Tag Archives: John 21:6

Romans, Part 59

Posted on by

The most obvious translation of Do not lag in zeal[1] (τῇ σπουδῇ μὴ ὀκνηροί) is something like “this haste not slothful.”  Thus we urged Titus, Paul wrote the Corinthians, that, just as he had previously begun this work, so also he should complete this act of kindness for you.  But as you excel in everything – in faith, in speech, in knowledge, and in all eagerness (σπουδῇ) and in the love from us that is in you – make sure that you excel in this act of kindness too.  I am not saying this as a command, but I am testing the genuineness of your love by comparison with the eagerness (σπουδῆς, a form of σπουδή) of others.[2]

The translation of σπουδῇ and σπουδῆς as eagerness above is not wrong if I recognize that Paul’s concern was the timeliness of completing this act of kindness rather than an emotional affect.  Certainly Paul was also interested in the Corinthians’ emotional affect, but he used a different word for that (2 Corinthians 8:10b-12 NET):

It is to your advantage, since you made a good start last year both in your giving and your desire to give, to finish what you started, so that just as you wanted to do it eagerly (προθυμία), you can also complete it according to your means.  For if the eagerness (προθυμία) is present, the gift itself is acceptable according to whatever one has, not according to what he does not have.

The Greek words σπουδῇ and σπουδῆς seem to refer here to the fact that the Corinthians made a good start last year but had failed thus far to finish what [they] started.  I know your eagerness (προθυμίαν, a form of προθυμία) to help,[3] Paul assured them.  The Corinthians’ προθυμία and προθυμίαν were not at issue.  It was σπουδῇ and σπουδῆς they lacked or needed to address (2 Corinthians 9:2b-4 NET):

I keep boasting to the Macedonians about this eagerness of yours, that Achaia has been ready to give since last year, and your zeal (ζῆλος) to participate has stirred up most of them.  But I am sending these brothers so that our boasting about you may not be empty in this case, so that you may be ready just as I kept telling them.  For if any of the Macedonians should come with me and find that you are not ready to give, we would be humiliated (not to mention you) by this confidence we had in you.

As a description of love “this haste not slothful” makes a good deal of sense.  A feigned or hypocritical love, the love of an actor, wearing a false face, speaking another’s lines, will tend to be too fast or too slow in action.  While the Love…without hypocrisy (ἀνυπόκριτος),[4] the fruit of the Holy Spirit, is timely, at a measured pace, this haste not slothful, full of the recognition that love unfeigned lasts a lifetime and beyond.

“This haste not slothful,” however, makes a terrible rule.  Here is a listing of various English translations.

Romans 12:11a

Bible Version
Never be lacking in zeal… New International Version
Never be lazy… New Living Translation
Do not be slothful in zeal… English Standard Bible
Do not become apathetic… Berean Study Bible
not lagging in diligence… Berean Literal Bible
not lagging behind in diligence… New American Standard Bible, NASB 1977
Not slothful in business… King James Bible, KJV 2000, American KJV, Webster’s Bible Translation
Do not lack diligence… Holman Christian Standard Bible
Never be lazy in showing such devotion. International Standard Version
Be diligent and do not be lazy… Aramaic Bible in Plain English, GOD’S WORD Translation
not slothful in earnest care… Jubilee Bible 2000
in diligence not slothful… American Standard Version, English Revised Version
In carefulness not slothful. Douay-Rheims Bible
as to diligent zealousness, not slothful… Darby Bible Translation
Do not be indolent when zeal is required. Weymouth New Testament
not lagging in diligence… World English Bible
in the diligence not slothful… Young’s Literal Translation

I won’t take issue with translating σπουδῇ (a form of σπουδή) abstractly as diligent or diligence: if it is leadership, he must do so with diligence (ὁ προϊστάμενος ἐν σπουδῇ).[5]  I do question translating it zeal or zealousness.  Paul did not write ζῆλος.  Matthew, Mark and John recounted two different occasions when Jesus demonstrated a godly zeal.

Matthew

 Mark

John
Then Jesus entered the temple area and drove out all those who were selling and buying in the temple courts, and turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves.

Matthew 21:12 (NET)

 Then they came to Jerusalem. Jesus entered the temple area and began to drive out those who were selling and buying in the temple courts. He turned over the tables of the money changers and the chairs of those selling doves, and he would not permit anyone to carry merchandise through the temple courts.

