your mother’s sister, for she is near of kin to your mother [Table].
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s brother. You shall not approach his wife; she is your aunt [Table].
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law—she is your son’s wife—you shall not uncover her nakedness [Table].
You shall not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is your brother’s nakedness [Table].
You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter, nor shall you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness. They are near of kin to her. It is wickedness [Table].
Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive [Table].

The note in the NET claimed that to uncover nakedness “is clearly euphemistic for sexual intercourse,” and the translators translated the phrase have sexual intercourse.  They may be correct.  Consider, Nor shall you take a woman as a rival to her sister, to uncover her nakedness while the other is alive.  But the more literal translation seems pointedly addressed to familial Baal worship.

For the submissive masochist, however, nudity is the preferred state of being.  Even the humiliation of nakedness is a pleasure.  The wrath of God…revealed from heaven,[25] as Paul described it was, God gave [those who exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles[26]] over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.[27] Even in wrath there is mercy.

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, the writer of the letter to the Hebrews wrote, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart.  And no creature is hidden from God, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account.[28]  The truth of this image, being naked and accountable to God, that so horrifies my religious mind, is warm, familiar and comforting to my masochism.

[2] “The Story of the Story of O,” Carmela Ciuraru, Guernica / A Magazine of Art & Politics http://www.guernicamag.com/features/ciuraru_6_15_11/

[5] “The Story of the Story of O,” Carmela Ciuraru, Guernica / A Magazine of Art & Politics  http://www.guernicamag.com/features/ciuraru_6_15_11/

[7] “The Story of the Story of O,” Carmela Ciuraru, Guernica / A Magazine of Art & Politics http://www.guernicamag.com/features/ciuraru_6_15_11/

[8] “The Story of the Story of O,” Carmela Ciuraru, Guernica / A Magazine of Art & Politics http://www.guernicamag.com/features/ciuraru_6_15_11/

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

[12] “The Sacred Fire, the story of sex in religion”, B.Z. Goldberg, (1930) Book II, Chapter I, p. 145  http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/tsf/tsf08.htm

[13] “The Sacred Fire, the story of sex in religion”, B.Z. Goldberg, (1930) Book II, Chapter I, p. 144  http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/tsf/tsf08.htm

[14] “The Sacred Fire, the story of sex in religion”, B.Z. Goldberg, (1930) Book II, Chapter I, p. 145  http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/tsf/tsf08.htm

[15] “The Sacred Fire, the story of sex in religion”, B.Z. Goldberg, (1930) Book II, Chapter I, p. 147  http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/tsf/tsf08.htm

[16] “The Sacred Fire, the story of sex in religion”, B.Z. Goldberg, (1930) Book II, Chapter IV, p. 158  http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/tsf/tsf08.htm

[18] “The Sacred Fire, the story of sex in religion”, B.Z. Goldberg, (1930) Book II, Chapter III, p. 152  http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/tsf/tsf08.htm

[19] “The Sacred Fire, the story of sex in religion”, B.Z. Goldberg, (1930) Book II, Chapter IV, p. 154  http://www.sacred-texts.com/sex/tsf/tsf08.htm

[20] Exodus 32:25 (KJV)

[21] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEGe8EzygwM  In this YouTube clip a preacher condemned Darby to hell “according to the Bible” for modern biblical scholarship (deleting or changing words from the KJV).  The verses cited in his sermon (1 John 5:7; Acts 8:37; Luke 2:33; Colossians 1:14) are annotated in the NET.  Anyone can decide whether the arguments are valid or not.  I’m only concerned when changes are made without including the argument in a footnote.  I suppose my point here is that Darby and the translators of the KJV were in closer agreement with each other than with the translators of the NET.

[22] Exodus 32:25 (DNT)

[23] Exodus 20:26 (NET)

[24] Exodus 28:42 (NET)

[25] Romans 1:18 (NET)

[26] Romans 1:23 (NET)

[27] Romans 1:24 (NET) Table

[28] Hebrews 4:12, 13 (NET)

Fear – Numbers, Part 1

Posted on by

Why then were you not afraid (yârêʼ)[1] to speak against my servant Moses?[2] Jehovah asked Miriam and Aaron.  The rabbis who translated the Septuagint chose ἐφοβήθητε[3] here.  Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman he had married (for he had married an Ethiopian woman).[4]  It’s not clear to me whether they meant Zipporah[5] and were dredging up ancient history, or if Moses took a second wife who was not descended from Israel [See: The Law of the High Priest Leviticus 21:10-15 (NET)].  “Has the Lord only spoken through Moses?  Has he not also spoken through us?”[6] Miriam and Aaron said.

The Lord said (Numbers 12:6-8 NET):

“Hear now my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord will make myself known to him in a vision; I will speak with him in a dream.  My servant Moses is not like this; he is faithful in all my house.  With him I will speak face to face, openly, and not in riddles; and he will see the form of the Lord.  Why then were you not afraid to speak against my servant Moses?”

I want to quote Philo of Alexandria, “a Hellenized Jew,”[7] on Moses, because 1) he lived in the first century (c. 20 BCE – 40 CE), a contemporary of Jesus; 2) he compiled some of the extra-biblical things the rabbis were telling themselves about Moses; and, 3) his writings were apparently influential to some of the church fathers.  Here is some of what the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has to say about Philo: [8]

When Hebrew mythical thought met Greek philosophical thought in the first century B.C.E. it was only natural that someone would try to develop speculative and philosophical justification for Judaism in terms of Greek philosophy.  Thus Philo produced a synthesis of both traditions developing concepts for future Hellenistic interpretation of messianic Hebrew thought, especially by Clement of Alexandria, Christian Apologists like Athenagoras, Theophilus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and by Origen.…In the process, he laid the foundations for the development of Christianity in the West and in the East, as we know it today.  Philo’s primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity.  The church preserved the Philonic writings because Eusebius of Caesarea labeled the monastic ascetic group of Therapeutae and Therapeutrides, described in Philo’s The Contemplative Life, as Christians, which is highly unlikely.

“I have conceived the idea of writing the life of Moses,” Philo wrote, “the greatest and most perfect man that ever lived…”[9]  “I…shall proceed to narrate the events which befell him, having learnt them both from those sacred scriptures which he has left as marvellous memorials of his wisdom, and having also heard many things from the elders of my nation, for I have continually connected together what I have heard with what I have read, and in this way I look upon it that I am acquainted with the history of his life more accurately than other people.”[10]

“[H]is father and mother were among the most excellent persons of their time…”[11]  “[T]he child Moses, as soon as he was born, displayed a more beautiful and noble form than usual…”[12]  He “was not, like a mere child, long delighted with toys and objects of laughter and amusement…but he himself exhibited a modest and dignified deportment in all his words and gestures, attending diligently to every lesson of every kind which could tend to the improvement of his mind.”[13]

“And immediately he had all kinds of masters, one after another, some coming of their own accord from the neighbouring countries and the different districts of Egypt, and some being even procured from Greece by the temptation of large presents.  But in a short time he surpassed all their knowledge, anticipating all their lessons by the excellent natural endowments of his own genius; so that everything in his case appeared to be a [r]ecollecting rather than a learning, while he himself also, without any teacher, comprehended by his instinctive genius many difficult subjects; for great abilities cut out for themselves many new roads to knowledge.”[14]

And when he had passed the boundaries of the age of infancy he began to exercise his intellect; not, as some people do, letting his youthful passions roam at large without restraint, although in him they had ten thousand incentives by reason of the abundant means for the gratification of them which royal places supply; but he behaved with temperance and fortitude, as though he had bound them with reins, and thus he restrained their onward impetuosity by force.  And he tamed, and appeased, and brought under due command every one of the other passions which are naturally and as far as they are themselves concerned frantic, and violent, and unmanageable.  And if any one of them at all excited itself and endeavoured to get free from restraint he administered severe punishment to it, reproving it with severity of language; and, in short, he repressed all the principal impulses and most violent affections of the soul, and kept guard over them as over a restive horse, fearing lest they might break all bounds and get beyond the power of reason which ought to be their guide to restrain them, and so throw everything everywhere into confusion.[15]

So Moses was most beautiful, most intelligent and most self-righteous, according to the stories Philo heard “from the elders of my nation.”  And in the Bible I read, Now the man Moses was very humble, more so than any man on the face of the earth.[16]  I can imagine how difficult it was for the most humble man on the face of the earth to write that sentence.  One of the translators of the NET mused on this in a note:[17]

Humility is a quality missing today in many leaders.  Far too many are self-promoting, or competitive, or even pompous.  The statement in this passage would have been difficult for Moses to write – and indeed, it is not impossible that an editor might have added it.  One might think that for someone to claim to be humble is an arrogant act.  But the statement is one of fact – he was not self-assertive (until Num 20 when he strikes the rock).

But it is impossible for me to imagine that the most humble man on the face of the earth refused to write that sentence if the Lord told him to write it, face to face.  Though first century religious thinkers may have found it impossible to imagine that Jehovah could have such a profound relationship with anyone who was anything other than most beautiful, most intelligent and most self-righteous, I’m betting on the Bible and most humble.  I think the facts bear me out.

When the Israelites tired of eating manna and cried out for meat, Moses heard the people weeping throughout their families, everyone at the door of his tent; and when the anger of the Lord was kindled greatly, Moses was also displeased.[18]  And Moses said to the Lord (Numbers 11:11-15 NET):

“Why have you afflicted your servant?  Why have I not found favor in your sight, that you lay the burden of this entire people on me?  Did I conceive this entire people?  Did I give birth to them, that you should say to me, ‘Carry them in your arms, as a foster father bears a nursing child,’ to the land which you swore to their fathers?  From where shall I get meat to give to this entire people, for they cry to me, ‘Give us meat, that we may eat!’  I am not able to bear this entire people alone, because it is too heavy for me!  But if you are going to deal with me like this, then kill me immediately.  If I have found favor in your sight then do not let me see my trouble.”

