Romans, Part 72

In this essay I continue to consider Contribute (κοινωνοῦντες, a form of κοινωνέω) to the needs of the saints, pursue hospitality.[1] But  I’m looking at the dark side of contributing (or, sharing in), specifically (2 John 1:9-11 NET):

Everyone who goes on ahead and does not remain in the teaching of Christ does not have God.  The one who remains in this teaching has both the Father and the Son.  If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house and do not give him any greeting, because the person who gives him a greeting shares (κοινωνεῖ, another form of κοινωνέω) in his evil deeds.

My religious mind hears evil deeds in English as some sin, preferably one to which it is not particularly prone—molesting young boys, for instance—and fixates on that as the meaning of evil deeds.  In Greek, however—κοινωνεῖ τοῖς ἔργοις (a form of ἔργον) αὐτοῦ τοῖς πονηροῖς (a form of πονηρός)—is just as likely to mean “shares (or, contributes to) his works full of labours, annoyances, and hardships.”  This is the more likely meaning, in fact, in reference to the New Testament ἐκκλησία.  Religious people tie up heavy loads, hard to carry, and put them on men’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing even to lift a finger to move them.[2]  Jesus said (Matthew 11:28-30 NET):

Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest (ἀναπαύσω, a form of ἀναπαύω).  Take my yoke on you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest (ἀνάπαυσιν, a form of ἀνάπαυσις) for your souls (ψυχαῖς, a form of ψυχή).  For my yoke is easy to bear, and my load is not hard to carry.

As I continue to distinguish the teaching of Christ from that of religious people I consider Love the Lord your Godwith all your soul[3] (ψυχῆς, another form of ψυχή).  After Jesus’ Father revealed (Matthew 16:16, 17 NET) to Peter that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, and after Jesus instructed his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ[4] (Matthew 16:21-27 NET):

From that time on Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, and on the third day be raised.  So Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him: “God forbid, Lord!  This must not happen to you!”  But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan!  You are a stumbling block to me, because you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but on man’s.”  Then Jesus said to his disciples, “If anyone wants to become my follower, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.  For whoever wants to save his life (ψυχὴν, another form of ψυχή) will lose it, but whoever loses his life (ψυχὴν, another form of ψυχή) for my sake will find it.  For what does it benefit a person if he gains the whole world but forfeits his life (ψυχὴν, another form of ψυχή)?  Or what can a person give in exchange for his life (ψυχῆς, another form of ψυχή)?  For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will reward each person according to what he has done.

Granted, there is a lot packed into this passage.  First to love yehôvâh with all your soul (or, life), is to become a follower of Jesus, yehôvâh incarnate, made human flesh as a man.  If anyone wants to become my follower, Jesus said, he must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.  I’ll consider deny himself as it is demonstrated here.  It was revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah.  Peter thought he knew who the Messiah was and what He had come to do.

When the Messiah said that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests, and experts in the law, and be killed, Peter said, This must not happen to you.  I assume that Peter didn’t even hear the part about being raised on the third day or his response would have revealed a different confusion.  All Peter heard was that the Messiah he and his people longed for would suffer at the hands of his religious leaders and be killed.

When Jesus called Peter Satan, He did not mean that Satan is the true representative of man’s interests.  He meant that Peter’s words appealed to that fleshly part of Jesus’ own humanity as Satan had tried to do in the wilderness (Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12, 13, Luke 4:1-13 NET).  Peter accepted Jesus’ rebuke, picked himself up and followed all the way to what he perceived was a last stand (John 11:7-16 NET; cf verse 16) in the garden of Gethsemane (John 18:10, 11, Matthew 26:51-54, Mark 14:47, Luke 22:49-51 NET), without ever fully understanding what Jesus’ meant until after the resurrection.

Like Peter, I thought I knew what Jesus’ final statement meant: For the Son of Man will come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will reward each person according to what he has doneAlexander the coppersmith did me a great deal of harm, Paul warned Timothy.  The Lord will repay him in keeping with his deeds.  You be on guard against him too, because he vehemently opposed our words.[5]

The Lord will repay him in keeping with his deeds, is an allusion to Psalm 28:4 according to a note (19) in the NET.  A comparison of the Greek texts follows.

