Tag Archives: Genesis 6:8

Fear – Deuteronomy, Part 10

Posted on by

“Because you obeyed (shâmaʽ, שמעת; Septuagint: ἤκουσας, a form of ἀκούω) your wife, the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהים) said to Adam, and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, ‘You must not eat from it,’ cursed is the ground thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.”[1]

The Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהים) had commanded Adam: “You may freely eat fruit from every tree of the orchard, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will surely die.”[2]  Eve saw that the tree produced fruit that was good for food, was attractive to the eye, and was desirable for making one wise, so she took some of its fruit and ate it.[3]  When she brought some to Adam she brought not only her recommendation but empirical evidence that she had both touched it and eaten it and had not died.

Adam preferred the voice of his wife to the voice of yehôvâh.  When Jacob preferred the beautiful Rachel over Leah the Lord saw that Leah was unloved (śânêʼ).[4]  In other words Adam hated the voice of God relative to that of his wife, the voice of God was unloved.  For the sake of argument I’ll describe Adam’s iniquity as defiance: Adam was not deceived,[5] Paul assured Timothy.

Adam’s defiance visited upon Cain became a murderous rage: Cain became very angry [Table]…Cain said to his brother Abel, “Let’s go out to the field.”  While they were in the field, Cain attacked his brother Abel and killed him.[6]  Cain’s murderous rage combined with the memory of the mercy yehôvâh showed him became a defiant self-righteousness in his descendant Lamech, perhaps even incipient tribal law (Genesis 4:23, 24 NET):

Lamech said to his wives, “Adah and Zillah!  Listen (shâmaʽ, שמען; Septuagint: ἀκούσατέ, another form of ἀκούω) to me!  You wives of Lamech, hear my words!  I have killed a man for wounding me, a young man for hurting me.  If Cain is to be avenged seven times as much, then Lamech seventy-seven times!”

The upshot of this relatively unhindered visiting of fathers’ iniquity upon the sons was: The earth was ruined in the sight of God; the earth was filled with violence.[7]  So God said to Noah, “I have decided that all living creatures must die, for the earth is filled with violence because of them.”[8]

I began this portion of my study of fear to understand how the translators of the NET “arrived at I punish as a translation of the Hebrew word pâqad (פקד)” in Deuteronomy 5:9.  If punishment could arrest this relatively unhindered visiting of fathers’ iniquity upon the sons before it culminated in a death sentence for all living creatures it would be a welcome relief.  This brings me to the third occurrence of ואפקד (pâqad) translated punish or punishment (and I have brought the punishment) in the NET (Leviticus 18:25 NET):

Therefore the land has become unclean and I have brought the punishment for its iniquity upon it, so that the land has vomited out its inhabitants.

This was not a reference to the violence of the antediluvian world but to the worship/sexual practices of the inhabitants of Canaan before Israel entered the promised land.  But first I need to consider whether the visiting of the fathers’ iniquity upon the sons was quite as unhindered as I have imagined it.

I was born and raised in the latter half of the twentieth century near the northern edge of the Bible belt in the United States of America.  I am a hardcore materialist with some Jesus jelly smeared on top.  I acknowledge this to confess the iniquity of my fathers, not to blame them or excuse myself, but to begin to claim my freedom from my own acceptance of that iniquity as my truth.

The voice of your brother’s blood is crying out to me from the ground (ʼădâmâh)![9] yehôvâh told Cain.  I hear this as a poetic reference to yehôvâh’s omniscience (Psalm 139:1-12).  These days I’m not unwilling to take it literally, that Abel’s blood had a voice that yehôvâh could hear crying out from the ground, but it’s not natural to me.  I am the dark side of, Train a child in the way that he should go, and when he is old he will not turn from it.[10]  Still, opening myself to its possibility gives me a different perspective.

So now, you are banished (ʼârar, ארור) from the ground (ʼădâmâh, האדמה: NET footnote 28): Heb “cursed are you from the ground”), yehôvâh continued, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand [Table].  When you try to cultivate the ground (ʼădâmâh, האדמה) it will no longer yield its best for you.  You will be a homeless wanderer on the earth [Table].[11]  To Adam He had already said, cursed (ʼârar, ארורה) is the ground (ʼădâmâh, האדמה) thanks to you; in painful toil you will eat of it all the days of your life.  It will produce thorns and thistles for you, but you will eat the grain of the field.  By the sweat of your brow you will eat food until you return to the ground (ʼădâmâh, האדמה), for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you will return.[12]

I can begin to accept these as revelation of the very nature of the ground created by a loving, gracious and holy God, how the earth itself responds to its sinful inhabitants, rather than as post hoc punishments invented in the moment.  And I can begin to see the nature of the earth, the ground we live on, as a deterrent to the unhindered visiting of the fathers’ iniquity upon the sons.

Cain couldn’t supply himself with food by his own cultivation of the ground; the ground would no longer yield its best for him.  Cain built a city, a place where people could live in community and trade with one another for things they all needed.  Did he honor those still righteous enough to cultivate the ground that would not yield its best to him?  Did he learn from them?

The text doesn’t say.  It says, The earth (ʼerets, הארץ) was ruined in the sight of God; the earth (ʼerets, הארץ) was filled with violence.  If I accept that the blood of victims has a voice that yehôvâh can hear crying out from the ground, crying out to Him to act, and multiply that by the increase of population over the many generations I can at least imagine the cacophony in his ears and begin to appreciate his choices (Genesis 6:6, 7 NET):

The Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) regretted that he had made humankind on the earth (ʼerets, בארץ), and he was highly offended.  So the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) said, “I will wipe humankind, whom I have created, from the face of the earth (ʼădâmâh, האדמה) – everything from humankind to animals, including creatures that move on the ground and birds of the air, for I regret that I have made them.”

The religious mind must sit quietly here to meditate that at this moment in history yehôvâh preferred to destroy all life (air and ground) but that which could be saved in a boat and to start over again rather than to establish a law or a religion (aside from the rudiments of animal sacrifice handed down from Adam, Cain and Abel).  One might say that yehôvâh hated law and religion, law and religion were unloved relative to starting over again with a remnant of the former world.  But after the flood (Genesis 8:20-22 NET):

Noah built an altar to the Lord (yehôvâh, ליהוה).  He then took some of every kind of clean animal and clean bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.  And the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) smelled the soothing aroma and (yehôvâh, יהוה) said to himself, “I will never again curse the ground (ʼădâmâh, האדמה) because of humankind, even though the inclination of their minds (lêb, לב) is evil from childhood on.  I will never again destroy everything that lives, as I have just done.  While the earth continues to exist, planting time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, and day and night will not cease.”

