Tag Archives: Matthew 3:10

He Takes Away, Part 1

Posted on by

He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me.[1]  I would like to say that I was blindsided by the suggestion that takes away may not be the best translation of αἴρει (a form of αἴρω) here.  But a quarterback searching downfield for an open receiver knows when he has been tackled from behind.  This was more like being blindsided by a gnat, annoying, but insufficient to shake the well established truth that poor job performance is just cause for termination.

Matthew 3:10 (NET)

 Matthew 7:19 (NET)

Luke 3:9 (NET)
Even now[2] the ax is laid at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good (καλὸν, a form of καλός) fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. Every tree that does not bear good (καλὸν, a form of καλός) fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Even now the ax is laid at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good (καλὸν, a form of καλός) fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.

Nothing clicked until I examined the meaning of καθαίρει (a form of καθαίρω), translated he prunes in: He prunes every branch that bears fruit so that it will bear more fruit.[3]  I chuckled then, and quipped, “The translators seem to have been a little too enamored with a gardening metaphor and a little too careless with the meaning of the words.”  The gnat was buzzing around my face then.

It wasn’t until later that day, walking and praying, that it dawned on me that I wasn’t merely accusing the Johnny-come-lately translators of the NET (my contemporaries) of carelessness, but the translators of the KJV as well, not to mention anyone else who ever translated John 15:2 into English.  This gnat was not about to be easily brushed away.  It deserved to be entertained or crushed.

Here are the first two occurrences of αἴρει in the New Testament.

Matthew 9:16 (NET)

Mark 2:21 (NET)
No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment, because the patch will pull away (αἴρει) from the garment and the tear will be worse. No[4] one sews[5] a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment;[6] otherwise, the patch pulls away from[7] it, the new from the old, and the tear becomes worse.

The KJV rendered it: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away (αἴρει) from the old,[8] virtually identical to Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away (αἴρει).[9]  So can I crush this pesky gnat?  Actually, it slipped through my fingers.

Here is a table comparing Mark 2:21b to John 15:2a.

Mark 2:21b

John 15:2a

 NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus  NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus
αἴρει τὸ πλήρωμα ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τὸ καινὸν τοῦ παλαιοῦ αιρει το πληρωμα αυτου το καινον του παλαιου πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό παν κλημα εν εμοι μη φερον καρπον αιρει αυτο

NET

 KJV NET

KJV
the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away:

In the NET the patch was a very clever and concise translation of τὸ πλήρωμα relative to the accurate but somewhat awkward the..piece that filled..up in the KJV.  The translators assumed here that τὸ πλήρωμα was in the nominative case rather than the accusative case: the patch pulls away from it (NET), the..piece that filled it up taketh away (KJV) rather than “he pulls away the patch from it” or “he taketh away the piece that filled it up.”  The translators assumed the Greek word αὐτοῦ, translated it, was an adverb referring back to the old garment (ἱματίῳ παλαιῷ in the Setphanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text; see Table2 below).

Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away [from me], the KJV translators left me to assume.  The NET translators simply made it explicit: He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me.  But what does αυτο mean here?

Surely, it’s not to be understood in the nominative case.  Jesus didn’t refer to the gardener (ὁ γεωργός) his Father with a neuter pronoun.  Surely He (KJV: he) was derived from the 3rd person singular verb αἴρει, and αυτο then was to be understood in the accusative case referring back to every branch that does not bear fruit in me or Every branch in me that beareth not fruit.

So in the NET it was redundant: He takes [it] away every branch that does not bear fruit in me.  The NET translators didn’t translate αυτο in the second clause either: He prunes [αυτο] every branch that bears fruit so that it will bear more fruit.  The KJV translators did, however, translate αυτο in the second clause: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it (αυτο), that it may bring forth more fruit.[10]  So what’s up with the first clause?  Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh [it] away, is not that bad.

I compared this construction to the first occurrence of another form of αἴρω.  The devil said to Jesus (Matthew 4:6 NET):

“If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down.  For it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you’ and ‘with their hands they will lift you up (ἀροῦσιν, another form of αἴρω), so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”

Here is a table comparing Matthew 4:6b to John 15:2a.

Matthew 4:6b

 John 15:2a
 NET Parallel Greek Stephanus Textus Receptus  NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus
ἐπὶ χειρῶν ἀροῦσιν σε επι χειρων αρουσιν σε πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό παν κλημα εν εμοι μη φερον καρπον αιρει αυτο

NET

 KJV NET

KJV
with their hands they will lift you up in their hands they shall bear thee up He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away:

Here the future tense 3rd person plural verb ἀροῦσιν was translated they will lift…up (NET) and they shall bear…up (KJV).  The 2nd person accusative pronoun σε, translated you (NET) or thee (KJV), is what they will lift up with or in their hands.  The main reason ἀροῦσιν was translated will lift or shall bear up here instead of “will take away” was because it is itself a translation in the Septuagint of ישׁאונך (nâśâʼ) from Psalm 91:12.  But I also noticed that there is no place mentioned anywhere near the verb where you might be taken away from, only a reason given why they will lift you up, so that (μήποτε) you will not strike your foot against a stone.

This caused me to wonder if ἐν ἐμοὶ, translated in me, in John 15:2 was really a place to be taken away from, or a description of πᾶν κλῆμα, translated every branch.  Perhaps, a better way to frame the question is: does the gardener prune every branch that bears fruit or only those ἐν ἐμοὶ that bear fruit?  The phrase πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ wasn’t repeated in the second clause, only the word πᾶν a form of πᾶς, “every, all.”  So did Jesus say that every branch that bears fruit will be pruned by the gardener (his Father) so that it will bear more fruit whether that branch is ἐν ἐμοὶ or not?

The answer to that question seems fairly obvious a couple of verses later: Remain in me (ἐν ἐμοί), and I will remain in you.  Just as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it remains in the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me (ἐν ἐμοὶ).[11]  That means that the text should be understood a little differently than it might be read literally.

John 15:2 read literally…

John 15:2 understood…
πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό, καὶ πᾶν τὸ καρπὸν φέρον καθαίρει αὐτὸ ἵνα καρπὸν πλείονα φέρῃ πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό, καὶ πᾶν [κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ] τὸ καρπὸν φέρον καθαίρει αὐτὸ ἵνα καρπὸν πλείονα φέρῃ
He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me.  He prunes [anything] that bears fruit so that it will bear more fruit. He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me.  He prunes every branch [in me] that bears fruit so that it will bear more fruit.

So if ἐν ἐμοὶ was meant to distinguish πᾶν κλῆμα from all branches in both clauses, the gardener does two different things for every branch that is ἐν ἐμοὶ, depending on whether it bears fruit (τὸ καρπὸν φέρον) or does not bear fruit (μὴ φέρον καρπὸν) presently.

It seemed unlikely then to me that the gardener’s action could be to remove the branch from the modifier (ἐν ἐμοὶ) that distinguished it from all branches in the first place.  But then, I don’t know Greek as well as those who have translated the New Testament into English.  So I continued.

Jesus explained a parable:

Mark 4:15 (NET)

Luke 8:12 (NET) Table
These are the ones on the path where the word is sown: Whenever they hear, immediately[12] Satan comes and snatches (αἴρει) the word that was sown in[13] them.[14] Those along the path are the ones who have heard; then the devil comes and takes away (αἴρει) the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.

