Jesus said (Matthew 23:33-36 NASB):

You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?

“Therefore (Διὰ τοῦτο; See: Table1 below), behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, so that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.  Truly I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation.

I quoted the NASB to blunt the crime/punishment motif the NET translators superimposed upon the text by translating ἥξει (a form of ἥκω) will be held responsible (See: Table).  Of course the NASB translators superimposed their own crime/punishment motif by translating ἔλθῃ (a form of ἔρχομαι) may fall the guilt (See: Table3 below).  Neither word seems capable of carrying such concepts.  Both translations help to disguise the fact that Jesus brought all the righteous blood shed on earth…upon this generation so that the serpents, the brood of vipers, could escape (φύγητε, a form of φεύγω) the sentence (κρίσεως, a form of κρίσις) of hell.  For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn (κρίνῃ, a form of κρίνω) the world, but that the world should be saved through him.^[1]

Clarifying this point, however, doesn’t fill me with instant insight.  It seems rather to be leading me somewhere I didn’t particularly want to go.  Before I go there I want to entertain another insight gained along the way (Matthew 2:13 NET):

After [the wise men] had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Get up, take the child and his mother and flee (φεῦγε, another form of φεύγω) to Egypt, and stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to look for the child to kill him.”

Only one king was aware enough (Matthew 2:1-12) of Jesus’ first advent to respond to it (Matthew 2:16-18 NET):

When Herod saw that he had been tricked by the wise men, he became enraged.  He sent men to kill all the children in Bethlehem and throughout the surrounding region from the age of two and under, according to the time he had learned from the wise men.  Then what was spoken by Jeremiah the prophet was fulfilled (ἐπληρώθη, a form of πληρόω): “A voice was heard in Ramah, weeping and loud wailing, Rachel weeping for her children, and she did not want to be comforted, because they were gone.”

Herod comes off as a fool: First he thought Jesus was after something so petty as his throne.  My kingdom is not from this world,^[2] Jesus told Pilate.  Second, he thought to thwart God by committing infanticide when it was he who was thwarted by the simple tactic of fleeing beyond the boundary of his jurisdiction and remaining there until he died.  Those in positions of authority at Jesus’ second advent, when The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ,^[3] will do well to remember Herod’s negative example, if for no other reason than how they will be remembered in the history of Him who will reign for ever and ever.

Despite all that had transpired (Luke 1:1-2:40) Joseph wasn’t expected to add Jeremiah’s prophecy to the time in which he was living to deduce that he should flee with the child Jesus and his mother to Egypt.  Rather an angel appeared to him in a dream and warned him explicitly, while other fathers of infant sons slept ignorantly, blissfully, through that fateful night.  Of course, the purpose of Jeremiah’s prophecy was not that brilliant young minds might thwart it by fleeing.  Consider a prophecy, for instance, in which fleeing is its intended fulfillment (Matthew 24:15, 16 NET):

So when you see the abomination of desolation – spoken about by Daniel the prophet – standing in the holy place (let the reader understand), then those in Judea must flee (φευγέτωσαν, another form of φεύγω) to the mountains.

But as I wondered how to live emotionally with the collateral damage of all those butchered sons I caught a glimpse of young Jesus in tears contemplating the same thing and heard the scripture as written for its primary heir (Galatians 3:15-22).

I am the resurrection and the life, Jesus told Martha before He raised Lazarus from the dead.  The one who believes in me will live even if he dies, and the one who lives and believes in me will never die.  Do you believe this?^[4]  But even Moses revealed that the dead are raised in the passage about the bush, Jesus told Sadduccees who contend that there is no resurrection, where he calls the Lord the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.  Now he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for all live before him.^[5]  For the joy set out for him, the writer of Hebrews declared of Jesus, he endured the cross, disregarding its shame…^[6]

As for leading me somewhere I didn’t particularly want to go: the fact that Jesus brought all the righteous blood shed on earth…upon this generation so that the serpents, the brood of vipers, could escape the sentence of hell reminds me of Abraham’s reasoning in Jesus’ parable (Luke 16:19-31) of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:25 NET):

But Abraham said [to the rich man], ‘Child, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things and Lazarus likewise bad things, but now he is comforted (παρακαλεῖται, a form of παρακαλέω) here and you are in anguish (ὀδυνᾶσαι, a form of ὀδυνάω; See: Table2 below).’

In another essay, though I didn’t quite scoff at Abraham’s reasoning, I didn’t think that receiving good things in life was sufficient cause to turn the rich man’s ᾅδῃ (a form of ᾅδης) into γεέννης (a form of γέεννα).  But Jesus clearly meant γεέννης in reference to the serpents, the brood of vipers escape from the sentence of hell.  So it’s difficult for me to turn now and see how bad things—bringing all the righteous blood shed on earth…upon this generation—might justify that escape.