God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהים) spoke one law to address violence, “Whoever sheds human blood, by other humans must his blood be shed; for in God’s image God (ʼĕlôhı̂ym, אלהים) has made humankind”[13] and one revised dietary law: Everything that creeps on the ground and all the fish of the sea are under your authority.  You may eat any moving thing that lives.  As I gave you the green plants, I now give you everything.[14]  I assume that the trees of life and of the knowledge of good and evil did not survive the flood and had become a nonissue (Genesis 3:22).  But in Leviticus yehôvâh was establishing both a law and a religion in clear contrast to those originated by men.  Now that will have to wait for another essay.

In my first draft of this essay I had hoped to avoid Noah’s curse: Cursed (ʼârar, ארור; Septuagint: ἐπικατάρατος) be Canaan![15]  But I couldn’t get away with it.  And I have to admit it is more germane than I want it to be.  If Noah’s story (Genesis 9:20-27) were about almost anyone else we would take it simply as James’ source text (James 3:7-12 NET):

For every kind of animal, bird, reptile, and sea creature is subdued and has been subdued by humankind.  But no human being can subdue the tongue; it is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.  With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse (καταρώμεθα, a form of καταράομαι) people made in God’s image.  From the same mouth come blessing and cursing (κατάρα).  These things should not be so, my brothers and sisters.  A spring does not pour out fresh water and bitter water from the same opening, does it?  Can a fig tree produce olives, my brothers and sisters, or a vine produce figs?  Neither can a salt water spring produce fresh water.

But it was Noah, the heir of the world, who spoke this curse and this blessing so we are taught: “God’s blessing is going to rest directly on Shem, indirectly on Japheth, and His cursing is going to rest upon Ham’s son Canaan.”[16]  “So Ham was cursed and Shem and Japheth were blessed in cooperative unity.  The problem which must arise from the cursing of Canaan is this: Why did God curse Canaan for the sin of Ham?  Beyond this, why did God curse the Canaanites, a nation, for the sin of one man?”[17]  The text is fairly clear that Noah not God spoke both the curse and the blessing.  To this point Moses had been very explicit when ʼĕlôhı̂ym or yehôvâh spoke.  Why do we want to believe that Noah spoke for Him here?

Noah was a godly man; he was blameless (tâmı̂ym, תמים; Septuagint: τέλειος) among his contemporaries.  He walked with God.[18]  Perhaps we want tâmı̂ym to be an absolute term.  But this was not Paul writing, According to the righteousness stipulated in the law [as understood by first century Pharisees] I was blameless (ἄμεμπτος).[19]  Noah was blameless (KJV: perfect) among his contemporaries[20] (dôr, בדרתיו; Septuagint: γενεᾷ), those condemned to death for their violence: Every inclination of the thoughts of their minds was only evil all the time.[21]  About all one can say for sure about Noah is that he wasn’t a murderer and perhaps not every inclination of the thoughts of [his mind] was only evil all the time.

God said to Noah, Make for yourself an ark of cypress wood.  Make rooms in the ark, and cover it with pitch inside and out.[22]  And Noah did all that God commanded him – he did indeed.[23]  Through his faithfulness Noah was declared a herald of righteousness: and if [God] did not spare the ancient world, but did protect Noah, a herald of righteousness, along with seven others, when God brought a flood on an ungodly world…then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from their trials, and to reserve the unrighteous for punishment at the day of judgment…[24]  By faith Noah, when he was warned about things not yet seen, with reverent regard constructed an ark for the deliverance of his family.  Through faith he condemned the world and became an heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.[25]

But Noah found favor (chên, חן; Septuagint: χάριν) in the sight of the Lord.[26]  As followers of Jesus it is more prudent to believe that Noah’s faithfulness was on account of yehôvâh’s grace rather than due to some inherent quality of Noah’s: Noah was a just man and perfect in his generations, and Noah walked with God.[27]  There is no one righteous, not even one…[28] [i.e., in and of himself] there is no one who shows kindness, not even one,[29] Paul quoted the Psalm of David (Psalm 14:2, 3 Tanakh):

The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.  They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

Jesus’ assessment of Noah and of the entire Old Testament is very helpful here: Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must all be born from above.’[30]  Noah didn’t miraculously escape the corruption of the flesh of Adam.  Noah didn’t speak for God unless the text had said that Noah spoke the word of God.

Noah’s “words came to pass, so we believe he was inspired by God.”[31]  I know of no place in Scripture where it is written, “this took place to fulfill Noah’s prophecy.”  Generations of Bible expositors would surely have quoted it if they had found it, so the contention that Noah’s curse and blessing “came to pass” is in the eye of the beholder.

“The act of Ham could not go unpunished.  In the curse of Noah upon Canaan, he was not punishing him personally for something his father Ham had done.  The words of Noah refer not to Canaan himself, but to the nation that would come from him…Though we are not told the exact sin of Ham, we do know that it was reprehensible enough for God to curse the line of his son Canaan.  The judgment was not directed to Canaan personally but rather to his descendants.”[32]  As prophecies go, then—and the Scriptures do not record that Canaan himself was ever enslaved to his brothers—one need not fear Noah as a prophet (Deuteronomy 18:21, 22 NET):

“Now if you say to yourselves, ‘How can we tell that a message is not from the Lord?’ – whenever a prophet speaks in my name and the prediction is not fulfilled, then I have not spoken it; the prophet has presumed to speak it, so you need not fear him.”

“Noah’s words did come to pass in the future, as we read that many of Canaan’s descendants were either killed or put under tribute by Israel (descendants of Shem) during the times of Joshua and the Judges, and later by King Solomon.”  God’s words will come to pass but the simple fact that a man’s words come to pass doesn’t make them God’s words (Deuteronomy 13:1-4 NET):

Suppose a prophet or one who foretells by dreams should appear among you and show you a sign or wonder, and the sign or wonder should come to pass concerning what he said to you, namely, “Let us follow other gods” – gods whom you have not previously known – “and let us serve them.”  You must not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer, for the Lord your God will be testing you to see if you love him with all your mind and being.  You must follow the Lord your God and revere only him; and you must observe his commandments, obey him, serve him, and remain loyal to him.

I’m not accusing Noah of being a false prophet.  I’m not accusing Noah of being any kind of prophet at all.  If I’m accusing Noah of anything it is that he spoke angrily, self-righteously, with a hangover.  But what I must believe about God to believe that He cursed a nation of people for something a man did many generations before those people were even born is a very different god than the One I am knowing through the Scriptures.