Paul (NET) Parallel Greek David (NETS)

Septuagint

Alexander the coppersmith did me a great deal of harm.

2 Timothy 4:14a

Ἀλέξανδρος ὁ χαλκεὺς πολλά μοι κακὰ ἐνεδείξατο

2 Timothy 4:14a

The Lord will repay him in keeping with his deeds.

2 Timothy 4:14b

ἀποδώσει αὐτῷ ὁ κύριος κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ

2 Timothy 4:14b

Give them according to their works,

Psalm 28:4a

δὸς αὐτοῖς κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν

Psalm 28:4a

  and according to the wickedness of their practices;

Psalm 28:4b

καὶ κατὰ τὴν πονηρίαν τῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων[6] αὐτῶν

Psalm 28:4b

  according to the works of their hands give them;

Psalm 28:4c

κατὰ τὰ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν αὐτῶν δὸς αὐτοῖς

Psalm 28:4c

  render them their due reward.

Psalm 28:4d

ἀπόδος τὸ ἀνταπόδομα αὐτῶν αὐτοῖς

Psalm 28:4d

“He’s making a list / And checking it twice / Gonna find out Who’s naughty and nice…He sees you when you’re sleeping / He knows when you’re awake / He knows if you’ve been bad or good / So be good for goodness sake!”[7]  No, my parents never tricked me into believing in Santa Claus.  They didn’t even trick me into believing that Jesus was born on December 25th.  Christmas was the arbitrary season the Church chose to celebrate Jesus’ birth.  I made this connection to being repaid in keeping with my deeds, thinking, I suppose, that parents made Santa Claus in Jesus’ image.  But children were never good for goodness’ sake.  They wanted presents, rewards, rather than a lump of coal.

This was essentially my understanding of good works.  They had nothing to do with salvation except that I should want to do them because Jesus did a “good work” for me, dying for my sins.  Good works were done primarily for rewards.  No one knew what these rewards might be but no one wanted to be left out when everyone else was receiving rewards for their good works.  As I got older, good works merited good things happening to or for me here and now, while bad works merited the opposite, karma, in a word.  Fear is the key motivation, whether fear of social embarrassment or literal harm.

And again Paul wrote, But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!  He will reward each one according to his works.[8]  According to a note (16) in the NET this is a quotation from Psalm 62:12 and Proverbs 24:12.  The Greek texts are compared below.

Paul (NET) Parallel Greek David (NETS)

Septuagint

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!

Romans 2:5

κατὰ δὲ τὴν σκληρότητα σου καὶ ἀμετανόητον καρδίαν θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ

Romans 2:5

And to you, O Lord, belongs mercy,

Psalm 62:12a

ὅτι τὸ κράτος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ σοί κύριε τὸ ἔλεος

Psalm 62:12a

He will reward each one according to his works:

Romans 2:6

ὃς ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ

Romans 2:6

because you will repay to each according to his works.

Psalm 62:12b

ὅτι σὺ ἀποδώσεις ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ

Psalm 62:12b

Mercy above is ἔλεος in the Septuagint.  Later in the same letter to the Romans Paul recalled the long name (Exodus 33:19 NET) of yehôvâh: I will have mercy (ἐλεήσω, a 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, another form of ἐλεέω).[9]  For God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy (ἐλεήσῃ, another form of ἐλεέω) to them all.[10]  “Go and learn what this saying means,” Jesus said to religious people, I want mercy (ἔλεος) and not sacrifice.’  For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners.”[11]  And, “If you had known what this means:I want mercy (ἔλεος) and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.”[12]

Paul (NET)

Parallel Greek Solomon (NETS)

Septuagint

But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath for yourselves in the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment is revealed!

Romans 2:5

κατὰ δὲ τὴν σκληρότητα σου καὶ ἀμετανόητον καρδίαν θησαυρίζεις σεαυτῷ ὀργὴν ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς καὶ ἀποκαλύψεως δικαιοκρισίας τοῦ θεοῦ

Romans 2:5

If you say: “I do not know this person,” be aware that the Lord is familiar with the heart of everyone, and he who formed breath for all, he knows everything,

Proverbs 24:12a [Table]

ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃς οὐκ οἶδα τοῦτον γίνωσκε ὅτι κύριος καρδίας πάντων γινώσκει καὶ ὁ πλάσας πνοὴν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς οἶδεν πάντα

Proverbs 24:12a

He will reward each one according to his works:

Romans 2:6

ὃς ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ

Romans 2:6

he who will render to each according to his deeds.

