Tag Archives: Exodus 34:7

Introduction

Posted on by
2

I heard a sermon recently that transported me back to the fourth quarter of my seventeenth year. Actually, I heard it twice, but it didn’t click the first time. The sermon was from Genesis 19.

The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah receded into the fiery background of the source of sorrow: Even the righteous stray from God’s righteousness. Don’t compromise with the world, was the application. And the empowering grace was: I can trust God to punish me for my sins—eventually. The fear factor,1 which was probably also intended as motivation, was that even though Lot was saved, he lost everything, particularly his wealth.

To any who would strive to become the righteousness of God2 by obeying applications, “Don’t compromise with the world,” offers the vaguest direction possible and the widest possible latitude for those who would police others. This sermon confronted me with my church and my own religious beliefs at seventeen.

Though the text wasn’t mentioned explicitly, the empowering grace reminded me of the Lord’s words to Moses (Exodus 34:6a, 7b ESV).

The Lord passed before [Moses] and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord [Table]…who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation” [Table].

My actual experience at that time helps now to clarify the empowering grace that I misunderstood then: You can’t trust God to punish you for your sins in the near term, because He is (Exodus 34:6b, 7a ESV):

…a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness [Table], keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin [Table]…

I don’t recall being led to Exodus 34:6, 7 at seventeen. I may have received it then as more evidence that “God’ll getcha if you don’t watch out!”3 As my last hope for God’s existence—my faith that God would punish me for my sin in the near term—proved false (and after a very brief last ditch effort to retain some faith in Him as evil), I became an atheist.

Now, fifty-three years later, I’ll look more closely at the Scripture He brought to mind in response to this sermon.

Exodus 34:6, 7 (Tanakh)

Exodus 34:6, 7 (NET)

Exodus 34:6, 7 (NETS)

Exodus 34:6, 7 (English Elpenor)

And HaShem passed by before [Moses], and proclaimed: ‘The HaShem, HaShem, G-d, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth [Table];

The Lord passed by before him and proclaimed: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness,

And the Lord passed by before his face, and he called, “The Lord, the Lord God is compassionate and merciful, patient and very merciful and truthful [Table]

And the Lord passed by before his face, and proclaimed, The Lord God, pitiful and merciful, longsuffering and very compassionate, and true,

keeping mercy unto the thousandth generation, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin; and that will by no means (יְנַקֶּ֔ה) clear (וְנַקֵּה֙) the guilty; visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and upon the children’s children, unto the third and unto the fourth generation’ [Table]

keeping loyal love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin. But he by no means (nāqâ, ינקה) leaves the guilty unpunished (nāqâ, ונקה), responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children and children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.”

and preserving righteousness and doing mercy for thousands, taking away acts of lawlessness and of injustice and sins, and he will not acquit (καθαριεῗ) the guilty person (τὸν ἔνοχον), bringing lawless acts of fathers upon children and upon children of children, upon the third and fourth generation” [Table].

and keeping justice and mercy for thousands, taking away iniquity, and unrighteousness, and sins; and he will not clear (καθαριεῖ) the guilty (τὸν ἔνοχον); bringing the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, and to the children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.

In the Tanakh on chabad.org the Hebrew verbs וְנַקֵּה֙ (nāqâ) and יְנַקֶּ֔ה (nāqâ) separated by a negative particle לֹ֣א (lō’) were translated, He does not completely clear [of sin]. The explanation of that clause is a bit clearer as well: He visits the iniquity of parents on children and children’s children, to the third and fourth generations.4 This characterizes the main point of this sermon as well as anything I heard in it: One’s sins show up again in one’s children—whether those children are actual biological descendants or not, I’ll add from my own experience.

I wouldn’t have recognized this as filling the position of empowering grace in this sermon apart from Brian Chapell’s book5 and the gentleness of the preacher. At seventeen, I had no children. I couldn’t imagine how seeing their own sins revisited in their children might impact parents, especially if they knew God through Exodus 34:6, 7. But being brought back, after so many years, to the final moments before I became an atheist has focused my attention on the time and the many trials and errors that have led me to this current moment. It prompts a question:

Is there anything I can do to help others shave a few years off that time, anything that might mitigate or eliminate the necessity of enduring some of those same trials or errors?

I hope to explore that possibility in future essays.

1 The “fear factor” was not taught in the preaching course I’ve been taking. It is something I’ve noticed in some sermons. This particular fear factor is of questionable value since Job (Job 1-2) lost everything for a time, too.

2 2 Corinthians 5:21b (ESV) Table

4 Exodus 34:7b (Tanakh)

Fear – Deuteronomy, Part 9

Posted on by

I’ll continue to look at yehôvâh’s fearful pronouncement: I punish the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons for the sin of the fathers who reject me…[1]  Two tables comparing/contrasting four partial verses follow.  In the center columns the Hebrew words read from top to bottom, beside them are my best effort at a word-for-word translation, and then the NET translations are in the outer columns.

Exodus 20:5b Table

Deuteronomy 5:9b
…responding (פקד) to the transgression (עון) of fathers by dealing with children to the third and fourth generations of those who reject (לשׁנאי) me…

Exodus 20:5b (NET)

 visiting פקד פקד visiting …I punish (פקד) the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons for the sin (עון) of the fathers who reject (לשׁנאי) me…

Deuteronomy 5:9b (NET)
the iniquity עון עון the iniquity
of fathers אבת אבות of the fathers
upon על על upon
sons בנים בנים sons
upon על ועל and upon
the third שלשים שלשים the third
and upon ועל ועל and upon
the fourth רבעים רבעים the fourth
who hate לשׁנאי לשׁנאי who hate

Exodus 34:7b

Numbers 14:18b
…responding (פקד) to the transgression (עון) of fathers by dealing with children and children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.

Exodus 34:7b (NET)

 visiting פקד פקד visiting …visiting (פקד) the iniquity (עון) of the fathers on the children until the third and fourth generations.

Numbers 14:18b (NET)
the iniquity עון עון the iniquity
of the fathers אבות אבות of the fathers
upon על על upon
sons בנים בנים sons
and upon ועל על upon
sons(’) בני
sons בנים
upon על
the third שלשים שלשים the third
and upon ועל ועל and upon
the fourth רבעים רבעים the fourth

There doesn’t seem to be anything about the Hebrew words themselves that would compel anyone to translate פקד (pâqad) I punish or עון (ʽâvôn) for the sin.[2]  In fact, forms of pâqad were only translated punish or punishment three other times in the NET prior to Deuteronomy 5:9.  Two occur after Israel worshipped the golden calf.  Moses said (Exodus 32:30-35 NET):

“You have committed a very serious sin, but now I will go up to the Lord – perhaps I can make atonement on behalf of your sin.”

So Moses returned to the Lord and said, “Alas, this people has committed a very serious sin, and they have made for themselves gods of gold [Table].  But now, if you will forgive (nâsâh, תשׁא) their sin…, but if not, wipe me out from your book that you have written” [Table].  The Lord said to Moses, “Whoever has sinned against me – that person I will wipe out of my book.  So now go, lead the people to the place I have spoken to you about.  See, my angel will go before you.  But on the day that I punish (pâqad, פקדי; Tanakh: I visit), I will indeed punish (pâqad, ופקדתי; Tanakh: I will visit) them for their sin.”

And the Lord sent a plague (nâgaph, ויגף) on the people because they had made the calf – the one Aaron made.               

I don’t have any quarrel with describing this plague[3] as punishment, but it occurs in a particular context.  Though Moses offered—wipe me out from your book that you have written—yehôvâh said, Whoever has sinned against me – that person I will wipe out of my book.  Later in his address recorded in Deuteronomy Moses said:  Fathers must not be put to death for what their children do, nor children for what their fathers do; each must be put to death for his own sin.[4]

Rabbi Dr. Zev Farber in his article “Punishing Children for the Sins of their Parents,” on TheTorah online wrote about “the surprising claim” from Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina in the Babylonian Talmud “that in four cases the prophets overturned a decree Moses makes in the Torah.”  Apparently Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina held that not only Deuteronomy 5:9 but Exodus 20:5 “makes a clear and strong claim that in at least one case—worshipping other gods or idols—God punishes the descendants of the sinner until the fourth generation.”  Rabbi Farber took issue with one of the “four cases”:[5]

The prophet Ezekiel, who was exiled to Babylon in 597, offers a torrent of arguments and rhetoric against the concept of punishing children for the sins of the parents. He does not frame it as an argument against the Torah…but rather he frames it as a response to a popular notion (Ezek 18).

Rabbi Yossi bar Chanina apparently did not accept that “God punishes the descendants of the sinner until the fourth generation” was an erroneous popular notion and so he pit Ezekiel against Moses and even yehôvâh Himself.  This tenacious aspect of the religious mind to justify itself should be familiar to us.  How many generations of English speaking followers of Jesus have believed that ἄνωθεν meant again, Nicodemus’ misunderstanding of Jesus’ words?  How can a man be born when he is old?  He cannot enter his mother’s womb and be born a second time, can he?[6]  Jesus[7]  answered (John 3:5-8 NET):

“I tell you the solemn truth, unless a person is born of water and spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.  What is born of the flesh is flesh, and what is born of the Spirit is spirit.  Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must all be born from above (ἄνωθεν).’  The wind blows wherever it will, and you hear the sound it makes, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going.  So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

I want to simplify the world to consider pâqad in the context of Adam and two of his sons Cain and Abel.  First, for background, consider Paul’s understanding of their situation (Romans 5:12-14 NET Table):

So then, just as sin entered the world through one man [e.g., Adam] and death through sin, and so death spread to all people because all sinned – for before the law was given, sin was in the world, but there is no accounting for sin when there is no law.  Yet death reigned from Adam until Moses even over those who did not sin in the same way that Adam (who is a type of the coming one) transgressed.

And the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) was pleased with Abel and his offering…[8]  But when Cain killed Abel it is apparently possible to argue by the Hebrew words of Deuteronomy 5:9 that yehôvâh punished Abel for Adam’s sin.  It’s not an argument I want to make before the judgment seat of Christ.  Then the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) said to Cain, “Where is your brother Abel?”[9]  Cain lacked David’s knowledge of yehôvâh (Psalm 139:1-12 NET):

O Lord, you examine me and know.  You know when I sit down and when I get up; even from far away you understand my motives.  You carefully observe me when I travel or when I lie down to rest; you are aware of everything I do.  Certainly my tongue does not frame a word without you, O Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה), being thoroughly aware of it.  You squeeze me in from behind and in front; you place your hand on me.  Your knowledge is beyond my comprehension; it is so far beyond me, I am unable to fathom it.