I concede that one who believes this is God because “many of Canaan’s descendants were either killed or put under tribute by Israel (descendants of Shem) during the times of Joshua and the Judges, and later by King Solomon” may also believe that He will punish the sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons for the sin of the fathers who reject (śânêʼ, לשׁנאי) me…[33]  Still, I hope that one may be willing to concede that Noah’s curse was not the love that does no wrong to a neighbor, not the love that is the fulfillment of the law.[34]

While I don’t believe that Noah’s curse, or his blessing, were the immutable Word of God I do think his curse is a terrifying example of God visiting Noah’s iniquity upon Canaan, terrifying precisely because the effect of Noah’s iniquity[35] has seemed so sure and certain that so many have assumed it was divine prophecy.  We’re not told how Canaan reacted to Noah’s curse.  I know how I would react to Noah’s “godliness,” “blamelessness,” and his “walk” with God unless I were willing to forgive him for his drunken rant.  And I know that Canaan’s descendants practiced a law and religion inimical to yehôvâh.

I’ll return to Leviticus 18 in another essay.

[1] Genesis 3:17 (NET)

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

[3] Genesis 3:6a (NET)

[4] Genesis 29:31a (NET)

[5] 1 Timothy 2:14a (NET)

[6] Genesis 4:5b, 8 (NET)

[7] Genesis 6:11 (NET)

[8] Genesis 6:13a (NET)

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

[10] Proverbs 22:6 (NET)

[11] Genesis 4:11, 12 (NET)

[12] Genesis 3:17b-19 (NET)

[13] Genesis 9:6 (NET)

[14] Genesis 9:2b, 3 (NET)

[15] Genesis 9:25a (NET)

[16] J. Ligon Duncan, “The Cursing of Canaan,” Sermon on Genesis 9:18-29, November 22, 1998, First Presbyterian Church, Jackson, Mississippi

[17] Bob Deffinbaugh, “10. The Nakedness of Noah and the Cursing of Canaan (Genesis 9:18-10:32),” Bible.org

[18] Genesis 6:9b (NET)

[19] Philippians 3:6b (NET)

[20] NET note 32: Heb “Noah was a godly man, blameless in his generations.” The singular “generation” can refer to one’s contemporaries, i.e., those living at a particular point in time. The plural “generations” can refer to successive generations in the past or the future. Here, where it is qualified by “his” (i.e., Noah’s), it refers to Noah’s contemporaries, comprised of the preceding generation (his father’s generation), those of Noah’s generation, and the next generation (those the same age as his children). In other words, “his generations” means the generations contemporary with him. See BDB 190 s.v. דוֹר.

[21] Genesis 6:5b (NET)

[22] Genesis 6:14 (NET)

[23] Genesis 6:22 (NET)

[24] 2 Peter 2:5, 9 (NET)

[25] Hebrews 11:7 (NET)

[26] Genesis 6:8 (NET)

[27] Genesis 6:9 (KJV)

[28] Romans 3:10b (NET)

[29] Romans 3:12b (NET)

[30] John 3:7 (NET)

[31] Troy Lacey, “The Curse of Canaan,” October 12, 2012, Answers In Genesis

[32] Don Stewart, “Why Was Canaan Cursed Instead of Ham?,” Blue Letter Bible

[33] Deuteronomy 5:9b (NET)

[34] Romans 13:10 (NET)

[35] To those who hold that the fourth generation is a limit to Noah’s iniquity, I concede the point.  It would not be accurate to blame Noah’s iniquity for the sins of Canaanites in the time of Israel’s conquest.  My point is that iniquity is like a snowball rolling downhill, gaining mass and momentum, as long as people continue to reject, hate, prefer something other than, yehôvâh.

To Make Holy, Part 2

Posted on by

I’ll continue to look at the New Testament occurrences of forms of ἁγιάζω starting with ἁγιάσας and ἁγιάζον translated sanctifieth (KJV) and that makes sacred (NET).  Jesus turned his attention to the experts in the law and you Pharisees who were part (Matthew 22:15-46) of the crowds He addressed (Matthew 23:16-22 NET):

“Woe to you, blind guides, who say, ‘Whoever swears by the temple is bound by nothing.  But whoever swears by the gold of the temple is bound by the oath.’  Blind fools!  Which is greater, the gold or the temple that makes the gold sacred (ἁγιάσας, a form of ἁγιάζω)?  And, ‘Whoever swears by the altar is bound by nothing.  But if anyone swears by the gift on it he is bound by the oath.’  You are blind!  For which is greater, the gift or the altar that makes the gift sacred (ἁγιάζον, another form of ἁγιάζω)?  So whoever swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.  And whoever swears by the temple swears by it and the one who dwells in it.  And whoever swears by heaven swears by the throne of God and the one who sits on it.

I began this study prompted by “Denny’s” assertion: “Satan deceives people with the Progressive Sanctification heresy…”[1]  In this passage it is fairly clear that the gold is sanctified by the temple immediately as the gift is sanctified by the altar.  Stealing the gold on Tuesday that was installed in the temple on Monday would not be a lesser offense against yehôvâh than stealing the gold that had been installed fifty years earlier.  And it would clearly be meaningless to speculate about the gold’s (or a slab of meat’s) experience of being sanctified.  So I’ll score two for “Denny.”

I don’t want to miss the point of the passage however (Matthew 5:33-37 NET):

Again, you have heard that it was said to an older generation, ‘Do not break an oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’  But I say to you, do not take oaths at all – not by heaven, because it is the throne of God, not by earth, because it is his footstool, and not by Jerusalem, because it is the city of the great King.  Do not take an oath by your head, because you are not able to make one hair white or black.  Let your word be ‘Yes, yes’ or ‘No, no.’  More than this is from the evil one (πονηροῦ, a form of πονηρός).

Do not break an oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord, appears to be Jesus’ paraphrase of part of Leviticus 19:12 and Deuteronomy 23:21.

Matthew 5:33b (NET) Parallel Greek Septuagint

NETS
Do not break an oath… οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις… καὶ οὐκ ὀμεῖσθε τῷ ὀνόματί μου ἐπ᾽ ἀδίκῳ

Leviticus 19:12a

 And you shall not swear by my name in an unjust matter…

Leviticus 19:12a
…but fulfill your vows to the Lord. …ἀποδώσεις δὲ τῷ κυρίῳ τοὺς ὅρκους σου. …οὐ χρονιεῖς ἀποδοῦναι αὐτήν…

Deuteronomy 23:21b

 …you shall not delay to pay it…

Deuteronomy 23:21b

Baelor Breakwind has written extensively on this topic on his blog: “Do not swear at all”: A History of Interpretation.  I won’t comment further except to add that we learn of Jesus’ ban against oaths in Matthew 5.  We don’t hear that religious leaders had turned swearing oaths into a complicated system for lying until Matthew 23.  It’s a fair bet that Jesus’ audience in Matthew 5 was well aware of the religious leaders’ hypocrisy regarding oaths.  Before Jesus banned oaths the law enjoined its followers to tell the truth and do what they say.  After the ban the law enjoined its followers to tell the truth and do what they say.  Making oaths was more or less irrelevant[2] until religious leaders institutionalized lying with them, all in yehôvâh’s name.