There is a third account of this explanation which didn’t contain the word αἴρει: When anyone hears the word about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches what was sown in his heart; this is the seed sown along the path.[15]  The Greek word translated snatches was ἁρπάζει (a form of ἁρπάζω) here: “to seize, snatch, catch, pluck, pull, take (by force); to plunder, rob, steal, carry off, raven; to tear away, forcibly remove, drag away; to seize, grab hold; to captivate, allure.”

Here is a comparison of Mark 4:15b to John 15:2a.

Mark 4:15b

John 15:2a

 NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus  NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus
εὐθὺς ἔρχεται ὁ σατανᾶς καὶ αἴρει τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐσπαρμένον εἰς αὐτούς ευθεως ερχεται ο σατανας και αιρει τον λογον τον εσπαρμενον εν ταις καρδιαις αυτων πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό παν κλημα εν εμοι μη φερον καρπον αιρει αυτο

NET

 KJV NET

KJV
immediately Satan comes and snatches the word that was sown in them. Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts. He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away:

The first clause begins with an adverb, εὐθὺς in the NET parallel Greek text and ευθεως in the Stephanus Textus Receptus, both translated immediately.  Next is a verb ἔρχεται, translated comes (NET) or cometh (KJV).  The subject, who comes or cometh, follows that verb: ὁ σατανᾶς, translated Satan.

The beginning of the second clause is marked by the conjunction καὶ, translated and.  This lets me know that Satan comes and snatches (NET) or Satan cometh…and taketh away (KJV).  There is no need to derive or supply he as a subject for the second 3rd person singular verb αἴρει.  The direct object, what Satan snatches or taketh away, follows that verb: τὸν λόγον, translated the word.

That direct object is modified by τὸν ἐσπαρμένον, translated that was sown, pointing back to: The sower sows the word (ὁ σπείρων τὸν λόγον σπείρει).[16]  Finally, εἰς αὐτούς (NET: in them) or εν ταις καρδιαις αυτων (KJV: in their hearts) specifies where the word was sown, and consequently from where Satan snatches or taketh it away.

The parallel account in Luke 8:12 is very similar:

Luke 8:12b

 John 15:2a
 NET Parallel Greek Stephanus Textus Receptus  NET Parallel Greek

Stephanus Textus Receptus
εἶτα ἔρχεται ὁ διάβολος καὶ αἴρει τὸν λόγον ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, ἵνα μὴ πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν ειτα ερχεται ο διαβολος και αιρει τον λογον απο της καρδιας αυτων ινα μη πιστευσαντες σωθωσιν πᾶν κλῆμα ἐν ἐμοὶ μὴ φέρον καρπὸν αἴρει αὐτό παν κλημα εν εμοι μη φερον καρπον αιρει αυτο

NET

 KJV NET

KJV
then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved. then cometh the devil, and taketh away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. He takes away every branch that does not bear fruit in me. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away:

The beginning of the clause is marked by an adverb εἶτα, translated then.  The verb ἔρχεται (translated comes or cometh) is the same as in Mark’s account, but the subject here is ὁ διάβολος, translated the devil.  The next clause begins identically to Mark’s account: conjunction, verb, direct object, καὶ αἴρει τὸν λόγον.  Then things change a bit.

Rather than τὸν ἐσπαρμένον specifying which τὸν λόγον, Luke’s Gospel narrative is explicit where the devil takes away the word from: ἀπὸ τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν, translated from or out of their hearts.  A reason follows that, why the devil does this: ἵνα μὴ πιστεύσαντες σωθῶσιν, so that they may not believe and be saved (NET) or lest they should believe and be saved (KJV).

I had to admit that compared to Mark 4:15b and Luke 8:12b, the construction of the Greek in John 15:2a was more like Matthew 4:6b above.  It nudged me further along the path to considering that αἴρει in John 15:2a should have been translated some other way than takes away or taketh away.  But Paul wrote believers in Rome, Then you will say, “The[17] branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.”[18]

I’ll pick this up in another essay.  Tables comparing Matthew 3:10; Mark 2:21; 4:15 and Romans 11:19 in the NET and KJV follow.

Matthew 3:10 (NET)

Matthew 3:10 (KJV)
Even now the ax is laid at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
ἤδη δὲ ἡ ἀξίνη πρὸς τὴν ρίζαν τῶν δένδρων κεῖται· πᾶν οὖν δένδρον μὴ ποιοῦν καρπὸν καλὸν ἐκκόπτεται καὶ εἰς πῦρ βάλλεται ηδη δε και η αξινη προς την ριζαν των δενδρων κειται παν ουν δενδρον μη ποιουν καρπον καλον εκκοπτεται και εις πυρ βαλλεται ηδη δε και η αξινη προς την ριζαν των δενδρων κειται παν ουν δενδρον μη ποιουν καρπον καλον εκκοπτεται και εις πυρ βαλλεται

Mark 2:21 (NET)

Mark 2:21 (KJV)
No one sews a patch of unshrunk cloth on an old garment; otherwise, the patch pulls away from it, the new from the old, and the tear becomes worse. No man also seweth a piece of new cloth on an old garment: else the new piece that filled it up taketh away from the old, and the rent is made worse.

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
Οὐδεὶς ἐπίβλημα ράκους ἀγνάφου ἐπιράπτει ἐπὶ ἱμάτιον παλαιόν· εἰ δὲ μή, αἴρει τὸ πλήρωμα ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ τὸ καινὸν τοῦ παλαιοῦ καὶ χεῖρον σχίσμα γίνεται και ουδεις επιβλημα ρακους αγναφου επιρραπτει επι ιματιω παλαιω ει δε μη αιρει το πληρωμα αυτου το καινον του παλαιου και χειρον σχισμα γινεται και ουδεις επιβλημα ρακους αγναφου επιρραπτει επι ιματιω παλαιω ει δε μη αιρει το πληρωμα αυτου το καινον του παλαιου και χειρον σχισμα γινεται

Mark 4:15 (NET)

Mark 4:15 (KJV)
These are the ones on the path where the word is sown: Whenever they hear, immediately Satan comes and snatches the word that was sown in them. And these are they by the way side, where the word is sown; but when they have heard, Satan cometh immediately, and taketh away the word that was sown in their hearts.

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
οὗτοι δέ εἰσιν οἱ παρὰ τὴν ὁδόν· ὅπου σπείρεται ὁ λόγος καὶ ὅταν ἀκούσωσιν, εὐθὺς ἔρχεται ὁ σατανᾶς καὶ αἴρει τὸν λόγον τὸν ἐσπαρμένον εἰς αὐτούς ουτοι δε εισιν οι παρα την οδον οπου σπειρεται ο λογος και οταν ακουσωσιν ευθεως ερχεται ο σατανας και αιρει τον λογον τον εσπαρμενον εν ταις καρδιαις αυτων ουτοι δε εισιν οι παρα την οδον οπου σπειρεται ο λογος και οταν ακουσωσιν ευθεως ερχεται ο σατανας και αιρει τον λογον τον εσπαρμενον εν ταις καρδιαις αυτων

Romans 11:19 (NET)

Romans 11:19 (KJV)
Then you will say, “The branches were broken off so that I could be grafted in.” Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

NET Parallel Greek

 Stephanus Textus Receptus

Byzantine Majority Text
ἐρεῖς οὖν· ἐξεκλάσθησαν κλάδοι ἵνα ἐγὼ ἐγκεντρισθῶ ερεις ουν εξεκλασθησαν οι κλαδοι ινα εγω εγκεντρισθω ερεις ουν εξεκλασθησαν κλαδοι ινα εγω εγκεντρισθω

[1] John 15:2a (NET)

[2] The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had και (KJV: also) here.  The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

[3] John 15:2b (NET)

[4] The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had και (KJV: also) at the beginning of this clause.  The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

[5] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had ἐπιράπτει here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had επιρραπτει (KJV: seweth).

