My mother told the following story about her firstborn son:

His father worked the evening shift. Perhaps it was the only shift the young man could get. Perhaps he did it deliberately to earn more per hour. She was alone with their infant son in the afternoon in an upstairs city apartment in summer heat. She put her firstborn in a stroller and pushed him up the street to a corner dairy for a chocolate milkshake.

As they sat in the shade outside the dairy, she offered her son his first taste of chocolate milkshake. He grabbed it from her and wouldn’t let go. There wasn’t money for another. She wasn’t at all certain her husband would agree that there had been money for the first one. So, the twenty-three-year-old mother did without while her son drank too much, too soon for one so small.

I’ve heard that story many times. The time I recall most now, I was telling it myself as my sister and I reminisced after Mom’s death. Like Scrooge pleading to “sponge away the writing on this stone,”¹ I tried vainly once again to repent of a deed done before I have any memory of doing it. My sister laughed and said, “She told that story because she thought it was funny. She loves you.”

I’ve reacted to that story many different ways at different times throughout my life. I don’t think it’s funny—not now. Though I don’t recall the event, I am all too familiar with that child. He is the sin that lives in me.² He is the evil…present with me when I want to do good.³ He is the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires.⁴ He is unrestrained will: “I want.”

Though I say “unrestrained,” he was constrained somewhat by his stroller and the shortened reach of his chubby little arms. Do you still think he is funny? If I shout it in German, “Ich will!” perhaps you can hear the very worst of Adolf Hitler incipient in that child’s lust, a child who wouldn’t even share a chocolate milkshake with his own mother. Grant him power and he will covet and steal; he will rape and murder; he will try to conquer the world, shrieking a damnable lie: I AM AND THERE IS NO OTHER! No one I know has caused more harm to me or the people I love. And there is no one I would rather see condemned to the lake of fire for all eternity.

In another essay I began to consider the substance or body which cast the shadow of the scape-goat (English Elpenor) or the [goat] to be sent off (NETS) in Leviticus 16:8 (KJV, Septuagint) [Table]. And in another essay I wrote:

Truthfully, my religious mind wants I am unspiritual, sold into slavery to sin (Romans 7:14b NET) to apply to the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires.³ My old man may well be the proximate cause of my unspirituality and slavery to sin, but Paul described an I, as I am seen here and now, that is comprised of both an old man and a new man who has been created in God’s image—in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth:⁴ For I want to do the good, he wrote, but I cannot do it.⁵

My sister was right: my mother loved me even before I was “comprised of both an old man and a new man who has been created in God’s image.” She didn’t grab me by the ankles and bash my brains out on the hot pavement that day. The words the only true God spoke through Isaiah the prophet to Cyrus, another old man more powerful than mine, follow:

Though I was born evil incarnate,⁵ not yet born from above (γεννηθῆναι ἄνωθεν),⁶ that evil dwelt by the grace of God in a cute and cuddly package. Most women by the grace of God find that cute and cuddly infant package adorable and appealing. I was born by the grace of God through an intensely intimate process that made my birth and my existence uniquely special to my mother. And so, I lived, not by any virtue of my own, but by the grace of a loving God who gave me a mother who loved me and hoped for me and named me Daniel, that I would grow to stand alone, if necessary, with God.

I’m torn here because I want to get back to studying the Bible but I know my mother would argue with my assessment of myself. It seems obligatory to address how I fooled my mother a large portion, if not most, of the time. I think it boils down to the same thing that surprises me now about the direct honesty of that evil infant. I can only rationalize it as naive ignorance. My earliest memory of my own motivation was that I wanted my mother, my father, anyone, everyone really, to think well of me, to speak well of me. I would attempt to do almost anything to hear their praise.

Trying to please all the people all of the time to win their praise was exhausting and led directly to what some call defiance. My little brother began life with that strategy. It seemed stupid and annoying to me, a waste of time when one is weak and unarmed. If you can’t please all the people all of the time and you can’t kill all the people all of the time, one must compromise: compliance rather than defiance is that compromise.

I tried to the best of my ability to comply as much as I was able with the demands of those I couldn’t kill or intimidate. Compliance can seem like obedience, even righteousness, to those who look on external appearance only. Compliance, to optimize my experience of winning the praise of others, fooled me, too. I wasn’t subtle enough to imagine any righteousness beyond compliance.

Jesus saying, Woe to you⁷ when all people speak well of you, for their ancestors did the same things⁸ to the false prophets,⁹ was just word salad to me. But in the right circumstances at the right time and place I could nod and “yea, verily” with the best of them, without ever hearing Jesus’ aspersion on the meaning of my life. Eventually, I was so accustomed to my strategy of maximizing praise and minimizing being screamed at by the minimal level of compliance required, even when I tried to learn from the Bible I only heard what I expected to hear.

John wrote (1 John 5:16 NET):

If anyone sees his fellow Christian (τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ) committing a sin not resulting in death, he should ask, and God will grant life to the person who commits a sin not resulting in death. There is a sin resulting in death. I do not say that he should ask about that.

The fellow Christian John described here was also an I, as I am seen here and now, an I comprised of both an old man and a new man who has been created in God’s image—in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth.¹⁰ This I is not the same as everyone fathered by God (1 John 5:18 NET [Table]):

We know that everyone fathered by God does not sin, but God protects the one he has fathered, and the evil one (ὁ πονηρὸς) cannot touch him.

