My Reasons and My Reason, Part 4

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[8] James 2:10 (NET) Table

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

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

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

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

[13] John 1:47 (KJV)

Son of God – 1 John, Part 2

Who is the liar but the person who denies (ἀρνούμενος, a form of ἀρνέομαι)[1] that Jesus is the Christ?  This one is the antichrist: the person who denies (ἀρνούμενος, a form of ἀρνέομαι) the Father and the Son.[2]  This is one of the things John wrote to his contemporaries about those who are trying to deceive you.[3]

It is interesting that this became a problem among believers after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem, after those in Israel who rejected Jesus as Christ (or, Messiah) were compelled to accept Him as a credible prophet: Now while some were speaking about the temple, how it was adorned with beautiful stones and offerings, Jesus said, “As for these things that you are gazing at, the days will come when not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down!”[4]  And, I tell you the truth, not one stone will be left on another.  All will be torn down![5] All will be torn down![6]

Believers were not particularly troubled by the unbelief of enemies of the Gospel (enemies for your [believers’] sake, but in regard to election they are dearly loved for the sake of the fathers[7]) so long as the enemies defamed the Lord Jesus and threatened and harmed his followers.  The trouble began when the enemies softened their approach, accepted Jesus as a prophet, even a good man—but not the Messiah, not the Christ.

John continued: Everyone who denies (ἀρνούμενος, a form of ἀρνέομαι) the Son [i.e., denies that the Son is the Christ] does not have the Father either.  The person who confesses the Son has the Father also.  As for you, what you have heard from the beginning must remain in you.  If what you heard from the beginning remains in you, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father.[8]  For John, what you have heard from the beginning was the Gospel, and he had written more about it previously, or perhaps it was more warning about those who are trying to deceive you (1 John 2:12, 13 NET):

I am writing to you, little children, that your sins have been forgiven because of his name.  I am writing to you, fathers, that you have known him who has been from the beginning.  I am writing to you, young people, that you have conquered the evil one (πονηρόν, a form of πονηρός).[9]

The note on the evil one in the NET reads: “The phrase the evil one is used in John 17:15 as a reference to Satan. Satan is also the referent here and in the four other occurrences in 1 John (2:14; 3:12; 5:18, 19).”  But in the definition of πονηρός they effectively acknowledge that they added the word one because the nominative case in Matthew 6:13 means “‘The Evil,’ and is probably referring to Satan.”

I think this is too limiting in both verses.  When I pray, And do not lead us into temptation, but deliver us from the evil (πονηροῦ, another form of πονηρός),[10] I am not praying to be delivered from Satan only, but from the meaningless deeds that are 1) full of labours, annoyances, and hardships; from being 1a) pressed and harassed by those labours; I pray to be delivered from 1b) this time full of peril to Christian faith and steadfastness that causes so much pain and trouble;  to be delivered from everything 2) bad, or of a bad nature or condition; from 2a) disease or blindness; as well as from that which is 2b) evil or wicked.

Likewise I believe that John wrote to young people that you have conquered the evil (πονηρόν, a form of πονηρός); not Satan only, but the meaningless deeds that are 1) full of labours, annoyances, and hardships; they are not 1a) pressed and harassed by those labours; they have overcome 1b) this time full of peril to Christian faith and steadfastness that causes so much pain and trouble; they have conquered everything 2) bad, or of a bad nature or condition; 2a) disease or blindness; as well as that which is 2b) evil or wicked.  John continued (1 John 2:14 NET):

I have written to you, children, that you have known the Father.  I have written to you, fathers, that you have known him who has been from the beginning.  I have written to you, young people, that you are strong, and the word of God resides in you, and you have conquered the evil (πονηρόν, a form of πονηρός)…

I fantasize sometimes what the world might be like if young people were taught that they are strong, and the word of God resides in them, that they have conquered the evil, and how all of this is true in Christ through his Holy Spirit, rather than being taught the rules their elders have devised for them.  In my mother’s day the path of righteousness was that girls shouldn’t wear lipstick.  My mother and her contemporaries religiously put on their lipstick every Sunday morning, some even refreshed it in the pew during the service.  In my day the path of righteousness was not listening to rock music.  Most of my contemporaries attend churches that rock.  Why not try John’s approach?  Could it be any worse?