The Lord told Moses to select seventy elders of the people, and said, I will take part of the spirit that is on you, and will put it on them, and they will bear some of the burden of the people with you, so that you do not bear it all by yourself.[19]  This is the first I’ve heard that God’s Spirit was on Moses.  It was stated explicitly of Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, and Oholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan (Exodus 31:1-11 NET):

The Lord spoke to Moses: “See, I have chosen Bezalel son of Uri, the son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah, and I have filled him with the Spirit of God in skill, in understanding, in knowledge, and in all kinds of craftsmanship, to make artistic designs for work with gold, with silver, and with bronze, and with cutting and setting stone, and with cutting wood, to work in all kinds of craftsmanship.  Moreover, I have also given him Oholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan, and I have given ability to all the specially skilled, that they may make everything I have commanded you: the tent of meeting, the ark of the testimony, the atonement lid that is on it, all the furnishings of the tent, the table with its utensils, the pure lampstand with all its utensils, the altar of incense, the altar for the burnt offering with all its utensils, the large basin with its base, the woven garments, the holy garments for Aaron the priest and the garments for his sons, to minister as priests, the anointing oil, and sweet incense for the Holy Place. They will make all these things just as I have commanded you.”

Only sixty-eight of the seventy elders Moses chose appeared before the Lord at the Tabernacle.  When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied, but did not do so again.[20]  Eldad and Medad, two who were among those in the registration, but had remained behind prophesied in the camp.[21]  When Joshua heard about it, he said, “My lord Moses, stop them!”[22]

The most humble man on the face of the earth replied, “Are you jealous for me?  I wish that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that the Lord would put his Spirit on them!”[23]

Why then were you not afraid (yârêʼ) to speak against my servant Moses? Jehovah asked Miriam and Aaron.  As He departed He helped them acquire the fear they lacked.  Miriam became leprous as snow.[24]

Immediately Aaron begged Moses, “O my lord, please do not hold this sin against us, in which we have acted foolishly and have sinned!  Do not let her be like a baby born dead, whose flesh is half-consumed when it comes out of its mother’s womb!”[25]

The most humble man on the face of the earth cried to the Lord, “Heal her now, O God.”[26]

But the Lord said to Moses, “If her father had only spit in her face, would she not have been disgraced for seven days?  Shut her out from the camp seven days, and afterward she can be brought back in again.”  So Miriam was shut outside of the camp for seven days, and the people did not journey on until Miriam was brought back in.[27]

Fear – Numbers, Part 2

Back to Fear – Deuteronomy, Part 1

[2] Numbers 12:8b (NET)

[3] Φοβέω, aorist, middle, indicative, plural, second  http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CF%86%CE%BF%CE%B2%CE%AD%CF%89

[4] Numbers 12:1 (NET)

[6] Numbers 12:2 (NET)

[9] Philo, On The Life of Moses, I, I. (1) http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/yonge/book24.html

[10] Philo, On The Life of Moses, I, I. (4)

[11] Philo, On The Life of Moses, I, II. (7)

[12] Philo, On The Life of Moses, I, III. (9)

[13] Philo, On The Life of Moses, I, V. (20)

[14] Philo, On The Life of Moses, I, V. (21, 22)

[15] Philo, On The Life of Moses, I, VI. (25, 26)

[16] Numbers 12:3 (NET)

[17] Note 9, sn

[18] Numbers 11:10 (NET)

[19] Numbers 11:17 (NET)

[20] Numbers 11:25b (NET)

[21] Numbers 11:26 (NET)

[22] Numbers 11:28 (NET)

[23] Numbers 11:29 (NET)

[24] Numbers 12:10 (NET)

[25] Numbers 12:11, 12 (NET)

[26] Numbers 12:13 (NET)

[27] Numbers 12:14, 15 (NET)

Romans, Part 50

Posted on by

Love must be without hypocrisy,[1] Paul continued.  Actually, he wrote, Ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος.  Paul wrote a lot about ἀγάπη.[2]  Love (ἀγάπη) does no wrong to a neighbor.  Therefore love (ἀγάπη) is the fulfillment of the law.[3]  What do you want? He asked the Corinthians.  Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline or with love (ἀγάπῃ) and a spirit of gentleness?[4] He not only contrasted ἀγάπῃ to a rod of discipline but to knowledge: Knowledge puffs up (φυσιοῖ, a form of φυσιόω),[5] but love (ἀγάπη) builds up.[6]

Love (ἀγάπη) is patient, love (ἀγάπη) is kind, it is not envious.  Love does not brag, it is not puffed up (φυσιοῦται, a form of φυσιόω).  It is not rude, it is not self-serving, it is not easily angered or resentful.  It is not glad about injustice, but rejoices in the truth.  It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures (ὑπομένει, a form of ὑπομένω)[7] all things.[8]  Love (ἀγάπη) never ends.[9]  And now these three remain: faith, hope, and love (ἀγάπη).  But the greatest of these is love (ἀγάπη).[10]  Everything you do should be done in love (ἀγάπῃ).[11]

For the love (ἀγάπη) of Christ controls us, he continued to believers in Corinth, since we have concluded this, that Christ died for all; therefore all have died.  And he died for all so that those who live should no longer live for themselves but for him who died for them and was raised.[12]  One of the ways Paul and his associates commended themselves was by genuine love (2 Corinthians 6:3-10 NET):

We do not give anyone an occasion for taking an offense in anything, so that no fault may be found with our ministry.  But as God’s servants, we have commended ourselves in every way, with great endurance, in persecutions, in difficulties, in distresses, in beatings, in imprisonments, in riots, in troubles, in sleepless nights, in hunger, by purity, by knowledge, by patience, by benevolence, by the Holy Spirit, by genuine (ἀνυποκρίτῳ, a form of ἀνυπόκριτος)[13] love (ἀγάπῃ), by truthful teaching, by the power of God, with weapons of righteousness both for the right hand and for the left, through glory and dishonor, through slander and praise; regarded as impostors, and yet true; as unknown, and yet well-known; as dying and yet – see! – we continue to live; as those who are scourged and yet not executed; as sorrowful, but always rejoicing, as poor, but making many rich, as having nothing, and yet possessing everything.

God’s love (ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ) was part of Paul’s benediction to the Corinthians: The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God (καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ θεοῦ; literally, “and this love of God’s”) and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all.[14]  God’s love comes to me as the fruit of his Spirit: the fruit (καρπὸς)[15] of the Spirit is love (ἀγάπη), joy (χαρὰ),[16] peace (εἰρήνη),[17] patience (μακροθυμία),[18] kindness, goodness, faithfulness (πίστις),[19] gentleness (πραΰτης),[20] and self-control.  Against such things there is no law.[21]  Blessed is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly realms in Christ.  For he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world that we may be holy and unblemished in his sight in love (ἀγάπῃ).[22]

Paul prayed for the Ephesians that according to the wealth of his glory [the Father] may grant you to be strengthened with power through his Spirit in the inner person, that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith (πίστεως, a form of πίστις), so that, because you have been rooted and grounded in love (ἀγάπῃ), you may be able to comprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth, and thus to know the love (ἀγάπην, a form of ἀγάπη) of Christ that surpasses knowledge, so that you may be filled up to all the fullness of God.[23]  I, therefore, the prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live worthily of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness (πραΰτητος, a form of πραΰτης), with patience (μακροθυμίας, a form of μακροθυμία), bearing with one another in love (ἀγάπῃ), making every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (εἰρήνης, a form of εἰρήνη).[24]

So we are no longer to be children, Paul concluded for the Ephesians, tossed back and forth by waves and carried about by every wind of teaching by the trickery of people who craftily carry out their deceitful schemes.  But practicing the truth in love (ἀγάπῃ), we will in all things grow up into Christ, who is the head.  From him the whole body grows, fitted and held together through every supporting ligament.  As each one does its part, the body grows in love (ἀγάπῃ).[25]  Therefore, be imitators of God as dearly loved (ἀγαπητὰ, a form of ἀγαπητός)[26] children and live in love (ἀγάπῃ), just as Christ also loved (ἠγάπησεν, a form of ἀγαπάω) us and gave himself for us, a sacrificial and fragrant offering to God.[27]  Peace (Εἰρήνη) to the brothers and sisters, and love (ἀγάπη) with faith (πίστεως, a form of πίστις), from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.[28]

And I pray this, Paul wrote the Philippians, that your love (ἀγάπη) may abound even more and more in knowledge and every kind of insight so that you can decide what is best, and thus be sincere and blameless for the day of Christ, filled with the fruit (καρπὸν, a form of καρπός) of righteousness [love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control] that comes through Jesus Christ to the glory and praise of God.[29]  My goal, he wrote the Colossians, is that their hearts, having been knit together in love (ἀγάπῃ), may be encouraged, and that they may have all the riches that assurance brings in their understanding of the knowledge of the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.[30]

To the church at Thessalonica Paul wrote: And may the Lord cause you to increase and abound in love (ἀγάπῃ) for one another and for all, just as we do for you, so that your hearts are strengthened in holiness to be blameless before our God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints.[31]  We ought to thank God always for you, brothers and sisters, and rightly so, because your faith (πίστις) flourishes more and more and the love (ἀγάπη) of each one of you all for one another is ever greater.  As a result we ourselves boast about you in the churches of God for your perseverance and faith (πίστεως, a form of πίστις) in all the persecutions and afflictions you are enduring.[32]

But the aim of our instruction, Paul wrote Timothy, is love (ἀγάπη) that comes from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere (ἀνυποκρίτου, a form of ἀνυπόκριτος) faith (πίστεως, a form of πίστις).[33]  I recall your sincere (ἀνυποκρίτου, a form of ἀνυπόκριτος) faith (πίστεως, a form of πίστις) that was alive first in your grandmother Lois and in your mother Eunice, and I am sure is in you.[34]  This sincere faith (πίστεως ἀνυποκρίτου, ἀνυποκρίτου πίστεως), as opposed to a hypocritical faith, comes from God in Christ through the fruit of the Holy Spirit, not from myself.  This love without hypocrisy (Ἡ ἀγάπη ἀνυπόκριτος) shares the same origin, the same path and delivery method.

