Tag Archives: Ephesians 2:1-3

Keep Yourselves From Idols, Part 2

Posted on by

I mentioned in another essay how difficult it is for me to recognize when I’m worshiping an idol. This essay will be somewhat exploratory because I suspect that there is an idol in here somewhere. I’m just not entirely sure where as I begin.

In a Bible study on the book of James my Pastor quoted from Ephesians (Ephesians 2:8-10 ESV):

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God [Table], not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Sometime later, as we shared a meal, I said that it was nice to hear those verses without the customary caveat. He didn’t know what I was talking about. I explained that this and faith were different genders in Greek, and so faith was excluded from the phrase not your own doing. He had never heard such a thing and pulled up the verses on his phone. I admitted I didn’t really believe it any more in any practical way but that I had heard it all my life, and that it still came to mind whenever I considered Ephesians 2:8.

He said it didn’t make any sense: yes, τοῦτο, translated this (ESV), is neuter and πίστεως, translated faith (ESV), is feminine, but so is χάριτι, translated grace (ESV). I said I should probably look more deeply into it. So, here I go.

First, χάριτι in the text was actually Τῇ…χάριτι, translated by grace (ESV) because both words are in the dative case. The example cited in GREEK NOUNS (Shorter Definitions) was, do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God.1 Here τῇ προσευχῇ and τῇ δεήσει were translated by prayer and [by] supplication respectively because all are in the dative case.

The Greek words translated faith were πίστεως in the NET parallel Greek text and NA28, and της πιστεως in the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text.2 My Pastor was right: If πίστεως is excluded from this (τοῦτο) is not your own doing,3 because πίστεως is feminine and τοῦτο is neuter, then Τῇ…χάριτι should be excluded for the same reason. In other words, both grace and faith would be your own doing (ἐξ ὑμῶν); literally, “out from you.”

In another essay I wrote: “I’m not qualified to engage that argument,” thinking, I suppose, that it was too esoteric for my current knowledge of Koine Greek. But now it appears that I was just too lazy to engage the text. My reasons for including grace in the clause this is not your own doing have nothing to do with the genders of Τῇ…χάριτι and τοῦτο, but with many other passages of Scripture and a not insignificant amount of personal experience. I cannot exclude faith solely on the basis of the gender of πίστεως and της.

Are there other Scriptures that persuade me that faith is of my own doing? I’ll begin with a New Testament survey of πίστεως4 (Acts 11:19-24 ESV).

Now those who were scattered because of the persecution that arose over Stephen (Acts 8:1-3) traveled as far as Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except Jews. But there were some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke to the Hellenists also, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number who believed turned to the Lord [Table]. The report of this came to the ears of the church in5 Jerusalem,6 and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. When he came and saw the grace of God, he was glad, and he exhorted them all to remain faithful to the Lord with steadfast purpose [Table], for he was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great many people were added to the Lord.

The Greek words translated who believed in—and a great number who believed turned to the Lord7—were ὁ πιστεύσας in the NET parallel Greek text and NA28, and simply πιστευσας in the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text (KJV: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord). Adding ὁ to πιστεύσας (a participle of the verb πιστεύω) leaves the possibility open that some who believed had not yet turned (ἐπέστρεψεν, a form of ἐπιστρέφω) to the Lord (Matthew 13:18-23; Luke 8:11-15).

What interests me more in this context is: And the hand of the Lord was with them:8 καὶ ἦν χεὶρ κυρίου μετ᾿ αὐτῶν. The pronoun αὐτῶν is masculine, feminine and neuter, and most likely9 refers back to the Hellenists (τοὺς Ἑλληνιστὰς) and forward to a great number who believed: πολύς τε ἀριθμὸς ὁ πιστεύσας. In other words, the hand of the Lord is cited preceding the faith of a great number of the Hellenists. Was Luke simply being polite to the Lord when the actual situation was that the faith of a great number of the Hellenists was of their own doing?

When [Barnabas] came and saw the grace (τὴν χάριν) of God, he was glad.10 What was the grace of God that Barnabas saw (ἰδὼν, a form of εἴδω)? he exhorted [the great number of the Hellenists who believed] to remain faithful (προσμένειν, an infinitive form of προσμένω) to the Lord with steadfast purpose.11 It sounds as if Luke attributed their faith to the grace of God. Was he puffing God up with false praise when the actual situation was that the faith of a great number of the Hellenists was of their own doing?

