Who is a Christian? Part 1

In this thread I want to begin to consider the meaning of χριστιανός, Christian, forms of which occur only three times in the New Testament. The first occurrence of the plural form χριστιανούς corresponds to the first time the disciples (τοὺς μαθητὰς, a form of μαθητής) were called Christians (Acts 11:19-26 Berean Literal Bible):

Therefore, indeed, those having been scattered by the tribulation having taken place over Stephen passed through to Phoenicia and Cyprus and Antioch, speaking the word to no one except to Jews only. But some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, who, having come into Antioch, were speaking also to the Hellenists, proclaiming the gospel—the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them, and a great number, having believed, turned to the Lord [Table].
Now the report was heard in the ears of the church being in Jerusalem concerning them, and they sent forth Barnabas to go as far as Antioch [Table]—who, having come and having seen the grace of God, rejoiced and was exhorting all to abide in the Lord with resolute purpose of heart [Table]. For he was a good man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith. And a great multitude was added to the Lord.
And he went out to Tarsus to seek Saul, and having found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came to pass that they also gathered together a whole year in the church and taught a great multitude. And in Antioch the disciples were first1 called Christians [Table].

Christian is another name for a disciple (Acts 11:25, 26a Berean Literal Bible):

And [Barnabas] went out to Tarsus to seek Saul, and having found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came to pass that they also gathered together a whole year in the church and taught a great multitude [Table].

A strictly literal reading of this passage alone leads one to the objectively true but spiritually erroneous conclusion that those first called Christians were disciples of Barnabas and Saul (also known as Paul). But Paul assured us elsewhere that what is objectively true in Acts 11:25-26a is not the truth spiritually (2 Corinthians 4:5 Berean Literal Bible):

For we do not proclaim ourselves, but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your servants on account of Jesus.

As the old human (τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον), born only of the flesh of Adam, we are taught to value what is objectively true, what we see with our eyes: “Look both ways before you step out into the street; that bus can kill you.” Those born of the Spirit, born again, born from above by the will of God pay attention to the spiritual truth as well, which often supersedes what is objectively true: For we walk by faith, not by sight.2 For the things being seen are temporary, but the things not being seen are eternal.3

It seems important for knowing God and ourselves and for understanding the Scriptures to belabor this point a bit more. Paul wrote (1 Corinthians 1:10-17; 3:3b-9 Berean Literal Bible):

Now I exhort you, brothers, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you may speak the same thing and there may be no divisions among you, but you may be made complete in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it was revealed to me concerning you, my brothers, by those of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am indeed of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”
Has Christ been divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized into the name of Paul? I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized4 into my name. Now also I baptized the household of Stephanas; as to the rest, I do not know if I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but5 to preach the gospel, not in wisdom of word, so that the cross of the Christ should not be made void…
For where jealousy and strife are among you, are you not fleshly and walking according to man? For when one may say, “I am indeed of Paul,” and another, “I of Apollos,” are you not men?
Who then is Apollos? And who is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave to each. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was giving growth [Table]. So neither the one planting nor the one watering is anything (ἐστίν τι; or “is someone” or “is anyone”), but only God, the One giving growth. Now the one planting and the one watering are one, and each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, God’s building.

Ultimately, Christians are disciples of Christ Jesus (Matthew 28:16-20 Berean Literal Bible):

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus assigned them. And having seen Him, they worshiped;6 but some doubted.
And having come near, Jesus spoke to them, saying, “All authority in heaven and on the earth was given to Me [Table]. Therefore, having gone, disciple all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit [Table], teaching them to observe all things, as much as I commanded (ἐνετειλάμην, a form of ἐντέλλω) you. And behold, I am with you all the days, until the consummation of the age[Table].