Let no one look down on you because you are young, Paul admonished Timothy, but set an example for the believers in your speech, conduct, love (ἀγάπῃ), faithfulness (πίστει, a form of πίστις), and purity.[35]  Hold to the standard of sound (ὑγιαινόντων, a form of ὑγιαίνω)[36] words that you heard from me and do so with the faith (πίστει, a form of πίστις) and love (ἀγάπῃ) that are in Christ Jesus.  Protect that good thing entrusted to you, through the Holy Spirit who lives within us.[37]

Jesus warned us what was coming: Then they will hand you over to be persecuted and will kill you.  You will be hated by all the nations because of my name.  Then many will be led into sin, and they will betray one another and hate one another.  And many false prophets will appear and deceive many, and because lawlessness will increase so much, the love (ἀγάπη) of many will grow cold.  But the person who endures (ὑπομείνας, a form of ὑπομένω) to the end will be saved.[38]  This love without hypocrisy bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures (ὑπομένει, a form of ὑπομένω) all things.[39]

Just as the Father has loved (ἠγάπησεν, a form of ἀγαπάω)[40] me, Jesus said, I have also loved (ἠγάπησα, another form of ἀγαπάω) you; remain in my love (ἀγάπῃ).  If you obey my commandments (ἐντολάς, a form of ἐντολή),[41] you will remain in my love (ἀγάπῃ), just as I have obeyed my Father’s commandments (ἐντολάς, a form of ἐντολή) and remain in his love (ἀγάπῃ).  I have told you these things so that my joy (χαρὰ) may be in you, and your joy (χαρὰ) may be complete.  My commandment (ἐντολὴ) is this – to love (ἀγαπᾶτε, a form of ἀγαπάω) one another just as I have loved (ἠγάπησα, a form of ἀγαπάω) you.[42]

As I’ve written before it is axiomatic to me that the way Jesus loved us was through that same love He received from the Holy Spirit that descended like a dove from heaven, and…remained on him.[43]  He prayed as much to his Father if one has ears to hear: I made known your name to them, and I will continue to make it known, so that the love (ἀγάπη) you have loved (ἠγάπησας, a form of ἀγαπάω) me with may be in them, and I may be in them.[44]

Writing to the Corinthians about giving, Paul mentioned something about ἀγάπῃ which troubled the NET translators: But as you excel in everything – in faith (πίστει, a form of πίστις), in speech, in knowledge, and in all eagerness and in the love (ἀγάπῃ) from us that is in you – make sure that you excel in this act of kindness too.[45]  The note in the NET reads:

“The reading ‘the love from us that is in you’ is very difficult in this context, for Paul is here enumerating the Corinthians’ attributes: How is it possible for them to excel ‘in the love from us that is in you’?  Most likely, because of this difficulty, several early scribes, as well as most later ones…altered the text to read “your love for us” (so NIV; Grk ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐν ἡμῖν ἀγάπῃ).  The reading ἐξ ἡμῶν ἐν ὑμῖν ἀγάπῃ is found, however, in excellent and early witnesses….As the harder reading it explains the rise of the other reading.  What, then, is the force of ‘in the love from us that is in you’?  Most likely, Paul is commending the Corinthians for excelling in deriving some inspiration from the apostles’ love for them.”

Now, I don’t think Paul was suddenly taking credit for the fruit of the Spirit—the love from us that is in you.  I believe he meant the love from God that he taught them. You, however, have followed my teaching, he wrote Timothy, my way of life, my purpose, my faith (πίστει, a form of πίστις), my patience (μακροθυμίᾳ), my love (ἀγάπῃ), my endurance, as well as the persecutions and sufferings that happened to me in Antioch, in Iconium, and in Lystra.[46]  It seems to me a more literal translation of the Greek here would have been: “You, however, have followed [this] teaching [of mine], [this] way of life, [this] purpose, [this] faith, [this] patience, [this] love, [this] endurance…”  And this love from Paul’s teaching was in them because they believed.

And that is the key for us, too.  Now without faith (πίστεως, a form of πίστις) it is impossible to please him, for the one who approaches God must believe that he exists…[47]  To come to know and to believe the love (ἀγάπην, a form of ἀγάπη) that God has in us[48] we must first believe that it is there for us.  It’s a little like learning to float.  I had to learn to trust the water, that it would bear me up.  And I had to reject the testimony of those who claimed otherwise.

[1] Romans 12:9a (NET)

[3] Romans 13:10 (NET)

[4] 1 Corinthians 4:21 (NET)

[6] 1 Corinthians 8:1b (NET)

[8] 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 (NET)

[9] 1 Corinthians 13:8a (NET)

[10] 1 Corinthians 13:13 (NET)

[11] 1 Corinthians 16:14 (NET)

[12] 2 Corinthians 5:14, 15 (NET)

[14] 2 Corinthians 13:13 (NET)

[21] Galatians 5:22, 23 (NET)

[22] Ephesians 1:3, 4 (NET)

[23] Ephesians 3:16-19 (NET)

[24] Ephesians 4:1-3 (NET)

[25] Ephesians 4:14-16 (NET)

[27] Ephesians 5:1, 2 (NET)

[28] Ephesians 6:23 (NET)

[29] Philippians 1:9-11 (NET)

[30] Colossians 2:2, 3 (NET)

[31] 1 Thessalonians 3:12, 13 (NET)

[32] 2 Thessalonians 1:3, 4 (NET)

[33] 1 Timothy 1:5 (NET)

[34] 2 Timothy 1:5 (NET)

[35] 1 Timothy 4:12 (NET)

[37] 2 Timothy 1:13, 14 (NET)

[38] Matthew 24:9-12 (NET)

[39] 1 Corinthians 13:7 (NET)

[42] John 15:9-12 (NET)

[43] John 1:32 (NET)

[44] John17:26 (NET)

[45] 2 Corinthians 8:7 (NET)

[46] 2 Timothy 3:10, 11a (NET)

[47] Hebrews 11:6 (NET)

[48] 1 John 4:16a (NET) Table

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 4

Posted on by

Then Jesus began to criticize openly the cities in which he had done many of his miracles, because they did not repent.  “Woe to you, Chorazin!  Woe to you, Bethsaida!  If the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.  But I tell you, it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως) than for you![1]

Here, potentially, I have another instance where more bearable meant that fewer people rise up at the judgment to condemn the inhabitants of Tyre and Sidon than the inhabitants of Chorazin and Bethsaida, those who witnessed Jesus’ miracles and yet rejected his message.  The same may be true of Capernaum relative to Sodom (Matthew 11:23, 24 NET).

And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven?  No, you will be thrown down to Hades!  For if the miracles done among you had been done in Sodom, it would have continued to this day.  But I tell you, it will be more bearable for the region (γῇ)[2] of Sodom on the day of judgment (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως) than for you!

But all of this assumes that my intuition that κρίσεως[3] is limited to judgment and does not expand to mean condemnation is correct.  In Revelation κρίσεως may mean condemnation as I understand it: Then I saw another angel flying directly overhead, and he had an eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth – to every nation, tribe, language, and people.  He declared in a loud voice: “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment (ἡ ὥρα[4] τῆς κρίσεως αὐτοῦ) has arrived, and worship the one who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water!”[5]

Granted, the first thing that happens after the announcement of the hour of his judgment is a distinction I recognize as judgment.  One like a son of man seated on a cloud reaped the harvest of the earth for some unspecified purpose, at the command of an angel who came out of the temple in heaven.[6]  Then another angel came out of the temple in heaven and reaped the earth at the command of another angel who was in charge of the fire.  Those harvested in this way were the grapes from the vineyard of the earth, and were tossed into the great winepress of the wrath of God.[7]

So far so good.  But what I would consider the condemnation of the great winepress of the wrath of God was spelled out in some detail later as the seven bowls containing God’s wrath.