The next form of ἁγιάζω I’ll consider is ἁγιάσατε translated sanctify (KJV) and set apart (NET).  Peter wrote (1 Peter 3:13-18 NET):

For who is going to harm you if you are devoted to what is good?  But in fact, if you happen to suffer for doing what is right, you are blessed.  But do not be terrified of them or be shaken.  But set Christ apart (ἁγιάσατε, another form of ἁγιάζω) as Lord in your hearts and always be ready to give an answer to anyone who asks about the hope you possess.  Yet do it with courtesy and respect, keeping a good conscience, so that those who slander your good conduct in Christ may be put to shame when they accuse you.  For it is better to suffer for doing good, if God wills it, than for doing evil (κακοποιοῦντας, a form of κακοποιέω).  Because Christ also suffered once for sins, the just for the unjust, to bring you to God, by being put to death in the flesh but by being made alive in the spirit.

There are variants in the Greek of 1 Peter 3:15 which have led to differing translations:

Parallel Greek (NET)

 Textus Receptus

Byzantine/Majority Text
κύριον δὲ τὸν Χριστὸν ἁγιάσατε ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις ὑμῶν, ἕτοιμοι ἀεὶ πρὸς ἀπολογίαν παντὶ τῷ αἰτοῦντι ὑμᾶς λόγον περὶ τῆς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐλπίδος (3:16) ἀλλὰ μετὰ πραΰτητος καὶ φόβου κυριον δε τον θεον αγιασατε εν ταις καρδιαις υμων ετοιμοι δε αει προς απολογιαν παντι τω αιτουντι υμας λογον περι της εν υμιν ελπιδος μετα πραυτητος και φοβου κυριον δε τον θεον αγιασατε εν ταις καρδιαις υμων ετοιμοι δε αει προς απολογιαν παντι τω αιτουντι υμας λογον περι της εν υμιν ελπιδος μετα πραυτητος και φοβου

A note (24) in the NET explained: “Most later mss…have θεόν (theon, ‘God’) instead of Χριστόν (Criston; ‘Christ’) here. But Χριστόν is widely supported by excellent and early witnesses…and as a less common idiom better explains the rise of the other reading.”  And I take it to mean that Christ is yehôvâh, though I had a real question whether Peter could have possibly meant that.  The first passage that came to mind seemed promising (1 Peter 1:10, 11):

Concerning this salvation, the prophets who predicted the grace that would come to you searched and investigated carefully.  They probed into what person or time the Spirit of Christ within them was indicating when he testified beforehand about the sufferings appointed for Christ and his subsequent glory.

Here all three Greek versions agree that Peter wrote Spirit of Christ (πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ).

1 Peter 1:11
Parallel Greek (NET) Textus Receptus

Byzantine/Majority Text
ἐραυνῶντες εἰς τίνα ἢ ποῖον καιρὸν ἐδήλου τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ προμαρτυρόμενον τὰ εἰς Χριστὸν παθήματα καὶ τὰς μετὰ ταῦτα δόξας ερευνωντες εις τινα η ποιον καιρον εδηλου το εν αυτοις πνευμα χριστου προμαρτυρομενον τα εις χριστον παθηματα και τας μετα ταυτα δοξας ερευνωντες εις τινα η ποιον καιρον εδηλου το εν αυτοις πνευμα χριστου προμαρτυρομενον τα εις χριστον παθηματα και τας μετα ταυτα δοξας

Indeed the Spirit who spoke Isaiah 53 was none other than yehôvâh, though the translators of the NET didn’t think it prudent to continue his speech in quotation marks until verse 52:13, and though the quotation marks never actually closed they are opened again in 53:11b (Isaiah 52:5b, 6 NET):

“Indeed my people have been carried away for nothing, those who rule over them taunt,” says the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה), “and my name is constantly slandered all day long [Table].  For this reason my people will know my name, for this reason they will know at that time that I am the one who says, ‘Here I am’” [Table].

And Jermiah wrote (Jeremiah 31:31-34 NET):

“Indeed, a time is coming,” says the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה), “when I will make a new covenant with the people of Israel and Judah.  It will not be like the old covenant that I made with their ancestors when I delivered them from Egypt.  For they violated that covenant, even though I was like a faithful husband to them,” says the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה).  “But I will make a new covenant with the whole nation of Israel after I plant them back in the land,” says the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה).  “I will put my law within them and write it on their hearts and minds.  I will be their God and they will be my people.

“People will no longer need to teach their neighbors and relatives to know me.  For all of them, from the least important to the most important, will know me,” says the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה).  “For I will forgive their sin and will no longer call to mind the wrong they have done” [Table].

I want to pause here a moment to reflect.  Larry D. Pettegrew in his essay “The New Covenant” wrote, “the covenant is amazing in what it offers.  It presents the solutions to all of life’s deep problems, including cleansing from sin and an intimate relationship with the God of the universe.  Any reasonable person would want to become a part of this covenant.”  He outlined the new covenant in five subject headings:

New: “He speaks of a new covenant, not a covenant renewal, and thereby assumes a radical break with the Mosaic tradition.”
Everlasting and irrevocable: “The Mosaic Covenant depended on the ability of the people to keep their part of the contract….But the New Covenant, like the Abrahamic and Davidic covenants made with Israel, was declared everlasting and irrevocable, based on the promise of the sovereign, faithful God of the universe.”
Transformation: “[W]hat is here outlined is the picture of a new man, a man who is able to obey perfectly because of a miraculous change of his nature.”
Forgiveness: “Above all else, the shed blood of the Son of God provided the means of final and permanent forgiveness. New Covenant forgiveness of sins is of a different nature than forgiveness of sins under the Old Covenant.”
Consummation of relationship: “In that future kingdom, a perfect mediatorial king, the Lord Jesus Christ, will rule (Isa 42:1-4), and the people will all have experienced the new birth (Ezek 11:17-20).”

It is good to be reminded just who and what the new covenant ἐκκλησία is and what direction institutional churches should be leading or following.  Paul wrote Roman believers (Romans 11:11, 12 NET):

I ask then, [Israel] did not stumble into an irrevocable fall, did they?  Absolutely not!  But by their transgression salvation has come to the Gentiles, to make Israel jealous.  Now if their transgression means riches for the world and their defeat means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full restoration bring?