So while it is objectively true that the disciples (τοὺς μαθητὰς) who were first called Christians at Antioch were disciples of Barnabas and Saul, we can assume that the content Barnabas and Saul taught (διδάξαι, a form of διδάσκω) a great multitude was related to Jesus’ command: teaching (διδάσκοντες, a present participle of διδάσκω) them to observe (τηρεῖν, an infinitive form of τηρέω) all things, as much as I commanded you.7 We can assume that their goal was to disciple (μαθητεύσατε, an imperative form of μαθητεύω) all the nations to God the Father through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, Paul wrote, as though God is appealing through us. We implore on behalf of Christ: Be reconciled to God. He made the One not having known sin to be sin for us, so that (ἵνα) we might become (γενώμεθα or γινώμεθα; e.g., a subjunctive verb in a purpose or result clause) the righteousness of God in Him (ἐν αὐτῷ; e.g., “by means of Him”)8 [Table].9

The Greek word translated having gone in Matthew 28:19 is πορευθέντες, a passive participle of πορεύομαι in the aorist tense. The translations go (NET) and go ye (KJV) sound more like imperative forms in the present tense. But Jesus didn’t expect his disciples to go immediately to disciple all the nations (Acts 1:4b, 5 Berean Literal Bible):

He instructed (παρήγγειλεν, a form of παραγγέλλω) them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to await the promise of the Father: “That which you heard of Me; for John indeed baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days after these.”

Jesus, before his crucifixion, had described the Holy Spirit to them as the Spirit of truth, whom the world is not able to receive, because it does not see Him, nor does it know Him. But you know Him, for He abides with you and will be in you.10 And many examples of the behavior of Jesus’ disciples in the four Gospel accounts and Acts provide a beautiful contrast of the difference between with you (παρ᾿ ὑμῖν) and in you (ἐν ὑμῖν).

And in the arriving of the day of Pentecost, they were all together at the same place [Table]. And suddenly a sound like a violent rushing of wind came out of heaven, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them dividing tongues as of fire, and they sat upon each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit was giving to them to declare forth [Table].11

Paul’s first question, having found certain disciples in Ephesus, was “Did you receive the Holy Spirit, having believed?”12 Barnabas was described as a good (ἀγαθὸς) man, and full of the Holy Spirit and of faith (πίστεως, a form of πίστις).13 Paul explained that the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness (ἀγαθωσύνη), faithfulness (πίστις), gentleness, self-control [Table].14 Though the certain disciples, Paul encountered in Ephesus proved to be disciples of John the Baptist rather than disciples of Christ, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit, having believed?” remains the relevant question.

Did you receive sounds rather passive in contemporary American English. The Greek verb ἐλάβετε is actually a 2nd person plural form of λαμβάνω in the active voice: “to take, take hold of, grasp, seize; to take away, remove; to take by violence, seize, carry off as plunder; to pick up, choose; to seize (by fever, illness); to take advantage of; to fetch; to cause to come or go; to carry; to catch (someone), overtake, come upon; to capture, conquer, take control of, overpower; to find out, detect, catch (in the act); to take (as a partner); to take (a woman) in marriage; to assume possession of, avail oneself of; to consider and assess; to initiate (an action); to pronounce, utter; to become pregnant, conceive; to receive; to seize with the mind, understand, apprehend, comprehend; to undertake (an action); to accept, collect (i.e., collect taxes, tithes, a share); to choose, select; to get, gain, win, attain, obtain, procure (through purchase); to receive (in marriage); to receive (punishment, suffering); to make one’s own.”

This was admittedly quite surprising. I can rationalize it with the question, “Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded husband?” Here, take would be equivalent to ἐλάβετε, or more precisely the singular ἔλαβες. I chose the question addressed to the bride as an example because I am clearly the weaker vessel15 relative to the Holy Spirit, though probably not like “fine China” as I have heard a preacher describe the weaker vessel (ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει).