First Bowl

Revelation 16:2 (NET)

 …ugly and painful sores appeared on the people who had the mark of the beast and who worshiped his image.
Second Bowl

Revelation 16:3 (NET)

 …the sea…turned into blood, like that of a corpse, and every living creature that was in the sea died.
Third Bowl

Revelation 16:4-7 (NET)

 …the rivers and the springs of water…turned into blood.
Fourth Bowl

Revelation 16:8, 9 (NET)

 …the sun…was permitted to scorch people with fire.
Fifth Bowl

Revelation 16:10, 11 (NET)

 …on the throne of the beast so that darkness covered his kingdom, and people began to bite their tongues because of their pain.
Sixth Bowl

Revelation 16:12-16 (NET)

 …on the great river Euphrates and dried up its water to prepare the way for the kings from the east.
Seventh Bowl

Revelation 16:17-21 (NET)

 Then there were flashes of lightning, roaring, and crashes of thunder, and there was a tremendous earthquake – an earthquake unequaled since humanity has been on the earth, so tremendous was that earthquake.  The great city was split into three parts and the cities of the nations collapsed….Every island fled away and no mountains could be found.  And gigantic hailstones, weighing about a hundred pounds each, fell from heaven on people…

After the third bowl containing God’s wrath John recorded:  Now I heard the angel of the waters saying: “You are just – the one who is and who was, the Holy One – because (ὅτι)[8] you have passed these judgments (ἔκρινας, a form of κρίνω),[9] because (ὅτι) they poured out the blood of your saints and prophets, so you have given them blood to drink.  They got what they deserved!”  Then I heard the altar reply, “Yes, Lord God, the All-Powerful, your judgments (κρίσεις, a form of κρίσις)[10] are true and just!”[11]  Here both κρίνω and κρίσις were used for the adverse sentence, condemnation as I understand it.  It makes my careful distinctions moot.

I don’t recant because: 1) I’m not comfortable deriving the meaning of words from the most esoteric and figurative book in the Bible; and 2) the angel’s reasoning sounds vaguely demonic to me.  (And, yes, I recognize the audacity of that statement.)  Perhaps that is all demonic means.  Perhaps a demon is nothing more than an angel who has elevated his own reasoning above the will and word of God.  But I don’t believe that God is just or righteous because he passed these judgments (KJV, hast judged thus).

I don’t believe that God is just or righteous because He conforms to some abstract conception of justice or righteousness: they poured out the blood of your saints and prophets, so you have given them blood to drink.  They got what they deserved!  I believe that God is just and righteous because he is the Holy One, who is and who was.  What He does, how He judges, is just or righteous because of who He is.  Let God be proven true, and every human being shown up as a liar, Paul wrote the Romans, just as it is written: “so that you will be justified in your words and will prevail when you are judged.”[12]  But I suspect here that God is judged not only by human beings, but by angels.  Or, perhaps, ὅτι should have been translated—regarding the fact that—as in Acts 13:34 (NET).

But regarding the fact that (ὅτι) he has raised Jesus from the dead, never again to be in a state of decay, God has spoken in this way: “I will give you the holy and trustworthy promises made to David.”

I don’t have any issue with the altar’s reply—Yes, Lord God, the All-Powerful, your judgments are true and just!—except its tacit and uncritical acceptance of the angel’s reasoning (if his statement is translated correctly).  And, no, I’m not particularly troubled by a living altar in heaven capable of speech and reason.

Perhaps Genesis 1:11 and 12 is simply a poetic and figurative way of expressing God’s creation of plant life on the earth, or perhaps it is meant to be understood as God’s way of expressing how He created a living earth with a God-given ability to create plant life.  What is conspicuously absent from the text is any mention of God’s direct action in the creation of plant life, as is the case of animals in the sea and birds in the air (Genesis 1:21), animals on the earth (Genesis 1:25) and human beings (Genesis 1:26).  Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live before him,[13] Jesus said in a different but potentially related context.

If the angel flying directly overhead had the seven bowls in mind, condemnation as I understand it, when he said ἡ ὥρα τῆς κρίσεως αὐτοῦ (the hour of his judgment) then Jesus’ contrasts may have a different meaning as well.  The regions of Sodom, Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon may be places of refuge from ugly and painful sores, rivers and springs of water turned into blood, and the scorching fire of the sun relative to Chorazin, Behtsaida, Capernaum or any town in Israel where the inhabitants rejected Jesus’ disciples’ message, The kingdom of heaven is near!  That is, of course, if the angel flying directly overhead was reasoning correctly and not thinking as backwards as the angel of the waters (if the angel of the waters was translated correctly).  So I’m conflicted here and continue in the spirit of giving the angel flying directly overhead the benefit of the doubt.

“Fear God and give him glory, the angel flying directly overhead said, because the hour of his judgment (ἡ ὥρα τῆς κρίσεως αὐτοῦ) has arrived, and worship the one who made heaven and earth, the sea and the springs of water!”  After the fourth bowl was poured out, 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.[14]  After the fifth bowl, 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.[15]  After the seventh bowl, 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.[16]  This makes it more plausible that κρίσεως here meant the condemnation of the seven bowls, the great winepress of the wrath of God, and not merely the judgment of Revelation 14:14-19.

In that case, however, I would tend to understand Jesus’ words like this: Furthermore, the Father does not [condemn (κρίνει, a form of κρίνω)] anyone, but has assigned all [condemnation (κρίσιν, a form of κρίσις)] to the Son…[17]  For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself, and he has granted the Son authority to execute (ποιεῖν, a form of ποιέω)[18] [condemnation (κρίσιν, a form of κρίσις)], because he is the Son of Man.[19]  The writer of Hebrews would have written, And just as people are appointed to die once, and then to face [condemnation (κρίσις)], so also, after Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many, to those who eagerly await him he will appear a second time, not to bear sin but to bring salvation.[20]

I’ve been through this before.[21]  This is why I would like to keep κρίνω as judge rather than condemn (κατακρίνω),[22] and κρίσις as judgment rather than condemnation (κατάκρισις,[23] κατάκριμα[24]).  Though I suppose it doesn’t matter really whether the Father assigned all judgment or all condemnation to the Son, or whether He has the authority to execute judgment or condemnation, if He does not judge or condemn the world because God sent Him into the world…that the world should be saved through him[25] instead.

Condemnation of Judgment? – Part 5

Back to Justice, Vengeance and Punishment

 

[1] Matthew 11:20-22 (NET)

[5] Revelation 14:6, 7 (NET)

[6] Revelation 14:14-16 (NET)

[7] Revelation 14:17-19 (NET)

[11] Revelation 16:5-7 (NET)

[12] Romans 3:4 (NET)

[13] Luke 20:38 (NET)

[14] Revelation 16:9 (NET)

[15] Revelation 16:11 (NET)

[16] Revelation 16:21 (NET)

[17] John 5:22 (NET)

[19] John 5:26, 27 (NET)

[20] Hebrews 9:27, 28 (NET)

[25] John 3:17 (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)

Fear – Leviticus

Posted on by

Each of you must respect (yârêʼ)[1] his mother and his father, and you must keep my Sabbaths.  I am the Lord your God.[2]  The Rabbis who translated the Septuagint chose φοβείσθω, a form of φοβέω[3] (fear, put to flight).[4]  The note in the NET reads: “Heb ‘A man his mother and his father you [plural] shall fear.’ The LXX, Syriac, Vulgate, and certain Targum mss reverse the order, ‘his father and his mother.’ The term ‘fear’ is subject to misunderstanding by the modern reader, so ‘respect’ has been used in the translation. Cf. NAB, NRSV ‘revere’; NASB ‘reverence’.”

Honor your father and your mother, that you may live a long time in the land the Lord your God is giving to you,[5] the law reads in Exodus.  And in Deuteronomy it reads, Honor your father and your mother just as the Lord your God has commanded you to do, so that your days may be extended and that it may go well with you in the land that he is about to give you.[6]  Respect may be the best translation of yârêʼ in Leviticus 19:3.  Still, at the risk of being a modern reader misunderstanding the text, I would like to spend a moment to consider why someone under the law might actually fear his mother and father (Deuteronomy 21:18-21 NET).

If a person has a stubborn, rebellious son who pays no attention to his father or mother, and they discipline him to no avail, his father and mother must seize him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his city.  They must declare to the elders of his city, “Our son is stubborn and rebellious and pays no attention to what we say – he is a glutton and drunkard.”  Then all the men of his city must stone him to death.  In this way you will purge out wickedness from among you, and all Israel will hear about it and be afraid (yârêʼ).

The quip from Bill Cosby’s father—“I brought you in this world, and I can take you out”[7]—was legally true in Israel.  This is law; this is how it works.  It is about purging out wickedness by removing the evildoer from society, by stoning the lawbreaker to death in this case, so all Israel will hear about it and be afraid.  Afraid was translated φοβηθήσονται, a form of φοβέω[8] in the Septuagint.  The law is all about punishment and the fear of punishment.  The goal of punishment, particularly capital punishment, is to instill fear into the unrighteous in the hope that they will abide by the law.  This is the righteousness of the law.  It is the best of all possible worlds as far as law is concerned.

The other occurrences of yârêʼ in Leviticus are formulaic.  There is a law associated with fearing God (or his sanctuary):

Reference

Law

yârêʼ (fear)

Septuagint
Leviticus 19:14 (NET) You must not curse a deaf person or put a stumbling block in front of a blind person. You must fear (yârêʼ) your God; I am the Lord. φοβηθήσῃ, a form of φοβέω[9]
Leviticus 19:30 (NET) You must keep my Sabbaths… …and fear (yârê) my sanctuary.  I am the Lord. φοβηθήσεσθε, a form of φοβέω[10]
Leviticus 19:32 (NET) You must stand up in the presence of the aged, honor the presence of an elder… …and fear (yârêʼ) your God.  I am the Lord. φοβηθήσῃ, a form of φοβέω
Leviticus 25:17 (NET) No one is to oppress his fellow citizen… …but you must fear (yârêʼ) your God, because I am the Lord your God. φοβηθήσῃ, a form of φοβέω
Leviticus 25:36 (NET) Do not take interest or profit from him… …but you must fear (yârêʼ) your God and your brother must live with you. φοβηθήσῃ, a form of φοβέω
Leviticus 25:43 (NET) You must not rule over him harshly… …but you must fear (yârêʼ) your God. φοβηθήσῃ, a form of φοβέω
Leviticus 26:2 (NET) You must keep my Sabbaths… …and reverence (yârê) my sanctuary.  I am the Lord. φοβηθήσεσθε, a form of φοβέω

One should demonstrate his fear of God not by running away but by 1) not cursing a deaf person or putting a stumbling block in front of a blind person; 2) keeping the Sabbaths; 3) standing up and honoring the presence of an elder; 4) not oppressing a fellow citizen; 5) not taking interest or profiting from him; and 6) not ruling over him harshly.  Combined with the fear of punishment for noncompliance it is not too difficult to see how fearing God came to mean obeying his laws.