[6] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had ἱμάτιον παλαιόν here in the nominative case, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had ιματιω παλαιω in the dative case.

[7] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had ἀπ᾿ here.  The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text did not.

[8] Mark 2:21b (KJV)

[9] John 15:2a (KJV)

[10] John 15:2b (KJV)

[11] John 15:4 (NET) Table

[12] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had εὐθὺς here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had ευθεως.

[13] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had εἰς here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had εν.

[14] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had αὐτούς here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had ταις καρδιαις αυτων (KJV: their hearts).

[15] Matthew 13:19 (NET)

[16] Mark 4:14 (NET)  Here the direct object τὸν λόγον (in the accusative case) precedes the verb σπείρει.  It was not ὁ σπείρων τοῦ λόγου σπείρει (The sower of the word sows) in the genitive case, but the placement of the direct object makes me feel like I should understand that the sower of the word sows the word.

[17] The Stephanus Textus Receptus had the article οι preceding branches.  The NET parallel Greek text, NA28 and Byzantine Majority Text did not.

[18] Romans 11:19 (NET)

My Reasons and My Reason, Part 6

Posted on by

There is another way I might view the wrath of God…revealed from heaven against [my] ungodliness and unrighteousness,[1] a way more in keeping with my normal method of Bible study—superficially more in keeping with it.  I confess that, Although [I] claimed to be wise, [I] became [a fool] and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings…[2]  I am one of them of which Paul wrote: Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves.[3]

The Greek word translated dishonor above is ἀτιμάζεσθαι (a form of ἀτιμάζω).  Jesus told a parable about a man who planted a vineyard and leased it out to tenant farmers (Mark 12:2-5 NET):

At harvest time he sent a slave to the tenants to collect from them his portion of the crop.  But those tenants seized his slave, beat (ἔδειραν, a form of δέρω) him, and sent him away empty-handed.  So he sent another slave to them again.  This one they struck on the head and treated outrageously (ἠτίμασαν, another form of ἀτιμάζω).  He sent another, and that one they killed.  This happened to many others, some of whom were beaten (δέροντες, another form of δέρω), others killed.

They beat (δείραντες, another form of δέρω) this one too, Luke’s Gospel narrative reads, treated him outrageously (ἀτιμάσαντες, another form of ἀτιμάζω), and sent him away empty-handed.[4]  So the word translated dishonor in Romans 1:24 was associated here with a beating.  This association is explicit in Acts.  The highest legal court in Jerusalem summoned the apostles and had them beaten (δείραντες, another form of δέρω).  Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus and released them.  So they left the council rejoicing because they had been considered worthy to suffer dishonor (ἀτιμασθῆναι, another form of ἀτιμάζω) for the sake of the name.[5]

I’ve considered that my masochism is one of the potential meanings of the wrath of God revealed from heaven.  It is a desire of my heart.  It could be considered impurity.  It isn’t hard to find people online who propose that sexual desire, especially desire the author considers deviant, is demon inspired if not a symptom of demon possession.  But if I plug that interpretation into Paul’s statement—Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to masochism, to beat their bodies among themselves—I am not convinced or convicted of sin.  I am excited—sexually.  The implication then, if this interpretation were true and I so blindly given over to the desire of my heart, is that I remain under the wrath of God.

Such a conclusion, though disheartening, isn’t rationally problematic if I believe that my salvation is partially, if not largely, predicated upon my desire and effort.  I’ve followed this line of reasoning before, and it led inexorably to my taking charge again of my righteousness without altering my natural responses at all.  If I believe however that it does not depend on human desire or exertion, but on God who shows mercy,[6] this conclusion functions something like a reductio ad absurdum.  It gives me pause to examine the Scriptures in more detail.

Jesus had an interesting exchange with some in the temple courts (John 8:46-49 NET):

Who among you can prove me guilty of any sin?  If I am telling you the truth, why don’t you believe me?  The one who belongs to God listens and responds to God’s words.  You don’t listen and respond, because you don’t belong to God.”

The Judeans replied, “Aren’t we correct in saying that you are a Samaritan (Σαμαρίτης, a form of Σαμαρείτης) and are possessed by a demon?”  Jesus answered, “I am not possessed by a demon, but I honor my Father – and yet you dishonor (ἀτιμάζετε, another form of ἀτιμάζω) me.

Here dishonor (ἀτιμάζετε, another form of ἀτιμάζω) meant name-calling and an accusation that Jesus was possessed by a demon.  Jesus took issue most directly with the latter: I am not possessed by a demon, He said.  As it pertains to impurity then, I have an instance where people with religious minds accused Jesus—for being, doing and speaking the word of God—of being possessed by a demon because they disagreed with Him.  He didn’t comment about being called a “Samaritan” but I think even that is worth some consideration here.

Jesus asked a Samaritan (Σαμαρείας, a form of Σαμάρεια) woman for some water to drink, though that may be difficult to discern in translation: Jesus said to her, “Give me some water to drink.”[7]  Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink (ASV, KJV).  Jesus says to her, Give me to drink (DNT).  Jesus said to her, “Give me a drink of water” (GWT, TEV).  Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink” (NKJV, NAB).  Jesus saith to her, ‘Give me to drink’ (YLT).  Where I hear this as a request is in the woman’s response.

So the Samaritan (Σαμαρῖτις, a form of Σαμαρεῖτις) woman said to him, “How can you – a Jew – ask (αἰτεῖς, a form of αἰτέω) me, a Samaritan (Σαμαρίτιδος, another form of Σαμαρεῖτις) woman, for water to drink?”[8]  The Greek word αἰτεῖς might have been translated beg.  Jesus’ actual tone didn’t convey the gruff and imperious command that many English translations of his request imply.  “Will you give me a drink?” (NIV) and “Would you please give me a drink of water?” (CEV) and “Would you give me a drink of water?” (TMSG) and “Please give me a drink,” (ISVNT) are truer to his tone in this particular case despite the fact that the statement was transmuted into a question or please was added to text.

Jesus asked her to give Him some water (MSNT) strayed even further from a word-for-word translation yet also carries the more accurate tone.  Give me to drink (δός μοι πεῖν) is the same basic construction in Greek as Give us today (δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον) in our plaintive cry for our daily ration of God, the bread of life[9]—Give us today our daily bread[10]—a sinner’s only hope for righteousness.  I don’t think anyone who prays thus with even the slightest understanding thinks it a gruff and imperious command.

Jesus’ request surprised the Samaritan woman.  John, wanting his readers to understand her surprise, added: For Jews use nothing in common with Samaritans;[11] or, For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans.[12]  The note in the NET explains: “The background to the statement use nothing in common is the general assumption among Jews that the Samaritans were ritually impure or unclean.  Thus a Jew who used a drinking vessel after a Samaritan had touched it would become ceremonially unclean.”  This sounds as if the Jews were prejudiced against the Samaritans.  And, ultimately, I want to assert that they were.  But I need to take the long way around.

The common assumption, if I say that Jews were prejudiced against the Samaritans, is that they misjudged the Samaritans.  But they were fairly accurate in their judgment of Samaritans according to Scripture (2 Kings 17:6a, 24-29, 32, 33 NET).