Proverbs 24:12b [Table]

ὃς ἀποδίδωσιν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ

Proverbs 24:12b

Here, though the familiar fear-of-the-Lord usage is evident, Solomon’s purpose was that His son Rehoboam as a prince and eventually king of Israel would, “Rescue them who are led to death, and buy back those who are to be slaughtered; do not delay!”[13]  In each of these verses the Greek phrase translated according to his deeds (or, works) is κατὰ τὰ ἔργα (a form of ἔργον) αὐτοῦ (according to their works is κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτῶν).  But Jesus made a minor change when speaking this way to his disciples, to those who followed Him, who loved yehôvâh with all their soul or life: ἀποδώσει ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὴν πρᾶξιν (a form of πρᾶξις) αὐτοῦ.  Jesus’ followers will be rewarded according to their practice as opposed to their works.

Do they live by the Spirit (πνεύματι περιπατεῖτε)?  Are they led by the Spirit (πνεύματι ἄγεσθε) or by the flesh?  Their works of the flesh (τὰ ἔργα τῆς σαρκός) as isolated incidents are already forgiven, condemned in the flesh.  Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me.[14]  Of course, if they practice the works of the flesh they were never Jesus’ followers to begin with: Those who practice (πράσσοντες, a form of πράσσω) such things will not inherit the kingdom of God![15]

The hope for Jesus’ followers is the Sabbath rest…for the people of GodFor the one who enters God’s rest (κατάπαυσιν, a form of κατάπαυσις) has also rested (κατέπαυσεν, a form of καταπαύω) from his works (ἔργων, another form of ἔργον), just as God did from his own works.  Thus we must make every effort (Σπουδάσωμεν, a form of σπουδάζω) to enter that rest (κατάπαυσιν, a form of κατάπαυσις), so that no one may fall by following the same pattern of disobedience (ἀπειθείας, a form of ἀπείθεια).[16]  But the one who practices (ποιῶν, a form of ποιέω) the truth, Jesus said of his followers, comes to the light, so that it may be plainly evident that his deeds (ἔργα, a form of ἔργον) have been done in [or, by] God[17] (ὅτι ἐν θεῷ ἐστιν εἰργασμένα [a form of ἐργάζομαι]).

Finally, Jesus felt no need to motivate his followers with fear.  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.[18]  Do not leave Jerusalem, He told them after his resurrection, but wait there for what my Father promised, which you heard about from me.  For John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now.[19]  And the fruit of the Spirit is love (ἀγάπη), joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.  Against such things there is no law.  Now those who belong to Christ have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.[20]

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets, Jesus cautioned.  I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill (πληρῶσαι, a form of πληρόω) them.[21]  Love (ἀγάπη) does no wrong to a neighbor.  Therefore love (ἀγάπη) is the fulfillment (πλήρωμα) of the law.[22]  And whoever does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me, Jesus said.  Whoever finds his life (ψυχὴν, another form of ψυχή) will lose it, and whoever loses his life (ψυχὴν, another form of ψυχή) because of me will find it.[23]

For we did not follow cleverly concocted fables when we made known to you the power and return of our Lord Jesus Christ, Peter offered, no, we were eyewitnesses of his grandeur.[24]  But in the light of these details even those who reject the Gospel as cleverly concocted fables need to pause to appreciate just how cleverly concocted the details are.  Maybe it’s not the devil in the details.

