Tag Archives: Movies: Twilight

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 14

Posted on by

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

 

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

Exodus 34:6, 7a (NET)

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

Exodus 34:7b (NET)
First Advent

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

Matthew 12:18-21 (NET)

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

Revelation 19:13-15 (NET)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference Hebrew NET

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

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

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

NET

 Parallel Greek

Septuagint
he will rule them with an iron rod

Revelation 2:27a

 καὶ ποιμανεῖ αὐτοὺς ἐν ράβδῳ σιδηρᾷ

Revelation 2:27a

 ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ

Psalm 2:9a

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference NET

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NET

 Parallel Greek Septuagint Septuagint

Septuagint
Not a bone of his will be broken

John 19:36b

 ὀστοῦν οὐ συντριβήσεται αὐτοῦ

John 19:36b

 καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψετε ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ

Exodus 12:46b

 καὶ ὀστοῦν οὐ συντρίψουσιν ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ

Numbers 9:12

 ἓν ἐξ αὐτῶν οὐ συντριβήσεται

Psalm 34:20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[5] Romans 9:21 (NET)

[6] Mark 14:3 (NET)

[7] “What is an alabaster box?”

[8] Luke 9:39 (NET)

[9] another form of συντρίβω

[10] Luke 4:18a (KJV)

[11] Luke 9:42b (NET)

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

Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 13

Posted on by

This is the conclusion of my consideration of a pastor’s advice.

Accountability
Find a group of strong Christ-followers who you can be transparent with and who will hold you accountable. Arrogance peaks when we consider our strength to be above the accountability of others.

Walk in grace, walk in obedience.

Seek healing, seek accountability.

Apart from the ordinary peer pressure to conform to the norms of any group, accountability, as a conscious concept, was not part of my religious upbringing.  Yes, I had parents and teachers but my introduction to accountability as any kind of formal religious structure came through my association with “charismania.”  That wasn’t a common term in my church.  I heard it from a friend who married into the church.  But when her husband was diagnosed with a degenerative eye disease she encouraged him to attend a charismatic healing service.  (No, he wasn’t healed.)

My primary association with charismatic believers was through a roommate.  The first time we roomed together he was a charismatic alcoholic.  The second time he was a sober charismatic computer student who became a civilian programmer for the military.  His Christian works by any objective measure were sub-par (not that mine weren’t) and I always considered mine superior to his.  Faith was another matter entirely.  His faith in Jesus’ love and personal concern for him was ludicrously insane—and he was never disappointed.  He taught me to trust Jesus by his example.  Perhaps I should say that the Holy Spirit taught me to trust Jesus through my roommate’s example, but my scale is linear and incremental while his was logarithmic.  I hate to blame that on the Holy Spirit.

If asked to characterize my religious upbringing vis-à-vis the Holy Spirit, I would say we didn’t believe in Him.  But that’s nonsense.  We sang the Gloria Patri every Sunday morning, and recited the Apostle’s Creed often enough.  (Of course, it was made very clear that catholic did not mean Catholic but universal.)  So I suppose we believed in the things the Apostle’s Creed said, and that the Holy Spirit came to believers on Pentecost, and worked miracles through the apostles, and made sure that the New Testament was accurate and authoritative, and after that—I draw a blank.

When I began to study the Bible I was surprised how often[1] the Holy Spirit was mentioned.   And that’s not quite true either.  I thought my task was to distinguish the Holy Spirit from spirit, a hyper-emotional state bordering on the delusional.  But over time that “hyper-emotional state bordering on the delusional” receded and was replaced by Holy Spirit or evil spirits as real beings.  My pastor was very big on Jesus’ work being finished at the cross—He “is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty”—and I added I suppose, that the rest was up to me.

The words of J. Hampton Keathley, III on accountability ring true to me.[2]  (And his essay is probably more helpful than my floundering.)  He recalled the “raspy voice” of his sergeant at the U.S. Army Ranger School at Fort Benning, Georgia:

“We are here to save your lives. We’re going to see to it that you overcome all your natural fears. We’re going to show you just how much incredible stress the human mind and body can endure. And when we’re finished with you, you will be the U.S. Army’s best!”