I hadn’t thought of “taking” the Holy Spirit as an active voice verb. It felt more like a passive acquiescence in the face of my persistent failure to live righteously by my own efforts. And it causes me to rethink my whole life: Has He been mine since I said a sinner’s prayer at five-years-old? Have I refused to receive Him in any active way until I prayed “If you’re really out there, I really want to know you” in my early twenties? My own perception is that since that prayer He has steadily and patiently (and more and more successfully) wrestled my old self (τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον; “the old human”) for control of my daily life. But I’m tougher now, too. Was He gentler with a five- or ten- or fifteen-year-old than I was willing or able to perceive as real, as anything other than my own imagination?

On the other hand, if He had asserted the kind of control I perceive now when I was a five- or fifteen- or even a twenty-five-year-old, would I know Him at all? Or would I simply mistake Him for ME?

After I had copied and pasted the definition of λαμβάνω into this essay, I texted my Pastor: “I’m 72.5 years old and this is the first time I looked up ‘Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?’ and discovered that the Greek verb translated ‘you receive’ is in the active voice: ‘to seize.’” Then I left to meet a friend in the city. On the drive I called my brother with the same lament. We talked about it awhile. His parting words were, “I heard that a long time ago, but I forgot.”

It helped to normalize my own experience. To receive the Holy Spirit doesn’t seem all that active a verb once He is my love, my joy, my peace, my patience, my kindness, my goodness, my faithfulness, my gentleness and my self-control. The verb ἐλάβετε is in the 2nd aorist tense:

The aorist is said to be “simple occurrence” or “summary occurrence”, without regard for the amount of time taken to accomplish the action. This tense is also often referred to as the ‘punctiliar’ tense. ‘Punctiliar’ in this sense means ‘viewed as a single, collective whole,’ a “one-point-in-time” action, although it may actually take place over a period of time. In the indicative mood the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time, often translated like the English simple past tense.16

How often does a woman consider her wedding vow when her marriage is going well?

An interesting moment in the movie “Six Days, Seven Nights” comes to mind. It’s a story about two strangers on a deserted island after a plane crash. Quinn (Harrison Ford), the pilot, and his passenger, Robin (Anne Heche), “a New York fashion magazine editor,” share little in common but their growing enmity for one another. Still, their situation and dependence on one another blossoms into sexual attraction, an attraction they resist since she is engaged to another man. Though she has slept in the damaged plane and he on the beach every other night since they crashed, as they bed down together for the night (on the run from pirates who know they have witnessed a murder), Robin nestles into Quinn’s arms, saying, “This feels good—and safe.”

I’ve wondered over the years about that line. Does Robin feel “safe” because she is absolutely convinced that Quinn is so self-controlled he won’t “take” her during the night? Or does she feel safe because the thought of Quinn taking her during the night is no longer so contrary to her own desire. In other words, she has already received him (in the active voice) in her heart and in her mind. The verb ἐλάβετε is in the indicative mood (which in “the aorist tense denotes action that occurred in the past time”): “If you’re really out there, I really want to know you,” I had prayed, receiving Him without reservation or condition other than his own existence.

When I got back from the city, I had a text response to my lament over ἐλάβετε from my Pastor: “That’s interesting. I’m looking a lot [at] that word in Hebrew this week.” He was preparing a sermon on Genesis 34.

Now Dinah the daughter of Leah, whom she had borne to Jacob, went out to see the women of the land [Table]. And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, the prince of the land, saw her, he seized her and lay with her and humiliated her [Table]. And his soul was drawn to Dinah the daughter of Jacob. He loved the young woman and spoke tenderly to her [Table].

The Hebrew word translated he seized was וַיִּקַּח, a Qal sequential imperfect form of לָקַח (lāqaḥ), which was translated λαβὼν, an active participle of λαμβάνω in the Septuagint: seizing (NETS), took (English Elpenor). Self-control is an aspect of the fruit of the Spirit. The Holy Spirit, unlike the old human (τὸν παλαιὸν ἄνθρωπον) which is being corrupted according to the desires of deceit,17 does not force Himself upon anyone: Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone should hear My voice and should open the door, then18 I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.19

So, a Christian is a disciple of Christ Jesus who has actively received the Holy Spirit at some time in the past, even if that action is simply a change of heart and mind toward Him. I’ll pick this up in another essay. There is more to glean from this occurrence of χριστιανούς.