Where can I go to escape your spirit?  Where can I flee to escape your presence?  If I were to ascend to heaven, you would be there.  If I were to sprawl out in Sheol, there you would be.  If I were to fly away on the wings of the dawn, and settle down on the other side of the sea, even there your hand would guide me, your right hand would grab hold of me.  If I were to say, “Certainly the darkness will cover me, and the light will turn to night all around me,” even the darkness is not too dark for you to see, and the night is as bright as day; darkness and light are the same to you.

Cain mistook yehôvâh’s question—Where is your brother Abel?—for ignorance of what he had done rather than as an opportunity to confess, and repent of, his rash act.  We can only imagine how differently this scene might have played out if Cain had expressed his own shock and horror at what he had done in anger, anger directed primarily at yehôvâh’s rejection of his offering.  But I don’t take that to mean that yehôvâh was ignorant that Cain murdered Abel: The voice of your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground![10]  Nor do I take it to mean that David was disputing with Moses or imagining novel qualities of yehôvâh.  I assume that yehôvâh is ever this knowledgeable and Cain was simply ignorant of it.

Cain wasn’t stupid.  Consider his clever evasion to yehôvâh’s question, Where is your brother Abel: I don’t know!  Am I my brother’s guardian?[11]  Apparently, he reasoned that his father had tripped himself up by being too forthright with yehôvâh: I heard you moving about in the orchard, Adam had answered yehôvâh’s question, and I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid.[12]  As Cain understood it, the knowledge Adam let slip—I was naked—enabled yehôvâh to infer what his father had done: Who told you that you were naked? yehôvâh asked Adam.  Did you eat from the tree that I commanded you not to eat from?[13]  But again, I don’t assume that yehôvâh had to infer what He already knew Adam had done simply because Cain didn’t know Him.

In a similar way I assume that the word of yehôvâh (יהוה) that came to Ezekiel is the same word of the same yehôvâh revealed to Moses and recorded in Deuteronomy 5:9.  The erroneous popular notion—Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear (nâsâh, נשׁא) the iniquity (ʽâvôn, בעון) of the father?[14]—that the son should or must die for the father’s sin (Ezekiel 18:20 Tanakh) was the misunderstanding of religious minds no matter how many famous rabbis espoused it.  And so I take the translation of פקד (pâqad) as I punish in Deuteronomy 5:9 as a perpetuation of an erroneous popular notion of religious minds that was clearly corrected in Ezekiel 18.

I am not yet perfected in love.  The first thing that comes to mind when things don’t go my way is that God is punishing me for something.  Faith in yehôvâh comes from the fruit of his Spirit, along with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self-control.  If I think of verses like Deuteronomy 5:9 from the perspective of sons, grandsons and great grandsons, I will come to the same erroneous conclusion, what Rabbi Farber called Sour Grapes Theology:[15]

The sour grapes theology paints the punishment of descendants as a harsh but necessary way of God dispensing justice. Full punishment of a sinner may include the punishment of his family.

I think it’s more productive to view Deuteronomy 5:9 from the perspective of iniquitous fathers, particularly iniquitous fathers who don’t want the horror of their iniquity visited upon their children.  For [our earthly fathers] disciplined us for a little while as seemed good to them, but [God] does so for our benefit, that we may share his holiness.[16]  My children were not my biological offspring so I won’t even comment on passing on my iniquity via nature.  But the iniquity I passed on to them via nurture was not merely a matter of my inept blundering.

As I think of it now I recall how often I passed on my perverse views of life, the way things “really” work.  And I did so with as much or more conviction than anything I taught them about Christ and his righteousness.  Add to that my own on-again-off-again righteousness—sometimes led by the Holy Spirit, sometimes not so much—and I have a truly horrifying picture of yehôvâh visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children,[17] my children!  And this, when I wanted what was best for them.

I find myself crying aloud with Cain’s words (if not his meaning): My iniquity (ʽâvôn, עוני) is too great to endure (nâsâh, מנשׁא)!  What hope do I have but that which is to be found in the long name of yehôvâh?  The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness, keeping loyal love for thousands, [bearing] (nâsâh, נשׁא) iniquity (ʽâvôn, עון) and transgression and sin.[18]

In a prophecy that reads so much like history unbelievers doubt its authenticity, yehôvâh spoke of disobedient (Leviticus 26:13-17) survivors (Leviticus 26:39, 40 Tanakh):

And they that are left of you shall pine away in their iniquity in your enemies’ lands; and also in the iniquities of their fathers shall they pine away with them.  And they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, in their treachery which they committed against Me, and also that they have walked contrary unto Me.

Confession of one’s own iniquity is obvious.  Confession of one’s fathers’ iniquity is necessary because we are far too likely to mistake our fathers’ iniquity for the way things are done, especially if those fathers were religious leaders of some note.

In the movie The Shack in a dream within a vision during a life-threatening coma Mack (Sam Worthington) spends a weekend in a cabin at a lake with God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.  His wife Nan (Radha Mitchell) calls God Papa, a bit too familiar for Mack’s taste at the beginning of the film.

Papa (Octavia Spencer) appears to Mack as the neighbor woman who, looking at young Mack’s bruised face, said, “Daddies aren’t supposed to do that to their kids.  It ain’t love.  You understand?”  Papa explains to adult Mack, “After what you been through, I didn’t think you could handle a father right now.”  But once Mack has God in his hands, so to speak, he has a lifetime of blame to unleash.

“You’re the almighty God, right?” he accuses Papa.  “You know everything.  You’re everywhere, all at once.  And you have limitless power.  Yet, somehow you let my little girl die.  When she needed you most, you abandoned her.”  Mack’s 7-year-old daughter Missy (Amélie Eve) was abducted by a serial killer.  Nothing of her was ever found but her bloodstained dress.  Still, Mack’s first salvo is mostly a ruse that doesn’t quite get to the heart of his issue with God.

That first night he reads himself to sleep with the Old Testament and dreams of Missy’s abduction, a dream within a dream within a vision in a coma.  Missy calls out to him for rescue.  The next morning at breakfast Mack moves one step closer to the real issue.

Mack: Everybody knows you punish the people who disappoint you.

Papa: Hmm.  Nope.  I don’t need to punish people.  Sin is its own punishment.[19]  As difficult as it is for you to accept, I’m in the middle of everything you perceive to be a mess, workin’ for your good.

Later, after a stroll across the lake with Jesus (Aviv Alush), Mack meets Wisdom (Alice Braga) in a cave beneath a waterfall.  She helps him take his first steps toward obeying Jesus’ command: Do not judge so that you will not be judged.[20]  Sitting with Wisdom, Mack approaches the heart of the matter.

Mack: You know, what I don’t understand is how God can love Missy and put her through so much horror.  She was innocent.

Wisdom: I know.

Mack: Did he use her to punish me?  ‘Cause that’s not fair.  And she didn’t deserve it.  My wife and my children didn’t deserve it.  Now, I might.  ‘Cause you know I’m…

Mack can never bring himself to confess that he murdered his father.  Later that day Mack acknowledges being overly hard on God.  Papa responds: “I can work incredible good out of unspeakable tragedies.  But that doesn’t mean I orchestrate the tragedies.”

That evening Mack is taken to meet the abusive father he poisoned.  Before he can say anything more than “Dad” his father says, “Mack, I’m so sorry for everything.  I was blind and I couldn’t see you.  I couldn’t see anyone.”  Still, Mack can’t or won’t confess his murder, he only makes excuses.  “Son, I forgive you,” his father continues.  “You’ve become the father I could never be.  And I’m so proud of you.  Can you ever forgive me?”

In the movie Papa protested that she didn’t “orchestrate the tragedies.”  Still, woven into the fabric of The Shack is a serial killer who came to a campground to abduct a little girl.  His victim of opportunity was a murderer’s daughter.  Papa in Mack’s dream in a vision in a coma in a movie may want to leave it to chance or fate or karma, but in Scripture visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children is as much a part of yehôvâh’s self-proclaimed name as forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.[21]  That’s as important in reality as it proved to be in The Shack.

The next morning Papa appears to Mack as a man (Graham Greene).  “For what we have to do today you’re gonna need a father,” Papa explains.  He wants Mack to forgive the man who murdered his daughter.

Mack: So, you just let him get away with it?

Papa: Nobody gets away with anything…I’m not asking you to excuse what he did.  I’m asking you to trust me to do what’s right and to know what’s best.

 