The text continued: for [Barnabas] was a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith.12 The Greek word translated faith here was πίστεως, a form of the noun πίστις. Being full of the Holy Spirit (πλήρης πνεύματος ἁγίου) precedes being full of faith. This makes sense since πίστις, translated faithfulness (ESV), is an aspect of the fruit of the Spirit. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law13…the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law [Table].14

Since I am making so much of the word order, should I assume that Barnabas was full of the Holy Spirit and of faith because he was a good man (ἦν ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς)? I’ve made that assumption before. It’s not false unless I’m thinking causatively: goodness (ἀγαθωσύνη) is another aspect of the fruit of the Spirit. So I assume now that Luke and the Holy Spirit used full of the Holy Spirit and of faith to clarify their intended meaning: for he was a good man.15 And a great many people were added to the Lord.16

This is not my experience. I don’t see a great many people…added to the Lord in my immediate vicinity. I won’t blame the hand of the Lord. That leaves: I am not a good man, full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. I’ll own that and continue to Do [my] best to present [myself] to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.17 But If I rejected that diagnosis, would I blame those who are dead in…trespasses and sins for their lack of faith in Christ?

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins [Table] in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind [Table].18

So, blaming them would depend, I suppose, on who I credit for making me alive together with Christ.

But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ—by grace you have been saved—and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace (τῆς χάριτος αὐτοῦ) in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus [Table].19

Approached in this way it becomes quite telling that my faith and my works are absent here: This is about God’s mercy, God’s great love, God made us alive together with Christ (συνεζωοποίησεν τῷ Χριστῷ) by God’s grace, God raised us up with him (συνήγειρεν, a form of συνεγείρω) and seated us with him (συνεκάθισεν, a form of συγκαθίζω) in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. Why? For his own purpose: so that in the coming ages he might show (ἐνδείξηται, a form of ἐνδείκνυμι) the immeasurable riches of his grace.

There is nothing uncertain about so that…he might show: ἐνδείξηται is a subjunctive form of ἐνδείκνυμι in a purpose clause: “the action should not be thought of as a possible result, but should be viewed as a definite outcome that will happen as a result of another stated action.”20 The only uncertainty here is why English translators persist in their refusal to translate Greek verbs in the subjunctive mood in purpose or result clauses into English. But when does/did all of this happen?

The verbs συνεζωοποίησεν, συνήγειρεν, συνεκάθισεν and even ἐνδείξηται are in the aorist tense and συνεζωοποίησεν, συνήγειρεν and συνεκάθισεν are in the indicative mood:

The aorist is said to be “simple occurrence” or “summary occurrence”, without regard for the amount of time taken to accomplish the action. This tense is also often referred to as the ‘punctiliar’ tense. ‘Punctiliar’ in this sense means ‘viewed as a single, collective whole,’ a “one-point-in-time” action, although it may actually take place over a period of time. In the indicative mood the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time, often translated like the English simple past tense.

For example: “God…made us alive together with Christ.” Eph 2:5

“He who has begun a good work in you will complete it until the day of Christ Jesus.” Phil 1:621

When I begin to perceive any of this as true corresponds to when I received the Holy Spirit. When I as a five-year-old child prayed a sinner’s prayer to Jesus to escape from burning in hell for all eternity, nothing happened except that I believed I didn’t need to fear hell.22 When I as a twenty-something atheist stoner prayed, “If you’re really out there, I really want to know you,”23 the Holy Spirit invaded my ψυχή: “soul, life, creature, living being, physical life, life-force; corpse, dead person; an individual person.”

I didn’t think much of the Gospel then. Been there, done that, I thought. The Gospel just didn’t work out for me. This time I was going to do it right. The objective truth of the Bible was irrelevant to me. Its truth was like that of a contract. There were things for me to do and things God would do in exchange. He knew what the contract I held in my hand said, and so could I.24

In no objective sense did I as a twenty-something atheist stoner turn in faith to Jesus Christ. I was more like a bibliolater standing before the Bible as Israel stood before Mount Sinai, saying, All that the LORD has spoken [I] will do.25 I didn’t keep my promise. He certainly knew I couldn’t keep my promise. Why did He give me his own Holy Spirit then and not when I was five?

I want to pause here to compile a brief dossier on Barnabas (Acts 4:33-37; 9:26-31; 11:22, 25, 26 ESV):

And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. Thus Joseph, who was also called by the apostles Barnabas (which means son of encouragement), a Levite, a native of Cyprus, sold a field that belonged to him and brought the money and laid it at the apostles’ feet [Table].

And when [Paul, aka Saul] had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples. And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple [Table]. But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. And he spoke and disputed against the Hellenists. But they were seeking to kill him [Table]. And when the brothers learned this, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus.

So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied [Table].

The report of this (Acts 11:19-21) came to the ears of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch.

So Barnabas went to Tarsus to look for Saul [aka Paul], and when he had found him, he brought him to Antioch. For a whole year they met with the church and taught a great many people. And in Antioch the disciples were first called Christians [Table].