Tables comparing 1 Corinthians 1:15; 1:17; 3:8; Matthew 28:17; 1 Peter 3:7 and Revelation 3:20 in the KJV and NET follow.

1 Corinthians 1:15 (NET)

1 Corinthians 1:15 (KJV)

so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name! Lest any should say that I had baptized in mine own name.

1 Corinthians 1:15 (NET Parallel Greek)

1 Corinthians 1:15 (Stephanus Textus Receptus)

1 Corinthians 1:15 (Byzantine Majority Text)

ἵνα μή τις εἴπῃ ὅτι εἰς τὸ ἐμὸν ὄνομα ἐβαπτίσθητε ινα μη τις ειπη οτι εις το εμον ονομα εβαπτισα ινα μη τις ειπη οτι εις το εμον ονομα εβαπτισα

1 Corinthians 1:17 (NET)

1 Corinthians 1:17 (KJV)

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel—and not with clever speech, so that the cross of Christ would not become useless. For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.

1 Corinthians 1:17 (NET Parallel Greek)

1 Corinthians 1:17 (Stephanus Textus Receptus)

1 Corinthians 1:17 (Byzantine Majority Text)

οὐ γὰρ ἀπέστειλεν με Χριστὸς βαπτίζειν ἀλλὰ εὐαγγελίζεσθαι, οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ λόγου, ἵνα μὴ κενωθῇ ὁ σταυρὸς τοῦ Χριστοῦ ου γαρ απεστειλεν με χριστος βαπτιζειν αλλ ευαγγελιζεσθαι ουκ εν σοφια λογου ινα μη κενωθη ο σταυρος του χριστου
ου γαρ απεστειλεν με χρισ
τος βαπτιζειν αλλ ευαγγελιζεσθαι ουκ εν σοφια λογου ινα μη κενωθη ο σταυρος του χριστου  

1 Corinthians 3:8 (NET)

1 Corinthians 3:8 (KJV)

The one who plants and the one who waters work as one, but each will receive his reward according to his work. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

1 Corinthians 3:8 (NET Parallel Greek)

1 Corinthians 3:8 (Stephanus Textus Receptus)

1 Corinthians 3:8 (Byzantine Majority Text)

ὁ φυτεύων δὲ καὶ ὁ ποτίζων ἕν εἰσιν, ἕκαστος δὲ τὸν ἴδιον μισθὸν λήμψεται κατὰ τὸν ἴδιον κόπον ο φυτευων δε και ο ποτιζων εν εισιν εκαστος δε τον ιδιον μισθον ληψεται κατα τον ιδιον κοπον ο φυτευων δε και ο ποτιζων εν εισιν εκαστος δε τον ιδιον μισθον ληψεται κατα τον ιδιον κοπον

Matthew 28:17 (NET)

Matthew 28:17 (KJV)

When they saw him, they worshiped him, but some doubted. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted.

Matthew 28:17 (NET Parallel Greek)

Matthew 28:17 (Stephanus Textus Receptus)

Matthew 28:17 (Byzantine Majority Text)

καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν προσεκύνησαν, οἱ δὲ ἐδίστασαν και ιδοντες αυτον προσεκυνησαν αυτω οι δε εδιστασαν και ιδοντες αυτον προσεκυνησαν αυτω οι δε εδιστασαν

1 Peter 3:7 (NET)

1 Peter 3:7 (KJV)

Husbands, in the same way, treat your wives with consideration as the weaker partners and show them honor as fellow heirs of the grace of life. In this way nothing will hinder your prayers. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