Form of pâqad Reference KJV NET
פקד Exodus 34:7 …visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children… …responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children…
Exodus 38:21 …as it was counted, according to the commandment of Moses… …which was counted by the order of Moses…
Numbers 1:44 …which Moses and Aaron numbered… …whom Moses and Aaron numbered…
Numbers 3:15 Number the children of Levi after the… Number the Levites by their clans and…
Numbers 3:39 …which Moses and Aaron numbered at the commandment of the LORD… …whom Moses and Aaron numbered by the word of the Lord…
Numbers 3:40 Number all the firstborn of the males of the children of Israel… Number all the firstborn males of the Israelites…
Numbers 4:37 …which Moses and Aaron did number… …whom Moses and Aaron numbered…
Numbers 4:41 …whom Moses and Aaron did number… …whom Moses and Aaron numbered…
Numbers 4:45 …whom Moses and Aaron numbered… …whom Moses and Aaron numbered…
Numbers 4:46 …whom Moses and Aaron and the chief of Israel numbered… …whom Moses, Aaron, and the leaders of Israel numbered…
Numbers 4:49 According to the commandment of the LORD they were numbered… According to the word of the Lord they were numbered…
Numbers 14:18 …visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children… …visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children…
Deuteronomy 5:9 …visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children… I punish the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons for the sin of the fathers…
יפקד Numbers 16:29 …or if they be visited after the visitation of all men… …or if they share the fate[22] of all men…
Numbers 27:16 …set a man over the congregation… …appoint a man over the community…
פקדי Exodus 32:34 …nevertheless in the day when I visit… But on the day that I punish…
פקדו Numbers 26:63 …who numbered the children of Israel in the plains of Moab… …who numbered the Israelites in the plains of Moab…
Numbers 26:64 …when they numbered the children of Israel… …when they numbered the Israelites…
פקדיו Numbers 1:22 …those that were numbered of them, according to the number of the names… …all the males numbered of them twenty years old or older…
Numbers 26:54 …be given according to those that were numbered of him. …given according to the number of people in it.
פקדיכם Numbers 14:29 …and all that were numbered of you… …all those of you who were numbered…
פקדיהם Numbers 1:21 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Reuben… Those of them who were numbered from the tribe of Reuben were 46,500.
Numbers 1:23 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Simeon… Those of them who were numbered from the tribe of Simeon were 59,300.
Numbers 1:25 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Gad… Those of them who were numbered from the tribe of Gad were 45,650.
Numbers 1:27 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Judah… Those of them who were numbered from the tribe of Judah were 74,600.
Numbers 1:29 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Issachar… Those of them who were numbered from the tribe of Issachar were 54,400.
Numbers 1:31 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Zebulun… Those of them who were numbered from the tribe of Zebulun were 57,400.
Numbers 1:33 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Ephraim… Those of them who were numbered from the tribe of Ephraim were 40,500.
Numbers 1:35 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Manasseh… Those of them who were numbered from the tribe of Manasseh were 32,200.
Numbers 1:37 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Benjamin… Those of them who were numbered from the tribe of Benjamin were 35,400.
Numbers 1:39 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Dan… Those of them who were numbered from the tribe of Dan were 62,700.
Numbers 1:41 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Asher… Those of them who were numbered from the tribe of Asher were 41,500.
Numbers 1:43 Those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Naphtali… Those of them who were numbered from the tribe of Naphtali were 53,400.
Numbers 3:22 Those that were numbered of them, according to the number… Those of them who were numbered, counting every male…
Numbers 3:22 …even those that were numbered of them were seven thousand and five hundred. Not translated
Numbers 4:36 And those that were numbered of them by their families were… …and those of them numbered by their families were 2,750.
Numbers 4:40 Even those that were numbered of them, throughout their families… …those of them numbered by their families, by their clans, were 2,630.
Numbers 4:44 Even those that were numbered of them after their families… …those of them numbered by their families were 3,200.
Numbers 4:48 Even those that were numbered of them, were… …those of them numbered were 8,580.
Numbers 26:7 …and they that were numbered of them were… …and those numbered of them were 43,730.
Numbers 26:62 And those that were numbered of them were… Those of them who were numbered were 23,000…
פקודי Exodus 38:21 This is the sum of the tabernacle… This is the inventory of the tabernacle…
Exodus 38:25 And the silver of them that were numbered of the congregation… The silver of those who were numbered of the community…
Numbers 1:45 So were all those that were numbered of the children of Israel… …who could serve in Israel’s army, were numbered…
Numbers 2:32 These are those which were numbered of the children of Israel… These are the Israelites, numbered according to their families.
Numbers 2:32 …all those that were numbered of the camps… All those numbered in the camps…
Numbers 3:39 All that were numbered of the Levites… All who were numbered of the Levites…
Numbers 4:37 These were they that were numbered of the families of the Kohathites… These were those numbered from the families of the Kohathites…
Numbers 4:41 These are they that were numbered of the families of the sons of Gershon… These were those numbered from the families of the Gershonites…
Numbers 4:45 These be those that were numbered of the families of the sons of Merari… These are those numbered from the families of the Merarites…
Numbers 26:51 These were the numbered of the children of Israel… These were those numbered of the Israelites, 601,730.
Numbers 26:57 And these are they that were numbered of the Levites… …Levites who were numbered according to their families…
Numbers 26:63 These are they that were numbered by Moses… These are those who were numbered by Moses…
Numbers 31:14 …Moses was wroth with the officers of the host… …Moses was furious with the officers of the army…
ויפקד Numbers 3:16 Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD… Moses numbered them according to the word of the Lord…
Numbers 3:42 And Moses numbered, as the LORD commanded him… So Moses numbered all the firstborn males among the Israelites…
Numbers 4:34 And Moses and Aaron and the chief of the congregation numbered… …Moses and Aaron and the leaders of the community numbered…
ופקדיו Numbers 2:6 And his host, and those that were numbered thereof… Those numbered in his division are 54,400.
Numbers 2:8 And his host, and those that were numbered thereof… Those numbered in his division are 57,400.
Numbers 2:11 And his host, and those that were numbered thereof… Those numbered in his division are 46,500.
Numbers 4:49 …thus were they numbered of him… Thus were they numbered by him…
ויפקדם Numbers 1:19 …so he numbered them in the wilderness of Sinai. And so he numbered them in the wilderness of Sinai.
ופקדתי Exodus 32:34 …I will visit their sin upon them. …I will indeed punish them for their sin.
ופקדתם Numbers 4:27 …and ye shall appoint unto them in charge… You will assign them all their tasks…
ופקדיהם Numbers 2:4 And his host, and those that were numbered of them… Those numbered in his division are 74,600.
Numbers 2:13 And his host, and those that were numbered of them… Those numbered in his division are 59,300.
Numbers 2:15 And his host, and those that were numbered of them… Those numbered in his division are 45,650.
Numbers 2:19 And his host, and those that were numbered of them… Those numbered in his division are 40,500.
Numbers 2:21 And his host, and those that were numbered of them… Those numbered in his division are 32,200.
Numbers 2:23 And his host, and those that were numbered of them… Those numbered in his division are 35,400.
Numbers 2:26 And his host, and those that were numbered of them… Those numbered in his division are 62,700.
Numbers 2:28 And his host, and those that were numbered of them… Those numbered in his division are 41,500.
Numbers 2:30 And his host, and those that were numbered of them… Those numbered in his division are 53,400.
Numbers 3:34 And those that were numbered of them, according to the number… Those of them who were numbered, counting every male…
Numbers 26:34 …Manasseh, and those that were numbered of them… …Manasseh; those numbered of them were 52,700.
Numbers 26:41 …and they that were numbered of them were… …and according to those numbered of them, 45,600.
Numbers 26:50 …and they that were numbered of them were… …and those numbered of them were 45,400.
ואפקד Leviticus 18:25 …therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon it… …and I have brought the punishment for its iniquity upon it…
והפקדתי Leviticus 26:16 …I will even appoint over you terror, consumption, and the burning ague… …I will inflict horror on you, consumption and fever…
ופקודי Numbers 4:38 And those that were numbered of the sons of Gershon… Those numbered from the Gershonites…
Numbers 4:42 And those that were numbered of the families of the sons of Merari… Those numbered from the families of the Merarites…
לפקדיהם Exodus 30:12 …sum of the children of Israel after their number… …census of the Israelites according to their number…
Numbers 3:43 …of those that were numbered of them, were twenty and two thousand… Not translated
Numbers 26:18 …Gad according to those that were numbered of them… …Gadites according to those numbered of them, 40,500.
Numbers 26:22 …Judah according to those that were numbered of them… …Judah according to those numbered of them, 76,500.
Numbers 26:25 …Issachar according to those that were numbered of them… …Issachar, according to those numbered of them, 64,300.
Numbers 26:27 …Zebulunites according to those that were numbered of them… …Zebulunites, according to those numbered of them, 60,500.
Numbers 26:37 …Ephraim according to those that were numbered of them… …Ephraimites, according to those numbered of them, 32,500.
Numbers 26:43 …Shuhamites, according to those that were numbered of them… …Shuhahites according to those numbered of them were 64,400.
Numbers 26:47 …Asher according to those that were numbered of them… …Asherites, according to those numbered of them, 53,400.
בפקד Exodus 30:12 …ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them… …ransom for his life to the Lord when you number them…
Exodus 30:12 …that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them. …there will be no plague among them when you number them.
Numbers 31:49 …and there lacketh not one man of us. …and not one is missing.
הפקד Leviticus 6:4[23] …or that which was delivered him to keep… …or the thing that he had held in trust…
תפקד Numbers 1:49 …thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi… …the tribe of Levi you must not number…
Numbers 1:50 But thou shalt appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of testimony… But appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of the testimony…
Numbers 3:10 And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons… So you are to appoint Aaron and his sons…
Numbers 4:23 …until fifty years old shalt thou number them… You must number them from thirty years old and upward…
Numbers 4:29 …thou shalt number them after their families… …you are to number them by their families…
הפקדים Exodus 30:13 …every one that passeth among them that are numbered… Everyone who crosses over to those who are numbered…
Exodus 30:14 Every one that passeth among them that are numbered… Everyone who crosses over to those numbered…
Exodus 38:26 …for every one that went to be numbered… …for everyone who crossed over to those numbered…
Numbers 1:44 These are those that were numbered… These were the men…
Numbers 1:46 Even all they that were numbered were… And all those numbered totaled 603,550.
Numbers 2:9 All that were numbered in the camp of… All those numbered of the camp of Judah…
Numbers 2:16 All that were numbered in the camp of Reuben… All those numbered of the camp of Reuben…
Numbers 2:24 All that were numbered of the camp of Ephraim… All those numbered of the camp of Ephraim…
Numbers 2:31 All they that were numbered in the camp… All those numbered of the camp of Dan…
Numbers 4:46 All those that were numbered of the… All who were numbered of the Levites…
Numbers 7:2 …over them that were numbered… …had been supervising the numbering.
תפקדו Numbers 1:3 …thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies. You and Aaron are to number all in Israel…
Numbers 4:32 …and by name ye shall reckon the instruments… You are to assign by names the items…
תפקדם Numbers 3:15 …a month old and upward shalt thou number… …a month old and upward you are to number.
Numbers 4:30 …unto fifty years old shalt thou number them… You must number them from thirty years…
הפקדים Numbers 31:48 And the officers which were over thousands of the host… Then the officers who were over the thousands of the army…
התפקדו Numbers 1:47 …were not numbered among them. …were not numbered among them.
Numbers 2:33 But the Levites were not numbered among the children of Israel… But the Levites were not numbered among the other Israelites…
Numbers 26:62 …they were not numbered among the children of Israel… …they were not numbered among the Israelites…
מפקודי Numbers 26:64 …whom Moses and Aaron the priest numbered… …a man among these who had been among those numbered by Moses…

[1] Deuteronomy 5:9b (NET)

[2] I also notice that the qualifications לשׁנאי (translated: of those who reject me) and מצותי ולשמרי לאהבי (translated: those who love me and keep my commandments ) have vanished from occurrences after the end of the forty-day covenant.  I won’t say more since they reappear in Moses’ history lesson (Deuteronomy 5:5-10).

[3] Leviticus 26:14-17 may give some hint what this plague may have been.

[4] Deuteronomy 24:16 (NET)

[5] Rabbi Dr. Zev Farber, “Punishing Children for the Sins of their Parents,” TheTorah

[6] John 3:4 (NET)

[7] The Stephanus Textus Receptus had the article ο preceding Jesus. The NET parallel Greek text, NA28 and Byzantine Majority Text did not.