The people who tried to lead the five-year-old me to the Lord, led me to atheism instead. It was certainly not their intent, just a fact. The twenty-something bibliolater me went back to the same church of the very same people, believing they were right and I was wrong. The difference? I was about twenty years older, but more to the point, I had been given the indwelling Holy Spirit of God. When I heard teaching or preaching the Holy Spirit brought other Scriptures to my mind. Sometimes those Scriptures agreed with what was taught or preached. That was a good day. Sometimes they did not. But I was studying the Bible on my own with the Holy Spirit, the Father and his Son. Eventually, Paul’s writings, writings that may never have been written (Acts 13:1-3) if Barnabas had not gone to Tarsus to look for Saul and brought him to Antioch, led me to Jesus. It is impossible for me to credit all of this to my faith or my effort, though I cannot imagine it transpiring apart from both.

The solution I return to over and over is:

Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed (ὑπηκούσατε , a form of ὑπακούω) so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation (τὴν ἑαυτῶν σωτηρίαν κατεργάζεσθε) with fear and trembling, for it is God who works (ὁ ἐνεργῶν) in you, both to will (τὸ θέλειν) and to work (τὸ ἐνεργεῖν) for his good pleasure (τῆς εὐδοκίας) [Table].26

I’ll pick this up in another essay. A table comparing Acts 11:22 in the NET and KJV follows.

Acts 11:22 (NET)

Acts 11:22 (KJV)
A report about them came to the attention of the church in Jerusalem, and they sent Barnabas to Antioch. Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.

Acts 11:22 (NET Parallel Greek)

Acts 11:22 (Stephanus Textus Receptus)

Acts 11:22 (Byzantine Majority Text)
Ἠκούσθη δὲ ὁ λόγος εἰς τὰ ὦτα τῆς ἐκκλησίας τῆς οὔσης ἐν Ἰερουσαλὴμ περὶ αὐτῶν καὶ ἐξαπέστειλαν Βαρναβᾶν ἕως Ἀντιοχείας ηκουσθη δε ο λογος εις τα ωτα της εκκλησιας της εν ιεροσολυμοις περι αυτων και εξαπεστειλαν βαρναβαν διελθειν εως αντιοχειας ηκουσθη δε ο λογος εις τα ωτα της εκκλησιας της εν ιεροσολυμοις περι αυτων και εξαπεστειλαν βαρναβαν διελθειν εως αντιοχειας

1 Philippians 4:6 (ESV)

2 For a brief discussion of these textural differences see αὐτοῦ and ἑαυτοῦ, Part 2 .

3 Ephesians 2:8b (ESV) Table

4 I’ll return to consider Acts 6:5 in another essay.

5 The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had τῆς οὔσης ἐν (“that was in”) here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had της εν.

7 Acts 11:21b (ESV) Table

8 Acts 11:21a (ESV) Table

9 Perhaps I should say, “is in closest proximity to.” I can’t eliminate the possibility that αὐτῶν also refers to some of them, men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who on coming to Antioch spoke…preaching the Lord Jesus (Acts 11:20 ESV), but then the hand of the Lord seems more laissez faire, not opposed to them, rather than the cause of what transpired.

10 Acts 11:23a (ESV) Table

11 Acts 11:23b (ESV) Table

12 Acts 11:24 (ESV)

13 Galatians 5:18 (ESV)

14 Galatians 5:22, 23 (ESV)

15 Acts 11:24a (ESV)

16 Acts 11:24b (ESV)

17 2 Timothy 2:15 (ESV)

18 Ephesians 2:1-3 (ESV)

19 Ephesians 2:4-7 (ESV)

25 Exodus 19:8b (ESV) Table

26 Philippians 2:12, 13 (ESV)

Will, Areté and Troy

Posted on by

An article in the Washington Post by Mark Berman and Marwa Eltagouri, entitled “Parkland suspect detailed plans in chilling videos: ‘I’m going to be the next school shooter’” caught my ear.  Two excerpts from it are contrasted below:

He announced plans to become a school shooter, detailed how many people he hoped to murder and gloated about the infamy he would gain from such a massacre.

“When you see me on the news, you’ll all know who I am,” he says before laughing. “You’re all going to die!”

 Yet even as it emerged after the massacre that he was a troubled young man with a pattern of disturbing behavior and alleged violence, what motivated him to open fire remains unanswered.

Though the journalists’ apparent deafness, whether real or feigned, to the shooter’s own words aroused my curiosity, it’s not really the subject of this essay.  I want to consider the persistence of ancient heroic areté in the contemporary world.

In Homer the word applied to men capable of fighting—able warriors.  They had to possess the best weapons, and their wealth guaranteed the quality of these weapons.  The [men] capable of effectively defending the group united in themselves strength, courage, good birth, and martial skills.  Moral or spiritual values were rarely mentioned.  Areté primarily meant the strength and skill of a warrior or wrestler, and especially heroic virtue.  It was inseparable from a spirit of competition and pride that involved a feeling of duty and responsibility toward the idea of areté.  Over time the concept of areté was extended to prudence and cunning, advantageous traits in war.  The desire to win the crown of areté is the essence of heroism.