As I consider again the accounts of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple I have to admit I find it hard to imagine a γέεννα were sin could be any more unrestrained.  The primary differences I see between the destruction of Jerusalem and γέεννα are: 1) though there is a “letting go” on God’s part evident in Jerusalem’s destruction it was not the absolute “place that the omnipresent God is not” that I understand of γέεννα; and, 2) what we call death was the escape route taken by most in Jerusalem from its hellish destruction, while there is no exit from γέεννα.

I am probably missing the point here, however.  There is no more justification required to spare the serpents, the brood of vipers from a sentence of hell beyond Jesus’ death on the cross and his mercy.  I should consider his motivation to show them mercy since it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy (ἐλεῶντος, a form of ἐλεέω).^[7]

I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy (râcham, ורחמתי; Septuagint: ἐλεήσω, another form of ἐλεέω) on whom I will show mercy (râcham, ארחם; Septuagint: ἐλεῶ, another form of ἐλεέω),^[8] y^ehôvâh declared to Moses after the incident with the golden calf.  In the past witnessing his people suffering from their sin has motivated y^ehôvâh/Jesus to show them mercy.

Notice the order of events:

First, one is turned (John 6:44; 12:32) by y^ehôvâh…turn (shûb, השיבני; Septuagint: ἐπίστρεψόν, a form of ἐπιστρέφω) thou me, and I shall be turned (shûb, ואשובה; Septuagint: ἐπιστρέψω)…(KJV: turn thou me, and I shall be turned).

Second, one who is turned by y^ehôvâh repents (2 Timothy 2:24-26)…after that I was turned (shûb, שובי), I repented (nâcham, נחמתי; Septuagint: μετενόησα, a form of μετανοέω)… (KJV: after that I was turned, I repented).

The translators of the Septuagint conflated being turned by y^ehôvâh with captivity: “later than my captivity I repented” (ὅτι ὕστερον αἰχμαλωσίας μου μετενόησα).  The Tanakh reads: Thou hast chastised (yâsar, יסרתני; Septuagint: ἐπαίδευσάς, a form of παιδεύω) me, and I was chastised (yâsar, ואוסר; Septuagint: ἐπαιδεύθην, another form of παιδεύω), as a bullock unaccustomed (lôʼ, לא) to the yoke (lâmad, למד)… (KJV: Thou hast chastised me, and I was chastised, as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke).

Translating yâsar with forms of παιδεύω wasn’t wrong exactly, just a little misleading.  Ephraim learned that y^ehôvâh’s word (Deuteronomy 32) was true, but I wonder if ἐπαίδευσάς and ἐπαιδεύθην actually communicate the crudity and violence of that method of “instruction.”

The Greek ἐγώ ὥσπερ μόσχος οὐκ ἐδιδάχθην^[9] seems virtually identical to the Hebrew translated as a bullock unaccustomed to the yoke though the English translation—“I was not trained like a calf”—coupled with instructed rather than chastised seems to disguise that fact.  But, yes, survivors “instructed” by losing a war and being carried off into captivity that y^ehôvâh’s word was true did prompt Ephraim to ask y^ehôvâh to turn him.

The translators of the NET (among other modern translations) followed the same line of reasoning—“For after we turned away from you we repented”—and—“You disciplined us and we learned from it”—emphasizing our repentance and our learning over being turned by y^ehôvâh.  But hear y^ehôvâh’s motivation to show mercy revealed in Moses’ song: For HaShem (y^ehôvâh, יהוה) will judge His people, and repent Himself for His servants; when He seeth that their stay is gone, and there is none remaining, shut up or left at large.^[10]

Third, it is after repentance that one gains real knowledge (Ephesians 4:24-29; 1 Corinthians 1:18-31; 2:6-16) beyond the simple fact that y^ehôvâh’s word is true…and after that I was instructed (yâdaʽ, הודעי; Septuagint: γνῶναί, a form of γινώσκω)… (KJV: after that I was instructed).

Fourth, this instruction (Tanakh, KJV) or awareness (NETS/Septuagint) brings shame and confusion (Romans 7:15-25; 1 Corinthians 15:9; Ephesians 3:7-9; 1 Timothy 1:15-17) over past behavior…I was ashamed (bûsh, בשתי; Septuagint: αἰσχύνης, a form of αἰσχύνη), yea, even confounded (kâlam, נכלמתי; Septuagint: ὑπέδειξά, a form of ὑποδεικνύω)…(KJV: I was ashamed, yea, even confounded).  It is the carnal mind or religious mind that seeks to induce shame first to manipulate others into conformity with its concept of righteousness.

For this purpose the Son of God was revealed, John wrote, to destroy the works of the devil.^[11]  To be born from above and led by the Spirit of God is the surest way to destroy the works (ἔργα, a form of ἔργον) of the devil, but as in the instance cited above it isn’t the only thing God is doing or has done to reconcile the world to Himself through Christ.