In the ninth year of Hoshea’s reign, the king of Assyria captured Samaria and deported the people of Israel to Assyria…The king of Assyria brought foreigners from Babylon, Cuthah, Avva, Hamath, and Sepharvaim and settled them in the cities of Samaria in place of the Israelites.  They took possession of Samaria and lived in its cities.  When they first moved in, they did not worship the Lord.  So the Lord sent lions among them and the lions were killing them.  The king of Assyria was told, “The nations whom you deported and settled in the cities of Samaria do not know the requirements of the God of the land, so he has sent lions among them.  They are killing the people because they do not know the requirements of the God of the land.”  So the king of Assyria ordered, “Take back one of the priests whom you deported from there.  He must settle there and teach them the requirements of the God of the land.”  So one of the priests whom they had deported from Samaria went back and settled in Bethel.  He taught them how to worship the Lord.

But each of these nations made its own gods and put them in the shrines on the high places that the people of Samaria had made.  Each nation did this in the cities where they lived….At the same time they worshiped the Lord.  They appointed some of their own people to serve as priests in the shrines on the high places.  They were worshiping the Lord and at the same time serving their own gods in accordance with the practices of the nations from which they had been deported.

You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water below [Table], the Lord commanded Israel.  You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God…[Table][13]  The Jews’ judgment qualifies as prejudice, I think, because they misjudged themselves and the righteousness of God.  Jesus addressed their prejudice obliquely yet forcefully.

If you had known the gift of God, He said to a descendant of foreign idolaters, and who it is who said to you, ‘Give me some water to drink,’ you would have asked (ᾔτησας, another form of αἰτέω) him, and he would have given you living water.[14]  So, without reproach, while the Samaritan woman was ignorant of the gift of God and who Jesus is, the implication is fairly clear that this living water was hers for the asking.  And as we’ll discover momentarily the gift of God did not merely belong to God, the gift is God in the person of the Holy Spirit.

This is scandalous to a religious mind.  I feel like I’m back in the garden, but instead of a serpent offering a lying promise to be like God, Jesus offered God Himself—not to Eve the innocent or a pious Jewish woman—to a Samaritan—not as a reward for good behavior but as the only source of goodness:  Now as Jesus was starting out on his way, someone ran up to him, fell on his knees, and said, “Good (ἀγαθέ, a form of ἀγαθός) teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”  Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good (ἀγαθόν, another form of ἀγαθός)?  No one is good (ἀγαθὸς) except God alone.[15].

“Sir,” the woman said to him, “you have no bucket and the well is deep; where then do you get this living water?  Surely you’re not greater than our ancestor Jacob, are you?[16]  At first I thought she was either not particularly clever or deliberately obtuse, not unlike Jesus’ disciples when he told them to beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.[17]

They had forgotten to bring bread on their journey.[18]  So they began to discuss this among themselves, saying, “It is because we brought no bread.”[19]  When Jesus overheard their discussion, He chided them humorously (Matthew 16:8-12 NET).

“You who have such little faith (ὀλιγόπιστοι, a form of ὀλιγόπιστος)!  Why are you arguing among yourselves about having no bread?  Do you still not understand?  Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many baskets you took up?  Or the seven loaves for the four thousand and how many baskets you took up?  How could you not understand that I was not speaking to you about bread?  But beware of the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees!”  Then they understood that he had not told them to be on guard against the yeast in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

Why didn’t He say teaching in the first place?  I assume He wanted to reinforce his own teaching on the social construction of reality: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of flour until all the dough had risen.”[20]  But Jesus didn’t chide the Samaritan woman.

So I began to consider that she was cagey with this Jew who shouldn’t be drinking from her bucket, probably shouldn’t be speaking with her at all, much less about a gift of God.  Besides, she was educated enough to know that they spoke together at Jacob’s well,[21] and indoctrinated enough to have adopted him as her ancestor (πατρὸς, literally father).  So Jesus continued by contrasting living water (ὕδωρ ζῶν) to the water from Jacob’s well.

Everyone who drinks some of this water will be thirsty again.  But whoever drinks some of the water that I will give him will never be thirsty again, but the water that I will give him will become in him a fountain (πηγὴ) of water springing up to eternal life.[22]  My people have committed a double wrong, the Lord spoke through Jeremiah, they have rejected me, the fountain of life-giving water (Septuagint: πηγὴν ὕδατος ζωῆς), and they have dug cisterns for themselves, cracked cisterns which cannot even hold water.[23]  You are the one in whom Israel may find hope, Jeremiah prayed.  All who leave you will suffer shame.  Those who turn away from you will be consigned to the nether world.  For they have rejected you, the Lord (Hebrew: yehôvâh), the fountain of life (Septuagint: πηγὴν ζωῆς).[24]

Sir, give me this water, the Samaritan woman said, so that I will not be thirsty or have to come here to draw water.[25]  Surely this time, I thought, Jesus should have said something to her like, Do not work for the food that disappears, but for the food that remains to eternal life – the food which the Son of Man will give to you.[26]  But Jesus disagreed.  Go call your husband and come back here,[27] He said instead.

What?  Where did that come from?

I have no husband,[28] the woman said.  The Greek is actually ἀπεκρίθη ἡ γυνὴ καὶ εἶπεν, The woman answered and said (NKJV).  But even that translation isn’t quite sufficient.  As I stare at the Greek I begin to think that John or the Holy Spirit has tried to communicate something of the dynamic of this conversation between a man and a woman.

Reference NET Greek
John 4:7 Jesus said to her… λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς
John 4:9 So the Samaritan woman said to him… λέγει οὖν αὐτῷ ἡ γυνὴ ἡ Σαμαρῖτις
John 4:10 Jesus answered her… ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ
John 4:11 the woman said to him… λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ γυνή
John 4:13 Jesus replied… ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ
John 4:15 The woman said to him… λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ γυνή
John 4:16 He said to her… λέγει αὐτῇ
John 4:17 The woman replied… ἀπεκρίθη ἡ γυνὴ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ

I take λέγει αὐτῇ ὁ Ἰησοῦς (Jesus said to her) as my point of departure for normal conversation.  The Samaritan woman (ἡ γυνὴ ἡ Σαμαρῖτις) responded in kind, λέγει οὖν αὐτῷ (literally, “said then to him”).  But Jesus opened up to her, ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ (literally, “answered Jesus and said to her”).  I say He “opened up” because εἶπεν (a form of ῥέω), though legitimately translated said, means to pour forth.  The woman however remained guarded, λέγει αὐτῷ ἡ γυνή.  Undeterred, Jesus remained open, ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ.  The woman began to open up, λέγει πρὸς αὐτὸν ἡ γυνή.  Perhaps I’m reaching here, but πρὸς αὐτὸν rather than simply αὐτῷ seems to accentuate the fact that she spoke to him.  Abruptly, Jesus closed up again, λέγει αὐτῇ, back to normal conversation, and the woman opened up to Him, ἀπεκρίθη ἡ γυνὴ καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῷ, and said, I have no husband.