This I is the new man who has been created in God’s image—in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth.¹¹ The evil one cannot touch (οὐχ ἅπτεται) him. In other words, the old man and the new man are distinct, though both dwell together within John’s fellow Christian. The Greek word ἅπτεται (NET: touch) is a passive form of ἅπτω in the middle voice: “to fasten to, touch, grab, attach, cling; to reach, get as far as.” To my mind cannot implies οὐ δύναται in Greek: an inability, a lack of power. But this is οὐχ ἅπτεται, “does not touch.” The old man, the devil, evil does not touch the new man, period, end of statement.

Making God the subject of the clause—but God protects the one he has fathered—while not wrong exactly, is not what the Greek actually says. The subject of this clause is ὁ γεννηθεὶς (NET: the one he has fathered): “the one he has fathered protects him.” The NET translators didn’t distinguish¹² between the everyone fathered by God (πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ) who does not sin (οὐχ ἁμαρτάνει) from the fellow Christian¹³ (τὸν ἀδελφὸν; literally, “the brother”) who does.

I assume that ὁ γεννηθεὶς (NET: the one he has fathered) refers to Jesus and his work on the cross in union with the new man who has been created in God’s image,¹⁴ while αὐτόν¹⁵ (him) refers back to the singular πᾶς (NET: everyone) of everyone fathered by God.¹⁶

John made a similar distinction between his Dear friends (ἀγαπητοί, a form of ἀγαπητός) and the new man earlier in this same letter:

The NET translators chose whenever it is revealed for ἐὰν φανερωθῇ, where the KJV translators chose when he shall appear. Either way, we will be (ἐσόμεθα, a form of εἰμί) like him (i.e., like God, NET or like Jesus, KJV) at some future time because we will see (ὀψόμεθα, a form of ὁράω) him just as he is.¹⁸ This likeness to God or Jesus should, at a minimum, entail not sinning. And John confirmed that everyone who sins has neither seen (ἑώρακεν, another from of ὁράω) him nor known (ἔγνωκεν, a form of γινώσκω) him.¹⁹

Paul echoed and clarified this concept for John’s Dear friends (1 Corinthians 13:12 NET):

For now we see (βλέπομεν, a form of βλέπω) in a mirror indirectly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know (γινώσκω) in part, but then I will know fully (ἐπιγνώσομαι, a form of ἐπιγινώσκω), just as I have been fully known (ἐπεγνώσθην, another form of ἐπιγινώσκω).

This leads to the conclusion that John’s more absolute—has neither seen him nor known him—denoted everyone who sins (πᾶς ὁ ἁμαρτάνων) as the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires.²⁰ Conversely, Everyone who resides in him does not sin, refers to the new man who has been created in God’s image—in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth.²¹

So, returning to the evil one (ὁ πονηρὸς) cannot touch (οὐχ ἅπτεται) him (αὐτοῦ):²² the NET translators apparently understood αὐτοῦ as a personal pronoun in the genitive case. I am more inclined to understand αὐτοῦ as an adverb: “the evil one does not touch here,” or “there.” In other words, John described the new man as a holy place where God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit meets with the new man who has been created in God’s image—in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth as One.

I have lived as the old man, bereft of the new man. I am living as the new man, frustrated at times by that old man. I hope to live as the new man, separated entirely from the old man. When I began to consider the final judgment as a potential deadline for Jesus to have drawn all to Himself, I thought it was mostly for my convenience.

I have no authority or standing to tell Jesus that He can draw no one to Himself afterward, but final judgment is like an event horizon I have difficulty seeing beyond. While I am aware of no Christian theology which addresses Jesus’ drawing of all to Himself, or the impact of that drawing on the judgment of this world and the ruler of this world being driven out, I can’t now go back and pretend that I don’t hear Him saying (John 12:31, 32 NET):

Now is the judgment of this world; now the ruler of this world will be driven out. And I, when (ἐὰν) I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all²³…to myself.

Considering the old man who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires,²⁴ the sin that lives in me,²⁵ as that which cast the shadow of the scape-goat (English Elpenor) or the [goat] to be sent off (NETS) in Leviticus 16:8 (KJV, Septuagint) [Table] adds an interesting line of evidence to that convenience of my choice. Rashi’s commentary to Leviticus 16:8 reads:

And Aaron shall place lots upon the two he-goats: He would place one [he-goat] on his right and one on his left. Then, he would insert both his hands into an urn [which contained two lots, one bearing the inscription “to the Lord” and the other “to Azazel.” These lots were mixed up, and Aaron, with both hands inside the urn] took one lot in his right hand and the other in his left hand, and he would place them upon them [the he-goats]: [The one] upon which [he placed the lot] with the inscription “to the Lord,” would be for God, while the one upon which [he placed the lot] with the inscription “to Azazel,” would be sent off to Azazel. — [Yoma 39a]

Azazel: This is a strong and hard mountain, [with] a high cliff, as the Scripture says [in describing Azazel] (verse 22 below),“a precipitous land (אֶרֶץ גְּזֵרָה),” meaning a cut-off land [i.e., a sheer drop]. — [Torath Kohanim 16:28; Yoma 67b]

Assuming that Rashi was reaching back into an actual institutional memory of this ceremony, Jesus seems to have alluded to it in his description of final judgment (Matthew 25:31-33 NET):

When the Son of Man comes in his glory and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be assembled before him, and he will separate people (αὐτοὺς) one from another like a shepherd separates the sheep from (ἀπὸ) the goats [Table]. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

I’ll pick this up in another essay.

Tables comparing Isaiah 45:4; 45:5; 45:6; 45:7 and 45:8 in the Tanakh, KJV and NET, and tables comparing the Greek of Isaiah 45:4; 45:5; 45:6; 45:7 and 45:8 in the Septuagint (BLB and Elpenor), and tables comparing Luke 6:26 and 1 John 3:2 in the NET and KJV follow.