Jesus used this formula Himself:

Reference

Law

Fear God
Matthew 10:28 (NET) Do not be afraid (φοβεῖσθε, a form of φοβέω) of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Instead, fear (φοβεῖσθε, a form of φοβέω) the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Luke 12:4, 5 (NET) I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid (φοβηθῆτε, a form of φοβέω) of those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more they can do. But I will warn you whom you should fear (φοβηθῆτε, a form of φοβέω): Fear (φοβήθητε, a form of φοβέω) the one who, after the killing, has authority to throw you into hell.  Yes, I tell you, fear (φοβήθητε, a form of φοβέω) him!

But Jesus added something to this formula, a reason not to fear; namely, our value to God our Father.

Law

Fear God

Don’t Fear God
Do not be afraid (φοβεῖσθε, a form of φοβέω) of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.

Matthew 10:28a (NET)

 Instead, fear (φοβεῖσθε, a form of φοβέω) the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 10:28b (NET)

 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, a form of φοβέω); you are more valuable than many sparrows.

Matthew 10:29-31 (NET)
I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid (φοβηθῆτε, a form of φοβέω) of those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more they can do.

Luke 12:4 (NET)

 But I will warn you whom you should fear (φοβηθῆτε, a form of φοβέω): Fear (φοβήθητε, a form of φοβέω) the one who, after the killing, has authority to throw you into hell.  Yes, I tell you, fear (φοβήθητε, a form of φοβέω)   him!

Luke 12:5 (NET)

 Aren’t five sparrows sold for two pennies?  Yet not one of them is forgotten before God.  In fact, even   the hairs on your head are all numbered.  Do not be afraid (φοβεῖσθε, a form of φοβέω); you are more valuable than many sparrows.

Luke 12:6, 7 (NET)

God’s love, the Apostle John’s shorthand for what Paul called the fruit of the Spirit, not merely for us but in us, transforms our fear of God into reverence and worship for Him.

Law

Fear God

Don’t Fear God

Love
Do not be afraid (φοβεῖσθε, a form of φοβέω) of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.

Matthew 10:28a (NET)

 Instead, fear (φοβεῖσθε, a form of φοβέω) the one who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Matthew 10:28b (NET)

 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, a form of φοβέω); you are more valuable than many sparrows.

Matthew 10:29-31 (NET)

 And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has in us.  God is love, and the one who resides in love resides in God, and God resides in him.

1 John 4:16 (NET) Table
I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid (φοβηθῆτε, a form of φοβέω) of those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more they can do.

Luke 12:4 (NET)

 But I will warn you whom you should fear (φοβηθῆτε, a form of φοβέω): Fear (φοβήθητε, a form of φοβέω) the one who, after the killing, has authority to throw you into hell.  Yes, I tell you, fear (φοβήθητε, a form of φοβέω) him!

Luke 12:5 (NET)

 Aren’t five sparrows sold for two pennies?  Yet not one of them is forgotten before God.  In fact, even the hairs on your head are all numbered.  Do not be afraid (φοβεῖσθε, a form of φοβέω); you are more valuable than many sparrows.

Luke 12:6, 7 (NET)

 There is no fear (φόβος)[11] in love, but perfect love drives out fear (φόβον, a form of φόβος), because fear (φόβος) has to do with punishment (κόλασιν, a form of κόλασις).[12]  The one who fears (φοβούμενος, a form of φοβέω) punishment has not been perfected in love.

1 John 4:18 (NET)

He made the one who did not know (γνόντα, a form of γινώσκω)[13] sin…[14]  Yahweh became flesh as Jesus and then Jesus did not need anyone to testify about man, for he knew (ἐγίνωσκεν, another form of γινώσκω) what was in man.[15] God made the one who did not know (γνόντα, a form of γινώσκω)[16] sin to be sin for us, so that in him we would become the righteousness of God.[17]  The Father has a different attitude toward us who have been reconciled to Him through Jesus/Yahweh: Do not be afraid (φοβοῦ, a form of φοβέω), little flock, Jesus said, for your Father is well pleased to give you the kingdom.[18]  We love, John concluded, because he loved us first.[19]  By this love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment, because just as Jesus is, so also are we in this world.[20]

It’s not wrong to look back and superimpose this kind of reverence upon fear in the law.  God was still love, even as Yahweh gave the law to Moses.  David seemed to grasp this.  Do not reject me! He prayed.  Do not take your Holy Spirit away from me!  Let me again experience the joy of your deliverance!  Sustain me by giving me the desire to obey![21]

What is wrong is for me to pretend that I got here by obeying the law.  That would make me a false witness.[22]  Compared to that betrayal Judas’ kiss would seem like passion, and Peter’s denial like words of truth.  It is such a profound taking of the Lord’s name in vain[23] it makes the hapless soul who uses the name “Jesus!” as an expletive sound like a preacher of righteousness by comparison.  Are there any fires in any hell hot enough for me if I were to pretend such a thing?

Actually, yes, and I think it’s quite easy to see.  If Jesus said, depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness![24] and took his Holy Spirit from me, I might last for a moment or two out of habit.  But soon enough, hurt, angry, I would revert to the sinner I am apart from God’s credited righteousness, the fruit of his Spirit.  I’ve been judged and found wanting by two wives, (three if you count my high school girlfriend) and sent on my way.  But to be rejected by Love Himself would be unendurable apart from Him.  I would become both the spark and the fuel of the fire, and wherever I am would become hell.  And if you were anywhere near me when that happened, it would not go well for you.

Let’s face it, you were hard to love and difficult to forgive when I believed that I was loved and forgiven by God.  How do you expect to fare when I no longer receive a continuous infusion of his love, his joy, his peace, his patience, his kindness, his goodness, his faithfulness, his gentleness, and his self-control?[25]  What will become of you when I am under no obligation and have no incentive to forgive you?  I’m likely to conclude that you are the cause of all my misery and treat you accordingly.  That sounds like Garcin’s epiphany in Sartre’s play No Exit, “Hell is other people.”[26]

[2] Leviticus 19:3 (NET)

[5] Exodus 20:12 (NET) Table

[6] Deuteronomy 5:16 (NET)

[14] 2 Corinthians 5:21a (NET)

[15] John 2:25 (NET)

[17] 2 Corinthians 5:21 (NET)

[18] Luke 12:32 (NET)

[19] 1 John 4:19 (NET)

[20] 1 John 4:17 (NET)

[21] Psalm 51:11, 12 (NET) Table1 Table2

[24] Matthew 7:23 (NKJV)

[25] Galatians 5:22, 23 (NET)

My Reasons and My Reason, Part 1

Posted on by

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived!  The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God.[1]

In an earlier essay I wrote that I didn’t want my quotation of Paul’s listing of the unrighteous (ἄδικοι, a form of ἄδικος)[2] “to come down disproportionately hard on those who favor the ‘Side A’ position discussed on the Gay Christian Network website.[3]  My reasons can wait for another essay.”  This is that essay, or more likely the beginning of a series of essays.  As I think about it now I see my personal reasons falling under two distinct yet related headings: 1) my attempt to find some meaning for πορνεία apart from the “whatever you want” imprecision of sexual immorality; and, 2) I am a masochist.

I’ve already written some about πορνεία, so I’ll begin here with what I mean by masochism.  I didn’t use the term sado-masochism deliberately, though my earliest thoughts on the subject started there.  I thought Sadism and Masochism were a continuum associated with dominance and submission respectively (fig. 1).

fig. 1

fig. 1

In college I read the commentary included in an edition of Leopold von Sacher-Masoch’s “Venus in Furs.”[4]  It was a while ago, my notes are gone, so I can’t credit the woman (I think it was a woman) who wrote the commentary.  One thing she said resonated with me, something to the effect that a sadist would never be satisfied with a willing masochist.  She began to distinguish Sadism from Masochism as she included dominance and submission within both categories.  My graphical representation changed immediately (fig. 2).

fig. 2

fig. 2

I’ve stuck with this graphical representation as I tried to figure out what was on the other axis, what distinguished sadism from masochism.  What I came up with is still a bit elusive even to me.  I call it Self and Other, but I don’t necessarily mean selfishness and altruism (fig. 3).

fig. 3

fig. 3

Lisa, the dominatrix in “Exit to Eden,”[5] as she mused on the airplane about slaves in a slave market was totally wrapped up in the experience of the submissive.  Her mission in life was to give them the submissive experience they craved.  It excited her.  She was a masochist as I understand it, a dominant masochist.

“I am in awe of the courage that it must take to submit with willingness and grace,” wrote Lady N in an essay[6] posted online titled Why I Love Male Submissives.  “It inspires me to strive for greatness within myself, so that I may remain completely worthy of such a gift.  Simultaneously humbled and enobled by pain and passion, he becomes a rare and beautiful creature that defies any simple description.”  She, too, is a dominant masochist.