In [the Spirit], Peter continued, [Jesus] went and preached (ἐκήρυξεν, a form of κηρύσσω) to the spirits in prison, after they were disobedient long ago when God patiently waited in the days of Noah as an ark was being constructed.  In the ark a few, that is eight souls, were delivered through water.[3]  At first I thought Peter had intended to distinguish between Jesus and yehôvâh, for Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord (yehôvâh),[4] and, The Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, for I consider you godly among this generation.”[5]  But as I looked more carefully at the Scripture throughout the time that might be considered God patiently waited (Genesis 6:9-22) yehôvâh was not mentioned once.  It was the plural ʼĕlôhı̂ym, Father, Son and Holy Spirit who waited patiently.

Form of ʼĕlôhı̂ym Reference

KJV

NET
האלהים Genesis 6:9 …and Noah walked with God. He walked with God.
Genesis 6:11 The earth also was corrupt before God… The earth was ruined in the sight of God…
אלהים Genesis 6:12 And God looked upon the earth, and behold, it was corrupt… God saw the earth, and indeed it was ruined…
Genesis 6:13 And God said unto Noah… So God said to Noah…
Genesis 6:22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him… And Noah did all that God commanded him…

Peter recognized this distinction with the Greek word θεοῦ (a form of θεός).

Be that as it may, whether I sanctify Christ as yehôvâh in my heart or as a Lord, or sanctify the Lord God in my heart, I am not making Christ or God holy (thus set apart in the NET).  I am recognizing his holiness.  Now, I might ask “Denny,” am I doing this once for all time or moment by moment as I am cleansed with the washing of the water by the word, progressively yielding more and more to his holiness as my mind is renewed?  Do not be conformed to this present world, Paul wrote believers in Rome, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may test and approve what is the will of God – what is good and well-pleasing and perfect.[6]

So I’ll end this essay with the first occurrence of ἁγιάσῃ (another form of ἁγιάζω) translated might sanctify (KJV) and to sanctify (NET).  Paul wrote believers in Ephesus (Ephesians 5:25b-27 NET):

Christ loved the church and gave himself for her to sanctify (ἁγιάσῃ, another form of ἁγιάζω) her by cleansing her with the washing of the water by the word, so that he may present the church to himself as glorious – not having a stain or wrinkle, or any such blemish, but holy and blameless.

While Christ’s death was certainly once for all, the cleansing…with the washing of the water by the word is surely continuous and, hopefully, cumulative and progressive as it pertains both to our own sanctification and our sanctifying of Christ as yehôvâh in our hearts or as a Lord, or sanctifying the Lord God in our hearts.

I began this study of ἁγιάζω to find a biblical language that both did justice to my experience and might satisfy “Denny.”  I don’t know “Denny” nor does he have any authority over me except that which I allow him by the weight of his argument:

Hebrews 10:10 says, “By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.” Here the Bible says we are sanctified once through the body of Christ…

We should endeavor to be holy, to be Christ-like, to live sanctified lives, but we have seen that we cannot attain the holiness that our just God requires. That’s why Jesus had to die for us. We cannot see the Lord unless we accept the sanctification which He has provided for us, and reject self-sanctification.

I certainly don’t believe that progressive sanctification is self-sanctification any more than a once for all sanctification is self-achieved.  I would consider our acceptance—“we accept the sanctification which He has provided”—the moment by moment acquisition of Christ’s sanctification, as the part that is not once for all and therefore potentially perceptible as progressive.  Though on-again-off-again, led by the Spirit, led by the flesh describes my experience even better: My progress being simply more time spent on-again, led by the Holy Spirit, than off-again, wallowing in the flesh.  So I’ve been brought to an odd place.  And I’m not prepared to determine yet if it feels odd because it is new or because it is erroneous:

I am sanctified by Christ once for all, perfectly and completely.  He (or God) is sanctified by me slowly over time, progressively.

Obviously, Christ’s sanctification makes (or, made) me holy while my sanctification merely recognizes his holiness.  But I admit to coming from a very dark and distant place where God and Christ seemed anything but holy to me.

[1] THE PROGRESSIVE SANCTIFICATION HERESY, Denny’s Christian Writings, November 16, 2007

[2] From: “Oath,” Jewish Virtual Library: “The estimate of the biblical period that there was nothing amiss in oaths is manifest in the frequency with which God is represented as swearing. Indeed, the invocation of God in oaths was highly appreciated for its confessional value: ‘You must revere YHWH your God: Him shall you worship, to Him shall you hold fast, by His name shall you swear’ (Deut. 10:20; cf. 6:13). So much was this so that swearing by YHWH could be used as a synonym of adhering to Him: Psalms 63:12; Isaiah 19:18 (cf. Targ. and Radak); 48:1; Jeremiah 44:26; Zephaniah 1:5 (cf. Targ.). Contrariwise, apostasy is expressed through swearing by other gods: Joshua 23:7 (cf. Ex. 23:13); Amos 8:14; Jeremiah 5:7; 12:16. Ibn Ezra’s comment to Hosea 4:15 illuminates the sentiment: ‘Adhering to God carries with it the obligation to make mention of Him in all one’s affairs, and to swear by His name, so that all who listen may perceive that he adheres lovingly to God, the name and mention of Him being always on his lips.’ The only offense recognized in connection with oaths by YHWH was, ‘Though they may swear, “By the life of YHWH,” yet they swear falsely’ (Jer. 5:2). Ecclesiastes is the only biblical writer who is wary of oaths. In 8:2–3a, he cites a proverb, ‘Do not rush into uttering an oath by God’ (cf. a parallel wariness of vows in 5:1–6). From here it is but a step to Ben Sira’s warning against addiction to oaths (23:9ff.), and Philo’s recommendation to avoid them entirely (Decal. 84).”

[3] 1 Peter 3:19, 20 (NET)

[4] Genesis 6:8 (NET) יהוה

[5] Genesis 7:1 (NET)

[6] Romans 12:2 (NET)

Torture, Part 2

Posted on by

And in anger his lord turned him over to the prison guards to torture (βασανισταῖς, a form of βασανιστής)[1] him until he repaid all he owed.  So also my heavenly Father will do to you, if each of you does not forgive (ἀφῆτε, a form of ἀφίημι)[2] your brother from your heart.[3]  It seems here that Jesus stated rather matter-of-factly that his Father would turn the unforgiving over to torturers.  He did not say that God would torture them Himself but implied that others would do it for Him.  Perhaps I was too hasty dismissing Jonathan Edward’s claim that God is the superlative torturer.