Zbigniew Pańpuch’s definition of heroic areté above may not seem at first to describe a school shooter’s psyche unless one considers the question: “effectively defending the group” from whom?  I’m starting here because I think his brief treatise on the ethical problems of areté through time, though otherwise quite able and compelling, misses one key element—the desire (will) that animates it: glory, honor and immortality.  “The probable cause affidavit,” of another school shooter arrested recently, “says he told an investigator he spared people he liked because he wanted his story told.”[1]

Mr. Pańpuch has given me a fresh appreciation for Wolfgang Petersen’s and David Benioff’s Troy.  This desire to be remembered is cited in the opening narration of the movie:

Men are haunted by the vastness of eternity.  And so we ask ourselves will our actions echo across the centuries?  Will strangers hear our names long after we’re gone and wonder who we were…

Though the film was criticized for not adhering to the standard myths it does an excellent job of exploring the ethical issues of areté in dramatic form.  I think Homer may have approved.  Surely, the poets of a later epoch would have understood.

The movie begins in Thessaly.  Agamemnon’s (Brian Cox) will to power over the Greek city states has led him to confront Triopas (Julian Glover), the last free king of Thessaly.  “I brought all the Greek kingdoms together,” Agamemnon extols his own areté later in the film.  “I created a nation out of fire worshippers and snake eaters!  I build the future.”  He proposes a battle of champions to Triopas, but his own champion Achilles (Brad Pitt) is AWOL.

A boy finds Achilles back in camp, sleeping off a drunken orgy with two beautiful naked women.  “I want what all men want,” Achilles admits later in the film.  “I just want it more.”

As Achilles prepares to leave for battle, the boy says, “The Thessalonian you’re fighting, he’s the biggest man I’ve ever seen.  I wouldn’t want to fight him.”

“That’s why no one will remember your name,” Achilles replies.

When Achilles arrives at the front Agamemnon doesn’t honor him as he feels he deserves.  He turns to leave.  But Nestor (John Shrapnel), full of “prudence and cunning,” knows how to manipulate him.

“Achilles, Achilles,” Nestor calls his name to salve his wounded pride, “Look at the men’s faces.  You can save hundreds of them.  You can end this war with a swing of your sword.  Let them go home to their wives.”  And Achilles obeys Nestor.

After Paris (Orlando Bloom) takes Helen (Diane Kruger) with him back to Troy, her husband Menelaus (Brendan Gleeson) asks his brother Agamemnon for help to regain his honor.  “I want her back,” he says, “so I can kill her with my own two hands.  I won’t rest till I’ve burned Troy to the ground.”

“I thought you wanted peace with Troy,” Agamemnon says.

“I should have listened to you.”

“Peace is for the women and the weak,” Agamemnon consoles his brother.

Thus Mr. Pańpuch described the “Areté of mores…the mores and culture of the ordinary life, mentality, and way of life of ‘the best people’—’αριστοι [aristoi].”[2]

They were aware of their privileged and exclusive position.  They had refined manners and knew how to act in every situation.  They showed great hospitality, composure in their response to unexpected situations, and were natural in ordinary life.  They typically acted with irreproachable courtesy toward those who acted wickedly.  Forbearance and admonitions always came before the meting out of just punishment.  The role of the woman and the womanly areté was an essential element of their mores.  Beauty was part of feminine areté, just as a man was judged according to his intellectual and physical virtues.  A woman’s areté was also measured by the purity of her manners, and provident economic management.  This was connected with the social and legal status of women as mistresses of the home, the guardians of every good custom, and the teachers of tradition and culture.

The woman with her specific areté had a moderating influence on the ways of men.

“Old King Priam thinks he’s untouchable behind his high walls,” Agamemnon argues with his counselor Nestor.  “He thinks the sun god will protect him.  But the gods protect only the strong!  If Troy falls I will control the Aegean.”  When he cannot dissuade him from attacking Troy Nestor encourages Agamemnon to call on Achilles and his Myrmidons.  “He can’t be controlled,” Agamemnon laments.  “He’s as likely to fight us as the Trojans.”

“We don’t need to control him, we need to unleash him.  That man was born to end lives.”

Nestor’s plot to use Achilles to achieve Agamemnon’s dream of a unified Greece dramatizes the evolution of areté as described by Mr. Pańpuch, a further moderation of the heroic areté of the sons of disobedience (ἀπειθείας, a form of ἀπείθεια) :

The fight for heroic areté earlier was a fight for personal glory, but with time it was replaced by the motive of heroic love of the fatherland.  Fortitude understood as military skill became areté.  The πολις and what was of benefit or harm to it was the measure of true areté.  It was shameful and blameworthy for a man to refuse to sacrifice his health, property, or life for the fatherland.  The ethics of the state replaced aristocratic ethics.  This process became clearer yet as the conception of justice and the ideal of the state under the rule of law took shape.