Conversely, the “pain slut”[7] who latches on to a dominant and berates and humiliates them in order to provoke them to the level of desired violence is a submissive sadist in my opinion.  And a second look at even the opening reverie of “Venus in Furs” causes me to suspect that Severin,[8] Sacher-Masoch’s alter-ego, was never a masochist at all, but a submissive sadist who became in the end a dominant one.  But this makes the terms submissive and dominant seem too masochist-centric to be of much use in describing Sadism.  Perhaps I should close the loop and describe the “pain slut” as a bottom who tongue-lashes a top to incite the top to lash the bottom’s bottom harder and faster (fig. 4).

fig. 4

fig. 4

Sexuality to the non-Sadist and non-Masochist is about pleasure and honor.  They assume that a “sado-masochist” likes pain and humiliation instead of, or confuses them for, pleasure and honor.  I’ve read things online from both dominants/tops and submissives/bottoms that seem to support that point of view.  But I don’t have any difficulty distinguishing between pleasure, pain, honor and humiliation.  I would say (in theory at least) that they are interesting and unique flavors that are enjoyable to combine in different recipes with one’s spouse, willing spouse, that is (I am a masochist).

It is apparent to me that what I call masochism may be nothing more than something called sado-masochism filtered through the fruit of the Holy Spirit (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control).[9]  But I’m going to continue as if my masochism has its own existence, something like I have been describing.  I must face then that it may be nothing more than the fruit of being one of those given over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.[10]  Consider Lady N’s ode to male submissives again:

He is John Barleycorn, consort and sacrifice.  He is brutally degraded and taken for the most profane of uses, and thus a god worthy of worship and reverence.  Crucified in leather, his flesh is violated and sanctified, celebrated and decorated by the bright blood roses of our passion.  His body is the altar at which I worship.  It is the sacred paradox, and it is the deepest truth and the greatest beauty that I can know in this life.

I am the respectful penitent and the savage goddess, and the scourge rises and falls to glorify as much as to humble.  I am as deeply reverent as I am merciless to the sacrifice.  Dea gratias[11] [“thanks be to God (Deo) Goddess (Dea)”], forever and ever, amen.

The sheer intensity of taking a consenting submissive and making him hurt and cry and suffer for me, the power and passion that is as hot and raw as the living hearts the Aztecs once tore from the chest of a willing sacrifice, that is what feeds me and fuels the flames of my desire.

Lady N’s reference to John Barleycorn probably has less to do with Jack London’s novel[12] than it does with this quote from Raven Kaldera on Pagan BDSM:[13] “There’s one other point to make that is uniquely pagan in worldview.  Each spirit that gets called into a man-made object is a tiny reflection, a snapshot, a splinter, an avatar of a much greater spirit…When someone takes on the archetype of the Owned Slave, they allow into themselves a piece of the greater spirit that is All That Is Sacrificed That We May Live. This Spirit has many faces and names — the Sacred King, John Barleycorn, Iphigenia, Persephone, the Sacrificed Maiden, the Prey Animal, the Bull God and Goat God, Lugh, Baldur, the Corn Dollie, the Wicker Man, and so forth.”  Here my masochism and my understanding of πορνεία seem to intersect.

The shape of my masochism was pretty much established by about nine or ten years of age, the fourth grade.  I truly don’t remember what I was thinking, believing or doing that might have made me a fool in God’s eyes who exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings or birds or four-footed animals or reptiles.[14]  And the idea—that the wrath of God [was] revealed from heaven against all [the] ungodliness and unrighteousness[15] of the nine-year-old (or younger) boy that I was—causes me to recoil some.  And that recoil has made it difficult for me to fully embrace my masochism as God’s wrath: Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.[16]

It gives me some cause, however, beyond the fruit of Christ’s Spirit, to be patient with those whose homosexual desires are so deeply rooted in their childhoods that it seems like an integral part of who they are as human beings.

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

[9] Galatians 5:22, 23 (NET)

[10] Romans 1:24 (NET)

[14] Romans 1:23 (NET)

[15] Romans 1:18 (NET)

[16] Romans 1:24 (NET) Table

Romans, Part 49

Posted on by

If [the gift] is showing mercy (ἐλεῶν, a form of ἐλεέω),[1] he must do so with cheerfulness.[2]  This is my gift, the one given to me.  It is the way I see Jesus and his Father.  It is the way I see the world.  It is my bias.  Blessed are the merciful (ἐλεήμονες, a form of ἐλεήμων),[3] for they will be shown mercy (ἐλεηθήσονται, a form of ἐλεέω).[4]  Given that bias it is probably good to start with something I do not mean by mercy.

“Have mercy (ἐλέησον, a form of ἐλεέω) on us, Son of David!”[5] two blind men shouted.  Jesus said to them, “Do you believe that I am able to do this?”  They said to him, “Yes, Lord.”  Then he touched their eyes saying, “Let it be done for you according to your faith.”  And their eyes were opened.[6]

The blind men asked Jesus for mercy, believed He was able to do what they asked, and received the mercy they asked for, according to [their] faith.  And I don’t want anything to do with this kind of faith or this kind of mercy.

Jesus sternly warned (ἐνεβριμήθη, a form of ἐμβριμάομαι)[7] them, “See that no one knows about this.”[8]  But they disobeyed Him; they went out and spread the news about him throughout that entire region.[9]

As he was entering a village, ten men with leprosy met him.  They stood at a distance, raised their voices and said, “Jesus, Master, have mercy (ἐλέησον, a form of ἐλεέω) on us.”  When he saw them he said, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.”[10]  It took some faith to obey Jesus, to go back to priests who were likely to tell them what they already knew, that they were leprous.  And as they went along, they were cleansed.[11]  You see that [their] faith was working together with [their] works and [their] faith was perfected by works.[12]

Then one of them, when he saw he was healed, turned back, praising God with a loud voice.  He fell with his face to the ground at Jesus’ feet and thanked him.  (Now he was a Samaritan.)  Then Jesus said, “Were not ten cleansed?  Where are the other nine?  Was no one found to turn back and give praise to God except this foreigner?”[13]

Assuming that the other nine were descendants of Israel, they may have been too busy to turn back and give praise to God, too busy trying to make themselves worthy of the mercy Jesus had shown them, too busy obeying the law (Leviticus 14:1-20 NET):

The Lord spoke to Moses: “This is the law of the diseased person on the day of his purification, when he is brought to the priest.  The priest is to go outside the camp and examine the infection.  If the infection of the diseased person has been healed, then the priest will command that two live clean birds, a piece of cedar wood, a scrap of crimson fabric, and some twigs of hyssop be taken up for the one being cleansed.  The priest will then command that one bird be slaughtered into a clay vessel over fresh water.  Then he is to take the live bird along with the piece of cedar wood, the scrap of crimson fabric, and the twigs of hyssop, and he is to dip them and the live bird in the blood of the bird slaughtered over the fresh water, and sprinkle it seven times on the one being cleansed from the disease, pronounce him clean, and send the live bird away over the open countryside.

“The one being cleansed must then wash his clothes, shave off all his hair, and bathe in water, and so be clean.  Then afterward he may enter the camp, but he must live outside his tent seven days.  When the seventh day comes he must shave all his hair – his head, his beard, his eyebrows, all his hair – and he must wash his clothes, bathe his body in water, and so be clean.

“On the eighth day he must take two flawless male lambs, one flawless yearling female lamb, three-tenths of an ephah of choice wheat flour as a grain offering mixed with olive oil, and one log of olive oil, and the priest who pronounces him clean will have the man who is being cleansed stand along with these offerings before the Lord at the entrance of the Meeting Tent.

“The priest is to take one male lamb and present it for a guilt offering along with the log of olive oil and present them as a wave offering before the Lord.  He must then slaughter the male lamb in the place where the sin offering and the burnt offering are slaughtered, in the sanctuary, because, like the sin offering, the guilt offering belongs to the priest; it is most holy.  Then the priest is to take some of the blood of the guilt offering and put it on the right earlobe of the one being cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot.  The priest will then take some of the log of olive oil and pour it into his own left hand.  Then the priest is to dip his right forefinger into the olive oil that is in his left hand, and sprinkle some of the olive oil with his finger seven times before the Lord.  The priest will then put some of the rest of the olive oil that is in his hand on the right earlobe of the one being cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand, and on the big toe of his right foot, on the blood of the guilt offering, and the remainder of the olive oil that is in his hand the priest is to put on the head of the one being cleansed.  So the priest is to make atonement for him before the Lord.

“The priest must then perform the sin offering and make atonement for the one being cleansed from his impurity.  After that he is to slaughter the burnt offering, and the priest is to offer the burnt offering and the grain offering on the altar.  So the priest is to make atonement for him and he will be clean.[14]

Get up and go your way, Jesus said to the foreigner who returned to Him and gave praise to God.  Your faith has made you well.[15]  This is better, perhaps, but still not the mercy I want.

The next example is found in three gospel accounts:

Matthew

Mark

Luke
As they were leaving Jericho, a large crowd followed them.  Two blind men were sitting by the road.

Matthew 20:29, 30a (NET)

 They came to Jericho.  As Jesus and his disciples and a large crowd were leaving Jericho, Bartimaeus the son of Timaeus, a blind beggar, was sitting by the road.

Mark 10:46 (NET)

 As Jesus approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the road begging.

Luke 18:35 (NET)

If someone wants to impeach the witnesses the discrepancies in these accounts seem very important.  They sound like the limited perceptions and faulty memories of eye witnesses who didn’t necessarily understand what they were seeing, and the alterations that naturally occur when favorite stories are passed on by word of mouth.  The more I want to know God, however, the less important they seem.