This metaphor—the kingdom of heaven is like a king who wanted to settle accounts (λόγον, a form of λόγος)[4] with his slaves[5]—was given in answer to Peter’s question, Lord, how many times must I forgive (ἀφήσω, a form of ἀφίημι) my brother who sins against me?[6]  The settling of these accounts is very reminiscent of, I tell you, Jesus said, that on the day of judgment, people will give an account (λόγον) for every worthless word (πᾶν[7] ρῆμα[8] ἀργὸν[9]) they speak (λαλήσουσιν, a form of λαλέω).[10]

A man who owed ten thousand talents was brought to the king.[11]  When he was not able to repay it, the lord ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, children, and whatever he possessed, and repayment to be made.[12]  I suggested that the only account that matters at a moment like this is, God, be merciful to me, sinner that I am![13]  That is essentially the account this slave gave.  He did not try to dispute the debt.  He threw himself to the ground before him, saying, “Be patient (μακροθύμησον, a form of μακροθυμέω)[14] with me, and I will repay you everything.”[15]

Love is patient (μακροθυμεῖ, another form of μακροθυμέω),[16] so, The lord had compassion on that slave and released (ἀπέλυσεν, a form of ἀπολύω)[17] him, and forgave (ἀφῆκεν, a form of ἀφίημι) him the debt.[18]  I can’t help but connect ἀπέλυσεν (a form of ἀπολύω) here with λύω[19] in, I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release (λύσητε, a form of λύω) on earth will have been released (λελυμένα, a form of λύω) in heaven.[20]  It causes me to suspect that Jesus has his thumb on the scale of binding and releasing in favor of releasing, and that this metaphor is also aimed back at that statement.

After he went out, the metaphor about the kingdom of heaven continued, that same slave found one of his fellow slaves who owed him one hundred silver coins.[21]  The fellow slave asked for the same patience, but the first slave threw him in prison until he repaid the debt.[22]  Then his lord called the first slave and said to him, “Evil slave! I forgave (ἀφῆκα, a form of ἀφίημι) you all that debt because you begged me!  Should you not have shown mercy (ἐλεῆσαι, a form of ἐλεέω)[23] to your fellow slave, just as I showed it (ἠλέησα, a form of ἐλεέω) to you?”[24]

That brings me back to the beginning of this essay: And in anger his lord turned him over to the prison guards to torture (βασανισταῖς, a form of βασανιστής) him until he repaid all he owed.  So also my heavenly Father will do to you, if each of you does not forgive (ἀφῆτε, a form of ἀφίημι) your brother from your heart.[25]  So it seems that debt in the metaphor is equivalent to sins in the kingdom of heaven.

If I accept Edward’s contention that Jesus’ heavenly Father is the superlative torturer, then this metaphor seems to describe how one might expiate his own sins by becoming God’s victim, by satisfying some portion of the Father’s desire to torture someone for some unspecified period of time.  That interpretation would make this a unique passage in all the New Testament to say the least.  And it doesn’t offer much guidance why this “Torturer” would let some off easy.  Why should any escape the torture he so desired to give them by forgiving sins, the very currency that justified the “Torturer’s” torture?  In fact, why would this “Torturer” ever forgive anyone’s sins at all, or encourage such forgiveness?

On the other hand, if I consider that a man who could not pay a debt before being handed over to daily torture is unlikely to raise the funds after he is so preoccupied, then I might consider that—So also my heavenly Father will do to you—means that the unforgiving will never get out of the prison into which He confines them.  That sounds like Christians, the forgiven, who do not forgive others will go to hell.

Most Christians I know have rules against that.  In fact, I suspect that most Christians I know would not consider themselves to be great sinners who were forgiven much and were called by God to forgive lesser sinners than themselves.  I think most would consider themselves to be more like the second slave, relatively good people who deserve to be forgiven for their relatively few sins but are not forgiven, rather they are persecuted by greater sinners than they are and long for the day when God will rise up and send their persecutors to hell.

This is one of the first times I’ve used the term Christian in these essays.  I’m not sure if the Christians I know would be willing to accept me as a Christian if they read these essays.  Frankly, if Christian has come to mean something other than little Christ, a repentant sinner following Jesus into the righteousness of love, I’m not sure I would fight very hard over the word.  It can go the way of charity and temperance for all I care.  For all I know more people would repent of their sinfulness and follow Jesus into the righteousness of love if they didn’t have to become Christians to do it.  But fundamentalist Christians are my people by birth.

I still feel embarrassment and shame that the word Christian is practically synonymous with unforgiving.  Still, I can’t say that the Holy Spirit has brought this metaphor to my mind to remind me to forgive others.  My daily prayer asking the Lord to forgive us as we ourselves have forgiven[26] others has been sufficient for that.  The only time this metaphor comes to mind is when my Christian friends use their rules or reasons to attempt to persuade me that I am too forgiving.

I don’t think I respond to this metaphor in fear of hell or torture.  I think I recognize that I am not an Apostle.  I don’t present the Gospel with the signs of an apostle…by signs and wonders and powerful deeds.[27]  Except for the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, and the willingness to forgive others that the Lord can force into, and wrench out of, this repentant sinner my Gospel presentation is idle talk; and the kingdom of God is demonstrated not in idle talk but with power.[28]

Still, this metaphor includes a category of lesser sinners.  Is this my error?  I have assumed that—I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh[29]—applied to Paul.  Not all Christians do.  For I want to do the good, Paul continued, but I cannot do it.[30]  That certainly applied to me, and I reasoned backward that—nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh—also applied to me.  But beyond that I have assumed that it applied to all sinners.  I am completely dependent on God’s mercy and grace, no question about it.  But are there others who are not so dependent?

Are there Christians who are lesser sinners?  Christians who are mostly righteous by their own innate goodness and/or their own obedience to the law?  Christians who require less forgiveness, less of the fruit of God’s Spirit, less grace and less mercy than I require because of their own righteousness?  I don’t see that in Scripture, but does that mean it isn’t there?  Or is it due to my own blindness because I am such a great sinner?  Are the things that concern me in these essays just nitpicking persecution of the good Christians who are more righteous than I am?  Or are the good Christians in error when they assume that—nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh—could not have applied to Saul after he was called by Jesus as the Apostle Paul?  Do they overestimate their own righteousness when they assume that—nothing good lives in me, that is, in my flesh—could not possibly apply to them as the redeemed of the Lord?

As a repentant great sinner I have no objective place to stand to answer those questions.  I need to approach it differently.

In Matthew’s Gospel account I read, Meanwhile the boat, already far from land, was taking a beating (βασανιζόμενον, a form of βασανίζω)[31] from the waves because the wind was against it.[32]  Here, βασανιζόμενον, a form of βασανίζω, the root word of βασανιστής (βασανισταῖς, torture, is a form of βασανιστής), expressed the conflict of a contrary wind.  And in Mark’s Gospel account Jesus saw his disciples straining (βασανιζομένους, a form of βασανίζω) at the oars, because the wind was against them.[33]  Here “torture” is the strain of rowing against a contrary wind.