Then Jesus commended her.  Again, this may be difficult to hear in English translations: Thou saidst well, I have no husband (ASV); That’s right (CEV), Thou hast well said, I have not a husband (DNT); You’re right when you say that you don’t have a husband (GWT); You are quite right in saying, ‘I don’t have a husband’ (ISVNT); Thou hast well said, I have no husband (KJV); You rightly say that you have no husband (MSNT); You have well said, ‘I have no husband’ (NKJV); You are right when you say you don’t have a husband (TEV); That’s nicely put: ‘I have no husband’ (TMSG); Well didst thou say—A husband I have not (YLT); You are right when you say you have no husband (NIV); You are right in saying, ‘I do not have a husband’ (NAB); Right you are when you said, ‘I have no husband.’[29]

The Greek is καλῶς εἶπας ὅτι ἄνδρα οὐκ ἔχω (literally, “beautifully you poured forth that husband you not have”).  Traditionally καλῶς is translated as the adverbial form (well) of ἀγαθός (good), even καλός (beautiful) is translated as if it were ἀγαθός (good).  Traditions have origins.  J.A. McGuckin[30] credits Maximos[31] with the insight: “The Beautiful is identical with The Good, for all things seek the beautiful and the good at every opportunity, and there is no being that does not participate in them.”  Maximos lived half a millennium after John and the Holy Spirit chose καλῶς.  I want to experiment with a pre-traditional reading of some Scriptures.

Even now the ax is laid at the root of the trees, and every tree that does not produce beautiful (καλὸν, a form of καλός) fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire.[32]  In the same way, let your light shine before people, so that they can see your beautiful (καλὰ, another form of καλός) deeds and give honor to your Father in heaven.[33]  In the same way, every good (ἀγαθὸν, a form of ἀγαθός) tree bears beautiful (καλοὺς, another form of καλός) fruit, but the bad (σαπρὸν, a form of σαπρός) tree bears bad (πονηροὺς, a form of πονηρός) fruit.  A good (ἀγαθὸν, a form of ἀγαθός) tree is not able to bear bad (πονηροὺς, a form of πονηρός) fruit, nor a bad (σαπρὸν, a form of σαπρός) tree to bear beautiful (καλοὺς, another form of καλός) fruit.  Every tree that does not bear beautiful (καλὸν, a form of καλός) fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.  So then, you will recognize them by their fruit.[34]

Rather than a metaphor about bad fruit (καρποὺς πονηροὺς) what follows is a vivid contrast of Jesus’ beautiful good with the Pharisees’ pious good (Matthew 12:10-14 NET):

A man was there [in the Synagogue] who had a withered hand.  And they asked Jesus, “Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?” so that they could accuse him.  He said to them, “Would not any one of you, if he had one sheep that fell into a pit on the Sabbath, take hold of it and lift it out?  How much more valuable is a person than a sheep!  So it is lawful to do beautifully (καλῶς) on the Sabbath.”  Then he said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.”  He stretched it out and it was restored, as healthy as the other.  But the Pharisees went out and plotted against him, as to how they could assassinate him.

Some explanation why I called—the Pharisees went out and plotted (or, counseled) against him, as to how they could assassinate (or, destroy) him—a pious good rather than evil is in order.  Jesus came to make atonement for sin but had not yet accomplished it in this period of transition.  There is nothing beautiful about plotting to kill or destroy a man as there is nothing beautiful about running a man and woman through with a javelin.[35]  But Phinehas was commended for the latter (Numbers 25:11-13 NET):

“Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned my anger away from the Israelites, when he manifested such zeal for my sake among them, so that I did not consume the Israelites in my zeal.  Therefore, announce: ‘I am going to give to him my covenant of peace.  So it will be to him and his descendants after him a covenant of a permanent priesthood, because he has been zealous for his God, and has made atonement for the Israelites.’”

The Pharisees had this Scriptural precedent when faced with Jesus’ willful and recalcitrant desecration of the Sabbath (as they perceived it).  I could go on and on about the beautiful good but will entertain only a few more examples here (Luke 6:26-31 NET):

“Woe to you when all people speak (εἴπωσιν, another form of ῥέω) beautifully (καλῶς) of you, for their ancestors did the same things to the false prophets.

“But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do beautifully (καλῶς) to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.  To the person who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the person who takes away your coat, do not withhold your tunic either.  Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away.  Treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you.

I am the beautiful (καλός) shepherd, Jesus said.  The beautiful (καλός) shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.[36]  And Paul’s words make so much more sense if I recognize that he desired Jesus’ beautiful good rather than the Pharisees’ pious good,[37] of which he was already a master (Romans 7:15-21 NET):

For I don’t understand what I am doing.  For I do not do what I want – instead, I do what I hate.  But if I do what I don’t want, I agree that the law is beautiful (καλός).  But now it is no longer me doing it, but sin that lives in me.  For I know that nothing good (ἀγαθόν, a form of ἀγαθός) lives in me, that is, in my flesh.  For I want to do the beautiful (καλὸν, a form of καλός), but I cannot do it.  For I do not do the good (ἀγαθόν, a form of ἀγαθός) I want, but I do the very evil (κακὸν, a form of κακός) I do not want!  Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer me doing it but sin that lives in me.  So, I find the law that when I want to do the beautiful (καλὸν, a form of καλός), evil (κακὸν, a form of κακός) is present with me.

I’m not advocating for a new translation of καλός and καλῶς.  As words go beautiful is as slippery as good.  I’m not likely to heal a withered hand in a synagogue or church any Saturday or Sunday soon, something I would wholeheartedly consider a beautiful good.  And it is a fair question how beautiful I feel blessing those who curse me, praying for those who mistreat me, with both cheeks red and stinging, missing my coat and my shirt.  But when the One who commended Phinehas made atonement Himself and told us to live this way instead, I think it is important to see it as a beautiful good.

I had to go this roundabout way to get over my tendency to hear sarcasm and ridicule in Jesus’ voice.  Now I believe He took his roundabout course to find a reason to commend the Samaritan woman: This you said truthfully[38] (τοῦτο ἀληθὲς εἴρηκας).  And then He added that she in her beautiful truthfulness was exactly the kind of worshipper his Father is seeking: a time is coming – and now is here – when the true (ἀληθινοὶ, a form of ἀληθινός) worshipers will worship the Father in spirit (πνεύματι, a form of πνεῦμα) and truth (ἀληθείᾳ, a form of ἀλήθεια), for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers.  God is spirit (πνεῦμα), and the people who worship him must worship in spirit (πνεύματι, a form of πνεῦμα) and truth[39] (ἀληθείᾳ, a form of ἀλήθεια).

Now I can back up and hear Jesus’ other statements for what they are.  “Right you are when you said, ‘I have no husband,’ for you have had five husbands, and the man you are living with now is not your husband.  This you said truthfully!”[40]  I would have no way of knowing this about the woman if Jesus hadn’t said it.  More to the point, He demonstrated something important for her.

“Sir, I see that you are a prophet,”[41] she said.  Taking Jesus at face value allows me to take this woman at face value as well.  Recognizing a prophet before her, she broached the single most pressing religious issue on her mind: Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you people say that the place where people must worship is in Jerusalem.[42]  I have no idea how she was treated when she climbed the mountain in Samaria to worship God.  I can only imagine how she might have been treated if this Samaritan woman had dared to journey to Jerusalem to worship God.

The priest sent back to teach her ancestors was from the northern kingdom of divided Israel.  From its very beginning Jeroboam, the first king, had changed the Lord’s decrees (1 Kings 12:26-32 NET):

Jeroboam then thought to himself: “Now the Davidic dynasty could regain the kingdom.  If these people go up to offer sacrifices in the Lord’s temple in Jerusalem, their loyalty could shift to their former master, King Rehoboam of Judah.  They might kill me and return to King Rehoboam of Judah.”  After the king had consulted with his advisers, he made two golden calves.  Then he said to the people, “It is too much trouble for you to go up to Jerusalem.  Look, Israel, here are your gods who brought you up from the land of Egypt.”  He put one in Bethel and the other in Dan.  This caused Israel to sin; the people went to Bethel and Dan to worship the calves.