This definition mirrors an argument which attempts to wrest Nietzsche’s will to power from Nazis: “Some of the misconceptions of the will to power, including Nazi appropriation of Nietzsche’s philosophy, arise from overlooking Nietzsche’s distinction between Kraft (force) and Macht (power).[2]  Kraft is primordial strength that may be exercised by anything possessing it, while Macht is, within Nietzsche’s philosophy, closely tied to sublimation and ‘self-overcoming’, the conscious channeling of Kraft for creative purposes.”

Odysseus (Sean Bean), the “one man he’ll listen to,” is dispatched to channel Achilles’ Kraft for Agamemnon’s creative purposes.  “Let Achilles fight for honor,” Odysseus pleads.  “Let Agamemnon fight for power.  And let the gods decide which man to glorify…We’re sending the largest fleet that ever sailed, a thousand ships…This war will never be forgotten.  Nor will the heroes who fight in it.”

As he considers whether to swallow his contempt for Agamemnon’s Macht, Achilles’ mother, the sea nymph Thetis (Julie Christie), prophesies his fate:

If you stay in Larisa you will find peace.  You will find a wonderful woman.  You will have sons and daughters, and they will have children.  And they will love you.  When you are gone, they will remember you.  But when your children are dead and their children after them your name will be lost. 

If you go to Troy glory will be yours.  They will write stories about your victories for thousands of years.  The world will remember your name.  But if you go to Troy you will never come home.  For your glory walks hand in hand with your doom.  And I shall never see you again.

“Everyone dies,” Achilles’ expresses his own attitude toward death—and life—later in the film, “today or fifty years from now.  What does it matter?”  And so he encourages his Myrmidons as they approach the beach of Troy with the words, “You know what’s there, waiting, beyond that beach—immortality!  Take it!  It’s yours!”

Hector (Eric Bana) confronts Achilles in the Trojan temple of Apollo over the dead bodies of his priests.  “These priests weren’t armed,” he shouts.  “Fight me!”

“Why kill you now, prince of Troy,” Achilles smirks, “with no one here to see you fall?”

“Why did you come here?”

“They’ll be talking about this war for a thousand years.”

“In a thousand years the dust from our bones will be gone.”

“Yes, prince, but our names will remain.”

Over time areté took on a more moral, even a religious, meaning.  Zbigniew Pańpuch wrote this of “Areté in realization”:

A man’s conscious efforts play an essential role in his achievement of areté.  By nature we are capable of acquiring permanent dispositions and developing them in ourselves by habituation.  These dispositions are not innate.  We only possess predispositions to acquire them because natural operations are not subject to change by habituation, “we acquire the virtues by first having actually practiced them, just as we do the arts”…

Aristotle also stated that there was a converse dependence: there is no prudence without areté.  The idea that happiness can only become fully real in the presence of the transcendent good, God, was revolutionary compared to the ancient conception of happiness.  St. Thomas Aquinas created a great synthesis of the ancient conception of areté and Christian doctrine.  He incorporated into his system the inheritance of great ancient conceptions (Aristotelian, Stoic, and neo-Platonic) and the content of Christian revelation.

Areté it seems has always been a religious attempt to tame the will, to rechannel the desires, of the sons of disobedience.  Paul wrote (Ephesians 2:1-3 NET Table):

And although you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you formerly lived according to this world’s present path, according to the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the ruler of the spirit that is now energizing the sons of disobedience, among whom all of us also formerly lived out our lives in the cravings of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath even as the rest…

Ancient “heroic” areté persists because the ruler of the kingdom of the air still whispers sweetly to the deceitful heart of the old human in virile young men, “glory, honor, immortality.”  Clint Eastwood proposed an alternative to the willful self-aggrandizing pursuit of chimeric areté in his movie The 15:17 to Paris.

Young Spencer Stone (William Jennings) gets in a lot of trouble at his smug religious school.  His fiercely loyal mother Joyce Erskel (Judy Greer) confronts him in his bedroom after a report that he toilet-papered a neighbors’ house.  “I am mortified, Spencer.  Mortified,” she repeats after he acknowledges it.  “What am I gonna tell Anthony’s father?”

“I don’t think you should tell…”

“No, you don’t think.  The constant calls from the principal, all the trouble you’ve been causing, it’s too much.  It’s too much Spencer.”

“Mom, I’m sorry.”

“And it is getting harder and harder to come in here because every time I do, I just leave disappointed.”  She slams his bedroom door as she leaves.