[8] Genesis 4:4b (NET) Table

[9] Genesis 4:9a (NET)

[10] Genesis 4:10b (NET) Table

[11] Genesis 4:9b (NET)

[12] Genesis 3:10 (NET)

[13] Genesis 3:11 (NET)

[14] Ezekiel 18:19a (Tanakh)

[15] Rabbi Dr. Zev Farber, “Punishing Children for the Sins of their Parents,” TheTorah

[16] Hebrews 12:10 (NET)

[17] Deuteronomy 5:9 (Tanakh)

[18] Exodus 34:6b, 7a (NET)

[19] “Sin is its own punishment,” is practically the definition of ʽâvôn but that will have to wait for another essay.

[20] Matthew 7:1 (NET)

[21] Exodus 34:7 (KJV)

[22] peqûddâh

[23] According to NET online this is piqqâdôn rather than pâqad as it is listed in Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance.

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 14

Posted on by

In the movie Twilight Edward is a hundred-plus-year-old vampire with the emotional development of a seventeen-year-old boy.  Robert Pattinson plays Edward a little bipolar, sometimes the wise or world-weary centenarian at other times the soulful or petulant teen.  “You know, your mood swings are kind of giving me whiplash,” Bella (Kristen Stewart) says.  Mr. Pattinson’s acting choices remind me how I thought Jesus played yehôvâh.

 

The Long Name of God
yehôvâh The Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה), the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה), the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness, keeping loyal love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.

Exodus 34:6, 7a (NET)

 But he by no means leaves the guilty unpunished, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children and children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.

Exodus 34:7b (NET)
First Advent

Second Advent
Jesus Here is my servant whom I have chosen the one I love, in whom I take great delight.  I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.  He will not quarrel or cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets.  He will not break a bruised reed or extinguish a smoldering wick, until he brings justice to victory.  And in his name the Gentiles will hope.

Matthew 12:18-21 (NET)

 He is dressed in clothing dipped in blood, and he is called the Word of God.  The armies that are in heaven, dressed in white, clean, fine linen, were following him on white horses.  From his mouth extends a sharp sword, so that with it he can strike the nations.  He will rule them with an iron rod, and he stomps the winepress of the furious wrath of God, the All-Powerful.

Revelation 19:13-15 (NET)

This understanding was part and parcel of the deal I made when I returned from atheism.  I became an atheist because I could no longer believe in an angry punishing god.  The idea that his wrath was deferred until the end offered me a window of opportunity to believe again.  Of course, the idea that Jesus was an actor (ὑποκριτής) playing yehôvâh doesn’t sit so well with me these days.

The Greek word translated rule in Revelation 19:15 above is ποιμανεῖ (a form of ποιμαίνω; shepherd).  After assembling all the chief priests and experts in the law, [King Herod] asked them where the Christ was to be born.  “In Bethlehem of Judea,” they said, “for it is written this way by the prophet: ‘And you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are in no way least among the rulers (ἡγεμόσιν, a form of ἡγεμών) of Judah, for out of you will come a ruler (ἡγούμενος, a form of ἡγέομαι) who will shepherd (ποιμανεῖ, a form of ποιμαίνω) my people Israel.’”[1]  But I didn’t make too much of it at first.

I found the following more troubling: And to the one who conquers and who continues in my deeds until the end, I will give him authority over the nations – he will rule (ποιμανεῖ, a form of ποιμαίνω) them with an iron rod and like clay jars he will break them to pieces, just as I have received the right to rule from my Father – and I will give him the morning star.[2]  Who conquers the world (1 John 5:1-5 NET)?

Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ has been fathered by God, and everyone who loves the father loves the child fathered by him.  By this we know that we love the children of God: whenever we love God and obey (ποιῶμεν, a form of ποιέω) his commandments.  For this is the love of God: that we keep his commandments. And his commandments do not weigh us down, because everyone who has been fathered by God conquers (νικᾷ, a form of νικάω) the world.  This is the conquering power (νίκη, a form of νίκη) that has conquered (νικήσασα, another form of νικάω) the world: our faith.  Now who is the person who has conquered (νικῶν, another form of νικάω) the world except the one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God?

The words, to the one who conquers, are the translation of νικῶν (another form of νικάω) in Revelation 2:26 (NET).  I take continues in my deeds to mean the deeds which have been done in God, the deeds which flow from the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control of the Holy Spirit.  I wondered how believing that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and living by the Spirit qualified someone to rule the nations and break them to pieces like clay jars.  Here again, rule is shepherd in Greek.

This time I pursued it.  A note in the NET (90) informs that, he will rule them with an iron rod and like clay jars he will break them to pieces, is a quotation of Psalm 2:9.  Note 26 on Psalm 2:9 after the words, You will break them, reads: “The LXX reads ‘you will shepherd them.’  This reading, quoted in the Greek text of the NT in Rev 2:27; 12:5; 19:15, assumes a different vocalization of the consonantal Hebrew text and understands the verb as רָעָה (ra’ah, ‘to shepherd’) rather than רָעָע (ra’a’, ‘to break’).  But the presence of נָפַץ (nafats, ‘to smash’) in the next line strongly favors the MT vocalization.”

The Hebrew words רָעָה (ra’ah H7462) and רָעָע (ra’a’ H7489) are apparently homographs in some forms, words that are spelled the same but have different meanings.  We determine their meanings primarily by context: The wind blows my hair as I wind my watch.  Here are some of the instances in the Psalms.

Reference Hebrew NET

Strong’s Number
Psalm 2:9 תרעם break H7489
Psalm 22:16 מרעים evil men H7489
Psalm 27:2 מרעים evil men H7489
Psalm 28:9 ורעם Care for them like a shepherd H7462
Psalm 37:9 מרעים Wicked H7489
Psalm 49:14 ירעם as their shepherd H7462
Psalm 64:2 מרעים evil men H7489
Psalm 78:72 וירעם David cared for H7462
Psalm 92:11 מרעים the defeated cries of the evil foes H7489

This is where accountability comes into play for me.  I can’t stand before Jesus and tell Him (Revelation 1:12-20 NET) He quoted an erroneous translation of Psalm 2:9 in Revelation 2:27 but the Masoretes corrected his mistake.  Don’t get me wrong.  I thoroughly appreciate the notes in the NET.  I long for more.  But I can’t follow the translators on this point.

Jesus said shepherd (ποιμανεῖ, a form of ποιμαίνω).  The Septuagint implies that the original Hebrew word was shepherd (ποιμανεῖς, another form of ποιμαίνω) before Israel rejected Jesus as Messiah.

NET

 Parallel Greek

Septuagint
he will rule them with an iron rod

Revelation 2:27a

 καὶ ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ράβδῳ σιδηρᾷ

Revelation 2:27a

 ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ

Psalm 2:9a

I think the Masoretes changed the word with vowel points.  Their motive[3] seems fairly obvious, to invalidate Jesus as Messiah: Jesus did not break the Gentile nations with an iron scepter nor smash them like a potter’s jar, therefore Jesus was not the Messiah.  But I’m not convinced that believing He will return to do that is the best retort.  Perhaps it is the human religious mind’s last desperate hope for vindication.  Granted, accepting shepherd as the correct homograph in Psalm 2:9 won’t establish that.  Shepherd was used nearly as ironically in Psalm 49:14 (NET):

[Fools] will travel to Sheol like sheep, with death as their shepherd.  The godly will rule over them when the day of vindication dawns; Sheol will consume their bodies and they will no longer live in impressive houses.

But it opens the door to consider other homographs for nâphats (תנפצם) since it caused the NET translators to favor the Masoretes over Jesus.

I’ll turn my attention to a more thorough consideration of ὡς τὰ σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ συντρίβεται (like clay jars he will break them to pieces) in Revelation.  My contention is that the translation of the Greek has been shaded significantly to conform to the image of Jesus using his shepherd’s rod[4] to shatter the nations like fired pottery in Psalm 2:9 of the Masoretic text.  This shading didn’t begin with the NET translators.

The King James translators rendered it, as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers.  There is a word for potter in Greek: Has the potter (κεραμεὺς) no right to make from the same lump of clay one vessel for special use and another for ordinary use?[5]  The translators of the NET were right to change the translation of κεραμικὰ (a form of κεραμικός) from of a potter to clay.  My electronic edition of Strong’s Concordance numbers broken and to shivers as if two forms of συντρίβω followed one after the other in the Greek text.  But even in the textus receptus συντρίβεται is the only instance of a form of συντρίβω in Revelation 2:27.

The Greek word σκεύη (a form of σκεῦος) with no modifier was translated property in Matthew 12:29 and Mark 3:27 (NET) and goods in Luke 17:31 (NET).  All are finished products, no doubt.  The other occurrences are modified in some way.

Reference NET

Parallel Greek
Romans 9:22 objects of wrath σκεύη ὀργῆς
Romans 9:23 objects of mercy σκεύη ἐλέους
2 Timothy 2:20 gold and silver vessels σκεύη χρυσᾶ καὶ ἀργυρᾶ
Hebrews 9:21 utensils of worship σκεύη τῆς λειτουργίας

It occurs to me to ask what the Holy Spirit would need to say beyond σκεύη τὰ κεραμικὰ (objects, vessels, utensils or jars of clay) to make us understand that these objects, vessels, utensils or jars are still malleable, made of clay?  [6/11/16: In the NET it may be ἐν ὀστρακίνοις σκεύεσιν or ὀστράκινα (a form of ὀστράκινος).]  In fact, isn’t it the translation—broken to shivers—which forces us to think otherwise?  Why was συντρίβεται (a form of συντρίβω) translated broken to shivers (KJV) or break them to pieces (NET)?  Another form was translated crush (bruise, KJV) in Paul’s letter to the Romans (16:20a NET):

The God of peace will quickly crush (συντρίψει, another form of συντρίβω) Satan under your feet.

To crush is an apt description of what a potter does as he begins to refashion a ruined vessel of clay.

Now while Jesus was in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper, reclining at the table, a woman came with an alabaster jar (ἀλάβαστρον) of costly aromatic oil from pure nard.  After breaking open (συντρίψασα, another form of συντρίβω) the jar (ἀλάβαστρον), she poured it on his head.[6]  Did she break the ἀλάβαστρον to pieces?  Or did she take its body in one hand, its lid in the other and rub (τρίβος) them together (σύν), or twist them to break the wax seal?