He built temples on the high places and appointed as priests people who were not Levites.  Jeroboam inaugurated a festival on the fifteenth day of the eighth month, like the festival celebrated in Judah.  On the altar in Bethel he offered sacrifices to the calves he had made.  In Bethel he also appointed priests for the high places he had made.

I could have pummeled this woman with chapter and verse after chapter and verse of Scripture proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that Jerusalem was the place where people must worship God.  Jesus did not.  All He said on the subject was: Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem.  You people worship what (ὃ) you do not know.  We worship what (ὃ) we know, because salvation is from the Jews.[43]

I don’t know why ὃ was translated what rather than who or whom.  I hope it’s a subtlety of the Greek language, for Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship[44] is very near the beginning of the translation of Scripture into English.  I would hate to think that the translators made a conscious decision to turn the eyes of the English-speaking world to doctrine and dogma at the very moment when Jesus turned his away.  You Samaritans don’t really know the one you worship.  But we Jews do know the God we worship… (CEV)  You worship One of whom you know nothing.  We worship One whom we know… (MSNT)  You Samaritans do not really know whom you worship; but we Jews know whom we worship… (TEV)

Crouching furtively in the Samaritan woman’s conundrum was a desire to worship God and a concern to do it as He desired.  Jesus heard that desire and concern, and responded to it: But a time is coming – and now is here – when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father seeks such people to be his worshipers.  God is spirit, and the people who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”[45]

I don’t get the impression that she understood Him.  Then, I’ve spent my adult life trying everything from obeying the law to faith alone.  I suppose my current understanding of worshipping the Father in spirit and truth is living honestly by the Holy Spirit.  The Samaritan woman did reveal a profound and faithful hope: “I know that Messiah is coming” (the one called Christ); “whenever he comes, he will tell us everything.”  Jesus said to her, “I, the one speaking to you, am he.” [46]

Fresh from this knowledge of God I can look at the original Scriptures with fresh eyes.  In Jesus’ parable about the owner of the vineyard ἠτίμασαν and ἀτιμάσαντες (forms of ἀτιμάζω) associated with forms of δέρω described slaves who were beaten up.  I have been beaten up before.  I felt pain, anger and humiliation but no sexual excitement whatsoever.  I can’t dismiss the judicial beating associated with ἀτιμάζω in Acts 5:40 and 41 quite so easily.

I typed “judicial whipping fantasy” into Google and “Maragana Girl, Chapter 12 – The Punishment in the School Auditorium”[47] by caligula97236 came up (second, actually, scanning the titles quickly I mistook “Judicial Spanking in Taiwan” for actual rather than fantasy punishment).  It is a tale about twenty naked male criminals humiliated and switched by female medical students and police officers as an educational spectacle for teenage girls.  It is couched in terms of how wrong this was and in need of reform.

There is no denying that the judicial or punishment whipping fantasy is part of sado-masochistic lore.  It is part of the reason I attempted to distinguish sadism from masochism in the first essay of this series.  I recall my own state of mind whenever I was the dominant masochist, as I call it:

First, and not incidentally, was the sight of a beloved woman’s body laid out for my enjoyment.  I measured each stroke of the whip by the sound it made, the mark it left on her beautiful flesh, how she flinched, and the whimpers or gasps she vocalized as a result.  My goal was to whip her in tempo (both velocity and frequency) with her own growing euphoria, the same euphoria I had known at her hand as a submissive masochist.  But beyond any goal or thought of the future was the sheer pleasure of the moment, sharing that extreme intimacy with her.

I have no access to the mind of the judicial torturer who beat Jesus’ disciples.  I suspect that it was not what I have just described.  As I perceive it a judicial torturer is the business end of an institutional belief that certain actions, words or thoughts deserve, or may be modified for the good through, the application of physical pain and social humiliation (though I suppose the hope is that the fear of physical pain and social humiliation will achieve the latter end more often than not).

Fiery hell seems to be presented in terms of physical pain.  For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable…For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.[48]  The prospect, that so offended Ingmar Bergman, of the dead being raised and given new imperishable, immortal bodies only to suffer for an eternity in hell lends credence in my mind to the deservedness of physical pain.  Though I admit, I tend to abstract fiery hell as a metaphor for knowing, face to face beyond any doubt, that God is Love and then being cast out from his omnipresence forever.  In that sense I can see physical pain as salutary, a welcome distraction from the actual horror of the situation.

The application or the fear of the application of physical pain and social humiliation inspires many to a hypocritical compliance with many kinds of social norms.  It will never produce goodness: No one is good (ἀγαθὸς) except God alone.[49]  The Holy Spirit mocked a faith in physical pain and social humiliation when Jesus’ disciples were beaten to conform their behavior to Jewish social norms.  He filled them with his joy[50] (χαρά) instead so they walked away from their beatings rejoicing (χαίροντες, a form of χαίρω) because they had been considered worthy to suffer dishonor (ἀτιμασθῆναι, another form of ἀτιμάζω) for the sake of the name.[51]  Viewed this way, my concern that my masochism, dominant or submissive, is the wrath of God revealed from heaven seems as absurd as Jesus’ disciples fretting because they had brought no bread.[52]

[1] Romans 1:18 (NET)

[2] Romans 1:22, 23 (NET)

[3] Romans 1:24 (NET) Table

[4] Luke 20:11b (NET)

[5] Acts 5:40, 41 (NET) Table

[6] Romans 9:16 (NET) Table

[7] John 4:7b (NET)

[8] John 4:9a (NET) Table

[9] John 6:25-71 (NET)

[10] Matthew 6:11 (NET)

[11] John 4:9b (NET) [Table] The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had Σαμαρίταις here, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had σαμαρειταις.

[12] John 4:9b (NKJV) Table

[13] Exodus 20:4, 5a (NET)

[14] John 4:10 (NET)

[15] Mark 10:17, 18 (NET) also Luke 18:18, 19 (NET)

[16] John 4:11, 12a (NET)

[17] Matthew 16:6 (NET)

[18] Matthew 16:5 (NET)

[19] Matthew 16:7 (NET)

[20] Matthew 13:33 (NET)

[21] John 4:6, 12b

[22] John 4:13, 14 (NET)

[23] Jeremiah 2:13 (NET)

[24] Jeremiah 17:13 (NET)

[25] John 4:15 (NET)

[26] John 6:27a (NET)

[27] John 4:16 (NET)

[28] John 4:17a (NET)

[29] John 4:17b (NET)

[30] http://www.spc.rs/eng/notion_beautiful_ancient_greek_thought_and_its_christian_patristic_transfiguration_ja_mcguckin

[31] http://ww1.antiochian.org/saint_maximos

[32] Matthew 3:10 (NET)

[33] Matthew 5:16 (NET)

[34] Matthew 7:17-20 (NET)

[35] Numbers 25:1-9 (NET)

[36] John 10:11 (NET)

[37] Philippians 3:1-11 (NET)

[38] John 4:18b (NET)

[39] John 4:23, 24 (NET)

[40] John 4:17b, 18 (NET)

[41] John 4:19 (NET)

[42] John 4:20 (NET)

[43] John 4:21, 22 (NET)

[44] John 4:22 (KJV)

[45] John 4:23, 24 (NET)

[46] John 4:25, 26 (NET)

[47] http://www.i.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=464923

[48] 1 Corinthians 15:52, 53 (NET)

[49] Luke 18:19b (NET)

[50] Galatians 5:22 (NET)

[51] Acts 5:41 (NET) Table

[52] Matthew 16:7 (NET)

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 2

Posted on by

I am no more accustomed to taking Jesus’ criteria of judgment between the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 ‎literally than anyone else socialized into my religion.  My first doubt appeared in the form of a “rational” conclusion: “Then it would make more sense to pursue the lesser path—to give food, drink and clothing to Jesus’ brothers and sisters, to show them hospitality, visit them when sick or in prison—rather than the greater path—to hear Jesus’ message and believe the One who sent Him.”[1]  The unstated assumption of that conclusion is that my goal is to escape[2] an eternity in hell rather than to know[3] God and glorify Him.