Then, before he dismissed the formation, he announced our first assignment. We’d steeled ourselves for something really tough—like running 10 miles in full battle gear or rappelling down a sheer cliff. Instead, he told us to—find a buddy.

“Find yourself a Ranger buddy,” he growled. “You will stick together. You will never leave each other. You will encourage each other, and, as necessary, you will carry each other.”

So accountability at one extreme means a really good friend like a brother but at the other extreme a formal inquest or inquisition.  I tend to shy away from the police functions of accountability.  But I tell you the truth, Jesus said, it is to your advantage that I am going away.  For if I do not go away, the Advocate (παράκλητος) will not come to you, but if I go, I will send him to you.  And when he comes, he will prove the world wrong concerning sin and righteousness and judgment…[3]

The religious mind treats the fruit of the Spirit as little more than a measure of its own achievement, and certainly does not consider the Holy Spirit competent to prove the world wrong concerning sin and righteousness and judgment without its aid.  Instead of offering Him a living, breathing example of the peaceable fruit of righteousness we—when we are controlled by the religious mind—become snarky busybodies or self-righteous inquisitors, not unlike Saul before Jesus saved him.

Before considering the biblical concept of accountability I want to acknowledge that I have called this teaching[4] of Mr. Reid’s pastor confusing directions.  That doesn’t mean I know some secret shortcut from unbelief to faith; well, trust Jesus, but that’s no secret.  Would I even know how to rely on the fruit of the Spirit for righteousness if I hadn’t tried and failed to do righteousness on my own?  That’s an unanswerable question because I did try on my own.   Viewed from this perspective, the pastor’s advice may have been a teaching technique.  After all, yehôvâh did not sit Cain down and explain the Gospel to him.  He allowed Cain to fail to subdue sin on his own at the cost of Abel’s life.

I tried first to keep the ten commandments, the commands of Jesus and Paul and the traditions of my church.  When I heard that love fulfills the law, I tried to keep Paul’s definition of love as my new law.  And when I began to suspect that I was going about it all wrong I diligently read the Old Testament to confirm or deny my growing understanding of the New.  Put in a different way, as I began to learn the things I’ve presented in these essays my questions took the form of, “Well, if that is true where has it been hiding for thousands of years!?”  And then I began to try to keep yehôvâh’s law in my own strength.

I call the latter an occupational hazard of reading the Old Testament with a willing heart.  When I do word studies I’m very aware of the context.  Context is all I have to understand the meaning of the words.  But simply reading the Old Testament is much more existential, in the moment.  If yehôvâh said do this or don’t do that, I said okay, and woke up somewhere in the story of David to the fact that I was striving again to keep the law in my own strength, without malice or forethought.  Still, I never tried to keep any part of yehôvâh’s law that included animal sacrifice.  I actually believed that Jesus’ crucifixion superseded all that.

I was intrigued when I stayed the night as a guest of a lovely Christian family.  The children were very excited because they had just celebrated Passover.  I quietly looked (and sniffed) around their beautiful California home.  I detected no evidence that a farm animal had dwelt there for four days.  I couldn’t find any telltale sign that it had been slaughtered and butchered there.  And certainly none of its blood had been smeared on the doorframe.  Perhaps they ate a meal dressed to travel, [their] sandals on [their] feet, and [their] staff in [their] hand.[5]  But I assumed that most of their celebration was either made up or based on the traditions of those who reject Jesus.  And it never occurred to me to “hold them accountable” to my assumption.

Therefore, each of us will give an account (λόγον, a form of λόγος) of himself to God.[6]  This is the New Testament concept of accountability.  The writer of the letter to the Hebrews wrote (Hebrews 4:12, 13 NET):

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart.  And no creature is hidden from God, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must render an account.