Mark 11:15, 16 (NET)

 Now the Jewish feast of Passover was near, so Jesus went up to Jerusalem.  He found in the temple courts those who were selling oxen and sheep and doves, and the money changers sitting at tables.  So he made a whip of cords and drove them all out of the temple courts, with the sheep and the oxen. He scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables.

John 2:13-15 (NET)
And he said to them, “It is written, ‘My house will be called a house of prayer,’ but you are turning it into a den of robbers!”

Matthew 21:13 (NET)

 Then he began to teach them and said, “Is it not written: ‘My house will be called a house of prayer for all nations’? But you have turned it into a den of robbers!”

Mark 11:17 (NET)

 To those who sold the doves he said, “Take these things away from here! Do not make my Father’s house a marketplace!”

John 2:16 (NET)

 
The chief priests and the experts in the law heard it and they considered how they could assassinate him, for they feared him, because the whole crowd was amazed by his teaching.

Mark 11:18 (NET)

 His disciples remembered that it was written, “Zeal (ζῆλος) for your house will devour me.”

John 2:17 (NET)

 

Paul actually distinguished between this kind of zeal and love: Shall I come to you with a rod of discipline or with love (ἀγάπῃ, a form of ἀγάπη) and a spirit of gentleness?[6]  And though I have no doubt that Jesus consciously fulfilled Scripture, the incidents were also remarkable because they were uncharacteristic and atypical of Him.  The religious mind is all too eager to consider hostilities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, selfish rivalries, dissensions, factions, and envying[7] righteous indignation or zeal for God.  Paul gave no law encouraging the religious mind not to lag in this kind of zeal.

The description continues, be enthusiastic in spirit (τῷ πνεύματι ζέοντες [a form of ζέω]), literally “this spirit boils” or “this boiling spirit.”  If I put it back together I have, this haste not slothful, this boiling spirit.  These words make sense if applied to a Jew named Apollos, a native of Alexandria.[8]  He was an eloquent speaker, well-versed in the scriptures.  He had been instructed in the way of the Lord, and with great enthusiasm (ζέων, another form of ζέω) he spoke and taught accurately the facts about Jesus (KJV: the Lord), although he knew only the baptism of John.[9]

The danger of this kind of enthusiasm wasn’t actually revealed until the next chapter of Acts:  Paul found some disciples in Ephesus and said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?”  They replied, “No, we have not even heard that there is a Holy Spirit.”[10] It gives me a different impression when Apollos began to speak out fearlessly (παρρησιάζεσθαι, a form of παῤῥησιάζομαι) in the synagogue.[11]  I contrast it to Paul and Barnabas in Iconium, παρρησιαζόμενοι ἐπὶ τῷ κυρίῳ (literally, “speaking freely upon the Lord”).  Here, I think, Paul and Barnabas relied on the Lord rather than their own “fearlessness” and He testified to the message of his grace, granting miraculous signs and wonders to be performed through their hands.[12]

Priscilla and Aquila, who had spent time with Paul,[13] slowed Apollos’ haste (without dampening his enthusiasm): when Priscilla and Aquila heard him [speak out fearlessly in the synagogue], they took him aside and explained the way of God to him more accurately.[14]  Apollos traveled from Ephesus to Achaia.  When he arrived, he assisted greatly those who had believed by grace,[15] the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers[16] who had responded to Paul’s presentation of the Gospel.[17]  (No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, Jesus said, and I will raise him up at the last day.[18])  Apollos greatly assisted them, not by browbeating them to live better lives, but by preoccupying those who might have done so: for he refuted the Jews (Ἰουδαίοις, a form of  Ἰουδαῖος) vigorously in public debate, demonstrating from the scriptures that the Christ was Jesus.[19]

This haste not slothful, this boiling spirit, serve (δουλεύοντες, a form of δουλεύω) the Lord,[20] or serving the Lord,[21] or “this Lord enslaved,” or “enslaved to this Lord.”  Ordinarily I might think of being enslaved as a negative thing.  But Paul compared the slavery of righteousness to the slavery of sin (admittedly, speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh), just as you once presented your members as slaves (δοῦλα, a form of δοῦλος) to impurity and lawlessness leading to more lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves (δοῦλα, a form of δοῦλος) to righteousness leading to sanctification.[22]