Matthew

Mark

Luke
When they heard that Jesus was passing by, they shouted, “Have mercy (ἐλέησον, a form of ἐλεέω) on us, Lord, Son of David!”  The crowd scolded them to get them to be quiet.  But they shouted even more loudly, “Lord, have mercy (ἐλέησον, a form of ἐλεέω) on us, Son of David!”

Matthew 20:30b, 31 (NET)

 When he heard that it was Jesus the Nazarene, he began to shout, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy (ἐλέησον, a form of ἐλεέω) on me!”  Many scolded him to get him to be quiet, but he shouted all the more, “Son of David, have mercy (ἐλέησον, a form of ἐλεέω) on me!”

Mark 10:47-48 (NET)

 When he heard a crowd going by, he asked what was going on.  They told him, “Jesus the Nazarene is passing by.”  So he called out, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy (ἐλέησον, a form of ἐλεέω) on   me!”  And those who were in front scolded him to get him to be quiet, but he shouted even more, “Son of David, have mercy (ἐλέησον, a form of ἐλεέω) on me!”

Luke 18:36-39 (NET)

Though the accounts differ regarding when and how many blind men asked for Jesus’ mercy, they agree that the crowd scolded him/them but couldn’t silence him/them.

Matthew

Mark

Luke
Jesus stopped (στὰς, a form of ἵστημι),[16] called (ἐφώνησεν, a form of φωνέω)[17] them…

Matthew 20:32a (NET)

 Jesus stopped (στὰς) and said, “Call (φωνήσατε, another form of φωνέω) him.”  So they called (φωνοῦσιν, a form of   φωνέω) the blind man and said to him, “Have courage!  Get up!  He is calling (φωνεῖ, a form of φωνέω) you.”  He threw off his cloak, jumped up, and came to Jesus.

Mark 10:49, 50 (NET)

 So Jesus stopped (σταθεὶς, another form of ἵστημι) and ordered (ἐκέλευσεν, a form of κελεύω)[18] the beggar to be brought to him.

Luke 18:40a (NET)

This is new[19] relative to the first two stories of mercy.  In each of these accounts Jesus stopped (στὰς in Matthew and Mark, σταθεὶς in Luke) and called (ἐφώνησεν, a form of κελεύω) them (Matthew).  Mark offered detail to that call: Jesus stopped (στὰς) and said, “Call (φωνήσατε) him” to those who traveled with Him, presumably his disciples.  So they called (φωνοῦσιν) the blind man and said to him, “Have courage!  Get up!  He is calling (φωνεῖ) you.”  The blind man threw off his cloak, jumped up, and came to Jesus.  Luke, the historian, resolved these accounts with, So Jesus stopped (σταθεὶς) and ordered (ἐκέλευσεν, a form of κελεύω)[20] the beggar to be brought to him.

These are not the words Paul used to describe God’s calling, but together they form a vivid picture of what he meant by them.  And we know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called (κλητοῖς, a form of κλητός)[21] according to his purpose, because those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that his Son would be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.  And those he predestined, he also called (ἐκάλεσεν, a form of καλέω);[22] and those he called (ἐκάλεσεν, a form of καλέω), he also justified; and those he justified, he also glorified.[23]

Matthew

Mark

Luke
…and said, “What do you want me to do for you?”  They said to him, “Lord, let our eyes be opened.”  Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes.  Immediately they received their sight and followed (ἠκολούθησαν, a form of ἀκολουθέω) him.

Matthew 20:32b-34 (NET)

 Then Jesus said to him, “What do you want me to do for you?”  The blind man replied, “Rabbi, let me see again.”  Jesus said to him, “Go, your faith has healed you.”  Immediately he regained his sight and followed (ἠκολούθει, another form of ἀκολουθέω) him on the road.

Mark 10:51, 52 (NET)

 When the man came near, Jesus asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?”  He replied, “Lord, let me see again.”  Jesus said to him, “Receive your sight; your faith has healed you.”  And immediately he regained his sight and followed (ἠκολούθει, another form of ἀκολουθέω) Jesus, praising God.

Luke 18:40b-43a (NET)
When all the people saw it, they too gave praise to God.

Luke 18:43b (NET)

In the first story two blind men thought it was more important to tell others about Jesus than to obey Him themselves.  In the second story obedience was not at issue.  There is no indication that the lepers were doing anything other than obeying Jesus’ command, Go and show yourselves to the priests.  At issue was the matter of gratitude, demonstrated in praise for God.  Jesus raised the question whether the other nine lepers were praising God or, perhaps, praising themselves for their adherence to the works of the law.  For no one is declared righteous before him by the works of the law, for through the law comes the knowledge of sin.[24]

Yet the blind man/men called by Jesus followed Him, not because he/they were given a law.  Jesus did not say, Follow Me.  Yet the work of the law [was] written in their hearts.[25]  They were doers, poets, of the law, speaking their own lines from their own hearts, as opposed to actors (hypocrites), wearing a false face and speaking a poet’s lines.  They not only praised God themselves, When all the people saw it, they too gave praise to God.

This is more like it, mercy that causes me to follow Jesus, praising God, a mercy that causes others, when they see me following Jesus, to praise, not me, but God.  I will have mercy (ἐλεήσω, another form of ἐλεέω) on whom I have mercy (ἐλεῶ, another form of ἐλεέω), and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.  So then, it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy (ἐλεῶντος, a form of ἐλεέω).[26]  This is the mercy I want to receive.  This is the mercy I long to extend to all around me.  This is the mercy Paul found in the Lord when he had great sorrow and unceasing anguish in [his] heart.[27]

Just as you were formerly disobedient to God, but have now received mercy (ἠλεήθητε, a form of ἐλεέω) due to their disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that, by the mercy (ἐλέει, a form of ἔλεος)[28] shown to you, they too may now receive mercy (ἐλεηθῶσιν, a form of ἐλεέω).  For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy (ἐλεήσῃ, a form of ἐλεέω) to them all.[29]

This mercy is to be shown with cheerfulness (ἱλαρότητι, a form of ἱλαρότης),[30] not reluctantly or under compulsion, because God loves a cheerful (ἱλαρὸν, a form of ἱλαρός)[31] giver.[32]  I fall down here because of the gospel presented as law rather than grace handed down to me from my religion that still adheres to my religious mind: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ before you die, or burn in hell for all eternity.”  I am the dark side of the proverb, Train a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.[33]  To counteract that darkness I want to look at two instances when Jesus didn’t want to show someone mercy.

A Canaanite woman from [the region of Tyre and Sidon] came and cried out, “Have mercy (ἐλέησον, a form of ἐλεέω) on me, Lord, Son of David!  My daughter is horribly demon-possessed!”[34]

This woman was a living remnant of the people Jesus, as Yahweh, had commanded Israel to exterminate with extreme prejudice—because the Canaanites were wicked idolaters?  Yes, as a matter of legal justification, but more to the point, for the faithfulness of his chosen people: for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, and someone invites you, you will eat from his sacrifice; and you then take his daughters for your sons, and when his daughters prostitute themselves to their gods, they will make your sons prostitute themselves to their gods as well.[35]

So Jesus ignored the woman’s persistent plea.  Then his disciples came and begged him, “Send her away, because she keeps on crying out after us.”[36]

So Jesus began to explain to the woman the obligations of righteousness, the law He was under from his Father: I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.[37]

But she came and bowed down before him and said, “Lord, help me!”[38]

“It is not right to take the children’s bread and throw it to the dogs,” he said.[39]

The Canaanite woman might have said, “I’m as good as any Jew here!”  And Jesus might have agreed with her, but I don’t think that response would have moved him from the law of his Father.

“Yes, Lord,” she said instead, “but even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters’ table.”[40]

When Jesus said, Blessed are the poor in spirit, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to them,[41] He meant what He said.  So He answered the Canaanite woman, “Woman, your faith is great!  Let what you want be done for you.”  And her daughter was healed from that hour.[42]

So, did Jesus sin by disobeying the law of his Father?  No, because Jesus and his Father knew, long before Paul wrote any letter to the Galatians, that if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law,[43] and regarding the fruit of the Spirit: Against such things (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control) there is no law.[44]

The second instance deserves its own essay.  I’ll conclude this one with Paul’s words of gratitude because it seems fitting in the context of the gift of showing mercy.  My religion teaches me to present the gospel with Paul’s words from his letter to the Romans (Romans 1:18-20 NET):

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness, because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made.  So people are without excuse.

But privately in his letter to the young preacher Timothy, Paul wrote (1 Timothy 1:12-17 NET):

I am grateful (Χάριν, a form of χάρις)[45] to the one who has strengthened me, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he considered me faithful (πιστόν, a form of πιστός)[46] in putting me into ministry, even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor, and an arrogant man.  But I was treated with mercy (ἠλεήθην, a form of ἐλεέω) because I acted ignorantly (ἀγνοῶν, a form of ἀγνοέω)[47] in unbelief (ἀπιστίᾳ),[48] and our Lord’s grace (χάρις) was abundant, bringing faith (πίστεως, a form of πίστις)[49] and love (ἀγάπης, a form of ἀγάπη)[50] in Christ Jesus.  This saying is trustworthy (πιστὸς) and deserves full acceptance: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” – and I am the worst of them!  But here is why I was treated with mercy (ἠλεήθην, a form of ἐλεέω): so that in me as the worst, Christ Jesus could demonstrate his utmost patience (μακροθυμίαν, a form of μακροθυμία),[51] as an example for those who are going to believe in him for eternal life.  Now to the eternal king, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever!  Amen.