In English this sounds like that same moment each of us will give an account of himself: For it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee will bow to me, and every tongue will give praise to God.”[7]  The Greek word translated exposed in Hebrews 4:13 is τετραχηλισμένα (a form of τραχηλίζω), to pull back the head to expose the neck to a blade.  It would be a fearful moment indeed, naked on our knees, neck exposed to the killing cut, our fate determined by our words: For by your words (λόγων, another form of λόγος) you will be justified, Jesus said, and by your words (λόγων, another form of λόγος) you will be condemned.[8]

But I can’t forget John (1 John 4:15-19 NET):

If anyone confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God resides in him and he in God.  And we have come to know and to believe the love that God has in us.  God is love, and the one who resides in love resides in God, and God resides in him [Table].  By this love is perfected with us, so that we may have confidence in the day of judgment, because just as Jesus is, so also are we in this world.  There is no fear in love, but perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment.  The one who fears punishment has not been perfected in love.  We love because he loved us first.

That everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of God is a beautiful, graphic description of his omniscience, but it says nothing about his attitude.  We get more of that from John.  There is another image of τετραχηλισμένα in the movie Twilight.  When Bella (Kristen Stewart) realizes that her beloved Edward (Robert Pattinson) is a vampire she has a romantic fantasy of being his victim, her neck exposed to his bite.  Later in the film, dancing at her prom with him, Bella tries to make her romantic fantasy real, exposing her neck to Edward, hoping to be made like him.

In Greek Romans 14:12 is: ἄρα [οὖν] ἕκαστος ἡμῶν περὶ ἑαυτοῦ λόγον δώσει.  The phrase translated give an account is λόγον δώσει.  Hebrews 4:12 and 13 in Greek is:

Ζῶν γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐνεργὴς καὶ τομώτερος ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν μάχαιραν δίστομον καὶ διϊκνούμενος ἄχρι μερισμοῦ ψυχῆς καὶ πνεύματος, ἁρμῶν τε καὶ μυελῶν, καὶ κριτικὸς ἐνθυμήσεων καὶ ἐννοιῶν καρδίας καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν κτίσις ἀφανὴς ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ, πάντα δὲ γυμνὰ καὶ τετραχηλισμένα τοῖς ὀφθαλμοῖς αὐτοῦ, πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος

The phrase translated to whom we must render an account is πρὸς ὃν ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος.  In other words in verse 12 ὁ λόγος was translated word and in verse 13, must render an account.  In Greek it leaps off the page that the word of God (ὁ λόγος τοῦ θεοῦ) and our word (ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος) were meant to be the same.  That is lost somewhat in translation, though the passage might have been translated:

For the [account] of God is living and active and sharper than any double-edged sword, piercing even to the point of dividing soul from spirit, and joints from marrow; it is able to judge the desires and thoughts of the heart.  And no creature is hidden from God, but everything is naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we account.

I think the passage in Hebrews here refers more to our daily account, coming into the light, walking in the light, than to that final account at the judgment seat of Christ.  (The daily practice of our account to Him, however, probably has everything to do with making the anticipation of that final accounting comfortable.)  I’ll return to the peaceable fruit of righteousness.

The writer of the letter to the Hebrews wrote, εἰς παιδείαν ὑπομένετε[9] (literally, “unto training endure”) to people to whom it is difficult to explain, since you have become sluggish in hearing.  For though you should in fact be teachers by this time, you need (χρείαν, a form of χρεία) someone to teach you the beginning elements of God’s utterances.  You have gone back to needing (χρείαν, a form of χρεία) milk, not solid food.  For everyone who lives on milk is inexperienced in the message of righteousness, because he is an infant.  But solid food is for the mature, whose perceptions are trained (γεγυμνασμένα, a form of γυμνάζω) by practice (ἕξιν, a form of ἕξις) to discern both good and evil.[10]