I haven’t written about destroying the works of the devil.  I think more often in terms of the old man (παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον).  It is good to pause here a moment to consider παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον since so many women feel excluded by the word man.

This is the record of the family line of Adam (ʼâdâm, אדם; Septuagint: ἀνθρώπων, a form of ἄνθρωπος).  When God created humankind (ʼâdâm, אדם; Septuagint: Αδαμ, a form of Ἀδάμ), he made them in the likeness of God.  He created them male (zâkâr, זכר; Septuagint: ἄρσεν) and female (n^eqêbâh, ונקבה; Septuagint: θῆλυ, a form of θῆλυς); when they were created, he blessed them and named them “humankind (ʼâdâm, אדם; Septuagint: Αδαμ, a form of Ἀδάμ) [Table].”^[12]  The rabbis who translated the Septuagint used ἀνθρώπων (a form of ἄνθρωπος) for the first ʼâdâm (אדם) in Genesis 5:1.  So from now on I will call παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον (another form of ἄνθρωπος) old human.

My wife would dig into me in arguments, searching for what I am calling the old human.  When she found it, when I responded angrily, she believed she had discovered my true motives, my true feelings, my true self.  If I avoided an outburst of anger, which was usually facilitated by my silence, she called me mean and assumed I was hiding my true motives, my true feelings, my true self.  I didn’t study the Bible as often or as consistently as I do now, so the experience was much more disorienting in real time than it seems in retrospect.

I have no excuse for my inattention to Scripture.  I became the married man…concerned about the things of the world, how to please his wife.^[13]  She, my children and I have all suffered for it.  But that kind of unmasking by the woman I love is a wound that doesn’t heal.  I am all too aware now that when I want to do good, evil is present with me.^[14]

A conversation recently over a long lunch with a coworker helped me understand my now ex-wife.  My coworker, speaking on a different topic, said that her mother reprimanded her with the words “be nice.”  And my coworker repeated, “be nice, be nice, be nice.”  On the flight home I had a long time to consider that lifestyle relative to my own.

It was similar to my efforts to have my own righteousness derived from the law,^[15] except that the law actually is God’s word, through the law comes the knowledge of sin.  So, though I was playing badly, I was in the right theater.  When I turned Paul’s definition of love (1 Corinthians 13:4-13) into rules that I tried to obey in my own strength, that definition actually is a vivid description of the way God loves.  So again, I played badly but in the right theater.  For a child to attempt to construct a way of life from the word nice, defined as a vague negation of whatever she was doing, saying or thinking at the moment her mother spoke it as correction, could only seem like a repression of her true motives, her true feelings, her true self.

If I am filled with God’s own love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control, the fruit of his Holy Spirit (Galatians 5:22, 23), then all I need is permission to consider that fruit my new human.  When I am filled with the fruit of Spirit the Old Testament testifies to the need for a new human, since the old human was never reformed by love or promise, by law or punishment.  “Do not be amazed that I said to you,” Jesus said, “‘You must all be born from above.’”^[16]  And the teaching of the New Testament becomes that permission to receive and perceive the fruit of God’s own Spirit as my new human (Galatians 2:20, 21 NET).

I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.  So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.  I do not set aside God’s grace, because if righteousness could come through the law, then Christ died for nothing!

If my wife has turned the faith she used on me against herself, that her old human is her true self, it is extraordinarily difficult for her to work out her salvation.  I cannot have the salvation by grace through faith revealed in the Bible if I refuse to believe what the Bible says about me—the old me and the new me—and about that salvation.

Since I failed her so miserably when we were married I have tried by the grace of God to love her consistently since our divorce.  I’ve confessed my sins and shortcomings when I’ve recognized them, but I’ve clearly lost all credibility with her.  She is convinced that I live by obeying rules I have derived from studying the Bible.  Of course, she is not entirely wrong.

At any given moment I may be led by the Spirit of God or I may have reverted to attempting to love like God by obeying Paul’s definition of love as if it were rules or worse, the sin in my flesh may be expressed beyond the confines of my flesh.  But the Holy Spirit’s persistence—despite my efforts to obey rules—has increased the frequency of that oscillation and vacillation to moments, not days or weeks, not months or years.  And my fixation on the old human does not alter the fact that Jesus, the Judge, is perfectly willing to consider my old human a child of the devil doing the deeds (ἔργα, a form of ἔργον) of [his] father (John 8:37-47).  I would do well to accept his faith as my own.

Three tables follow: the occurrences of Διὰ τοῦτο in Matthew and forms of ὀδυνάω and ἔλθῃ (a form of ἔρχομαι) in the New Testament and their translations in the KJV and NET.  If the parallel Greek in the NET differed from the Stephanus Textus Receptus I have broken the table to show those differences in other tables including the Byzantine Majority Text.