That night Spencer prayed what apparently became his life-long prayer, a prayer attributed to St. Francis of Assissi:

Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace.  Where there is hatred, let me sow love.  Where there is injury, pardon.  Where there is darkness, light.  And where there is sadness, joy.  For it is in giving that we receive.  It is in pardoning that we are pardoned.  And it is in dying that we are born into eternal life.  Amen. 

My own bungled lifetime, seeking any and every other remedy, caused me to marvel at the boy.  “Where? How? Such genius,” I sputtered in amazement.  The Holy Spirit’s answer was immediate, and came in the form of Jesus’ couplet on ἑλκύω, which both exalts… (John 6:44a NET)

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws (ἑλκύσῃ, a form of ἑλκύω) him…

…and humbles (John 12:32 NET):

And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (ἑλκύσω, another form of ἑλκύω) all people to myself.

Romans, Part 73

Posted on by

I’ll continue to consider the dark side of Contribute (κοινωνοῦντες, a form of κοινωνέω) to the needs of the saints, pursue hospitality;[1] namely (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.

I turn here to Love the Lord your God…with all your mind (διανοίας, a form of διάνοια).[2]  Jesus didn’t say anything negative about the Pharisees’ or the law experts’ διανοίας.  He opened his disciples’ νοῦν, implying that they were closed formerly: Then he opened their minds (νοῦν, a form of νοῦς) so they could understand (συνιέναι, a form of συνίημι) the scriptures…[3]  If I had known this when I began this study would I have called it something other than the religious mind?  Probably not.  I’m a Gentile with a philosophical bent to my mind.  Paul had something to say about that even if Jesus did not.

Though Pharisees and law experts might not have considered a Gentile mind religious, I’m using the term to mean all human efforts to satisfy (or, replace) a god or God (yehôvâh).  Even atheists can have religious minds as I use the term.  In fact my religious mind eventually undermined my atheism.  When I wanted to consider myself good again I invented “more realistic” rules than yehôvâh’s to obey.  I failed to obey them.  So I made “even more realistic” rules.  Eventually my standards were so low even I realized they were unworkable.  And I still wasn’t keeping them!

So I say this, and insist in the Lord, Paul wrote the church at Ephesus, that you no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking (νοὸς, another form of νοῦς).  They are darkened in their understanding (διανοίᾳ, another form of διάνοια), being alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance (ἄγνοιαν, a form of ἄγνοια) that is in them due to the hardness of their hearts.[4]  So, loving yehôvâh with all your mind is equivalent to loving Him with all of one’s understanding.

The solution, by the way, to futile thinking was: You were taught with reference to your former way of life to lay aside the old (παλαιὸν, a form of παλαιός) man (ἄνθρωπον, a form of ἄνθρωπος) who is being corrupted in accordance with deceitful desires, to be renewed in the spirit of your mind (νοὸς, another form of νοῦς), and to put on the new man who has been created in God’s image – in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth.[5]  The old man we are to lay aside is our old (παλαιὸς) man (ἄνθρωπος) [that] was crucified with [Christ] so that the body of sin would no longer dominate us, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin.[6]  Again, sharing in his death and resurrection through faith in Jesus proves to be an important aspect of the Gospel (Romans 6:3, 4 NET).

Or do you not know that as many as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? Therefore we have been buried with him through baptism into death, in order that just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we too may live a new life.

And you were at one time strangers and enemies in your minds (διανοίᾳ, another form of διάνοια) as expressed through your evil deeds,[7] Paul wrote Gentiles in Colossae.  The Greek words translated evil deeds here are τοῖς ἔργοις τοῖς πονηροῖς (a form of πονηρός).  In reference to Gentiles I have no doubt that Paul had sins in view, but even as an atheist my works were “full of labours, annoyances, and hardships.”  And although you were dead in your transgressions and sins, Paul wrote Gentiles in Ephesus, in which you formerly lived according to this world’s present path, according to the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the ruler of the spirit that is now energizing the sons of disobedience (ἀπειθείας, a form of ἀπείθεια), among whom all of us [even a former Pharisee] also formerly lived out our lives in the cravings of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and the mind (διανοιῶν, another form of διάνοια), and were by nature children of wrath even as the rest…[8]

But God, Paul continued as he introduced the solution to this problem.  But first I want to consider yehôvâh’s promise of a new covenant.  For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord.  I will put my laws in their minds (διάνοιαν, another form of διάνοια) and I will inscribe them on their hearts (καρδίας, a form of καρδία).  And I will be their God and they will be my people.[9]  And again, This is the covenant that I will establish with them after those days, says the Lord. I will put my laws on their hearts (καρδίας, a form of καρδία) and I will inscribe them on their minds (διάνοιαν, another form of διάνοια)…[10]

This is a quotation from Jeremiah 31:33.  The Greek texts are compared below.