For you need (χρείαν, a form of χρεία) endurance (ὑπομονῆς, a form of ὑπομονή), the writer of Hebrews had written previously, in order to do God’s will and so receive what is promised.[11]  But the fruit of the Spirit, Paul wrote believers in Galatia, is love, joy, peace, patience (μακροθυμία), kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control.[12]  Consider by way of contrast that John wrote his readers, the anointing that you received from him resides in you, and you have no need (χρείαν, a form of χρεία) for anyone to teach you.  But as his anointing teaches you about all things, it is true and is not a lie.  Just as it has taught you, you reside in him.[13]  This anointing is the baptism in the Holy Spirit that Jesus promised.  The Holy Spirit is the best Ranger buddy anyone could find.

Now all discipline (παιδεία) seems painful at the time, not joyful.  But later it produces the fruit of peace and righteousness for those trained (γεγυμνασμένοις, another form of γυμνάζω) by it.[14]  The Greek word γυμνάζω means “to exercise naked.”  The writer of Hebrews used it very effectively to refer back to our daily account to God from whom no creature is hidden…but everything is naked (γυμνὰ, a form of γυμνός) and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we…account.  Those who are led by the Spirit expose themselves daily to God that they may be made like Him.  And I predict that the more time we spend willingly, mindfully naked and exposed to the Holy Spirit the more inclined we will be to clothe the naked when we gather together again, and to love one another with the love that covers a multitude of sins.

So for me, it is a minor matter that I am judged by you or by any human court, Paul wrote believers in Corinth.  In fact, I do not even judge myself.  For I am not aware of anything against myself, but I am not acquitted because of this.  The one who judges me is the Lord.  So then, do not judge anything before the time.  Wait until the Lord comes.  He will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and reveal the motives of hearts.  Then each will receive recognition from God.[15]

[1] There are 383 occurrences of forms of πνεῦμα in the New Testament.  There are only 116 occurrences of forms of ἀγάπη and another 143 of forms of ἀγαπάω by comparison.

[2] Here are two other articles I found interesting: 1) Cover Me; 2) Authority and Accountability in the Bible

[3] John 16:7, 8 (NET)

[4] Also Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 11 and Condemnation or Judgment? – Part 12

[5] Exodus 12:11a (NET)

[6] Romans 14:12 (NET) Table

[7] Romans 14:11 (NET)

[8] Matthew 12:37 (NET)

[9] Hebrews 12:7a (NET)

[10] Hebrews 5:11-14 (NET)

[11] Hebrews 10:36 (NET)

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

[13] 1 John 2:27 (NET)

[14] Hebrews 12:11 (NET)

[15] 1 Corinthians 4:3-5 (NET)

Romans, Part 62

Posted on by

As I continue to consider Rejoice in hope, endure in suffering, persist in prayer,[1] as a description of love rather than as rules to obey, I want to look at some more truth that love rejoices in along with some more ἀδικία that it does not.  What Luke called a parable (παραβολὴν, a form of παραβολή) Matthew presented as a rhetorical question in a discourse about child-rearing: If someone owns a hundred sheep and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go look for the one that went astray?[2]

Matthew

Luke
See that you do not disdain one of these little ones.  For I tell you that their angels in heaven always see the face of my Father in heaven.

Matthew 18:10 (NET)

 So Jesus told them this parable:

Luke 15:3 (NET)
What do you think?  If someone owns a hundred sheep and one of them goes astray, will he not leave the ninety-nine on the mountains and go look for the one that went astray?  And if he finds it, I tell you the truth, he will rejoice (χαίρει, a form of χαίρω) more over it than over the ninety-nine that did not go astray.

Matthew 18:12, 13 (NET)

 “Which one of you, if he has a hundred sheep and loses one of them, would not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go look for the one that is lost until he finds it?  Then when he has found it, he places it on his shoulders, rejoicing (χαίρων, another form of χαίρω).  Returning home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, telling them, ‘Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost.’

Luke 15:4-6 (NET)
In the same way, your Father in heaven is not willing that one of these little ones be lost.