I began this essay with an oblique reference to pedophile priests.  My point is simply this: I don’t believe that Catholic priests who molested children were trusting in their deaths to sin (Romans 6:3-14 NET) through faith in Jesus’ crucifixion as they molested those children.  They weren’t believing their resurrection to new life (Romans 7:4-6 NET) through Jesus’ resurrection.  They weren’t walking or living by his Spirit (Romans 8:1-11 NET), depending on his daily infusion of love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Galatians 5:13-6:5 NET).  I believe they relied on their own abilities as Catholic priests to live up to centuries of Catholic rules governing the behavior of Catholic priests.  That is molestation (or an eruption of any other sin) looking for a time and a place to happen, because it is the practice which plays to sin’s strength: the power of sin is the law.[25]

Romans, Part 73

[1] Romans 12:13 (NET)

[2] Matthew 23:4 (NET)

[3] Mark 12:30a (NET)

[4] Matthew 16:20 (NET)

[5] 2 Timothy 4:14, 15 (NET)

[6] http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/morph?l=e)pithdeuma%2Ftwn&la=greek&prior=tw=n

[7] http://www.41051.com/xmaslyrics/santatown.html

[8] Romans 2:5, 6 (NET)

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

[10] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[11] Matthew 9:13 (NET)

[12] Matthew 12:7 (NET)

[13] Proverbs 24:11 (NETS)

[14] Romans 7:20 (NET)

[15] Galatians 5:21b (NET)

[16] Hebrews 4:10, 11 (NET)

[17] John 3:21 (NET)

[18] 1 John 4:18, 19 (NET)

[19] Acts 1:4, 5 (NET)

[20] Galatians 5:22-24 (NET)

[21] Matthew 5:17 (NET)

[22] Romans 13:10 (NET)

[23] Matthew 10:38, 39 (NET)

[24] 2 Peter 1:16 (NET)

[25] 1 Corinthians 15:56b (NET)

Antichrist, Part 3

Like John’s antichrists Trier’s antichrists were not necessarily tyrannical globalists, but people who had not been perfected in God’s love and did not keep his commandments.  Unlike John’s antichrists there was no indication in the film that they had ever known God and then departed from that knowledge.  Trier’s antichrists are not named.  We are introduced to them “he-in’-and-a-she-in'” as Otis (played by William Fichtner in the movie “The Amateurs”) described fucking.  But I want to try to reconstruct the story of “Antichrist” in temporal order.

This will definitely be a spoiler for those who haven’t seen the film.  My take is not Lars Von Trier’s understanding, nor that of the actors.   I assume that anyone remotely interested in my understanding would be offended by the pornographic nature of this movie and not watch it all the way through anyway.  And I use pornographic in a technical, not an eye-of-the-beholder, sense here.

Conan O’Brien asked his guest Amanda Seyfried about her role in a biopic about Linda Lovelace of “Deep Throat” fame: “How do you portray a porn star without being incredibly explicit?  Do you know what I mean?”  Ms. Seyfried answered, “Well, you don’t actually have sex on film.”[1]  In other words people who get paid to pretend to have sex on film are actors, ὑποκριταί in Greek.  People who get paid to actually have sex on film are prostitutes; πορνοσ (pornos) is the Greek for a male prostitute.  Our word pornography (writing about prostitutes) comes from the Greek compound of πορνοσ (pornos) and γραφή (graphē).  The body doubles for Willem Dafoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg in “Antichrist” were porn actors, and a few shots in the film do qualify under this technical definition.

Before the film began she (Charlotte Gainsbourg) and their toddler son Nic went to Eden, a secluded cabin in the woods, to finish her thesis on Gynocide.  It was a study of man’s inhumanity to woman, witch-hunts and the like.  She couldn’t finish when she realized it was not a simple story of evil men persecuting virtuous women, but that the women were evil, too.  As she absentmindedly, or vindictively, (it was never quite clear to me) forced the left shoe on her son’s right foot, and vice versa (causing a deformity that became apparent in an autopsy report) she became cognizant of her own evil as well.

The film actually begins with beautiful slow motion black and white footage of he (Willem Dafoe) and she fucking.  Just because I believe that fucking does not, or the feelings associated with fucking do not, fulfill the law, does not mean that I have anything against fucking or those feelings.  Fucking my wives or the feelings I had while fucking them or wanting to fuck them are beyond compare, except perhaps for the feeling I had when they wanted to fuck me.  I miss it.  And the opening scene of “Antichrist” spawned many a wonderful memory (as well as some that were not so wonderful).