The Greek word translated “alabaster box” in the KJV, as well as “flask,” “jar” and “vial” in other translations, is alabastron, which can also mean “perfume vase”….The boxes were often sealed or made fast with wax, to prevent the perfume from escaping.[7]

A man described his son to Jesus: A spirit seizes him, and he suddenly screams; it throws him into convulsions and causes him to foam at the mouth.  It hardly ever leaves him alone, torturing (συντρῖβον, another form of συντρίβω) him severely.[8]  How the spirit crushed him isn’t readily apparent in the text, but it didn’t break him to pieces.  Another form of συντρίβω (συντετριμμενους) was in the prophecy Jesus read from Isaiah in the textus receptus: The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal (ιασασθαι, a form of ἰάομαι) the brokenhearted (συντετριμμενους[9] την καρδιαν)…[10]  Jesus rebuked the unclean spirit, healed (ἰάσατο, another form of ἰάομαι) the boy who was tortured, crushed, bruised or broken, and gave him back to his father.[11]

But I can’t make this a slam dunk, not without the correct homograph for the Hebrew word nâphats (תנפצם).  I can’t tell, for instance, if the man with the unclean spirit had broken (συντετρῖφθαι, another form of συντρίβω) the shackles in pieces (Mark 5:4 NET) or rubbed them together until he wriggled free.  A form of συντρίβω was contrasted to a form of κατάγνυμι in Matthew 12:20 (NET): He will not break (κατεάξει, a form of κατάγνυμι) a bruised (συντετριμμένον, another form of συντρίβω) reed or extinguish a smoldering wick, until he brings justice to victory.  But in the Septuagint συντρίψει (another form of συντρίβω) was used in place of κατεάξει and τεθλασμένον was used in place of συντετριμμένον.

That wouldn’t be particularly problematic.  I’m perfectly willing to prefer the New Testament to the Septuagint.  My primary interest in the Septuagint is as corroboration of the instances where the Masoretes altered the Hebrew of the Old Testament.  In John 19, however, forms of κατάγνυμι were used interchangeably with a form of συντρίβω (John 19:31-33, 36 NET):

Then, because it was the day of preparation, so that the bodies should not stay on the crosses on the Sabbath (for that Sabbath was an especially important one), the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to have the victims’ legs broken (κατεαγῶσιν, another form of κατάγνυμι) and the bodies taken down.  So the soldiers came and broke (κατέαξαν, another form of κατάγνυμι) the legs of the two men who had been crucified with Jesus, first the one and then the other.  But when they came to Jesus and saw that he was already dead, they did not break (κατέαξαν, another form of κατάγνυμι) his legs.

For these things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled, “Not a bone of his will be broken (συντριβήσεται, another form of συντρίβω).”

Each of the Old Testament prophecies used a form of συντρίβω for broken in the Septuagint:

NET

 Parallel Greek Septuagint Septuagint

Septuagint
Not a bone of his will be broken

John 19:36b

 ὀστοῦν οὐ συντριβήσεται αὐτοῦ

John 19:36b

 καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ

Exodus 12:46b

 καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψουσιν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ

Numbers 9:12

 ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐ συντριβήσεται

Psalm 34:20

I haven’t found a way to search Hebrew homographs online.[12]  I definitely need help from someone who knows Hebrew extremely well.

I’ve often quipped to friends, if there is anything left of me when I see Him face to face, my first question will be: a written language without vowels?  Dr. Thomas M. Strouse, arguing for the necessity and inspiration of vowel points in an essay titled “A Review of and Observations about Peter Whitfield’s: A Dissertation on the Hebrew Vowel-Points,” gave me a glimpse into the beauty and economy of biblical Hebrew.  After eliminating the options that could be disregarded by context, Dr. Strouse proposed three options for Genesis 1:26: “Did Jehovah say ‘let us make’ man, or man ‘he was made,’ or ‘we will be made’ man?”

Whether God said, let us make man or man he was made, is inconsequential to me as it pertains to meaning, though I suspect that the latter may be eliminated by context in the very next verse.  But the realization that the Hebrew, without vowel points, means that God said let us make man and we will be made man in one and the same verb, is too beautiful a prophetic truth for mere words.

[1] Matthew 2:4-6 (NET)

[2] Revelation 2:26-28 (NET)

[3] I might do the same if I believed that Jesus was not the Christ.  I was surprised to learn (though now I wonder why) that some believe the Hebrew vowel points are inspired.  Thomas D. Ross in an article titled “Evidences for the Inspiration of the Hebrew Vowel Points” wrote that the Greek word κεραία meant the vowel points were already part of Scripture before Jesus’ earthly ministry: I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth pass away not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter (κεραία) will pass from the law until everything takes place (Matthew 5:18 NET).  The “Lord Jesus,” Mr. Ross wrote, “affirmed the inspiration and preservation of all the Hebrew consonants and vowels through His statement that not the smallest of the consonants (the yod) or vowels (the chireq) would be corrupted.”  Even if this is true it doesn’t account for the discrepancy between the Masoretic text of Psalm 2:9 and Jesus’ words in Revelation 2:27.

[4] NET note 27: “The Hebrew term שֵׁבֶט (shevet) can refer to a ‘staff’ or ‘rod,’ but here it probably refers to the Davidic king’s royal scepter, symbolizing his sovereignty.”

[5] Romans 9:21 (NET)

[6] Mark 14:3 (NET)

[7] “What is an alabaster box?”

[8] Luke 9:39 (NET)

[9] another form of συντρίβω

[10] Luke 4:18a (KJV)

[11] Luke 9:42b (NET)

[12] Addendum: December 2, 2019 – I found a site called morfix.  It slows down my computer if I leave it open but for a quick look it’s helpful.  Copy and paste the Hebrew word into the box at the top and click “Translate.”

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 8

Posted on by

To reveal my own position and velocity[1] it is probably past time that I at least outline my own religious background.  And here, I’ll take the lazy way out.  Matt Slick has done it for me in his “Doctrine Grid”[2] online.  He acknowledged that “some of these are debatable…I do not claim absolute correctness on all points–only the essentials.”  I’m not going to debate his points beyond pointing out that Mr. Slick offers them as “a layout of biblical orthodoxy” and I offer them only as an outline of my religious background, both its content and tone.

Though I live among them I don’t understand my people, those of my religious background, as it pertains to the hope and promise of universal salvation in the Scriptures.  I think I understand what might motivate someone like Richard Wayne Garganta to eliminate “hell talk” from the Bible.  But I can’t get a handle on what might motivate someone to eliminate the hope and promise of universal salvation from the Bible.  “It’s not there!” is a form of blindness.

A puff piece[3] about Matt Chandler in the May 2014 issue of Christianity Today caught my attention as I considered these things:

For a long time, Chandler had prayed for his dad to know Christ.  “I remember being confused with the idea of [Dad having] free will, but then me asking God to save him. To me those two things were incompatible.”
He found the answer in classically reformed teachings, especially those of John Piper. Chandler embraces the view that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell.[4]

I’m not going to say much about free will except to offer my opinion that it represents the contingent choices we make—contingent choices with a really good press agent.  I will look deeper into “the view that God predestines some to heaven and others to hell.”  We certainly knew of that view in my religion.  Our essentially fundamentalist church had separated from the Congregationalists as they embraced “modernism.”[5]  It was joined later by others separating from the Presbyterians for similar reasons, a group who held views similar to Matt Chandler’s.   My family shared a more “whosoever will may come” view.

It seemed fairer somehow.  Could God be other than fair?  He has given everyone on the planet an equal opportunity to choose to trust Him.  Salvation, therefore, is left ultimately up to an individual’s choice.  That seemed consistent enough with the Old Testament, and except for Paul’s writings and Jesus’ sayings more or less consistent with the New Testament as I understood it at the time.

So, is “God predestines some to heaven and others to hell” a fair inference from God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden[6]?  I still don’t think so.  It requires me to reject the hope and promise of universal salvation revealed in Scripture (a Christian heresy[7] according to Matt Slick and a host of others, my people all).  Consider the context (Romans 9:17, 18 NET):

For the scripture says to Pharaoh: “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I may demonstrate my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth.”  So then, God has mercy (ἐλεεῖ, a form of ἐλεέω) on whom he chooses (θέλει, a form of θέλω) to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses (θέλει, a form of θέλω) to harden.

I can say with full conviction on the authority of Scripture that the chariots of Pharaoh and his army [yehôvâh] has thrown into the sea, and his chosen officers were drowned in the Red Sea.[8]  I can’t say with the same confidence that Pharaoh or his army will spend eternity in hell.   Yehôvâh, as revealed by Paul, thinks differently than Matt Chandler or Matt Slick on this subject (Romans 11:30, 31 NET).

Just as you were formerly disobedient (ἠπειθήσατε, a form of ἀπείθεια), so they too have now been disobedient (ἠπείθησαν, another form of ἀπειθέω) in order that, by the mercy (ἐλέει, a form of ἔλεος) shown to you, they too may now receive mercy (ἐλεηθῶσιν, another form of ἐλεέω).

Paul referred specifically here to his own people, my fellow countrymen, who are Israelites,[9] and all those loved by God in Rome, called to be saints.[10]  But I can’t find any compelling reason to discriminate against an ancient Pharaoh and his army: For God has consigned all people to disobedience (ἀπείθειαν, another form of ἀπείθεια) so that he may show mercy (ἐλεήσῃ, another form of ἐλεέω) to…all.[11]  So while—it does not depend on human desire (θέλοντος, another form of θέλω)or exertion, but on God who shows mercy (ἐλεῶντος, another form of ἐλεέω )[12]—is a potent antidote to the “whosoever will may come” religious view of my youth, it is clearly coupled with the hope of universal salvation: God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to…all.

Jesus’ saying—No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws (ἑλκύσῃ, a form of ἑλκύω) him, and I will raise him up at the last day[13]—is a stronger refutation of “whosoever will may come” unless one takes ἑλκύσῃ to mean “Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling.”[14]  In that case, Jesus’ promise of universal salvation—And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (ἑλκύσω, another form of ἑλκύω) all…to myself[15]—becomes little more than a promise of equal opportunity:  And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will softly and tenderly call all people to myself.  But I’m not convinced that ἑλκύσῃ and ἑλκύσω will dance to that tune.

Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, called to it softly and tenderly, and it rose up out of its scabbard and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear.  The Scripture says, Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, pulled it out (εἵλκυσεν, another form of ἑλκύω) and struck the high priest’s slave, cutting off his right ear.[16]  The King James translators chose drew for εἵλκυσεν, making the connection to Jesus’ sayings clear even in English: Then Simon Peter, having a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, and cut off his right ear.[17]  Here any English speaking person might consider how much say the sword had regarding when, how or for what purpose it was drawn.