Matthew 18:14 (NET)

 I tell you, in the same way there will be more joy (χαρὰ) in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need to repent.

Luke 15:7 (NET)

I should back up a bit and look at more of the context of Matthew’s Gospel narrative.  Jesus’ disciples had asked him, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?[3]

He called a child, had him stand among them, and said, “I tell you the truth, unless you turn around and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven!  Whoever then humbles himself like this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.  And whoever welcomes a child like this in my name welcomes me.”[4]

Then He began what I am calling a discourse about child-rearing: But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a huge millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the open sea.[5]  The Greek word translated causes…to sin is σκανδαλίσῃ (a form of σκανδαλίζω).  The definition in the NET reads as follows:

1) to put a stumbling block or impediment in the way, upon which another may trip and fall, metaph. to offend 1a) to entice to sin 1b) to cause a person to begin to distrust and desert one whom he ought to trust and obey 1b1) to cause to fall away 1b2) to be offended in one, i.e. to see in another what I disapprove of and what hinders me from acknowledging his authority 1b3) to cause one to judge unfavourably or unjustly of another 1c) since one who stumbles or whose foot gets entangled feels annoyed 1c1) to cause one displeasure at a thing 1c2) to make indignant 1c3) to be displeased, indignant

It comes from σκάνδαλον a snare or trap, translated stumbling blocks in the next verse: Woe to the world because of stumbling blocks (σκανδάλων, a form of σκάνδαλον)!  It is necessary that stumbling blocks (σκάνδαλα, another form of σκάνδαλον) come, but woe to the person through whom they (σκάνδαλον) come.”[6]  The necessity (ἀνάγκη, a form of ἀναγκή) of stumbling blocks is part of the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God,[7] how God has consigned all people to disobedience so that he may show mercy to them all.[8]  As I write this my daughter is essentially a witch, a neo-pagan.  My part in her defection from Christ was a decision made during my divorce from her mother.

My children wanted to stay with me rather than their mother.  I went along with it, hoping their mother would see reason.  She called my bluff and asked for money (to which she was entitled) to leave.  My biggest concern at that moment was the family’s financial survival.  I traveled for a living and would need to hire someone to care for them while I was away.  I had no legal rights to my children.  (I married into them and hadn’t adopted them because their biological father was still living.)  And there were a few more things.

Her care for those children had saved their mother from many (though not all) misguided mistakes.  To take that from her seemed dangerous and cruel.  Add to that, I was crushed in my own soul to be rejected again by yet another woman.  I had serious doubts that I could be a single parent of two teenage children.  Did I even want to be a single parent of two teenage children?  I wanted to make movies.

I decided that I could walk away with nothing but a paycheck, start over again and still help the family financially, and my wife could not.  And so I rejected and abandoned my daughter.

I’m grateful to Stephenie Meyer, Melissa Rosenberg, Catherine Hardwicke and Kristen Stewart for giving me two hours to be a teenage girl in love.  Randy Brown, Robert Lorenz, Clint Eastwood and Amy Adams have also helped me immensely in a more didactic way.  But both “Twilight” and “Trouble with the Curve” came too late to save me from making potentially the worst decision of a lifetime of bad decisions (Matthew 18:8, 9 NET).

If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.  And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away.  It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into fiery hell.

If what I do with my hands, if where I go with my feet, if what I see with my eyes causes me to sin?

Causes you to sin has proven to be the worst of all possible translations of σκανδαλίζει (another form of σκανδαλίζω) for me.  It turns my thoughts inward to my sins.  My sins are forgiven!  Young’s Literal Translation—cause thee to stumble—allows me to see that Jesus was still talking about my real bumbling and stumbling, causing my daughter—one of those little ones who believed in Him—to sin, becoming a stumbling block to her, causing her to desert one whom she ought to trust.