Nic, their toddler son, awoke from his nap, climbed out of his crib, watched his mother and father a moment, turned quietly away, investigated an open window, and fell to his death.  Granted, in real life the likelihood that a toddler would not demand some parental attention might be extremely low.  But “Antichrist” is a horror movie, only the worst possibilities can happen.  During the funeral procession she collapsed and was hospitalized.  Her doctor thought she had an abnormal reaction to grief.  Her husband, a psychologist, disagreed.

“I could have stopped him,” she told her husband, apparently coming into the light.  “You didn’t know that he had started waking up lately.  I was aware that he would sometimes wake up and crawl out of bed and walk about.”  She started to sob, “He woke up and was confused and alone.”

He assumed, and we in the audience assume at this point, that she was suffering from psychological guilt.  What we learn later, but he never knew, is that she saw Nic watching them and chose not to interrupt her husband to attend to her son.  We also see that fucking is her narcotic and anesthetic of choice.  The perfect wife?

What I realized the second time through the film was that her doctor’s “abnormal reaction to grief” and her husband’s diagnosis of psychological guilt both missed the point.  She suffered from the actual guilt of maternal negligence and needed actual forgiveness.  But there was no forgiveness to be found.  This is “Antichrist,” not “Breaking the Waves.”  Her doctor gave her mood drugs and her husband gave her psycho-babble, as she “bled out” from actual guilt.  But “actual guilt” was not a category her doctor or her husband would recognize as legitimate, apart from a criminal indictment and conviction.

Why didn’t she come fully into the light? with her husband at least?  Why didn’t she tell him she saw Nic, knew he was awake, and knew he was walking about unsupervised?  Jesus (or John) said, everyone who does evil deeds hates the light and does not come to the light, so that their deeds will not be exposed.[5]  He didn’t seem like the kind of man who would, or could, forgive her for a judgment mistake that claimed his son’s life.  And she feared that he would leave her.  In other words, theirs was not a love (ἀγάπη) affair by definition, no matter how good their fucking was.

He didn’t know (because he hadn’t experienced), In this is love: not that we have loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins.[7]  Receive the Holy Spirit, Jesus said.  If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgiven; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained.[8]  For if you forgive others their sins, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.  But if you do not forgive others, your Father will not forgive you your sins.[9]  And she was not perfected in love either because, 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.[10]

He arranged to get her out of the hospital, brought her home and became her therapist.  “You’ve always been distant from me and Nic,” she said in one of their sessions, “now that I come to think of it, very, very distant.”

“Okay,” he said, ever the patient therapist.  “Can you give me some example of this?”

“Like last summer, for instance, [when she went with Nic to Eden] you were terribly distant last summer, as a father and as a husband.”

“Well, actually it was to honor your wish.  You wanted peace to write.”

“Perhaps I didn’t mean it,” she said.

That sounds just like a woman, I thought.  But as I imagined the scene that preceded her writing retreat at Eden, I learned something about me as a husband and father.  I, too, have tried to play the patient therapist with my wife and children.  If she asked me for my blessing to take Nic and go to Eden without me for the summer, I would have thought, “No way!  I’ll miss you, and Nic.  I’ll miss talking with you, eating with you, being with you and, yes, fucking you.  Why can’t you write here!?”  But then I would have thought how selfish that seemed, and I would have said, “Okay.”

In other words, I wouldn’t have come into the light with my wife.  I probably haven’t done so at various times in the past.  And I see now that the truth—that I would miss her terribly, that I was angry that she would ask such a thing, that I felt that my initial reaction was selfish, so, yes, I would respect her desire to go to write her thesis and agree to it as much as it was in me to do—would be a much better basis for a love (ἀγάπη) affair.  But I thought that “controlling” my emotions (rather than sharing them with her) was the “right” thing to do.

She didn’t finish her thesis that summer.  He hadn’t even asked about it.  When she told him he wondered why she had given up.  “The whole project just seemed less important up there,” she said.  It had become “glib” to her, “or even worse, some kind of lie.”  He learned nothing about his obvious distance from her.  He kept his focus on her.  He decided that she had a phobia.

“What scares you about the woods?” he asked.

“Everything.”

So he took her back to Eden.


[5] John 3:20 (NET)

[7] 1 John 4:10 (NET)

[8] John 20:22b, 23 (NET)

[9] Matthew 6:14, 15 (NET) Table

[10] 1 John 4:18, 19 (NET)