“Throw your net on the right side of the boat, and you will find some [fish],” Jesus told his disciples.  So they threw the net, and were not able to pull (ἑλκύσαι, another form of ἑλκύω) it in because of the large number of fish.[18]  Here the net resisted, because it was too heavy for the disciples to pull up out of the water and into their boat.  But it was no match for Peter dragging it ashore: So Simon Peter went aboard and pulled (εἵλκυσεν, another form of ἑλκύω) the net to shore.[19]  And again, the King James translators made the comparison to Jesus’ sayings obvious:  they were not able to draw it in.[20]

Here are a few more examples of forms of ἑλκύω from Luke and James:

“Whosoever will may come”

Bible
But when her owners saw their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and softly and tenderly called them into the marketplace before the authorities. But when her owners saw their hope of profit was gone, they seized Paul and Silas and dragged (εἵλκυσαν, another form of ἑλκύω) them into the marketplace before the authorities.

Acts 16:19 (NET)
The whole city was stirred up, and the people rushed together.  They seized Paul and softly and tenderly called him out of the temple courts, and immediately the doors were shut. The whole city was stirred up, and the people rushed together.  They seized Paul and dragged (εἷλκον, another form of ἑλκύω) him out of the temple courts, and immediately the doors were shut.

Acts 21:30 (NET)
But you have dishonored the poor!  Are not the rich oppressing you and softly and tenderly calling you into the courts? But you have dishonored the poor!  Are not the rich oppressing you and dragging (ἕλκουσιν, another form of ἑλκύω) you into the courts?

James 2:6 (NET)

It does not behoove the God-predestines-some-to-heaven-and-others-to-hell folk to call out the whosoever-will-may-come folk on this point.  The former are as opposed to universal salvation as the latter.  Still, it seems to me if I understand Jesus’ sayings correctly—No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me [drags] him and, And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will [drag] all…to myself—I get a clearer picture of the human condition and the hope and promise of God in Christ.

The only person I want to condemn to hell is my old man, not my father, but the sin in my flesh.  I have had a remarkably blessed life.  No one raped and murdered my mother, my sister, my daughter or my wives.  Divorce is the most difficult sin I’ve been called upon to forgive.  And I love the women who divorced me.  I certainly wouldn’t want to see them condemned to an eternity in hell because they found living with me unendurable.  But by wishing my old man condemned to hell I have condemned the whole world.

Gentle Heart suggested that final judgment could be like the judgment of wheat and chaff: “So maybe John 5:28 and 29 can be talking about all us dead being raised and our ‘old selves’ get condemned and our ‘new selves’ live eternally with the Lord.”  It’s an intriguing idea that seems to satisfy the long name of God.

The Long Name of God
The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness, keeping loyal love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.

Exodus 34:6, 7a (NET)

 But he by no means leaves the guilty unpunished, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children and children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.

Exodus 34:7b (NET)

The main objection would be the apparent need for postmortem salvation in some (or, many) cases.  But that is really only an objection from the human perspective, the impossibility of believing in Jesus for salvation when one faces Him in judgment.  But from the divine perspective there is no law or rule, no circumstance of life or death that prohibits God from showing mercy: I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.[21]  Salvation does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy.[22]  And, God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[23]  In fact this is why we work hard and struggle, Paul encouraged Timothy, because we have set our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of believers.[24]

There is a satisfying symmetry to the idea that universal salvation entails universal condemnation.  But I’ve had a lifetime to identify with the new man.[25]  If God condemned the sin in my flesh to an eternity in hell, I think I could bid the old man Godspeed and good riddance.  But consider one born from above by the calling of God at, or after, the final judgment.

I know how often I have oscillated between the old and new man when they were in the same geographical and space/time location.  Imagine the trauma of oscillating between the more familiar old man and the relatively strange new man when one is in hell and the other is face to face with God.  Still, the Holy Spirit has seen, and sees, me through my conflict and confusion.  I don’t doubt that He could comfort one in the throes of that terror.

I can’t say this is the way God fulfills his desire to be merciful while He by no means leaves the guilty unpunished.  I can only say, Gentle Heart, in the spirit of Jonathan Edwards’ argument for God as the Superlative Torturer, that if we can imagine this wheat and chaff solution to the dilemma of universal salvation, how many more solutions can the living God conceive and execute to satisfy the desire of his, and your, gentle heart.

[1] Who Am I? Part 1

[2] Doctrine Grid

[3] I call it a puff piece because I have no doubt that the editors will publish a hatchet job about the very same preacher if he slips financially or sexually, or strays doctrinally too far from what the editors feel they can sell as Christianity Today.

[4] “The Joy-Stung Preacher,” Joe Maxwell, Christianity Today, May 2014, p. 39

[5] Theological Liberalism

[6] Romans 9:18 (NET)

[7] Can a Christian be a universalist?

[8] Exodus 15:4 (NET)

[9] Romans 9:3, 4 (NET)

[10] Romans 1:7 (NET)

[11] Romans 11:32 (NET)  A note in the NET acknowledges that “them” was added for stylistic reasons.

[12] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[13] John 6:44 (NET)

[14] Softly and Tenderly

[15] John 12:32 (NET)  NET note: “Grk ‘all.’ The word ‘people’ is not in the Greek text but is supplied for stylistic reasons and for clarity (cf. KJV ‘all men’).”  See: Colossians 1:15-20 (NET)

[16] John 18:10a (NET) Table

[17] John 18:10a (NKJV) Table

[18] John 21:6 (NET)

[19] John 21:11a (NET)

[20] John 21:6 (NKJV)

[21] Exodus 33:19b (NET) Table

[22] Romans 9:16 (NET)

[23] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[24] 1 Timothy 4:10 (NET)

[25] Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:9, 10 (NET)

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 6

Posted on by

I failed to come to a definitive conclusion whether the ones who have done what is evil (φαῦλα, a form of φαῦλος)[1] come out of their tombs to the resurrection resulting in[2] condemnation or judgment[3] (κρίσεως, a form of κρίσις).  My faith and my knowledge of God persuade me that judgment is the correct translation, but I can see how another’s faith and knowledge might lean toward condemnation (Mark 16:14-16 NET).

Then [Jesus] appeared to the eleven themselves, while they were eating, and he rebuked them for their unbelief (ἀπιστίαν, a form of ἀπιστία)[4] and hardness of heart, because they did not believe (ἐπίστευσαν, a form of πιστεύω)[5] those who had seen him resurrected.  He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.  The one who believes (πιστεύσας, another form of πιστεύω) and is baptized will be saved, but the one who does not believe (ἀπιστήσας, a form of ἀπιστέω)[6] will be condemned (κατακριθήσεται, a form of κατακρίνω).[7]

Here, the one who does not believe will be condemned, clearly, without question.  Is it wrong then to assume that John meant the same thing, but chose a less specific word to express it, and then correct or clarify his meaning in translation?  I’m not sure that I can say that it is.  I can only say that my experience with God has taught me to pay more attention to the words as written.

So who is He?  Is He an angry God who barely restrains Himself from torturing sinners?  Peter wrote, The Lord is not slow concerning his promise, as some regard slowness, but is being patient (μακροθυμεῖ, a form of μακροθυμέω)[8] toward you, because he does not wish (βουλόμενος, a form of βούλομαι)[9] for any to perish but for all to come to repentance (μετάνοιαν, a form of μετάνοια).[10]  That sounds reasonable since God is love (ἀγάπη),[11] and Love (ἀγάπη) is patient (μακροθυμεῖ, a form of μακροθυμέω).[12]  And, He by no means leaves the guilty unpunished.[13]

So what do I mean as I pray daily, may your will (θέλημα)[14] be done (γενηθήτω, a form of γίνομαι; literally, become)[15] on earth as it is in heaven[16]?  Am I praying for the equitable distribution of punishment for sin according to the law?  Or am I praying that God will satisfy the desire of his heart for all to come to repentance?  I think I’m praying for the latter, but I can’t say that He didn’t reveal Himself to Jonathan Edwards as an angry God who tortures sinners.  I’m saying that it would be disingenuous to assert that He has revealed Himself like that to me.

So what about his salvation?  Is it a judgment (κρίσις), a separating of the righteous from sinners?  Or does it express the Lord’s desire to populate the earth with people who will forgive[17] the sins of others and love their enemies,[18] by his grace, filled with his love, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and ἐγκράτεια,[19] demonstrating not their own righteousness but his, enjoying what they do, filled with his joy and peace?  Again, I think the latter is nearer the truth, but again, that is based entirely on my faith and my knowledge of God, as He has revealed Himself to me.  Clearly, I’m trying to know Someone whose deeds are superior to [my] deeds and [whose] plans [are] superior to [my] plans.[20]

The original question ended: “I hope the whole point is God’s going to save everybody!  Am I nuts???”  No, I don’t think there is anything “nuts” about that hope.  In fact, I know the questioner enough to know that this is the sincere hope of a gentle heart.  I also know she was born into a religion in which most people believe that Jesus answered, “Yes,” to the question, “Lord, will only a few be saved?”[21]  But Jesus actually said, “Exert (ἀγωνίζεσθε; a form of ἀγωνίζομαι)[22] every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.”[23] 

A form of ἀγωνίζομαι was translated fighting (John 18:36 NET), exercise (1 Corinthians 9:25 NET), struggling (Colossians 1:29; 4:12 NET), struggle (1 Timothy 4:10 NET), compete (1 Timothy 6:12 NET) and competed (2 Timothy 4:7 NET).  Returning to the marriage analogy of Romans 7, trying to bear fruit alone is futile, seeking another than the One who was raised from the dead[24] is sinful, and lying there passively is no fun for anyone.  Exercise, compete, struggle, fight, bearing fruit is important enough to do badly until one learns to do it right.

Two things here: First, though it may seem like a non sequitur[25] to go directly to spiritual fruit from the word saved, most people who believe that Jesus answered yes to this question, believe it primarily because it confirms their observations that the fruit of salvation is lacking in many or most people around them.  And secondly, though it may sound like I’m reversing my position here, I have exercised, competed, struggled and fought to bear fruit, compelled by a God-given hunger and thirst for righteousness[26] and empowered by the same power that raised Jesus from the dead.[27]

These essays are often about how wrongheaded I’ve been in that exercise, competition, struggling and fighting.  But if those mistakes were necessary to get from there to here, I would make them all again.  If it is possible for someone to avoid some of my mistakes by reading about them, praise the Lord!  If my writing discourages one from pursuing Christ and his righteousness, I apologize from the bottom of my heart!  If my writing encourages one to wait passively rather than to pursue Christ and his righteousness, stop reading my writing and get to work making as many of your own mistakes as soon as possible!

My dear Gentle Heart, though you have been harried and harassed by those who would make your heart harder, [you] have competed (ἠγώνισμαι, another form of ἀγωνίζομαι) well…[you] have kept the faith![28]  And though you haven’t budged in all these years, I want to consider at least the possibility of changing religions, to join with those who believe in universal salvation.  The problem isn’t finding both the hope and promise of universal salvation in Scripture.  The problem is what to make of all the “hell talk”[29] in the Bible if universal salvation is true.