NET

 Parallel Greek NETS

Septuagint
For this is the covenant that I will establish with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord.  I will put my laws in their minds and I will inscribe them on their hearts. And I will be their God and they will be my people.

Hebrews 8:10

 ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη, ἣν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ἰσραὴλ μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας, λέγει κύριος· διδοὺς νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπιγράψω αὐτούς, καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεόν, καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονται μοι εἰς λαόν

Hebrews 8:10

 …because this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, quoth the Lord.  Giving I will give my laws in their mind, and I will write them on their hearts, and I will become a god to them, and they shall become a people to me.

Ieremias 38:33 (31:33)

 ὅτι αὕτη ἡ διαθήκη ἣν διαθήσομαι τῷ οἴκῳ Ισραηλ μετὰ τὰς ἡμέρας ἐκείνας φησὶν κύριος διδοὺς δώσω νόμους μου εἰς τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτῶν καὶ ἐπὶ καρδίας αὐτῶν γράψω αὐτούς καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτοῖς εἰς θεόν καὶ αὐτοὶ ἔσονταί μοι εἰς λαόν

Jeremiah 31:33

And there will be no need at all for each one to teach his countryman or each one to teach his brother saying, ‘Know (γνῶθι, a form of γινώσκω) the Lord,’ since they will all know (εἰδήσουσιν, a form of εἴδω; e.g., to know by seeing) me, from the least to the greatest,[11] the first passage continued.  The Greek texts are compared below:

NET

 Parallel Greek NETS

Septuagint
And there will be no need at all for each one to teach his countryman or each one to teach his brother saying, ‘Know the Lord,’ since they will all know me, from the least to the greatest.

Hebrews 8:11

 καὶ οὐ μὴ διδάξωσιν ἕκαστος τὸν πολίτην αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ λέγων· γνῶθι τὸν κύριον, ὅτι πάντες εἰδήσουσιν με ἀπὸ μικροῦ ἕως μεγάλου αὐτῶν

Hebrews 8:11

 And they shall not teach, each his fellow citizen and each his brother, saying, “Know the Lord,” because they shall all know me, from their small even to their great…

Ieremias 38:34a (31:34a)

 καὶ οὐ μὴ διδάξωσιν ἕκαστος τὸν πολίτην αὐτοῦ καὶ ἕκαστος τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ λέγων γνῶθι τὸν κύριον ὅτι πάντες εἰδήσουσίν με ἀπὸ μικροῦ αὐτῶν καὶ ἕως μεγάλου αὐτῶν

Jeremiah 31:34a

And this knowing is eternal life according to Jesus: Now this is eternal life – that they know (γινώσκωσιν, another form of γινώσκω) you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.[12]  And we know (οἴδαμεν, another form of εἴδω) that the Son of God has come and has given us insight (διάνοιαν, another form of διάνοια) to know him who is true, John wrote, and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ.  This one is the true God and eternal life.[13]  The gift the Son of God has given here is διάνοιαν, the mind, understanding or insight with which we love yehôvâh.  Diminishing the scope of this gift to a place in heaven while turning back to the futility of [our former] thinking to work our own works of righteousness in our own strength demeans both Jesus and eternal life.

But God, being rich in mercy, Paul continued writing Gentiles in Ephesus, because of his great love with which he loved us, even though we were dead in transgressions, made us alive together with Christ – by grace you are saved! –and he raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, to demonstrate in the coming ages the surpassing wealth of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.  For by grace you are saved through faith, and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so that no one can boast.  For we are his workmanship, having been created in Christ Jesus for good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.[14]

Love the Lord your God…with all your strength (ἰσχύος, a form of ἰσχύς).[15]  I pray that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, Paul wrote Gentiles at Ephesus, the Father of glory, may give you spiritual wisdom and revelation in your growing knowledge (ἐπιγνώσει, a form of ἐπίγνωσις) of him, – since the eyes of your heart have been enlightened – so that you may know what is the hope of his calling, what is the wealth of his glorious inheritance in the saints, and what is the incomparable greatness of his power toward us who believe, as displayed in the exercise of his immense (ἰσχύος, a form of ἰσχύς) strength.[16]  Finally, he added, be strengthened in the Lord and in the strength (ἰσχύος, a form of ἰσχύς) of his power.[17]

To attempt to function on our own away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength (ἰσχύος, a form of ἰσχύς) was Paul’s description of eternal destruction: They will undergo the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his strength…[18]  Whoever speaks, Peter wrote, let it be with God’s words.  Whoever serves, do so with the strength (ἰσχύος, a form of ἰσχύς) that God supplies, so that in everything God will be glorified through Jesus Christ.  To him belong the glory and the power forever and ever.  Amen.[19]  If we believe Him his ἰσχύος is our ἰσχύος, the ἰσχύος with which we love yehôvâh.