Of course, who is to say that the person who believed Jesus’ teaching enough today to start giving food, drink and clothing to his brothers and sisters, to show them hospitality, or visit them when sick or in prison, wouldn’t begin to hear his message and believe the One who sent Him tomorrow?  A question followed:  If I take the criteria of judgment between the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25 literally, what is all the hell talk in the Bible about?  I don’t know the answer to that but it’s something I can study along with the other instances of κρίσεως.

“Do not go to Gentile regions and do not enter any Samaritan town,” Jesus told Simon (called Peter), and Andrew his brother; James son of Zebedee and John his brother; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Zealot and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.[4]  “Go instead to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.  As you go, preach this message: ‘The kingdom of heaven is near!’  Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.  Freely you received, freely give.”[5]

And if anyone will not welcome you or listen to your message, Jesus continued, shake the dust off your feet as you leave that house or that town.  I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for the region of Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment (ἐν[6] ἡμέρᾳ[7] κρίσεως[8]) than for that town![9]

When I thought of justice as essentially the equitable distribution of punishment for sin I assumed that more bearable meant less condemned, a more bearable place in hell, less heat, less torture or something.  Romans 11 and Ezekiel 16[10] have given me cause to consider that God’s sense of justice goes well beyond the equitable distribution of punishment for sin (Matthew 10:40-42 NET).

Whoever receives you receives me, and whoever receives me receives the one who sent me.  Whoever receives a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward (μισθὸν, a form of μισθός).[11] Whoever receives a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive a righteous person’s reward (μισθὸν, a form of μισθός).  And whoever gives only a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple, I tell you the truth, he will never lose his reward (μισθὸν, a form of μισθός).

I’m not sure what a prophet’s or a righteous person’s reward is.  The same word is used in Revelation, the time has come to give to your servants, the prophets, their reward (μισθὸν, a form of μισθός), as well as to the saints and to those who revere your name, both small and great…[12]  Can this μισθὸν (a form of μισθός) be received by those who receive a prophet in the name of a prophet, or those who receive a righteous person in the name of a righteous person, or those who give a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple, in hell?  I don’t know.

The first mention of hell in the New Testament came not from the mouth of Jesus but from his cousin John the Baptist, when he saw many Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You offspring of vipers!  Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath?[13]  I imagine this manner of address shocked men who liked walking around in long robes and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces, and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets.[14]

I didn’t understand this anger at Jewish religious leaders as a special circumstance.  I thought Jesus changed the rules on them, tightened up adultery and divorce, and loosened restrictions on ham and shellfish.  Yes, they were slow to adopt the new rules.  But I related to his anger in the sense that Peter expressed:  For it is time for judgment to begin, starting with the house of God.  And if it starts with us, what will be the fate of those who are disobedient to the gospel of God?  And if the righteous are barely saved, what will become of the ungodly and sinners?[15]

I assumed that if God had been angry like this with, and abusive to, Jewish religious leaders He was only that much more angry with me, though the abusive part didn’t always work out in practice, which was confusing.  But I knew even from English classes in public school that we were all “Sinner’s in the Hands of an Angry God,”[16] (if one were to believe in that sort of thing).  It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God,[17] the writer of Hebrews agreed.

Therefore produce fruit that proves your repentance, John the Baptist continued, and don’t think you can say to yourselves, “We have Abraham as our father.”  For I tell you that God can raise up children for Abraham from these stones![18]

I saw the relationship between Israel descended from Abraham and believers “born again” of Jesus Christ.  I made the connection between producing fruit and the fruit of the Spirit.  I had no intention of saying to myself, I have Jesus Christ for my father.  I knew God could raise up children for Jesus from stones.  I was ready to prove what I could do for God, first by keeping the law and later by producing the fruit of the Spirit.

I didn’t understand for many years that the fruit of the Spirit belonged to the Spirit, part of the glory of God.  I thought the “fruits” of the Spirit were things I did that the Spirit of God would approve of, or be pleased with.  For all practical purposes I became one of the Pharisees, not that I was ever any good at it.  I was never blameless according to the righteousness stipulated in the law. [19]

Even now the ax is laid at the root of the trees, John warned, and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. [20]

For years I prayed in Sunday worship services, For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever,[21] while I worked to rob God of his glory, striving (and failing) to achieve the fruit of his Spirit as if it were my own religious works.  And for years He worked to dissuade me of this error, while I persistently refused to believe Him.  Or I simply walked away in frustration, persuaded that “this whole religious thing was” futile (though I used a more scatological adjective than futile).  The primary reason I know that Love is patient and that love is kind, [22] is not Paul’s written words, but the way they resonated with the Lord’s patient labor to get through to me, and his kind persistence calling me back from my frustration.

I baptize you with water, for repentance, John the Baptist continued, but the one coming after me is more powerful than I am – I am not worthy to carry his sandals.  He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.[23]

Everything about my religion says to me that He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit or fire.  “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ or burn in hell for all eternity.”  Yet I’ve heard no one with the courage to change or retranslate this particular conjunction καὶ.[24]  John the Baptist continued (Matthew 3:12 NET):

His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clean out his threshing floor and will gather his wheat into the storehouse, but the chaff he will burn up with inextinguishable fire.

Part of the original question read: “I don’t really like these verses because it’s like the verses about the sheep and the goats and the wheat and the tares.  It makes it seem like some people are going to be saved and others aren’t.  HOWEVER, couple it with Romans 7:14-20 and it seems to mean something else.  In Romans 7:20 ‘Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.’  Now that verse seems like a real cop out!  I’ve never understood it very well.  But it seems to be saying that that part of the person doing ‘evil’ is separate from the person himself or herself (maybe as far as east is from the west??).  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.”

I don’t know that I see that in John 5:28 and 29, but here in Matthew 3:11 and 12 it sounds more plausible.  What is the chaff after all but the body that housed the kernel of grain until it matured?  I’m not sure that it proves that Jesus will baptize [us] with the Holy Spirit and[25] fire but I will certainly remember it as an interesting interpretive theory.

“‘Tis everlasting wrath,” Jonathan Edwards wrote in his sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.”[26]

It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity: there will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery: When you look forward, you shall see a long forever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all; you will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite.

Is this knowledge of God?  Or is it human conjecture?