I found a website[30] that does a fairly effective job of eliminating “hell talk” from the Bible.  I admit I didn’t read every word, just enough to grasp the basic assumptions: 1) αἰώνιος[31] does not mean eternal[32] but a dispensational age[33]; 2) the book of Revelation was written before 70 A.D. so most of it refers to the fall of Jerusalem; and 3) punishment is not simply consequential but effectual in purging or purifying sin.

The benefits of believing that αἰώνιος does not mean eternal are obvious.  If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away.  It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.[34]  The Greek τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον wouldn’t mean eternal fire but “fire for a dispensational age.”  The meaning isn’t altered much.  It would still be better to enter life crippled or lame than to spend a dispensational age in fire.  This one, since the fall of Jerusalem, is approaching two thousand years.

In, “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire that has been prepared for the devil and his angels!’”[35] εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον wouldn’t mean into the eternal fire but “into the fire of a dispensational age.”  The Greek εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον wouldn’t mean into eternal punishment in, “And these will depart into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”[36]  But then, would εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον mean into eternal life?  Here the potential cost of this assumption begins to come into focus.  What becomes of Jesus’ words to Nicodemus if αἰώνιον means “a dispensational age” (John 3:14-16 NET)?

Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον).”  For this is the way God loved the world: He gave his one and only Son, so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life (ζωὴν αἰώνιον).

I’ve placed a table of the benefits and potential costs of this assumption at the end of this essay.

The assumption that Revelation was written before 70 A.D. is not mine, but is also one I don’t know how to argue.  Jesus certainly spoke before 70 A.D. and He certainly prophesied about the destruction of Jerusalem.  Those prophecies confirmed Him as a prophet to be feared.[37]  Richard Wayne Garganta[38] wrote:[39]

“Christ was…referring to the coming destruction of Jerusalem and the elimination of the entire Jewish system in 70 AD – the end of the age…at the end of the Jewish age when severe judgments were to come, the angels or messengers to execute God’s judgments would separate Christians from others.  The bad were to suffer in the furnace of fire which was the burning city of Jerusalem.  The evil were also to perish in Gehenna [γεέννῃ].[40]  Gehenna in many Bibles is wrongly interpreted ‘hell’.  Gehenna was the garbage dump, the incinerator outside Jerusalem where the ‘fire was never quenched and the worm didn’t die.’  This was because garbage and the bodies of criminals were thrown there to be burned.  This is exactly what happened during the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD.”

But does that mean that Jesus only prophesied about the destruction of Jerusalem?  Consider his warning to his disciples that religious people would defame them and accuse them of evil, just as they accused Him of being Beelzebul.[41]  Do not be afraid of them, He counseled, for nothing is hidden that will not be revealed.[42]  For the creation eagerly waits for the revelation of the sons of God,[43] Paul wrote the Romans.  Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul (ψυχὴν),[44] Jesus continued, speaking of those religious defamers from verse 25 and perhaps expanding his comments to others as well.  Instead, He continued, fear the one who is able to destroy both soul (ψυχὴν) and body in hell (γεέννῃ).[45]

If I limit the meaning of γεέννῃ here to “the garbage dump, the incinerator outside Jerusalem,” who was Jesus telling his disciples to fear?  Roman soldiers? because the cremation of a corpse is able to destroy both soul and body?  Was He reassuring them about their value above many sparrows, that the Father’s will protected their corpses from cremation?  For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul (ψυχὴν)[46] by being cremated after his death?  And what about immolation?  Again it seems to me that eliminating hell from the equation is a potentially costly enterprise.

I can’t say for certain whether αἰώνιος means eternal or a dispensational age only.  I can only say I don’t want to stand before Jesus pretending that I can.  I don’t know whether Revelation was written before 70 A.D. or not.  I only know that I won’t stand before Jesus and tell Him to his face that He could not mean that γεέννῃ is a place of κόλασιν αἰώνιον (Hebrews 4:13 NET):

…no creature is hidden from God, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account.

None of this is to say anything against Richard Wayne Garganta.  I don’t doubt his sincerity, only mine if I were to follow him.  At this moment in my journey, my faith and my knowledge of God don’t correspond exactly with his (though I appreciate the effort he has put into sharing them).  I’ll consider what I perceive as his third assumption in the next essay.

What follows is the table of benefits and potential costs if αἰώνιος means a dispensational age only.

αἰώνιος

Benefit

Potential Cost
Would ζωὴ αἰώνιος…

John 12:50; Romans 6:23; 1 John 5:20 (NET)

 …mean eternal life?
Would αἰώνιος ζωὴ…

John 17:3 (NET)

 …mean eternal life?

 

αἰώνιον, a form of αἰώνιος

Benefit

Potential Cost
τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον…

Matthew 18:8 (NET)

 …would not mean eternal fire Would ζωὴν αἰώνιον…

Matthew 19:16; Luke 18:30; John 3:15, 16, 36; 4:36; 5:24, 39; 6:27, 40, 47, 54; 10:28; 12:25; 17:2; Acts 13:48; Romans 2:7; 5:21; 6:22; Galatians 6:8; 1 John 3:15; Jude 1:21 (NET)

 …mean eternal life?
εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον…

Matthew 25:41 (NET)

 …would not mean into the eternal fire Would ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσει…

Matthew 19:29 (NET)

 …mean will inherit eternal life?
εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον…

Matthew 25:46 (NET)

 …would not mean into the eternal punishment Would εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον…

Matthew 25:46 (NET)

 …mean into eternal life?
τίσουσιν ὄλεθρον αἰώνιον…

2 Thessalonians 1:9 (NET)

 …would not mean the penalty of eternal destruction Would ζωὴν αἰώνιον κληρονομήσω…

Mark 10:17; Luke 10:25; 18:18 (NET)

 …mean inherit eternal life?
Would ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον…

John 4:14 (NET)

 …mean springing up to eternal life?
Would εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον…

1 Timothy 1:16 (NET)

 …mean for eternal life?
Would τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον…

1 John 1:2, 2:25 (NET)

 …mean the eternal life?
Would ζωὴν ἔχετε αἰώνιον…

1 John 5:13 (NET)

 …mean you have eternal life?

 

αἰωνίου, a form of αἰώνιος

Benefit

Potential Cost
αἰωνίου ἁμαρτήματος…

Mark 3:29 (NET)

 …would not mean an eternal sin. Would ρήματα ζωῆς αἰωνίου…

John 6:68 (NET)

 …mean words of eternal life?
κρίματος αἰωνίου…

Hebrews 6:2 (NET)

 …would not mean of…eternal judgment. Would αἰωνίου ζωῆς…

Acts 13:46 (NET)

 …mean of eternal life?
πυρὸς αἰωνίου δίκην…

Jude 1:7 (NET)

 …would not mean the punishment of eternal fire. Would τοῦ αἰωνίου θεοῦ…

Romans 16:26 (NET)

 …mean of the eternal God?
Would τῆς αἰωνίου ζωῆς…

1 Timothy 6:12 (NET)

 …mean of that eternal life?
Would ζωῆς αἰωνίου…

Titus 1:2; 3:7 (NET)

 …mean of eternal life?
Would σωτηρίας αἰωνίου…

Hebrews 5:9 (NET)

 …mean of eternal salvation?
Would πνεύματος αἰωνίου…

Hebrews 9:14 (NET)

 …mean eternal Spirit?
Would τῆς αἰωνίου κληρονομίας…

Hebrews 9:15 (NET)

 …mean the eternal inheritance?
Would διαθήκης αἰωνίου…

Hebrews 13:20 (NET)

 …mean of the eternal covenant?

 

αἰωνίαν, a form of αἰώνιος

Benefit

Potential Cost
Would παράκλησιν αἰωνίαν…

2 Thessalonians 2:16 (NET)

 …mean eternal comfort?
Would αἰωνίαν λύτρωσιν…

Hebrews 9:12 (NET)

 …mean eternal redemption?

 

αἰωνίους, a form of αἰώνιος

Benefit

Potential Cost
Would τὰς αἰωνίους σκηνάς…

Luke 16:9 (NET)

 …mean the eternal homes?

Condemnation or Judgment? Part 7

Back to Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 8

7/1/16 Addendum: J. W. Hanson, in Universalism: The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years, seemed willing to accept this limitation of eternal life. Following Philo he suggested that only ἀΐδιος means eternal in the sense of everlasting, while αἰώνιος is an indefinite period of time. It this is true only God’s power and the chains of the angels who did not keep within their proper domain are everlasting.

Mr. Hanson wrote:

Philo, who was contemporary with Christ, generally used aidion to denote endless, and aionian temporary duration. He uses the exact phraseology of Matt. xxv: 46, precisely as Christ used it: “It is better not to promise than not to give prompt assistance, for no blame follows in the former case, but in the latter there is dissatisfaction from the weaker class, and a deep hatred and æonian punishment (chastisement) from such as are more powerful.” Here we have the precise terms employed by our Lord, which show that aionian did not mean endless but did mean limited duration in the time of Christ.

From III. Origin of Endless Punishment.
Philo’s Use of the Words.

[2] John 5:29b (NET)

[10] 2 Peter 3:9 (NET)

[11] 1 John 4:16 (NET) Table

[12] 1 Corinthians 13:4 (NET)

[13] Exodus 34:7b (NET)

[16] Matthew 6:10b (NET) Table

[19] Galatians 5:22, 23a (NET)

[20] Isaiah 55:9 (NET)

[21] Luke 13:23 (NET)

[23] Luke 13:24 (NET)

[28] 2 Timothy 4:7 (NET)

[34] Matthew 18:8 (NET)

[35] Matthew 25:41 (NET)

[36] Matthew 25:46 (NET)

[42] Matthew 10:26a (NET)

[43] Romans 8:19 (NET)

[44] Matthew 10:28a (NET)

[45] Matthew 10:28b (NET)

[46] Matthew 16:26a (NKJV)

Fear – Exodus, Part 6

Posted on by

The Lord spoke to Moses: “Go quickly, descend, because your people, whom you brought up from the land of Egypt, have acted corruptly [Table].  They have quickly turned aside from the way that I commanded them – they have made for themselves a molten calf and have bowed down to it and sacrificed to it and said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, which brought you up from the land of Egypt [Table].’”[1]

What follows is the classic story of the jealous Jehovah dissuaded by the brave hero Moses from carrying out his “evil” wrath on the descendants of Israel.  Moses seems to me like a man who would be horrified by this reading of his story.  I think his matter-of-fact writing style doesn’t convey tone or some of the nuance that a more artful writer (Luke, for instance) might convey.