This[20] is the teaching of Christ as presented in the New Testament as opposed to the teaching of the religious mind.  Is it the teaching your teachers bring to you?  If not the person who gives him a greeting shares in his evil deeds, according to John.  I would be very wary of supporting that teacher financially.  This gives us a context for Paul’s admonition (Galatians 6:6-10 NET)

Now the one who receives instruction in the word must share (Κοινωνείτω, another form of κοινωνέω) all good things (ἀγαθοῖς, a form of ἀγαθός) with the one who teaches it.  Do not be deceived.  God will not be made a fool.  For a person will reap what he sows, because the person who sows to his own flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit.  So we must not grow weary in doing good, for in due time we will reap, if we do not give up.  So then, whenever we have an opportunity, let us do good (ἀγαθὸν, another form of ἀγαθός) to all people, and especially to those who belong to the family of faith.

The teaching of Christ sows to the Spirit.  The teaching of the religious mind sows to [our] own flesh.  Money is not the only, or even the primary, good thing to share with the teacher of the word, the one who remains in the teaching of Christ.  “No servant can serve two masters,” Jesus said, “for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other.  You cannot serve God and money.”  The Pharisees [e.g., the New Testament epitome of those with religious minds] (who loved money) heard all this and ridiculed him.[21]

And need is the key to help make a determination what to contribute or share in.  The primary needs of all believers are: 1) the need to be baptized by Jesus in the Holy Spirit; 2) to believe that his Father knows our needs before we ask Him, and that He is willing to supply our needs; and 3) to accept that our most pressing need is to sit at Jesus’ feet, to listen and to live by every word that comes from the mouth of God.

But whoever has the world’s possessions and sees his fellow Christian in need (χρείαν, a form of χρεία), John wrote, and shuts off his compassion against him, how can the love of God reside in such a person?[22]  Make every effort to help Zenas the lawyer and Apollos on their way, Paul wrote Titus, make sure they have what they need (ἵνα μηδὲν αὐτοῖς λείπῃ; so that nothing or no one of theirs is left behind).  Here is another way that our people can learn to engage in good works to meet pressing needs (χρείας, another form of χρεία) and so not be unfruitful.[23]

My purpose was not to minimize these more obvious aspects of contributing to the needs of the saints, but to highlight how much broader this contributing, or sharing in, actually is in the New Testament.  I’ll conclude this with Peter’s contribution to the needs of the saints as something which we all share with one another (1 Peter 4:12-14 NET):

Dear friends, do not be astonished that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as though something strange were happening to you.  But rejoice (χαίρετε, a form of χαίρω) in the degree that you have shared (κοινωνεῖτε, another form of κοινωνέω) in the sufferings (παθήμασιν, a form of πάθημα) of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice (ἀγαλλιώμενοι, a form of ἀγαλλιάω) and be glad (χαρῆτε, another form of χαίρω).  If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory, who is the Spirit of God, rests on you.

Do not neglect hospitality (φιλοξενίας , a form of φιλονεξία), because through it some have entertained angels without knowing it.[24]  This is the only other occurrence of a form of φιλονεξία in the New Testament.  But I hope I have been persuasive that when Paul wrote pursue hospitality (φιλοξενίαν, another form of φιλονεξία) he did not intend to pen a “law of Paul,” a rule to be obeyed, something to pursue (διώκοντες, a form of διώκω) in one’s own strength.  His intent was that this “love to strangers” would flow naturally (e.g., supernaturally) from the Spirit of God through the believer and out into the world, one of the good works that God prepared beforehand so we may do them.[25]

[1] Romans 12:13 (NET)

[2] Mark 12:30a (NET)

[3] Luke 24:45 (NET)

[4] Ephesians 4:17, 18 (NET) Table

[5] Ephesians 4:22-24 (NET)

[6] Romans 6:6 (NET)

[7] Colossians 1:21 (NET)

[8] Ephesians 2:1-3 (NET) Table

[9] Hebrews 8:10 (NET)

[10] Hebrews 10:16 (NET)

[11] Hebrews 8:11 (NET)

[12] John 17:3 (NET)

[13] 1 John 5:20 (NET)

[14] Ephesians 2:4-10 (NET)

[15] Mark 12:30a (NET)

[16] Ephesians 1:17-19 (NET)

[17] Ephesians 6:10 (NET)

[18] 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (NET)

[19] 1 Peter 4:11 (NET)

[20] I am considering Romans, Part 71 and Romans, Part 72 here as well, not as an exhaustive study but as a fairly thorough study of the teaching of Christ on the issue of contributing.

[21] Luke 16:13, 14 (NET)

[22] 1 John 3:17 (NET)

[23] Titus 3:13, 14 (NET)

[24] Hebrews 13:2 (NET)

[25] Ephesians 2:10b (NET)