Having watched her struggle through two drug-related psychotic breaks and a stroke, I agree with Jesus that it would have been better for me to kill myself.[9]  It is better for her, however, that I believe that I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.  So the life I now live in the body, I live because of the faithfulness of the Son of God…[10]  And I continue to pray that his love, his joy, his peace, his patience, his kindness, his goodness, his faithfulness, his gentleness, and his firm control[11] are all she sees from me from now on, because if I cannot be forgiven…

And by forgiven I mean:  though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.[12]  An eternity in a fiery hell seems like overkill to me for masturbation or premarital sex or even stealing a gazillion dollars.  But if my daughter cannot be found again by the Lord Jesus, if I have condemned her to an eternity in hell, I’m not entirely convinced one eternity in one fiery hell will be sufficient for me.

And though I write like this I still have hope.  “I’ll always be here as your daughter,” she texted me as I thought and wrote about these things.  She has forgiven me, but not Jesus—not yet.  “Your sacrifice has made my education possible and I can never repay you but with love,” she texted.  Since faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word (ρήματος, a form of ῥῆμα) of God,[13] I pray that He will speak that word, “hear,” to her heart, so she will know Jesus and his Father who has given her so much more than a few dollars.  Now this is eternal life, Jesus prayed to his Father, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you sent.[14]

I didn’t intend this essay to be so confessional.  I intended to write about an incident in the history of Israel, when a Levite…acquired a concubine from Bethlehem in Judah.[15]  Actually, I wanted to write about what happened on their journey home, after she got angry at him and went home to her father’s house in Bethlehem in Judah,[16] after he retrieved her from there.  But in the KJV she didn’t get angry, she played the whore against him.  The note in the NET reads: “Or ‘was unfaithful to him.’ Many have understood the Hebrew verb וַתִּזְנֶה (vattizneh) as being from זָנָה (zanah, “to be a prostitute”), but it may be derived from a root meaning “to be angry; to hate” attested in Akkadian (see HALOT 275 s.v. II זנה).”

Ken Stone wrote in the Jewish Women’s Archive online:

The Hebrew text states that the woman “prostituted herself against” the Levite (19:2). Thus, it has often been assumed that she was sexually unfaithful to him. Certain Greek translations, however, state that she “became angry” with him. The latter interpretation is accepted by a number of commentators and modern English translations, including the NRSV, since the woman goes to her father’s house rather than the house of a male lover. It is also possible that the woman’s “prostitution” does not refer to literal sexual infidelity but is a sort of metaphor for the fact that she leaves her husband. The act of leaving one’s husband is quite unusual in the Hebrew Bible, and the harsh language used to describe it could result from the fact that it was viewed in a very negative light.

And though Mr. Stone mentioned “Certain Greek translations,” the Septuagint reads simply καὶ ἐπορεύθη ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἡ παλλακὴ αὐτοῦ (literally: “and went from him the concubine of his”).

I won’t comment about a Levite with a concubine, except to say that the Hebrew word pı̂ylegesh (פילגש), translated concubine, does not occur in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers or Deuteronomy.  It occurs in Genesis before God’s law was given and again after in Judges, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 1 Chronicles, 2 Chronicles, Esther, Song of Solomon and Ezekiel.  But the concubine is a foreign custom to God’s law.

The Levite and his concubine spent the night in Gibeah, in the land of the Benjamites, with an old man from the Ephraimite hill country, the place to which the Levite and his concubine were returning.  I made the following table to compare and contrast what happened next to the incident in Sodom the night before it was destroyed.

Judges, the Levite and his concubine

Genesis, Lot and the visitors
They were having a good time, when suddenly some men of the city, some good-for-nothings, surrounded the house and kept beating on the door.

Judges 19:22a (NET)

 Before they could lie down to sleep, all the men – both young and old, from every part of the city of Sodom – surrounded the house.