At best these rules are equivalent to gezerot.  A gezerah (singular of gezerot) according to the online Jewish Encyclopedia was a “rabbinical enactment issued as a guard or preventive measure….The Rabbis based their institution of such enactments upon the Biblical passages, ‘Thou shalt not depart from the sentence,’ etc. (Deut. xvii. 11), although at the same time they transgressed another commandment: ‘Ye shall not add unto the word which I command thee, neither shall ye diminish from it’ (Deut. iv. 2; Shab. 23a; Ab. R. N. 25b).”[11]  Perhaps any particular “preventive measure” was a good idea at a particular time in a particular place.  But gezerot are not the Gospel.

The first gezerah followed swiftly after God’s first prohibition: The Lord God planted an orchard in the east, in Eden; and there he placed the man he had formed.  The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow from the soil, every tree that was pleasing to look at and good for food.  (Now the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil were in the middle of the orchard.)…The Lord God took the man and placed him in the orchard in Eden to care for it and to maintain it.[12]

God’s Prohibition

Eve’s Knowledge of God’s Prohibition

Then the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”

Genesis 2:16, 17 (NET)

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard; but concerning the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the orchard God said, ‘You must not eat from it, and you must not touch it, or else you will die.’”

Genesis 3:2, 3 (NET)

The circumstantial evidence points to Adam as the originator of the first gezerah, and you must not touch it.  It sounds like a good idea.  “If you don’t touch it, Eve, you won’t eat it and you won’t die—whatever that means.”  But in practice when Eve touched it she did not die—whatever that means.  She saw with her own eyes that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, and it was attractive to the eye.[13]  She had the serpent’s assurance that she would not die—whatever that means—and that God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like divine beings who know good and evil.[14]

If I take the sequence of events recorded in Genesis literally, after she took some of its fruit and ate it nothing happened, neither the serpent’s promise nor God’s.  After all, God’s prohibition was given to Adam.  Eve was created afterward.  Perhaps it was reasonable for Adam to assume that God’s prohibition applied also to his wife, but nothing happened until Eve also gave some of it to her husband who was with her, and he ate it.  Then the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked [Table].[15]  I sincerely doubt that realizing she was naked was the wisdom Eve desired.[16]

So the Lord God expelled [Adam] from the orchard in Eden to cultivate the ground from which he had been taken [Table].  When he drove the man out, he placed on the eastern side of the orchard in Eden angelic sentries who used the flame of a whirling sword to guard the way to the tree of life.[17]  Adam and Eve and all their descendants will surely die.  Perhaps Adam and Eve understood death when, The Lord God made garments from skin for [them], and clothed them.[18]  If not, they certainly understood it about a century later[19] when their firstborn Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.[20]  But I want to remove the serpent from the equation for a moment.

If I suppose that the serpent did not persuade Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, and Eve did not persuade Adam, and if Adam raised his sons to stand guard over the tree of the knowledge of good and evil like the angelic sentries guarded the way to the tree of life, if they, or we to this very day, faithfully kept Adam’s gezerah not to touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, would that be the righteousness of God?  My answer is an unequivocal, “No.”  It would simply mean that tanks and machine guns and the fear of death had kept us from sinning against Adam’s gezerah, which only incidentally also kept us from violating God’s prohibition.

So at worst gezerot when practiced promote actions that ignore the righteousness that comes from God, and [seeks] instead to establish [one’s] own righteousness.[21]  It is a catastrophe if those who believe and practice them do not submit to God’s righteousness.  For Christ is the end (τέλος;[22] “the end to which all things relate, the aim, purpose”) of the law, with the result that there is righteousness for everyone who believes.[23]  This people honors me with their lips, Jesus said, but their heart is far from me, and they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.[24]  As a teaching practice gezerot are sin relative to the Gospel.

Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness, John continued, indeed, sin is lawlessness.  And you know that Jesus was revealed to take away (ἄρῃ, a form of αἴρω) sins[25]  John also used ἄρῃ in his Gospel account.  After Jesus died Joseph of Arimatheaasked Pilate if he could remove (ἄρῃ, a form of αἴρω) the body of Jesus.[26]  So as Joseph sought to take away the body of Jesus from the cross, Jesus was revealed to take away (ἄρῃ) sins from us, and in him there is no sin, John continued.  Everyone who resides in him does not sin; everyone who sins has neither seen him nor known him.  Little children, let no one deceive you: The one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as Jesus is righteous.  The one who practices sin is of the devil, because the devil has been sinning from the beginning.[27]