As I considered these things I saw the film “Adore.”  It became a thought experiment in forgiveness.  I will be spoiling the film for anyone who things it spoiled by knowing its plot.

Lil and Roz were best friends since childhood.  They grew up and had sons, Ian and Tom, also best friends.  One day, lying on the beach together, watching their grown sons surf, they marveled, “Did we do that?”

“They’re beautiful,” Roz said while Lil nodded.  “They’re like young gods.”

Ian was first to make a play for Roz.  She tried to restrain herself, but what mortal woman can resist the amorous advances of a young god?  When Tom saw what his mother was up to, he made a spiteful play for Lil.  Lil held out a scene longer than Roz but eventually she, too, fell prey to another young god.  And so far, even as a Christian, I can follow this tale.  Though she may withstand the charms of a thousand mere mortals, the young god will not be denied apart from the ἐγκράτεια of the Holy Spirit

When Tom came home one morning after being out all night, Roz asked, “Hey, where have you been?”

“At Lil’s, doing to her what Ian’s been doing to you,” her impertinent son replied.

Roz slapped him and went off to confront Lil.  I could hear the contrary wind howling and see the storm clouds brewing.  Obviously this film intended to recount the tragic tale of a friendship ripped apart by fateful indiscretions.   But, no.  As lifelong friends and repentant sinners Roz and Lil forgave each other instead.  And I call them repentant sinners because they both acknowledged that they were wrong and that it could never happen again.  While a repentant sinner may find it relatively easy to forgive another for the very same sin she is guilty of, it is a more difficult matter for Christians.

Lil was a widow and Tom was a young single man, but they had sex before they were married.  That is sexual immorality according to most contemporary Christians.  (It was marriage according to some of their ancestors.)  Ian was a young single man but Roz was married.  That is adultery.  A Christian cannot forgive sexual immorality or adultery unless the sinner repents in a more formal way, demonstrates some sorrow over sin, and promises to take appropriate steps not to repeat that sin.  Looking into one another’s eyes and seeing into another’s heart may be good enough for repentant sinners, but Christians have rules to maintain.

Roz and Lil couldn’t stop sinning.  They decided they didn’t have to.  They decided to enjoy the time they had, knowing full well their young gods would get bored with them eventually.  One might say, For the joy set out for them they endured the cross of being rejected for younger, prettier women, disregarding its shame…[34]  So Roz and Lil forgave each other for their lack of ἐγκράτεια (translated, self-control).

This forgiveness is a bit more difficult even for repentant sinners.  Others may question, even the sinners themselves may question, whether they are repentant sinners at all or simply unrepentant sinners.  I’ll continue to accept them as repentant sinners since they were resolved to accept the painful consequence of their sin.  What Roz and Lil discovered was not so much a change in the state of their repentance as an inability to quit their sin.

Forgiving continual, repetitive sin may be the most difficult of all for Christians.  Rules are flouted flagrantly.  Any demonstration of repentance seems dishonest at best.  But continual, repetitive sin is what Peter referred to when he asked, Lord, how many times must I forgive my brother who sins against me?  As many as seven times?[35]  Not seven times, I tell you, Jesus answered, but seventy-seven times![36]  The note in the NET reads: “Or ‘seventy times seven,’ i.e., an unlimited number of times…”  Discovering one’s own inability to quit sin is a watershed moment for Christians.

It is that time when we may understand, and join in with, Paul, saying, Indeed we felt as if the sentence of death had been passed against us, so that we would not trust in ourselves but in God who raises the dead.[37]  It is that time when we either learn to rely on the credited righteousness of God, the fruit of his Spirit, or we turn from Christ to take cold showers, think about baseball, or whatever other strategy we might come up with to establish our own righteousness, develop our own virtue, and maintain our own pride.

Roz and Lil were oblivious to all of this.  Neither studied Paul’s letters.  No one knowledgeable in the Scriptures came forward to teach them.  But they loved one another and they forgave one another.  Ian and Tom were also best friends.  Their story is not told in as great of detail but apparently they loved one another and forgave one another, too.  All four settled into their new life for a time.

fig. 1

fig. 1

Sunning themselves on the floating dock Roz and Lil swam to as children became the visual metaphor for peace and tranquility in the film (fig.1).  It is a beautiful counter-image to the contrary-wind-straining-at-the-oars image Jesus promised those who refused to forgive one another.

I’m not suggesting that forgiveness alone facilitated this idyllic equilibrium.  The two couples had shared a meal that functioned as a wedding feast in their microcosm.  Ian stood after dinner.  “Where are you going?” Roz asked.

“To your room,” Ian said as he walked away.  It was an awkward moment.  Roz had been publicly summoned to attend to the amorous desires of her young god.  It was an expression of Ian’s desire to be sure, but it was also a command no less than David’s summons of Bathsheba.  Lil knew it was no way for her son to speak to her best friend.  Tom knew it was no way for his best friend to speak to his mother.  But Tom also understood what was at stake.

“See you at yours,” Tom announced to Lil, and left the women alone to decide their next move.  They were free within the constraints of their joy and pleasure to accept or reject the boys’ assertions of rights over them.  Young gods they might be, but they were not kings.  It may seem like blackmail to some, but the women had the same joy and pleasure to offer.  They could have called their sons’ bluffs and waited them out at the dinner table to negotiate more favorable terms.  Apparently they surrendered to their lovers’ demands unconditionally.

From then on it was clear.  Though Roz was Tom’s mother, she was also Ian’s woman.  Though Lil was Ian’s mother, she was also Tom’s woman.  Though Tom was Roz’s son, he was also Lil’s man.  And though Ian was Lil’s son, he was also Roz’s man.  Yet Roz and Lil were still less than wives.  For they were still mothers and grandmothers-in-waiting who fully expected their sons to discard them for younger more fertile women.  The women not only relinquished the honor due them as mothers, but the fidelity due them as wives.  Clearly, they gave the most for these idyllic moments of peace and tranquility.

Tom was first to break the peace.  He journeyed to Sydney to direct a musical.  Lil knew that he was enchanted by Mary, his leading lady, even before he did.  She could hear it in his voice on the phone.  When Tom returned Lil sadly backed away to give way to Mary.  Roz, whether devoted to Lil or conscience-stricken herself, cut Ian off and sent him out to find a young woman of his own.  Both women promised to be good mothers-in-law, pillars of the community and grandmothers.

Roz’s uncharacteristic moral absoluteness seemed like an unjust and foreign law to Ian, like conquest and enslavement by an alien king.  He was content to remain faithful to his lover.  He couldn’t understand why he should be punished for Tom’s sin.  He took up with Hannah at Tom’s wedding to spite Roz.  He returned to Roz later that night.  He banged on her locked door, but she wouldn’t let him in.  Hannah, however, was devoted to him.