“If it were only the wrath of man, tho’ it were of the most potent prince, it would be comparatively little to be regarded,” reads one of Edward’s arguments.  “The wrath of kings is very much dreaded, especially of absolute monarchs, that have the possessions and lives of their subjects wholly in their power, to be disposed of at their meer will….The subject that very much enrages an arbitrary prince, is liable to suffer the most extreme torments, that human art can invent or human power can inflict.  But the greatest earthly potentates, in their greatest majesty and strength, and when clothed in their greatest terrors, are but feeble despicable worms of the dust, in comparison of the great and almighty creator and king of heaven and earth…”

In other words, if an absolute monarch or arbitrary prince became a great torturer of the subjects who angered him, imagine how much greater God must be at devising and inflicting torture.  He quoted Jesus to bolster this argument: “And I say unto you my friends, be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do: But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear; fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell; yea I say unto you, fear him.”

It seems fairly obvious to me, however, that Jesus’ point was not that God (or Jesus Himself[27]) is the superlative torturer, but that those friends who believed Him and lived and spoke in his name should not be afraid of the beatings, imprisonments and deaths they would face at the hands of earthly potentates, absolute monarchs or arbitrary princes (Luke 12:4-7 NET):

I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid (φοβηθῆτε, a form of φοβέω)[28] of those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more they can do.  But I will warn you whom you should fear (φοβηθῆτε, a form of φοβέω): Fear (φοβήθητε, another form of φοβέω) the one who, after the killing, has authority to throw you into hell.  Yes, I tell you, fear (φοβήθητε, another form of φοβέω) him!  Aren’t five sparrows sold for two pennies?  Yet not one of them is forgotten before God.  In fact, even the hairs on your head are all numbered.  Do not be afraid (φοβεῖσθε, another form of φοβέω); you are more valuable than many sparrows.

It is as if He said, take all your fear of man, compare it to your fear of God’s wrath and see that it is nothing, then do not be afraid because God cares for you: you are more valuable than many sparrows.  To Jonathan Edwards argument I contrast the knowledge of God revealed in Jesus’ command (Matthew 5:43-48 NET):

You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor’ and ‘hate your enemy.’  But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.  For if you love those who love you, what reward (μισθὸν, a form of μισθός) do you have?  Even the tax collectors do the same, don’t they?  And if you only greet your brothers, what more do you do?  Even the Gentiles do the same, don’t they?  So then, be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect [loving his enemies].

“God is a great deal more angry with great numbers that are now on earth, yea doubtless with many that are now in this congregation…than he is with many of those that are now in the flames of hell,” Jonathan Edward’s told religious-minded folk trusting in their own religion and good works.  But Jesus’ attitude was a bit different toward the same sort of people (Matthew 11:27-30 NET):

All things have been handed over to me by my Father.  No one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son decides to reveal him.  Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.  Take my yoke on you and learn from me, because I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.  For my yoke is easy to bear, and my load is not hard to carry.

As a matter of thoroughness I want to include a comparison of Peter’s quotation from Proverbs 11:31 with the Septuagint.  The translation from contemporary Hebrew reads: If the righteous are recompensed on earth, how much more the wicked sinner![29]

Peter Blue Letter Bible (Septuagint) NET Bible (Greek parallel text)
if the righteous are barely saved, what will become of the ungodly and sinners?

1 Peter 4:18 (NET)

 εἰ ὁ μὲν[30] δίκαιος μόλις σῴζεται ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς ποῦ φανεῖται

Proverbs 11:31

 εἰ ὁ δίκαιος μόλις σῴζεται, ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς ποῦ φανεῖται

1 Peter 4:18

 

Addendum (7/19/2015): Jim Searcy has published that the Septuagint is a hoax written by Origen and Eusebius 200 hundred years after Christ.  “In fact, the Septuagint ‘quotes’ from the New Testament and not vice versa…”  His contention is that the “King James Version is the infallible Word of God.”  So, I’ll re-examine the quotations above with the KJV.

Peter KJV NET Bible (Greek parallel text)
And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

1 Peter 4:18 (KJV)

 Behold, the righteous shall be recompensed in the earth: much more the wicked and the sinner.

Proverbs 11:31

 εἰ ὁ δίκαιος μόλις σῴζεται, ὁ ἀσεβὴς καὶ ἁμαρτωλὸς ποῦ φανεῖται

1 Peter 4:18

If the “King James Version is the infallible Word of God,” Peter interjected the idea of salvation (σῴζεται, a form of σώζω) into the Old Testament idea of earthly recompense.

[1] John 5:24 (NET)

[2] https://religiousmind.net/2013/02/09/you-must-be-gentle-part-3/

[3] https://religiousmind.net/2012/06/23/who-am-i-part-3/

[4] Matthew 10:2-4 (NET)

[5] Matthew 10:5-8 (NET)

[9] Matthew 10:14, 15 (NET)

[10] https://religiousmind.net/2013/05/02/romans-part-43/

[12] Revelation 11:18 (NET)

[13] Matthew 3:7 (NET)

[14] Mark 12:38b, 39 (NET)

[15] 1 Peter 4:17, 18 (NET)

[16] Jonathan Edwards, July 8, 1741  http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/edwards-sinners-in-the-hands-speech-text/

[17] Hebrews 10:31 (NET)

[18] Matthew 3:8, 9 (NET)

[19] Philippians 3:6b (NET)

[20] Matthew 3:10 (NET)

[21] Matthew 6:13b (NKJV)  This has been removed from the NET: “Most mss (L W Θ 0233 Ë13 33 Ï sy sa Didache) read (though some with slight variation) ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, ἀμήν (‘for yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever, amen’) here. The reading without this sentence, though, is attested by generally better witnesses (א B D Z 0170 Ë1 pc lat mae Or). The phrase was probably composed for the liturgy of the early church and most likely was based on 1 Chr 29:11-13; a scribe probably added the phrase at this point in the text for use in public scripture reading (see TCGNT 13-14). Both external and internal evidence argue for the shorter reading.”

[22] 1 Corinthians 13:4a (NET)

[23] Matthew 3:11 (NET)

[25] NET note: “With the Holy Spirit and fire. There are differing interpretations for this phrase regarding the number of baptisms and their nature. (1) Some see one baptism here, and this can be divided further into two options. (a) The baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire could refer to the cleansing, purifying work of the Spirit in the individual believer through salvation and sanctification, or (b) it could refer to two different results of Christ’s ministry: Some accept Christ and are baptized with the Holy Spirit, but some reject him and receive judgment. (2) Other interpreters see two baptisms here: The baptism of the Holy Spirit refers to the salvation Jesus brings at his first advent, in which believers receive the Holy Spirit, and the baptism of fire refers to the judgment Jesus will bring upon the world at his second coming. One must take into account both the image of fire and whether individual or corporate baptism is in view. A decision is not easy on either issue. The image of fire is used to refer to both eternal judgment (e.g., Matt 25:41) and the power of the Lord’s presence to purge and cleanse his people (e.g., Isa 4:4-5). The pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost, a fulfillment of this prophecy no matter which interpretation is taken, had both individual and corporate dimensions. It is possible that since Holy Spirit and fire are governed by a single preposition in Greek, the one-baptism view may be more likely, but this is not certain. Simply put, there is no consensus view in scholarship at this time on the best interpretation of this passage.”

[26] http://voicesofdemocracy.umd.edu/edwards-sinners-in-the-hands-speech-text/

[27] Furthermore, the Father does not judge anyone, but has assigned all judgment to the Son, so that all people will honor the Son just as they honor the Father.  The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him (John 5:22, 23 NET).

[29] Proverbs 11:31 (NET)