1 Peter 3:7 (NET Parallel Greek)

1 Peter 3:7 (Stephanus Textus Receptus)

1 Peter 3:7 (Byzantine Majority Text)

Οἱ ἄνδρες ὁμοίως, συνοικοῦντες κατὰ γνῶσιν ὡς ἀσθενεστέρῳ σκεύει τῷ γυναικείῳ, ἀπονέμοντες τιμὴν ὡς καὶ |συγκληρονόμοις| χάριτος ζωῆς εἰς τὸ μὴ ἐγκόπτεσθαι τὰς προσευχὰς ὑμῶν οι ανδρες ομοιως συνοικουντες κατα γνωσιν ως ασθενεστερω σκευει τω γυναικειω απονεμοντες τιμην ως και συγκληρονομοι χαριτος ζωης εις το μη εκκοπτεσθαι τας προσευχας υμων οι ανδρες ομοιως συνοικουντες κατα γνωσιν ως ασθενεστερω σκευει τω γυναικειω απονεμοντες τιμην ως και συγκληρονομοι χαριτος ζωης εις το μη εγκοπτεσθαι τας προσευχας υμων

Revelation 3:20 (NET)

Revelation 3:20 (KJV)

Listen! I am standing at the door and knocking! If anyone hears my voice and opens the door I will come into his home and share a meal with him, and he with me. Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

Revelation 3:20 (NET Parallel Greek)

Revelation 3:20 (Stephanus Textus Receptus)

Revelation 3:20 (Byzantine Majority Text)

Ἰδοὺ ἕστηκα ἐπὶ τὴν θύραν καὶ κρούω· ἐάν τις ἀκούσῃ τῆς φωνῆς μου καὶ ἀνοίξῃ τὴν θύραν, [καὶ] εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ δειπνήσω μετ᾿ αὐτοῦ καὶ αὐτὸς μετ᾿ ἐμοῦ ιδου εστηκα επι την θυραν και κρουω εαν τις ακουση της φωνης μου και ανοιξη την θυραν εισελευσομαι προς αυτον και δειπνησω μετ αυτου και αυτος μετ εμου ιδου εστηκα επι την θυραν και κρουω εαν τις ακουση της φωνης μου και ανοιξη την θυραν και εισελευσομαι προς αυτον και δειπνησω μετ αυτου και αυτος μετ εμου

2 2 Corinthians 5:7 (Berean Literal Bible)

3 2 Corinthians 4:18b (Berean Literal Bible)

4 The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 had ἐβαπτίσθητε here, a 2nd person plural form of βαπτίζω, where the Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had εβαπτισα (KJV: I had baptized), a 1st person singular form.

6 The Stephanus Textus Receptus and Byzantine Majority Text had αυτω (NET, KJV: him) here in the dative case (“by means of Him”). The NET parallel Greek text and NA28 did not.

7 Matthew 28:20a (Berean Literal Bible)

8 The personal pronoun αὐτῷ is in the dative case: “The dative is the case of the indirect object, or may also indicate the means by which something is done.” From “Noun Cases:Dative Case”, GREEK NOUNS (Shorter Definitions), on Resources for Learning New Testament Greek online.

9 2 Corinthians 5:20, 21 (Berean Literal Bible)

10 John 14:17 (Berean Literal Bible) Table

11 Acts 2:1-4 (Berean Literal Bible)

12 Acts 19:1b, 2b (Berean Literal Bible) Table

13 Acts 11:24 (Berean Literal Bible)

14 Galatians 5:22, 23a (Berean Literal Bible)

17 Ephesians 4:22b (Berean Literal Bible)

18 The NET parallel Greek text, NA28 and Byzantine Majority Text had the conjunction καὶ here. The Stephanus Textus Receptus did not.

19 Revelation 3:20 (Berean Literal Bible)

Romans, Part 63

I am considering Rejoice in hope, endure in suffering, persist in prayer,[1] as a description of love rather than as rules to obey.  The story of the Levite and his concubine in the book of Judges qualifies as ἀδικίᾳ that love is not glad about.  In the previous essay I wrote, “Dear God, I hope she was dead,” of the Levite’s concubine as she was sprawled out on the doorstep of the house.[2]  The problem with that hope is that the text doesn’t specify exactly when she died.