I have seen this people, the Lord continued.  Look what a stiff-necked people they are [Table]!  So now, leave me alone so that my anger can burn against them and I can destroy them, and I will make from you a great nation[Table].[2]  In his response, O Lord, why does your anger burn against your people, Moses’ writing style paints himself as clueless as it paints Jehovah vengeful.  Yet the provocation for Jehovah’s anger is clearly stated in the rest of Moses’ rhetorical question.  O Lord, why does your anger burn against your people, whom you have brought out from the land of Egypt with great power and with a mighty hand?[3]

Who wouldn’t be angry if his or her beneficence was credited by its recipients to their own work?  How angry should Jehovah be when we claim that his gift of righteousness through his bearing of our sins by his death on a cross and his resurrection is by our own efforts or our own intrinsic goodness?

As I read this I heard Jehovah shouting angrily, Look what a stiff-necked people they are!  So now, leave me alone so that my anger can burn against them and I can destroy them, and I will make from you a great nation.  But would Moses have disobeyed Jehovah’s direct command—leave me alone—spoken in anger?  Or did he hear the lamentation in Jehovah’s voice and understand that Jehovah was asking leave of Moses to stand aside and allow Jehovah’s anger to follow its natural course and burn against them and destroy them?

Why should the Egyptians say, “For evil he led them out to kill them in the mountains and to destroy them from the face of the earth” Moses continued.  Turn from your burning anger, and relent of this evil against your people.[4]  Again, the writing here leaves the impression that Moses didn’t understand the covenant the people agreed to, Whoever sacrifices to a god other than the Lord alone must be utterly destroyed.[5]  They had violated the covenant.  Did Moses expect Jehovah to violate it, too?

Moses had told the people all the Lord’s words and all the decisions.  All the people answered together, “We are willing to do all the words that the Lord has said,” and Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord.[6]  He took the Book of the Covenant and read it aloud to the people, and they said, “We are willing to do and obey all that the Lord has spoken.”[7]  By what authority did Moses declare the Lord Jehovah’s intent to honor the covenant by destroying the people who violated it evil?

I am not saying that Jehovah did wrong by declining to carry out the punishment demanded by the covenant.  Jehovah never bound Himself to that, but said to Moses, I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.[8]  What I am saying is, though the collection of writings known as the Old Testament continues for many volumes, the Old Covenant as an agreement between Jehovah and the descendants of Israel to keep his commandments and receive his blessing came to its crashing conclusion right here.  When Jehovah declined to exact his vengeance on Israel according to the covenant they agreed to, when He did not purge[9] the evil from Israel by executing them but showed them mercy, He consigned all [Israel] to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[10]

Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel your servants, Moses pleaded, to whom you swore by yourself and told them, “I will multiply your descendants like the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken about I will give to your descendants, and they will inherit it forever.”[11]  And Paul wrote the Romans (Romans 4:13-17 NET):

For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would inherit the world was not fulfilled through the law, but through the righteousness that comes by faith [Table].  For if they become heirs by the law, faith is empty and the promise is nullified.  For the law brings wrath, because where there is no law there is no transgression either.  For this reason it is by faith so that it may be by grace, with the result that the promise may be certain to all the descendants – not only to those who are under the law, but also to those who have the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all (as it is written, “I have made you the father of many nations”).  He is our father in the presence of God whom he believed – the God who makes the dead alive and summons the things that do not yet exist as though they already do.

Then the Lord relented over the evil that he had said he would do to his people.[12]  Moses was not as clueless as his writing style made him appear to be.  As for Jehovah—and I want to say this as reverently as possible—there is always a sense of theatricality in his interactions with human beings, for He knew this particular circumstance, this particular conversation and its particular outcome before the beginning, when He created the heavens and the earth.[13]  For many years I declined to tell Him about my day, my reactions to it, the ways I thought and felt about it all.  It seemed like a waste of time.  He knew me better than I knew myself.  Eventually I realized that fact alone made the retelling valuable—for me.  As I tell Him about it He points out things that I missed or didn’t understand, about me and the things that happened during the day.

As I turn my attention to the authority by which Moses declared the Lord Jehovah’s apparent intent to honor the covenant by destroying the people who violated it evil, I am confronted with three different instances.  All three however are the same word raʽ.[14]  Yes, the Hebrew word for evil sounds like the Egyptian word for sun god.  Allan Langner[15] wrote in the Jewish Bible Quarterly,[16] “in Exodus 32:12, when Moses pleads with God…The word for evil [b’raah] can also be taken as a reference to Ra.  The verse would then read: ‘Wherefore should the Egyptians say, Ra brought them out to slay them in the mountains?’”[17]  Perhaps the Egyptians would have said that.  Perhaps Moses would have said that the Egyptians would say that.  Or, perhaps Moses said that the Egyptians would say that Jehovah had led Israel into, or for, an evil purpose.

None of this compels me to conclude that Jehovah’s apparent intent to honor the covenant by destroying the people who violated it was in fact evil.  But in the next instance—Turn from your burning anger, and relent of this evil (raʽ) against your people[18]—Moses called Jehovah’s apparent intent to honor the covenant by destroying the people who violated it evil.  This was more troubling.  The note in the NET reads: “The word ‘evil’ means any kind of life-threatening or fatal calamity. ‘Evil’ is that which hinders life, interrupts life, causes pain to life, or destroys it.”  In other words, Jehovah’s apparent intent to honor the covenant by destroying the people who violated it would only be apparently evil from a human perspective, not actually evil from Jehovah’s perspective.

I did entertain the idea that Moses meant trouble as opposed to evil.  The Israelite foremen saw that they were in trouble (raʽ) when they were told, “You must not reduce the daily quota of your bricks.”[19]  Moses used a different word (albeit the root verb) when he complained to Jehovah about it.  Moses returned to the Lord, and said, “Lord, why have you caused trouble (râʽaʽ)[20] for this people?  Why did you ever send me?  From the time I went to speak to Pharaoh in your name, he has caused trouble (râʽaʽ) for this people, and you have certainly not rescued them!”[21]  But the third instance was the kicker, if you will.

Then the Lord relented over the evil (raʽ) that he had said he would do to his people.[22]  It is simply a statement of fact, like, In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.[23]  Here the Holy Spirit declared that Jehovah’s apparent intent to honor the covenant by destroying the people who violated it would have been evil from Jehovah’s perspective.  And here for Moses Jehovah Himself modeled the behavior of repentance, giving up his right of vengeance by covenant (by law) for a higher righteousness.  Father, if you are willing, take this cup away from me, He said later, troubled by his own death.  Yet not my will but yours be done.[24]

This brings me back to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (raʽ).  We may eat of the fruit from the trees of the orchard, Eve replied to the serpent, 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.”[25]  Adam’s gezerah—and you must not touch it—and the alteration (whether Adam’s or Eve’s) of you will surely die[26] to or else you will die seems to imply that Adam and Eve thought the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil (raʽ) was poisonous or contained some intrinsic property that caused death.

This opened the door for the serpent to say, Surely you will not die.[27]  And Eve handled and tasted the fruit with impunity.  She didn’t die.  Of course, her eyes weren’t opened and she didn’t become like a divine being knowing good and evil (raʽ) either.  But when she approached her husband with the forbidden fruit she had at least part of the assurance of the shrewdest of any of the wild animals that the Lord God had made,[28] and (with every breath she took) a rapidly increasing quantity of empirical proof that Adam, too, would not die from eating forbidden fruit.  Adam had only his memory of God’s word.  When he ate the forbidden fruit, the eyes of both of them opened, and they knew they were naked…[29]  It was unpleasant no doubt, but was it death?

My point here is that God did not give Adam knowledge of forbidden fruit when He said, You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard [Table], 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 [Table].[30]  He gave Adam knowledge of God, what God would do; namely, the Lord God expelled him 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.[31]

I think it is important not to miss that distinction here as well.  When the Holy Spirit says, Then the Lord relented over the evil (raʽ) that he had said he would do to his people, He is teaching me knowledge of God rather than moral philosophy.  After this interaction with Moses, He said, I will make all my goodness pass before your face, and I will proclaim the Lord by name before you; I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.[32]  There is a sense here that He said to Moses my new name is, I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, I will show mercy to whom I will show mercy.

It is repeated when the event occurred: The Lord descended in the cloud and stood with [Moses] there and proclaimed the Lord by name.  The Lord passed by before him and proclaimed: “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, and abounding in loyal love and faithfulness, keeping loyal love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin.”[33]  And for those who might rightly protest, “But the Lord is not a jolly old soul, an easy-going, devil-may-care sort of fellow,” Jehovah continued proclaiming his name: “But he by no means leaves the guilty unpunished, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children and children’s children, to the third and fourth generation.”[34]

Granted, it is a long name, but it does me good from time to time to remember Him by name and repeat it aloud.  It is knowledge of God, who He is, what He is doing and will accomplish—and it is eternal life.[35]

[1] Exodus 32:7, 8 (NET)

[2] Exodus 32:9, 10 (NET)

[3] Exodus 32:11 (NET) Table

[4] Exodus 32:12 (NET) Table

[5] Exodus 22:20 (NET)

[6] Exodus 24:3, 4a (NET)

[7] Exodus 24:7 (NET)

[8] Exodus 33:19b (NET) Table

[9] Deuteronomy 13:5 (NET)

[10] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[11] Exodus 32:13 (NET) Table

[12] Exodus 32:14 (NET)

[13] Genesis 1:1 (NET)

[15] From the footnote in “THE GOLDEN CALF AND RA”: Allan M. Langner was ordained by the Jewish Theological Seminary in 1948. He was Rabbi of Congregation Beth-El, Mt. Royal, Quebec, Canada, for 40 years, and is now Rabbi Emeritus.

[16] 31:1 January – March 2003, Vol. XXXI:1 (121), “THE GOLDEN CALF AND RA”

[18] Exodus 32:12b (NET)

[19] Exodus 5:19 (NET)

[21] Exodus 5:22, 23 (NET)

[22] Exodus 32:14 (NET)

[23] Genesis 1:1 (NET)

[24] Luke 22:42 (NET)

[25] Genesis 3:2, 3 (NET)

[26] Genesis 2:17 (NET)

[27] Genesis 3:4 (NET) Table

[28] Genesis 3:1 (NET)

[29] Genesis 3:7 (NET) Table

[30] Genesis 2:16, 17 (NET)

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

[32] Genesis 33:19 (NET)

[33] Exodus 34:5-7a (NET)

[34] Exodus 34:7b (NET)