“She’s great,” Ian said of Hannah.  “She couldn’t be nicer.  I just…You know.”

“Yeah,” Tom replied.  He not only understood how Ian yearned for Roz, it was apparent he shared that yearning for Lil.

“Pretty soon I’m going to have to give her the elbow,” Ian said of Hannah.  But Hannah was pregnant.

Years passed before the next scene: Roz and Tom and Mary and their daughter scampered down to the beach with Lil and Ian and Hannah and their daughter.  The two little girls seemed to be on their way to becoming best friends.  Apparently Roz and Lil and Ian and Tom had forgiven one another again, and reached a new idyllic equilibrium, that included Hannah and Mary and their daughters.  But it didn’t last.

Ian discovered Tom and Lil that night and realized they had carried on a secret affair.  Though Ian had apparently resigned himself to Roz’s alien law he was clearly not a poet of it, but an actor, a hypocrite.  Angrily, resentfully, he blew the whistle on Tom and Lil in front of Hannah and Mary, and all the details of their pasts came to light.  Hannah was hurt and confused, but seemed to want to understand.  Mary, the actor, the hypocrite who seduced Tom as he attempted to be faithful to Lil, would have none of it.  She woke her daughter and left that night, encouraging Hannah and her daughter to leave with them.

In the end Roz and Ian, Lil and Tom were together again on the floating dock, though it was not so idyllic as before (fig. 2).  Mary and Hannah and their daughters were missing.  It was not hard to imagine angry waves beating against their little ships, as they strained at the oars against a contrary wind.  Mary could blame her circumstances on Tom’s and Lil’s sin.  Hannah could blame Ian and Roz.  But would they ever see that it was their own unforgiving hearts that had abandoned them to torment?

fig. 2

fig. 2

Roz had made room for Hannah and her daughter in her heart (as the filmmakers made room for them on the floating dock).  Ian was clearly a one woman man.  Admittedly, forgiveness might have come harder for Mary.  Lil had no self-control.  Tom gave no evidence that his harem would be complete with only two women.  But even Mary could do worse than to live among such forgiving repentant sinners.  Still, I don’t think the filmmakers intended to produce a treatise on forgiveness.

That was the mood I was in and the subject of my meditation when I saw it.  If “Adore” had some point beyond being an interesting, provocative movie I suppose it was a feminist cautionary tale.  Roz and Lil would have created less havoc in their sons’ lives if they had simply become lesbian lovers rather than expressing their love for each other by proxy, through their sons.  It’s not hard to see why “Adore” wasn’t a fan favorite among Christians.  This is the kind of film that makes Christians feel like Lot, living among the people of Sodom, day after day, that righteous man was tormented (ἐβασάνιζεν, a form of βασανίζω) in his righteous soul by the lawless deeds he saw and heard…[38]

And I don’t mean to suggest that Lot (or Christians for that matter) should unilaterally forgive people to escape such torment.  We forgive repentant sinners because God has forgiven us.  Apparently, there were no repentant sinners in Sodom for Lot to forgive.  The inhabitants of Sodom were descendants of Canaan.  The origin of the Canaanites for better or worse is traced back to Noah’s curse.

Noah drank wine and exposed himself in a drunken stupor.  His son Ham saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers.[39]  Apparently Ham’s attitude was more judgmental and derogatory than mere reportage.  When Noah awoke from his drunken stupor he learned what his youngest son had done to him.[40]  So he cursed Ham’s son, Cursed be Canaan!  The lowest of slaves he will be to his brothers.[41]

I’ve heard it preached that Noah was such a holy prophet God was honor-bound to fulfill even his curse.  This interpretation made some sense when I believed that Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord[42] because Noah was a godly man; he was blameless among his contemporaries.  He walked with God.[43]  As I began to believe that God has mercy on whom he chooses to have mercy, and he hardens whom he chooses to harden,[44] I began to believe that Noah found favor in the sight of the Lord because the Lord chose to have mercy on him.  It followed naturally that Noah was a godly man, and was blameless among his contemporaries, and walked with God because he found favor in the sight of the Lord, because the Lord chose to have mercy on him.

Even a prophet, a herald of righteousness,[45] like Noah could have a bad hangover one morning, slip the leash, so to speak, of the Holy Spirit’s ἐγκράτεια (translated, self-control) and say something foolish.  Despite the enormity of its impact tracked over many generations I don’t think Noah’s curse had any more or less power than any other grandfather’s hateful words to his grandson.

fig. 3

fig. 3

Though he died about forty-one years before Sodom was destroyed (fig. 3), he lived long enough to see what Canaan’s descendants became.  [Addendum: January 14, 2019 I may have been a bit too uncritical here of the dates in the Masoretic text.  See: Were the Pyramids Built Before the Flood?]  The Bible doesn’t say whether Noah regretted that curse or spent his last three centuries or so trying to justify it.  But it seems to me, even as a Christian, that it would be better to forgive my son’s offense, even unilaterally, than to curse my grandson for it.

As I consider how difficult it is for Christians to forgive anyone for anything, it becomes easier to understand why Jesus threatened us with torture.  I hope others can forgive me for refusing to see Matthew 18:35 as a proof-text for Jonathan Edward’s claim that God is the superlative torturer.

[3] Matthew 18:34, 35 (NET)

[5] Matthew 18:23 (NET)

[6] Matthew 18:21 (NET)

[10] Matthew 12:36 (NET)

[11] Matthew 18:24b (NET)

[12] Matthew 18:25 (NET) Table

[13] Luke 18:13b (NET)

[15] Matthew 18:26 (NET) Table

[16] 1 Corinthians 13:4a (NET)

[18] Matthew 18:27 (NET)

[20] Matthew 18:18 (NET) Table

[21] Matthew 18:28a (NET) Table

[22] Matthew 18:30 (NET) Table

[24] Matthew 18:32, 33 (NET) Table

[25] Matthew 18:34, 35 (NET) Table

[26] Matthew 6:12 (NET) Table

[27] 2 Corinthians 12:12 (NET)

[28] 1 Corinthians 4:20 (NET)

[29] Romans 7:18a (NET)

[30] Romans 7:18b (NET)

[32] Matthew 14:24 (NET)

[33] Mark 6:48a (NET)

[34] An impertinent paraphrase of Hebrews 12:2 (NET)

[35] Matthew 18:21 (NET)

[36] Matthew 18:22 (NET)

[37] 2 Corinthians 1:9 (NET)

[38] 2 Peter 2:8 (NET)

[39] Genesis 9:22 (NET)

[40] Genesis 9:24 (NET)

[41] Genesis 9:25 (NET)

[42] Genesis 6:8 (NET)

[43] Genesis 6:9 (NET)

[44] Romans 9:18 (NET)