If my Mom found dog pee on the carpet she would rub the dog’s nose in it.  If that poor woman didn’t die from her injuries during the night I feel like my nose is being rubbed in the stench of the religious mind.

I’m trying to be mindful of our differing socializations, the Levite’s and mine.  John Wayne and Clint Eastwood would never send a woman out to face a pack of rapists.  “Women and children first” is second nature to me.  The Levite never heard Jesus’ teaching, What defiles a person is not what goes into the mouth; it is what comes out of the mouth that defiles a person.[3]  I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt that he could not know that sending his woman out to a pack of rapists defiled him infinitely more than any pack of rapists could ever hope to do to him (Matthew 15:18-20a NET).

But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these things defile a person.  For out of the heart come evil ideas, murder, adultery, sexual immorality (πορνεῖαι, a form of πορνεία), theft, false testimony, slander.  These are the things that defile a person…

“Get up, let’s leave!”[4] the Levite said the next morning to the woman sprawled out on the doorstep of the house.

Perhaps his apparent coldness to the one who saved his ass—literally—is just my misunderstanding of an ancient Hebrew idiom.  I thought Jesus was terribly rude to his mother when He said, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.[5]  Jesus, his mother Mary and his disciples attended a wedding in Cana.  All Mary had said to Him was, “They have no wine left.”[6]  My mother argues that I’m wrong to hear rudeness in Jesus’ response, rather that I should hear the crosscurrents of the obligation an eldest son felt toward his widowed or abandoned mother, and a godly mother’s sense of obligation to push him out the door to accomplish whatever God had sent Him to accomplish instead.

“Whatever he tells you, do it,”[7] Mary told the servants.  Jesus did this [turned water into wine] as the first of his miraculous signs, in Cana of Galilee.  In this way he revealed his glory, and his disciples believed in him,[8] and his quiet life, and hers, changed dramatically overnight.

If the Levite put the woman’s unresponsive but still breathing body on the donkey and went home,[9] his negligence alone made him culpable for her death.  Even a Samaritan, a pseudo-Jew, had more compassion on a total stranger who fell among robbers (Luke 10:34, 35 NET):

He went up to him and bandaged his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them.  Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him.  The next day he took out two silver coins and gave them to the innkeeper, saying, ‘Take care of him, and whatever else you spend, I will repay you when I come back this way.’

This became the meaning of the law, love your neighbor as yourself,[10] when Jesus asked an expert in religious law, “Which of these three [the priest or the Levite who passed by on the others side,[11] or the Samaritan] do you think became a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?”  The expert in religious law said, “The one who showed mercy to him.”  So Jesus said to him, “Go and do the same.”[12]

If the woman was still alive when the Levite took a knife, grabbed his concubine, and carved her up into twelve pieces,[13] the reeking stench of the religious mind boggles the imagination, for she had become too tainted in his sight to serve any longer as his sex slave.  If this is the understanding I am meant to perceive from the text’s reticence to state with any precision when the woman died, I will suggest that law is required to create a religious monster of this magnitude.

Before the law Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has turned to prostitution, and as a result she has become pregnant.”[14]  The charge was true.  Tamar had removed her widow’s clothes and covered herself with a veil.  She wrapped herself and sat at the entrance to Enaim which is on the way to Timnah.[15]  She did this so that men, one man in particular in fact, would think she was a prostitute.[16]

Judah said, “Bring her out and let her be burned!”[17]

While they were bringing her out, she sent word to her father-in-law: “I am pregnant by the man to whom these belong.”  Then she said, “Identify the one to whom the seal, cord, and staff belong.”[18]

They were Judah’s, given in pledge to what he thought was a cult prostitute seated by the side of the road.  Judah recognized them and said, “She is more upright than I am, because I wouldn’t give her to Shelah my son.”  He did not have sexual relations with her again.[19]

It’s a complicated tale involving Tamar’s social security, Judah’s superstition and Onanism (like Ananias and Sapphira-ism, e.g., lying to the Holy Spirit).  But before the law it was that easy for Judah to confess his own guilt and acquit Tamar.  After the law this Levite earned his place in a fiery hell.  And my own deliberations were so alarmingly like his.