For we too were once foolish, Paul wrote to Titus, disobedient, misled, enslaved (δουλεύοντες, a form of δουλεύω) to various passions and desires, spending our lives in evil and envy, hateful and hating one another.[23]  If I think of serving (δουλεύοντες, a form of δουλεύω) the Lord or being enslaved to the Lord as something like the work I do to please my employer, I will think that I am obeying a rule: serve the Lord.  If on the other hand I think of serving (δουλεύοντες, a form of δουλεύω) the Lord or being enslaved to the Lord as something more like being enslaved (δουλεύοντες, a form of δουλεύω) to various passions and desires, well, that’s more like what I did on the weekends after work.

And I think that is more like the δουλεύοντες Paul described here, the natural (super-natural) outpouring of this boiling spirit.  In fact, I should work for my employer in this same way and not like I used to work before I was enslaved to the Lord.  Slaves, obey (ὑπακούετε, a form of ὑπακούω) your human masters with fear and trembling, Paul wrote the Ephesians, in the sincerity (ἁπλότητι, a form of ἁπλότης) of your heart (καρδίας, a form of καρδία) as to Christ, not like those who do their work only when someone is watching – as people-pleasers – but as slaves (δοῦλοι, a form of δοῦλος) of Christ doing the will of God from the heart (ψυχῆς, a form of ψυχή).  Obey with enthusiasm (εὐνοίας, a form of εὔνοια), as though serving (δουλεύοντες, a form of δουλεύω) the Lord and not people…[24]

Part of the definition of ἁπλότητι in the NET is “free from pretence and hypocrisy,” “not self seeking.”  This ἁπλότητι comes from the love that is not self-serving.[25]  All of this is accomplished as slaves (δοῦλοι, a form of δοῦλος) of Christ, not as someone in some wretched social condition but as one whose attitudes and actions are produced by the fruit of the Holy Spirit: For the love of Christ controls (συνέχει, a form of συνέχω) us…[26]  Doing the will of God from the heart[27]…with enthusiasm (or, good will), as[28]… serving (or, enslaved to) the Lord and not people.  We have died to what controlled (κατειχόμεθα, a form of κατέχω) us, so that we may serve (δουλεύειν, a form of δουλεύω) in the new life of the Spirit and not under the old written code.[29]

And so I have, “this haste not slothful, this boiling spirit, enslaved to the Lord.”  Transforming a description of Love…without hypocrisy into three rules—Do not lag in zeal, be enthusiastic in spirit, serve the Lord—may be equivalent to the παρρησιάζεσθαι of Apollos in the synagogue, but it will never rival the παρρησιαζόμενοι ἐπὶ τῷ κυρίῳ of Paul and Barnabas in Iconium.  For it lacks all the power of God.

[1] Romans 12:11a (NET)

[2] 2 Corinthians 8:6-8 (NET)

[3] 2 Corinthians 9:2a (NET)

[4] Romans 12:9a (NET)

[5] Romans 12:8 (NET)

[6] 1 Corinthians 4:21b (NET)

[7] Galatians 5:19, 20 (NET)

[8] Acts 18:24a (NET)

[9] Acts 18:24b, 25 (NET) Table

[10] Acts 19:2 (NET)

[11] Acts 18:26a (NET)

[12] Acts 14:3 (NET)

[13] Acts 18:2, 3 (NET)

[14] Acts 18:26b (NET)

[15] Acts 18:27b (NET)

[16] 1 Corinthians 6:9b, 10a (NET) Table

[17] 1 Corinthians 6:11 (NET)

[18] John 6:44 (NET)

[19] Acts 18:28 (NET)

[20] Romans 12:11 (NET) Table

[21] Romans 12:11 (NAS)

[22] Romans 6:19 (NET)

[23] Titus 3:3 (NET)

[24] Ephesians 6:5-7 (NET)

[25] 1 Corinthians 13:5 (NET)

[26] 2 Corinthians 5:14a (NET)

[27] The NET note on obey in verse 7: “Though the verb does not appear again at this point in the passage, it is nonetheless implied and supplied in the English translation for the sake of clarity.”

[28] I don’t see anything to translate though in the Greek.  This is not something to be faked as though, but is the real righteousness of God, the love that is the fulfillment of the law..

[29] Romans 7:6b (NET)

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)