But there is still hope: For this purpose the Son of God was revealed: to destroy the works of the devil.[28]  Jesus was still revealed to take away even the sin of rejecting his righteousness for our own gezerotEveryone who has been fathered by God does not practice sin, because God’s seed resides in him, and thus he is not able to sin, because he has been fathered by God.  By this the children of God and the children of the devil are revealed: Everyone who does not practice righteousness – the one who does not love his fellow Christian (ἀδελφὸν, a form of ἀδελφός)[29] – is not of God.[30]

Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue but in deed and truth.  And by this we will know that we are of the truth and will convince our conscience in his presence, that if our conscience condemns us, that God is greater than our conscience and knows all things.  Dear friends, if our conscience does not condemn us, we have confidence in the presence of God, and whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do the things that are pleasing to him.  Now this is his commandment: that we believe in the name of his Son Jesus Christ and love one another, just as he gave us the commandment.  And the person who keeps his commandments resides in God, and God in him.  Now by this we know that God resides in us: by the Spirit he has given us.[31]

I included the Greek text of Jesus’ quote from Isaiah for completeness.

Jesus

Septuagint

Parallel Greek Text – NET

This people honors me with their lips,but their heart is far from me, and they worship me in vain, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.

Matthew 15:8, 9 (NET)

ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν αὐτῶν[32] τιμῶσίν[33] με ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾽ ἐμοῦ μάτην[34] δὲ σέβονταί με διδάσκοντες ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων καὶ διδασκαλίας

Isaiah 29:13

ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν με τιμᾷ,[35]ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ μάτην δὲ σέβονται μεδιδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων

Matthew 15:8, 9

Translation from a contemporary understanding of ancient Hebrew

These people say they are loyal to me; they say wonderful things about me, but they are not really loyal to me.  Their worship consists of nothing but man-made ritual.[36]

Isaiah 29:13 (NET)

 

Addendum (7/15/2015): Jim Searcy has published that the Septuagint is a hoax written by Origen and Eusebius 200 hundred years or so after Christ.  “In fact, the Septuagint ‘quotes’ from the New Testament and not vice versa…”  His contention is that the “King James Version is the infallible Word of God.”  So, I’ll re-examine the quotations above with the KJV.

Jesus

KJV

Parallel Greek Text – NET

This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.
But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Matthew 15:8, 9 (KJV)

Forasmuch as this people draw near me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:

Isaiah 29:13

ὁ λαὸς οὗτος τοῖς χείλεσιν με τιμᾷ, ἡ δὲ καρδία αὐτῶν πόρρω ἀπέχει ἀπ᾿ ἐμοῦ μάτην δὲ σέβονται μεδιδάσκοντες διδασκαλίας ἐντάλματα ἀνθρώπων

Matthew 15:8, 9

If as Jim Searcy claimed the Septuagint was written after the New Testament, But in vain (μάτην δὲ) was not a part of Isaiah’s original prophecy as Jesus claimed.  Rather, Jesus added it on the spot.


[2] 1 John 2:22 (NET)

[3] 1 John 2:26 (NET)

[4] Luke 21:5, 6 (NET)

[5] Matthew 24:2 (NET)

[6] Mark 13:2 (NET)

[7] Romans 11:28 (NET)

[8] 1 John 2:23, 24 (NET)

[10] Matthew 6:13 (NET)

[12] Genesis 2:8, 9, 15 (NET)

[13] Genesis 3:6a (NET)

[14] Genesis 3:5 (NET) Table

[15] Genesis 3:6b-7a (NET)

[16]the woman saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise… (Genesis 3:6a NET)

[17] Genesis 3:23, 24 (NET)

[18] Genesis 3:21 (NET)

[19] Genesis 4:25; 5:3

[20] Genesis 4:8 (NET)

[21] Romans 10:3a (NET)

[23] Romans 10:3b, 4 (NET)

[24] Matthew 15:8, 9 (NET)

[25] 1 John 3:4, 5a (NET)

[26] John 19:38a (NET)

[27] 1 John 3:5b-8 (NET)

[28] 1 John 3:8b (NET)

[30] 1 John 3:9, 10 (NET)

[31] 1 John 3:18-24 (NET)

[36] NET note: “Heb ‘their fear of me is a commandment of men that has been taught.’”