I didn’t exactly grab my daughter and throw her out of the house to a pack of ravenous men.  I didn’t exactly fill her with the confidence that she could be loved by one man for an entire lifetime either.  I had my own σκάνδαλα (a form of σκάνδαλον; stumbling blocks) as he had his.  The Levite had Lot, a righteous man in anguish over the debauched lifestyle of lawless men[20] as his example.

Look, I have two daughters who have never had sexual relations with a man, Lot had said to a pack of ravenous men of Sodom.  Let me bring them out to you, and you can do to them whatever you please.  Only don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.[21]  The Levite’s host did essentially the same thing to save him: Here are my virgin daughter and my guest’s concubine, he said.  I will send them out and you can abuse them and do to them whatever you like.  But don’t do such a disgraceful thing to this man![22]

God spared Lot and his virgin daughters: So the men inside reached out and pulled Lot back into the house as they shut the door.  Then they struck the men who were at the door of the house, from the youngest to the oldest, with blindness.[23]  In his own story the Levite played the role of the visitor.  He knew his host and his host’s daughter should be spared.  He knew he could not strike men blind.  So he did the only thing in his power to do: the Levite grabbed his concubine and made her go outside.[24]

My own deliberations during my second divorce, predicated largely on my own experiences during my first divorce, shared the Levite’s  myopia.  Not once did I consider, much less wait for, God’s miraculous intervention.  I deliberated and acted with only my own abilities in view, never considering the possibility of God’s graciousness, believing instead that I probably deserved to be punished with another divorce, and so, living up to that expectation of my religious mind.

I have written a lot about the Levite and virtually nothing about the men who threatened him and raped his concubine.  I relate to the Levite’s religious mind.  It is more difficult to relate to the men who surrounded the house where he and his concubine stayed.  To illustrate I’m reminded of a story told by artist Miru Kim in Esquire Magazine.

She takes beautiful, evocative photographs of deserted urban landscapes and ruins with either herself or her sister as the lone figure in the shot—nude.  She was photographing herself, alone in an abandoned train tunnel, when the vagrant who lived there returned.  A marginal man, underground, in the dark, far from any systems of social control, it was the perfect setting for a violent tragedy.  Miru Kim continues in her own words:

“I was so scared.  That was probably the scariest moment.  I saw a figure coming through the tunnel, and he didn’t have a flashlight or anything, so it was completely dark.  So I see this dark figure coming toward me, then I saw that it was just this old guy who looked pretty harmless, he just lived there.  So I dressed up and explained to him what I was doing — ‘I’m doing an art project, sorry to bother you’ — you know?  Because it’s like his house, you know?  So I told him, and he didn’t say much; he was just standing there like, Okay.  So I took off my clothes again and did it in front of him and he was kind of sitting in the picture, so I was like, ‘Do you mind moving forward out of the picture, please?’  And he was just sitting around watching, so I did my thing, then dressed up.  It was really filthy in there, real muddy, smelled like urine, and I was wiping off with baby wipes, and the guy was like, ‘Do you want my shirt to clean off?’  He looked probably sixty or so, I’m sure he’s younger than he looks, and really skinny.  He was really nice.  Afterward, we were sitting around talking about his life.  He kept on talking about Rikers Island, and that he likes it down there because it’s quiet.  I told him I liked that, too.  And then he was like, ‘Let me walk you out.’  He thanked me for treating him like a regular person.”