Genesis 19:4 (NET)

The note on good-for-nothings in the NET reads: “‘the men of the city, men, the sons of wickedness.’ The phrases are in apposition; the last phrase specifies what type of men they were. It is not certain if all the men of the city are in view, or just a group of troublemakers. In 20:5 the town leaders are implicated in the crime, suggesting that all the men of the city were involved. If so, the implication is that the entire male population of the town were good-for-nothings.”  The text is clearer regarding Sodom: Now the people of Sodom were extremely wicked rebels against the Lord (yehôvâh).[17]

Judges, the Levite and his concubine

Genesis, Lot and the visitors
They said to the old man who owned the house, “Send out the man who came to visit you so we can have sex with him.”

Judges 19:22b (NET)

 They shouted to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight?  Bring them out to us so we can have sex with them!”

Genesis 19:5 (NET)
The man who owned the house went outside and said to them, “No, my brothers!  Don’t do this wicked thing!  After all, this man is a guest in my house.  Don’t do such a disgraceful thing!

Judges 19:23 (NET)

 Lot went outside to them, shutting the door behind him.  He said, “No, my brothers!  Don’t act so wickedly!

Genesis 19:6, 7 (NET)
Here are my virgin daughter and my guest’s concubine.  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!”

Judges 19:24 (NET)

 Look, I have two daughters who have never had sexual relations with a man.  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.”

Genesis 19:8 (NET)

Chivalry as a moral code was invented much later.

Judges, the Levite and his concubine

Genesis, Lot and the visitors
The men refused to listen to him…

Judges 19:25a (NET)

 

 “Out of our way!” they cried, and “This man came to live here as a foreigner, and now he dares to judge (Septuagint: κρίσιν κρίνειν) us!  We’ll do more harm to you than to them!”  They kept pressing in on Lot until they were close enough to break down the door.

Genesis 19:9 (NET)
…so the Levite grabbed his concubine and made her go outside.

Judges 19:25b (NET)

 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.

Genesis 19:10, 11a (NET)
They raped her and abused her all night long until morning.  They let her go at dawn.

Judges 19:25c (NET)

 The men outside wore themselves out trying to find the door.

Genesis 19:11b (NET)

The Benjamites who did this were not “godless Sodomites,” extremely wicked rebels against the Lord (yehôvâh, ליהוה), but sons of Israel living in the promised land.

Judges, the Levite and his concubine

Genesis, Lot and the visitors
The woman arrived back at daybreak and was sprawled out on the doorstep of the house where her master was staying until it became light.  When her master got up in the morning, opened the doors of the house, and went outside to start on his journey, there was the woman, his concubine, sprawled out on the doorstep of the house with her hands on the threshold.

Judges 19:26, 27 (NET)

 Then the two visitors said to Lot, “Who else do you have here?  Do you have any sons-in-law, sons, daughters, or other relatives in the city?  Get them out of this place because we are about to destroy it.  The outcry against this place is so great before the Lord (yehôvâh, יהוה) that he (yehôvâh, יהוה) has sent us to destroy it.”

Genesis 19:12, 13 (NET)

The woman was dead.  Dear God, I hope she was dead (Judges 19:29, 30 NET):

When he got home, [the Levite] took a knife, grabbed his concubine, and carved her up into twelve pieces.  Then he sent the pieces throughout Israel.  Everyone who saw the sight said, “Nothing like this has happened or been witnessed during the entire time since the Israelites left the land of Egypt!  Take careful note of it!  Discuss it and speak!”

Romans, Part 63

Back to Romans, Part 64

[1] Romans 12:12 (NET)

[2] Matthew 18:12 (NET)

[3] Matthew 18:1b (NET)

[4] Matthew 18:2-5 (NET)

[5] Matthew 18:6 (NET)

[6] Matthew 18:7 (NET)

[7] Romans 11:33a (NET)

[8] Romans 11:32 (NET)

[9] Matthew 18:6b (NET)

[10] Galatians 2:20a (NET)

[11] Galatians 5:22, 23 (NET)

[12] Isaiah 1:18b (NKJV) Table

[13] Romans 10:17 (NKJV)

[14] John 17:3 (NET)

[15] Judges 19:1b (NET)

[16] Judges 19:2a (NET)

[17] Genesis 13:13 (NET)