[2] Romans 12:8 (NET)

[4] Matthew 5:7 (NET)

[5] Matthew 9:27 (NET)

[6] Matthew 9:28-30a (NET)

[8] Matthew 9:30b (NET)

[9] Matthew 9:31 (NET)

[10] Luke 17:12-14a (NET)

[11] Luke 17:14b (NET)

[12] James 2:22 (NET)

[13] Luke 17:15-18 (NET)

[14] Leviticus 14:1-20 (NET)

[15] Luke 17:19 (NET)

[19] In Luke’s account the lepers stood (ἔστησαν, another form of ἵστημι) at a distance (Luke 17:12b NET).

[23] Romans 8:28-30 (NET)

[24] Romans 3:20 (NET)

[25] Romans 2:15 (NET)

[26] Romans 9:15, 16 (NET)

[27] Romans 9:2 (NET)

[29] Romans 11:30-32 (NET)

[32] 2 Corinthians 9:7b (NET)

[33] Proverbs 22:6 (NET)

[34] Matthew 15:22 (NET)

[35] Exodus 34:15, 16 (NET)

[36] Matthew 15:23 (NET)

[37] Matthew 15:24 (NET)

[38] Matthew 15:25 (NET)

[39] Matthew 15:26 (NET)

[40] Matthew 15:27 (NET)

[41] Matthew 5:3 (NET)

[42] Matthew 15:28 (NET)

[43] Galatians 5:18 (NET)

[44] Galatians 5:22, 23 (NET)

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 3

Posted on by

Look, the Lord is ready to devastate the earth and leave it in ruins; he will mar its surface and scatter its inhabitants…The earth will be completely devastated and thoroughly ransacked.  For the Lord has decreed this judgment.[1]

As I understand the words this would be condemnation rather than judgment.  This is an adverse sentence.  The time for judgment has passed and the time of punishment has begun.  There is no attempt here to distinguish, or make distinctions, or judge; for, Everyone will suffer – the priest as well as the people, the master as well as the servant, the elegant lady as well as the female attendant, the seller as well as the buyer, the borrower as well as the lender, the creditor as well as the debtor.[2]

So, I thought, if there was a strong connection between the Hebrew word translated judgment in Isaiah 24:3 and the Greek word κρίσεως, I would have some justification for translating κρίσεως condemnation in John 5:28 and 29 where the ones who have done what is evil hear Jesus’ voice and come out of their tombs to the resurrection resulting in condemnation (κρίσεως, a form of κρίσις).[3]  But the Hebrew word dâbâr[4] is the much more neutral word.  The translators acknowledged that in a footnote: “Heb ‘for the Lord has spoken this word.’”  The translators of the Septuagint simply used this, κυρίου ἐλάλησεν ταῦτα (“the Lord has spoken this”).

If I intend to walk away from my naïve assumption that “more bearable meant less condemned, a more bearable place in hell, less heat, less torture or something,” I need to come to some conclusion about what Jesus meant by ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως, translated on the day of judgment.[5]  I tell you, Jesus said, that on the day of judgment (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως), people will give an account (λόγον, a form of λόγος)[6] for every worthless word (πᾶν[7] ρῆμα[8] ἀργὸν[9]) they speak (λαλήσουσιν, a form of λαλέω).[10]  I assume here that every worthless word they speak referred back to the Pharisees’ assertion that Jesus does not cast out demons except by the power of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons![11]  For Jesus said (Matthew 12:30-32 NET):

Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.  For this reason I tell you, people will be forgiven for every sin and blasphemy, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven [Table].  Whoever speaks a word (εἴπῃ[12] λόγον) against (κατὰ)[13] the Son of Man will be forgiven.  But whoever speaks against (εἴπῃ κατὰ) the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

Whoever speaks a word against (εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ) the Son of Man, seems to refer to, people will give an account (λόγον, a form of λόγος) for every worthless word (πᾶν ρῆμα ἀργὸν) they speak (λαλήσουσιν).  The worthless (or, lazy) word spoken against (εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ) Jesus is an ill-considered account (λόγον, a form of λόγος) of Jesus, contrary to his own; for instance, He does not cast out demons except by the power of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons!  This can be forgiven, but be careful, Jesus warned, if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you,[14] and whoever speaks against (εἴπῃ κατὰ) the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.

I think the implication here is that one has used this account, this word against the Son of Man, as justification for disregarding Him.  To that one who comes into judgment, who is called upon on the day of judgment to give an account for every worthless word he has spoken against the Son of Man, Jesus said, For by your words (λόγων, another form of λόγος) you will be justified (δικαιωθήσῃ, a form of δικαιόω),[15] and by your words (λόγων, another form of λόγος) you will be condemned (καταδικασθήσῃ, a form of καταδικάζω).[16]

Translating ἐκ γὰρ τῶν λόγων σου For by your words makes it seem as if Jesus meant the account already given in the past (πᾶν ρῆμα ἀργὸν, translated every worthless word), rather than the account (λόγον, a form of λόγος) this person has been called upon to give in that present moment on the day of judgment, as if that account is a mere formality.  But to translate ἐκ γὰρ τῶν λόγων σου For by your [account] you will be justified, and by your [account] you will be condemned, would contradict the teaching of our religion that one’s eternal fate is determined long before any account can be given on the day of judgment.  And granted, if one attempts to justify himself with more worthless words, the outcome of that judgment is foreordained, and that account will be little more than a mere formality.

The only account that matters at that moment (or this one, for that matter) is, God, be merciful (ἱλάσθητι, a form of ἱλάσκομαι)[17] to me, sinner that I am![18]  He had to be made like his brothers and sisters in every respect, the writer of Hebrews said of Jesus, so that he could become a merciful and faithful high priest in things relating to God, to make atonement (ἱλάσκεσθαι, another form of ἱλάσκομαι) for the sins of the people.[19]  And of the one who prayed—God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am— Jesus said, I tell you that this man went down to his home justified (δεδικαιωμένος, another form of δικαιόω),[20] because the mercy (ἱλάσθητι, a form of ἱλάσκομαι) the self-professed sinner requested was nothing less than the atonement (ἱλάσκεσθαι, another form of ἱλάσκομαι) Jesus was sent to make…for the sins of the people.

If I am safe assuming that ἐν τῇ κρίσει [a form of κρίσις], translated at the judgment, is equivalent to ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως [a form of κρίσις], translated on the day of judgment, than I can glean something of the anachronism of that time.  The people of Nineveh, Jesus said, will stand up at the judgment (ἐν τῇ κρίσει) with this generation and condemn (κατακρινοῦσιν, a form of κατακρίνω)[21] it, because they repented when Jonah preached to them – and now, something greater than Jonah is here![22]  Here are two peoples from different times and places together in the same time and place.  The queen of the South, Jesus continued, will rise up at the judgment (ἐν τῇ κρίσει) with this generation and condemn (κατακρινεῖ, another form of κατακρίνω) it, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon – and now, something greater than Solomon is here![23]

I think it’s worth mentioning that neither the people of Ninevah nor the Queen of the South have the authority to condemn the people of Israel to hell.  Nor do I think that was Jesus’ point.  The discourse ends with Jesus’ saying, whoever does (ποιήσῃ, a form of ποιέω)[24] the will (θέλημα)[25] of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.[26]  When asked, “What must we do (ποιῶμεν, another form of ποιέω) to accomplish the deeds God requires (ἵνα ἐργαζώμεθα τὰ ἔργα τοῦ θεοῦ; literally, “that we work God’s works”)?”  Jesus replied, “This is the deed God requires (τοῦτο ἐστιν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ; literally, “this is God’s work”) – to believe in the one whom he sent.”[27]  “For this is the will (θέλημα) of my Father – for everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him to have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.”[28]  John related this faith to the love that is the fulfillment of the law and confidence in the day of judgment (1 John 4:15-19 NET).

If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God resides in him and he in God.  And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has in us.  God is love, and the one who resides in love resides in God, and God resides in him [Table].  By this love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment (ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ τῆς κρίσεως), because just as Jesus is, so also are we in this world.  There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment.  The one who fears punishment has not been perfected in love.  We love because he loved us first.

And if anyone will not welcome you or listen to your message,[29] Jesus told his disciples as He sent them to the lost sheep of the house of Israel…[30] it will be more bearable for the region of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment (ἐν ἡμέρᾳ κρίσεως) than for that town![31]  Here I see a potential meaning for more bearable.  Perhaps fewer people will rise up to condemn the wicked inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah than will rise up to speak their worthless words against those who saw the sick healed, the dead raised, and lepers cleansed but rejected the message, The kingdom of heaven is near![32]

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 4

Back to Religious and Righteous Prayer

Back to Romans, Part 49

Back to Torture, Part 2

[1] Isaiah 24:1, 3 (NET)

[2] Isaiah 24:2 (NET)

[7] a form of πᾶς

[9] a form of ἀργός

[10] Matthew 12:36 (NET)

[11] Matthew 12:24 (NET)

[12] a form of ῥέω

[14] Matthew 12:28 (NET)

[16] Matthew 12:37 (NET)

[18] Luke 18:13 (NET)

[19] Hebrews 2:17 (NET)

[20] Luke 18:14a (NET)

[22] Matthew 12:41 (NET)

[23] Matthew 12:42 (NET)

[26] Matthew 12:50 (NET)

[27] John 6:28, 29 (NET)

[28] John 6:40 (NET)

[29] Matthew 10:14a (NET)

[30] Matthew 10:6 (NET)

[31] Matthew 10:15 (NET)

[32] Matthew 10:7 (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)