I understand this art lover.  I relate to this lover of women.  He is my brother.  The mob that surrounded the house in Gibeah seems like cartoon evil to me.  This is how old men portray the enemy to young men when they want them to fight their wars for them.

I recognize the humanity of the men in Sodom primarily by their religious minds.  Lot offended their moral sensibilities: “Out of our way!” they cried, and “This man came to live here as a foreigner, and now he dares to judge us!  We’ll do more harm to you than to them!”[25]  The men of Benjamin were given no such cover.  They were like irrational animals – creatures of instinct, born to be caught and destroyed.[26]

I played a week-long gig in an army town about forty years ago.  When we finished the first night we had to excuse ourselves between two lines of soldiers wound all the way around our hotel.  They awaited their turn for two women side by side on their backs in another hotel room.  I had been in locker rooms in high school.  I can at least extrapolate from that experience what kind of macho-anti-masturbatory-group-think might possess a young man to pay for the privilege to be third, fifth (?), eleventh (?), thirty-second (?), fifty-third (?) in one of those lines.  I can’t find any experience to extrapolate from to get anywhere near the vigilantes (?) enforcing social norms (?) in Sodom or the welcoming committee (?) in Gibeah.

Warm Bodies” is an interesting movie.  It might have been a great film if it weren’t narrated from the wrong point of view with unnecessary voiceovers.  A zombie eats a man’s brains.  This allows him to see the man’s thoughts and feel his feelings.  He falls in love with the man’s girlfriend.  It’s not a sexual or romantic love, though there is a humorous bit where he attempts to comb his hair before assuring her in labored speech and pantomime that he will not eat her.  “Keep you safe,” is his constant refrain.  And he lives up to his word, not eating her himself and defending her from other zombies who would.

Eventually the mob in Gibeah came face-to-face with a woman.  Like the vagrant in the abandoned train tunnel or the zombie in “Warm Bodies” they had an opportunity to see themselves in her frightened eyes and repent, but they gang-raped her instead.  To say that they deserved to die implies moral reasoning and social systems of adjudication.  The instinct to exterminate these men is more basic than that.  It is the instinct, perhaps, which binds us together as a brotherhood of men.  And the Levite’s macabre missive mustered four hundred thousand of the brotherhood.

A town in which most people are filled with the fruit of the Holy Spirit can afford one fat, lazy sheriff.  The image and meaning of the good in that town will be some aspect(s) of the citizens’ love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness or self-control.  A town in which most people are not filled with the fruit of the Holy Spirit must fund at least three shifts of virile nazis.  The image and meaning of the good in that town will be those virile nazis.  As Robin (Anne Heche) in “Six Days Seven Nights” replied to Quinn (Harrison Ford), who thought women preferred a man who was in touch with his feminine side: “Well, not when they’re being chased by pirates.  They like them mean and armed!”

Romans, Part 64

Back to Romans, Part 65

Back to Romans, Part 66

[1] Romans 12:12 (NET)

[2] Judges 19:26 (NET)

[3] Matthew 15:11 (NET)

[4] Judges 19:28 (NET)

[5] John 2:4 (KJV)

[6] John 2:3 (NET)

[7] John 2:5 (NET)

[8] John 2:11 (NET)

[9] Judges 19:28 (NET)

[10] Leviticus 19:18 (NET) Table

[11] Luke 10:31, 32 (NET)

[12] Luke 10:36, 37 (NET)

[13] Judges 19:29 (NET)

[14] Genesis 38:24a (NET)

[15] Genesis 38:14 (NET)

[16] Genesis 38:15a (NET)

[17] Genesis 38:24b (NET)

[18] Genesis 38:25 (NET)

[19] Genesis 38:26 (NET)

[20] 2 Peter 2:7 (NET)

[21] Genesis 19:8 (NET)

[22] Judges 19:24 (NET)

[23] Genesis 19:10, 11a (NET)

[24] Judges 19:25b (NET)

[25] Genesis 19:9a (NET)

[26] 2 Peter 2:12a (NET)